fraud?, page-55

KC, won't be selling. Do you get a divorce because you dont agree with an aspect your wife does? There is a bigger picture I look at.

I do not want blood if board members have performed duties reasonably.

This should be assessed from outside the company.

I want blood if an outside assessment says board members have not performed reasonably.

Why should the chairman take the fall if it was not possible to be identified by reasonable board actions? Purely to be seen to be doing something?

I want the truth told to shareholders whether the board members have acted as is their charter.

There are 2 issues here getting mixed together. Changing board positions for commercial focus is not related to auditing if current and past board members have acted reasonably according to their duties.

I dont see why we all have to move on if potentially the whole board may be at least partly responsible for what has happened by possible lack of oversight.

And it looks to me, as far as small shareholders are concerned, it is being swept under the carpet under the guise of moving on.

To be clear: I am not saying anyone on the board is guilty of anything. But am peeved it looks like an audit of them from outside the company has not occured. Well not communicated if it has.

Anyway back to being a mushroom.