Hi to all. I am a new poster and hope to periodically add to the thoughtful and analyical posts in this forum. I have owned NOT for about a month and appreciate this forum as a tool for DD. when I post, I will try and focus on facts. I will try and analyse them honestly and with integrity and form my thoughts and theories based on facts & rational thought and let the chips fall where they may. I dont want to be a cheerleader or a basher, just a reaonable analyser.

I read with particular interest Pm's latest post where he states that their is a big difference between NOT's past claim that the lab is behind due to an overload of volume (per the post NR of 4/2/08) vs. the NR of 4/25/08 which indicates that they have the results but due to quality control issues they cannot be released and need to be re-verified.

I would say that if NOT knew about the quality contol issues back on 4/2/08 and didnt disclose this to investors until now, then I would agree with PM's concerns and at the very least, I would surmise that NOT has a credibility problem. But what would they have gained by withholding? Here is one possiblity. Maybe if it had been released sooner, could it possibly have affected the exercise of warrants which netted them over $12 M? But then didnt the exercise of the warrants actually benefit shareholders (as well as NOT) by increasing their cash on hand. Im thinking it actually may have been detrimental to the "big guys" that exercised as they may have gotten their shares cheaper on the open market if this news had been release sooner. Regardless who benefits and who doesnt, it is MHO that NOT needs to disclose informatin such as this in a timely manner and I agree with PM that ifthey had this information and didnt dislcose it ASAP, then their is a mistrust factor that can develop.

On the other hand, perhaps there is another scenario that is just as plausible that may have occurred that does not hurt NOT's crediblity, but acutally enhances it. It all depends on when they recieved the information about the lab quality control problems.

What if this is the sequence of events. Lets say that the lab was slow and they told RN that due to volume issues they are behind. RN is livid, but what can he do. He issues 4/2/08 NR advising shareholders on the situation. I can just see him calling the lab and in no uncertain terms telling (demanding?) them he wants the results back "yeterday", its been too long and put a rush on it etc, etc. They try to accomodate him with a rush job and in the process screw it all up. RN finally gets his results back so we get rumors of results to be released soon. Then NOT discovers the quality control issues and the fact the the results cannot be released. RN is probably fuming as shareholders are on his case big time, but what can he do. He then issues the 4/25/08 NR and we all will just have to wait. If the second scenario is what happened, then no credibilyt problem at all. It all depends on when they recieved the infromation on the qualtiy control problem from the lab.

Maybe someone can find this out. I like to think that scenario #2 is what happened but actually I dont know. IF that is the case, then NOT has no credibilyt issues as all. They did there job well in catching the quality problem and are taking steps to correct things. We are all in the same boat and will have to wait for final results.

I am late for a meeting and dont have time to review this before I post. Hope it makes sense. Very long on NOT, but looking for facts and rational thought, positive or negative as long as its presneted in civil manner to make good decisions on my investment.

profitz