Jimmi I think we have a failure in communication. I'll try to address your concerns.

1. I was being facetious about the money. I think you took it literally.

2. Gowling are suggesting the judge "broke" the law, not Tenor or Fung, in granting the waterfall agreement. (Assuming their case is a breach in the Criminal Code).

3. As to what I know, I don't live in a bubble. There are other people I talk to, and some of them are opt ins.

4. The sum total of money from the opt ins will exceed that from the opt in committee, assuming Gowling are successful. You placed your faith in the VZ government - and now trash them. You placed you faith in Fung and now trash him. You placed your faith in Tenor and now trash them. You are placing your faith in the opt in committee / Gowling - will you trash them?

5. There is no noose, tight or otherwise. Once Gowling actually bring a motion we can talk about nooses.

6. I haven't trashed your efforts (I'm assuming your "efforts" mean opting in or have you done something more? There is an argument to trash the opt in committee efforts but that is a different story probably best not aired in public). You and others however have trashed my efforts - and my efforts simply consist of offering a different point of view. Btw slagging and trashed are synonyms.