<Amati did not say I was wrong. An online news bulletin reported that
Tac Berry said there was no agreement. But is that what Tac really said?>
You said there was an agreement. The report said Tac said there was not. That constitutes you being wrong. If Infrastructure was errant in it's report, your issue is with them.
Just make the factual statement that Infrastructure mis-reported what Tac said. But until you do, and unless you are certain that they did, everything else is just spin control.
<I've been told the final papers were ready to sign --- after months of negotiations --- and USR said, "Oops, forgot to tell you, that's not included. . . " >
And we have heard QUITE differently from a variety of reports to this thread.
<My wording. . . but the bottom line is the price was too high. The only cloud being cast is your own. That USRX fell out is a given. That they couldn't agree on a price is a given. What more is there to be said?>
The deal didn't happen. You were sure that it would. You "explained" your being off in saying that it was "close". I challenged your statement of it being close.
<Please post the URL where I said the 15th. I can't believe I would
EVER put a date on anything. I've said a dozen times if at all that I
don't have any clue to timing.>
You gave some time frame. When I have time, I will dig through the posts. Until then, presume I remembered incorrectly and therefore erred in my post.
<It's hard to believe you're even saying this. I've added conditional
phrases to my posts from Day One. You discredit yourself by suggesting I don't.>
Your posts are not conservative. You rarely hide your bias/optimism in ANY post. You have admitted you are not objective regarding Amati.
Your disclaimers, when you post them, are usually a one-liner at the end, often after nod/wink speculation and/or exuberant interpretation.
And to MY former list add integrity, responsibilty and humility.
Regards-
Steve
|
