Another person not really thinking, IMO.

First, look up the word - that may help.

A TRUE representative should only listen.  The only speaking they should do is to advise their constituents of the majority position on matters, and that they intend to represent that position.  They could also speak in order to obtain absolute clarity as to their constituents' position.  The opinion of the representative, in a perfect world, should not matter.  He/she is a representative of others (not themselves).  That is their duty.

I should have known someone would bring politicians into this discussion.  And what's EVERYONE's big gripe with politicians?  That they don't properly represent their constituents' position, but their own and their personal agenda.

Look at imigration reform.  The "representatives" pushed their own agenda (get more legal voters in here to support my party) and not that of their constituents.  Major uproar.  They weren't being "representatives".  One thing that has always bugged me about politicians running for office (especial incumbants) is that you almost never hear them say "the position I intend to represent on this issue is X, because X is the position of the majority of my constituents".  It seems to me that if they did, and the positions they represented always conformed to the majority of the constituents, they'd never lose!  It seems they're too hung up on themselves, and their party affiliation....

As for Brian; he has the pulse of the shareholders - his constituents.  He is not a politician, and has no "party affiliation" to worry about.  He is a Long, as are all of his constituents.  He represents the position of the majority of shareholders.  Don't you think he probably was an advocate  - on our behalf - of the warrant buy-back, share buy-back, killing of dividends, pursuit of alternative revenue streams, changes to the BoD?  All the things the majority of shareholders want.....   He certainly didn't oppose these things, IMO.  How much influence did/does he have?  That's the only thing we don't KNOW.  However, the proof is in the pudding - as all these things have happened.

Now, try to argue this further - because I'm absolutely certain that I'm correct.  In other words....

This I KNOW!

SGE