Goldie, what you and others seem to think is an indictment, ie. the fact that the company went in a different direction in 2007, is what I would expect from a dynamic junior mining company that is able to react to new developments as they occur and sieze the opportunity.

Should I have to remind you that ECU had achieved profitable small-scale operations and proved that they were able to make money running a low volume operation? There were plenty of people who insisted they could not do that. I do not think anyone anticipated the magnitude of the discovery that was outlined in the MC. I am happy that they have chosen to make that discovery the focus.

What makes more sense:

A) Continuing operations as a small mine, generating a thin profit, and running a low volume operation for 50 years...

-or-

B) Recognizing a huge new discovery and diverting all financial resources towards maximizing the potential to build a much larger and far more significant mine?

Why have some people chosen to 'spin' (I will use your word) that great new discovery zone as a failure in 2007?

Or perhaps you refer to the share price as what was way off the mark? Like somehow its a guessing game with prizes handed out to the winner. The only prize I am interested in is the capital gain from my investment. I could not care less what some other people may have plugged into their short term expectations. I bought more during the dip and I am thankful that I got the opportunity to do so. Some people want to carry on like the correction is a personal validation of all they have done in their lives. So a few guys were bearish and got it right. Big deal.

I find all this chatter about insider connections to be getting old too, and I see my own name dragged into that nonsense frequently. There is nothing wrong with evaluating what is going on, according to rational assumptions, and presenting that opinion on a forum. I have never objected to anyone that has a different outlook from my own. I am free to challenge the assumptions, and I can accept or reject the conclusions. Fair enough...

Now some people seem to think that they can present any spiteful and twisted version of the truth and be granted immunity from criticism. It doesnt work that way in my world. Fair and open debate means presenting a valid arguement that stands up to scrutiny, and does not have to devolve into a mud-slinging match. Goldie can you not accept that when you repeat the same negative bias on each and every discussion point that it undermines your credibility?

The one point you raised with which I agree completely is that the PP was priced too low to get big money to participate in the story. In hindsight, you were right, and the shareholders who paid above $3 were betrayed by the terms of that deal. As necessary as it was to get the money in hand, allowing the stock to be walked down so much to close the deal seems to have done long term damage that the stock is still struggling to repair. That point I will concede...

cheers!

mike