(Total Views: 405)
Posted On: 01/30/2017 6:59:55 PM
Post# of 43066
Re: Commando911 #34124
seriously what is the solution from your perspective since the only person
who actually knows what is what specific to the mutually agreed upon *extension* is RH and the buyer
personally i've always believed that current mgmt expects a sale .. imo ECO
should have gone after what i refer to as low hanging fruit in conjunction with
the talents @ OBG .. low hanging fruit to me is all those sites (entities) with
*sustainability* protocols .. which is a very wise *LT* view .. not radical right
or liberal left .. those would be campuses in silicon valley .. DOTs .. college campuses .. and any entity that can *fund* the processors without investors'
and their respective conditions .. it is naive to think that those conditions don't exist
having talked with the company's founder last summer to *personally* confirm
that he didn't sell out his PTOI shares (which would have culminated in about
a 30M *share* day .. followed by a 60M share day and then PTOI no bid)
i highly doubt any aspect undertaken *previously* would be repeated .. co.s
founder is easily sourced .. and imo is *never* too far away from all aspects
P2O
imo most anyone can access P2O's founder ..
but just as P2O wouldn't exist in 2017 .. without founder's tech .. it wouldn't
exist without P2O investors .. or current CEO's $Million$ infused or a prior
director's documentation
at this point i don't see any one of the above more important than the others
regardless i do see a future for P2O and there is always risk ..
imo as previously noted .. P2O has enough funds to see them thru most of 2017
i can also see some other material events' noted by RH himself in 2016 Updates
as being equally important re: implementation specific to P2O's first sale
there is nothing wrong imo with P2O investors venting .. but to me it's more
constructive to email mgmt
i do it regularly .. i also have noted many times that P2O's website should be
updated .. and imo there could be a discussion of whether P2O deserves a
FULL TIME mgmt team vs RH splitting efforts between HM and P2O
but for me the positives significantly outweigh the negatives .. as noted b4
this extension was mutually agreed upon .. by all/both sides .. if it hadn't been
there wouldn't have been an 8K filed
4kids
who actually knows what is what specific to the mutually agreed upon *extension* is RH and the buyer
Quote:
It's like being around liberals....dissenters are labeled. Whiners, CE's,....
personally i've always believed that current mgmt expects a sale .. imo ECO
should have gone after what i refer to as low hanging fruit in conjunction with
the talents @ OBG .. low hanging fruit to me is all those sites (entities) with
*sustainability* protocols .. which is a very wise *LT* view .. not radical right
or liberal left .. those would be campuses in silicon valley .. DOTs .. college campuses .. and any entity that can *fund* the processors without investors'
and their respective conditions .. it is naive to think that those conditions don't exist
having talked with the company's founder last summer to *personally* confirm
that he didn't sell out his PTOI shares (which would have culminated in about
a 30M *share* day .. followed by a 60M share day and then PTOI no bid)
i highly doubt any aspect undertaken *previously* would be repeated .. co.s
founder is easily sourced .. and imo is *never* too far away from all aspects
P2O
imo most anyone can access P2O's founder ..
but just as P2O wouldn't exist in 2017 .. without founder's tech .. it wouldn't
exist without P2O investors .. or current CEO's $Million$ infused or a prior
director's documentation
at this point i don't see any one of the above more important than the others
regardless i do see a future for P2O and there is always risk ..
imo as previously noted .. P2O has enough funds to see them thru most of 2017
i can also see some other material events' noted by RH himself in 2016 Updates
as being equally important re: implementation specific to P2O's first sale
there is nothing wrong imo with P2O investors venting .. but to me it's more
constructive to email mgmt
i do it regularly .. i also have noted many times that P2O's website should be
updated .. and imo there could be a discussion of whether P2O deserves a
FULL TIME mgmt team vs RH splitting efforts between HM and P2O
but for me the positives significantly outweigh the negatives .. as noted b4
this extension was mutually agreed upon .. by all/both sides .. if it hadn't been
there wouldn't have been an 8K filed
4kids
(1)
(0)
