In response.........
Well, I guess we can agree on one thing before I take issue with some of your allegations/conclusions:
Neither one of us is happy about the delay and the lack of a clear, definitive explanation for that delay.
Now for the rest....
A grant does generally provide "money" for use as stipulated. The details of the administration of a grant will vary but it does result in the purchase of goods that would otherwise have to be paid for from another source. I don't see how parsing that point is constructive to the argument. How big is the grant? You're right, we don't know.
I've expressed my beliefs and knowledge to my best ability here and have been, I believe, respectful of you and your arguments...after all you do have a valid point in this discussion. It's really not necessary for you to support your point by impugning my judgement and accusing me of purposely making misleading statements! That kind of language says more about you than it does about me. I don't really mind having my intelligence or knowledge called into question, but never, never question my integrity! That is far beyond the bounds of civil discourse.
Am I disappointed and concerned that we don't have the results and have seen some apparent, even probable, inconsistencies in the explanation for same? Sure I am. I'm very much looking forward to a "meaty" PR about the LP samples.
The real question is, does this one circumstance warrant the trashing of the company's reputation and the calling into question of Mike Hill's overall integrity? In light of all of the existent evidence that the company is real and that management's dominant motive is to reach the goals I repeatedly stated in my last post, I think not.
Everything I see in this deal points to a compatibility of long term interest of the principals and the shareholders. If Mike Hill is stalling with regard to the sample report, what's his motive? Why would he stall except to obtain a positive result in support of the attainment of the ultimate goal?
If someone could show me how this "stalling" would very seriously benefit management while, at the same time, bring great injury to shareholders, you've got my attention.
Absent that, I dispute the sheer weight and import of negative connotation that you have attached to this series of events. I, personally just can't see anything in the rest of the company's public history that justifies a "worst case" set of assumptions based on the issue in question.
Let everyone draw their own conclusions.
marich
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
