Dear POET friends,

I've been thinking (a very dangerous activity) about the current chat about the benefits given to retiring Directors.

It strikes me that the statements made in the respective PR announcements of restructuring vary significantly in tone. In Lee Shepherd’s case they are far less finalistic than the other departing directors.

For example (quoting from the respective NR) in Dr Peralta's case: 'Dr. Samuel Peralta has resigned from the Board due to other commitments', a traditional euphemism for the end of a career.

Yet in Lee's case: "We want to thank Lee for his many contributions to POET over the last two years. Lee was a very important part of our executive team that led the turn-around for POET."

Lee's value is clearly being emphasised, which coupled with the positive insights we still receive from Mrs Shepherd, I find myself reading between the lines and coming up with the conclusion that Lee has moved sideways to a POET partner, rather than up and over the horizon. I get the distinct feeling that Lee is still on the POET radar plot somewhere where he can be doing useful work for the POET cause and to our benefit. I sincerely hope this is the case.

Am I not alone in thinking that Lee's POET knowledge and experience is far too valuable to lose and that he is currently being well used by a potential partner?

I suppose he could be focussing on ODIS and setting up a new Research Centre funded by all the Gulf money that Ajit Monacha can lay his hands on. Or is this where the US Governments Advanced Manufacturing initiatives are being pointed at or indeed some of those huge grants that were being offered to get the USA back in the lead on Hi Tech.

Is there a sub plot to the POET story developing here?, or could I be totally POET bonkers, which is what (She Who Must Be Obeyed) thinks; by the way do you ever use the term (SWAMBO) in the North Americas’ for your memsahibs?

as ever,

sulasailor