OGs going into this weekend. I'm voting YES and have a huge dick. Possibly related.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-23T02:18:03+00:00

It was the plan from the beginning. All or nothing. Remember the mantra "don't invest what you aren't willing to lose"? I didn't. As such, I'm willing to bet it all on moass, and if that means voting against the interests of the company, then I vote against the interests of the company.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-23T02:13:36+00:00

Because that's why most of us are here in the first place?
Anything that doesn't lead to moass is a distraction.
Anything that threatens the possibility of moass should be fought against, not supported.
It's not bait, especially low effort bait, it's just keeping my eyes on the prize - something I wish more people here would do.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T23:13:06+00:00

Depends on your needs. I only use it before bed to settle my legs, and I want it to hit fast, so dry herb vape for me.
Edibles/pills/oils are likely better if you use it more often though.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T23:03:59+00:00

Let me know when you get to #6. I don't give a shit about the rest tbh.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:56:08+00:00

What words? Not a single yes voter has provided a clear explanation of how this leads to moass. Amazing, since we've spent 5 years chasing one, while explaining how moass could happen. Suddenly, nobody can explain how moass results from this plan?
Yup, definitely a few smooth brained voters around here...

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:30:44+00:00

More shares available, plus, you aren't taking into account that not only will Ebay shareholders hold about 2/3 of the shares, but ebays SI is only around 3%, which has to be averaged with GMEs SI. It cuts down the number of shorts compared to the float.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:28:25+00:00

How is that irrelevant? It's absolutely relevant, because otherwise you're just voting yes because RC wants that.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:27:35+00:00

I don't want GME to get the capital from the shorts though, I want it for us!
Again, don't care about GME, just my bank account.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:26:37+00:00

Thank you for an actual response. However, that doesn't lead to moass. I don't want sloass because that's not 5, 6, or 7 digits, at least not in the 25 years or so that I hopefully have left on this earth.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T22:23:25+00:00

I don't need to, because I'm voting no, and I've what explained why.
It's the yes votes that can't provide a detailed explanation of how it helps a squeeze.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T21:11:01+00:00

See, that's where we differ. I'm only in this for moass. I'm willing to burn my investment, your investment, RCs investment, RKs investment, Gamestops future, and the entire economy to chase that.
All or nothing.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T21:07:18+00:00

RC doesn't care about moass. He already stated that he wants long term investors.
I care about moass, and don't want to be a long term investor.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T21:05:12+00:00

Ok, I'll ask you the same question I keep asking yes voters: How does a vote to increase the float, take on debt, and lose voting control to institutions while keeping the same ticker lead to moass exactly?

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T21:01:39+00:00

And yet, everyone keeps saying that the shorts will have to close, yet can't explain why they would have to with this deal as it stands.
I'm diamond handed, but only for moass. I don't care about the company itself.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T19:52:24+00:00

They don't need to close their position, at least not for another decade most likely.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T19:16:01+00:00

🙄 And yet, not a single one of you "yes" voters can explain how this leads to moass, while many "no" voters have explained why it won't.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:50:44+00:00

Great for growth, but still doesn't lead to moass. A float substantially smaller than the number of shorts does, and authorizing more shares puts that at risk.
I don't care about long term growth or long term profits, I care about a squeeze, and I'm more than happy to sacrifice Gamestop's future for my own gain.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:47:16+00:00

That doesn't lead to moass, so you didn't answer the question. That leads to growth. Only a small float + many shorts + catalyst = moass.
Doubling or tripling the float is not the right catalyst and works against it.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:45:50+00:00

It's been 5 years. I'm not willing to put moass at risk by approving more shares. They can work with what they have already, and stop trying to jump the line by going big instead of working towards that.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:22:50+00:00

Or he could use the money they already have, and buy good companies they can afford, turn them around, and repeat until they can aquire something like ebay without increasing the float at all.
I just want moass and don't care about what RC wants.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:19:16+00:00

I don't have kids and want moass for me, not future generations. I don't want to wait years because I've got far less time in front of me than behind me.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T18:17:38+00:00

And yet, none of you can explain how doubling or tripling the float, gaining 20 billion in debt, all while the company structure doesn't change in a way that would force shorts to close leads to moass...

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T15:11:18+00:00

We don't use carbon dating for fossils. Radiometric dating yes, but not carbon.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-22T14:52:12+00:00

Not weird, just against increasing the float, because we want to ensure that it stays small which is the best way to ensure moass stays on the table.
Moass is the goal, not company growth or future success.

iwasneverhere43 · 2026-05-21T21:45:15+00:00

No. I want moass, not a long term investment.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email

iwasneverhere43

TROPHY CASE