carlcag wrote: Hi Samir
Firstly Hello, and thank you for your post. Secondly thank you for its a cohesive content.
I have been interjecting for some time. Sadly several of the people on here are actually moderators on those forums. They like to pick and choose submissions and block people when their inflated and unfounded statements are challenged. They wholesale as moderators use profanity and gang up on any point of view that makes them look inept, who moderates the moderators ?
The fact is that these people can’t selectively moderate on here I trust this assists as to why i’m new on here. I was actually asked by many on the Facebook forum to share my points of view on here away from the mind police !
In particular I recently had a great concern in regard to a comment that trashed technologies already proven in the market with no regard to the fact that some of the companies that own those technologies may be in discussions with Patriot or could some day be the 600 lb Gorilla that acquires Patriot, or hopefully the other way around for that matter.
In some instances products referred to as pieces of brown stuff. That is not professional nor constructive. I wanted people to explain their comments.
My reading of Patriot One press releases indicated that the product was fresh out of McMaster and they are Alpha / Beta on different aspects of the subsystems. That was clear in the press releases to me when I striped away all of the flowery wording.
So when i’m being “Here are the facts” from Haydar “ $2.7M of a product sold” I have questioned the posters of these statements as to where they are seeing this. I read many words revolving about hopes and aspirations of the company but nothing that stated this as a matter of fact. I challenged that notion of others like Haydar and Mike270 and was called negative ?
On the 28th December a very clear release was issued by the company that shown that my reading of prior press releases was pretty much to the letter. But within moments another pumpity pump interpretation of even that cold hard document of fact ?
That is simply nuts !
There was within press releases never a need and certainly after 28th December for people to swamp the company for answers. In my personal opinion the answers were in the press releases. That is why I have been questioning the lofty notions of certain people.
The other thing that concerned me and still does is the notion that other technologies don’t exist in space and that this hasn’t been done before.
Secondly that this misuse of Tier 1 notion is seriously misplaced at this stage in the life cycle of patriot.
See my comment on ADE 651 and as to why people over inflating something that is yet to materialise is a bad idea.
Further people celebrating an FCC report without having the first solitary clue what it does and doesn’t cover or allow the company to do and what constraints it imposes.
I read the FCC report in detail. I was then told by a certain person on this board I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about , yet on the Management disclosure it states exactly what I told him that FCC is an electrical interference certificate, not a type approval to beam radio at people. So as of 28th December he is now wholesale arguing with the Patriot One CEO statement that backs up what i don’t know :-)
Only the other day I saw a post where the antenna off a PATSCAN was in a news piece and the Due diligence on here that know it all didn’t actually know that it was a the antenna array off the product they know everything about until i told them and the photo was from the FCC submission ?
Kind Regards
Carl