For starters, fair warning as I am probably about to piss a few people off first thing this morning. However, I am beginning to get the feeling that I am being pissed on while being told that it is only raining. Yes, the audit issue is being beaten to death, but I see it one of 3 ways, either I possess greater ignorance than I viewed myself possessing, some others possess greater ignorance than they realize, or there is a purposeful attempt to be obtuse and/or obfuscate the issue.
Let me be frank and as clear as I know how. The belief in the need for the audit has NOTHING to due with quieting IHUB or any other bashers; it has NOTHING to do with the need for up listing, technicality or requirement, and it has NOTHING to do with other comparable OTC tickers. Let’s take this last one. If we took 50, 100, let’s say 1000 other similar tickers; it is my guess that it would render much the same results as the original 10. However, in order to even get close to making a comparison, a question must be asked and answered which is, did all the CEO’s of those tickers make the same proclamation about an audit as SB did for ONCI? Let’s take it a step further and pretend that they all made the exact same statement, at the exact same time and are all now in the exact same position with it uncompleted. It still would be irrelevant to the debate as each CEO is responsible for statements they make regarding their own actions. All the examples and excuses that have been provided thus far are irrelevant for one simple reason, SB made the statement that it would be done. That the statement was made is a record of fact which renders its debate mute and making it an ethical issue for SB.
Now, if one wants to debate the efficacy of the result of the audit on the PPS as it relates to the impact it would have with or without catalyst events, that would be a relevant argument and one that can rightly be agreed or disagreed with. But, quite frankly, unless SB bellies up to the twitter account and states to the effect that while there was every intent to complete the audit, problems were encountered that required the audits suspension, and at this time, it is believed that there are issues of greater importance that need attention and resources. Once we are either at the need for up listing or in a place that priority can again be assigned to the audit, it has been tabled for the time being. Now, that I can respect, understand and get behind as it ends the ethical dilemma and clarifies its status. Let me clarify that I am not implying that it will stop any bashers? I don’t give two tiny rat turds about the bashers, they will bash until there is no longer a perceived benefit to do so, and they are irrelevant to the basis of this issue.
I do not for one-minute think that SB is a fool. You do not accomplish what he has without being a master communicator (BA in Communications at Syracuse University 1979-1983), excellent acumen, and acquire a very broad expanse of business experience and know how. For these reasons, I am left bewildered by the lack of follow through and communication tactics as I know by his education and business history, he possesses the skills and knowledge.
In conclusion of this my epistle, what makes a board like this of benefit and value is the ability to debate the issues with not only facts but opinions, like them or not. But let’s be honest and not attempt to obscure or deflect from the real premise of the issue at debate. If I have misinterpreted the intentions of anyone in their individual arguments or examples, I apologize, but at this point, there is the appearance of an attempt to cause distortion of the core issue within this debate.
Thanks, and as always, GLTA
Let me be frank and as clear as I know how. The belief in the need for the audit has NOTHING to due with quieting IHUB or any other bashers; it has NOTHING to do with the need for up listing, technicality or requirement, and it has NOTHING to do with other comparable OTC tickers. Let’s take this last one. If we took 50, 100, let’s say 1000 other similar tickers; it is my guess that it would render much the same results as the original 10. However, in order to even get close to making a comparison, a question must be asked and answered which is, did all the CEO’s of those tickers make the same proclamation about an audit as SB did for ONCI? Let’s take it a step further and pretend that they all made the exact same statement, at the exact same time and are all now in the exact same position with it uncompleted. It still would be irrelevant to the debate as each CEO is responsible for statements they make regarding their own actions. All the examples and excuses that have been provided thus far are irrelevant for one simple reason, SB made the statement that it would be done. That the statement was made is a record of fact which renders its debate mute and making it an ethical issue for SB.
Now, if one wants to debate the efficacy of the result of the audit on the PPS as it relates to the impact it would have with or without catalyst events, that would be a relevant argument and one that can rightly be agreed or disagreed with. But, quite frankly, unless SB bellies up to the twitter account and states to the effect that while there was every intent to complete the audit, problems were encountered that required the audits suspension, and at this time, it is believed that there are issues of greater importance that need attention and resources. Once we are either at the need for up listing or in a place that priority can again be assigned to the audit, it has been tabled for the time being. Now, that I can respect, understand and get behind as it ends the ethical dilemma and clarifies its status. Let me clarify that I am not implying that it will stop any bashers? I don’t give two tiny rat turds about the bashers, they will bash until there is no longer a perceived benefit to do so, and they are irrelevant to the basis of this issue.
I do not for one-minute think that SB is a fool. You do not accomplish what he has without being a master communicator (BA in Communications at Syracuse University 1979-1983), excellent acumen, and acquire a very broad expanse of business experience and know how. For these reasons, I am left bewildered by the lack of follow through and communication tactics as I know by his education and business history, he possesses the skills and knowledge.
In conclusion of this my epistle, what makes a board like this of benefit and value is the ability to debate the issues with not only facts but opinions, like them or not. But let’s be honest and not attempt to obscure or deflect from the real premise of the issue at debate. If I have misinterpreted the intentions of anyone in their individual arguments or examples, I apologize, but at this point, there is the appearance of an attempt to cause distortion of the core issue within this debate.
Thanks, and as always, GLTA
4
