"You can debate whether the information was accurate or not but at least there was an exchange of information."

If it was held as debate it would have been very informative. I feel you have some type of coloured glasses on JJ when looking at all this. Information for the sake of information aint always good.

"In my opinion, many of the people who are still here wish things would be back they way they were before the board was dismantled with insults and ridicule as you put it"

There's the coloured glasses I'm speaking of. From my view point this board has been that way since the day anyone disagreed with the staus quo of the prominent "leaders". And if you call me again on the name thing I'll have to call you slow.

"JC is free to share his opinion but this statement is simply false."

Yes he is free to say what ever he wants, it's a public forum. False? There's where the debate option would be nice. But I think his take on it and the opinions regarding the "shenanigans" aint riding in a leaky boat.

"A comment amongst posters on the old board was why would someone who owns no shares in a company continue to post on a stock board after selling their shares if they ever had any. I could post my theories but thats all they would be. The only person who knows is JC."

Share ownership is absolutely no requirement to post in my opinion. I wholeheartily welcome input from non holders of shares as they are probably the most non-biased in what they see in a lot of cases. I see JC as an experienced and informed contributor.

"While current shareholders may end up with little or nothing when everything is said and done saying the Tenor deal is worse that the bondholders plan is ludicrous and I said so."

Shareholders ending up with nothing is/was a very real possibility in both cases. Ludicrous is not the right term at all, I call reality.