GoodGuyBill Thursday, 12/07/17 05:39:22 PM Re: GoodGuyBill post# 148301 Post # of 149246 By the way DoGood, I appreciate your posts and think we are on the same side regarding NWBO. We both think they will be successful and give LP goo-gobs of credit. I just believe we should be getting the info as communicated or given a reason why. Hope i expressed myself in a respectful and non-offensive way. Quote:No. Not at all, DoGood_DoWell. LP, in February, already provided an update on the P3 OS threshold and the approval process (specifically datalock) with completion estimates ("several months" for OS events and "multi-months" for datalock). Now, after she puts this info out there, a lawyer advises her to not to provide further data? Are you suggesting that sometime after the February PR, a lawyer directed LP to clam up? If so, that can't be good. I am not a lawyer (don't know if you are) but I question whether an attorney has anything to do with this. We cannot keep speculating as to why we shareholders (technically part-owners of the company) are no getting the basic and fundamental info when LP, through a PR, told us when to expect this info! LP should give us the info or tell us why she can't before she asks us to provide shares for possibly more dilution! Regarding Cofer: the internal investigative report was to be done in 90 days. It's been 2-3 years. The screen halt was in place for approx 2.5 years but has been lifted. We still don't know what that was about. Do you think management should be able to spend whatever they want with no transparency and accountability? The results (in terms of PPS and MC) of the $ billion they are ready raised and spent strongly suggest no! Quote: So if Linda were receiving advice on what to do, should she listen to you or to Cofer? Or her lawyers?