"Nowhere did JBI specifically say what part of the report couldn't or shouldn't be relied upon."
That's right. They made the choice to issue a press release indicating that the SAIC's Executive Summary and May 2012 evaluation report should not be relied upon without specifically stating what aspects of the documents, the meat of which ("A fulsome review of the Plastic2Oil technology; testing and verification; performance characteristics; key features, and status of the Plastic2Oil technology implementation and the Jacksonville, Florida Commercial Facility; and our conclusions") was never made public, it found objectionable or unreliable.
We still don't know and we probably never will know why they issued that press release. We only know what it says:
"However, neither the SAIC report nor the executive summary should be relied on as management’s analysis or opinion regarding JBI’s current strategic plan or its business or financial prospects.
Furthermore, the conclusions drawn by SAIC were based upon a number of assumptions made at the time of the report that may be outdated or incorrect or that may prove to be incorrect in the future. Management’s current assumptions may differ and additional events, risks and uncertainties may cause JBI’s actual results and performance to differ from SAIC conclusions or projections."
It's just my opinion and you're obviously free to differ with it, but the above words don't appear to be a fancy way of saying "If only you knew what we know......things are MUCH MUCH better than that SAIC stuff implies". If that's truly what they meant they would have found a clear way to say it. As a rule, most managements that have something positive to say, say it so that people can understand it.
My post didn't say anything that they didn't. If you think that it did, point it out.
"To automatically suggest or presume that the redaction of sorts is with a negative bias towards the company is an assumed judgement not based with facts."
If you meant retraction, that's not what it was. The company didn't publish the Executive Summary, hence they can't retract it. Obviously there was something about it that they objected to....they just chose not to say what that was. Given that they weren't the source of the report (they weren't, were they?) there was no need to be concerned about any objections that the SEC might have had to it, so that could not have been the basis for the release.
But can it core A apple?
Yes Ralph, of course it can core A apple.
