I absolutely agree that the facts, and only the facts, should drive our opinions. There is no opinion on this board, nor any magazine article, nor any other person's opinion that determines my opinion of TATF or the Brunners. What this board and other sources of info do is either confirm or deny that our experiences are shared or are in isolation. My experience, and only my experience, with irrefutable evidence has driven me to conclude, that the essence of Belmontx’s post is accurate. I am not saying I agree with all the details but, in my mind, the essence is that there has been sufficient action (or inaction) to conclude that “they did their best and came up short” is not an adequate explanation for where we are today.
I understand stress. I understand financial difficulty. I got all of that, in spades. In fact, this investment performance has put me there as well. Despite all of that, if they could initiate TATF, then they are certainly capable and intelligent people. Steve is an educated attorney. Even if one assumes that the current situation has evolved from a situation whereby the Brunner’s are “basically honest, hardworking people, everything points to stress, overwork, bad surprises, bad economy, unfortunate business decisions, and poor cash flow”, why then do current and past actions perpetuate the belmontx’s view (shared by many). If they are basically honest, hardworking people then why do they not share more relevant information of the type that would not undermine their competitiveness? – see post #1810. The message sent by not doing so is that they have something to hide. Given post #1810, what incentive have they provided for us not to assume less than pure motives?
You are right, it is all how one looks at it. I prefer to look at the glass half full but it is a two way street. If the facts could possibly suggest that an ulterior motive exists, in any way, then TATF cannot afford not to address such concerns. Yet, they persist in not only ignoring such concerns but also accepting the resulting consequences and then have the audacity to suggest that Investor’s Hub is to blame. This is so ludicrous that it only further perpetuates a perception that the motive is not pure.
Is my conclusion overly pessimistic? I don’t think so. The facts really are the facts. Regardless, I prefer to remain sanguine and give the Brunner’s the benefit of the doubt. Regardless of why the current situation exists, bygones are bygones. Winning over current investors infuses badly needed capital and affects current business operations in greater way than silence afforded by an attitude that “we are too busy to address concerns”. Jan has made the attempt and continues to pursue an open dialog. They are certainly busy but when will they figure it out?
