I don't mind hearing the bad either however once the bad has been proven with something good, i dont agree that it should be constantly brought up over and over again like the whole 4th of February delivery notice. it gets tire some when some posters here get stuck on auto replay.

I agree 100%. This is a non-issue as far as I`m concerned. If Teck was not on the clock then why is Teck in discussions with Cuu management concerning their "options" as per the NR of the Feb 4 PFS delivery? Elmer could be putting himself and the company in legal liability for providing falsely misleading information that the company is in discussions with Teck over their options. Teck could also be in liability for not issuing a NR that Cuu has not met the conditions of the agreement and is therefore not obligated to provide an answer within 120 days.

Somehow, I don`t think Teck or Cuu legal teams are that negligent to either of their shareholders.