I, for one, appreciated the projections provided by Eileen. Her data set and interpretation of such was an aspect of Poet's potential that I did not have the slightest understanding of to even think of contemplating. Yes, the numbers are off the hook, but as was mentioned by another post, even if these numbers are off by 50% or 75%, we are still talking about significant numbers.
The point on which this issue turns, then, is whether the method used to compile the data is sound. To an accounting/marketing luddite like me, all I have to go on is the "logic" of the method presented, and I found it quite credible. While I appreciate that Eileen cannot divulge proprietary methods, I find that to be the only fly in the ointment. But, I am offsetting that pebble in my shoe by trusting Rob's analysis and Rainer's analysis which seem to use similar methods, but with slightly different matrices....and they seem to arrive at similar conclusions. Besides, I have not yet seen anything posted that refutes Eileen's method, therefore, that for me de-risks the method and the data and the interpretations.
In the end however, I have to digest this information along with everythihng else I have garnered about Poet and keep it in mind as things progress. I'm certainly not spending any of those projected dollars nor am I inclined to buy more shares because of it. But I do not appreciate that a very few have tried to decide for me whether this information is 'proper' or 'useful' or 'hype' or not - I wear big-boy pants and I can discern those issues for myself, thank you very much. The not-so-subtle whiff of quasi-censorship was/is quite disconcerting and should not be allowed
We all invested based on some form of shared information or that which was provided by others. No one person has done this by his/her self. The free flow of reasoned ideas and pinpoint counter-ideas must prevail, or this forum is doomed.
