Your response indicates that you really haven't read the post-or apparenty many other of my posts for that matter. You might want to go back and read and re-read the post and look at wording and context. Out of the entire contents this is what you pick out?

...It is to your credit that you have trust-it speaks to your character, but I must ask what really do we own? Apparently nothing at the present, and that's my point. I don't see any shares in Magpie Mining that any FNC shareholder owns. And no, there is no one here on this board that has created doubt on the process. This was entirely done again by FNC. You also mention the process. By what process have we received a definitive answer on the above issue? By what process do the posters concerned about near term or future sales to lock in profits receive an answer? The "sit down, shut up, shut up, sit down" approach does not appear to be working.

***********

It's fairly clear that those are my words and in fact, not attributable to anyone else. It would also be apparent if you had fully read the post, that I was putting the issue to rest. As to: "Your only solution is to call Peter Smith again and again until you get satisfaction." You may have me confused with someone else. I have not advocated calling Smith again and again, nor do I intend to do so. Had you really read the post, you would have gotten that out of it also. The Magpie situation should be handled by FNC without shareholders having to hold their feet to the fire.

I must admit I have no clue as to where in the pits of zool you dug up your "...your negativity serves no purpose, but for you, maybe it does." Again, the only possible "negativity" you could have read into any of my posts on this company deals with one specific issue-an issue I may remind you I was putting in abeyance. And may I add an issue which no poster or shareholder created?

If you are going to attribute positions and emotions (negativity) to me, please do me the courtesy of reading my entire posts and place phrases into proper context. I have no issue with you and your "dig" is unwarranted and without foundation. so please view this post as a clarification.