I am going to chill also, but not before I point out yet another thing that at first seems to make sense but actually makes completely NO sense whatsover:
"Sterling went up/was invited up there to represent us."
Think about this for a moment...pause...think...think again...it seems to make sense at first...it is quite easy to glaze it over...but think about it...really think...this statement makes NO sense whatsoever!
1. What is Sterling representing? What can he tell UC and company about shareholder views? "We want the price of the stock to go up?" "We want a cash dividend?" "We want to make money?" What can Sterling tell UC besides that? EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT! There's no reason to have a meeting about it. Think about what Sterling could possibly say about us that isn't just plain common sense?
2. If the company wanted to figure out what the shareholders were thinking and feeling (which is stupid, because they obviously already know), and they wanted to get an estimate of the general census, and, more specifically, if they wanted to find out what the 2000 shareholders in sterling's classroom were talking about...THAT'S VERY SIMPLE...Go on paltalk! Melvin does it all the time! What is stopping UC and company from doing it? That is certainly a much more simple method of going about it then organizing some weird clandestine meeting up in the woods with our "leader" without telling anyone. MAKES NO SENSE!
3. Why would sterling NEED to represent us at this meeting. If I HAD to come up with a reason (and I'm NOT saying that this is true), the only conceivable reason to me as to why Sterling would need to represent us is the following: The company is going to do something VERY BAD, as in R/S or declaring a 20zillion OS and float, etc., and UC and company wants to make sure Sterling can keep his cult in line and find a way to paint them a pretty picture. That's it. If the meetings were going to be good for the company, why would they need to invite Sterling up there to find out if good things for the company is good for the shareholders? No reason. Everybody, even a two year old chimpanzee knows that good things for the company are good for the shareholders...you don't need to hold a meeting about it with a "shareholder representative."
The next time you think Sterling was up there to represent us, stop and think and wonder about why that would be the case and you will realize that it's just a fluff statement that makes no sense. What can he tell UC that UC doesn't know by common sense? Why couldn't UC just reach us through the boards? Why would UC want a "leader" like Sterling up there? When people tell us to feel good that Sterling was up there to represent us, I just wonder, "Feel good about what?" If I should feel good about it, then what you are saying is that Sterling is "protecting" us from something BAD, making sure no HARM comes to us. If that is the case, then I don't feel so good about a company that I need protection from.
Ultimately, I don't know why Sterling was up there. As I've said, the representation concept is terribly flawed and makes no sense. It only makes sense on the bad side of things....and i don't know what to think about that. I just think all of these secrets stink...and for some reason, people keep trying to spin these secrets into good things. If they were good things, they WOULDN'T BE SECRETS!
Until I get a good PR from this company, I'm going to be concerned. That's all. Not bashing...just bringing up my concerns.
AI
