Thank you for your correction.
But you said of my posts, "not to interrupt your rant." If memory serves, you wrote posts about the technical aspects of Wave, relevant only if the products were selling. They were not, but you persisted, almost until the end.
Many of us wonder about the value of investor-supplied 'interpretations' or 'analysis'. In retrospect, some of us suspect that kind of benign interpretation of neutral or negative facts helped keep other shareholders from selling, because technically, it looked like a slam dunk, only it was a miss as big as they come. Light years. Galaxies.
Not only did all this amazing tech not sell over many years and even more attempts, it was sneered at by professionals.
Why did some not only believe the spinners of harmful fantasies, they jumped in and claimed expertise they did not have, to help keep the fleecing machine running by lending credibility?
The main questions about Wave were never answered. Those questions were deflected, or if that didn't work, there was always distraction, or an even bigger lie about some mysterious monster contract breaking through the fog to take all the believers home in style.
Why, didn't Wave's products sell enough to make Wave a going business? Answer: Because they were clunky pieces of crap.
Everything else was just meadow dressing to hide the most important fact of all to investors. There were so many ready to mislead, to play the Judas goat--and they did, willingly.
It was all scripted, the classic con game. Peter Sprague got it right when he drunkenly said to me after a CC, "Some look at this company and see a pile of gold. Some see a pile of sh*t."
I don't think what the shareholders got was measured in carats, but rather, in plant fertilizer value.
Blue
