“It's not opinion, it's fact. MAXD has never demonstrated any working "technology", ever.” No, in this specific case, it’s still an opinion. It’s one thing to state that technology already in the public was not “working,” as anyone could test MAXD and make that claim, it’s quite another to state that specific technology, which was never introduced to the public, and therefore could not have been tested by the board poster, was not “working.” The board poster has no way of knowing that for a FACT, therefore it is only an educated guess or opinion. Nothing more. Be honest about it.
“Trying to start a rumor,” “Shadowy unnamed executives,” and “Spring forth bucketloads of money,” are all provocative statements that have nothing to do with what I stated in my post. As detailed, I was attempting to counter the deflective Halpern statements that “John Blaisure was in charge until 2019” and should be blamed for all the MAXD failures, not Halpern. This meeting was one example of Greg Halpern overriding John Blaisure, not to mention Harvey Vechery, by not paying the engineers, with money loaned to MAXD for that specific purpose, which would have allowed them to complete their work on the project. Not paying the Qualcomm outside engineering firm for the work they performed on the voice technology, along with not paying the MAXD engineers, effectively ended the project. The voice technology was never completed so there was no deal to announce, and therefore, no technology for the public to test.
As I stated on the other board, I never said anything about Qualcomm or AT&T committing resources or for that matter, "meeting in a hotel room." Those are your words. It was in a corporate meeting room at the CES show in the Las Vegas Convention Center if that even matters. Qualcomm's outside engineers had already been working with MAXD to help develop the voice technology. AT&T committed during that meeting to provide their engineers to work with MAXD to adapt the voice technology to their phone. The only "resources" needed to complete the engineering would be from MAXD to make it work. That was the reason to get $250k from Harvey. He was the one who committed the resources to MAXD, not the other two. Those resources, the $250k, was committed by Vechery to MAXD after the meeting was over. In other words, Vechery's decision to fund the money was due to the reaction of the AT&T VP to the new technology. That is both provable and traceable. There was no reference to “bucketloads of money” being thrown at MAXD as that was never the case. Would MAXD have benefitted if the technology was approved by AT&T and a contract publicly announced? Of course. That is what I said and has nothing to do with “boatloads of money.”
The meeting was over four years ago and is dead in the water for the reasons mentioned. I’m sure the MAXD name would be laughed at if AT&T was approached right now, or anytime in the near future. That is not “trying to start a rumor” and for what purpose would that be done? The stock is on the Expert Market and will not be traded for some time. How would a “rumor” about a meeting four years ago result in a pump right now? This meeting has never been mentioned publicly before and was not used back then by anyone to pump the stock as there was no deal completed.
Naming “shadowy unnamed executives” would be inappropriate without first gaining their authorization, which I’m not inclined to do. To be perfectly clear, I don’t care whether you believe me or not. I have never asked anyone on these boards to “trust me” as I’m not asking anyone to invest. I’m simply posting facts and truths to counter the lies that have been posted for so many years by the “anonymous cutouts” mentioned in the post, as was the case with those working for Greg Halpern.
I’ve said this many times in the past on these boards, show me where I have “pumped the stock.” Show me one time where I’ve suggested anyone buy or sell the stock. It can’t be done as I’ve never said that and I’m not doing it now. Review my posts on Yahoo and IHUB and it will show I am not a pumper of any sort. I have openly stated my opposition to this form of online “marketing” of a stock as I think it’s unethical. The board poster refers to me as a “anonymous cutout” posting lies, which is not only offensive, but also a false statement. Show me the lies. Point them out. Am I “anonymous?” Yes. That is one of the pros and cons of posting online that we all must live with. Am I now, or ever have been, an employee, partner, subcontractor, or paid “minion” of MAXD or Harvey Vechery? No. I've stated repeatedly that I've never met the man or communicated with him in any way. Have I ever promoted or pumped this company or any other online? No.
No matter how many times it’s stated otherwise, the meeting happened as described in a corporate meeting room in Las Vegas at the CES show in January of 2019. Blaisure, Halpern, and Vechery were in attendance from MAXD. The president of Qualcomm set up the meeting. One of the VPs from AT&T was there. They were already at the CES show so they were not really going out of their way. The AT&T VP was taking the meeting at the request of the Qualcomm president. The purpose of the meeting was to demo the new MAXD Voice technology that Blaisure had been working with the MAXD engineers for over eight months. Blaisure had also been working with the outside engineering firm Qualcomm had referred to MAXD to help develop the specific technology. Having the voice technology in the AT&T device would have been a benefit to Qualcomm as well as to MAXD. The demo was first performed on the MAXD phone and then on the VP's cell phone. He liked what he heard and wanted to take the next step. No term sheets were written as it was the first meeting. As Halpern didn’t pay the engineers, it was also the last meeting.
“Yes, it's a fact that sounds very familiar....” For whatever it’s worth, this comment from Halpern yesterday certainly appears to be an admission from him that he remembers the meeting and he was there. Facts are facts. He can’t deny he wasn’t there as there were too many witnesses. The bottom line is that the conveying of this meeting was not designed to pump the stock or make MAXD look better, it was specifically to show how Halpern made the decisions and not John Blaisure.
