InvestorsHub Logo

player1234

07/07/14 9:15 AM

#237828 RE: Snackman #237827

SKS was proven "wrong" YEARS before some now claim.

The broken promises of the former CEO were there.
The bad financials of the former CEO were there.
The empty pipeline of the former CEO were there.
The transfers of shareholder money to family and friends were there.

Implying that the former CEO was only last year "proven wrong" is simply ignoring the facts.
Some chose to ignore it and limit those that saw it for what it was.
They are as culpable for the length of the fraud as those who perpetrated it.

aleajactaest

07/07/14 9:15 AM

#237829 RE: Snackman #237827

sounds sensible. but why not let blue hold you to it? at this point he is excluded for pressing the case that ss was everything you now agree he was.

in which case, aren't you protecting your community from truths which are hard to digest? and aren't those the most important sort?

Bluefang

07/07/14 10:26 AM

#237831 RE: Snackman #237827

Snackman: The long-running SKS-Wave saga caused bad blood between supporters and critics of Wave. You are gracious to admit you were on the wrong side of SKS's mgt.

Why not let bygones be bygones and let both sides try to figure out if Wave has a future, and if so, how big?

Like you, I hope Solms succeeds and I am rooting for him. At the same time, one must recognize a company which wasted almost half a billion dollars with not much to show for it, will require extensive repairs.

Is a recovery possible or even probable? That is a good topic for an open discussion within the bounds of civility often crossed by both sides in the past. I have apologized to you privately for my crossing of the lines and publicly I'd like to apologize to all I offended with my excesses.

Personally, I am out of the stock, but watching it closely for a possible re-entry if it appears Wave is finally on the right track. I think there may be quite a few with a similar mind who would be attracted to Wave, if it can prove it really has a future and can actually sell products.

Wave can certainly use new investors and if it proves the company can be successful, investors will come in. Many are leery, because of the mistakes and broken promises of the past mgt.

Security is just about the hottest sector there is, currently. If the product fills a need, is not difficult to use and is affordable, one would think there is a future for Wave.

IMO, new management should be given a 'honeymoon period,' during which they can demonstrate whether Wave has a role to play in providing such a product in dire need globally.

My report card on Solms so far is A+ for restoring credibility and hacking away the family parasites who took so much from Wave. He has set a deadline for the launch of a product he thinks has a future. I believe he will meet that deadline.

However, that is hardly the test, is it? The real test is whether that product sells in the marketplace.

On the sales part, I give Solms an 'incomplete'--with the grade to be determined in the near future.

My hand is extended in the hope both sides can learn from both Wave's mgt crises and the limits set on the critics in the past. Both have roles to play and each side should be able to listen to the other, without it getting personal or ugly.

Why don't we followers of Wave have a new beginning, too?

Best wishes--Blue