I have been giving this more thought lately and looking at what it may mean or even if it has a meaning. But, I don,t think we can pass it off as having no meaning when we look at some of the things that may be at stake.

I guess we can look at this line from Susans site to see exactly what it is, that she does.

Founded in 1987, Susan Blond, Inc. is a full-service publicity agency known for creating imaginative campaigns that put brands and personalities on the map.

http://susanblondinc.com/#home

Some have said that Susan,s services may have been used by SLI in the past, but it may not appear to be the company SLI, that was being promoted, but rather Lori herself. One would think, that to be part of the elite, that you just can,t bluff your way in there, you should require substantial proof of your success. By bluffing, the image of the client would be ruined as well as a questionable and maybe unfavourable result for Susan herself. So, you would have to ask yourself, why this, why now? And why this continued support of Lori by Susans company, after all the recent negative things that have transpired with our company? Does Susan still think that there is hope for Lori,s public personality and that there will be a spotlight for it in the near future? What is the rational behind this move ?

After looking at all the disgruntled shareholders in SLI, in the thousands, that would appear a very strong voice for Susan to counter, and then if she tries, she has to have something pretty substantial to change the image.Factor in the extreme and impressive data base of shareholders capabilities, their wide spread web of contacts and their displeasure with the current situation, its something that I don,t believe Susan would underestimate. The fact that company funds seems to be the pay method to Susan, should suggest that maybe she should be promoting SLI, the gold that SLI has, rather than a personality of the company. If we got no gold and Lori is not a success, what is there here to promote? Also consider the damage that may be caused to Susans reputation herself. I wouldn,t think that Susan would want a bag of worms discrediting her company and maybe making existing clients looking bad as well, so I think there has to be a silver lining here somewhere for us, Susan and Lori. And, it must be very close or Susan would not have a chance of creating a positive image for either SLI nor Lori.

Some may say, that to appease the exchange, Lori had to reveal that SLI was a client of Susans. Maybe it was deemed material and found out by the exchange and a public release warranted. Maybe this is some way to account for some of the high expense on last years financials, if it is, it would seem a lame excuse to me, whereas we saw no promotional efforts from Susan in conjunction with SLI and were never given the opportunity to voice our concerns through our directors. Then if this could be the case, you would have to ask why would Susan continue to at this present time to represent us? Again,the house of mystery, just like our results.

Just some thoughts and questions, and IMO.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the shareholders in their initial media dissemination.