You are correct but you are making a few assumptions that I am not willing to make.
Scott was the problem...
Yes he was but was he the only problem?
No.
Scott, cam, ben, merel, andrew, penny.
They (and more) were the problem.
1 person did not screw this up.
Dan is trying to fix it...
Ok but how can Dan fix something that he doesn't see broken?
Dan said many times that Scott was doing the right things.
How can he fix it if he thinks that screwing it was "right"?
Yes he could change his opinion. And we all must assume he has since he has told us that for instance communication was one of the issues. He said he would change that. But he didnt.
What else will he not change?
The thing most don't seem to get is that Dan is no different than Scott.
Scott was the savior when he took over from the last scammer.
Now Dan is where Scott was in 2010.
But nobody here actually knows Dan.
They just blindly follow the guy who says he will save us.
Now my problem with Dan is his lack of communication.
He is not willing to speak publically where his words are binding.
Why not?
He could be totally innocent. But KNOW ING that the shareholders here have been screwed at every turn he must know that he has to do more than Scott did to maintain trust of the market.
The deal taking so long leaves no question that there is an issue.
It is probably not near as bad as imagination can make it but Dan leaves the shareholders to imagine instead of simply telling us months ago that there were minor issues in the way and a delay is inevitable.
Don't you agree that if the issue is no big deal that informing us all what's happening would remove my ability to complain about the delay?
Let me ask you this...
What proof do you have that shows Dan isn't just another Scott?
What has he given you that says this is different?
How do you know if every move made in the past year was not with Scotts full cooperation?
How do you know that Dan wasn't part of Scotts scam?
After all the guy is the owner of nearly every private placement ever made here.
Don't you think that someone putting so much money into something should have known just a bit more than the rest of us before he bought so many shares?
If not should someone stupid enough to drop a boatload of money blindly on a stinky pink without KNOWING the facts really be trusted with running a company?
All of this would go away with simple communication.
Dan will be treated differently than Scott when he starts acting differently than scott
