You pretty much got it in one, travelbug2, almost all the...

You pretty much got it in one, travelbug2, almost all the discussion of GCN potential that I've seen here has been based on hype, or spin or bandying about of statistics, with no meaningful discourse on fundamentals, on the actual capacity of the business to deliver. Where I was naive with my original postings was not understanding that this doesn't matter in this game, which I now understand as get in, spin the hype, get out at a profit regardless of where the business goes in the longer term. Maybe that's too severe a characterisation, perhaps that's not the premeditated intention of people playing this game, but regardless, the result is the same. If the company doesn't eventually perform, where does the profit come from that is made from trading GCN shares ... someone is stuck with the losses.

If there was real interest in the medium to long term prospects of the business, there would be meaningful discussion here about:
- the technology (what is it, how is it unique, what are the alternative, competitive technologies, and so on)?
- who are the competitors on an international level, not just in terms of the 'unique' technologies but in the IPTV business in general (and the other diverse aspects of GCN's business) and how is GCN equipped to succeed against them?
- what are the barriers to entry to well resourced major potential competitors stepping in if the business develops?
- what are the personnel resources of the GCN, how many people, what qualifications, what track record, what are they working on now, what have they been working on the past year or more, what specific results have they produced?
- the management clearly has a capacity to bring in funding, the $41m losses to date illustrate that, but what indications are there that they know how to turn such substantial funds into a profitable business?
- specifically, what has the $41m been spent on. What has been produced?
- much has been said about the potential market in China, but look back to what Richard said in 2006 about the potential for GCN in the gaming industry. He talked of a market worth hundreds of millions of dollars and indicated that the company expected to gain a very substantial percentage of that market. Over the past 4-5 years, what revenues has the gaming industry in China generated for GCN?
- etc, etc, etc.

Now on to alpha-angry's responses to my post, which were true to form, boots on and spraying all over the place. As to implications that I am a multi nicker (wrong) have past working knowledge of the company (wrong again) have a grudge against the company (ditto), and the indirect inference that I may be a past employee or director (wrong, never been employed by, associated with, or done business of any sort with this company). In another of angry's posts there is speculation that the problem could be that "this person" (presumably moi) sold far too short (wrong again, never had shares in GCN, never will, I mentioned that right from the start.)

In yet another response, andy, you made reference to a director leaving the company and making a statement that he was committed to holding and then dumping 120+m shares soon after. "What would anyone make of that?" you asked, but then left us in suspense. What DO you make of it angry? What I made of it was that the director, who had inside working knowledge of the operations and the personnel over a year or so, had no faith in the future of the company. But perhaps the real reason for him selling was that he had a bill to pay, which was the glib gloss you put on the recent Cherriko sale associated with another director. What's good for the goose ...

Angry, you wrote: "So when people sign up as new members and only come on to "warn" of one single particular stock is there cause to question this or ask for the motive behind such a warning." ... I told you my motivation from the start, ... altruism. Spin that how you will, that is a fact.

I must admit to finding some wry amusement in your insistence: "If we are wrong Tromper let us know why, and tell us on what authority you know this." In response I quote back your own words from Post #: 7267624: "don't ask how I know this as it is inappropriate for me to say. I wish I could say exactly what I want to but cannot."

I may be wet around the ears when in comes to the rules of this pass-the-parcel game, alpha-angry, but I'm not so green that you'll draw me out with demands that I reveal the specific details of what I know. To borrow from George W, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." I fooled myself with my first posts when I naively stated facts about the company operations and then got moderated, I'm not about to be fooled into posting details that will get me banned again.