InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

balloonman

07/11/07 4:00 PM

#28946 RE: stephQB #28943

Another winner who has "...decided for (him)self ...to vote FOR the proposal, even though I do not like its terms."

Someone give him a barf bag and a place to lie down for when the koolaid kicks in.
icon url

claudealain

07/11/07 4:19 PM

#28958 RE: stephQB #28943

stephQB... What you do is like saying yes in the church to get married with a wife you don't love. You will regret it your hole life! Don't act foolish! VOTE NO! GLTY

From your message: "I have decided for myself that it is in my best interest to vote FOR the proposal, even though I do not like its terms."
icon url

mrditbme

07/11/07 4:34 PM

#28962 RE: stephQB #28943

"I have decided for myself that it is in my best interest to vote FOR the proposal, even though I do not like its terms."

I guess herein lay the difference between us. While we both don't like the terms, I'm willing to fight to change them, rather than accept them!
icon url

jacobboaz

07/11/07 4:38 PM

#28964 RE: stephQB #28943

Until the RS was announced I don't recall anyone suggesting that CB deserved 35% of the company. Also I don't recall anyone offering 65% (or whatever the drop has been) of their investment so that CB and the BOD had a blank check to dilute current OS from 97% to 4%.

But now many previously respected shareholders are encouraging this! Why?
icon url

FISH1031

07/11/07 11:08 PM

#29040 RE: stephQB #28943

VERY WELL PUT
icon url

MPDanford

07/14/07 12:22 AM

#29432 RE: stephQB #28943

Steph, well said....and I agree with your thoughts. This is a difficult decision for all shareholders to make and is going to cause us to lose some long time investors no matter which way the vote goes. At the same time, I am confident that it will attract even more new investors.

After being in the stock for over 4.5 years, I am disappointed that, in spite of all the progress the company has made in collecting assets, there has not been any sustained gains in the pps. I realize that it is going to take significant, ongoing increases in production to get continued gains in pps and the "go slow" method just has not been able to achieve this. I am hopeful that the proposed changes will enable the production to finally ramp up enough to attract more investors.

Thanks for your thoughts; GLTY.

Mike