Dear Quan Gork, 

I agree entirely with your response and applaud your reluctance to be repetitive about the PO .  

However Junkers97 does not need defending.  He speaks from the hip, he doesnt do group talk and is always ready to fly squish exuberance, to the extent that the glooms are in the lead, as wiith others efforts on this board, it has become a soulless miserable experience to be part of. I want us to be more light hearted and less crying over spilt milk.

Read the cautionary statements and risks in the Companies regularly reiterated statements and there is simply no need for armchair executives to wag fingers.

What bugs me about the realism group talk here is that its always retrospective and clings to the negative offerings giving no recognition of achievement and progress and therefore lacks balance.

Personally, I feel this is part of the reason for SP decline, particularly when we have had positive news of patents and goals achieved.yet SP goes down.  I have frequently said we are our own worce enemies and outsiders accessing this site, to get a feel for how things going, would generally get the impression of disgruntlement. Any analyst would pick up on this and it is only when they see more positivity fro this shareholder forum would they confidently be upbeat about progress. 

The bad management view here is predicted on the PO and low SP.  I fully understand the psychological effect of low SP, my Mehmsahib only reads the bottom line, but this measure in no way indicates the worth or potential of this investment.  Neither has anyone the right to justly castigate management over their decision to raise capital given the cautionary notes in statements.

None of us know what wriggle room they had in the financial markets, their ability to manipulate market forces or the urgency of the finacial cirumstances that led them to their decisions, which yes at face value seem disastrous, but yet may prove the nine penneth  of tar that saved the ship.

This board needs to focus on what it's best at in exposing DD, it should desist from playing armchair directors and belittling management when the full facts are not known , it should applaud achievement and progress and point to the opportunity and the holy grail potential of its unique and disruptive intellectual property by actively promoting a positive factually supportable view . This should be done on the basis that all cautionary statements and risk are stated clearly and succinctly in the company's statements.  We do not need glooms to remind us of facts already encapsulated in a thorough risk assesment and in the cautionary sections of mangemental statements.  To do so is repetition.

with warm regards,

Sula