Chiron, I hear the frustration. Sometimes we read so much into what is said, in a few words, that really isn't there.
First, I'll vouch (I've seen some doubts) now on the person who provided the info of the email exchange. I hope that puts to bed some of the validity questions of it.
Second, I'll re-state a comment I made on GB about this same subject:
"I think certainly given the chess-game thinking ahead going on is relevant. There would be no way to "develop" a gameplan specific to the Examiner's report until it came out. But I feel confident that a gameplan "in case" the Examiners report was negative in CERTAIN points was clearly on their gameplan. That is, challenging specific points of it -- which those points could not have been known -- until the report was released.
It's just, of course, that virtually ALL of the report appears on face to be "bad" (and as we've settled down and realized, not all is bad... )"
So the wording "trying to develop a gameplan" may have been in-artful choice of words for a shareholder to read, I'm confident that the sentiment wasn't "oh, well, we'll try" as some would like for us to take this. I take it for pure face value, that Susman/Godfrey is still in the game, and are developing {which see above} would be completely expected at this point.
Let's not nit-pick the words. IMHO.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
