Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:13:53 PM
This is a point that is completely incorrect, and yet it's stated again and again like it is true. Especially since the number of the Tweets being dubbed 'incomplete' are forward looking statements we're fortunate to have and would in no way have the ability to verify yet, nor should we waste time expecting to have them as such.
In fact, a number of Tweets and PRs HAVE happened, and by filling in the gaps with emails shared here and other supplementary information, we know the progress of almost every action or course this company is taking, making slight shifts or more important larger shifts placed totally in a logical position.
This is usually countered with some petty argument about an inconsequential Tweet which has no bearing on the company's course. I have seen a couple which are simply a change in tactic or strategy (which business owners and managers here can identify), and for that, NICK OWES US NO EXPLANATION. All I care about is they posted over $5 million on their last Q, soon to be verified by audit (and if someone actually think they would lie on a Q, or aren't getting audited, that's not my problem), and soon to be more on the next one.
Furthermore, some seem to suffer from the 'I don't see it, so it must not be happening' syndrome. Just because its not in front of us has no relevance to whether or not Nick is doing EXACTLY as he says he is. So far, with what I've seen and his answers to my direct communication with him, I have seen NOTHING that is not a great CEO full of integrity and good at what he does and doing what he says as it pertains to the best interest of the company. He holds a lot more credibility with me than some sad argument from a basher or someone here trying to manipulate the stock so they can flip it.
So, for now, if he says reports of products on shelves have been received, I believe that a lot more than someone behind a desk NOT doing Nick's job going 'nuh-uh'. If he says they're doing millions in rev, I trust it. And if he says they're getting audited, I believe him. No reason to think otherwise. Not if you understand his plays and the strategy he's using.
In fact, a number of Tweets and PRs HAVE happened, and by filling in the gaps with emails shared here and other supplementary information, we know the progress of almost every action or course this company is taking, making slight shifts or more important larger shifts placed totally in a logical position.
This is usually countered with some petty argument about an inconsequential Tweet which has no bearing on the company's course. I have seen a couple which are simply a change in tactic or strategy (which business owners and managers here can identify), and for that, NICK OWES US NO EXPLANATION. All I care about is they posted over $5 million on their last Q, soon to be verified by audit (and if someone actually think they would lie on a Q, or aren't getting audited, that's not my problem), and soon to be more on the next one.
Furthermore, some seem to suffer from the 'I don't see it, so it must not be happening' syndrome. Just because its not in front of us has no relevance to whether or not Nick is doing EXACTLY as he says he is. So far, with what I've seen and his answers to my direct communication with him, I have seen NOTHING that is not a great CEO full of integrity and good at what he does and doing what he says as it pertains to the best interest of the company. He holds a lot more credibility with me than some sad argument from a basher or someone here trying to manipulate the stock so they can flip it.
So, for now, if he says reports of products on shelves have been received, I believe that a lot more than someone behind a desk NOT doing Nick's job going 'nuh-uh'. If he says they're doing millions in rev, I trust it. And if he says they're getting audited, I believe him. No reason to think otherwise. Not if you understand his plays and the strategy he's using.
