Ronald:
You guys have made a powerful case against IAS. To
deny that would be like denying water is wet. I realize what IAS has to
do in order to prove itself in the eyes of every skeptic. It has been
explained very well by so many (maybe the experts on this thread should get
together and write a text book for this subject. It would be a sure success).
**** I thought I already did! I posted all the chapters here...... **** 8^}
**** Actually, IAS doesn't need to prove anything to skeptics. All they have to do is deliver DWM, and the skeptics will line up at their front door, oozing with regret and ready to apologize, and I'll be the first in line! ****
Not one skeptic on this thread has seen the complete version of DWM.
**** Well, you're right about that. I would have been glad to see it but was never given the chance, though I did ask, and said pretty please, three times; I also attended the much advertised public "demo" in June. Perhaps you can answer something I have wondered, though. It has been over three months since the PR meeting. Why hasn't the demo, which, according to IAS, was ready in June, been shown since then to any third party who can attest to it in public? Surely, there must be a way to do this and still protect IAS' interests. In fact, I volunteer! I'm only a few miles away; show me that DWM works and I will convince the rest. If you think I am a good CRITIC, you ought to see me as an ALLY! HOWEVER, it has got to be an objective demonstration; I can't take anything on faith in this case.
This is not a criticism, it just puzzles me. I can't see the logic in IAS enduring the fall of their stock prices, lawsuit, SEC investigation, etc., when all they'd have to do to stop all that is simply show the demo. Is there a tactic or purpose that I can't see in this? Now, don't hit me with the patent thing; I've been involved with patenting products for years and know better. I can understand wanting to keep the technology from competitors, but, to keep it secret from potential customers? I'm missing something here...
I'll tell you a secret: I am not anxious for DWM to fail. I'd like to be wrong. I have friends who will lose a lot if it doesn't work, and I won't gain anything by its failure. What has been said here is not that it DOESN'T work; that kind of statement can only be made after one has seen it "not working". HOWEVER, what has been said here are many reasons why it CAN'T work AS ADVERTISED. If it is supposed to work as IAS has said it does, then I have problems with that. I can actually conceive of how some parts of DWM could function, but, IAS seems to be saying it works some other way.
IAS challenged all technical people everywhere to take their best shot at DWM, and they did. If you look at the tone of the press releases, etc., which IAS put out prior to the PR in June, it is no surprise that many experienced technical peopple took issue with IAS claims. You see, IAS didn't just claim they had found a new PRODUCT to sell, they claimed they had INVALIDATED THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL RULES UPON WHICH COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IS BASED. IAS issued a challenge to the world, and they got a response. There are other companies who are pushing technologies with problems as big as DWM has, but, those companies didn't dare the world to prove them wrong, so they didn't get the attention IAS is getting.
You've got to admit, though, IAS has gotten a lot of free press over this. If DWM is ever publicly demonstrated, you and other IAS shareholders are going to really look good.
I've been very candid with you (publicly), now perhaps you will be candid with me: if you had not already purchased IAS stock, would you buy it now? Why or why not? ******
"This is why I can live with "blindly" trusting
IAS, for Neldon would surely not risk taking up residence in a jail cell,
with a cellmate (no pun intended) that calls him "Honey", if he thought for
a half of a second that he may be wrong."
**** If I seem as though I want Neldon to go to jail, I want to change that, because I have no such desire. I've "emailed" a bit with some of the other "critics", and I don't think that is what they want either. And I understand your reasoning. However, one thing you are not considering is that everyone at IAS is dependent upon Neldon to tell them whether it works or not (actually, it is quite clear we shouldn't say "works", but perhaps should say "will work"). And Neldon does not have to be dishonest to make the mistake of believing it will work when it won't; I can't begin to count the number of times I've thought I had a real breakthrough, only to later discover, through application of methodical analytic evaluation, that I had made a false assumption or otherwise did something wrong. At this point, with all that has happened, and all that is at stake, imagine the consequences of his stating that "oops, I guess it doesn't work after all". I don't see how he could possibly do that now. He is going to have to keep going and try to make it work. And there will continue to be critics until he does.
Well, enough of this. Not only is there little else for Neldon to do but show a working demo, there isn't much else to critique, either. The claims and couterclaims are firmly establihed. We just need to wait and see what happens.
Larry |
