agm, page-8

mdma. I hope you're not and MD with a first name of Michael ;-)
The other two directors scored very badly on my demeanour scale, especially Latta. I doubt I would enjoy the company of either man, while Montalto appeared to a nice man.

The difference was Latta and Bell concentrated on their experience and what they would bring to the table, while Montalto concentrated on hyperbole and criticism. If he runs for a board position again I'd encourage him to focus on what skills and experience he would bring to the table. There is no need to criticise others when the audience is already very critical of them. If you look at the result it is clear that Hunter Hall voted against Montalto. If running for a board position it pays to sell yourself to major shareholders before the event. Find out what their issues are and see if you have anything in common.

You're right my use of clairvoyance may have stretched reality. While Grant seemed to believe the unanimous board decision to reject the $75M offer somehow lent it credibility, that was a warning sign for me. How could an entire board agree on such a thing? Surely in a group of truly independent people at least one would want to take the bird in the hand? Though as they are not buying shares now, perhaps like most they are ruled by Fear and Greed. they were greedy in 2006 and fearful in 2008. The company would be in a stronger position now if their fear and greed was reversed. While 2006 can't be undone and I see little point in focusing on it, 2008 can be changed and I'd encourage all shareholders to email or call the company recommending they extend the buyback. Though please wait a couple weeks until I have completed by purchases ;-)

I gave Bell and Latta the benefit of the doubt that they were not part of the 2006 decision as I believe it was stated they had only served for two years. As I was unsure I abstained from voting for them.