Well, Terry. I didn't really chastise a supporter who turned negative, beyond my comment that I thought both Jon and Aleta "got" to Brady.
Actually, I have no problem with Brady. It's apparent to me that he, at least, has sincerely, based on his feelings as they've evolved, drifted back and forth. I recognize this. I do not fault him.
Though I criticized his comments yesterday, I don't chastise Brady. I see nothing sinsister in his intentions. I think he raises good issues more than not and has been an effective and apt researcher in this whole adventure. It's just I got into the tiff with him because I felt his specific wording was excessive and damaging where it shouldn't be.
Now, yourself? You were once a supporter. And because you didn't get the answers you sought, you became negative. But I don't think you realize that once you become negative you ended always up assuming the worst, which is what I think you do by comments below:
>>>"In light of I what in my opinion is solid evidence of insider self-dealing and incompetence, the burden of proof has shifted to Zulu and ESVS to prove otherwise.<<<
Can you prove in a court of law "solid evidence of insider self-dealing and incompetence?" I'm afraid, Mr. Good Attorney, that you have a bit of burden of proof upon yourself right now, based on your comment. How do you know with certain specific knowledge that what you are alleging is true?
>>>Help us with one solid, concrete bit of evidence of viable, ongoing operations for either company, or that they are paying their obligations in ordinary course of business, or that these companies will be able to survive the latest setbacks, delays, added costs of compliance, etc.?<<<
Well, Terry, ESVS--according to the 8K--secured a 20 million dollar loan and has received 1.5 upfront with the balance due yesterday, November 30th. Let's agree there were some financial difficulties. Are they correctible? Of course they are. Will this 20 million dollars help? Of course it will.
According to the ESVS press release, they didn't meet the Nasdaq net asset valuation requirement prior to August, but as of November 24th, they did. Thus, in fact, they were deslisted due to a technicality, which caused a chain reaction of Nasdaq concerns.
The company, according to those who have contacted it, expects to get relisted soon, or will move onto AMEX. Prior to the delisting 200,000 ESVS shares were trading per day over a 10 day average; and since the delisting, about 25,000 shares daily have traded. So you'd have to agree there was action in the mill, prior to the delisting snafu.
Consider Terry: What would you--or anyone--be thinking, given the recent hiring of Chmiel, the news regarding Top Rank and County Seat and if a new CEO--also with Disney connections (so I hear in the rumor mill)--came on board, and that the delisting snaful had not happened?
You'd probably be feeling pretty good and certainly would not have written what you wrote above, especially if you were comfortable that the merger deal would finalize by December's end. Indeed, most certainly you would have marked your words quite differently.
Do I have hope? Yes. Do you have hope? Or do you complain? At least you complain as a shareholder, and this is laudible. |
