I'm not being a moderator I'm being a poster. Also, I'm not slamming you, I'm disagreeing with you. I shouldn't be precluded from the debate just because I'm a mod.

I made the effort to contact IR a couple of weeks ago to get some answers about the seeming discrepancies in the PCWorld article and to test my theory that PET's charm is it's solution to the p-channel transitor problem in GaAs (which was confirmed).

I said I would paraphrase if I posted on the board, but since it means so much to people I'll post a line from my response verbatim. Keep in mind i wasn't asking if a company requested the 100nm demo, but this came up while I was getting answers about the p-channel.

"-Part of your answer lies in what has been asked of the Company to demonstrate as per out last press release. The N gate in GAAS is historically fast and always will be."

Of course the last press release was the request for the 100nm to be demonstrated.

Sorry if you don't feel you got enough points for being positive this week. If you are going to make a statement that suggests POET was rejected, leading to a switch to a licensing model, you are going to get a challenge from me. As you are fond of reminding us, everyone should have a voice. That presumably includes me aswell.