David, You do present some questions that we would all like answered. However, you are asking this question in the wrong place. I don't know how PABN will merge with another company or if that will really be necessary, nor do you. I do get the feel that the sheer enormity this company is becoming intimidates the folks who would appear to have some reason to "get even" with them, whatever that means. Perhaps you could take your questions along on APRIL 23, 1999? Maybe you can back John into another "corner"?
However, lets look at what is going on today:
Colleen, not having the slightest clue says:
"I believe the real truth is that PABN is paying a fee to attend this Microsoft tete-a-tete in Dallas. Why an investor feels a need to paint a different picture, to 'suggest' that PABN is presenting a lecture/seminar directly to Microsoft and that they were selected for this honor is beyond me. Unless.....there was an attempt to mislead.
Doug responds with a quote:
" Larry Roof , our R&D Director, is a guest speaker at the up
coming Microsoft Tech.ed conference:"
Now I ask you, based on the facts so far presented, who is misleading and who is simply taking what we know? There is no evidence, other than the unqualified opinion of Colleen that this just could not possibly happen. Has she called Microsoft to determine if Larry Roof is manning a booth or presenting as a guest speaker? I have not seen anything here that even remotely suggests that he has. Yet, she wants folks to believe that noone from PABN could possibly be a "Guest Speaker." Anyone who has attended one of these things (I have) knows that speakers are not presenting to Microsoft. Microsoft is the host and Larry is presenting to the attendees, who are from all over the country and represent thousands of companies. Colleen even goes on to allude that PABN has been put forth as the presenter and is lecturing directly to Microsoft. No where was that claimed. Just that Larry Roof is speaking.
Just for discussion, however, let's assume it to be true that Larry really is presenting. Let's assume also that PABN really is in the formation process of a banking entity. Let's assume that PABN really is opening IT locations as previously documented. And, lets assume that IT really is in beta testing (I know that is true) and that once the bugs are worked out (Have you noticed all of the bugs in Microsoft software?) the package will be released. We really do have a large house here. It also seems that the release of the financial report may cause this stock to take off in price.
OK, still in discussion mode, once the true value of PABN is justified as, let's say, 1.00 per share, would you not agree that a merger with a listed company could be accomplished without a split, either reverse or forward on either side?
IMHO, this notion that the only way this could be accomplished would be with a RS is premature, and preempts any other possibilities. Without more than speculation, I believe that folks who ignore other possibilities are way off base. Now if they would present their beliefs in a manner that suggests that they might be right, but leave open the door that other things may be happening, then most of us would be open to entertain discussion with them, but when they take the position such as detailed above by Colleen, it leaves little room other than to point out how rediculous they are being. Is it worth our time to attempt discussion with them? I think not. They do not respond to thought, nor do they discuss issues. They only seem able to dictate the answers as they want despirately for them to be. Now, tell me, do you actually expect reasonable discussion to emerge from that environment? |
