Email thread.
To read in time sequence, read the emails at the bottom first.
I hope this is of some benefit.
Also, Arne gave me permission earlier to post his emails on IHUB.
For those who raked me over the coals last time (for bothering Arne when all I had done was respond to his email) please note his comment about wanting to receive emails.
From: Arne Dunhem
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Cornell
Thanks for these good points.
As of now, I don’t know Cornell’s plans, although I believe they have not been converting and selling for some time. It is correct we have been and still are working actively with some institutional investors and part of the discussions have been a buy-out of Cornell, although no agreement has as of yet been completed.
However, I still believe that it is critical to also prioritize the building of the company as to operation, revenues and earnings.
My target is still to reach a profitable minimum $21 million annualized revenue for this year. If we can accomplish this and some other activities, we would have a chance to far exceed this. We are not there yet but we will keep working on it.
Thanks for being a valuable shareholder and thanks for providing all your support.
Regards,
Arne Dunhem
From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:22 AM
To: Arne Dunhem
Subject: Cornell
I think the biggest concern right now is the potential for diluting by Cornell.
My understanding is that you are working on financing options to remove Cornell from the picture.
Any positive updates related to this endeavor would, in my opinion, have an upwards effect on the pps. Other positive actions include share buy back (costs money), reduction in authorized shares (does not cost money).
Thanks, xxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Arne Dunhem
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: Do you have new representation on IHUB?
I thank you for this message, and I like your concern about success for the company.
Yes, after you told me, I did read the same message, but I certainly did not see it before it was posted. I always try to be careful with spelling, facts etc. Since I can not speak for them, I will contact them to find out and request them to be careful with their presentations.
Thanks for supporting us.
Please continue to correspond with me directly whenever you so wish. I will do my best to respond, but I will not myself enter iHub or any other message board or similar.
Regards,
Arne Dunhem
From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:19 PM
To: Arne Dunhem
Subject: Re: Do you have new representation on IHUB?
They should not use words like cha-ching!
They stated "past 52 week high of $.0012". The true high was $.012. How hard is it to get that right?
There are numerous grammar and spelling errors. e.g., AWYIS' ........
Arne, their sole function is to be a IR company. This type of writing is unforgivable - my granddaughter could do better!
Read their post 20214 carefully - you will see what I mean.
Also, they did not respond to my post asking for their company name, URL, etc. They should at least have said they would not release that information.
You come across as a high quality professional, and so does your company......but you need someone just as professional to present you to the world.
We had the same type of communication issues with ADCS and GLCC ..... and they both went down the tubes.
Sorry to rant, but I want Ariel Way and me to succeed!!
Thanks, xxxxxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: Arne Dunhem
To: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 4:39 PM
Subject: RE: Do you have new representation on IHUB?
xxxxxxxxxxxx,
I have now read some comments on the iHub and yes, I am a little puzzled with some comment I have read and maybe you can shed some light.
We have taken, in my opinion, some unreasonable pounding on our price lately. Shareholders have been asking us to create a wider awareness of our company, so we have hired an IR firm. They are supposed to work a number of different activities, one of them is to monitor some message boards. We don't tell them where to go and what to do. They are supposed to be professional and independent and only present already publicly known information or their own independent opinion or view.
If we do what the shareholders have been asking, what is wrong with this?
If they are deemed not to work in a professional manner, that is a different thing, and then of course we will review the work.
By the way, I still want to directly communicate with the shareholders, so don't stop sending me emails. I will do my best to respond.
Regards,
Arne Dunhem
From: xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 1:21 PM
To: Arne Dunhem
Subject: Do you have new representation on IHUB?
If you do, I must respectfully ask you to reconsider their role, or at least ask have them function in a more professional manner. If you haven't been reading the boards, this is now the time to do so.
I am very disappointed in what I have seen.
If you don't, then someone is pretending to represent AWYI (which I really hope is the case).
