Re:

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.

WOW......You have a problem with someone doing the right thing and being forced out by a term limit........While I'm letting that one sink in......

Re: 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.

So it's all a waste of time, considering your view, that good or bad, there will be an exodus in 8 months (why this timeframe, the next SHM?), rendering any proposed actions moot anyways.......So Laurie should just pack it in and not bother?......Did I get that one right?.....

All IMO.....