I was asked to disprove the following about One Voice. The obvious insinuation being that I have posted the opposite as absolute fact. I have NOT done so and I offer an open invitation to many of the members of this board hell bent on proving every letter of every word I post to be false to put up the URLs to the posts where I supposedly stated these things about the company as they appear in CONTEXT. I will answer to each in turn.
"1) That Onev is finalizing a licensing agreement for MV with Telmex..(the largest land line carrier in Mexico)..as has been stated by Onev."
I have never stated anywhere that ONEV is "not finalizing an "agreement" with Telmex". I have clearly stated that in my opinion, the agreement will NOT be for an ongoing licensing stream, but most likely for a 1) "get lost" payoff that they are negotiating to have stretch over a year or more period or 2) a one time payment and notice that ONEV's services with respect to IRIS will no longer be needed. I do NOT believe much of anything ONEV management states in print. I have an excellent reason not to. And that is their history of failure to produce much of anything in the way of significant revenue outside of that from share sales. I feel that Telmex revenues will end up being no different.
"2) That MTNL and Onev have an ongoing relationship and contract signed by MTNL to deploy email features to their users."
No where have I stated there is "no relationship between MTNL and ONEV". Or anything about MTNL not using MV's email tech. Once again, feel free to put up the URL to that post. I think that eventually MTNL revenue will go the way of Telmex. If I am wrong about Telmex, then MTNL could end up being a successful revenue generator. I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
"3) That Motorola is working with Onev still."
More lies have been generated about things I supposedly posted about MOT than all other subjects combined. a LOT of LIES. I never once stated that MOT was "NOT working with ONEV". I stated that their IR department had never heard of ONEV. When I spoke with MOT about ONEV in fall of 2007, they hadn't. That is the truth. It has been stated that MOT "has never heard of me". Implying that the person making that statement has my real name and address and has vetted that information through MOT? I'd like the evidence of that statement as well. The entire MOT incident stems from another proven misleader on this board getting carried away and acting from knee jerk reaction in an childish manner. It comes from reading into a statement what you WANT to read, not comprehending what is actually there. Something that happens here all the time. I believe absolutely nothing of significant revenue will come from an MOT/ONEV relationship. One individual here previously stated ONEV management has close ties with contacts inside the company. I asked for the name of those contacts so I could email them and confirm this, but suddenly no names could be offered. This was hearsay that was fact and I should just accept it as that because this person "said so". If anything comes of a MOT/ONEV relationship, it will be ONEV giving away their MCC tech for nothing or a small "licensing" pittance to "get their foot in the door", or more likely to generate PR.
"4) That Onev is working with OEM's to bundle Onev's tech with their upcoming MID platforms."
Originally, as I recall, INTC was incorporating ONEV's tech into the processor platforms. Now it's a "bundle"? Once again, a bald face lie that I ever stated that general "OEMS" were NOT going to bundle ONEV's tech in their MID platforms. I never stated anything of the kind. To the contrary, if that would happen it would happen on low end MIDs that were selling at very low entry level prices. The reason for ONEV's tech being "bundled" with them would or will be likely because ONEV is providing it for a pittance.
"5) That a national 411 company has been testing Onev's DA tech and that test was successful. That they are now finalizing a deal between the two companies."
Just an outright lie. I never have posted anything about a 411 company or DA tech. Just a bald faced lie. Put up the URL to the post.
"6) That Onev is seeking at least seven new positions for the company."
Another lie. I joked somewhere to a poster that ONEV is "so well known worldwide they wouldn't have to advertise for help anywhere but on their blog" or something to that effect. How you twist that into a statement that they are not seeking seven new positions is beyond comprehension. ONEV can "seek" all the help they want. Obviously they need a full time programmer since the vice president supposedly in charge of it is by his own admission on his website a full time real estate Broker and residential builder.
"7) That the Office Max stores across the U.S. have copies of MCC."
Another complete deception. I posted a sarcastic essay on ONEV's endless excuses and mentioned how this person was now blaming OfficeMax for the delays in certain stores not receiving their MCC copies on time. Just another misleading perception.
We have seen the links to all of those in abundance..You have provided no factual links of your own disproving these events..Please do so..."
What links? ONEV links to their own PRs? I saw some earlier valid links to the hire ads on another website. Where are the confirmation links from unbiased major, reputable, vetted news sources for all these revenue producing contracts? Where are the links to the blue chip names confirming that revenue producing contracts are in place between them and ONEV? How in the world can someone be expected to provide links "disproving" things that exist because ONEV has said they do? And exist as "negotiations" or "MOUs" or "LOIs" or "deployment contracts" the exact language of which is not known to anyone outside ONEV and "supposedly" the companies they have these contracts with. Companies that never seem to publicly confirm in print that they are associated with ONEV at all outside of some "demos" or other lame associations at trade shows.
This is all an ongoing attempt to discredit through misleading innuendo and outright lies anyone who posts truthful opinion about ONEV on this board. I will not post links to or be obligated to "prove" what I never posted about ONEV. I will not succumb to the sophomoric antics of an entity desperate to prop up the rapidly crumbling credibility of both themselves and the company they support by kneecapping the credibility of those who simply post their opinions about ONEV based on the truth from the SEC filings. Post the URLs to the posts where I stated these things about the company. Then I will answer to them as well as apologize for any deceitful or misleading One Voice statements I may have presented as "factual".
SBB
AI
