Mark, your share numbers reflect the first split, which you did not
make clear in your original post. How simple it would be for people
to understand what you're saying if you would supply the data you use
for the basis of your calculations. Are we to devine that you are
looking at a mid-year table of numbers that has retroactively adjusted
the outstanding shares for one split that has occurred, but not the
other. You talk about '93 to '96, but you use share numbers reflecting
a split in the first quarter of '97. You said that you wanted to look
at the period prior to the secondary offering, then you talk about
years '93 to '96, but somehow you end up using share numbers that take
a '97 split into account. Sorry, but for me that was about as clear as
mud. If you had included the numbers you used, as you did in your
reply, there would have been no ambiguity. It seems to me, if you are
discussing prior years of a stock's history, you either apply the
splits that have occurred during that period ('93 -'96), which would
have been zero in this case, or you apply all the splits up to the
point of the discussion, which would be two at this point. I will,
however, apologize for assuming the share increase you described was
due to the first split. In the future, it would be nice if you took
some care to define the frame of reference you are using in some
detail. Talking about a point in time at mid-year, ignoring the
revenue for that partial year, but adjusting prior years for the split
that occurred in the partial year, is somewhat confusing if you don't
spell it out.
Well, that's one out of three. I'm still waiting on the response to
your misinformation on WIND's product, you remember, it's that
"interrupt code" stuff. Oh, and the part about IxWorks costing WIND so
much in development, that the small royalty wouldn't generate a large
increase in profits. With all the thought you say you put into your
posts, I'm interested in what basis you have for these statements.
Don't forget your repeated misquoting (you've done it at least twice)
of the EE Times article. I'm sure Pauline Schumann would rest easier
knowing that you admitted your error in the same public forum in which
you misrepresented her, and WIND management. BTW, how much reading and
thinking did you do before you misquoted Pauline?
Lastly, I'm still expecting you to tell us how WIND management is
"backing me up" on your I2O response to Neil Kalton. I, for one, do
not recall WIND management discounting ANY I2O volume projection, but
apparently you have, so let's hear it!
I must admit I get a little emotional when I respond to your post,
Mark. It's just that I can't stand the fact the you continue to mis-
represent the facts. The "interrupt code" topic, and your misquote of
Pauline Schumann, are just the latest in a long string. BTW, I don't
normally participate in the revenue growth/share diltution/stock
valuation discussions, and the data I presented in my post to you was
correct in every respect. It was my interpretation of the reason
for the growth in outstanding shares you used that was in error. At
least I'm able to admit that error.
-Dave Lehenky
|
