Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[downsideup]

"The way you are reading into my motives and making public statements about them and me personally is not" (honest).

I'm not being in the least bit dishonest in my addressing this, as I'm telling you EXACTLY what I think (and why)... of the method I see being employed by an announced candidate to the board of directors.

You say your "conduct has been honest."

I honestly disagree.

I don't find your approach to this is or can be "honest"... as it is clearly not compliant with any PROPER process for doing what you're trying to do... and it is exactly that which defines what is "honest". So, I think you are confused about what "honest" actually requires of you... which is defined by the fact of the situation... which doesn't excuse your error, or reflect well in terms of your judgment.

You think you're "being transparent"... and I think you're an insider and employee of the management who is campaigning for an appointment to a position on the board, and going about it wrongly, in specific parallel to the similar methods employed by management... and, whether you like it or not, I'm right, by definition.

You will claim your contract to do the web work didn't alter your "independence"... and I will say, quite correctly, that you are wrong by definition.

I've pointed out that you appear to be conducting a parallel "campaign" on IHub that is no different than the illegal proxy effort mustered by management recently in conducting the illegal shareholders meeting. I've pointed out the exact parallel in method. It appears you don't care about that, even in terms of "appearance"... so, the "appearance of wrongdoing" in that effort, and the appearance that it is an exact parallel with the same wrong done by management, seems it doesn't matter to you ?

Why ?

Is "appearance" of wrongdoing... a problem ? Why or why not ?

Effort expended in manipulating others opinion... isn't wrong... if that is all the effort is. That's pretty much what IHub exists for, to enable exactly that sort of debate. But, seeking a position on the board by campaigning... isn't that sort of an even-handed debate seeking an "exchange of opinions". There ARE rules for seeking proxies... and those rules matter even if you're seeking an appointment to exercise them.

Candidates who are campaigning, have made themselves the subject... while seeking a unique benefit, not seeking only an exchange of opinions.

It is clear you've engaged in a deliberate process of trying to "qualify" yourself for appointment... have worked at trying to "prove" yourself to us while posturing as "balanced" and even (IMO, ridiculously) non-judgmental in your approach... and have expended significant effort in order to try to qualify yourself by that method. I do appreciate the efforts you've made, value the contribution, if not in the element of using them while trying to sell yourself as a "solution"... while noting, again, that both the effort and the method are invalid for the purpose.

I find it highly amusing that the same cronies who've railed here against the very idea that a board member or insider might ever use IHub to post, while doing so anonymously... love the idea of having insiders who want to be board members posting here overtly while openly campaigning for an appointed seat on the board.

As far as "independence"... technically, shareholders CAN be "independent" as a matter of law (even though CLYW's situation imposes some more stringent practical requirements in order to have the fact of independence from factional interest meet a threshold in other acceptance) but, employees of the company cannot be.

I think your choice to do what you did in working on enabling a communication facility was... pointless. Well meaning, certainly, and it perhaps wouldn't have been pointless were CLYW's management operating in good faith. However. They're not.
But, in the event, you converted your independence... which is still not defined by "what you think" or "how you feel" but by the facts of the situation. And that is what the facts are.

If you wanted a seat on the board as an independent director, you should not have chosen to become an employee of the management.

So, in that context it doesn't really matter what your "intent" is... when it has incorporated an intrinsic acceptance of wrongdoing in method and purpose as the core element inherent in doing what you are.

It could be you're posturing to be accepted in order to enter the fray as a shill for management, intending to tip the struggle in their favor. It could be you're posturing to be accepted in order to enter the fray as a shill for Williams, intending to tip the struggle in his favor. It could be you're posturing to be accepted in order to enter the fray as a shill for no one, but are doing so only in self interest... but, that still has you going about it wrongly... and you've disqualified yourself in making the effort you have.

It still doesn't matter "whose shill you'd be"... as the issue isn't only the obvious risk inherent in whose side you'd be on... but, the METHOD applied in the effort... which is disqualifying in itself.

That matters MORE here... because the whole problem here is based in exactly that issue of wrongful method being applied...

In particular, posturing as "undecided" on issues that clearly shouldn't result in any viable lack of decision... suggests there is more motivation in intent... intending to appear impartial... than it suggests of honest capacity for impartiality.

I think the effort you've made is and intends to be deceptive.

Assuming you're not a shill for one side or the other:

I think Turrini et al won't agree to accept you... because if you're NOT a shill for them, they'll know you're a risk to them, and they're probably not being much fooled about that by the "fair and balanced" posturing. I don't think they'll find it useful to agree to accept anyone who is not a shill for them... which is clearly apparent in those who they've postured as their "independent" candidates. Rohan Russell ? LOL!!!

I think Williams et al won't accept you... because of the issues in qualification and method. Williams has proposed multiple highly qualified candidates who ARE independent... a number of whom have been made public in recent filings.

So, without ANY possible expression of support inherent in the situation... it seems to me like wasted effort... with no likely potential for any result other than the usual... in the posturing resulting in providing more fodder for more of the same in continuing "the blame game".

Impartiality or its appearance might be a requirement to be accepted... which doesn't actually make an insiders feigned impartiality into a qualification ? When you're looking for a judge, you don't qualify them by seeking out those with a demonstrated unwillingness to exercise judgment... or merely an unwillingness to tell you what their judgement is...

That sort of an "engineered" entre to staking a claim to the right to be "the decider"... is improper... as also the method being employed is improper.

I don't and won't expect the prospective fifth board member to be posturing a record of indecisiveness (in spite of having someting of an insiders awareness of the situation) as an advantage.

I do expect any fifth board member who will be the tie breaker to be someone who I can trust to act in good faith, and in full accordance with the requirements for proper procedure.

I find you've disqualified yourself on both counts.