whoa_,

I'm not sure if this was intended as a reply to my post specifically or simply a post in general to the board. In case it was directed towards me I will address what you have said.

I do not feel this case and the decision has any merit in determining one's views on the competence of either current management or proposed new management.

What I am saying is that the strategies and decisions on how to present each parties cases were that of the lawyers, as legal expertise is the reason you hire them.

If the decision to not change the circular was the tipping point...that decision rests solely on the shoulders of the legal team as that would be a decision made by them. Had they changed the circular and won the case would that have made them more or less capable of running the company?...no. Does winning this case make Lori and her team more competent?...no?

Following the advice of your lawyers during a complicated case is in no way a reflection on the green teams talents or ability to provide oversight on a publicly traded exploration company.

Whether one believes that Lori and her Board or the Green team and its Board has the competence to run the company...that belief should be founded on the track record of success, actions, integrity, due diligence, interviewing of respective parties, etc.....not on whether one teams lawyers or the other chose the proper strategy.

I will say this from my biased point of view...

I may not know whether the Green team is capable of running the company successfully as that is hypothetical until they are given the opportunity....however I do know if current management are capable of running this company successfully. The track record of perpetual failure financially, communicatively, ethically, and strategically throughout it's tenure is more than clear.

Here's a little math problem for the board to complete.

IF

Perpetual Failure = Incompetence

AND

Current management = Perpetual Failure

THEN

Current management = ????????????

S.