Al,

I am completely sypmathetic to your point of view, and it might sound contradictory, but I essentially do not disagree with you. I am on record as saying as I'm not fan of BMK's management either, or what they did either....

I am just looking at it from a different, and perhaps big picture, perspective. The Mc Fauld's scenario is a unique situation, in my view, where the my investment success will have more to do with who else is lucky enough to intercept significant mineralization in a setting that is already being expected to be a new mining camp.

I would not normally be so cavalier about managment, and my initial investment in NOT over a year ago was added to in early 2007 because of my comfort with who is at the helm there.

However, what I am trying to establish, and this is entirely my opinion, is that investment in any of the McFauld' plays has more to do with probabilities and numbers than management. I own BMK shares as a bet on a hit. That's all I need for me to make money, and I'll be out long before they have to start figuring out what they are going to with whatever they might find.

I would never own and hold BMK like I do NOT, but right know, BMK is nowhere NOT in terms of success, so the bet is still open. I have confidence in NOT''s management to create more value for me by doing the right things with their discovery. If I did not, I would have sold by now. If BMK discovers anything similar to NOT, I will probably be out long before they have to start any strategizing and negotiating... See the diffference?

Regards,

B.