Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Burt Roger who wrote (14190)	8/17/2000 11:05:20 PM
From: Todd Pagel	Respond to of 18366

Burt, my pleasure. As a favor to Jon, I made sure it was clear exactly what Robert said, and what my own thoughts were. The lengths I go to for the lovers of rhetoric and redundancy... LOL

To: Burt Roger who wrote (14190)	8/18/2000 1:43:06 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18366

This is rediculous. Sentinel has simply repeated the EXACT SAME WORDS (with the sole exception that "deals" has been substituted for "deal") as in his previous post. And, though he says: "He thanked me for disseminating the information we spoke about accurately and had only one clarification to make to the post. I have listed it below in bold... " THERE IS NOTHING LISTED IN BOLD!! So, let's try this again: just what was the clarification that Mr. Putnam made? Perhaps something was lost in the translation when Burt copied it from RB to SI. But there is nothing in bold, and the text of RP's answer is, word for word, the same as in the original post (with the one exception noted). Yes, I am displeased with this, because it is still not clear. If, though, indeed RP did say exactly those words, or words similar to those, I am not displeased. In fact, I am please that I was right. If this is the case, RP has made it clear that when he says "working with", he means only a very broad range of relationships, which might include "negotiations, deals, consultations, etc., a whole range of relationships." The substitution of "deals" for "deal" changes nothing for me. I certainly never implied that the singular "deal" had any particular meaning, though I think perhaps Carl did. And I suspect even he meant it in a light-hearted vein. In any case, RP qualified the whole list with "might", so it should be understood that "deals" might mean any quantity of deals, from zero to n. Let's just try a simple, yes-or-no answer... Is this, or something substantially similar, what RP said? "A:No, EDIG cannot discuss the status of the individual relationships, even generally saying something like, "There are 4 done deals". The "double digits" phrase was a broad guideline from early on to give people the understanding that EDIG was working with a significant number of companies, rather than depending on one or two relationships. The "double digits" includes negotiations, deals, consultations, etc., a whole range of relationships. The OEM's are not migrating to simple players, and in fact are going to strive to distinguish themselves with unique feature sets, which is where the MicroOS shines."" Very simple. Yes or no. Did he say it or didn't he? We needn't waste any more of your time than that which it takes to give a simple yes or no answer. If this is the case - if he did say this - then something is not right about Sentinel's previous statements. He was initially very specific about DENYING that RP said what he now says that RP did say, and saying that some of it was his own interpretation. (While not being specific about which is which.) "He thanked me for disseminating the information we spoke about" BTW, did you suggest that a press release would be a more effective and accurate means of disseminating company information? I guess Sentinel is cheaper than PRNewsWire, though, and the shareholders should be happy that RP is saving them money in this manner, LOL!