News Focus
News Focus
icon url

jazz710

01/15/16 3:26 PM

#102099 RE: jazz710 #102098

To phrase it another way:

If all we needed was a signature (Ben's words) then we don't need two lawyers there.

If we need to lawyers there, then there are still steps in the process that Ben was absolutely not forthright about.

This, in essence, is the problem with IR. Ben's words and Kim's words don't always jibe, and at the end of the day, we're sitting at $0.024 with no communication from the company since 12/7/2015. This from the CEO that was going to work on his communication skills.

Now if there's nothing to say, I don't want a PR with nothing. On the flip side, if there's nothing to say at this point, then something you said earlier had to have been patently false.
icon url

TRUISM

01/15/16 3:33 PM

#102100 RE: jazz710 #102098

Even you must admit that the language used in those communications was specifically chosen to imply that once that signature was gained that the deal would be done.



You are correct.

No way around that.

Ben won't deny that he stated it either.

Neither will one receive an explanation as to why incorrect information was conveyed to shareholders.

I could understand if things got a tad more complicated, as these things happen but to say nothing at all....

Even an "it's in the best interest of all parties not to comment on it at this time" would've been good enough for me.

Guess that's "The KBLB Way."



Blessings to All

TRUTH