I hear ya.  I just sounds like a very weird deal to make - for either side.  Alot of my attitude comes from the divies issue.  I honestly think S&L had very little to do with that.  I believe what happened was that our management got this ton of money and had nothing planned to spend it on, and were comfortable in the idea that it was only the very beginning (i.e., many more tons to come soon - and who didn't think that way at that time?), so they just got rid of it the easiest way possible while proportionately benefitting all shareholders, with the expectation of getting a lot of market attention.  My only gripe with the divies was the second, and more, the third one (when they KNEW how the market was going to react).  So I guess I'm sensitized every time this comes up.

Please note that I posed the question as a "friendly question".

But I acknowledge that you are right, that was his intent in bringing it up - to suggest that S&L is obliged to continue selling regardless of circumstance.  But the supposition would be that S&L did not have that good of a "feel" or feeling about what could (will?) happen, even knowing what had already happened.  In other words, when did Swartz lose his optimism?  Perhaps teremoto is on to something, but only in regard to the third divy, IMO (because of the timing and the remaining litigation - mitigating risk).

Teremoto - I withdraw my question!

Thanks ads.

SGE