Paau I see no reason to flogg a dead horse either. You have a much better grasp of the English lanuage than I do as it seems you are either a lawyer or in the legal system.

I guess when I see you post things I take them literaily. You said the following which to my limited understanding of english seems to indicate you are taliking to Optiongal. That is what I get from you saying YOU.

 I don't understand why you insist I leave you alone

I could be wrong but you just posted that she said optionsgal specifically asked me to "leave us who have done otherwise, alone

The quotation marks indicate these are directly from optiongal unless I also don't understand what quotations marks mean. I took YOU as singular thus my request not to single out Optiongal when according to what you put in quotation marks Optiongal use the plural US.

Optiongal is a well respected poster who has no problem standing up for herself and others which she did by using the word US. If she had said what you initially wrote she would have said ME instead of US.

You have commented on not getting into personal attacks but that is what you did by changing what Optiongal said and made it personal to her.

You are not correct when you say "The opt-in question might be the only issue we disagree on."

I'll gladly concede you have more legal expertise than I do since I'm not a lawyer and you may well be one. I won't go through a list of where we differ so far but will say I am confident we have different reasons for posting on this forum. That I'm sure of.

One place we definately agree is that shareholders have everything to lose by what Tenor is doing. We have invested hundreds of millions. That is a lot to lose especially when it is being done illegally. 

Whether you opt in or not is up to you just like it is for everyone else. You also stand to lose big time regardless if you opt in or not. The difference is those of us who are opting in have taken action because standing on the sidelines is the same as sticking our heads in the sand.

JJ