Ann: Shareholder Meeting and Manono Due Diligence Update, page-48

Well considering all I saw was moderations my point is that it's not promoting discussion and it's obviously not healthy or respectful (from either side).

If any of the naysayers want to be valuable voice of reasons you need to present something beyond the fact that DRC is a poor country that has conflict issues.

You have to present facts about why Klaus' experience doesn't mean anything. Your point about election risk is fair. My counter to that is there will still be a SOE as part of the makeup of this mine. What will a new government need if they are going to be successful? Money and preferably happy citizens. Therefore would you not be promoting deals such as Manono that generate money, rehabilitate infrastructure, employ people. Sure it may not work perfectly but any improvements from a low base mean a lot.

We have had discussions about the rebels in that area. Maybe an out of the box thought is that you hire the rebels as security for the mine. With the scale and grades of Manono and the currency of somewhere like DRC it would cost a pittance and suddenly you have flipped a risk into a positive that improves the sovereign risk of the area.

I don't know. But to be blatantly against a stock because it has sovereign risk without drilling into those risks and whether they can be circumvented is useless.

I hate that rule. Leads to mutual admiration societies. There is nothing wrong with being negative. It just needs to be informative and well constructed and actually add value to a discussion