OK, gang.  I have been off the internet overnight and most of yesterday combining some family time with a mandatory obsession viewing College Football.  My teams didn't do well, so that was a disappointment. 

Then this morning I wake up to a lively discourse between two very valuable members of the Hub, not entirely a friendly exchange of views.  Not the end of the world, but still a little concerning.

I read all the comments and I am not really certain that WB DT and Pavel's views are truly that incompatible.  You both seem to look forward to LAC eventually being able to utilize Step 1 and Step 2 of battery development to provide battery chemicals to U.S. battery making facilities, whether those facilities are totally owned by U.S. companies or by foreign companies investing in U.S. battery making facilities.  Maybe I am wrong, but I think both of you are coming around to the same conclusion if we look at this thing in the long term perspective, the difference being that Pavel places more weight on possible negative consequences in the short term for LAC not proceeding forward to Steps 3 and Steps 4 of battery manufacturing onsite at Thacker Pass, since the EIS indicates that these steps will not be part of the plan for LAC.

I think both Pavel and WB DT view the initial sale of battery chemicals to overseas countries, primarily Asian ( read essentially: "China") as an intermediary step in the long term plan for the U.S. since ultimately that destination of battery chemicals from Thacker Pass would, according to both Pavel and WB DT, be diverted to companies making batteries here in the U.S. 

 Now, I don't guaranty that my understanding is correct in that assessment, but I do agree with Cal that the interchange between Pavel and WB DT on this divergence of viewpoints has been "interesting".

Bottom line, I am proud that you both did not descend in this divergence of views to the point of exchanging epithets as that process routinely happens elsewhere.

That shows some admirable restraint, but I do think we are getting a little too close to the line as far as intoleration of alternative views.  Hey, guys, mutual respect is the answer to whatever the question is on this forum.  Just allow the fact that whatever your own view is there is always going to be someone with a different viewpoint. 

WB DT, I understand that you might question whether Pavel is a real "Long" or not, since he assiduoulsy points out all the warts on LAC as he sees them. He never sugar coats something that is, in his view, less than completely favorable to LAC.  He unquestionably will  challenge anyone in a heartbeat he presumes to be Pumping LAC instead of informing about LAC.

Pavel, WB DT is a dedicated "Long" and will doggedly research for anything that verifies the positive long term future of LAC.  His contributions here and on TOB have undoubtedly been among the most valuable both here and on "Cartoonland".  There is no question about his dedication to providing informative and positive information about LAC.

We need both of you guys here and I hope you both continue to challenge the other's positions, even vigorously.  Please, just don't question the motives of each other as long as each of you professes an ultimate long term view of LAC's positive future. 

Personally, I don't want to look at any company through Rose Colored Glasses.  I want to know where every wart is on that companies face. 

On the other hand, I see no purpose served in bashing a company, LAC most definitely included, without any information to support a bump in the road for LAC that is less than 100% completely favorable to LAC and LAC's management.  Knowing that someone will diligently hold LAC's management's feet to the fire is actually reasuring, otherwise our opinions of LAC are just modeling clay for LAC management to form in any fashion they see fit at the moment.

I think, and I hope, that every member here on this board has the utmost respect for both of you.  I know that I do and I consider the continued participation by both of you here as essential to the success of this Hub.  I don't think the two of you are ever going to be in complete agreement on many aspects of the forward journey of LAC, but I also don't believe that your different perspectives are a bad thing as it relates to analyzing LAC.  Not as long as the two of you have mutual respect for each others viewpoint.  

This Hub needs both perspectives and needs both of you.  So, shake hands and go to your respective corners, gentlemen, and come out swinging information to support your own particular views... but with respect for your "opponent".   

 Just 'sayin.     Okiedo