Let's suppose that as NOT holders, BIGCO came along tomorrow and offered to take us out at $3.50 per share . While some would be very happy, at least as many would say "the sheer gall of those idiots to offer such a pittance". Meanwhile the yahoos on the BIGCO message board would be saying "How could those idiots think we are being anything but charitable to offer such a huge amount" . But the only real issue at the end of the day, with all the emotion aside, would be whether anyone with as much whack as BIGCO appeared with a bigger bid. All the rationalization and acrimony would have no impact at the end of the day, and the decision for NOT holders , as gutwrenching as it might be, would be made by the majority or supermajority of shareholders. Now, we know the yahoos over at BIGCO messageboard consist mostly of underemployed call centre workers, children, and the criminally insane. In fact, the more we read on their Board, the more we are thinking "I wouldn't want to sell to those idiots at any price, simply to spite them for being so obnoxious". The more posts we are reading today seem to be moving people away from the decisions they need to make , principally, what shareholders should be looking for that may get a major to feel compelled to tie up a stake in the RoF. I am willing to guess that our individual sense of fair value for NOT "as is" ranges from $3 to $10 with some much greater. So, how can you think there are not a lot of FWR holders who feel FWR is worth between say $.75 and $2.50 ? I would like to suggest that if our BoD feels FWR is somehow critical to NOT being worth $10 per share, then as NOT holders we should be a little tolerant of FWR holders. Some of us might otherwise end being yahoos on the Cliffs messageboard.