Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-72

"I think instead of vexing only here you need to self-satisfy by asking for clarification with the Company."

You are assuming I haven't asked already. Assumption number 1.

"I could be making it up........... For all you know I’m misinterpreting what they said if I did call at all. "

If your assumption number 1 is incorrect (and I have made contact and gotten some feedback that roughly matches what you've said - I told you I intended to and reposted the same post to roller62 just before) then I would have in front of me enough information to safely assume that you had called.

I believe you did call. Others that ticked your post and great analysis (I saw most reporting in your post the analysis was something like a reference to 'crap' which roller62 decided to amplify) ticked it also apparently believe you did call.

I don't know if they made inquiries themselves I reckon some of them are probably trusting you.

"For someone so imaginative or considerate about ‘what’s what’ with the Company……….. contacting the company makes sense."

"Why the fear?"

I'm not feeling fearful. This is not my first rodeo. I told you (if you'd read I intended to make contact) and I've retold rolle62r after his profound "oh boy" with a reference to the same post.

I have been in a somewhat similar situation as this with respect to the KDR WES scheme of arrangement. I was trying to point out some of the things that logically followed from my interpretation of the documentation we have already been given and a good few of the people commenting on the KDR message board couldn't process what was being said - so they kept on commenting as they were free to do - and kept on missing the point. Kept on expecting better offers or something to come out of left field. I think there some hotcopper folks on the KDR message board that practically went into the scheme of arrangement meeting vote still believing another offer was going to find its way through the lock out devices that existed for the purpose of making such an offer incredibly difficult if not procedurally impossible.

The questions I asked of you were to the point and for a purpose. If you had answered them we would have made progress (some people really do care about whether the exclusion and restriction provisions are in place - they've said so - I said I thought the matter important and that I planned to do something about it - but you've deflected even saying whether you consider the question is important.


The reason I wanted you to ask - was because if you posted corroboration of what I'd said - which was that the exclusion and restriction clauses were already in effect - you would be a second person saying that - and because you had a different point of view before and because a lot of people would believe you - your reply plus mine if we were in agreement would pretty nearly constitute a proof. I don't know if you did ask, I don't know if you saw it as important so I asked you.

If we can't proceed logically we can't establish the truth of things. If you do - we might.

To get a community to agree to a basic bedrock of fact it is necessary to start somewhere.