To: Matt. McCray who wrote (277 ) 2/11/1999 2:05:00 PM From: john Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 958
He said he offered to take John and Jim to see the plant, to meet the chemist, and to dispel the falsehoods that were posted yesterday. They are to meet him at 2 PM tomorrow.That is correct and I look forward to meeting with Mitch to see both the product and the facility,, also to discuss possible avenues of financing which I discussed with him this morning. Also the "falsehoods" that were posted yesterday are a result of a conversation with one, Earl Hope, who is a representative of WAMC He told me that Earl took a call from an individual but there were some questions that he (Earl) did not have answers to. I don't see a problem with that.That person was me and frankly I have no problem with Earl not having the answers either, but Earl should have said "I do not know", rather then answer the questions. Do you not agree? What I do have a problem with is when people fill in the blanks with erroneous information, post that information, and then create a panic.Is this line you talking or Mitch, if it is you you are full of it, cause I repeated the answers that I received, a couple of other questions I asked Earl said he had not heard of and I left them out intentionally because I would have been filling in the blanks. If it is Mitch talking then frankly this company has very serious problems, because Mitch after my conversation with him this morning knows exactly the source that resulted in my post yesterday afternoon, PERIOD. I believe when people want specifics they should go to the source. Mitch Adams (they even have a toll free number).Well Matt someone should tell the receptionist not to put calls through to Earl Hope, when an investor or potential investor calls to get information. Quite simple, Matt I asked for Investor Relations and was put through to Earl, I asked the questions and he replied. After all was said and done yesterday, Earl Hope called me three times, the last one his basic defence (notice a defence of his comments, not denial cause I asked all the questions again and he replied in the essientially the same fashion) of his comments were that he was new and was not that familiar with the company. Incidently, he has been their since before the New Year, some 6 weeks according to my calculations, you would think in 6 weeks time he would know if the plant were open or closed and if he didn't I'd respectfully suggest he is the wrong person for IR position. Incidently at 4.55 Pacific time yesterday Earl Hope still insisted that the plant was closed, after Mitch indicated to Jim Bishop that it was open, go figure. Question for you, would you keep Earl Hope in your employ if you were the CEO of WAMC?