<< I think the release was vague in some areas, not intentionally, but due to careless language ("diction" imprecise). >>
---------------------
<< The characterization of the release as "vague" is charitable. Perhaps incomprehensible is a little too strong, but one thing is for sure. There is absolutely no excuse for the lack of clarity in this release. How the company can undermine its own credibility in this way is disturbing to this shareholder >>
---------------------
<< << The characterization of the release as "vague" is charitable. >>
Not in my book. Nothing "charitable" about calling speech "vague."
Vague speech mis-communicates, confuses and delays (or wrecks) projects,
causes misunderstandings and wars .... >>
Cheryl,
Were it not for more relevant issues, it would be interesting to discuss the semantics involved above. The bottom line, I believe, is that we share the same low regard for the quality of the subject release.
My reading of the release, and resulting questions, were also similar to yours and I thought your interpretive analysis (as usual) was excellent, not withstanding some further enlightenment Henry has subsequently provided.
I was taken aback by Henry's responses to your post (I'll have some words for him later). Thought I had missed something, so I went back and reviewed the thread since the release. Looked for answers HN claimed had already been provided and found little. Also looked for some reason for him to respond to you as he did --- nothing (except perhaps my own posts which may have irritated him)
Message 7907203 Message 7908154
It would appear that this serious questioning of the Ligand release really hit a nerve with Henry.
Regards,
SMH |
