Actually that's a pretty fair-minded and realistic comment.
(Stinging though about the other forum...lol....where was that? Maybe AZS. I do tend to take the opposite of the prevailing view to test it out. And I've reminded people of this often enough.)
I get enough GAs and TUs in other forums from respected posters generally in less contested zones, so I'm ok with the aggro in here. I think there's a responsibility to even out the discussion and not have it just slavish devotion.
They think the problem is me in here. Neglecting that ADO is making the same tired old approach,
- pushing loss making and not commercially realistic life sciences 'business' (what a euphemism that is) and now it's POC - no clear pathway for sizable revenue, costs have been astronomical on this 'business' with pathetic returns and no convincing significant revenue stream
- the biggest hope is batteries, taking them ages to realise this, and still forward, steady as she goes with POC? it's been steady as she goes with constant spending to support this for close onto a decade now...
- doing CRs instead of reigning in spending or being more strategic with batteries
- hiring instead of conserving $ and using 3rd parties instead to not just validate yes that was the role of Polaris but it could have been extended....to this.....help with partnering
- calling oppies a change? (no it's the same old shtick. it's called DILUTION)
We have a CEO/MD who is not a batteries expert. Far from it!
If these issues were remedied I'd have nothing to complain about! But people ramp it continually and don't address these issues and THEN think they should control the discussion?
Everyone is under stress from this thing. They react by blaming me. It's human nature but it doesn't make them correct.
As you well note, it's a discussion room. (not an agreement room) and we don't need consensus to move forward.
ADO Price at posting:
2.8¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)