Party's voice is right here. What is your voice doing, might be the better question?
I've never opposed information. Quite opposite. The more we know, the greater our understanding of what's happening. But with information comes a responsibility to adequately intrepret what that information means.
It's not information. I'm only opposed to resultant slants, yours included, in landslide form, intentional or innocent. I try to value information objectively and feel it's wrong, as you do, to dampen the impact of interpretation to information. Usually, when information comes out, you find me responding to landslide-induced negative connotations.
Too often I see negative conclusions instead instead of valued questions based on what is learned. Thus, too frequently, I end up retorting with alternative possibilities rather than accepting only negative conclusions.
Think, Drifter. Rolling Rock identifies an address in the filing. Bill, Brady, perhaps others, do a search relative to what's at that address. It's discovered as an old Netmaster office (not surprising, really) near an area close to where Pat Hayton has a home.
So what happens? You, others like you, immediately try to impress we're being conned, we're in a stock scam. Do you know with absolute, clear and convincing proof of this? No, you don't! But such is the impression you seemingly intentionally always leave. Indeed, more facts are needed before jumping to YOUR negative conclusions.
Instead of your unfounded Rolling Rock scam alert bit, you might instead consider the following: New CEO and new COO, results of prestigious headhunter searches (a Beverly Hills headhunter group) are about to take control of ZuluGroup.com, and will embark in a new direction. So where's Pat Hayton going to go? Whatta ya wanna do, fire the man who created the vision for this company? That doesn't make sense, does it?
To date, we've seen only Pat Hayton's vision and actions playing a forceful role in day to day activities. Factor in bad press, horrible thread taints (like what you present) and other complicating issues. You don't think this made it difficult for those executives who once wanted to run Zulu (Meatchem, Lair and Green)? Micromanaging on Hayton's part might not have helped either.
But the bottom line is folks who put up the original money did so for a reason: IT'S NOT FAILURE! Time and history are ripe for this kind of an Internet company. They know it. I know it. And, yes--admit it!--even you know it.
Consider where this business plan might be today without ex-SIMer or possible competitor sabotage turning into Wired/SD stories and the resultant negativity on these threads and other places. Did Hayton become overly paranoid of ex-SImers? Perhaps. Did he consequently rule with a stronger hand than necessry, thereby affecting those executives who left?
Even so, did he stay focused on bringing together the necessary ingredients for a vertically integrated company? I think he did.
So we're at the critical ebb in time. Much of what's been lined up is there and ready to participate, based on certain conditions. I think Ajammer's right on target with his projection only the final merger will cure the problem.
Netvest and Hayton have come as far as they can go. Can't you at least give 'em some credit for setting the table? This plan can't and won't succeed without funding from the ESVS side of operations and without valued and qualified executive leadership to move in a futuristic manner.
So let's say funding and resources are in place. How then can this leadership rise to the challenge? It's an easy answer. You give them control of the company. In order to do that, Pat Hayton has to step aside. Ironically, all of you who have been calling for his head are perhaps failing to see the very solution to what's been your most diligent complaint: Let someone, besides Hayton, run the company!
So, if it turns out, Rolling Rock is part of a Hayton Group, it doesn't mean this was set up to take money away from you (well actually, Drifter, neither you nor Jon Tara--the two present greatest complaintants--are invested) or me. Thank you for thinking of me, but I really don't need your thoughts like that. Why? Because you suggest it's a rip-off while I'm still trying to understand the value of the information. Give others a break, as well, will ya?
One possible conclusion is that Hayton will continue a valuable role as consultant (his original intent, as I recall). He'll perhaps do some point work bringing new deals into the mix, contribute his knowledge of history and vision, stuff like that. In the meanwhile, this done, Rolling Rock frees Chmiel and the new CEO from becoming micromanaged, as perhaps happened in the past.
Ironically, what you may be seeing is a victory which you're calling defeat.
Information? On balance, there's a lot more to consider than what you midirectingly have projected to people.
Like your cow thing on Yahoo? Well, Drifter, if you're gonna milk a cow, leave the impression it is indeed a cow that is being milked and that the cow is milked only 'cause WE need milk, not because you enjoy milking cows.
In retrospect, I tend to think that you're more paranoid of ZuluGruop.com than Pat Hayton was of the ex-SIMers.
So there's my voice, HIGHPLANESDRIFTER. There's more than just your view, isn't there?
PS: I forgot to welcome you back to SI. Are you here to stay this time?
PartyTime
|
