||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
|Software & Computer Services
Avia Health Share Discussion Threads
Showing 976 to 997 of 1000 messages
|LOL. You need to be more attentive to switching your IDs BG/GI. Try to remember you are BG on the TXO boards and GI here. What you have to say is embarrassing enough without goofing up your IDs as well. Show some respect for the intelligence of other posters please.|
|LOL.. really? You do things "because black gold told me to???"
Is that like.. voices in your head? Telling you "things??"
It's a bad sign when you start referring to yourself in the third person, ya know.|
|As a graphene investor why are you not posting on some stocks that actually have some form of stake in graphene?|
|nah have only been posting on here for a couple of weeks and have posted once on txo because black gold told me to
my house is very solid and i dont lie but you do as house of cards doesnt have foundations|
|Please BG/GI, you've been slinging the same sorry sh*t for years now. Don't you get tired of the constant lies, the fear, the need to keep the house of cards going even as the foundation crumbles beneath you?|
|think you will find it is the other way round and if that was from the nomad why dont you scan it and post it here
|The noose is closing around TB/BG/GI's neck and he is getting very desperate.
Interesting that TB's latest "investment" made via TXO - oil recovery services has had its website taken off air.
my first post on TXO on iii was back in 2007 ie well before TXO got involved in Empire and even before Empire got involved with Smart Win
|Oh BG/TB/GI, you are SUCH a POS. Have another wine... I assume someone else is buying?
Do you ever get tired of lying? Of being wrong? Apparently not.
Here's DS's first EEGC post, dated Monday, 01/16/12
Check out the TXO iii board
I have contacted TXO's Nomad to highlight the potentially serious impropriety that seems to be going on with TXO putting money into Empire and Empire then putting money into another of the TXO chairman's companies (East Africa Oil)
The Nomad has replied:
Thank you for your points and we are discussing these with the Board of TXO plc with a view to their considering whether an announcement clarifying the investment made by TXO is required.
I have been following you discussions hear for a little while and they have helped me a lot. Thanks keep up the good work and the truth will come out eventually.
|yeh your most certainly not a lawyer and its not just a legal slip that gives you away and i most definitely know what you are!!!!
you claim to be just a disgruntled shareholder in TXO yet we all know you were posting on Empire before TXO even got involved
nice try at attempting to re-establish your profile to 2012
am sure that the need will arise where you have to prove your identity to the appropriate authorities but they will not be the ones you think
how do you guys live with yourselves and all those false identities........talking about walking in dead mens shoes
tick tock drunken sailor tick tock|
|GI i am not the one posing as a lawyer, because I am most certainly not a lawyer therefore the occasional slip in legal terminology is totally understandable on my part. What is your excuse.
I know who I am, I know what I am and Iknow my nationality and where I live and I will quite happily prove all of that to the appropriate authorities should the need arise.|
|Considering you were wrong about EVERY SINGLE THING you posted regarding the TXO/GSLM/EEGC litigation, it's no wonder the various boards have ignored you entirely.
GI, why do you bother to keep up the pretense that you're NOT Black G0ld/TB? It's pretty embarrassing at this point.|
|The "tortuous interference" RNS was 29 June this year and spoke of "malicious blogging [sic]" for at least 12 months prior to that. Tim is sure taking his time initiating the threatened action and he may need all the help he can get from BG/GI to progress from plaintive threat to claimant action.|
I am most surprised that you feel that Cientifica, TXO, Tim Baldwin and the rest of the boards need the advice of a BB poster on case law in respect of possible defamation?
TB alone has been a Director of over 40 companies........been around a bit!
Earlier this year(I think)TXO released an RNS saying that action was going to be taken against individuals responsible for "Tortiuos Interference" so I must assume that TB was aware of allegations made against him?
As far as I am aware no action has been taken.
Which brings me to the nub of the issue,if all the allegations are false why has he not taken any legal action?
Of course I have no legal knowledge but to me something does not ring true.If I had been defamed I would do all in my power to remedy the situation to protect my reputation,let alone my shareholders interests.|
|However calling someone, who can be proven to have told lies in a public forum, a liar cannot be defamation. Calling someone who has, through total ineptitude on their part, lost investors £Ms, incompetent cannot be libel. Calling someone, who can be proven to have lined his own pockets in fees from shareholders money through executing transactions which are not in the shareholders' interests, corrupt cannot be slander.
Equally when someone brings such cases, they have to expect that the defense will examine any wrong doing on the part of the plaintiff in significant depth. This would include questioning whether a director had fulfilled his responsibilities as clearly defined in the Companies Act. The defense would no doubt cite as mitigation for any claim that was felt to have merit that the defendant had repeatedly raised many entirely valid matters with the appropriate authorities and whereas those authorities did eventually act to correct past misinformation put out by the plaintive, they did not take appropriate or effective steps to prevent a recurrence and the plaintiff therefore merrily carried on abusing his position of trust as a company director in similar and different ways drawing in others who have since also published misinformation to support the plaintiff's on going attempts to mislead investors and thereby further enrich himself.
Finally the fact that the defendant is a long term shareholder in the company where the plaintiff is a director, is a Private Investor with no link to the financial industry and has received no remuneration for anything he said or did except receive the thanks and admiration of other investors and was only ever acting to try to prevent investors like himself losing their money, would also need to be taken into account.
22 Months have past since Tim Baldwin first tried to threaten me with his lawyers, they know how to contact me, I have heard nothing.|
|LOL. He is definitely "The Worlds Most Interesting Scamster." Just ask him.
"I don't often tell the truth, but when I do...."|
|The linguistically challenged find "it's" to be especially confusing, believing it to be the possessive form of "it". However, GI is far too wary to chance his arm with normal punctuation, possessive and abbreviative apostrophes, capitalisations, conventional spellings and so forth and dispenses with them altogether in his hectic life of darting on and off internet message boards, reading Latin primers, advising Ministers of State how to run their Departments, writing legal contracts, keeping abreast of new technology and making frequent business trips to Croatia.|
|I thought it worth reposting a post I have just put on Ihub in response to someone who thought it would be in someway appropriate to wish me a "happy Veterans Day"
"It is Remembrance day in UK, a very solemn event where we remember those who have paid the ultimate price for their country as they stood up against tyranny and for what they believed to be right. There is nothing happy about it and the playing of the last post always brings a lump to my throat and a tear to my eye. It reminds me that the courage I show in standing up to people like Mad Malc and Dim Tim in the face of legal threats and general derision is nothing compared to the courage showed by the people we remember today.
I hope you can understand this better than you understood what was said in the video."|
|Do not forget that it is contracts to it's not its.
GI as you have not e-mailed me at firstname.lastname@example.org as invited, it is fair to assume that you do not need to because you are Tim Baldwin who already had my proper e-mail address.
I got a nice response from AIM regulation today anyone who wants it knows where to e-mail me.|
|LLOLLOL speaking of "repeated illiteracies in which you revel and are seemingly ignorant of" how about:
"i dont know to much about defamation i am learning"
Still waiting for the "far more recent precedents" you referred to in your earlier post, BG/GI. Or are you just going to ignore that claim?|
|Sorry BG/GI but I picked up the Ealy slip and corrected it before you pounced on it. You need to learn to type faster.
Furthermore there is a world of difference between a simple one-off misspelling of someone's name and the repeated illiteracies in which you revel and are seemingly ignorant of. Your Neanderthalese confers no credibility that you are a qualified lawyer.|
|According to what bili reproduced Mr Justice Eady gave a ruling and did not make it as an obiter dictum.
How did someone who is as semi-literate as you are ever graduate from law school? How could a legally trained mind not know the difference between "your" and "you're" and that the contraction of "do not" is "don't" carrying an apostrophe of omission?|
|LOL. Sorry "GI", this post is CLASSIC "Black G0ld" material. Using gratuitous (and usually incorrect) Latin legalisms, trying to divert the conversation down blind alleyways of nonsensical moot court argumentation (libel vs. slander?)...and trying to turn the discussion into some kind of legalistic Easter egg hunt - with BG pretending to dispense hints ("the clue is in the excerpt") but refusing to explain himself. Seen this style of post WAY too often in TXO and EEGC.
you have made the fatal mistake of believing obiter dictum as a precedent even though the clue is in the excerpt
quoted from Mr.Justice Eady besides there are far more recent precedents that can be relied on
Enlighten us, BG/GI - which "far more recent precedents" are you referring to?
Ultimately the "fatal mistake" is yours. Speaking or writing the truth can be neither libel nor slander.|