Actually I have thought everything through, thank you very much, for much longer and with much more effort than I care to reveal here, please don't insult my intillegence, I don't insult yours:) Lets not kid a kidder Technoman. I know who you are and you know who I am. So please, you really don't want to go there, do you? I've been asking about a shareholders meeting for 4 years, not quite as long ago as the first time I ever spoke to you while you were working with Turner. I am no longer asking, it's time. There is no strain on management, there is only fiduciary responsibility and shareholder equity responsibility, you said it yourself just recently. Do you think shareholders have been made privy to those facts? Do you? Shall I print the Director's pre-requesit to "Feduciary Responsibility" here? Before I realized who you were, I thought you and I were on the same page, but insiders like you are never on the same page as people like me, you have a different agenda, and believe you me, I understand your agenda, and its OK up to a point. I've know reached that point, I'm sure you can understand that, there is critical criteria on the table now sitting idly by does me no good at this time. Albait those points, I do appreciate the fact that you agree that $110M is far to cheap, but I assure you double that is still to cheap, so do we speculate about all this or get the information about this criticality, stock activity, mandatory listing of shareholders on a list at the company meeting point for all shareholders to view, a good look at who owns 51% of the stock, and to have old business and new business reviewed( and that ain't no a-spicy meat-ball, thats a lot of unanswered info), as well as hold Director elections(just a small point), just to name a few things that can be accomplished at a General Shareholders Meeting:)
