Getting past AssumptionsYes Red...we can agree to ignore the many "joke" posts. And that still leaves open (given we're attempting to swing the gate that direction) some of the facts that Sally raises, and which I believe are correct. Investors cannot argue with where the share price is compared to a year ago, although those who jumped in at $2+ might. But even a year ago, you had to wonder about some of the historical decision making and processes used. There are some (not all...by a long shot) sophisticated shareholders here who take personal umbrage with "what's happening behind the scenes" which we are told by Phillip we must remain blinded to. You may be more comfortable with accepting the ways management has navigated this idea so far, and as I've acknowledged repeatedly, Phillip has worked hard at getting the science to a place where something disruptive could be at hand. And then what? Trust, and you'll/we'll get rewarded? There are many who post here who include the addendum..."but verify." The AGM is where I have stated we get to use our votes in a trust, but verify way. My biggest beef is that the institutional side of this investor community may be more sophisticated at value realization than the guy piloting both the business side as well as the science side as CEO. Does that make him a bad guy? Absolutely not. And...do I trust that he/we have a near unlimited runway to get this idea where it should be? Absolutely not. So let's assume going forward that we deserve better information as shareholders. Let's also assume that any company worth investing in, doesn't see itself as being above having to provide clear answers to tough questions. Using the argument "Behind the scenes" is not done from a position of strength. All I think some of us here want, is to be respected for our commitment. We appreciate a good joke, we just don't want to end up being the target of that joke.
DF