"Don: So do I understand you correctly that you think it is right to attack the messenger so as to allow false hope (offered by people posting here) to go unquestioned? Of course I didn't want failure for the opt ins, I'm sure I've said exactly the opposite. Of course I want shareholders to get more money. But I don't want false hope."

Goodness no Paau! Don't attack the messenger! Debate the issues and call on the motives. Context is so critical.

"But now that it appears to have failed, did the false hope help? Fortunately it doesn't seem to have cost us much, perhaps 0.1 cents per share."

Aint over yet. Don't draw conclusions.

"Did the false hope given by posters here saying Fung could raise capital to avoid bankruptcy help? (Was KRY still listed when this was said?)"

No, and I don't know

"Did the false hope help when Tenor came along and posters here praised them as saving us from the evil bondholders? Did it delay us taking action to prevent Tenor getting 88%?"

No, and yes

"Did the false hope help when posters here said we'll have the permit by Easter? (Was this when you switched to the light?)"

Which easter? Been so many! And no, I saw the light when Gordon Thompson got booted/left. His comment sitting in the bleachers watching from a distance did it. Todd Bruce leaving was shot across the bow as well!

"Did the false hope help when those here claimed Fung was a genius and Belanger a fraud when GRZ went to ICSID?"

Sure as F wasn't me.

"Did allowing false hope help by banning anyone who questioned it, including you."

No, never does.

Ok now, I responded responsibly. I read through your post  and see 20/20 hindsight driving and cheering you on and formulating your responses. Of course things went bad you goof! You use history to validate your personal opinion as fact.