Product to market, prototype to customers, news on technical achievements to shareholders. 

These are the only things that matter, everything else is bull.

Let's go poet, let's go.

 I want to know why the economist article was published, a very well respected publication without an author and without any of its content realized. This company has been extremely unethical and I would like some form of clarification on the accomplishements, failures, and redirections over the past three years. I own decent piece of this company and I have just about had it. 

So many years still no meat and potatoes. The run up we just experienced is still traders. I'm hoping something substantial comes from all the high promises and claims. The komono dragon needs to show some skin, it was to take stage a long long time ago. 

I agree, and the system is informing me that posts are new and we're posted today but in reality they were from over a year ago. I also thing the way they have displayed the messages are too spread out on bust days we could fill 10 pages easy.

Let's stick together in both good and bad times. After all were in the ship together with the same goals.

He said she said wouldn't have made a different if the company did not assert it's potential and present state. It's the company that led us not an individual. We all appreciate the interpretation and the gleaning of networking contact conversations. We all are mature enough to realize the company is the entity pulling the strings. Everything else is taken with a grain of salt.

What's done is done, it's in management's hands. Let hope and stay banded.

So what exactly was the purpose of the silicon Valley move that cost this company buku money and time?