To continue posting that management should be allowed to continue doing it's job as they are the ones who know what is what and should therefore be permitted to act as they see fit and to do so in the face of opposing sentiment from those they are responsible to is the same as saying "Keep the Blind Faith, as what we say as Directors is not the actual reality and we cannot tell you that so we must tell you something you know is injurious to your well being and expect you to understand there is something else that is really the reality and we trust in your Blind Faith in us".

Well, if they are that confident in knowing their Share Holders then maybe they should also be equally confident in knowing some of their Share Holders are also very well aware of too many past experiences where Blind Faith has been sadly rewarded. These Directors are expected to act in a manner where they NEED to consider VERY CAREFULLY the consequences of their actions. All their actions. By merely suggesting this proposition be seriously considered they could have achieved their stated goals. But to force a decisive AGM Vote on the matter when there is so much reason to be extremely positive on the companies near term outlook sends quite a strong message, not to those they are trying to scare off , but rather it sends a very strong message to their true Long Term Share Holders that they are themselves not very confident in the near term or long term future of the company they are Directing.

Otherwise, what were/are they thinking?

Your suggestion of having Blind Faith is actually in the relm of Pure Emotion. Should that not be checked at the DOOR long before normal educated factually supported Share Holder emotional expression is utalized in opposition to the unsubstantiated implied possability of their having an alteriour motive for causing harm to the well being of the Company? Even your involvement and approach to discussing this is demonstrating strong Emotional Drive on your part. There is no exsacping Emotion if referring to the creature called the Human Being.

If unstated, regardless of the factuality of the reality, many possabilities are equally permisable as to any potential reality/intention/outcome. And exactly at a time when Factuality is of essential importance.

What the Directors are getting here is only a normal response to their statement of BELIEFS. Beliefs which no linger hold the validity upon which they were supposedly (experssly) formulated, that being the reasons for the porposing the Resolution.

Thus, the Resolution is no longer required, as if it actually ever was required at this time. The goal(s) have been achieves if not having been already existing prior to making the proposition.

Now we need to see correction to the damage the proposal of the Resolution has caused.

Old Joe