"But you guys were just so convincing on this site."

Glass, yes they were/are. But it only makes sense that the tech guys in the company know even better, and tech companies fail all the time, yet for those failed tech companies that operated in good faith, I'm sure they would have had techies like ours here who thought their tech was fantastic and could write cogently and convincingly about it.

I've seen it in biotech many times, in resource stocks many times. It's not always a scam, it's more often than not on the level and in good faith, but it's still speculative, and oftentimes, that's what sinks a dream.

If our management were of the crooked ilk, our stock would have moved some during the road shows of a year or so ago, yet it remained completely in the doldrums, price wise and volume wise. Does that sound like they were telling tall tales? It seemed to me more like they were talking straight to professional investment people who were not already in love with the company and the thought of retirement, yachts, BMW's, etc. It seems those investment people decided not to buy at the time, some perhaps never to buy, others to keep an eye open for further progress or for an opportunity to buy in more cheaply than the price a year ago.

Our management guys are square (okay, maybe soften the edges a bit), these guys are smart, and these guys thought the VCSEL, for example, could be optimized more quickly than has been the case. I believe they thought wrong. Really smart, honest people are wrong all the time. I also believe that they think they still have a good shot at getting the job done, and, because of that, I think they have a shot, too, although I have no way of quantifying how good a shot it is.

Sure would be nice to be waiting for it at $2.50 US, rather than $0.25 US, though.