a good sign for the to perhaps, page-2

morning recyug,

I certainly agree with most of your post.

With them covering their bases so to speak --- if that is the case (and I think it is).

It comes to me that the panel thing is just buying time. Why?

Because of their panel application - they have assumed associates can't vote - they have said that those people should not have been allowed to vote - but haven't given any references to either the definition of associates or why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. (part of the application at the bottom of my post here)

I asked a while back if in fact anyone had seen anything where associates can't vote - and didn't get a reply - I haven't seen anything myself.
It 'is' fairly clear that agreeing shareholders are in fact associates - but, so what?

Now it is either common knowledge that associates can't vote - but none of us know about this.
or
Stone believe that the panel know this - and know it so well that they don't even have to mention it in their application.
or
Stone are trying to pull the wool over the panel's eyes - and that would bring up, why?
In answer to that - one would have to think that the panel should be bright enough to actually figure out the law - or that Stone are just buying time with the panel application - for purposes unknown.
OR - that actually associates can vote and Stone don't even know that and just assume they can't and press on regardless.

In short - buggered if I know.

I only know this - regardless of these petty games - we control the company in numbers - and soon on the board.

And personally, as to ? I think it is bazz who is thinking that it is just about gaining a small amount of profit by holding a small amount of the company and expecting to sell at a profit -----------? I can't see that - not for such a small amount - it is a lot of stuffing around - but that might just be my sense of value.
Anyway -- another week.

pinto