Replies to post #137247 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[JackedOnCaffeine]

I don't agree. This management team has exhibited odd behavior over the last few months.

First BJ informs certain shareholders who ask about the progress of the Hudson Bay and Brio sell-off. We all know they are required by their litigation agreement to keep BJ informed weekly of their respective shares sold that week. We've seen large volumes of shares traded for months, and when we see a sharp drop in daily volume and naturally wonder if these firms are still dumping shares, and ask BJ for clarification if they are done, she claims she can't reveal that information. Huh? Why the hell not, since she previously revealed it? What's the big secret?

Then we see the newsletter installment with not a single mention of the company's flagship product, the Argus One. Huh?

Next we see the Chairman resign without as much as a "goodbye, good luck shareholders". Thanks, Mike.

Now we see 2 GTC contract announcements a week apart that fail to mention any dollar amount. WTF? Not even an explanation as to the reason no dollar amounts were released, or if those amounts will be forthcoming when certain details are finalized. What, are we doing pro-bono work now for the Red Cross and the Navy? I admit I may be ignorant on such matters, but I have never seen a contract announcement in ANY company I've ever invested in where the amount of the contract wasn't disclosed in the news release announcing the contract.

I fully understand and support compliance with disclosure rules, but why all the flip-flopping on what can and cannot be revealed to shareholders? And if the contracts are so good for the company, why can't the contract amount be revealed? Are we afraid our creditors with judgements in hand will be lining up at the door to collect?

What happened to the transparency we were promised? "Yes, we got these great contracts that validates the quality of our products and services. Contract amounts? Sorry, that information can't be revealed. Trust us, and don't believe any other source of information, including government web sites describing details of the contract award."

[Madmonks]

Multivalue, I'm talking in general terms here, so my post makes perfect sense. I also emphasized the word "RELIABLE" in my post when referring to independent sources. In this case, I wouldn't classify the link posted by sharklady as "reliable". I was thinking more along the lines of The Wall Street Journal. Lastly, you stating that this isn't the same management reminds me of all those shareholders back in the day that thought Timothy Huff wasn't like the same management he replaced.

My point is that many long-term shareholders are ultra-sensitive to flippant remarks made by current management that don't take into account what we've endured over the years.

I'm sorry, but saying take my word for it, just doesn't cut it anymore. And I think the market agrees with me given the languishing stock price. They're going to need real meat on those contracts they announce before anyone gets too excited.