Wow, this description sheds a little bit of a different light on the situation and Palmer. I wonder how much Jamie is getting out of this?

In the meantime I have reviewed Management Information circular and voting papers, and the they certainly are unintelligbe and obtuse and written in such a way so that one doesn't have a clue what one is voting for.

This really makes me think that something is being held back, possibly lied about, or subterfuged. With most things that one comes across these days that claim a product is green, or good for the environment there is a scondary meaning to what is claimed., Ie. A box of cereal is green for the enviornment because the box is green, which then carries the implication that the cereal is healthy for you. So you better go for it.

I am voting "no" to all items that are highlighted. Even if it may take a bit longer for a better resolution if the "No" vote is successful. It will at least give us the pleasure of finding out what was in fact found.

R