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.
427Cobra:
I am posting this on the public forum for two reasons. First, I told you many times that I will not participate in any further semantic arguments with you in private mail. Second, I wanted to point out publicly that you are the one being disingenuous. You said publicly that you had said your piece, yet you continue to harass me over this matter in private mail.
Regarding Swopes, I made no judgment of the man's character other than to point out that he has accepted compensation to associate himself with this company, just as a long list of others have. None of those other associations brought anything of value to this company. Those are indisputable facts. Holding Swopes up as some kind of iron-clad evidence that this company is legitimate holds no more water than the other names that have come and gone.
I can't make it any clearer than that. If you want to continue to insist that there is a more nefarious meaning to my post, then you just go right ahead.
I have said this before, and it bears repeating. For some odd reason, you seem compelled to parse my every word, and try to trap me in some kind of semantic inconsistency to discredit my posts.
Why don't you hold this company to the same semantic standard and level of accountability that you hold me? I have asked you this repeatedly. I believe this is a question that deserves and answer.
"Anyone has a price", implies that they are bought and paid for, and you include his name with the ones that "have a price".
You are making unfounded inferences as to my intentions. Swopes is accepting compensation for his participation. It is as simple as that. If that, in your opinion, means "bought and paid for" then you have to reconcile that with yourself.
That isn’t correct. Just because something is improved upon, does not make it worthless.
By writing the ANI investment off as a total loss, Rim has declared it to be worthless, formally and officially. If you don't understand that, then you need to bone up a bit on your financial reporting requirements.
Are you saying categorically that they added no value to the company tech?
No. The writedown in the filing stated it categorically.
I don’t think I have said anything about Swope except to point out that based on his history, you had no basis to discredit him. Who is putting words in whose mouth?
I did not discredit him. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I included him in a long list of people who have been held up as irreproachable icons of the validity of this company, only to have later left the company or have been demonstrated as having contributing nothing of value.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation, since you want to attack me for only pointing out the obvious message in what you wrote and calling you on it. So respond all you want but I have said my piece.
You clearly missed the "obvious message" in what I wrote. As if on cue, you now take the dubious path of righteous indignation, rather than address the facts of my post. You attack me, and then accuse me of being the attacker. You obfuscate and misdirect, but add nothing of substance. Your tactics are tired and ineffective.
That is especially egregious since he seems to have proven himself with Intel.
I feel compelled to add one more thought. This is yet another of your patented deflection and obfuscation attempts. You assault my character by putting words in my mouth and making false accusations, while completely ignoring the obvious point of my post.
I added Swopes' name to a well documented and verifiable list of "notables" who have endorsed this company in the past. None of those "notable" endorsements have resulted in a single tangible benefit to shareholders, and each of the previous "notable" endorsements endorsed a technology that the company formally and publicly abandoned as worthless. While this history is no guarantee that Swopes' "notable" endorsement will be similarly worthless, the trend is obvious and undeniable.
Frankly, it sickens me to think back at all of the hype and glitter that people like you spewed about the likes of Greaves and Propp when their names were associated with this company. The exact same platitudes that you now apply to Swopes were then applied to the previous "notables". Yet, the company continued its deception and unfulfilled promises, and people like you give them a pass, while gleefully embracing the latest "notable" endorsement.
I repeat all of this because I will not stand idly by, while you repeat your strategy of attacking the messenger to discredit the message. You completely ignored the factual content of my post and instead tried to discredit me personally. This tactic clearly demonstrates that you have no interest in truth, only spin.
Spoke used to make a big deal about Intel giving funding to Ikanos
No.
I didn't. Not ever.
I didn't even know that Ikanos hot funding from Intel. You, like CObra, are being dishonest.
YOu and Cobra are reading from the same page in the manual. It would probably be more convincing to mix rhings up a little.
spoke: So you are making a judgment on a man's character knowing almost nothing about him
I made no judgment beyond pointing out that other "men of character" have also come and gone in the past, and that Swopes is being compensated.
Stop putting words in my mouth. It's dishonest.
I suppose that would be me. And it still makes no more sense than it did originally.
This company has a long history, stretching nearly a decade now, of events that have spawned the question "Why would <insert name here> be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?" Sadly, all of the stellar names that have been associated in the past are no longer so, and the technologies they were associated with have been abandoned for the latest "disruptive" flavor of the month.
Why would Lucent be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Fleischmann-Hillard be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Cambridge University be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Propp be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Greaves be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would that graduate student (whats his name...) be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would ANI be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Cooper be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would HelloSoft be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Cruckshank be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Mulder be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would McLoed be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
Why would Sweeney be involved with this company if it wasn't legitimate?
There are many more. A long list of "notables" who have lent their names to this company for technological ventures that have today proven to be failures.
But, these names, like Swopes, all serve an important purpose. First, they prove that anyone has a price. But more importantly, they perpetuate the myth that "so-and-so would not be involved if this company was not legitimate."
You know, the fact that you are employed by 3M, a company affiliated with one of Rim's potential competitors in the same market. Seems to me there is an axe to grind AND a serious bias issue here.
Not to speak for Bill, as I'm sure he can speak for himself on this, but the affiliation with 3M and Phylogy began in April of 2007. Bill has been "grinding his axe" for a lot longer than that.
Contrary to what you seem to believe, there are actually many intelligent, reasonable people who believe that this is a scam, without the need to ulterior motives. No conspiracy theories necessary.
But I won't jump to any conclusions as I am sure you have an explanation.
Yeah, way to restrain yourself there, jjz...
<rolls eyes>
On the Rim website is states that the product is a development system "engineered to simplify the testing, evaluation and qualification process for R&D and product development teams...
On the Rim website, they also still have a pirated photoshopped picture of someone else's product that they are calling their "line card".
I would take what they put on the web site as nothing more than deceptive hype.
The test results represent a breakthrough if they are validated by the industry, but without disclosing all of the test parameters, I am not certain that they mean much (as the company designated itself "best in class".)
You're right. The test results mean nothing without knowing the parameters and without independent testing.
Remember that this whole thing started with Cu@OCx that was supposedly "tested" by Lucent to do 52Mbps at 20,000 feet (or something like that). That, as we now know, was completely bogus.
They purported bogus test results before. There is no reason to believe that they aren't doing the exact same thing now. There is nothing to indicate that they are actually telling the truth, and every indication is that they are just blowing smoke.
None of this really tells how long it would take to go to the fab if there are ever purchase orders.
There won't be purchase orders before they actually fab a product (not that I believe they ever will). In this industry nobody purchases a semiconductor product before it is being manufactured in volume. The market moves much to quickly, and too much can go wrong in the fab process.
By "breadbox", I'm pretty sure he meant "breadboard", which is an old term for an electronic device is a crude prototype form.
The 10K also says:
At the present time, we have no commitments for any additional financing, and there can be no assurance that, if needed, additional capital will be available to us on commercially acceptable terms or at all.
I won't make any accusations of intent, but what you posted was simply not true. Only you know if it was a lie or not.
Since the last financing was for $6 mil and they only took $3.5 it appears that they have $2.5 mil available.
Sorry. No. From the 10Q:
In September 2007, an institutional investor that had previously invested in the Company committed to purchase $6 million of convertible debentures upon the Company’s request at any time through January 1, 2008.
It is apparently not valid anymore.
I was simply illustrating the fact that you said someone was lying without any proof or even ample evidence.
I'm not going to get into another misdirection semantic argument with you Sherman. Suffice it to say that the fact that the filing proved conclusively that there are indeed *not* 15 engineers working on this. Therefore, your statement was not true.
However, that's not the real story. Keep your eye on the ball.
I really don't understand how they pull it off. They don't even try to hide what's going on.
That's the insidious thing about this company. With the help of people like 427Cobra, Groovemaster, batman, ken chan and the likes who ceaselessly pump the virtues of this thing even in the face of obvious impending doom, the company manages to seduce new suckers every day.
Funny how some of you scream liar liar whenever there is a discrepancy.
Oh, come on Sherman. You can possibly know if I was screaming.
On a serious note, I understand your hostility, and I forgive you. I just wish you would direct your anger at the company where it belongs, rather than those of us who just point out the facts.
Seriously. This company is dead. It's time for you to face the facts.
omg i really,really feel bad for guys like groove....
There's one guy I'll never feel sorry for...
So shall we place bets on when we hit 100K?
As of October 31, 2007, we had an accumulated deficit of $90,689,341
They'd have to raise another 10 million to do it. Never gonna happen. I've seen this company in dire financial straits before, but I've never seen them with only $5000 in the bank.
Sooner or later the well will run dry. You can't keep up death spiral financing forever. Looks like the well is pretty much dry now.
I am interested in Sherman's take on this. He has always found a way to put some bizarre spin on these things in the past. This will no doubt be his ultimate spinning challenge.
A fee observations:
To date, we have not recognized any revenues related to the sale of our semiconductor products.
Clearly, the EC "purchase" was pure fantasy, but we knew that already.
As of January 25, 2008, we had cash of approximately $5,100.
That's not a misprint. They have only five thousand dollars of operating capital.
Pathetic.
We currently have fourteen full-time employees and one part-time employee.
That makes whoever told 427 that they had 15 engineers working on this thing a liar. I wonder how many employees they'll have at the end of the week when they can't make payroll.
We may need to increase the amount of authorized common stock in order to meet our obligations to the holders of our derivative securities or to conduct future equity transactions.
If they can keep the doors open until the SHM, look for either a reverse split, or another billion shares to be authorized.
With only five grand in the bank, I doubt that they can survive days, let alone months, though.
I now remember why I stopped following this stock. It is absolutely and utterly the walking dead. Anyone who can't see that is either paid by the company (not for long) or delusional.
There's a lot more, but these are my initial thoughts.
Sad...
"Based on this order from Extreme Copper and our expanding relationships with other equipment manufacturers, we are optimistic that we will see increasing revenues in the third quarter and for the fiscal year, added Mr. Ketch."
Sadly, there ended up being no order, and no revenue.
Yet another prediction of revenue that never materialized.
So, according to the July 10Q, they made significant design changes (and believe me, this would rank as significant) since the previous 10K (assuming they would report something this material in a "timely" fashion).
Not exactly. The "Q" stated that in the previous quarter they wrote down the value of the Adaptive IP. In other words, they stated that their previous revolutionary technology was worthless (again).
I don't recall seeing anything about the ASIC taping out. I find that highly unlikely. Link?
I say listen to him when he gives his opinion about technology, but be skeptical when it comes to his opinion of Rim.
I'll take that sentiment one step further. My advice is to be skeptical of anyone's opinion of Rim - including yours.
Your post implies that you know a lot more about Rim than I do. Your track record here says just the opposite. Year after year after year after year after year, you assure us that you know more about the inner workings of this company than guys like me, yet year after year after year after year after year, none of the great things that you say the company says are coming ever come to pass.
You never seem to take a critical look at this company yourself. They lie and deceive, over and over again, yet you continually give them a pass, while desperately trying to discredit people like me who point out those lies and deceit.
15 engineers? Where did that number come from? A typical fully-burdened EE will cost about $15,000 per month. 15 of them will cost about $225,000 per month. The last 10Q has G&A expenses for the previous three months of $311,563 after stock-based compensation has been accounted for. That includes executive compensation and accounts payable. If you take those out, there is virtually nothing left for compensation of "engineers". If they have 15 engineers, they're not paying them.
The "K" should further illustrate that there is a huge difference between what the company tells you and actual fact.
My apologies if this has been discussed here before...
I was just browsing the July 10Q so I could read the forthcoming 10K intelligently. I cam across this statement that was utterly shocking:
"As of July 31, 2007, the Company reassessed the underlying value of its technology due to the development of a new improvement to the Company’s existing data transport technologies. This development, which was completed in August 2007, replaces all of the original design elements that resulted from the Company’s strategic partnership with Adaptive Networks, Inc. (“Adaptive”) and improves certain design elements developed with Hellosoft. In June 2007, the Company filed a provisional patent application protecting technology that replaces certain aspects of prior versions of its CupriaTM semiconductor platform. The Company’s current technology does not utilize previously capitalized licenses and software that were incorporated into prior versions of the Company’s CupriaTM semiconductor platform. As a result of this new technology , the Company reviewed the recoverability of its capitalized technology licenses and software development costs and determined that as of July 31, 2007 the remaining book value of approximately $4.4 million was not recoverable based on estimated future cash flows to be generated from the licenses. Accordingly, the Company has recognized a loss on impairment of approximately $4.4 million in the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months and nine months ended July 31, 2007."
What this says is that all of the stuff that they touted as great and wonderful before has now been abandoned.
Here's the basic evolution of things:
Blevins and Shepard develop a new, revolutionary technology that will change the face of broadband as we know it.
This technology is later abandoned when it is discovered that it doesn't work.
The company then teams with Adaptive to develop an all-new revolutionary technology that will change the face of broadband as we know it.
This technology is, once again, later abandoned when it is discovered that it doesn't work.
The company then teams with HelloSoft to develop a new all-new revolutionary technology that will change the face of broadband as we know it.
So, in summary, this company has three times claimed to have done what the rest of the industry couldn't. The first two times, they later revealed that the technologies were bogus and buried their failures in obscure sections of the filings.
See a pattern here?
I believe you may have viewed the charts wrong. There should be no misrepresentation between the two chart claims.
5,280 ft or 5.3Kft = 1.6km
No, I didn't misread the charts. The DSL forum chart had both feet and meters on the x-axis. I actually know the difference, believe it or not.
Each show the same drop off rate in Mb/s and ultimately reach ~10-15Mb/s at around 1.6km
I submit that it is you who is reading the charts incorrectly. The DSL forum chart clearly shows VDSL2 dropping off to about 25Mbps at 1.6km, not 10 - 15. However, that was not my point. I was referring to the maximum throughput. The DSL forum chart lists the maximum throughput as well over 200 Mbps, but the Rim chart has it at 100 Mbps. The rest of the chart was similarly skewed.
So, if 12 MHz profile is the profile of choice for longer loops it appears be a valid point of comparision to compare 12 MHz VDSL2 vs. Cupria...
It is most definitely not an appropriate comparison for *short* distances (which Rim did) and without clearly qualifying it as a profile that is crippled over short distances (which Rim did not).
Oddly, the same Telcordia "report" PR gives no information other than vague puffery for longer distances. Why is that?
But, from everything that I have read VDSL2 DMT (in any profile) up to 30 MHz has not been able to provide 20-25 MBps of throughput at distances beyond 3-4 thousand feet which means carriers must spend a lot on fiber to shorten the copper loops.
That's definitely true. VDSL2 performs very well in lab test conditions, but, like any other long-range method, succumbs to the same kinds of problems inherent in long loops. Given that absolute lack of serious commercial interest, or for that matter, verifiable test results for Cupria, my guess is that it only looks good on paper too (oh, and in pirated photos too).
As I have said before, the laws of physics cannot be changed. The best minds in the business have moved the capacity of copper about as far as it can go with VDSL2. There's just no more "there" there.
You're new here aren't you?
I have been here since day one. I was one of the first posters on this board.
One more thing. To get an idea of how Rim twists the truth, look at their chart showing the VDSL2 performance curve here:
http://www.rimsemi.com/PDF/Cupria_brief.pdf
And compare it to a chart that shows the actual performance of VDSL2:
http://www.dslforum.org/learndsl/ppt/VDSL2_Tutorial-2005.ppt#314,8,VDSL2 Performance
Rim has blatantly misrepresented the performance of VDSL2.
Based on this article, it appears to me that 12 MHz was compared because that is the profile for longer loops and is what the Carriers are using in the US and Canada.
Yet, the PR touting Telcordia "report" made the direct claim that Embarq "...chips deliver up to 200 Mbps -- 100 percent faster than traditional VDSL2 technology." This is a direct comparison to the 100Mbps maximum that VDSL2 12a can do at 100m. In other words, the PR made artificial claims that Embarq was twice as fast over short distances as a VDSL2 profile that is crippled at short distances.
That's dishonest.
There would be no reason to compare 30 MHz applications if that spectrum is not being used.
I don't understand the argument. Nobody is using Cupria either...
Last I understood, profile 30a was in use in the US. If not, there are definitely plans to do so. There is nothing stopping anyone from using it.
Provide proof that I lied about anything, or admit that it is you who is the liar.
I'm waiting.
Spoke, everyone here knows that you are not a liar and you provided get info to the board. That guy cannot proove anything...
Nonetheless, repeatedly calling me a liar is a personal attack, and his posts that contain those accusations should be deleted. If it continues, he should be banned.
...I used to point out where Spoke was lying....
This has gone on long enough. I have been correct about everything I have said about this company over the years. Please provide proof that I lied about *anything* or stop accusing me of being a liar.
I generally don't bother to respond to your mindless ramblings, but this is at least the third time in recent days that you have blatantly called me a liar, and I am calling you down on it. All of my posts, and yours are in the archives. Show us all what you are talking about. Provide links. Prove your case.
Unless you can prove that I lied about *anything*, then it is in fact *you* who is the liar.
Put up or shut up.
Spoke, what if (just suppose) the IPSL standard catches on, do you think it will take great effort to deploy cupria widely? Do you think this scenario is possible with a new standard or are the chanced very slim?
First of all, IPSL is not a standard. It cannot be a standard until or unless it is ratified by some standards body, in this case, IEEE or ITU. It generally takes several years to get a new xDSL standard ratified, and judging by the absolute dearth of interest in IPSL, I don't see that ever happening.
The whole IPSL SIG is simply another red herring in a desperate attempt to generate interest in an otherwise dead company, IMO.
Cupria is actually a chipset in ADSl2+ modems from what we know.
Given the fact that Rim has openly admitted that Cupria is not compliant with the ADSL2+ standard (or any other standard) it cannot physically work in an ADSL2+ modem.
My guess is that the customer service rep was pretty much clueless.
OK, I just took a look at the ken_chan posts. This is the guy who predicted $1 billion in first-year sales, right?
Are you telling me that people actually take him seriously? I frankly saw nothing in his posts that would indicate to me that he is any more or less savvy than the typical cheerleader. He made a number of points that were either inconsistent or downright wrong.
My advice: take him, and anyone else who claims to know a lot about hte company but does not offer concrete details, with a grain of salt.
Tim
Any thoughts on Rims IPSL standard - does that even have a grain of merit or is it all hype just like everything else?
I commented on that many months (years?) ago when it was first announced that RIM would go "open source". My opinion then, and it hasn't changed, is that it a relatively stupid ploy to try to engender interest in a technology that is not standards-compliant.
Clearly, the industry has been shown to agree with me. There is no serious interest in IPSL, there is no product in production, and there are no sales.
Also, there is a new poster here named Ken_Chan who says he is a high profile engineer, can you comment on his posts to verify if they are vaild?
If I have time, I'll take a look, but I have to admit that I have virtually no interest in this company anymore. It is dead and has been for a long time. Some people are just too far gone to notice.
Tim
Hello everyone. Thought I would drop in and say hello. Seems like the last time I was here was when I caught RIM in yet another bogus line card photo fiasco...
I see that there are a few changes. Cosmo's checks must have run out since he is back on the dark side. It seems like there are a few new cheerleaders too, reading from the same old script. I suspect that they aren't all that "new".
Meanwhile, no product, and no revenues...still.
Truly pathetic.
Anyway, just wanted to say hello.
Tim
When will you stop lying? What is your true agenda here? Why do you lie?
For the life of me, I cannot understand why you don't ask the company these same questions...
You are being incredibly obtuse.
1) If someone makes a claim about Rims tech and it is not true, then it is securities fraud. No fraud is protected by safe harbor.
Rim made a claim that the picture showed their product in a line card. We all now know that is not true. I honestly don't see the difference. I already pointed out the loopholes in the other claims. Fraud? Maybe, maybe not. However, the lies that have already been proven speak volumes.
2) If the line card was done but not shipped to Rim yet for them to put their chips on, and they wanted to announce that it was done, they might use the same picture to represent the real thing that they showed to represent it May 1 at the shareholder meeting. Not what I would recommend doing without a disclaimer though. I also don't know that that was the case. However, as long as the line card is done then what they were representing (that the line card is done and ready for sale) was true.
That's nothing but a lame excuse for yet another fabricated picture and outright lie for a caption.
3) I don't see any point in discussions with people who think that the picture is more important than whether or not the tech is ready. And since they don't understand the seriousness of the statements from all of the people in the industry then it would be impossible to have a serious discussion about the tech.
I'm discussing honesty, Sherman, something you apparently do not understand. The company made another outright lie about a product in a photo, and you blithely tell us to ignore those lies and believe you.
What does that say about your honesty?
427 believes in "Intelligent Design". What else does anyone need to know about him?
I don't begrudge anyone's faith. While I don't subscribe to the idea, I know a lot of good, intelligent people who have strong religious beliefs. That is an intensely personal decision and one I won't try to talk anyone out of.
When people apply the same level of religious zeal to the deeds of men, I take issue. If you believe biblical passages simply because "it is written", I have no quarrel with that. However, I need more than "it is written" to convince me that the word of RIM is the one and only truth.
If the line card was done - they'd take an actual picture of it... no?
Exactly. There is only one reasonable explanation...
1)Do you believe that all of the following are lies for which the authors are guilty of securities fraud. These are pretty absolute statements and leave no wiggle room.
Every single one of those statements has miles of wiggle room. None of the Telcordia test parameters have been made public. Any good engineer worth his salt will tell you that those statements are worthless unless the test environment is known and is the same environment under which VDSL2 was tested.
The comment about offset QAM sound impressive, but what exactly does "absolutely at the leading edge" actually mean? It means nothing unless some data are provided to back it up.
It is also probably important to point out that all of those statements were made by people paid by the company. There is not, nor has there ever been, an independent test of the company's claims. Furthermore, each of those claims was followed by a "safe harbor" statement, and appeared in PRs from a company that has an undeniable history of dishonesty.
You do the math.
2) Rim built the current tech in 5 years. A manager with LSI said that with unlimited resources it would have taken 4 to 5 years minimum. If Rim has what they claim, do you feel that it took them too long?
I have no way to to verify this claim, but my experience with the semiconductor industry tells me that it is BS.
I hate to keep coming back to Ikanos for comparison, but there are undeniable parallels. They began their development at nearly the exact same time as Rim, yet they now have their third generation of product shipping in volume and have established themselves as industry leaders. Infineon has developed at least three complete, shipping generations of chips in the same time frame as well. Clearly, at least 3 generations of chips can be developed, produced and marketed in that time. Nah, don't give me that 4 to 5 years crap. It's just another excuse.
I would add in conclusion that if it is possible for this company to repeatedly fake pictures of products, it is possible for them to carefully craft statements that appear to make claims that aren't actually true. The only difference is that I was able to directly prove that the pictures were fake. They have a proven track record of dishonesty. People who are capable of critical thought would bring everything they say into question because of their proven dishonesty.
You seem to be taking the position that they are only lying about the pictures, and we should simply trust you that everything else is truth.
Nah. I ain't biting.
Oh, and one more thing. As I said to you in PM, I have no interest in these silly arguments that we seem to find ourselves in. You and I simply have differing definitions of honesty. I only posted here, as I rarely do anymore, because I had discovered irrefutable proof that they had faked a picture of a product and had made bald-faced lies about the faked picture.
I have said this before, and I believe it to be a very salient point - if you were even a tiny bit as critical of the company as you are of me and my opinions, you might finally see what's going on. But, you aren't. You hold them accountable for nothing, and make excuses for everything. You are certainly welcome to that way of thinking, but stop trying to convince me. I know what honesty truly means.
Lest there be any confusion, here is the first message you sent me:
"It was the same picture shown May 1st at the shareholder meeting. It represented a line card with their FPGA's on it. As soon as a line card was done and they wanted to announce it, I am guessing they would not actually have the line card in their possession yet as it would have to be shipped to them and then they install their chips, so they used the picture from the SH meeting. To me it makes no difference. The only thing that matters is whether or not the line card was done when they said. They aren't selling pictures. If the line card is done, then there is no misrepresentation."
I see no fundamental difference between the two - they both completely dismiss the dishonesty of this company in essentially the same manner.
Here's a bit of hypocrisy for you - you incessantly give the company a pass, even make up excuses for them, for deception that has cost shareholders millions, has broken up marriages, and caused people to lose houses, yet you waste no time accusing me of deception when all I have done is point out the truth.
You are truly amazing. I still don't know how people like you sleep at night.