Replies to post #238135 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[aleajactaest]

it sort of emerges from conversations that seem designed to rehabilitate the philosophy that caused the problems.

if only the vision people would quit suggesting that ss being a thought leader at tc is such a genius thing, we simplistic muttonheads could quit pointing out that vision didn't make the company money.

the reason we do so is to make sure that philosophy never again takes hold of the conversation.

it was quite a strange feeling to see it unfurled again. it looks a bit moth-eaten these days. i think poor old cm has been away so long he didn't realise that he was the last one willing to express it. 'cept barge of course.

it isn't about hatred. it's because it worked out badly. the vision thing wasn't an incidental victim of ss' leadership. it was the problem with his leadership. it was the obstacle between the company and pragmatic progress. it was how the dilution happened.

all the horizon chatter kept folks looking in the wrong place. if folks haven't figured that out yet, then they need to have the story told. again.

we think we are the friends of the trustworthy stewardship of wave. would hate to see the recovery of such a damaging philosophy.

[Bluefang]

SM: I doubt what we say here or on any message board has much to do with Wave revenues. Besides, that is not our job--it is the mgt of Wave.

I think we both agree Solms is a welcome change from the past regime and maybe I'm wrong, but that seems a fit subject for discussion.

Maybe it is painful to remember the support you lent the old regime, long after many of us saw things were not working.

Criticism sometimes is warranted by the facts. It can be helpful. Part of the problem with the old CEO, he simply did not listen. And then there were those who tried to steer the conversation in one direction--even though it was plain to the majority, Wave was on a track so unmistakably wrong change was clearly called for.

Let's have a free discussion about the merits or demerits of Wave going forward. Isn't that a fair proposition?

Blue

[tkc]

Hi Snackman. Speaking for myself, I don't know how many years ago it was that I was pounding the keyboard to solicit support for the ousting of the BoD for not holding SKS accountable. Very large shareholders on your board influenced others to maintain the course. The facts were so obvious that SKS was either incapable or disinterested in managing the company in shareholders' interest. It was right there in black and white, crystal clear to those who chose to see. All I and others asked was for shareholder activism, which occurs every day in even quite well run companies. Wave screamed for shareholders to become active. We had the votes. For some reason, which I am still unable to fathom, you all fought for status quo - against your own self interest. Finally, finally w/ Wave at brink, you got the gumption to use your power and voted out a BoD member. THAT changed everything, hopefully not too late. My point is simple, anyone in a position of leadership/influence is the shepard of that flock he/she leads or has significant influence over. Frankly IMO you failed to listen to valid criticism, in fact disallowed it for the most part. Were it not for your group of very large influencial shareholders many many seemingly niave investors would have been saved from substantial loses. Hey, I, like others, saw it so I only got singed-not charred. The message, if you're invested read and comprehend the finanials -or listen to those that do- and if necessary get active to protect your investment. All this venting about SKS's ineptness as CEO is almost akin to an "I told you so." Let it be.