LocWolf, you wrote, "Personally, I think Mr. Fromholzer just wasn't clear enough and that investors are reading between the lines which is wrong." So, is it wrong to "read between the lines" whenever someone makes a public statement? If "reading between the lines" is wrong, then we need to throw out exegesis, exposition, explication, interpretation, psychoanalysis, and inference as they all involve reading between the lines to some degree in the attempt to arrive at a more clear meaning of a statement or text. An inference is an idea or conclusion that's drawn from evidence and reasoning. Who reads between the lines? Lawyers, psychologists, commentators after a debate, reviewers and anyone who is engaged in the interpretation of literature or poetry. You also wrote, "Fromholzer just wasn't clear enough..." Exactly my point! Fromholzer's statement is so terse, that one gets the impression that it's what he DOESN"T say that is GREATER than what he does say. In fact, his brevity falls into a pattern of nondisclosure which pervades everything surrounding the Intel settlement. So, 'reading between the lines' is about the only tool we have available in the effort to make sense of what is happening.
Reason and logic would also dictate that $2.25 million, as a total settlement figure, makes no sense if the company is planning to do all that Mr. Fromholzer insinuated. Was this yet more evidence of nondisclosure? Granted LocWolf, all of this analysis could be a complete or partial misinterpretation of the facts that we do know, however, it does make for a more fun and entertaining interlude while we wait for real confirmation or refutation. The truth will eventually emerge. Why not enjoy the wait?
Bullish
