Paau I can find each post and give a link for context if you prefer. None of the comments were paraphrased. These are your posts not mine. I thought about asking each question individually through different posts which would have allowed for me to distort the context looking for a specific reply if my goal was to bring your motives into question. 

I specifically didn't do that because I sincerely want to understand your position and why it is so different than mine. You have chosen to ignore specific questions in your reply.

Let us agree that you are correct to assume there is money to give out. We can debate how and when we will get paid but people a lot smarter than me have invested millions believing there will be a payment from VZ. Tenor certainly believes it, shareholders certainly believe it and apparantly Gowling believes it or they would have never taken a contingency case that only pays them if we collect. Everyone has a lot to lose. Over a billion dollars is a ton of money for everyone so we can all agree that shareholders stand to lose hundreds of millions.

My first question was a simple one. You addressed it in 4 seperate posts. It is what has put us on different sides of the coin. I and others have opted in because we believe we simply have to much to lose if we do nothing. You have chosen to not opt in which is ok with me. I can even live with you getting a free ride if the opt ins are successful. What I can't understand and this is where you need to explain it to me and others if they want to hear it is you are adamant that there are better options for shareholders than opting in. Please tell me what I should be doing instead of opting in.

Without a reasonable answer, your comments why not to opt in carry no weight for me and I would imagine our board. If you think their is a better way, what is it so we can explore that option to see if you are correct. Paau, what should we do?

JJ