Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
well it IS wicked cheap here imo... how much more irrational discounting we get at this point remains to be seen.
btw, some good docs here:
http://share.coroware.com/public/default.aspx
who cares what licky "knows"?
he's already proven that he is gonna defend mgmt in the face of a resounding FU from the market.
s'up TO... jeez! a google of "Lloyd Spencer" and "Microsoft" yields over 1200 hits!
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=+microsoft&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq...
you mean the guy with the "wound about connection to the company"?
just another tom, dick, or harry who knows somebody who knows somebody... but doesn't know when they file periodic reports, among many other things most likely...
Stock Lobster (one of iHub's most popular posters) noting INRA's cheapo pps on one of the most popular trader boards:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17634835
not enough...
if only... eom
did ya know Lloyd Spencer was featured in an American Airlines SKY RADIO BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY REPORT in November 2006?
http://www.spafax.com/american/index.php?content=sky-radio&month=November§ion=music&...
agreed, but the blew a golden oppty to showcase to the market all the stuff they have been doing (and further articulate details about the ABB thing).
btw, credit for that 3 yr chart belongs to fringe... i just ride his charting coat-tails!
and as for the mighty harry, i asked him this last night on his scam stock bored and he couldn't answer.
Posted by: SPIN
In reply to: None
Date:3/4/2007 8:53:32 PM
Post #of 1249
harry, who is lapham?
why couldn't he answer that licky?
seems that anyone who has done some homework here would know right away that John Lapham is the "inventor" of the INRA patents.
don't believe me?
see for yourself:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fne...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fne...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fne...
here's another chance to establish your DD cred.
who said something to the effect of, "where I'm from they say you only get one lick at the log."
bonus points if you know where/when that was said, how it relates to INRA, and where the person who said it comes from.
maybe there were typos in the PR and they really meant this ASI?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17611403
just wanted to establish that your perspective was influenced by your insider connections (as i suspected). thank you for providing substantiation of that suspicion. bet you live in Ft Myers too huh?
"Yes I have a wound [sic] about connection to the company."
also wanted to demonstrate your puddle-depth knowledge, which you perfectly provided by the absence of any understanding of what they file and when they file it.
"nothing of any value like HarryO used to do."
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
please cite just one post where he provided anything that could be construed as real DD.
"you post about how you feel, opinion,"
heh. go check the iBox LickyCharms... where do you think much of that info came from?
in fact, gave you a new INRA merger subsidiary today that nobody here knew anything about (or at least had not publicly posted about), among a variety of other new pieces of info.
magically delicious!
tremendous service contract oppty for some outfit...
seems like a nice fit for Coro's engineers:
"We think we can get away from using what industry has at the time and modifying it to military requirements," said the Navy's Byron Brezina. The three systems mentioned above "were the right answer at the that time and continue to be the answer now … We'd really like to take a [technological] leap and field something five years from now." One problem: the systems currently in use are based on proprietary technology and cannot be networked together (although readers will recall our recent report about iRobot's efforts to network fleets of its own drones). At the top of the list, said Brezina, is plug and play scalability, as are wireless communications systems that are invulnerable to interference from the electronic jammers typically used to defend against IEDs. "The electromagnetic environment compatibility issue is here to stay, [so] we've got to have better wireless means of communication," said Brezina.
my comment: Coroware's entire philosophy is rooted in OTS development, and it's MSFT ties support that view... if the Navy is looking for something "plug & play," it won't be running on a Mac!
http://hsdailywire.com/printNewsletters/newsletter_v3n41print.htm#article3456
and here's the full article from where that newsletter blurb originated:
March 2007
Navy Begins Work on Next-Generation Bomb Disposal Robot
By Stew Magnuson
NavyBeginsNothing made Army Lt. Col. Michael Evans happier than seeing mangled, twisted and charred explosive ordnance disposal robots sitting outside the repair facility at Camp Victory, Iraq.
“Every one of those damaged robots … equated to a team leader that was saved,” said the Army officer who helped oversee joint EOD operations in Iraq.
Robots have been credited with saving countless lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. In light of this success, the Navy has embarked on an ambitious program to build its next generation of counter-explosives machines.
The robots perform for their human operators the most dangerous task: neutralizing improvised explosive devices by going down range to serve as a specialist’s eyes to check out suspicious sites. Without them, EOD technicians would be forced to inspect potential bombs up close.
“That long walk in the bomb suit is a life and death decision that none of our operators take lightly,” Evans said at an Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International conference.
Since the beginning of operations in Iraq, three “commercial off-the–shelf” robots have been introduced into the fight and reached official “program of record” status, meaning they are in the Defense Department’s budget.
As for the next generation EOD robot, “We think we can get away from using what industry has at the time and modifying it to military requirements,” said Byron Brezina, robotics director of the naval EOD technology division. The three systems “were the right answer at the that time and continue to be the answer now,” he said. Industry answered the call for lighter, more advanced robots to tackle improvised explosive devices (IEDs), but it’s time for the Navy to start work on its own system from the ground up, he added.
The three commercial-off-the-shelf robots are iRobot’s Packbot, Foster-Miller’s Talon, and the BomBot, a toy truck-sized remotely controlled vehicle, manufactured by Innovative Response Technologies Inc. Each Talon and Packbot — including sensors and other associated gear — costs between $80,000 and $150,000. Meanwhile, the Navy’s legacy robot, the remote ordnance neutralization system (RONS), continues to be widely used.
The Navy, which is the service responsible for fielding all U.S. military EOD robots, would like to begin producing its new robot by 2012 to 2013, Brezina said.
“We’d really like to take a [technological] leap and field something five years from now,” he said.
There will be several variants of the new advanced EOD robot, which he described as “a family of systems that are scalable.”
Individually, the four systems currently in use perform fine, but they are all based on proprietary technologies and cannot work together, he said. Flexibility should come in the form of modular systems that have “plug and play capability,” or the ability to easily add features, he added.
Since RONS’ introduction 15 years ago, the Navy has learned many lessons on what works and what doesn’t, he said.
For example, electronic jammers — designed to prevent insurgents from using radios and cell phones to send signals to detonate IEDs — interfere with wireless remote control.
And operators generally prefer wireless controls to tethers.
“The electromagnetic environment compatibility issue is here to stay, [so] we’ve got to have better wireless means of communication,” Brezina said.
The current systems also have their own control interfaces, meaning operators must train on four different panels.
“I can’t imagine us fielding this next robot without a common controller,” he said.
The Navy is currently working on “analysis of alternatives” reports, which should tell them what technologies are needed, along with what capabilities industry and academia have to offer. The office has already held one industry day and conducted about 40 one-on-one meetings with members of the robot development community.
Brezina is telling them “to try to think five years out. Obviously, everybody is focused on Iraq.”
The Navy envisions a two-year technology development phase from 2008 to 2009, with a development and demonstration phase roughly from 2010 to 2012. Production is slated to begin around 2012 to 2013. No decision has been made as to whether the next generation robot will replace the four systems, he said.
The Navy is continuing to improve the RONS and three smaller off-the-shelf systems with night vision and chemical and nuclear material sensors.
While the three commercial-off-the-shelf products have received the most press coverage, RONS are still in use worldwide. EOD officials at the conference showed a video of one in Iraq hauling the carcass of a dead dog in the middle of a road, where it exploded out of harm’s way. Insurgents are known to hide IEDs inside the carcasses.
At 700 pounds, the larger RONS can pull heavier objects, although its size makes it harder to transport to hotspots. The Talon and PackBot weigh 100 and 50 pounds respectively, and can be carried by one or two technicians.
The 15-pound BomBot recently reached the “program of record status.” More than 2,300 have been fielded so far. Based on remote-controlled toy trucks, the BomBot is designed to quickly send pictures back to EOD specialists. It moves at 35 miles per hour and fits in a hand-carried suitcase.
Brezina said his office has resisted pressure to add more features to the BomBot. The idea is to keep it cheap and expendable so operators want to use it in high-risk situations.
There are more PackBots and Talons in the pipeline as well. About 800 have been fielded so far, with more than 500 budgeted in the next two years.
Marine Corps Maj. Joseph Parker, who ran the shop at Camp Victory where broken or battle damaged robots are repaired, said 155 robots were destroyed in fiscal year 2006. However, technicians were able to rebuild 105 of them and send them back in the field within 72 hours.
It one case, a shaped charged shot from an IED struck a BomBot stowed in the back of a humvee. The deadly projectile deflected off the protective case, sending it harmlessly away from an EOD technician sitting next to it.
The BomBot was declared a total loss, but another life was saved.
“It still did its job – regardless,” Parker said.
Please email your comments to SMagnuson@ndia.org
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/March/NavyBegins.htm
you are "sick of hearing whining," but you don't know when the next Q is due?
yeah, okay...
PS i'll give you a hint, the next periodic report due ain't a Q.
PPS you've been here about 72 hours and you're already sick?!? wow. low threshold. any connections to the company newb?
RWT Merger, Inc.
http://www.sunbiz.org/
Florida Profit
"THE DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE IN THE ROBOTICS INDUSTRY AND ANY AND ALL LAWFUL BUSINESS."
RWT MERGER, INC.
PRINCIPAL ADDRESS
15870 PINE RIDGE ROAD
UNIT #3
FORT MYERS FL 33908
MAILING ADDRESS
15870 PINE RIDGE ROAD
UNIT #3
FORT MYERS FL 33908
Document Number
P06000143976 FEI Number
NONE Date Filed
11/15/2006
State
FL Status
ACTIVE Effective Date
NONE
Registered Agent
Name & Address
ROBISON, LINDA R
2659 WEST GULF DRIVE
B102
SANIBEL FL 33957
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address Title
WALTER, WEISEL
15870 PINE RIDGE ROAD UNIT #3
FORT MYERS FL 33908 C, D
BALLARD, ROBERT
15870 PINE RIDGE ROAD UNIT #3
FORT MYERS FL 33908 P,D
GARTLAN, EUGENE
15970 PINE RIDGE ROAD UNIT 3
FORT MYERS FL 33908 T,D
AWS, SHERI
15870 PINE RIDGE ROAD UNIT #3
FORT MYERS FL 33908 S, D
Filed Nov 15, 2006:
http://www.sunbiz.org/COR/2006/1115/40819564.tif
no pollyanna perspective here.
revs are ramping and the collection of properties has great vertical synergies, blah, blah, blah...
but they blew the oppty while on the OTCBB center stage to showcase what this company has really been doing.
inept? apathetic? something else?
back to the DD while wearing portfolio-red.
Ashcroft Group letter to Atty Gen Gonzales - link
Feb 27th missive re XM-Sirius combo:
http://images.radcity.net/5173/1828999.pdf
depends on the PR of course. some perhaps in a few hours, some may require a few days (that ABB one was short, but presumably was reviewed by a number of eyeballs on both sides, from a variety of disciplines).
i really believe that INRA mgmt does not care about its retail shareholder base, but we have certain common interests w/them, for whatever reason, they don't act like they care imo.
yepper aries... and to those out there who think any long-timer (in this case me) is just slamming mgmt b/c of the pps, you are wrong.
INRA bought Coro less than a year ago, largely for stock, and that was HUGE.
Coro brings MSFT (in a BIG way), re2, AP, (and apparently to some extent) iRobot, etc., and the oppty to be positioned at the epicenter of a true revolution of robotics software and systems.
INRA retained John Ashcroft to Chair the Advisory Board and brought in HP start-up guy and Intel/Stanford/Silicon Valley mover-shaker, Chuck House to BofD, also HUGE imo.
INRA made deals w/NASA that turned into expanded deals w/NASA, also HUGE imo.
INRA's sub RWT has begun to register sales of the URC3, which is also HUGE imo.
INRA pursued ABB when they believed they had been wronged. imo we will eventually learn that it was HUGE, but for now it is at minimum SUBSTANTIAL.
INRA dumped Agoracom and Friedman, and enlisted Brainerd, not necessarily HUGE, but certainly very smart.
there's definitely more, but do not be under some misapprehension that i or other long-timers don't believe there are some very substantial things here.
i think many of us just wish they would act like a company that wanted the world to know these things too & forever escape pennyland (as we believe is entirely possible).
imo this could (and should) be a Nasdaq company.
fwiw & jmo.
i know DSD - in ways it's like having a Ferrari in the garage and keeping it up on blocks!
but they will only act on that where the client seeks that out.
Ashcroft weighing in on Sirius-XM proposed merger.
positioning the proposed merger as violating anti-trust principals.
btw, Brainerd and Ashcroft Group are components to this that could really bring INRA into the mainstream imo.
Ashcroft Says XM/Sirius Deal Would Decrease Competition
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 3/2/2007 4:06:00 PM
Digg This | add to Del.icio.us
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft has sent a letter to his successor, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying he thinks that terrestrial radio should not be considered a direct competitor in the satellite radio market for purposes of a Justice Department review.
According to a copy of the letter, Ashcroft, who now heads The Ashcroft Group consulting firm, wrote Gonzales that "a thorough study of consumer demands and preferences would show that terrestrial radio stations should not be considered part of the satellite radio market for the purposes of the review of the current merger because they are not providing substitute content..... Consumers, I believe, subscribe to satellite radio not because it comes from satellites rather than radio towers but because it is a unique mobile multichannel product with nationwide reach."
"NAB retained former Attorney General Ashcroft to review and assess the proposed XM/Sirius merger," said NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton. "His review was sent to all members of the House and Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees."
Ashcroft's argument is the same argument the National Association of Broadcasters, including NAB President David Rehr, made on Capitol Hill in a House hearing this week.
"A close examination of the market reveals that Sirius and XM are the only two companies providing their product," Ashcroft wrote. He calls the product "a unique, multi-channel product with nationwide reach" -- essentially the same definition NAB has been using.
XM and Sirius have proposed merging the two services, saying it is in the consumer's interest and will increase choice while lowering price. The Justice Department will have to decide whether there is a competitor that will provide a governor on that price and service. The satellite companies have promised to cap prices but, according to critics, such a condition would eventually sunset.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6421256.html
John Ashcroft Weighs In On XM-Sirius Merger
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has contacted his successor in that job to express concerns about the proposed merger between XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.
In a February 27 letter to current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Ashcroft, who now runs his own DC-based consulting firm, offers the opinion that terrestrial radio should not be considered part of the satellite radio market because �they are not providing content available to consumers traveling market to market.� Ashcroft feels that if XM and Sirius merge, no other entity can provide unique mobile multi-channel content "with a nationwide reach."
The ex-AG states, �In granting licensing authority for the existence of XM and Sirius, the FCC explicitly prohibited the two licensees from combining into a monopoly.�
Ashcroft points to the FCC�s opposition to the EchoStar/DirectTV merger and the fact that in 1997, �XM and Sirius promised to work toward the creation of a single inter-operable receiver ? a technology the availability of which would be in the conceded best interest of consumers and the companies. A decade later, no such receiver exists. Had either pursued the promise to reality, they both would have enjoyed broader acceptance.?
http://www.radioink.com/HeadlineEntry.asp?hid=137057&pt=todaysnews
decidely different viewpoints expressed in:
Wired http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/03/john_ashcroft_o.html
and engaget
http://www.engadget.com/2007/03/05/john-ashcroft-lobbying-for-nab-after-being-rebuffed-by-xm/
guess we have slightly different understandings about how PR works.
Brainerd has heavyweight editorial connections due (in part) to its A-list clients. Agoracom does not.
if/when INRA decides to ever actually showcase some of the ridiculous high-growth potential it has, Brainerd can get that in front of readers and viewers in a seriously wide-scale "saturated" manner imo.
Agoracom simply cannot achieve that sort of placement imo and in fact is a haven for pennies, many of them Canadian from my recollection.
heh. youdubb, many of us are in the red now.
the criticism of mgmt's approach to some stuff was always there.
some are more tolerant than others.
imo they BUNGLED an opportunity to permanently leave this pps range and to showcase what many of us long-timers have known about its potential.
instead we get a PR about possibly buying some CNC garage that just happens to be down the road...
check the quality of Brainerd's client list and then compare it to Agoracom's clients.
it should be self-evident imo.
http://www.braincomm.com/
search this board for the term "Brainerd" - there's been some past discussion of it.
it's subtantial imo - search down thread for "Brainerd."
not so sure that's right... INRA dropped Agoracom and Friedman and hired Brainerd Communicators, and that definitely WAS a step in the right direction.
yeah right!
no, i'm not on INRA's payroll in any meaning of the word.
and it wasn't just me that built this board, you & a dozen or so others brought it up from the ashes imo.
Perg, what were your impressions of the reports we got from locals that Walt was busy building his new house?
btw, the company INRA paid to host a message board deleted those posts almost immediately (some of which were re-posted here).
sand, the extrapolations people had done on the ABB thing weren't in any way linked to being fans of Ft Myers.
it was based largely imo on the "smoking gun" evidence of the case, the tone of the filings, the reputation and history of Ray Niro (and his consistency of the case for 2 years), the alleged profits of ABB during the time period in question, the statute calling for double that amount in punitives if "bad faith" was demonstrated, the foreign company coming to trial in Florida, etc., etc.
still am convinced that $3M is not the entirety of the arrangement (not even close imo), but the market says i'm totally wrong (and am now in the red on my INRA holdings).
so, i think there is a complete disconnect between views on the parent company's mgmt and the expected valuations on the ABB matter.
but, that said, you can see down thread that many of us haven't even been holding this based on resolution of the ABB case, weo's mantra was that it was a "wildcard," and imo most of agreed w/that position.
fwiw.
this thing has traded so much at .15 i don't think you can really consider it to have any gap there.
that said, that's where it's going imo, but for fibonacci followers i think it has already done it's retrace and then some!
happy birthday Lick!
love that management apologist perspective buddy!
your 20% premium theory is severely FOS imo. this company has at least $3M in cash, neutralizing it's former negative debt-to-equity position, so even if it's only $3M, it's worth substantially more to INRA's "value" than the mere present value of the cash on hand.
and yes, people were expecting a lot more, but prolly not in the way you likely meant to imply.
the company's potential growth has been completely discountedto zero because of the massive bumbling of the opportunity of an OTCBB lifetime.
and now the pps is being punished for that perceived mis-handling...
JMO!
did you see me cheering Walt during the run up?
i did congratulate him for bringing the ABB case to a close, but that's about it (and for that he does deserve some kudos).
however, when people have asked me on-board and off about my views of mgmt, i have consistently stated that their IR sucks!
this board has done more for INRA's exposure than any board should ever have to (meanwhile they were paying Agoracom to do that and you could see actually tumbleweeds blowing across that board some days).
you can certainly check my posts down thread to see these same complaints asserted again & again.
bottom line is few if any of us are holding INRA b/c of Walt (maybe some sycophants are, but doubt they are in the majority).
most of us have been holding this for the potential that Coroware represents, and the possibilities of Ashcroft delivering major defense contractor business (and the NASA deals give INRA credibility towards that end), and the inevitable explosion of robotics in general, and to some lesser extent, the resolution of the ABB case (which i *still* believe we have not seen the whole thing, fwiw).
so, yeah, having faith in the co. includes faith in mgmt to some degree... but there is more to INRA than Walt's fiefdom.
attitudes here did not change quickly and you can see all of that in prior posts by most of the "regulars" here.
guess we were all sorta coming to a conclusion that things had changed in terms of the Ft. Myers managerial disregard for developing the breadth and strength of support in the micro-cap investment community.
maybe it has or is, but apparently not on the retail side of that equation.
hey Arrow, Cornell's .25 warrants cover the Walt fund for another 15 months!!!
big time holder's remorse here & no more "loyal long" for me.
will always take a strictly trading viewpoint from now on, and will always sell into any expectations, at least as long as the decisions are being made in Ft Myers.
if they used a Silicon Valley-styled meritocracy instead of a friggin' fiefdom management approach, INRA would be a totally different company imo.
my apologies to anyone who inferred anything from my enthusiasm, but fwiw, i didn't sell any INRA. in fact bought more expecting some sort of bounce, instead we got quicksand...
this stock could be running towards a dollar so easily under just slightly different circumstances.
should step down as CEO imo and let Lloyd run the company.
suspect we'd be chasing $.50 right now if that were the case... AND doubt INRA would be buying some CNC garage right now (ever?).
when is CIRT going to the AMEX wormfood?
LMAO!!!! scam stock, scam results... JMO!
expecting permanent subpenny by May (at least until the next RS).
Storm Warnings For CEOs
guess Walt doesn't read Forbes...
Storm Warnings For CEOs
Harold Burson 03.02.07, 6:00 AM ET
No company can afford to ignore that a significant portion of its revenues, in one way or another, comes from public entities influenced by public opinion. The challenge for global corporations and their CEOs, especially those of U.S. origin, will be finding safe harbor from a series of circumstances that are the equivalent of a perfect storm.
At no time in our more than two centuries of nationhood have overseas public attitudes toward the U.S. been at so low a level. This is borne out by a BBC World Service poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries released in late January that showed just 29% feel the U.S. has a mainly positive influence on the world.
And, at no time since corporations came into being in the U.S. about 150 years ago have they and their CEOs been held in such low esteem by the American public. The reasons are, of course, well known, starting with the misdeeds of such giants as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco (nyse: TYC - news - people ) and continuing with CEO greed concerning compensation and the widespread abuse of option pricing practices. Corporate governance is an issue of intensive government oversight that will accelerate in the Democratic-majority Congress and among major investors, especially public pension funds whose administrators are themselves under scrutiny by pension beneficiaries.
Given the environment in which today's global U.S.-based corporation operates, how should it respond in order to gain the public acceptance that enables it to accomplish its corporate objectives--rewards to investors, a good work environment, satisfied customers and a reputation as a good corporate citizen?
First, what's required is a commitment to public relations at the highest levels of corporate management and governance. Both the CEO and the board of directors must understand that the modern corporation exists by public sufferance of its actions. Nor is passive support sufficient. The CEO must demonstrate a commitment to public relations, and the evaluation of public relations as it is translated into reputation should be the responsibility of a standing committee of the board.
Second, as profit responsibility and geographical spread have proliferated among large global corporations, it's imperative that the company be able to speak anywhere in the world with a single voice--especially in times of crisis or other significant occasions. Nowadays, many corporations realize that with the advent of new technology, the media reports news, especially bad news, with unimaginable speed. It boils down to this: If corporate reputation is important, it is imperative that corporations prepare themselves with people and equipment that can transmit information as efficiently as the news media reporting on their actions.
And third, corporations and their CEOs must be both responsive and proactive in dealings with their various publics. The emphasis in recent years has been on responding to a fixed agenda--reporting and commenting on earnings, introducing new products, announcing new appointments and the hundreds of subjects raised by reporters interested in a specific issue or story possibility.
The fact is, however, that few corporations today have their own active agenda to promote their initiatives and objectives, i.e., "This is how we are perceived today; this is how we want to be perceived two or three years in the future." This represents a fertile area for public relations involvement.
During the past 20 years or so, the vague word "communications" and the pejorative "spin-control" have been used as definitions for "public relations." This has had the result of debasing the breadth of what the corporate public relations function entails, i.e., working alongside the CEO and senior management in the development of policy that reconciles corporate goals with public expectations and communicating those policies, decisions and actions to relevant stakeholders. A better description of the task would be "public relations is doing good and getting credit for it."
Harold Burson is the founding chairman of the worldwide public relations firm Burson-Marsteller.
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/03/01/storm-warnings-for-ceos-oped-cx_hb_0302burson.html
he's a puppet for some jerk in Ft. Myers.
ever notice how he can never explain anything beyond his script?
never any details, analysis, links, etc. just a bunch of BS surrounded by "IMOs"