There is at least one possible and logical conclusion here: Street.com's negative tint could have been influenced by those working on Wired's timebomb piece, or vice versa. Remember, negative energy feeds negative energy. It's also possible disgruntled employees could have fed some background into one, both or more media outlets.
The question remains--in the face of uncertain financials: Why did Wired go negative today? Could it have waited for financial verification of the stability of the company, before lowering the boom? Or was this a matter of a handful of reporters, each armed with snippets of bad background, on the downside, feeding each other?
Who has been given assurances that Price Waterhouse will release an accounting? Were the writers directed to this? Where, oh where, is the real CEO of Zulu? The BMW's weren't used cars, were they? But, best of all, I wonder, or forget: Did Mr. Burgess have a baby girl or a baby boy?
Indeed, there is much to think about.
At some point, someone--or something--will take control of a situation. Perhaps these writers fed each other's negativities? Fault of the company for not see this? Was there sufficient communication between Zulu, and/or its subsidiaries, with the street.com/Wired authors?
At this point, NETZ shareholders need something to hold onto. Perhaps a conference among shareholders and the CEO would be reassuring. What will it be? |
