Paau you have had some interesting comments since you started posting. I will say you have stayed away from personal attacks and generally answered questions you have been asked. Some of your answers still confuse me so I'm hoping you can explain them to me. Others here might also be interested but I can't speak for them. Hopefully your answers will be useful to my understanding of your position.

You have posted the following in 4 different posts:

There are many many more opinions to the contrary constantly re-affirming and encouraging shareholders to opt-in - as you say: shoving it down our throats. Mine is just a single solitary opinion in one post (followed by trying to answer any questions about that post) - I plan to continue to answer those questions / accusations but to ignore personal attacks.

I do not think a contingency arrangement is the best way to fight against Tenor trying to take everything, perhaps that is worth checking with the opt-in committee (but again don't do it on my behalf).

For the latter, I'm not aware if that is within Gowling's terms of reference. Are you prepared to give up 9% of your total award for this representation? It seems a stiff price. Remember the alternative is not losing everything - the alternative is getting a lawyer for a fee.

It isn't true that the choice is either to opt-in or stick my head in the sand.

My question is if you don't believe opting in is the best choice, what do you propose? What should shareholders be doing instead of opting in? I find the 4 posts contradictory to comments from 3 other posts you have made:

One thing we agree on is that Gowling may be the best way shareholders gain more than currently on offer. 

Gowling may now be the best way to fight for shareholders.

Of course without Gowling there is virtually no chance of increasing the pot.

Given the 3 posts above why do you say:

It would be a cheap shot to point out that so far all litigation by Gowling appears to have been unnecessary (and has cost shareholders money).

Why do you say the litagation is unnecessay? What litagation would be necessary for Gowling? If Gowling is now the best way to fight for shareholders (your words not mine) how should they do this if you feel litagation is unnecessary? Are you suggesting Gowling simply ask Tenor to agree they broke the law with a criminal interest rate and reduce the amount of award they currently own? If that is the case then I see that as being unnecessary since I think we all know Tenor has no plans to give anything back voluntarily.

Please don't take this as an attack. As you have pointed out "- I plan to continue to answer those questions / accusations but to ignore personal attacks." you are here to answer questions. I really do want to understand your thought process because it seems all over the place to me.

Respectfully, JJ