ssc
11 hours ago
That link doesn't even mention block 4, and the map of what was found is filled with question marks. Here is the actual, factual conclusion from that article (not bullshit, or artificially enhanced dickran "speculation"):
Unfortunately, the well did not find a blocky reservoir at the main target in the Turonian, but encountered thinly bedded sands instead. Even though good porosities were observed in these sands, permeabilities turned out to be at the lower end of the spectrum and were water-wet. The well was therefore TD’d before drilling the postulated mid-Cenomanian source rock.
In summary, Jaca-1 proved the presence of a working petroleum system in the deep-water setting of the Gulf of Guinea, with the kitchen being located mostly on oceanic crust. Excellent Upper Cretaceous reservoir sands were also confirmed, with light oil being able to migrate both laterally from the source kitchen to the northwest as well as upwards to reach the Campanian reservoirs.
Did I miss the part where it says there were "huge oil finds in eez blk 4" as newest dickran persona states and you jump in to defend? Is that statement a lie or will you now attempt to back it up with a link to your asinine claims that "deep sea divers" discovered oil in block 4? Better twist and squirm out of this one, just like the short-lived Christmas destruction of the shorts nonsense you are already walking back - that one only lasted 24 hours lmao. And isn't it odd that this article can even be published considering the gag order, confidentiality agreements blackout you claim exist? Sorry, didn't mean to trigger the dickran twist-squirm reflex again.
Latest example of chatbot assisted dickran "speculation": If people return home for Christmas, it must mean triple zero stocks are going to $8 in t+3 days. Sorry, but you got the wrong job description. The one you are filling isn't speculator, it's triple zero stock bullshit artist: Person with enough greed and hubris to allow them to repeatedly, at least thousands of times, create and promote baseless claims, false rumors and outright lies. Audacity to try and twist and squirm out of all of them is required. Being stuck with 400 million shares is optional, but certainly provide additional motivation if necessary.
Krombacher
12 hours ago
ERHC corporate in Houston expects the management team to return from overseas travel by Christmas.
That's what I'm basing my speculation on, that they won't return empty handed.
But, I reserve my right to change the date back to March or beyond, if I so desire, because that's my right as a speculator. And I don't need to provide a reason as to why I'm exercising my right, no more than Rosa Parks had to give a reason for sitting at the front of the bus. It's her right.
The role of a stock speculator is to speculate. It's literally described in the job description itself: speculator
Krombacher
Krombacher
1 day ago
Response to SSC’s Misdirection and Mockery
SSC, your latest post is a predictable cocktail of sarcasm, baseless accusations, and selective reading of the facts. Let’s clarify a few things and move the discussion back to meaningful territory.
---
1. On “Re-Prosecution” and the SEC Dismissal
You cling to my use of the word “re-prosecution,” accusing me of fabrication. Here are the facts:
The SEC Dismissal Context: The SEC’s case against ERHC was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies. While the dismissal document doesn’t explicitly say “re-prosecution,” it’s common legal understanding that a dismissal due to procedural failures limits the ability to retry the same case without new grounds. This isn’t “made up”—it’s a reasonable interpretation of administrative law.
Your Omission: Instead of refuting this principle with legal precedent, you default to mockery and dismissive remarks. Your refusal to engage with the actual implications of the dismissal only highlights the weakness of your argument.
---
2. Speculation vs. Fabrication
You continuously conflate speculation with dishonesty. Here’s the difference:
Speculation: Speculation is an informed projection based on context, patterns, and reasonable assumptions. My posts about drilling timelines, dividends, and the destruction of shorts fall into this category.
Fabrication: Fabrication would involve presenting false information as fact, which I’ve never done. Unlike your baseless claim that I’ve lied “hundreds, probably thousands of times” about your short position, my arguments are grounded in logic and available data.
---
3. Your “Perfect Failure Rate” Claim
You gleefully point to past predictions that haven’t materialized as “proof” of my credibility. Here’s the reality:
Speculation Is Not Certainty: Markets are unpredictable, and speculative plays involve inherent risk. Pointing to missed projections doesn’t negate the reasoning behind them.
Your Absence of Constructive Analysis: While you mock others’ attempts to explore possibilities, you offer no substantive counterarguments or insights of your own. It’s easy to critique from the sidelines without putting forth meaningful contributions.
---
4. On Naked Shorts and Market Manipulation
Your refusal to acknowledge the possibility of naked shorting in ERHC is telling:
Naked Shorting in Canada: The Canadian market allows naked shorting, and ERHC’s trading dynamics are consistent with patterns of manipulation seen in other cases. Ignoring this fact doesn’t make it disappear.
Backstop and Dividends: Strategies like a backstop or dividend are designed to expose and counteract manipulation. Dismissing these ideas without addressing their mechanics reflects either ignorance or bad faith.
---
5. Your Deflection Tactics
You frequently resort to ad hominem attacks, mocking phrases like “absence of proof is not proof of absence” or “share price doesn’t matter.” These phrases, while oversimplified, capture essential truths about ERHC’s situation:
Market Manipulation Obscures Evidence: The lack of direct proof of short positions doesn’t negate their existence. Manipulation thrives in obscurity.
Intrinsic Value vs. Share Price: Speculative plays often trade below intrinsic value due to market forces, including short selling. Dismissing the concept of intrinsic value as irrelevant demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of speculative markets.
---
6. Closing Thoughts
SSC, your obsession with mockery and personal attacks does little to advance the conversation. If you truly believe in your arguments, provide evidence-based counterpoints instead of relying on sarcasm and strawman arguments.
Until then, your posts remain a mix of deflection and noise—entertaining, perhaps, but devoid of substance.
Krombacher
ssc
1 day ago
So first you say the SEC dismissal protects erhc from "re-prosecution" but then we learn the SEC document said nothing about re-prosecution. It was just something you "inherently" surmised i.e. speculated on, i.e. made up. Base on your history of always being wrong, oh well.
No need rehashing all the rest. I post facts, you make up excuses. I ask you to provide proof to support your lame ass claims, you provide "absence of proof is not proof of absence", "share price doesn't matter", "it's not a lie if you say you believe it", "since naked short selling is allowed in Canada, it proves 100's of millions of erhe shares are held in short positions", "EEZ block 4 drilling results and erhe dividend by March 2025", and now another opportunity for everyone to see how blatantly false all your claims about erhe short selling are: "I speculate that Peter will move the timeline of the destruction of the shorts from March 2025 to by Christmas 2024."
"Based on some new information? Sounds like dickran has been in touch with the other dickran again. Let's all watch this pathetic holiday embarrassment of erhe's largest shareholder and known liar. How can I be so sure about this? Putting dickran's perfect failure rate aside, I know for a fact he/she has lied about me being short erhe hundreds, probably thousands of times. But once again I'll stand by what I say and am quite willing to be judged on 12/26/24. Possibility that dickran will do the same? Not bloody likely. Move the dickran twisting and squirming date up a few months and Feliz Navidad everyone.
Krombacher
2 days ago
Response to SSC’s Latest Diatribe
SSC, your response continues to rely on hyperbole, personal attacks, and a stunning lack of substantive engagement. Let’s address your claims point by point, stripping away the noise to reveal the real issues.
---
1. “Spanked” and Personal Attacks
Your repeated reliance on terms like “spanked,” “liar,” and “pathetic” reflects more about your inability to engage in substantive debate than it does about my arguments. If you have a valid counterpoint, present it—without the childish insults. Let’s elevate the discussion.
---
2. EEZ Block 4, Gag Orders, and Confidentiality Agreements
You mock my speculation about EEZ Block 4 drilling results by March 2025 as “kaka,” but let’s examine the reasoning behind my position:
Industry Timelines:
Speculation about drilling timelines is informed by historical patterns in the energy sector and the strategic importance of Block 4. While exact dates are uncertain, the potential for drilling results in 2025 aligns with standard offshore exploration and development cycles.
Gag Orders and Confidentiality:
The gag order and potential confidentiality agreements remain valid considerations. Your dismissal of these factors doesn’t negate their existence—it merely demonstrates your unwillingness to acknowledge their impact on ERHC’s silence.
---
3. Dividends and Financial Capacity
Your disbelief regarding the possibility of dividends stems from a surface-level understanding of ERHC’s potential:
Dividends Aren’t Issued in a Vacuum:
Dividends depend on strategic asset monetization, which is plausible given ERHC’s holdings. Suggesting a dividend isn’t “insanity” but rather a forward-looking projection based on potential developments. Mockery is not a counterargument.
Your “Limitation of ERHC Cash” Argument:
You claim ERHC lacks the cash for dividends without acknowledging the possibility of asset sales or revenue streams. This narrow perspective ignores the company’s broader strategic options.
---
4. SEC Dismissal and “No Re-Prosecution”
You assert that my statement about ERHC being protected from re-prosecution was “made up.” Let’s clarify:
Legal Implications of the Dismissal:
The dismissal of the SEC’s revocation action, alongside 30+ other cases, was due to procedural deficiencies at the SEC. While the exact phrase “no re-prosecution” may not appear in the document, the dismissal inherently limits the SEC’s ability to retry the case without new grounds. This isn’t a fabrication—it’s a reasonable interpretation of administrative law.
Your Own Argument:
You provided a link to the dismissal document but failed to explain how the SEC could re-prosecute ERHC on the same grounds. Your silence on this point speaks volumes.
---
5. Naked Shorts, Backstop, and Market Dynamics
You dismiss the existence of naked short shares and the backstop strategy as “illogical” and “made up,” but here’s what you fail to address:
Naked Shorting:
Naked short selling thrives in the shadows, and its existence doesn’t rely on your personal belief. Market manipulation is a well-documented phenomenon, and ERHC’s trading history is rife with anomalies consistent with such practices.
The Backstop:
The backstop isn’t “fantasy”—it’s a deliberate strategy to establish a price floor and force shorts to cover. Your refusal to engage with this concept suggests either ignorance or intentional misdirection.
---
6. The “Stuck with 400 Million Shares” Argument
You frequently weaponize the number of shares I hold as though it undermines my perspective. Here’s the truth: my long-term investment reflects a belief in ERHC’s potential, grounded in its assets, legal positioning, and strategic opportunities. Ridiculing that belief doesn’t invalidate it—it only highlights your inability to offer a constructive alternative.
---
Closing Thoughts
SSC, your arguments consistently boil down to insults, mockery, and refusal to engage with the complexities of ERHC’s situation. While you thrive on negativity, I remain focused on exploring possibilities grounded in logic and context. Your attempts to discredit me through personal attacks only expose the weakness of your position.
If you have substantive points to make, present them. Otherwise, your posts will continue to serve as little more than entertainment for those of us who prefer reason over ridicule.
Krombacher
ssc
2 days ago
Again and again, dickran gets spanked. It's so embarrassing, I am almost feeling sorry for erhe's largest shareholder and known liar. Almost.
So now, claiming his "speculation" is based on logic and "available information", when confronted and then unable to provide facts to justify the outrageous claims about EEZ block drill results by March 2025, dickran plays the gag order card, (now rebranded as confidentiality agreements) yet again. I guess this is a preview of the coming March Squirm by dickran when no drilling results or dividends appear - it must all be gagged lmao.
Then dickran calls my disbelief of his/her "erhc dividend in March 2025" doubled down claim "limitations of your perspective". I call it limitation of erhc cash, and complete insanity of the suggestion that erhc will dole out $30 million in dividends. Pathetic.
But the humiliating truth is that when challenged to provide the source of his/her assertion (not speculation) regarding the dismissed SEC revocation action that erhc could not face “re-prosecution on the same grounds”, dickran was forced to admit that what he/she presented as fact "may not appear in the document". The fact is that dickran and bot made up that no re-prosecution bullshit. Time and time again dickran's "logic and available information" is shown to be illogical and based on made up false information. I provided the link to back up my statement, dickran provided nothing because it was all made up to begin with.
Exposed and debunked yet again, incredibly, dickran continues to cling to the illogical and unavailable so-called information about hundreds of millions, even billions, of naked short shares, his/her "backstop", drilling and dividends kaka. I suppose being stuck all these years with 400 million erhe shares is enough to make some people say (or "speculate" on) just about anything that might attract buying volume.
Krombacher
2 days ago
Response to SSC’s Rebuttal
SSC, your consistent attempt to twist speculative analysis into "greed and hubris-driven hype" is as predictable as it is tiresome. Let’s systematically address your points:
---
1. Drilling in EEZ Block 4 by March 2025
You claim there’s no data or logic supporting my speculation about drilling in EEZ Block 4 by March 2025. Here’s why your criticism misses the mark:
Speculation Based on Industry Timelines:
My speculation aligns with industry-standard timelines for offshore exploration projects in this region. The March 2025 date, while speculative, reflects this momentum and aligns with the strategic need for São Tomé to monetize its offshore resources.
Confidentiality Constraints:
As you conveniently ignore, ERHC is likely subject to confidentiality agreements that limit what can be disclosed about EEZ Block 4. Silence does not mean inactivity—it means the company is adhering to legal and strategic constraints.
Your Demand for Certainty in Speculation:
Speculation is, by definition, an informed guess based on available information and context. Your attempt to discredit this by demanding definitive proof ignores the very nature of forward-looking analysis.
---
2. Dividends, Properties, and Cash
You challenge my assertions about dividends, properties, and ERHC’s financial position. Let me clarify:
Dividends and Cash Flow:
ERHC’s potential ability to issue dividends hinges on monetizing its assets and resolving its strategic silence. My statement about dividends reflects the potential for asset sales, strategic partnerships, or revenue from existing holdings—not an assertion that these events have already occurred. You conflate speculation with false promises, which is disingenuous.
Properties Across Africa:
ERHC’s historical disclosures and strategic partnerships have pointed to investments and properties across Africa. While details remain sparse due to the aforementioned legal constraints, the potential for such acquisitions is grounded in ERHC’s positioning as a regional player in energy exploration.
Logic vs. Cynicism:
You dismiss forward-looking speculation as “asinine hype” while offering no constructive analysis of your own. The absence of publicly disclosed details doesn’t negate the possibility of these outcomes—it highlights the limitations of your perspective.
---
3. SEC Dismissal and Double Jeopardy
You ask for the source of my statement that the SEC dismissal protects ERHC from re-prosecution on the same grounds unless new evidence arises. Let’s address this:
SEC Document Context:
The dismissal occurred due to control deficiencies at the SEC, which violated due process. This dismissal inherently limits the SEC’s ability to refile the same case unless new evidence or circumstances arise. While the specific phrase “re-prosecution on the same grounds” may not appear in the document, the legal principle remains clear: administrative dismissals resulting from procedural failures are highly unlikely to be refiled without significant justification.
Your Own Source:
You linked the SEC’s opinion (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2023/33-11198.pdf), which explicitly cites control deficiencies as the basis for dismissal. This decision, impacting over 30 cases, underscores the procedural protections now afforded to ERHC. If you disagree, feel free to provide a legal counterargument instead of resorting to mockery.
---
4. The Value of Speculation
You dismiss my “verbose essays” as illogical, yet you consistently fail to refute their substance. Let me remind you of a few key points:
Naked Short Selling:
You’ve repeatedly dodged the topic of phantom shares and naked short selling, even when your own proposed strategies (like share buybacks) reveal your familiarity with how these manipulative tactics operate. Your silence on this is telling.
Strategic Silence and the Backstop:
The interconnected dynamics of ERHC’s gag orders, legal position, and potential backstop aren’t baseless—they’re grounded in historical precedents and strategic logic. Your refusal to engage with these ideas reflects either ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead.
---
Closing Thoughts
SSC, your critique boils down to the same tired formula: mock speculation, demand proof for forward-looking statements, and avoid offering any constructive analysis of your own. While you ridicule informed speculation as “greed and hubris,” you conveniently ignore your own pattern of misinformation and misdirection.
If you truly believe ERHC has no potential, provide a substantive counterargument rather than relying on sarcasm and ad hominem attacks. Until then, your commentary remains noise—loud, repetitive, and ultimately irrelevant.
Krombacher
ssc
2 days ago
You say your thousands of bullish speculations that have never come true are based on "logic and available data", I say they are greed and hubris driven hype. Please show the available data that shows drilling in EEZ block 4 will be completed by March 2025 as you "speculate". Please explain the logic that says a deep water well will be completed 3 months from now when there is no information anywhere to show drilling in block 4 is even planned to begin by then.
Or how about the logic and available information that shows erhc has received hundreds of millions of dollars, has purchased properties "across Africa", and will dole out $30 million or more in dividends in March of 2025, all things you have asserted, even "doubled down" on. To be clear, a boring and verbose essay from your bot based on asinine claims you feed it IS NOT logical or information.
While you're at it, can you provide the source of this statement you made: " ... protects ERHC from re-prosecution on the same grounds unless new evidence arises". Now I'm not saying you are wrong, but I searched the SEC dismissal document and such wording is nowhere to be found. Here's the link to that document:
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/opinions/2023/33-11198.pdf
Where's the link to yours?
Krombacher
2 days ago
Response to SSC's Misinformation
SSC, your post is yet another blend of sarcasm, selective memory, and outright ignorance. Let’s dissect your points and correct the record—again.
---
1. "Quickly Debunked" Double Jeopardy Claims?
You assert that my double jeopardy claims were “quickly debunked,” citing broken links and selective reading of those that worked. Allow me to clarify:
SEC Dismissal: The SEC dismissed its case against ERHC due to control deficiencies, as part of a broader wave of dismissals affecting over 30 cases. This dismissal, resulting from procedural failures at the SEC, protects ERHC from re-prosecution on the same grounds unless new evidence arises. The concept of "with or without prejudice" in this context is irrelevant because the SEC’s control deficiency inherently prevents re-litigation.
Supporting Links: If you're unable to read or comprehend the materials provided, that’s on you—not me. The evidence exists, and you are welcome to revisit it rather than lazily dismiss it.
---
2. The Gag Order "Excuse"
Your worn-out critique of the gag order as an “excuse” misses the point entirely. Let’s clarify:
Legal Constraints Exist: The gag order is a court-imposed legal mechanism, explicitly cited by ERHC, restricting disclosures. It’s not speculation; it’s fact.
Industry Precedents: While you demand examples of public companies affected by gag orders, the very nature of these orders is to limit disclosure, making such examples rare and hard to identify. That doesn’t negate their existence or impact.
Relevance Today: Whether the gag order remains in effect is immaterial to its role in shaping ERHC’s historical silence and legal strategy. Ignoring this context only weakens your argument.
---
3. Your "Delusional Fantasy World" Rant
Your ad hominem attack, filled with clichés like “delusional fantasy world” and “sketched-headed,” is nothing more than a distraction. Let’s address your points directly:
Naked Shorts and Absence of Proof: You mock the idea of massive short positions with the tired refrain, “no one can prove they exist.” Here’s the reality: naked shorting thrives on obscurity. The absence of direct evidence isn’t proof of nonexistence—it’s a hallmark of how these manipulative practices operate.
Past Speculation: You love pointing to missed predictions as “proof” of delusion, ignoring the speculative nature of these markets. Unlike your endless negativity, my posts aim to explore possibilities based on logic and available data. That’s called investing in speculative markets—not the hindsight sniping you excel at.
Share Price History: Yes, the stock has declined dramatically. Speculative plays are risky by nature, and ERHC’s situation is compounded by manipulation and legal constraints. But dismissing its potential outright, as you do, reflects an unwillingness to consider how markets and opportunities evolve.
---
4. "Drilling Results and Dividends in March 2025"
You mock my projections for March 2025 without offering any substantive critique. Here’s the difference between you and me: I base my projections on informed speculation, considering factors like the backstop, legal protections, and ERHC’s historical behavior. You, on the other hand, mock without substance and contribute nothing constructive.
---
5. SSC’s Lack of Credibility
Let’s not ignore your own track record. Your posts are filled with:
Misdirection: Pushing for share buybacks, which do nothing against naked shorting, and proposing tests (like moving shares to cash accounts) that deliberately ignore the mechanics of phantom shares.
Personal Attacks: Resorting to insults like “delusional” and “embarrassing” because you can’t engage with the facts.
Baseless Dismissals: Ignoring documented realities like the SEC dismissal and gag orders, simply because they don’t fit your narrative.
---
Closing Thoughts
SSC, your response is emblematic of someone more interested in mocking others than contributing to meaningful dialogue. You consistently ignore facts, misrepresent arguments, and attack investors who see potential where you see failure. While you fixate on the past, others are looking to the future—where ERHC’s legal and strategic positioning could create opportunities you refuse to acknowledge.
Your credibility is as hollow as the phantom shares you refuse to address. Until you’re ready to engage with the facts, your arguments will remain little more than noise.
Krombacher
ssc
2 days ago
You and your bot already posted a quickly debunked attempt to validate your double jeopardy claims. It had links that didn't work and the ones that did work actually proved you were wrong. By the way, can you provide a link that shows whether the SEC dismissal was with or without prejudice? My guess is you cannot as this is all just more of your self-serving "speculation" on full display.
As usual, you continue to lean on the worn out, many years old gag order excuse. Compared to your bullshit "speculation" about the gag order, the facts are that you have never seen its contents, you don't even know if it is still in effect, and you can't provide an example of any public U.S. company that has ever been prevented from filing required SEC disclosure documents by a gag order.
You and your bot exist in a delusional, sketched headed fantasy world of never seen epic short squeezes, huge short positions no one can prove exist, done deals that never get done, dollars/share though price remains near zero, backstops, share price doesn't matter, the embarrassing claims that buying and holding a stock from $70 all the way down to zero where it has remained for the last 7 years is a successful investing strategy. Oh yeah, don't forget the latest ridiculous catch phrase: "absence of proof is not proof of absence". Did you come up with that all by yourself or did the bot pitch in? I guess in dickran's world the concept of needing an alibi was tossed out along with the value of telling the truth.
And the embarrassing hits just keep coming lol. Now every one can watch as your latest, doubled down bullish assertion of drilling results for EEZ block 4 and erhe dividend both in March 2025 flames out like your thousands of other baseless claims, false rumors and outright lies. Can't wait to see how you try and squirm out of that one. How can your "speculation" be taken seriously when it has been wrong every time?
Krombacher
3 days ago
SSC, your critique of my post not only misrepresents my use of the term "hypothetically" but also demonstrates a lack of understanding of ERHC’s legal and strategic context, particularly regarding double jeopardy, the SEC dismissal, gag orders, and the implications for ERHC’s silence. Let me break it down for you:
---
1. Hypothetical Speculation is a Legitimate Investment Tool
You take issue with my use of "hypothetically," as if it invalidates my reasoning. Speculation, when grounded in facts and contextual analysis, is a legitimate tool for investors. My points aren’t baseless; they’re informed by ERHC’s documented legal history and strategic positioning. Rather than addressing my arguments, you mock the speculative nature of the post, ignoring the well-established groundwork behind it.
---
2. Double Jeopardy – A Unique Legal Shield
The term double jeopardy here doesn’t refer to criminal law but to ERHC’s unique legal position following the SEC’s failed attempt to revoke its stock registration due to control deficiencies. Let’s recap:
SEC’s Case Dismissal: The SEC’s administrative case against ERHC was dismissed alongside over 30 others due to internal failures in maintaining the separation of enforcement and adjudicatory functions.
Implications for ERHC: This dismissal means the SEC cannot refile the same case without new evidence or grounds. It legally shields ERHC from re-prosecution on the same matter, akin to the concept of double jeopardy.
This provides ERHC with legal cover for its silence, allowing it to withhold filings without immediate risk of penalties or stock revocation.
---
3. The Role of Gag Orders and Confidentiality Agreements
You fail to consider the potential role of gag orders and confidentiality agreements in ERHC’s silence. The company has publicly cited a court-imposed gag order as a reason for its lack of financial disclosures. This isn’t speculation; it’s a documented fact. Legal constraints like these often arise in high-stakes negotiations or disputes, and they may prevent the company from releasing information prematurely.
Mocking the company’s silence without acknowledging these constraints is disingenuous and oversimplifies the complexities at play.
---
4. The Backstop and Strategic Silence
The backstop concept reinforces ERHC’s strategic silence. Here’s how:
The backstop establishes a price floor, making naked shorting untenable.
Combined with the protections afforded by double jeopardy and gag orders, the company’s silence could be part of a deliberate strategy to maximize the impact of a future catalyst.
This isn’t “delusional” as you claim—it’s a calculated move to combat market manipulation and protect shareholder value.
---
5. SSC’s Pattern of Misdirection
Your comment about moving shares from margin accounts to cash accounts as a solution to prove or disprove shorts was another example of your manipulative tactics. This strategy would do nothing against naked shorting, where phantom shares aren’t borrowed but printed. Instead, you use such hollow suggestions to sow doubt among investors.
Your persistent dismissal of mechanisms like T+3 settlements, the backstop, and ERHC’s legal position reveals a pattern of misdirection aimed at protecting short sellers. Let’s not forget your earlier push for a share buyback, a strategy ineffective against naked shorters who can simply print more shares to dilute the effort.
---
6. Kingpindg’s Post vs. My Response
My response to Kingpindg was speculative but grounded in the realities of ERHC’s situation. The lack of filings, gag orders, and legal protections like double jeopardy all play a role in shaping the company’s silence and potential strategy. Unlike your rebuttals, which offer nothing constructive, my post provides a framework for understanding the potential outcomes.
---
Closing Thoughts
SSC, your arguments consistently lack depth and fail to engage with the realities of ERHC’s legal and strategic context. Double jeopardy, gag orders, and the backstop aren’t just speculative—they are documented elements that influence the company’s decisions. Mocking these concepts without offering substantive alternatives only undermines your credibility.
Rather than dismissing informed speculation as "delusional," consider addressing the facts and engaging in meaningful dialogue. Until then, your commentary remains a mix of sarcasm and obfuscation, benefiting no one except the naked short sellers you seem so intent on protecting.
Krombacher
Trade smarter, not harder: Unleash your inner pro with our toolkit and live discussions.
Homebrew
11 hours ago
BearRickPunch
2 days ago
Hot Features
Premium
