I had a cconversation with Putnam a couple of weeks ago, after the last update. I actually said that it appeared as though they were begging the shareholders for a yes vote. He said it was intended as a statement of fact. But I think that the reason that we are treated like mushrooms as you suggest, is that the shareholders of this company, have a tendency to take what little information we have and in our zeal use it to enguage our customers and prospective customers in ways no self respecting investor should. Everything from getting in reportes faces when they omit or misrepresent fact to actually calling the companies to glean additional information. The rational being ``I didn`t represent myself as a shareholder of eDigital`` The company knows, to witt, we`ve been labeled ``benevolent baracudas``.....and I sometimes wonder about the benevolent part.

I`m not about to vote no at this point in the process, although a big hunk of me feels the same way as you. My sense is that try as we might, we can`t know more than we already know and it`s for our own good. I can live with that, but I can`t in good consence live with a no decision knowing full well that a no vote will be detrimental to the companies future. I think that the shareholders of this company have done enough harm by enguaging in unethical investing practices. Ironic, we want to blame management for the companies failures and now if we vote no we`ll have no one but ourselves to blame.

This isn`t directed at you specifically Sink, although I`m addressing your question. I`m sure you know, that you, of all investors in this company,I hold in highest regard and are one of the most ethical. I just disagree in your decision to vote ``no`` and I`m concerned that your trusted vote may result in swaying others.

Let it be!

Larry