You suggests he drops this? lol. So there is const

You suggests he drops this? lol. So there is constructive debate on accounting principles and intent and you are threatening the CEO who is providing his interpretation of the accounting methods that HE signed off on and now you appear to be threatening him with the unsaid "or else." Why should the CEO stop trying to explain his actions and interpretation to shareholders who otherwise do not have direct access? Just because there is no book value doesn't mean the asset has no value. It seems clear that is what he was trying to explain. Maybe the intent is to make it clear that the company has NO value so you can continue to do the 1-2 flip that has been staging for some time.