"And ctb's gradual change, did you notice? (ctb is a large shareholder, I believe) and he ended up being an apologist of the scam team, CB and clan."
LOL! Let's try to avoid the ad hominem attacks ok buddy?
My "gradual change" included the idea that we should try to change the composition of the BOD - whether or not the RS passes. Did you notice that?
My "gradual change" did not include changing my vote to a YES - did not include that - hello? I have stated repeatedly that I prefer no RS and I prefer to keep my share structure intact. Hello? Hel-LO?
The only "gradual change" which is clearly intolerable is that I have come to agree with Sabre that regardless of the outcome of the vote we will make money - and I have gone on to say that there are costs/risks and benefits to both outcomes. I have outlined my thinking several times, as have others.
But I have lost "respect" - have no "backbone" - wish to "live on my knees" - "working both sides" - "an apologist for the scam team" and so on, because I have the gall, the temerity...to suggest that the RS will not be the end of the world (if CB can be trusted to not dilute willy nilly), and indeed, would (as touted) jumpstart oil and gas production.
That would be bad? Who the hell thinks developing those leases rapidly is a bad thing? Raise your hands and be counted. I don't like losing my shares yadda yadda yadda, but if the RS passes - which I'm not voting for if anyone's still listening - but if the RS passes I will not cry bitter tears - if we start drilling like a madman across the Padgett lease and Nash dome and other properties. Yeah that would be f'n horrible.
I'm voting no - as I have said many times...I think a cost-benefit analysis works out in favor of the GO-SLOW APPROACH with conventional financing - but I will not fall in line with the majority who are convinced we will lose our shirts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
