shareholder briefings, page-6

SP3, returning the funds to sender, cost shareholders in the order 60 to 500 times that amount.

That is the theme you've omitted to comment on.

A one liner like that is not an effective way to comment upon my post.

It ( TC deal canning ) appears to have been a premeditated and contrived solitary decision.

It was a decision that ( re: a public company ) should have been put to a shareholder vote at this coming AGM.

Hindsight confirms as much ( refer to ALL asx anns after his ''resignation'' )

Such a sensitive decision would have then complied with full disclosure, shareholder value protection per constitution, and maintained an orderly market.

''IT '' was not a decision to be made by a person with no stock held and his type of business experience or manner.

,,,or a person with an ability ( or an agenda )to frustrate all concerned with Tincom negotiations,,, including himself.

,,, but without mitigation would refer to ESI as ''HIS'' company..... ?? It just does not ad up mate ..

You and he, were ''mates'' at the time,,, going by the posts you were making when he made that decision on our behalf.

The posts you made then, CLEARLY supported him sp3.

,,, right up until,,, then past,,, his ''leaving''

What did he say to you to convince YOU, that it was the right thing to do for OUR company?

Could you please explain mate ????

Your openness and keenness to post, would be greatly appreciated, now that your tune has changed somewhat on this near devastating matter.

Regards RD