The delusionistas are out in force tonight...

Talking about today's RNS, 'digitalis' over on the ADVFN Blinkx threads posted:

"digitalis - 24 Mar'10 - 17:17 - 17915 of 17917

it explains the rushed round table meeting also!......bulk came to market,SC had to find buyers...quick...or we could have had a pasting.....

onwards and upwards!............."

digitalis is renowned for being a blinkered, uncritical supporter of Blinkx management, but this is delusional even by his standards...

".or we could have had a pasting....."

I'm not sure what digitalis would call the current share price if not a 'pasting'? The share price can't even currently hold anywhere near the placing price of 18p, and that was only a few months ago!

"onwards and upwards!.."

Is it worth pointing out that the price dropped .75p today? The trend is down, not up!!! You'd really have to be delusional - or drunk - to think that the two most recent RNSs are anything like good news...

Question: why did Autonomy take up more than 50% of the share placing? Did they want those shares, or did they get lumbered with them because they had underwritten the issue and nobody else wanted them?

Observation: Chandratillake gave a 'fireside chat' to the great vampire squid Goldman Sachs only a few short weeks ago and it has, apparently, to date had no effect whatsoever on the share price. Unless of course Goldman Sachs, sensing desperation on the part of Blinkx's CEO to try and pump his company, have been doing the opposite and shorting it since the presentation...

Observation: Blinkx hosts a meeting of sell-side analysts. Once again, it seems to have no impact whatsoever on the City's interest in Blinkx or the City's willingness to buy into the company.

Question: are the previous points connected? Does Blinkx, in fact, have a CEO who cannot sell the company story, who blew his credibility long ago over the Miva fiasco and just shot himself in the foot again with the Blinkbox cock-up? Has he - through his persistent failure to buy any shares in his own company in the open market and a persistent unwillingness or inability to communicate with shareholders and investors - totally destroyed his credibility in the eyes of the City and many (most?) shareholders?

And once again: if I'm wrong in asking those questions, where is the proof I'm wrong? Because the only proof I see, the only hard evidence, is the share price, and it isn't good...