If you lived up to your name, you could figure this one out yourself. Read the posting from Street Account.com. I am sure you will insult them as well with no basis, but simply because they write something you do not like to hear. I think you meant to say �libelous� not �liabelous,� but if you knew anything about the law, you would know that a statement that is factual and true cannot be libelous. I know this to be a fact, because I have done the research. I have read the Proxy statements and the 10ks. If you do the same (and possess the mental processor to absorb the information), you will find that Joel priced the options at the absolute low during the trading windows (30 days before and after the grant dates were struck) not once, but multiple times. As I explained before, the statistical probability of this is so extreme that it is considered to be a �statistical certainty� that the options were backdated. Are you the kind of guy that despite the presence of DNA evidence, the fact that nobody saw a rapist commit the act prevents you from concluding that the DNA match must be the rapist? The Wall Street Journal explained this phenomenon in great detail. Are you going to discredit the WSJ as well? The odds that Joel could randomly select the grant date for options on the absolute low during the trading window (30 days forward and backwards), not once but multiple times are about 1 in 5 billion. Those are worse odds than the Powerball lottery. You have better odds of being struck by lightning. http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm (I provided the statistical reference, so perhaps you want to question NOAA as well.). Ergo, unless you are so na�ve to believe that Joel �by chance� happened to select the lowest trading window to issue employee options on multiple occasion, then you can conclude that they were backdated. If it were worth his time to sue for libel, anyone's defense would be �The truth.� But, numerous columnists and investors have asked CRDN to comment on the options backdating issue. They have said nothing. They could quell this with a single press release. Why not issue a statement that they did not engage in backdating options? I am sure on the advice of their attorneys they are steering clear of this. The only release you are likely to see would be "we are not currently being investigated by the SEC" - which would not clear up the issue at all.