Hello Lethalgal.

I agree with your logic. But not in your choice of words, criticizing Rago as being “boring and childish.” As is the case with you, I think Rago’s skepticism concerning Jean Lafleur is overblown, more than slightly. At this point, everybody’s patience is frayed, mine no less than yours. But, remember, our present situation is vastly better than where we were two months earlier, when the shareholder concerns were contemptuously ignored. Finally, our message has been heard. On top of that, Jean agrees with it. So, we can relax a little, even while the market remains misguided (for the time being).

So far as Rago’s cynicism and disbelief (contrary to the evidence), in response to it, I’ve taken a deep breath, held my forehead, and tried to come up with a reason for it.

This is what I think: We should put his opinion in the context of what he’s been through and how his tough punishing experiences informed his judgment. He’s human; and, as such, subject to human error (as you and I are). He would be less than human if he were to put aside and forget the meaning of the fifteen years he trusted Peter Smith, only to have all those many years of trust betrayed and go for worse than naught.

How trustful would you be of anyone Peter Smith publically appointed to the job of CEO, had your knowledge of Dr. Smith’s motives been influenced by fifteen years of dealings with the man? Clearly, that’s his perspective. Those fifteen years worth of wasted telephone discussions, totaling up to hundreds of conversations worth of lost business opportunities, might unravel anybody’s patience. Add to that the relentless cruelty of the uninformed market.

Naturally, Rago’s thinking is going to be colored by his well-founded suspicions that Dr. Smith’s version of events will continue to be the same fifteen year mirage it’s always been: That is, the investor rewards are not as portrayed as always being over the next horizon, if not closer.

I appreciate your supporting my point-of-view that we should stand behind Jean Lafleur (and that we should, even, be enthusiastic in our support). I’m not thanking you because it’s good manners. I really mean it. So, you may think it weird, I’m defending Rago as he stubbornly makes the argument we should throw out the whole Board of Directors. However, keep in mind (as I have), a month ago, I was saying much the same as Rago.

So what changed? Due to influences outside of Fancamp—and due to us—Jean Lafleur became CEO, championing our reforms and giving us firm dates to get started putting them into practice.

Will Rago soon decide this is very agreeable? I don’t doubt it. I also don’t doubt he’s on our side. Don’t forget, week after week for years, on this Message Hub, as he tried his best to be helpful, he succeeded. So, the very least you can do is tone down the verbiage.

On a personal note, Rago has never ever done anything but praise what I’m doing and encourage me, even—such as now—when we disagree. He’s done it numerous times on this Message Hub and, even more, in Agoracom Private Messages and by email and during our phone conversations.

Also, keep in mind, on this Message Hub, twice he said he “hopes” I’m right. Don’t take that lightly. In response to my last posting on this Message Hub, he said, “Hope springs eternal and I am hopeful.” Those are not the words of a man who has a closed mind.

I’ll go further. I’ll go out on a limb. I’ll make a prediction. In regards to getting behind Jean Lafleur, after all is said and done, Rago will wind up not settling for anything less than being first in line. You will not regret putting your harsh reprimands on hold.