Let me begin by saying please reread my post, it was not about logic but about how the other guy's bid is perceived. In logic , if the majority of FWR holders believe that the whole is worth more per share than the sum of the parts , they will want to merge. But to make a convincing argument, NOT BoD should be prepared to demonstrate that proposition works in the eyes of one or more candidate majors , not simply in the view of NOT. I think our company is well run, but it is not a major, just a large speculative explorer. As other posters have also alluded to , suddenly presenting NOT as a would-be mine developer lacks credibility in the context of this proposed merger. I can be happy to be a holder of either or both given the huge unexplored land base held by NOT. And the offer could prove to be generous. But the ball is clearly in NOT's court to get a convincing testimonial from a major.