"As I said hindsight is 20/20 and I think then you can understand when others don't always think exactly as you do."

Investigations are always 100% based on 20/20 hindsight. The discovery of criminality initially disguised as incompetence, indescretion and even what once appeared justified action are ALWAYS based on hindsight, investigation and history.

I ask you, hindsight also suggests that remaining invested in SLI based on the day to day involvement of Quantec despite my reservations of the competence of management was a mistake on my part and subsequently that has proven to be what cost me boatloads of my investment. Is this sour grapes or revisionist history...or is it the discovery of potential criminality based on hindsight, investigation and unearthing new information?

Are you suggesting that hindsight doesn't often reveal the truth? Doesn't bring things into a new light? doesn't expose lies, deceipt and criminality if they exist? Doesn't reveal true intentions?

You are right about one thing...things are not always what they seem...diligence and hindsight are what exposes the truth eventually. In the case of SLI and what has happened in the last few years...it may not be pretty for some but many truths have been exposed and continue to be everyday. Hindsight certainly doesn't allow you to change the past, but it absolutely allows everyone to be exposed for who and what they are, you and I, angel or snake.

"The answer to this question is important as it will answer whether the retribution/restitution is truly about justice and fairness or a lot about sour grapes and greed."

The use of the term "retribution" is inflammatory to say the least. It suggests that shareholders who are fighting for what they feel is right is somehow based on vindictive desires. Seeking justice in this case is all about seeking the truth and feeling whole again. Many can accept the monetary losses...people just want to know the truth for closure...nothing more. In fact, at least in my case, any notion suggesting that I might care about Lori or management in any way shape or form on a personal level is laughable to say the least. This is about business and justice for any and all shareholders who were misled and subsequently lost fortunes as a result. plain and simple. If Lori or management takes shareholders drive to seek justice and clarity as a personal afront, I would suggest she get over herself and check her ego...she is not that important.

"Let's face it, if SLI was $10 there would have not been a single peep about travel expenses - so was that issue about the genuine concern over use of company funds?"

Interesting how you are suggesting that the foundation of law is based on the ends justifying the means. Understand very clearly the law cares nothing of the opinion of shareholders or any others for that matter. laws are interpreted to the letter regardless of the result. It is frankly incredible and speaks to your character that you would even suggest that conducting business unethically, if successful, is somehow justified.

S.