Rocky, I referred to the email as "alleged" only because I didn't receive it personally, I only saw it on this message board. As far as I'm concerned, all information found on a message board which cannot be independently corroborated is "alleged". I did not mean it in a disparaging way.
And no, the letter is not bothering me. As far as I'm concerned, Huff answered the question truthfully in a very clever way, and the fact that his 6 million share purchase was most likely the result of an option exercise is both understandable and acceptable to me as a shareholder, so I have no need or desire to ask Mr. Huff to clarify this particular 20-month-old issue at this point.
What DOES bother me is the way others interpret ambiguous messages from management in a uniformly positive way, which may lead to unrealistic expectations. In other words, we share the same concern: guessing won't solve anything. But the first step to avoid guessing is to realize that the ambiguity exists in the first place.
Ambiguous corporate communications are confusing at best, and can be downright misleading at worst. I'm only trying to balance the discussion with regard to such issues. Of course, it would be preferable for management to be as clear as possible in their communications to avoid ambiguity in the first place. But short of that, I think the next best thing is to look at the issues from all sides, separate the facts from the conjecture, clarify ambiguity when warranted, and base expectations accordingly. Agreed?
AI
