Neil:
First:
You have not responded to my question as to the "large institutional interest" pending the resolution with the SEC. More hype Neil?
You state:"You state I am "unresponsive to facts and evidence".....well partner how do you respond?"
I respond to your non substantive post as follows.Though I am still amazed that someone who calls people at Gerber and Kodak....that here you are given an opportunity to get real facts, you duck. This leads to believe you ascribe tot the saying "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS.
In response, I was not having "one of my bad days". Though I was amazed at your lame response to the invitation.
In respose to:"First, I do not recall posting "many criticisms"
Neil, you have posted many times challenging whether this was a legitiamate company or some short scheme.
In response to: "It should be clear to you that any restrictive observation I would have been provided by Digitek would have provided me no useful purpose."
Where did it the offer say you would have "restrictive observation". I recognize that Prst hid much of its "technology" during your plant tour, yet Hollingsworth stated clearly, that the technology they use, which they offered to let you observe, was simple. Your assumption appears to be baseless.
Your statement " Even though I have examined the PEARL technology on the QMDI and GTO presses and found it to be the most wonderful clarity, who am I to "pretend" to have the eye for one plate over
another....for that matter, how would I know if I were examining the work of aPresstek plate or Digitek plate?
It's my understanding, that Digitek owns a DI press. Certainly you could ask them to let you observe the loading of the plates, if they refuse, than you point would be well taken. However, again, you imply, without foundation, that this would not be allowed.
You than state:"Even more obvious to me is the certainty this invitation request was not provided to me by Digitek unless they had virtual control over what I would observe and who I would interview and what they would say."
Neil, again, you imply something not stated. Are you paranoid, or just scared of what you may observe and learn.
You than state: "As they have requested that I examine Digitek's plate performance and intellectual property information, Paul, based on your "expertise", I am hereby officially delegating or passing this "opportunity of a lifetime" from me, to you, for YOUR (Digitek's)unbiased views, to report back to this forum."
Neil, clearly the offer was made to you, as you are the most outspoken long on the thread. Just as you now group me with Ivan, I doubt any report by myself would mean much. However, I will join you during your visit, should you chose to accept Digiteks invitation.
You than make the incredible statement: "I prefer to avoid a most certain potential liability if their plate violates Presstek patents."
Neil, tell me your smoking something, this statement is just plain absurd. This reminds me your ducking move on the Seybold forecast, where you alluded to litigation.
As for your assertion that Digitek has some obligation or reason to submit their plate to presstek. Perhaps you would like to submit your client list to your competitors. This statement indicates you are either naive or stupid (neither of which do I believe to be true) or blowing smoke. |
