loch3--
As a suggestion, you should try to just read the content of posts without first introducing a bias based on the person who posted the information. I started the thread with a legitimate request for clarification; primarily because it struck me as astounding that a quote ascribed to Tony by a shareholder at the meeting could be true based on known information. My inclination was to believe that the poster either misinterpreted or embellished the actual exchange.
The record of the ensuing exchanges speaks for itself. The knee-jerk responses, which dragged the whole thing out over a day or two, were from those who immediately, and consistently side-stepped that point of the question by stating (sometimes more than once) that the final rejections could be appealed (irrelevant to the question AND noted in my first post), while sometimes implying nefarious intent behind the original question. Go back and look and you will see that this is the case.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
