Re: Follow up purity
in response toby
Let me leave you and any other reader, with absolutely no doubt: No question posted makes me feel uncomfortable. The fact that you may think that, is quite revealing….and is actually the only thing that makes me feel uncomfortable.
To answer your first question; We absolutely believe Agoracom is a place for discussion. Mature, professional, stimulating discussion. In my opinion, and given your history, your question was cynical. If that was not your intention last time around then I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, given this current post of yours I believe no apology is required. Notwithstanding my objections to your tone I answered your questions properly from PyroGenesis’ perspective, and have done so again today.
You list several contradictions between what two CEO’s claim yet you never asked me a question with respect to these alleged contradictions…. I cannot read your mind. If you want a question answered you must take on the responsibility of articulating it properly. Agreed? As far as I am concerned the questions you posted in your previously were answered appropriately despite your tone.
With respect to the alleged contradiction relating to royalty payments I am not aware of any and none have been brought to my attention other than the one alleged in your most recent post. Our position has been well documented. I will consider this further as I suspect that may be a question you have, but have yet to ask.
With respect to the 2nd alleged contradiction noted, for the first time, as such in your post, I wish to point out the obvious without sounding trite; there is a reason “Carbon” and “Silicon Carbide” are named differently… it is simply because they are different. They act differently, behave differently and…. are handled differently. There is no contradiction here and we have answered this question in a previous post.
With respect to your second question where you ask “…If the CEO’s have difficulty providing strait answers to simple shareholder questions, is it because the shareholder is cynical?...” (excuse me if I point out to readers the irony in your spelling error…I think you meant “straight”) let me again respond as before: We need to be asked the question to be able to respond. Your tone has nothing to do with providing an answer; we did before despite your tone, and we have done so again today. I answered the questions you asked…not the ones you had not asked. Some have said we perform “magic” at Pyro, but reading minds isn’t one of them.
I trust this helps you out a bit, but it will be the last time I respond to your posts unless your tone changes. I will respond to questions that are posted in a mature, and professional manner. I will not reply to posts that have an accusatory undertone and are designed to promote disharmony and confusion. I trust readers will understand why.
P. Peter Pascali