jjz- I really like this lady. I did speak with her on the phone several months back about my take on this situation. She did not publish any of my claims because she couldn't verify any of it. I respect her tremendously for that. I'd like to take a moment, if I could, and respond to a few of the comments you made in your previous post.
You said:
"if Aliza hasn't made any effort to call Adaptive since "early this year" ( which i interpret to mean at least 6 months ago) and since Adaptive referred her to NV (which means there was probably an NDA in place)
Aliza said:
"I contacted Adaptive several times earlier this year to ask them about the technology. They did not return calls, but when I finally got through, they declined to discuss it with me at all.
Let me respond to this by asking you a question, jjz. If Adaptive would have returned her initial call promptly rather than making her call several times...and if they would have told her they could not discuss the matter due to a NDA in place and simply referred her to New Visual, don't you think that would have been the more professional thing to do? It would have been very simple. As it stands now, and I'm sure you'll agree that whenever a reporter calls to ask questions, a person that has nothing to hide will generally not mind answering the phone or returning calls.
You said:
...since Brad didn't respond to her (not entirely sure I'd blame him)...
It's his job to respond to such inquiries. Ordinarily, it would be the job of IR. However, being that Brad assumed that role to cut costs, then I expect him to make the call to answer whatever questions this reporter has for him. If you think about it for a minute, he OBVIOUSLY has PLENTY of time on his hands. He's not involved with the R&D. He OBVIOUSLY isn't bogged down with marketing issues. He should either make the time for this lady or be fired immediately.
You said:
how does she conclude what Adaptive has or has not done?? How does she draw the conlusion, or create the inference that Adaptive had all they needed to complete a product or a prototype, without involving another partner such as Hellosoft. Maybe she didn't mean to do it, but the article to me reads that NV paid Adaptive a bunch of money, Adaptive did squat and therefore, NV scrapped Adaptive and replaced them with a new partner, Hellosoft.
Here's the ONLY reference to Adaptive in the entire article:
Adaptive was paid a total of $5.75 million for its services, $1.56 million in cash. New Visual paid the rest in the form of stock the company issued to pay off debts Adaptive owed.
To date, Adaptive has produced neither a product nor a prototype.
I can certainly see how you'd draw the conclusions referenced above in your comments. In fact, I don't see how a rational person would draw ANY OTHER conclusion. Now you're starting to see why so many of us are upset. Brad Ketch...the CEO...the man charged with the responsibility of creating value for the shareholder has FAILED MISERABLY. He could dispel this notion that Adaptive has done squat for us by putting out an official press release explaining what he's been doing to earn his money for the past 2 years. However, when contacted by Ms. Earnshaw...he REFUSES to return her calls. Why? I suspect it's because he knows she has his number and doesn't want to risk being caught off balance. If someone merely reports FACTS and it looks bad...then something is definitely wrong, then whose fault is that? Facts are facts.
You said:
Why not write the article after she hears from that contact at Hellosoft?
She answered that in the e-mail she sent to me. Here it is:
One thing that I think is difficult for those who are not regular readers to understand is the difference between our "daily breaking news" items, which are posted only online, and the longer, in-depth articles that are published in the paper edition.
The daily news briefs are often based on press releases or SEC filings or other public documents.....These daily briefs are normally very brief indeed; we publish usually 10 to 15 per day.....In reporting on the HelloSoft news that New Visual filed with the SEC, I felt it made sense to provide some historical detail and background, rather than simply reporting the terms and fact of the deal.
You said:
Why does she selectively leave out what the Hellosoft exec said about thier due diligence into NV?? Why not do some basic investigation to illustrate whether Hellosoft and Adaptive are even in the same sector?
Once again...Aliza answered that in her e-mail to me.
If HelloSoft gets back to me with some details about New Visual's technology, I will certainly report on what they have to say.
So you see, Aliza did contact them hoping to include their comments in the Daily Brief. I would imagine that these daily briefs have some sort of a deadline in order to stay competitive. You know how news organizations operate. They need to get the news out quickly. She did say, however, that she would certainly write an article if Hellosoft gets back to her. I would imagine that she'd be MORE than happy to write a more in depth report on New Visual and Adaptive as well. However, it's very difficult for her to do this being that our CEO refuses to get back with her.
Aliza said:
However, if they, like Adaptive, decline to discuss the technology, and refer me to New Visual, and N.V. again declines to respond, there will be nothing further to add.
So far, it looks like NV has given her nothing to add. Call your CEO if you have a problem with that. Griping to Aliza will likely be fruitless.
Have a good one.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
