Post by fastwalker on Apr 28, 2006 9:34:54 GMT -5
WOW!!!! What a firestorm created by this simple... 
statement……
“I met with Don Stoecklein, Bob Maheu and Urban Casavant in Las Vegas on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Various Task Force issues were discussed. There were no meetings with any parties relative to payments or settlements of any kind. Rumors in this regard are false.”
If you don't like logic reasoning or Bill Frizzell, I would suggest that you don't waste your time reading this, it could result in headaches and sever projectile vomiting on your part....especially if you are in opposition if what is being stated herein.....lol
One could look at this and dissect it and spin it any way you desired, to fit your own needs. But the fact of the matter is this, Bill has provided totally accurate, but what shareholders feel is totally useless information, since it is in direct conflict of what is being touted on the boards.
People are dancing around these facts, which he delivered in his very simple opening statement. However, since most are inclined to brake out and analyze all data / information relevant to CMKX, I have done exactly that…
1. There was a meeting in Vegas on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
2. He attended this meeting.
3. The meeting was also attended by Don Stoecklein, Bob Maheu and Urban Casavant
4. Various Task Force issues were discussed.
5. There were no meetings with any parties relative to payments or settlements of any kind.
6. Rumors in this regard are false.
For those seeking confirmation of a settlement / payout, the spin would be simply that the meeting was not pertinent to the settlement / payout, so it wasn’t discussed.
However, it appears that Frizzell did ask or that the rumors of a payout / settlement were put on the table for discussion, given Frizzell ending remarks in which he clearly stated this… “Rumors in this regard are false.”
Many hateful things have been said about Frizzell, especially when people take offense at the statements he makes, which are very often in direct conflict with the current popular views.
I always take what the current view is and what is being stated and look at the author and then the author’s responsibility with regards to that statement made. In the case of Bill Frizzell, I see his statements as consistent with his obligations to his clients as an Attorney. By that I mean, his statements uttered when weighted from a perspective that they are in fact best considered as colored by ethics and integrity.
By that I mean, as an attorney he has an ethical obligation to understand the nature of his clients concerns and in his best judgment, distinguish for his clients, when they can’t or won’t, that which is right, from that which is wrong. Which IMHO, he has done on many occasions where we are concerned.
If you are realistic about our situation, you would not be so quick to dismiss what he has said simply because you disagree with it, especially when you consider his ethical rules and principles as required within a commercial context, ripe for litigation.
We see, or at least we should understand, that while some may bot have moral or ethical problems acting within a business setting, an Attorney does have special duties or obligations when performing his / her job for an individual client(s), over those who are stakeholders and engaged in commerce.
Generally speaking, business ethics is a normative discipline, whereby particular ethical standards are assumed and then applied. It makes specific judgments about what is right or wrong, which is to say, it makes claims about what ought to be done or what ought not to be done.
What is problematic here and could be perceived as dilemma facing an Attorney in Bill’s position is this, while there appears to be some exceptions to the rule of ethics, which we all see demonstrated now as some modern interpretation of business ethics and which it seems also to be embraced by our Government, is that the SOP big business ethics are less concerned with the foundations of ethics or with justifying the most basic ethical principles where their clients / society should be of paramount concerned, they are more concerned with what they see as practical problems relative to bottom line applications that specifically apply to their profit margin.
In that sense, issues regarding the moral rights and duties between a company and its shareholders: fiduciary responsibility, stakeholder concept v. shareholder concept has essentially become one in which they (business) will do whatever is necessary and beneficial to the stakeholder and simply let the bean counters sort out the mess. Not good in my opinion.
Previously I stated that IMHO, he (Bill) has publicly displayed integrity. Which I feel for all intents and purposes his that his actions, under scrutiny in such areas as the cert pull and the OGI are concerned, he has repeatedly demonstrated the qualities of being honest and up-right in character. But some of his evaluators of course, are usually less generous in assess his integrity and instead see his adherence to ethics and integrity as seriously lacking, since it fails to support their agenda.
Bottom line is this when evaluating his standards, integrity is holding true to one's values.
In the Marine Corps I learned this to be true and have adhered to that principle my entire life. I believe that “one's word, doing what you said you would do, by when you said you would do it, is of the most utmost importance and demonstrates the highest form of personal integrity.
IMHO, one has to establish standards beyond reproach in order for others to know and trust what is important to you and that you actually will , when interacting with them, live by your word and actions.
I believe that Bill Frizzell does just that. Which is why I would personally welcome and support within my means, any litigation he may contemplate against those who have manipulated us.
Okay, if the illness has subsided ...lol and you feel compelled to answer me in a negative manner, blast away. Just remember blast the post and the contents and not me, I ‘m merely presenting an observation not looking for, nor will I allow this to become a pis#### contest.
FW
statement……
“I met with Don Stoecklein, Bob Maheu and Urban Casavant in Las Vegas on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Various Task Force issues were discussed. There were no meetings with any parties relative to payments or settlements of any kind. Rumors in this regard are false.”
If you don't like logic reasoning or Bill Frizzell, I would suggest that you don't waste your time reading this, it could result in headaches and sever projectile vomiting on your part....especially if you are in opposition if what is being stated herein.....lol
One could look at this and dissect it and spin it any way you desired, to fit your own needs. But the fact of the matter is this, Bill has provided totally accurate, but what shareholders feel is totally useless information, since it is in direct conflict of what is being touted on the boards.
People are dancing around these facts, which he delivered in his very simple opening statement. However, since most are inclined to brake out and analyze all data / information relevant to CMKX, I have done exactly that…
1. There was a meeting in Vegas on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
2. He attended this meeting.
3. The meeting was also attended by Don Stoecklein, Bob Maheu and Urban Casavant
4. Various Task Force issues were discussed.
5. There were no meetings with any parties relative to payments or settlements of any kind.
6. Rumors in this regard are false.
For those seeking confirmation of a settlement / payout, the spin would be simply that the meeting was not pertinent to the settlement / payout, so it wasn’t discussed.
However, it appears that Frizzell did ask or that the rumors of a payout / settlement were put on the table for discussion, given Frizzell ending remarks in which he clearly stated this… “Rumors in this regard are false.”
Many hateful things have been said about Frizzell, especially when people take offense at the statements he makes, which are very often in direct conflict with the current popular views.
I always take what the current view is and what is being stated and look at the author and then the author’s responsibility with regards to that statement made. In the case of Bill Frizzell, I see his statements as consistent with his obligations to his clients as an Attorney. By that I mean, his statements uttered when weighted from a perspective that they are in fact best considered as colored by ethics and integrity.
By that I mean, as an attorney he has an ethical obligation to understand the nature of his clients concerns and in his best judgment, distinguish for his clients, when they can’t or won’t, that which is right, from that which is wrong. Which IMHO, he has done on many occasions where we are concerned.
If you are realistic about our situation, you would not be so quick to dismiss what he has said simply because you disagree with it, especially when you consider his ethical rules and principles as required within a commercial context, ripe for litigation.
We see, or at least we should understand, that while some may bot have moral or ethical problems acting within a business setting, an Attorney does have special duties or obligations when performing his / her job for an individual client(s), over those who are stakeholders and engaged in commerce.
Generally speaking, business ethics is a normative discipline, whereby particular ethical standards are assumed and then applied. It makes specific judgments about what is right or wrong, which is to say, it makes claims about what ought to be done or what ought not to be done.
What is problematic here and could be perceived as dilemma facing an Attorney in Bill’s position is this, while there appears to be some exceptions to the rule of ethics, which we all see demonstrated now as some modern interpretation of business ethics and which it seems also to be embraced by our Government, is that the SOP big business ethics are less concerned with the foundations of ethics or with justifying the most basic ethical principles where their clients / society should be of paramount concerned, they are more concerned with what they see as practical problems relative to bottom line applications that specifically apply to their profit margin.
In that sense, issues regarding the moral rights and duties between a company and its shareholders: fiduciary responsibility, stakeholder concept v. shareholder concept has essentially become one in which they (business) will do whatever is necessary and beneficial to the stakeholder and simply let the bean counters sort out the mess. Not good in my opinion.
Previously I stated that IMHO, he (Bill) has publicly displayed integrity. Which I feel for all intents and purposes his that his actions, under scrutiny in such areas as the cert pull and the OGI are concerned, he has repeatedly demonstrated the qualities of being honest and up-right in character. But some of his evaluators of course, are usually less generous in assess his integrity and instead see his adherence to ethics and integrity as seriously lacking, since it fails to support their agenda.
Bottom line is this when evaluating his standards, integrity is holding true to one's values.
In the Marine Corps I learned this to be true and have adhered to that principle my entire life. I believe that “one's word, doing what you said you would do, by when you said you would do it, is of the most utmost importance and demonstrates the highest form of personal integrity.
IMHO, one has to establish standards beyond reproach in order for others to know and trust what is important to you and that you actually will , when interacting with them, live by your word and actions.
I believe that Bill Frizzell does just that. Which is why I would personally welcome and support within my means, any litigation he may contemplate against those who have manipulated us.
Okay, if the illness has subsided ...lol and you feel compelled to answer me in a negative manner, blast away. Just remember blast the post and the contents and not me, I ‘m merely presenting an observation not looking for, nor will I allow this to become a pis#### contest.
FW
Owner
