agm and presentation, page-65

MM,

Its all perspective I guess, I bought in about 3 years ago. The stock had fallen off the peaks that had been reached after the speculator had boosted it and I bought in, at for the time, the low price of 3.30. The SP then started to rise so I bought in as it did so to improve my holding before the promised fantasy Nasdaq listing. It got to just shy of $5 on that "bull run".

It then tanked pretty quickly and rather than cutting my losses I hung in because I am in investor not a trader. At no point did I make an alleged connection between Dunkin Doughnuts' profits, a reduction in the number of available escorts in Sydney, the champagne consumption of Australian Bookies and the TZ cash position. With hindsight I realise how myopic I must have been!

So for me, like Lance, this has been an opportunity to get my buy-in down. From near 4 down to less than 2 and whilst the chances of the bumper pay-off have reduced I hope the chances of losing everything have also done so.

As to the share price post the rights issue, I am unsure why there will be so many sellers. Any Pats clients will want to turn a profit, the existing shareholders averaging down will want to hang on to get above their averaged buy-in or at least closer to it if they are trying to cut their losses. You have expressed in the past that you got in pretty early and so almost certainly have a very different view. Wasn't it Steven Covey that said "two people can look at the same thing and see two very different picture both of which can be right based upon their own perception." If you already have a low buy-in then the rights issue appears to cost more as you have to significantly increase the cash pumped into the company, if your buy-in is like mine then 10% more dosh has a nice salving effect.

I guess I'll have to hang on for a little longer to see whether the board can make a goer with a little more working capital and the bricks in place. I cannot comment on TC's argument that they had a different way ahead available to them when we defaulted to QVT. I suspect though that they went the only way QVT would allow them to and I agree with those that question QVT's motives and hope the 9m or so will be enough to get us into clear water.

So with that I change my sentiment to Long Term buy and suspect for this to pan out as well as Lance would wish we are looking several years hence. My Cash Value Neutral position is hopefully a little closer than it was last week.

Dave