Warps ever consider that change is inevitable, and
Post# of 30025
Posted On: 11/30/2014 3:10:53 PM
Warps ever consider that change is inevitable, and that when change does occur, it is the direct responsibility of the CEO (in this case) to make correction known, and not to have shareholders make record of everything that is siad, due to past Geraldspeak issues that have caused some to monitor his every word?
If you don't get this drift, then just look back to the series of communications debackles which have ensued here as a result - especially look at the 7/31 UN Summit misque which costs shareholders a loss of greater than 60% within just 2 days time. Heck, even GC himself had acknowledged that his credibility was on the line in an email to me - something that I appluaded him for at the time. As a matter of fact Warp, based on those same conversations with both GC & JC, I believe we now have an IR firm whose is putting all AMBS public communications thru the litmus test of credibility and reality, in order to avoid these types of incidents from happening over and over again.
So you see, stating the concerns as opposed to one burying their head in the sand or continuing to drink the proverbial Kool-aide because everyone else is, was justifiable in this case - and probably is in most others as well regarding large dollar investments in fledgling start-ups, trading on the nefarious OTC.
While you may not be expecting a LymPro JV Partnership Agreement, that is not to say that other Longs here have not heard or read this same statement from Gerald on numerous occassions. Additionally, you make a good point regarding pointing fingers on limited info or corporate advisory direction, all of which is subject to change unbeknownst to the public shareholder. The problem is in the proverbial 'bread crump trail' left behind on other public disclousres, wherein the trail disappears or get thwarted altogether and one is left standing alone in the forrest with an empty bag and wondering why. There couldn't be any worse of a feeling than to know you've been dupped by a OTC penny stock CEO and looking towrads your family and having to tell them you lost the money.
Picking apart a company and its objects is one trait that I would hope we all have here. Creating doubt by asking questions or raising concerns is not necessairly creating doubts in the minds of others, its being prudent in ones own concerns and bring it to a forum where hopefully the management are not biased to the one extreme or the other.
I also suppose that one may assume burning their bridges with the company would be me who you are referring to, as I am the only one who you have addressed in this post. FYI, I remain in touch with people directly connected with this security and will continue to do so until I either exit of the company is sold.
Being short sided and trying to sway the attention of those who have invested here to being bias Long or Short for that matter is not prudent and equally just as dangerous for the others who seem to be enamoured with you here.
If you don't get this drift, then just look back to the series of communications debackles which have ensued here as a result - especially look at the 7/31 UN Summit misque which costs shareholders a loss of greater than 60% within just 2 days time. Heck, even GC himself had acknowledged that his credibility was on the line in an email to me - something that I appluaded him for at the time. As a matter of fact Warp, based on those same conversations with both GC & JC, I believe we now have an IR firm whose is putting all AMBS public communications thru the litmus test of credibility and reality, in order to avoid these types of incidents from happening over and over again.
So you see, stating the concerns as opposed to one burying their head in the sand or continuing to drink the proverbial Kool-aide because everyone else is, was justifiable in this case - and probably is in most others as well regarding large dollar investments in fledgling start-ups, trading on the nefarious OTC.
While you may not be expecting a LymPro JV Partnership Agreement, that is not to say that other Longs here have not heard or read this same statement from Gerald on numerous occassions. Additionally, you make a good point regarding pointing fingers on limited info or corporate advisory direction, all of which is subject to change unbeknownst to the public shareholder. The problem is in the proverbial 'bread crump trail' left behind on other public disclousres, wherein the trail disappears or get thwarted altogether and one is left standing alone in the forrest with an empty bag and wondering why. There couldn't be any worse of a feeling than to know you've been dupped by a OTC penny stock CEO and looking towrads your family and having to tell them you lost the money.
Picking apart a company and its objects is one trait that I would hope we all have here. Creating doubt by asking questions or raising concerns is not necessairly creating doubts in the minds of others, its being prudent in ones own concerns and bring it to a forum where hopefully the management are not biased to the one extreme or the other.
I also suppose that one may assume burning their bridges with the company would be me who you are referring to, as I am the only one who you have addressed in this post. FYI, I remain in touch with people directly connected with this security and will continue to do so until I either exit of the company is sold.
Being short sided and trying to sway the attention of those who have invested here to being bias Long or Short for that matter is not prudent and equally just as dangerous for the others who seem to be enamoured with you here.
(0)
(0)