I thought we'd already established there was nothing of concern...

I thought we'd already established there was nothing of concern in the lawsuit referenced here http://esignal.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=Wo4oWJgCovcqw0V&ID=1080373. I gave your post a TU for the sheer amount of time and though put in, but you wrote a huge section on this lawsuit when I wasn't aware anyone considered it to be negative in the first place. Again, it's the other lawsuit that is of interest (have posted already). Just like in the OZ minerals lawsuit (and many others no doubt), the case settled before a judgement could be issued, it does not mean that the directors were not culpable. Nobody is making the assertion of guilt like you say, it's how directors have carried themself in the past, what associations they've had, just to paint an overall picture. Just like you're so quick to applaud the team for their excellent track record, they're in no way proven to be (or 'guilty' of being) good performers. But there are indicators you can go on that give you hints, and I agree some of the team have excellent track records.

that have already been dealt with. e.g. Even after very recently posting on STI?s release as to the change in US laws for approvals of bio-botanicals

Ok that's fair enough, I vaguely recall articles on this, could you please direct me to the specific company ann's - as I can't find anything in the late 2009/early 2010 period.

Well, with respect, if you don?t have the answer, I simply suggest you ask yourself, have you in our collective posts, posted in a fair, unbiased, and factual way

Yes, no, and yes.


Or have you alleged or strongly suggested a factual proven wrong has been committed to support your own bias opinion.

I have provided historical reference for the purposes of making it clear that the terminology 'past mistakes' is wholly innapropriate. You would prefer this material to be swept under the rug, to allow for a fresh start. I don't think that would be fair in terms of disclosure.


Regardless these matters are history, stemming from actions over 10 years ago, and there is no comparison between what was then and what is now STI,

I strongly disagree, but we're going in circles, it's all been covered. You're happy to accept the positive historic elements, applauding the strong team, but want to dismiss the negative.




Just wanted to follow up on my question from the other thread, since nobody stepped forward (as you had stated STI had not been misleading in their ann's regarding revenue).

20101025
"Current Stirling Group revenues, inclusive of the Company's pathology business which acquisition is subject to shareholder approval, is approaching approximately $1.5 million per month"

20101028
"As reported earlier this week with early initial monthly revenues approaching in the order of $1.5 million per month, these sales, which will become evident and reportable in the Company's first Quarter of the New Year"

20110429
"Receipts from customers, current quarter, $314'000
Year to date (9 months) $689'000"


Had you read the 28-Oct announcement, you would be mistaken for thinking the company itself, right now, had current revenues approaching $1.5m (maybe a conservative $800'000?). It's only the previous one that makes it clear it's inclusive of the pathology business. What kind of practice is it to make declarations of company revenue that is inclusive of a yet-to-be acquired company? Seriously, that is very bizarre don't you think? The kicker is the revenues of STI excluding this acquisition, from what I can tell, are closer to $100'000/month. Why not just say the pathology business has revenues approaching $1.5m/month. This is plain deceptive to me. If you don't think the above announcements could be misleading, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.