First, you didn't read my "For starters..." remark, obviously.
Second, let's take a look at the substance of some of his positions, as summarized by you:
"Telmex would never happen"
The jury is still out. Parse all you want about Telnor being Telmex; the fact is, Telmex has NOT happened, and I think that reasonable people reasonably can be concerned with a deal that has taken 6 months to negotiate, and where during the course of those negotiations, there is no indication available to shareholders about how ONEV will and has been compensated for Iris usage by Telnor since its launch. Dean NEVER EVER EVER has addressed the compensations structure FOR TELNOR. Telmex, we still don't know if it will happen. Even by Dean's statements in the SEC filings, it is stated as nothing more than being very condfident, or some such language. That is not verifying that it will happen, which, after all, is what your position has been -- that these things WILL happen, not that they might, but that they WILL.
"That MTNL would go the way of Telmex"
Such an assertion by SBB is baseless, as we still don't know what way Telmex will go.
"That no one at Motorola knows about the Onev deal"
You should know my position on this one, as I am the first one who warned people not to fall into his trap about calling MOT to check on it. You also saw my extensive tracking of his misstatements on this. Again, though, I can see how you are willing to write off those things regarding which I have agreed with you simply because on other things I have disagreed. I have noticed that penchant of yours toward me.
"That the MID OEM's's would be another Tier 1 Deal"
Frankly, although I may not agree with him at this point, I certainly do share a healthy degree of skepticism. ONEV touted that Tier One deal till the cows came home; then, when it got delayed, it simply got excluded from the SEC filings...no explanation, no reasoning, no accountability.
"That the 411 company being mentioned was only there to sell shares"
I don't share his view here, either. Nonetheless, I am concerned that because this is yet ANOTHER negotiation, we will fall victims to the same protracted period of negotiations that have been constant for the revenue critical big deals -- RCC (which never came to fruition), MTNL and Telmex (which is six months in) come to mind immediately.
"That the seven new positions advertised by Onev was also there for the same purpose to sell shares and it wasn't advertised outside the company"
I believe that I have addressed this assertion to, at least with respect to that portion pertaining to advertisement outside the company, as I am the only one who has posted an independent verifiable link showing a posting outside the company for at least one of those jobs.
"Office Max....blah blah blah"
Again, you ignored that I already have countered his nonsense in this regard by providing information that I obtained.
As for your attempt to avoid the issue presented by me regarding RCC and breakeven, you are doing precisely that -- avoiding the issue. The issue is whether you can consider as "verifiable" a link to an ONEV PR or an SEC filing simply because ONEV said so. I say no, you can't. RCC and breakeven are demonstrative evidence of that. You can't ignore the past, and if you don't understand why, read some Karl Marx (putting aside whether and to what extent one might agree with him on his general philosophy, he has address problems with ignoring the past as you consider both the present and the future).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
