Officers and Director, page-6

No one is slamming you, just asking for you to reference your material. It is commonly known as evidence. I did also question your motivation which, again, is not slamming you. You need a thicker skin and you also need to realise that if you're going to make comments and ask rhetorical questions in order to create doubt then you will probably be questioned by intelligent people. We're not all sheep and don't always believe everything others state as fact without seeing something tangible. Please don't get so defensive when you are asked to validate your comments/rhetorical questions.

"FYI i can confirm that i am correct about the licences" - Can you please show me where I can find this information so I can read it and make an informed opinion. I have not once said you were incorrect but I am asking for a reference point. All you need to do is nominate which report/document/article/source you got this information and I will do more research if possible.

I persist because I also have money invested in this and don't want to see the CDG brand tarnished by rogue accusations and slurs (if a claim can be supported with evidence then it is no longer an accusation or slur). There's no doubt that CDG has failed to achieve targets and that their budget is tight, absolutely no doubt, but CDG has huge potential and I fully believe that they will deliver. It simply does not concern me that an employee does not hold shares.