Peacelover and ALL,
First, let me thank all of you for your kind posts and many PMs. Being the workaholic I am, I worked all day today and just got back home. Best cure for not feeling good... be sure it's not serious, forget it, and get on with the work at hand. Thanks again to all for your kind wishes.
Regarding the share count, as it was used before and is thought to be used now, I'm sorry that I can't agree with its importance. The members of this thread own or control many shares, but there are many, many other shareholders who do lurk and, IMO, you will never get a straight answer (if you get one at all) from any of them. I was on the phone for over three hours tonight from my office speaking with a few shareholders who are not members of SI. Between us we own or control in excess of 2,000,000 shares. So what? TSIG, to the best of my knowledge, does monitor this thread. The share count is easily in the millions, but the exact share count is, IMO, unimportant. As far as I'm concerned, whether a shareholder owns 100 shares or 100,000 shares or 1,000,000 shares should have no bearing on the issue at hand. A shareholder is a shareholder... period. If someone is looking to start a shareholder uprising may I suggest from my own experience that they will lose as will management. It serves nobody's goals or purpose. I believe the members of this thread have more intelligence than to "cut off their nose to spite their face".
Let me say this loud and clear... I am not selling any of my stock... now or for a long time. In fact, I may be looking to buy more, but that is irrelevant. Please reread my post:
Message 6248564
I intend to talk with Rob Gordon, James Guild and the Webmaster... and I will report back to the thread members with exactly what is going on with the website, etc.. It is certainly not inside information. I don't expect, nor do I want to hear about what will be in the future. If done properly and things are prioritized [ie: a fully functioning website, including classical music, phonetic-type search such as SoundX (an Oracle applet, I believe)]... then we will have a giant on our hands or in our bank accounts. Without these we have nothing to sell... no MusicCards... nada!! Frankly, I like the simplicity of the site as it is. It could probably use more "glitz" to make it more appealing (similar to the old original website), but having looked at the competitions' websites I like our clean look better. But that is personal taste and, IMO, totally unimportant right now. What we need now is a fully functioning, attractive, intuitive website with all types of music available, the ability to search for an artist even if the name is not quite spelled correctly, etc.. We need e-mail confirmations of orders. We need someone to proof and make corrections on the fly so sloppiness such as "run together" words just doesn't exist. What we need now, to put it quite simply, is a website where people can go to buy almost any music they want... easily and without being a computer guru to guide them through the process. And when I say now, I mean now... not next month. Next month they can start working on Version 2... after we are up and running and able to make deals for CCI and establish a positive cashflow.
Sorry to take so long with this post, but as you know that is my nature. Unfortunately, some have confused my frustration with certain things as being negative about TSIG. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I am frustrated about a number of things... especially my credibility on this thread, but unless I am refused answers from management about what I believe is already in the public domain, my long position in TSIG stands. You do have my word that I will report back to the members of the thread. Please do not have any concern if I am too exhausted to post until I have something to post about (you'll probably enjoy the respite <VBG>). I will not bail on you... who in the strange ways of cyberspace have all (well almost all) become friends.
Best always,
Marty |
