John
Good points, but like SER and Max, I don't think our thoughts are incompatible.
<<1. The news which has been released (with the possible exception of the last release) is not often long overdue (which leads to negative speculation), it is often ambiguous, poorly written and raises more questions than it answers IMO.>>
That may perhaps be true(I still think that they are somewhat overdue)
but what you say still adheres to the true intent of my post in that the actual RESULTS always turn out to be everything we expect and sometimes more. The frustration we feel as stockholders comes from the
timing and execution of RELEASING the results, not from the actual results themselves.
<<2. It is not a question of what we believe, as shareholders, would be a reasonable timetable for seeing progress should be, it is what is reasonable to expect based upon the science involved. I have seen no explanation from the company as to why for instance each new assay step takes so damn long to achieve results. I don't buy the "science takes time" hypothesis any longer.>>
Once again, I think that underlines my main premise. It appears that your frustrations stem not from whatever results we recieve but from the timing of the releases based upon your premise of what timeframes the science involves.
What this all boils down to is that we continue to make strong, measurable movements forward in terms of real fundamental progress, all the while frustrating ourselves through our own expectations and impatience(and in the opinions of some, the actions of management)
While this is not the optimum situation, I do derive great satisfaction from the progress that is being made.
Mark "The Glass is Half Full" Silvers |
