I also wondered about the "...2 weeks..." statement and reasonably assumed that it was internal authorization that she would need because, frankly, I would be surprised if professional advisors and counsel for any company would allow routine, autonomous, unofficial "chat" to occur on any public forum without first being "blessed" by such authoritative scrutiny. On reflective resolution during my subsequent phone call with her late yesterday afternoon, Susan indicated that the company would probably not register or post on SI. For what it's worth, I agree with that policy.
I think that Susan was diligently attempting to answer a reasonable question raised by Isolyser investors posting on SI. I simply posted her comments because she requested my assistance, which I thought was reasonable and harmless, and I assumed that you and other thread participants would appreciate getting her response.
My conjecture is that upon her "discovery" of the guestbook's disappearance (apparently from Bill's posting), she was (presumably) simply trying to communicate that she was advised that the guestbook was only temporarily unavailable and that, after making internal inquiries of their network engineers about the unavailablity of the guestbook, she was told that the guestbook would be made available at a later time. She did advise me that the network engineer, who might best estimate the date the guestbook would again be available, was out of the country on Isolyser business; therefore, she had not been able to ask him about the timeframe for its reinstatement.
I don't know why the guestbook was taken offline other than what Susan said, which was stated in my post.
As informational disclosure, I directly - and indirectly on behalf of a few affluent clients for whom I manage investments - have significant long positions in OREX as a relatively small portion of portfolio allocations apportioned to such higher risk opportunities. |
