FHC, you're paraphrasing to drive your point which is...

FHC, you're paraphrasing to drive your point which is convenient, but misleading in its own right.

The context your missing:
Off the back of potential signings we could potentially be "Cash flow positive by 2013.."
When asked what they are hoping to achieve, We'd like to see "4-6 deals by Christmas.."
POC1 hyped at every opportunity. Then they bail out. Not misleading? I think you missed the AGM this year where it was reported by multiple sources here that GC advised we wouldn't likely be on the first iteration, so no, not misleading. Hyping every opportunity? Everyone has been complaining about the lack of info about PoC1 in the last 3-4 quarterlies. In fact, I'm guilty of sharing my opinion that we would be included on the first iteration even after the AGM, but this my fault and anyone else who may have invested based on my opinion, not GC's. (the Chinese whispers and misplaced accountability I'm referring to).
"why would anybody leave at this juncture?" Not misleading? (Has to be one of the greatest that one.) I don't think GC had any intention to retire at that stage. I personally don't believe it was by choice, but rather gentle suggestion... and that, again, is speculation on my part.

You're just reiterating my point (thanks) that people are hearing what they want to hear, not actually listening to what is being said. It's lazy. I'd encourage you and Fat Harry to go and review, not just look at my notes and use what suits. Or not. Whatevs.

All IMHO, FWIW, DYOR, blah blah blah...