challenge accepted, page-10

I thought the questions were in themselves fair questions.

My only criticism would be this (and it's perhaps a lesson to anyone trying to appeal to a director to answering questions)...

saying things like ...

"(I know, for example, that the nice people at the Trout Group in NYC smirk at the number of times that you mentioned his name in a presentation to them in 2008)."

...is going to hack him off without doubt IMO. It's pointing out something that cannot (I suspect) easily be confirmed (unless you go and ask all those people who were there and laughed to write to confirm it on HC). It's also not very relevant. The question re: Frazer should have stopped at the request for confirmation about chronology.

Martin may have felt that Red was making somewhat of a laughing stock of him(remember he knew that Red had posted the questions already on HC for all to see).

I'm not saying that it's justification for not answering the questions. I'm disappointed as much as anyone that a few crucial questions didn't get answered, but maybe he has other reasons. Well he did give his reasons whether we are happy with them or not.

"From the anonymous nature of your email, your focus on a conspiracy and bitter tone I assume you wish damage to the current shareholders and most sadly the patients that will receive the vaccine."

anonymous, conspiracy, bitter, damage are the four words that standout there.

If someone cares to resend the questions without the "laughing stock" comment in a way that means that no one could ever accuse them of any of those 4 things, then we'll see if we get those answers. If not, then we have legitimate right to be dissatisfied. But, I am hopeful we'll get them.