Replies to post #49663 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[HighRider]

Yes. It does appear there was a concerted effort by some on this board to make Dave look like the bad guy. I had and still have a hard time believing Dave would hold the number of shares he owns and at the same time take the company down as some have talked about. The dog and pony show did more to hurt the share price than anything. Basically, nothing was accomplished and we were told a settlement agreement would be forthcoming sooner rather than later. It is now later folks. We have not seen a settlement agreement yet and nothing else has been accomplished to move the company forward. We were told at the meeting that things would be easier with the final agreement in place. So why is that not priority number 1. Why is the agreement taking so long? It can't be that complex to say calypso is giving the Daic parties all rights to the patents worldwide, excluding the U.S. and a percentage of any settlement with tmob. Then the Daic parties agree to drop all prior claims to anything concerning Calypso, not included in the settlement agreement, including prior court awards. WHERE IS THE AGREEMENT? The last PR said by 9 Nov. Turini first reported an agreement had been reached on 19 Aug. I could have re-written the US Constitution between 19 Aug and 5 Nov. That is over two months on my calendar. Are they still negotiating the settlement agreement? I guess we'll see by wed or will we.

[THE_BAMFACTSTER!!]

Whatever that's your opinion just as my post is my opinion. I believe Dave to be a crook and liar. Him telling you all doesn't mean it's true.

[downsideup]

"Management needed to fabricate an issue"

1. Why ? In furtherance of what... ?

2. What is wrong with them doing that ?

3. If it is wrong, why is it wrong ? By that question I mean to discuss: Were they acting in a way that is merely rude, and therefore not socially acceptable ? Was the action more than rude, constituting a violation of "civility" in process... meaning a violation OF proper process ? Does it indicate a lack of good faith? Does it violate others civil rights, and enable a civil action against them ? Does it violate the law, and enable a criminal action against them ?

4. What does it mean for those who were engaged with them in supporting their efforts, if those efforts do constitute a criminal act ?

5. Did they succeed in "fabricating an issue" ?

[downsideup]

"they had hoped to announce that the court had decided that Dave's actions warranted the appointment of a new board member who was already in their pocket. "

So, the problem of the "fabricated issue"... was a tool intended to be used in... an purposeful abuse of the California court ?

That would imply that there was a conspiracy to use the court in perpetrating a criminal act... or in furtherance of one ?