There have been posts here much more condeming than mine of the opt-in.

Don't know of any off the top of my head and I wouldn't use the word condeming the opt in unless that is what you are doing. Are you condeming it?

Never posted it was not worth a shot and, in fact, noted it was a good thing but still was criticized.

The only criticism I have is your desire to post with false dilemma by omission when you have no knowledge of the facts related to the opt in agreements.

Sadly, when folks go off-topic personally, it's an indication of fear driving their greed.

That is exactly what you are doing but I'm not sure it is greed or ego.

It is curious that even simple questions bring out some need to shield and defend the opt-in and chastise the messenger. The opt-in should easily stand on its own merit and not need to be defended.

Unless you have a copy of the reatiner agreement and opt in information, how can you formulate simple questions that are probably covered in the Gowlings information and wonder why your false dilemma comments are not met with open arms. It has been suggested many times that when everyone has the information a debate about the merits of opting in can be had. Until then everything is just you posting to condem it as you put it.

When poster and shareholders have read the opt in agreement they can make theirn own decision based on whatever information they believe is important.

It is totally reasonable to chastise the messager when the message knows not what he speaks of. If and when you gain the actual documentation to have a debate based on facts not supposition then I doubt anyone will chastise you. They may laugh at your interpretation but not your comments based on your lack of facts.

Let me ask you a few questions JC. Why have you chosen to condem opting in prior to having seen the agreements? Do you derive a benefit when you do so? Is it monetary benefit or is it purely ego?

I can understand the ego thing. You have been more right than wrong about getting out of this stock and have publically said you have no shares. If you are commenting from a sense of duty to help shareholders as a former (?) shareholder then why iis it so important to condem the documents prior to seeing them. This isn't Fung, Tenor or the Noteholders we are taking about that have a history and track record of not being benefical to shareholders. We are dealing with a law firm that will represent the shareholders who have been disenfranchised until now.

Can you in simple terms tell us shareholders who now have real hope of getting a fairer share of the award why we shouldn't opt in and what you are basing you views on? That would atleast help me and other understand why you are condeming it other than you are benefiting from condeming it?

JJ