Short of someone having insider information about revenue, I'm, by definition, right. They have not proven commercial viability because they haven't earned a single cent in royalties nor have the recorded a single cent of revenue from the sales of commercial product. This is not a commentary on the technology or the company; it's a simple and indisputable statement of undeniable fact. Signing the deal with AMTRON is certainly a strong validating point, but it's no more proof of commercial viability than was Dow's deal with Nanoco. I'm also not saying that it's not going to happen or that they won't get it done on schedule - just that it's possible there could be difficulties and that suggesting otherwise is not rational.

It's funny that you repeatedly attack me for 'not being happy with...' when it's you who consistently exaggerate and misrepresent the facts. For example, you wrote:

Quote:

---

QMC 'got it done' with an $82 M deal.

---

and

Quote:

---

QMC signed one little $82 M deal

---

on the other board.

These statements are both misleading and factually wrong. Is the actual deal not good enough for you? Why are you not happy with it? Why do you need to make it out to be more than it is? It seems that you are the one who is not happy.