Thank you for bringing some focus. I'm happy to see that you, unlike some others, can clarify the issue and pose a reasonable question without jumping to wrong conclusions about the opinions of others. As far as I can see, the opposition to shareholder unification is based on the fact that there is no clear objective of such unification.

IMO, many/most are opposed to calling for an SEC investigation (though if it were kept silent until results are available, I would have no problem).

IMO, many/most are opposed to bringing a law suit against the BoD (what would be the basis in fact? And who wins? And what do they win besides a negative attitude towards the company? What would happen to the PPS?).

Now, to your specific suggested changes to the corporate bylaws:

"1. term limits for directors (retroactive which may require immediate termination of Faulk, Felcyn and Johnson)"

I personally have a problem with this, but for more subtle reasons:

What if we were obtain a truly effective BoD member that consistently did the right thing in the opinion of the majority of shareholders? Would you really want to limit their term in "office"? Here we need to keep in mind that once a change is made, it impacts the future.

But here's my bigger concern. IMO, it would be wise to keep at least one of the long term BoD members on board that has intimate familiarity with the company for several reasons. One is to enable an effective transition for the newly acquired BoD members. Another is that IMO it is important to retain corporate memory, lessons learned, etc. And a third is that IMO it would be very unwise to place the company in the hands of "unknown quantities" in the form of new BoD members, regardless of their background, experience, etc. After all, we don't have a clue as to who these new BoD members may be.

Bottom line, if you achieve the second desired change (below), do you need or really want the change cited above?

"2. change plurality to majority voting"

I have not seen one solitary post objecting to this. I have seen posts suggesting that there is a good possibility that it would not effectively change anything based on past voting. That is the extent of the much-touted "opposition" to this.

So, IMO, focus on this one "initiative". I really don't see any down side to this initiative. It would allow for change, and it should prompt more consideration by BoD members toward acting intelligently and in the true best interest of all shareholders. BTW, at this moment in time, I'm fairly pleased with the actions of the BoD, even though IMO they have made a couple of bad moves recently (e.g., that unsecured loan to TPL resulting in a dispute).

But keep in mind that there are a whole lot of shareholders as myself who really don't expect to be a shareholder eight months from now. Most, I suspect, are waiting for a few good strong events that will get them to their target sell PPS, and they will be gone. Nobody should be married to this or any stock. So if good things don't happen within the next (eight) months, many will separate and divorce themselves from this stock. For this reason, don't confuse a lack of support/interest as being "opposition", because in reality it is likely to be a reflection of a shorter time horizon for many current investors, myself included.

JMHOs and suggestion for refinement of the objective/desired change.

SGE