Well, I check in after my Sunday of fun only to notice the previous posters were drunker than I am now. Given my condition, I don't have time nor the capacity to dissect much of the gop I just read. But I do have two quick conclusions and a little more on that.
1) Matty G--Buy today or tomorrow, and you'll be back in at the high end of where you were at the beginning; but you'll still be in early enough to do well a second time. The stragglers with him should do the same.
2) The contradiction of people crying over Meatchum's (however your consciousness for spelling his name) not being uno numero, is sadder than Matty G and the others not owning shares now.
I have a very simple criticism of Meatcthum, and it's not his fault: He should have been described, in the beginning, as an "interim CEO." He wasn't. So we're confused by this.
Does it bother me? Yes. But about as much as a typo. I know his company also came on board with him and that there was a reason for this. You tell me. What I do know is that NETZ, before its association with ESVS, had a two-pronged advertising strategy and one of them involved automobiles. Does anybody really have a problem with this?
But I'm also of the opinion that Meatchum would not find himself in Lair's shadow were it not for a better reason. Whether it be Meatchum, departing SIM executives or others, none of 'em have presented themselves on this thread to tear apart what NETZ is doing. And this is--is it not?--the primary vehicle for discussion of this stock.
So, show me the record. Prove to me the worst. If the company is so bad, where is the name(s) of prominence behind its worst criticism? Aside from Wired--and who knows what and how they got fed--the obvious market maker reality and a few illegitimate shorters, this stock still passes muster.
Notice I didn't say financials. But even the worst critic knows there are around the corner.
So here's something we can all agree on: When the bell rings, it starts; when the bell rings, it's done. How'd NETZ do? |
