Bioprogress Future2

I was looking for something yesterday and came across this instead. Odd, isn't it, how long I and others have been interested in serious communication. And how supportive I was of GH, charged with running the business, and of peeps looking to get him to pay attention to PIs. Note the underscores, added now.

Since I was wrong about GH and virtually everyone has changed at the top, is it any wonder there's still healthy skepticism and disappointment with management's refusal to keep PIs informed? They say every action has an equal and opposite reaction -- something about physics. OK, Richard and Dan ... you've long since made your point: you won't do what your predecessor did and issue fluffy nonsubstantive RNSes or grant interviews for the apparent sole purpose of flattering yourselves and hinting at great things to come.

Now -- that said -- how about that update?

lacoquille - 27 May'04 - 02:58 - 20215 of 20218

vernit ... I know you already appreciate what follows, but for others who might wonder why I don't "join" the 121 Group ...

A few years ago, through some activities entirely unrelated to BPRG, I learned Barry Muncaster was directly and personally involved with several companies but I didn't ask which ones till months later. When he told me about BPRG (along with one or two others) I was extremely interested. He said I could ask him any questions and he'd answer as long as he wouldn't put himself in a position of getting sent to jail! To my knowledge, he's still walking the streets without an ankle bracelet.

I've had nothing but admiration for him as a person including, among other things, his ability to withstand the slings and poison darts of people like that RIPxGEL guy who did his level best to bring him and BPRG down on the RB board and of course rayrac and saigon with their rantings. And now the hot lights of shareholder "concerns" have been turned on GH.

When Barry handed the reins over to GH, I can only imagine it was difficult to do, though he (and the Board) must clearly have felt it made sense: that he had brought the company as far as he could and it was time for someone with obviously enormous talents in other directions to take over. Events of this past 12 months have proven the decision a wise one, IMO.

I think Scrutable and others have made some very valid points regarding better communication and please, no more "loose dates" that come across to some as "promises" (though even here, I and I think others should take into account those "extended parameters" that no doubt came into play after his remarks a few weeks ago). But I would no more presume to offer my thoughts to GH about what he's done, doing or will do, even in an area I know something about, than I'd try to fly without being strapped into an airplane.

I am sorry GH made that curt remark – “trust me or sell” -- but I can certainly understand his pique and no doubt he regrets it as well.

I do not feel the need to add my voice to what I know is your perfectly legitimate desire to give GH a conduit for shareholder concerns/feelings. And regarding the size of an individual's holdings -- I think I would trust the ones who don't post, and many who do, to be giving you accurate accounts of their long-term holdings, but I also can't believe it will matter a whit. Reason: I believe deeply that GH already has long-term shareholders' interests at heart at far more basic levels than whether or not the company's communication with shareholders and prospective investors is top o' the line. If I'm wrong about that, all bets are off.

I hope this helps explain to anyone who might care my choice not to join the 121 Group. The short version is, though I'm floored by the drop in price (by what is identified by some as institutional selling for the quick buck?), I'm not concerned about the lack of or less than perfect communication at this stage. Yes, it might have taken its toll on the share price, given the apparent skill of organized shorters, but I truly DO believe it's better to let GH get on with what he's doing without more pressure from any of us. I thought it was telling that J Bravo (I think it was) got a "thanks, I appreciate that" in reply to his em [e-mail] vote of confidence.

None of this to suggest I fault you at all for thinking of this or others for joining.