Is this the level of substantive response you have to offer to the substantive comments offered by those supporting new management for example the comparison of the CV's of the proposed slate and the current board The only response that I read was that Peter needs some new board members The problem is that Peter will not appoint new board people who will disagree with him or threaten his crony majority No response to my assertions about Peter preferring to stay in office rather than venture forth and tell his story to the investment community Or about his lack of focus and his wish to spend new money on exploration projects which will not yield any benfit for the shareholders in our life time or on proving some geological point.
Peter (although I think Sheridan found as well as financed some of the properties) has done well for us on the exploration side We and he will benefit if he steps down now so the potential for our assets can be realized by a new management team that is substantial knowlageble well credentialled and with considerable market clout I will follow these pied pipers any day
