consolidation & other issues, page-41

relevance vs past history Toni999,
You may be right, I am not very good with emails and forums and have sent off some messages that sounded somewhat harsh upon reading them the next day. As a result, I read much more than I write. No worries, me hearts in the right spot and I mean no offense. In this case, all I am trying to do is what what we all want: Fact, not fiction. Relivance and not past history.

MSC, as we all know is a developing story. Sometimes, in fact more often than not, these developing companies take much longer to get where they are going, and use up more shareholders money and patiences than we'd like. Sometimes they use up all resources before getting any runs on the board. But when they do succeed, it has been my experience, they come back big winners.

My holding in MSC isn't that far off being break even, so I'm not too worried at this point. But all your talk about the plant not working got me on edge.

I'm a retired plant engineer who has worked in a few isolated places, so I know a difficult location increases the risk. Its jolly hard to keep to a schedule when dependent on barge deliveries to whoop-whoop.

'Chand' contributed some interesting reading, although I found the answers plausable. Two smaller kilns would have been better than one.

And I agree, plenty of 'missing data' on this coy. Makes me worry. I had hope this weekend to have to reviewed their financial results, but grandkids took charge.

Enough gab from me.
Sorry if my remarks offended.
Please send me any details or contacts you have.
Meanwhile, good luck.
R,