More Sinned Against Than Sinning
in response to
by
Highly prospective exploration company
Resource projects cover more than 1,713 km2 in three provinces at various stages, including the following: hematite magnetite iron formations, titaniferous magnetite & hematite, nickel/copper/PGM, chromite, Volcanogenic Massive and gold.
Message: Magpie Assets are $101.12 per Share at 2% of Spot Market
Shakespeare, King Lear (speaking), Act 3, Scene 2:
Close pent-up guilts,
Rive your concealing continents, and cry
These dreadful summoners grace. I am a man
More sinn’d against than sinning.
Hello Mtl_gold.
First, you asked, “I take it your previously announced January meeting with Lafleur did not go well? Or did it not happen at all?”
We did not meet. The New York shareholders were the ones who turned down JL’s proposal to get together. The reason was the fact JL has failed to date to initiate even one share-price-specific program. We prefer to have our formal meeting not in a contentious atmosphere.
Regarding me, bad is the fact, after a month, JL still has not returned my last phone call to him. Even worse, our largest New York shareholder had to make a series of phone calls and leave numerious messages, over weeks of time, before he got through. Of course, the same as his predecessor, this signifies JL’s on the wrong track. This is not a question of one or two personal slights. It’s a question of our leader not comprehending the importance of showing respect for the shareholders who are supreme and should be treated that way on a regular basis.
Absolutely, there was nothing wrong with JL’s theatrical idea of having a scheduled meeting. But first things first.
Second, you said, “If I recall correctly, myself and a few others tried to warn you guys that nothing would change. But no, you just had to give them a thousandth chance.”
Apparently, the meaning of the phrase you used, “you just had to give them a thousandth chance,” was meant to scold me (and to attribute to me powers I don’t have, because it was immediately followed by your saying “Now you’ll just have to wait another 10 months.”).
For one thing, I’m not keeping anybody waiting ten months (including myself). Whenever the spirit moves us, with five percent of our fellows behind us, we’re free to initiate a new proxy battle. Two links follow explaining this.
http://www.cba.org/CBA/PracticeLink/12-09-bc/12-09-bc_5.aspx
http://www.institutionalinvestorsalpha.com/Article/3120480/Blame-Canada-How-the-Countrys-Rules-Make-it-Easier-for-Activists-to-Thrive.html
Again, so far as your words, “you just had to give them a thousandth chance”: Considering JL individually, the failed chances I’ve given him don’t add up to more than three (#1 Failure to do anything specific concerning the share price; #2 and #3 Failure to return the phone calls of me and at least one other).
What alternative did I have? I should not have given him the time to make those three mistakes?
Of course, you and I and everyone else here are on the same side. When you come right down to it, that’s the only thing that really counts. I’ll go further. Given our long past history with management’s obstructionism (so far as rejecting any share price corrective action), the recent “mistakes” of JL are better phrased as “immovable unbending incomprehension.” There is not one cell in my brain that disagrees with you, so far as shareholders having already given out too many chances. Enough is enough.
Close pent-up guilts,
Rive your concealing continents, and cry
These dreadful summoners grace. I am a man
More sinn’d against than sinning.
Hello Mtl_gold.
First, you asked, “I take it your previously announced January meeting with Lafleur did not go well? Or did it not happen at all?”
We did not meet. The New York shareholders were the ones who turned down JL’s proposal to get together. The reason was the fact JL has failed to date to initiate even one share-price-specific program. We prefer to have our formal meeting not in a contentious atmosphere.
Regarding me, bad is the fact, after a month, JL still has not returned my last phone call to him. Even worse, our largest New York shareholder had to make a series of phone calls and leave numerious messages, over weeks of time, before he got through. Of course, the same as his predecessor, this signifies JL’s on the wrong track. This is not a question of one or two personal slights. It’s a question of our leader not comprehending the importance of showing respect for the shareholders who are supreme and should be treated that way on a regular basis.
Absolutely, there was nothing wrong with JL’s theatrical idea of having a scheduled meeting. But first things first.
Second, you said, “If I recall correctly, myself and a few others tried to warn you guys that nothing would change. But no, you just had to give them a thousandth chance.”
Apparently, the meaning of the phrase you used, “you just had to give them a thousandth chance,” was meant to scold me (and to attribute to me powers I don’t have, because it was immediately followed by your saying “Now you’ll just have to wait another 10 months.”).
For one thing, I’m not keeping anybody waiting ten months (including myself). Whenever the spirit moves us, with five percent of our fellows behind us, we’re free to initiate a new proxy battle. Two links follow explaining this.
http://www.cba.org/CBA/PracticeLink/12-09-bc/12-09-bc_5.aspx
http://www.institutionalinvestorsalpha.com/Article/3120480/Blame-Canada-How-the-Countrys-Rules-Make-it-Easier-for-Activists-to-Thrive.html
Again, so far as your words, “you just had to give them a thousandth chance”: Considering JL individually, the failed chances I’ve given him don’t add up to more than three (#1 Failure to do anything specific concerning the share price; #2 and #3 Failure to return the phone calls of me and at least one other).
What alternative did I have? I should not have given him the time to make those three mistakes?
Of course, you and I and everyone else here are on the same side. When you come right down to it, that’s the only thing that really counts. I’ll go further. Given our long past history with management’s obstructionism (so far as rejecting any share price corrective action), the recent “mistakes” of JL are better phrased as “immovable unbending incomprehension.” There is not one cell in my brain that disagrees with you, so far as shareholders having already given out too many chances. Enough is enough.
8 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply