As opposed to, say, Chalice which uses a broad brush to paint...

As opposed to, say, Chalice which uses a broad brush to paint the landscape in tenements, and takes on millions of dollars in exploration liabilities? I am just curious as to what kind of criticism you like levelling at companies; are they faffing about with small tenure positions that aren't actually that small (I mean, pull a ruler out on the tenure), or blowing their wallets on taking up giant tenure positions covering masses of unprospective ground they can't explore properly, or not doing something whilst doing something? Are they doing equity-destroying deals on nearology, or pegging their own stuff and keeping a tight structure?

I mean, there's a lot of ways to skin cats, but it seems quite often that aggrieved investors can always find something to gripe about, and what they gripe about tends to illustrate what their opinion is bout how they would run the company, which is never how anything is run. This means that people can't be reasoned with, because if their grievances are addressed with facts, there's always something else to complain about.