NOW SHE IS COMPLETELY UNRAVELLING.
Now she is inferring that Roger's involvement in venture capital is a negative DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTIRE FIRM OF EDWARDS ANGELL IS ONE THT SPECIALIZES IN PRIVATE EQUITY AND VENTURE CAPITAL!!!! Good god, is this woman really this sloppy? She cites his scholarly article in The Venture Capital Journal (the most respected Venture Capital pub available) as proof of what???????? That he has an excellent reputation as a lawyer? That he is highly skilled in the specialty that Edwards Angell specializes in? No mention of his publications on Corporate Responsibility or his Going Public Sourcebook or maybe they just didn't have ANY negative spin you could put on them???? I have no explanation for Ms Shell's abominations today other than she is clearly just plain losing it. Ok, I waited around to see her response but this is even more laughable than anything else I've read from her. Good lord. Somebody get me a tissue, I'm laughing WAAAAAY too hard.
Back to ignore. Not even WAITING for a response.
Z
As always, these are my personal opinions.
Hopefully nobody in here is investing anything but "fun" money that they can afford to gamble with.
