I'm not looking to spar with you, but more fittingly, the ring and the opponent found me. Actually, in your haste to dodge bullets, you neglected to accurately interpret my objective: to encourage your honesty and clarity.

In this repost of yours, your comment--that Neurology's lifting of the limits is an endorsement of Corx's contention that the anomaly was an artifact--was misleading to me. That's why I presented it. Keep in mind, you wrote this after Psychiatry shot down the ADHD IND with CX-717, so it was not clear to me that your remarks my have been an opinion only in retrospect (as you refer to your remarks in the present tense, not the past, for example, the italicised 'is' which I paraphrased above), based on the information we had received from Neurology.

This point does, however, highlight your gross misjudgment (during the time interval between Neurology's response on AD and Psychiatry's response on ADHD) on the very delineation you just provided (in your 'retort') regarding the incongruous dynamic of the two involved divisions of the FDA:

In closing, let me ask you, how do you now know that the FDA has a problem with chronic dosing of CX-717, when Corx never even attempted (at least publicly) to resume the AD PET trial, for which they were given full privileges by the FDA to continue? I'd say that is more than a little presumptuous, unless you know something we don't.

Ps. Did you see PRAN shares skyrocket 300% on a little mouse study for AD last week? Did you notice that increasing BDNF was highlighted as one of the positive attributes of their drug? Corx mgmnt's biggest failure will probably be tied to their inability to make any headway with their molecules for AD, given all their time to move it. It's a crime that this indication just sits on a company shelf...

Let me take a stab at it...scam/scheme, deception, con, manipulation, paid advert, baseless pump, bunko, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, swindle or bamboozle? Did I miss any related synonyms?

I believe Corx mgmnt has that symbol reserved...:)

About Face!:



neuroinv Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:36:58 PM

Re: upndown1313 post# 11919 Post # of 36142

Curious how you are leaving out the most important piece of data, Neurology's response. There is much speculation--expressed by Gfp--as to whether Neurology might have given Cortex some behind-the-scenes warning about chronic use. Obviously, I wasn't part of those discussions, so I can't prove it one way or the other--but I have heard nothing in or between the lines that leads me to that conclusion. The point has also been made that Neurology gradually--and this was over the span of many months--loosened the limits on a trial which involves no ongoing dosing. To what degree can this be seen as duration-specific? Given that the FDA in general is under immense pressure to avoid anything that smacks of a safety risk (that's fact, not opinion); my opinion, and presented as such, is that if Neurology believed that this artifact was not an artifact, but instead indicated something that could represent a toxicology problem, that they would not have permitted acute dosing either. After all, where would be the line between OK duration and non-OK duration in humans? That doesn't mean they wouldn't monitor trials very closely, but the fact that the limits were lifted is IMHO an endorsement by Neurology of Cortex's contention that it is an artifact.

Which means that your statement <<our own Neuroinvestment gave the chance of rejection as only 5% based in part on Stoll's opinions, suggests that the 'slam dunk" attititude was misleading to investors and possibly based on poor scientific analysis>> is misleading itself, presuming that since my opinion was wrong, that it must mean that either Stoll was misleading and/or Cortex was incompetent. You can't justify leaving out Neurology, which had a lot of time to go over the data (whether or not they actually did, is of course, open to conjecture). If you read back over my comments on the issue, they were very much based on what Neurology had done. So, it would be prudent to include all THREE pieces of data before throwing proverbial stones.

You seem to be overlooking the FDA's decision regarding AD. In addition, we don't know the content of the infamous rejection letter.

Ps. Maybe CX 717 is okay, per se. Could be that there was some type of ethical lapse which rattled the FDA. We don't know what really happened or went wrong, we just know that not much has gone right since...

It's an interesting spin, but involves inconsistent logic and unrealistic stretching.

Today is a nice fumble recovery, but the ball is still in the hands of butterfingers...

No.

Corwatcher-Looking over the THLD press release (a couple posts ago), I noticed something that was written, "The Company intends to use the proceeds of this financing to complete its ongoing clinical trials evaluating TH-302..." Had Corx been this clear, it could have saved us plenty of bickering :) On the other hand, it doesn't definitively say whether they were impacted or not by a lack of funds, which is not the case in our sad little example. The Corx statements in question are these two:


and;

With new mgmt, anything is possible; with this mgmnt, very little is expected. That's not what I 'hear,' but what I 'see'...

This is not to imply that I would be in favor of a reverse split for Corx -- it is irrelevant (mostly moot), as you say, and much of that has to do with the predicament mgmt put the company in, and the fact that we are still plagued by them -- but there is an example of such a scenario. THLD executed an $18m private placement one week following their 1:6 reverse split (Aug. 29th, 2008). That figure represented ~ 1.5x's the market cap of the company at the time (~ 6.2m shares @ ~ $2 ps). Here's the PR:

Threshold Pharmaceuticals Completes $18 Million Private Equity Financing

REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Sep 2, 2008 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX News Network) -- Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:THLDD), today announced that its previously announced private placement of Threshold common stock and warrants received shareholder approval and has been completed. Threshold sold 8,970,574 shares of its common stock at $2.04 per share, and warrants to purchase up to 3,588,221 shares of its common stock for gross proceeds of $18.3 million and net offering proceeds of approximately $17.0 million. The warrants have an exercise price of $2.34 per share, subject to adjustment, and an expiration date of August 29, 2013. The number of shares of common stock issued and exercisable under the warrants, the purchase price of the common stock and the exercise price of the warrants described in this paragraph give effect to the reverse stock split effected by the Company as of August 20, 2008.

"We are extremely pleased that several high-quality, new investors joined our existing major shareholders, including both investors and members of the company's management team, in this financing," said Barry Selick, Ph.D., Threshold's chief executive officer. "This financing will enable us to evaluate the activity of TH-302 against several cancer types in multiple clinical trials."

The Company intends to use the proceeds of this financing to complete its ongoing clinical trials evaluating TH-302, its Hypoxia-Activated Prodrug (HAP) for the treatment of various solid tumors and, pending promising results from those trials, to initiate at least one controlled Phase 2 clinical trial of TH-302 alone or in combination with chemotherapy, on preclinical activities related to another HAP clinical candidate, and for general corporate purposes, including working capital.

The shares and warrants sold in the private placement and the shares issuable upon the exercise of the related warrants have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), or state securities laws, and may not be offered or sold in the United States without being registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or through an applicable exemption from SEC registration requirements. The shares and warrants were offered and sold only to accredited investors. Threshold has agreed to file a registration statement with the SEC covering the resale of the shares issued in the private placement and the shares issuable upon the exercise of the warrants.

This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of any of the securities referred to in this news release in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to the registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state. Any offering of the Company's common stock under the resale registration statement referred to in this news release will be made only by means of a prospectus.

About Threshold Pharmaceuticals

Threshold is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of therapeutics for the potential treatment of cancer. By selectively targeting abnormally-proliferating tumor cells, the Company's drug candidates are designed to be potentially more effective and less toxic to healthy tissues than conventional treatments. For additional information, please visit our website (www.thresholdpharm.com).

Sc-I'm not sure about the reverse merger, but I see a reverse split (1:6) back in 2008. It seems the share price now is virtually the same (on a split adjusted basis). Here is the PR:

Threshold Pharmaceuticals Announces Reverse Stock Split
REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Aug 20, 2008 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX News Network) -- Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:THLDD) today announced the effectiveness of a reverse stock split. Effective today, every six shares of the Company's common stock will be combined into one share of common stock; holders of fractional shares created by the reverse stock split are entitled to receive a cash payment equal to the value of such fractional shares.

The reverse stock split affects all of the Company's common stock and warrants outstanding, including the amount of shares issuable under the Company's 2001 Equity Incentive Plan and 2004 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the amount of shares of common stock and warrants to purchase shares of common stock issuable by the Company in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement entered into by the Company on July 9, 2008. The reverse stock split reduces the number of shares of the Company's common stock outstanding from 37,460,970 shares to approximately 6,243,495 shares. In addition, the Company has filed an amendment to its Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation which has reduced the number of authorized shares of common stock from 150,000,000 shares to 50,000,000 shares. The number of authorized shares of preferred stock will continue to be 2,000,000 shares. Beginning today, as a result of the reverse stock split, the Company's common stock will trade for 20 trading days under a new ticker symbol on Nasdaq: THLDD. The "D" will be removed from the trading symbol as of the open of business Thursday, September 18, 2008. The Company's common stock will also trade under a new CUSIP number.

Stockholders who have existing stock certificates will receive instruction from the Company's transfer agent, BNY Mellon Investor Services, on how to receive new stock certificates. Stock holders who have their certificates in "Street Name" or on deposit at their brokerage firm need to do nothing further.

The Company's stockholders approved the reverse stock split and the amendment to the Company's Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation at a meeting on May 13, 2008. The Company's Board of Directors set the ratio for the reverse stock split on August 13, 2008. The reverse stock split is expected to enable the Company to regain compliance with the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement for continued listing on The NASDAQ Capital Market.

About Threshold Pharmaceuticals

Threshold is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery and development of drugs targeting Tumor Hypoxia, the low oxygen condition found in microenvironments of most solid tumors. This approach offers broad potential to treat most solid tumors. By selectively targeting tumor cells, we are building a pipeline of drugs that hold promise to be more effective and less toxic to healthy tissues than conventional anticancer drugs. For additional information, please visit our website (www.thresholdpharm.com).

Forward-Looking Statements

Except for statements of historical fact, the statements in this press release are forward-looking statements, including statements regarding the potential future trading price of its common stock, continued listing on the NASDAQ market and potential therapeutic uses and benefits of Threshold's product candidates. These statements involve risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results to differ materially from those in such forward-looking statements. Potential risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, Threshold's ability to commence its anticipated clinical trials, the time and expense required to conduct such clinical trials and analyze data, issues arising in the regulatory or manufacturing process and the results of such clinical trials (including product safety issues and efficacy results), as well as Threshold's ability to regain compliance with the continued listing standards of The NASDAQ Capital Market. Further information regarding these and other risks is included under the heading "Risk Factors" in Threshold's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, which was filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on August 7, 2008 and is available from the SEC's website (www.sec.gov) and on our website (www.thresholdpharm.com) under the heading "Investors." We do not intend to update any forward-looking statement made in this news release.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

I'm calling your bluff...

My unanswered question to you (or others):


What complementary or raised leverage does Corx have now (over last year at this time)?

Another decent deal for microcap biotech with only early stage (phase 1) compounds (raised $30m at premium to market, with market cap of ~$64m):

Threshold Pharmaceuticals Announces Registered Direct Offering of $30 Million

Press Release Source: Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On Friday March 11, 2011, 9:21 am EST

REDWOOD CITY, Calif., March 11, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:THLD - News), today announced that it has agreed to sell approximately $30 million of its common stock and warrants in a registered direct offering. Threshold will issue an aggregate of 14,313,081 shares of common stock to investors together with warrants to purchase an additional 5,725,227 shares of common stock.

Each unit, consisting of one share of common stock and a warrant to purchase 0.4 of a share of common stock, will be sold at a purchase price of $2.10, which is equal to the consolidated closing bid price of $2.05 for the common stock as reported on the Nasdaq Capital Market on March 10, 2011, plus $0.05. The warrants will have a five-year term and an exercise price equal to $2.46 per share.

All of the securities were offered pursuant to an effective shelf registration statement. The Company intends to use the proceeds of this financing for research and development, working capital and general corporate purposes. The Company anticipates that the offering will close on March 16, 2011, subject to customary closing conditions, at which time Threshold will receive the cash proceeds and deliver the securities.

Cowen and Company acted as sole bookrunning manager for the offering. JMP Securities acted as co-lead manager for the offering. William Blair & Company, LLC acted as a co-manager for the offering.

Shelf registration statements relating to the shares of common stock and warrants issued in the offering (and the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of the warrants) have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and declared effective. A prospectus supplement relating to the offering will be filed by Threshold with the SEC. A copy of the prospectus for the offering can be obtained by eligible investors from their Cowen and Company sales representative, or from the offices of Cowen and Company, LLC c/o Broadridge Financial Services., 1155 Long Island Avenue, Edgewood, NY,11717, Attn: Prospectus Department. Phone (631) 274-2806 / Fax (631) 254-7140, or directly from Threshold by contacting Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1300 Seaport Boulevard, Suite 500, Redwood City, CA 94063. This announcement is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any shares of common stock or warrants of Threshold. No offer, solicitation or sale will be made in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale is unlawful.
_______________________________________________________________________

Haysaw 4, Apologists 0.

It's really quite simple. So what is off? Was it 3-4 months for the RD deal, not 4-5? I'll take your prior response as your concession, unless you would like to state a consequential fact that counters my summary.

In the meantime, what complementary or raised leverage do we have now?

Davidal-You're making me dizzy. Either you have to hit the pillow, or I do. Never mind, I need my beauty rest anyway :)

Ps. Weren't some still seeing the limbo of the Organon/Shering/Merck compounds as a potential positive last year? That one could probably cancel out 1 of your 3 positives. Still, all three of them are mild in comparison to what we did have a year ago.

Last year we needed a partnership/deal. This year, we need that miracle that Neuro passed on (in favor of Corcept)...

Here is a contrast for you--last year at this time we had an unpartnered drug with clearly successful POC in two studies, in RD. It provided security for us and leverage for the company. I think the level of disappointment spiked, as the 30-45 days in which we were told a deal would be hammered, turned into 4-5 months. It was a boneheaded comment and a botched execution, which more than validated the concern and disgust which was expressed then. If I am skewing reality here, please let us know.

In the meantime, what complementary or raised leverage do we have now?

I think you are confusing your "baloney" with those you patronize. You might want to revise your list, as this one was your only complaint...and a myopic, perfunctory one at that.

I agree with you, especially on this part:

"I think Varney/Stoll tried their best to make it work"

Unfortunately, we needed more than that...

That, and their disconnected sense of entitlement, is what I have the greatest issues with.

Yes, sparky, be grateful Cortex hasn't stopped trading, lol. Stoll/Varney deserve tremendous credit for not letting this fall to zero..that much is obvious :)

Gfp, could it be their lack of vision/awareness that forced them to stay the course through the years, and not put their IP on the market, thus denying shareholders an earlier opportunity to cut losses (or lock in gains for the hypothetical lucky ones) and move on?

Ps. If you have any wherewithal whatsoever, I think it is probably quite difficult/rare to drive something down to nothing, especially when you have been increasing your intellectual property and advancing molecules all along the way (albeit at a tortoise's pace).

Ps. It is "amusing and illuminating" that you think this says nothing...

Thanks. I do struggle with it though--I'm generally a nice person with a tremendous heart. I just don't make it a practice to get too personal with people because it overwhelms me. But when provoked...

Unless you haven't noticed, this type of nonsense is where you go wrong. I've spent my life being underestimated...insulting me only makes me stronger. You, however, have lost your way...

Aiming:

Thanks for the suggestion...

Time to update the "miracle" waiting list:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=23705284


Re: Corcept<<I thought the company was finished. How did they ever manage to leverage their failed drug into a $200 market cap on the basis of a trial in Cushing's Disease?>>

{Neuro}:


<<what's a better value here: COR at $.71 and a $28 million market cap or CORT (Corcept) at $4.00 and $140 million market cap?>>

{Neuro}:

Score: 3-0...Haysaw:

Corcept Therapeutics Announces Closing of $44.9 Million Underwritten Public Offering of Common Stock

Press Release Source: Corcept Therapeutics On Wednesday January 26,

2011, 4:05 pm EST

MENLO PARK, CA--(Marketwire - 01/26/11) - Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated ("Corcept") (NASDAQ:CORT - News), a pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic and psychiatric disorders, today announced the closing of its previously announced underwritten public offering of 10,000,000 shares of its common stock, as well as 1,500,000 additional shares of its common stock pursuant to the full exercise of the over-allotment option granted to the underwriters. The public offering price was $3.90 per share and the aggregate net proceeds from the public offering were approximately $41,859,000.

The shares were issued pursuant to a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 previously filed with and declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Corcept also filed with the SEC a prospectus supplement dated January 21, 2011 with respect to the offering. Stifel Nicolaus Weisel and Leerink Swann LLC were joint book-running managers and JMP Securities and Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc. were co-managers.

Corcept intends to use the net proceeds from the offering to fund research and development activities, including clinical trials, to fund commercialization activities, to fund working capital and for general corporate purposes.

This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities of Corcept, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any state or jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such state or jurisdiction.

The JimHaynes post scstocks just provided echos my feelings on this relationship (with the neuro/mgmt supporters) pretty accurately. I only wish my discourse was as civil and concise as JimHaynes' was most of the time. I find myself stuck in the same role as he.

I find Neuro to be an excellent reporter and story teller; the former as it relates to the CNS industry, and the latter as it relates to Cortex. There is something beguiling about his on-topic input that I cannot trust, he is just too close to the situation for comfort. The most puzzling is his lack of fair evaluation of mgmnt--and that he thinks he is clever enough to just ignore it and be fairly judged solely on the content he chooses to provide. There is clearly something missing in his analysis, and that is downright despicable given those who seek, and invest on, his advice. I find it unethical.

I've been hard on mgmnt--too hard--but I've admitted to such behavior and embellishment. I do think they are overcompensated pigs with little self-awareness of their poor leadership, thus the low blows. Neuro's unwavering support to all of this nonsense just adds to the spite. This opinion is all based on their respective actions. I don't think they are the exception when it comes to the current business model (mgmnt), and I do think they are probably good people to those who know them. I also think they show up every day and care; I just don't think they have a reasonable sense of urgency, inherent ability to adapt, or a solid vision. Nor do I think they have been effective whatsoever as it relates to one primary obligation--raising capital. The majority of financings have been on horrendous terms. There have been virtually no partnerships during my involvement. That is unacceptable, given all the potential indications Corx could target. They have squandered too much money, time, and potential. These variable cannot be ignored, hence the contentious relationship with Neuro, who chooses to divert our attention with a singular focus on the macro-environment challenges...

Did you overlook 'dfraid'. Clearly, he is afraid of my attacks and wants me censored. Credit to him--I like his nickname for me: hacksaw :)

Anything on the lousy micro cap CNS comparison front? If your earlier response to me involved genuine interest, you might want to solicit some assistance and generate some names. I'd be interested in making some comparisons--to see where our mgmnt really stands in relation to their 'peers'.

It was around .80c to .68c or something. It was after CX-717 was shot down for ADHD. He woke up with vigor at that point. I could feel the overpowering sense of clarity in his communication. Even he knew he should have vacated the stock much, much earlier. He was straight too; he only blamed himself. I couldn't agree more with many of his views.

I guess so. It's the high price one must pay for confronting authority and exposing their weaknesses. I admit, my tact isn't very dispassionate and palatable--I'm a sensitive guy who can hold a grudge. Neuro can be a real dick, and I'm easily provoked--especially when comments are filled with arrogance. Still, I have no regrets and feel I'm serving a decent purpose. I feel comfortable speaking my mind in writing, and scarily so. What did Meryl Streep's character say in Doubt--Sometimes you have to turn your back to God to do God's work? It was something like that. I feel they deserve the viciousness I unleash, as they too are guilty of the same towards me. Some of my pet peeves (which I am not necessarily innocent of myself in some cases): hypocrisy, arrogance, abuse of power, deception, manipulation, close-mindedness, narcissism, etc.

Thanks, man, I'm getting beat up pretty good over on the Corx board. I needed that appreciated attempt at humor :)

Looking back, I have more appreciation for the wisdom of JimHaynes then ever. This guy totally nailed it--3 1/2 years ago. I hope he is doing well. I encourage others to go back and read some of his commentary. It's like time has been frozen in place since then. The one I'm responding to is one of his best, of which there are many. I will copy it here to save you the extra 'click':

Yup-Just like I said:

You pulled a small section of what I said and challenged it by....challenging it. This is what I wrote immediately afterwards:

Rather than accepting the challenge, you approached this the way I was trying to avoid (generalizing). We can't get anywhere unless your defense includes an offense. Simply picking apart a portion of what I said, without acknowledging my suggestion on how to counter my argument, is counterproductive. There very well may be some good examples of companies with decent drug progress/advancement and decent mgnmnt, that just can't catch a break the last 3-4 years--and I am encouraging that type of discussion--but like Corx (and the apologists) themselves, the end result just seems to be excuses, defensiveness or cowering.

Stoll really showed them, didn't he? Well played Stoll, well played.

You're missing the point: I've provided examples--the 'other side' has provided generalizations. Balls in their court. I didn't look far--I just looked at companies that bare some resemblance to Corx that I loosely follow.

I've already pointed out that we shouldn't compare corx to the total failures (yet), and by comparing them to the other near failures (those hanging on by a thread, like them), we are lumping them with a sad and sickly ilk, not the type of ambitious comparisons that inspire investment capital, if you know what I mean.

So Aiming, what good does it do for us to compare Corx to losers? It simply attempts to rationalize/validate that they themselves are losers, or that it is an acceptable fate to lose, like the others. Have it your way, but I would rather compare them to companies that do improvise, adapt, and overcome the difficult circumstances and achieve mild successes, like maintaining some reasonable valuation/market cap.

With that said, please provide me with some micro cap CNS companies who are in the same shitty position Cortex is in. Then we can scrutinize more carefully--based on recent advances and developments (let's say, the last 3-4 yrs)--whether the comparisons are good enough to suggest that mgmnt should not be held mostly accountable.

What's rare is to have successes with your lead drugs and continue to fail miserably in the market (unless, say, you have a plethora of death-spiral financings in play). The generalizations of biotech 'as a whole' are very lazy misrepresentations. I've recently pointed out a couple companies in the neurological field who have had no difficulties in the last two years raising plenty of money, and at excellent pps levels in relation to their 52 week range. If you want to make a case opposing my negative views of the mgnmnt team, you might want to try a little harder. You can start by invalidating my examples/comparisons, or providing some recent biotech blowouts of your own. Then, we can attempt to compare/contrast Corx to your examples, to gauge how fair your comparisons are.

Ps. It is sort of ridiculous for you to claim that mgmt doesn't suck, even on some levels, for plenty of reasons:

1) You are a dedicated follower of this company/board and do not own shares--especially at this pathetically low price. This is not the 'pony express' era, so .16c in the brokerage account doesn't exactly pass muster (unless you're flat broke, which, if that were the case, I retract this point).

2) You feel Davidal makes a lot of sense with his prediction of a buy-out in the next 90 days.

3) You have expressed your low opinion many times of current mgmnt regarding communication, past mgmnt regarding trial designs, as well as with the surprisingly lengthy timelines accompanying Corx events, even by traditional biotech standards.

4) The new Ampakine compounds 'excite' you (The renewed patent life, the quality and potency of the new compounds, etc.)

5a)You expect interest by multiple parties for the Ampakine platform if they shop themselves around, which you believe may be the case right now.

b)...And if they stay the course, well, good mgmt, good price, good molecules, decent POC in 3 indications, whatcha waitin' for?

I wouldn't say that. Irrespective of what they do from here on out, they inarguably suck (the fact that some people choose to ignore that fact, does not diminish the truth of the matter). However, if they sell, it means they finally decided to put shareholder interests--and that of advancing the science--above their own personal motives. This would be a welcome contrast, and would lessen the degree to which they 'suck'. If they continue doing what they do, maybe they get lucky (again, due to the science), but they will likely have reoccurring difficulties with integrity, vision, execution and communication--the albatross this team just can't shake loose.

Yup, Gfp, jump on board, we are a screaming buy here at 14 centeroos!!! Or are we??? Only Ombow knows...:)

Let me go out with this quote (from Buzz Lightyear of Toy Story fame): "To infinity and beyond!"

Isn't fantasy great?

Really Corwatcher? Some useless BOD's get refreshed on low priced options this year (or this season, I can't keep up) as a form of payment, and you think that's exciting someone? What part is exciting? The possible (but not necessarily probable) dilution that comes with it?

That's bullshit. I have had a genuine and unique perspective all along. Get specific or shut up. My criticisms have been very much 'in sync' with the trend of this disgusting stock chart. Tell me where your cherished optimists have led you?

If you're going to try and put me down, at least say something substantial or specific.

Btw-We've already been delisted--so the entire argument is moot. Why waste time with this if you don't want to engage in argument (ie. battle)? Furthermore, why argue if the goal isn't to be successful in your position (ie. victorious)? Just something for you to think about.

Ps. Thanks for your concern, but my only issues on this board relate to the injustices [on this board] and with this company. So don't worry about my personal life and personal time: I do just fine.