I'll stay away from the Microsoft issue, except to say when you get that big you become everybody's target. So how come little NETZ has become everybody's target?
Regarding your following statement:
____________________________________________________________________
"Some here seem to be able to put a positive spin on EVERYTHING (which makes for a very questionable source of information IMO). Maybe ZULU should hire you to ADVERTISE for them.
"Ignoring ALL of the little things that we do know (or know as well as anything else), and focusing on one specific thing (financials) of which there is no guarantee we will ever see, apparently works for someone trying to sell/protect their investment. That is fine as long as the motives are understood...
"I agree that the POTENTIAL is here, but the spin-doctoring on every negative should be left to ZULU."
_____________________________________________________________________
Now, obviously, I've been drawn into the "spin" of things. But I point out none of this was a part of my intention for joining SI. I got here because I came seeking information a completely different stock. Holding NETZ at the time, I eventually found this thread.
This discovery came just after NETZ popped well above a buck. Then there came the drop and everyone's speculation as to why and how and the manipulative nature of market makers. Interspersed in this were a series of negative, I'd even say fraudulent, accusations regarding NETZ.
With the stock heading south, as a shareholder, I began voicing my concerns against the dumpsters and I also joined in all the theories regarding the market makers, etc. Great theories all, by the way. And every now and then someone would chip in something that really seemed to make sense, as if they knew how market makers worked.
In any event, there came the "great sell-off," the point where NETZ stabilized a bit near the .50 point, even once slipping back into the mid-40's. It was then I noticed something which fascinated me. People who I'd previously observed as advocates of this stock suddenly had transformed into skeptics. Did the Wired article cause this, or was there something else at play? I wondered.
Then it dawned on me that it wasn't only "enemies" of the stock (i.e., paid MM dumpsters, friends of competitors or whatever) that potentially could harm my investment. I realized a new push downward began to appear from among former owners (NETZ touters, if you will) who sold for profit, and seemed to want to buy back in cheaply in order to get another ride upward.
Call it "spin," call it what you want. But when I noted fraudulent remarks and outright contradictions and hypocritical statements were rampant, that's when I jumped in. Granted, I don't possess God's gift of knowledge of NETZ. But I do have a mind that can interpret what I see, what I hear, what I feel--in effect, what's going on.
Indeed, my remarks have been speculative and challenging. I've not deferred from enticing anyone into providing more information, nor have I attempted to hide any. For all us, information is crucial and we all seek it. But it has to be constructively offered.
Sure there've been theories, and they'll be more of 'em. But of the theories I've posed, they've been kept within the boundaries of just that, theories. More than not, they've been responsive to challenges, as presented. I've used a million "maybes," "perhaps'," "possibly's" and "what-ifs."
Sure you'd like facts. I'd like facts. And we'll get facts. We cannot make the stock move any faster just 'cause we want it to. On balance, things ain't as bad as many would like you to believe.
Notwithstanding incessant complaints, whatever the motivation, I can't fathom why they've existed when we know the following: 1) Zulu's stock has performed well in value; 2) Zulu's deep in the middle of several complicated acquisitions and partnerships; 3) Zulu's operating in perhaps the fastest breaking industry anywhere; 3) Zulu's definitely placed a new and highly qualified executive leadership (give 'em a chance to meet and learn whose in the company); and 4) Zulu's in the middle of relocating corporate its headquarters.
All of the above take time. In the meanwhile, we've gone from .20 to .65. I mean who is doing all of the complaining here? Who are you? What do you want? What do you expect? Why do you feel that you haven't accomplished what you set out to do when the stock was at .20? Marveling, ain't it?
Was this one big happy family before the Wired article? Except for a few bomb throwers, it seemed that way. Has everyone--such as I have attempted to do--diligently searched for information--both positive and negative--on Hayton? I did, but came up empty. Many of you have come up empty.
Let's face it, the downside is the Wired articles and references on SI's Powertel thread. I've seen no citings posted here; I've seen no copies of court documents presented for this forum to consider. Nor have I seen Hayton with any of Clinton's women (sorry, couldn't resist). But then again, who are they?
What else is out there? How come we can't find it? And, importantly, why does the Wired reporter know so much about things we can't find out about? Not one person has presented to this forum a supporting piece to back up the Wired allegations.
So many questions. But I still say, not only are we in good shape, but we've got a tremendous potential to do better. So let's move forward, not backward; up not down.
I hope you all understand my position. Thank you for considering this. |
