don't disagree .. and again as previously noted ..

don't disagree .. and again as previously noted .. the only one who knows *intent*
is the current CEO

who for all his less than stellar communication skills has a proven history of no leaks

re: news .. and when it actually comes to pass

which i suspect frustrates more than just NR

i'm sure there are some who wish P2O hadn't been wrested back in 2013
and had just died then ..

i'm not one of them .. i am appreciative of the fact that each of the four reasons
still exist .. imo in mostly equal measures

founder's tech
former director's documentation
current ceo's millions infused
actual P2O investors .. many of whom have never sold one share

whether the fourth remains as stalwart going forward .. that i don't know
but i'm willing to take that risk .. and clearly based on always decreasing *volume*
i'm not alone in that risk taking re: this disruptive tech and its emerging sector

4kids

Quote:

---

I guess it does come down to "intent". If machine #3 was designed to show clients the capability of the process, then I'd say it was a success. If it was designed to be replicated and sold as is, I'd say it was over engineered. Too large and too complex to run consistently. It seems to me the machines will need to be sized and tweaked to meet individual client needs. If my assumption is correct, then why not size and tweak a machine for Crayola, MC, or one to reclaim HTF? That's what I see as multiple paths. Is that where OBG comes in to play? We just don't know what their real intent is, I guess. Or, at least, I don't.

---