@madamswer, you are overvaluing the word "appreciative". I expressed appreciation for receiving a response to my enquiry. I said thanks for replying. A usual courtesy. Did you learn your manners in the same place as
@swerdna1979?
What do you do when someone, even an employee of a company in which you hold shares, takes time to reply to you?
Are you and
@honeyforme so naive as to think that I expected to receive price sensitive information in reply to my queries? My intention in sending those enquiries was to show MSB that the conference call was an inadequate exposure of current matters. As in my first enquiry: "
I am sure you appreciate that there is much investor anxiety around Teva's withdrawal and the lack of clarity for the reason." I was asking for answers.
And from my second enquiry:
"I agree with public comments that the conference call of 14 June did not adequately address these points. Your assurance to me is appreciated but the failure of Mesoblast to clearly, unequivocally and publicly state the same unfortunately confirms in many minds that Teva's withdrawal was because trial data was available to Teva and/or Mesoblast. Public confirmation or denial of that view is necessary."
Do you object to the use of the word "appreciated" in the last paragraph? It relates to M Schuster's very clear first reply:
"Teva's withdrawal was based on it being a non strategic core area of focus. It was not related to data ............"
I was satisfied with his statement. However, at least one poster here commented that it was useless unless broadcast via an ASX announcement. Therefore I followed up with an email thanking him for his answer and requesting public confirmation. What have you and other armchair critics here done to demonstrate activism in this
"age of shareholder activism, and executive accountability." as you put it?
All of which is more contributory to this board's than your pompous instructions and especially
@honeyforme's spiteful and inaccurate (non)contributions.
(20min delay)