DV.All of your posts invariably have qualifying words. However,...

DV.

All of your posts invariably have qualifying words. However, these qualifying words are there only to let you back out of a difficult situation that your long winded posts get you into. Too often your wording is designed to lead your poor readers to interpret your meaning in one way only, but when you are challenged you always seem to claim that the readers conclusion is not exactly what you have said but what those poor unfortunates have wrongly interpreted as what they think you said.

It is typical of the legal speak used by your profession when they clearly imply you have strong case and you should pursue it. However, when you spend all your money and lose, after many meaningless long winded costly conferences, their back out claim is that everything is open to interpretation and everyone else got it wrong.

Every situation, no matter what it is about, is open to interpretation and your interpretation is no better or no more important than that of anyone else. We all interpret situations with our own biased views, generally, without all of the facts available to reach a correct decision.

None of us have been privy to the information on which the BoD or other officers of the company have based their decisions and arrived at the course of action that they have taken. However, you seem to claim that certain officers have saved the company from further disasters by the action they have taken but you have not put forward any facts to support these, so far, baseless assertions.

If you have the facts that can prove the various claims that you have made then give us the benefit of this information. In other words, put up or shut up. Your frequent postings are more than a little irritating as you seem intent on provoking arguments rather than the discussion that you claim that you are after.