I'm just now going back and reading yesterday's posts, and finally came across your's. I'm glad you stepped up and commented about one of my posts - finally.

First, when you describe his role, I agree completely. I never had an expectation that Brian would be reporting anything to us. Quite the contrary - he undoubtedly had to sign an NDA - assuming he would actually be active in his role. He was effectively muffled from communication with fellow shareholders.

However, you go on to say that Brian isn't trying to influence us. Please explain his post about the MOU. IMO, that was very misleading (non-sense), and I believe it was his intent.

Now please explain why neither you nor Brian ever provided any feedback of any kind to any of my "delusional conjecture" - positive or negative. You guys are lawyers, skilled in the art of argument. That conjecture on my part is (obviously) IMO the most important issue of the day. You two are the most respected posters, IMO. Silence? After my pleas for input? Should I take that non-response as tacit acceptance of my proposition? I wouldn't make that leap.

Links have been provided. Argue! Shoot down my conjecture! Please! Such discourse would IMO be invaluable to all shareholders. If you choose not to argue, please explain why.

(BTW, Ron knows that the word "argue" doesn't mean "fight" per se. An argument doesn't have to be a negative thing, but more an "aggressive discussion based on sound reasoning and knowledge", in our - believed shared - opinions).

Back to Brian. While I truly don't have any ill feelings toward him personally (though I question the intent of a couple of his posts, soliciting clarification), consider what I posted earlier today. If he were doing his job as you (and I) describe, would those letters from shareholders have been necessary? He was our messenger. Apparently, the message wasn't sent - at least not to your satisfaction. Please explain.

SGE