Hi coin,
this is just another typical example of "objective" conversation.
<<< C. Financing
1. In October 2005 Roger Gale said marr could finance Calypte to profitability with straight debt financing and no new dilution. >>>
Posted under Questions for CC ? What kind of question is implied with this statement ? None, just spreading negative stuff.
This statement of Oct 2005 has been based on the expectation that BED sales will develop as expected (which the sales actually did at that time). Based on the assumption that the BED sales show the corresponding development(which was very reasonable for everybody at that time -Oct 2005-) Roger's outlook at that time was perfectly in line with the company's situation.
It is improper to reiterate this statement now after the premises have unexpectedly changed in the meantime and put it up without pointing to the relevant context. This suggests Roger has no credibility and gives intentionally false statements or simply lies. Of course, this is not expressis verbis said here but it is one thing which words one uses and which understanding they can create. We have read this kind of statement multiple times from the same poster on the Yahoo board before and I guess this stylistic difference has only to do with the fact that he can be removed from this board much more easier.
In fact, the company has clearly informed the public right in time when the financial situation changed due to the problems with BED protocols.
Conclusion:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What we essentially have here (one more time again) is the attempt of discrediting the company's management by connecting their outdated statements with the recent situation.
Just an oversight ? No, seems to be the same old story. Not the kind of reasonable discussion ihub intends to have but some sort of subtile manipulation of the company's reputation.
Besides, this can be easily done with every company.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal
