Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-115

As "genuine investors" my thoughts are we all have our own agendas here (or at least as individual investors we should have imv) that simply cant be disputed or even needs to be apologized for. And yes there are also posters that do frequent most HC forum's that are here to deliberately pedal "KAOS" theories (trolls), both one liners (by way of example the ribbit) and some with more deeper intellectually based theories.

Often the "one liner trolls" to me are seen as pesky flies and some here spend probably way to much time trying to swat every bit of crap they utter, I myself don't mind weighing in on the odd occasion with these "pesky flies" but its not really to educate any of them or anyone for that matter, its more out of boredom, seriously any investor that cant see through these type of posts has no business being here invested in AVZ or any company like it. AVZ is a "high risk company" no ifs or butts. As a foot note, having said that I might add/suggest that new or relatively new investors have I feel, much less risk in turning a healthy profit than investors like myself that have been invested here for a considerable period of time.

On the issue of the more intellectual or sophisticated posters that come here its some what more difficult to determine if they're here to pedal genuine/real concerns about this or that and offer to the forum they're hypothesis on a given scenario that maybe in play or unwinding, separating these type of posters from the posters that are deliberately sowing seeds of doubt for NON genuine reasons can be difficult at times to say the least.
With "these type" of stocks, especially at the stage (well advanced imv) we now find ourselves at, it is my thought that one needs to be able to determine first whether the poster has your interests at heart as an investor or is in fact up to some mischievous behavior and this is a very grey area for some I feel and in many scenarios, such as is being played out at this time on this forum.

You will find no shortage of those that say they have they have done their DD (and so you should as best you can) or "due diligence" as thou to say they know whats going to be, "guess what they don't imv", its not that simple, there are lots of moving parts and lots of ways these things can play out, experienced investors all know this.

Scarp along with a smallish/diminishing number (where is columbo, freehold etc) investors or posters that frequent the AVZ threads (my observation only) will offer their opinion on many of these contentious issues, in a format that appears relatively un biased, that's not to say they wont put there views strongly but its done in a "realistic fashion" from my perspective. By way of example, this is proven out by being realistic in so much that he acknowledges simple facts/issues at hand (as many investors do) such as management are clearly cutting big chunks of cake out for themselves before feeding the main course to the retail SH who are funding this GIG, by the way! and at the same time he and others like him will still be "realistic" when weighing in on some theories/questions/observations, being brought to the forum, (see latest exchanges JB DB Scarp and a few others). The inference on being "realistic" is to say that in this case we have decide for ourselves "what is the cost" or likely downside to SH if we vote NO to the proposal which our greedy management are clearly in favor of?

Just because they are a greedy bunch of ..... ...ds, well you know what I'm saying, doesn't mean its possibly not the only decent way forward (if we knew all the facts) anymore than JBs view to say lets get a lot more clarity on what exactly is going on behind the curtain (of which I could speculate there is much) before we sign this deal off. That sounds great to me but being "realistic" its difficult to hold this management accountable at this late stage, yes I realize how weak that sounds and undoubtedly it IS and yes we have several mill in the bank that buy's us time to do other things but yes there's always a but simply if we did vote NO and stopped the present proposal "realistically" the out come might go very south very quickly! imv.

These guy's running the show might be running their own agendas, they might be acting in the interests of SHs (although I'm not yet convinced, to much cake eating for my liking) they might have cut deals that the average punter is unaware of, or simply they have been played into a corner where they have tried all manner of things, to get a better outcome but decided this is the best they can do in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Yes we would all like to dictate terms to ALL and Sundry because we are the biggest and almost the best but that's not the way the world operates.
I bought in two years ago with what "DD" (means jack in the world we roll in here although it helps) I could carryout at the time, knowing it was a punt as the reserve was neither defined/proven or even what quality the resource might be and I thought if we ticked those extremely critical boxes I would turn a nice coin, simply NO, four more key pieces that must be delivered, the product must be able to get to port in a cost effective manner! No Ifs or Buts, the gate keeper of this seems to be the Chinese, we must have the funds to get through the tough times, management must act in the interest of SHs (doesn't always happen) and of course the product needs to be required at a premium price when you go to market.

In my view the die is already set, as is the outcome, we SHs are but bit players in this dance, I do appreciate the scope of the debate that's transpired and the courage of those genuine SHs that bring there concerns to this forum.

all holders I hope you enjoy your afternoon, and I apologize for my ramblings above. cheers SY