Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Watts Watt]

There is no doubt that the internet has enabled outside shareholders far more access to information that at one time was not reasonably possible. This is both good and bad. Good in that we can do far more DD and be generally better informed as to what is going on with companies that we are interested in investing in. Bad in that it leaves us craving for more information. Or worse yet, making investment decisions based on partial or less than totally understood available information.

You have left out of the discussion any ability of an individual shareholder to discern.

I have not known any investment decision to have been made upon complete information that you suggest we must have by your comments in red. Frankly, we the reader appeal to your sense of logic here.

In my opinion, it is naive to think that outside shareholders will ever know as much as inside shareholders. Yes, we want to know everything of course. But until information is public, it is insider information and only insiders should and will know that information. Most if not all insiders are shareholders ... so there will always be this dichotomy.

What I addressed in my post WAS concerning PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Go back and read the post again, please.

I think it is naive for outside shareholders not to search for information. Acting upon the minimal information diseminated by management is what is naive, my good friend.

But to call company management purely ignorant based on how we interpret what we think their actions are is unfair

If the Company does not know what is posted by the government on the internet for any party to read, that is ignorance.

For the Company to know that this information is on the internet but not to even footnote at what stage the progress is, Phase I, Phase II, Phase III, to diseminate to the shareholder what is already publicly available......what does that indicate about Management's interest in informing the shareholder of material events and developments in progress.

At best this is a diffidence, at worst it is hubris.

But accusing them and management of things you don't really know and attacking their character is not right and frankly, if you are not careful, could open yourself up to charges of slander.

What exactly are you pointing to here. And how do you justify your comments?

But interpretation of facts is still just speculation and opinion and should not be the basis of such strong attacks and potentially influential commentary by a respected poster.

My friend, when one is presented facts as you suggest, it is up to the individual to analyze them and to make sense out of them with his own faculties. Every activity of the day involves decision making by the individual based upon his assessment of the situation as it is. One is not left only to delegating this responsibility to others.

Now it is you who allude to speculation and opinion.

You tell me how you can assert that analyzing and interpreting facts is solely a leap into speculation and opinion.

Don't see how mankind can advance much by assessing facts as you state and keep them private and let only those in control of the facts lead everyone else to believe that their assessment of facts is the only assessment to be made.

I hope you will take my comments in the positive light that they were intended.