writer,I don't mean to appear rude but your "I don't buy into...

writer,

I don't mean to appear rude but your "I don't buy into the Machiavellian take-over theories" comment seems a little hypocritical given your past comments.

Not so long back you said "Hey focused, I'd be stunned if your last proposition didn't happen, either before, or after all the rest are put in place. Metal Storm is a target, IMO, and if it's not already, it will be. The US won't let it get away". You said this in response to the comment "still possible a defence giant could step in on this wanting to take it over".

You later said "Seems to me that $19 million as an upfront license/cornerstone holding for say, Colt, to secure global rights to MAUL isn't an unreasonable or extravagent amount".

So now in the real world a special little US based fund has done a private deal to get hold of the majority of notes and has convinced the board to propose giving them the ability to convert all of them at their discretion to equity at a dirt cheap price giving them majority control.

We merely mention that this provides for an easy and cheap takeover and you do a sudden 180 and call it a "Machiavellian take-over theory". So you are happy to toute MST are a takeover target and possible interest by US defense contractors in contolling MST but when the transaction takes the form of anything other than a formal takeover offer it suddenly becomes "Machiavellian". hmmm

In what world is it that a company sees an opportunity to buy a distressed asset that would fit nicely into its business portfolio and doesn't look for the cheapest way to acquire it ? Is it really "Machiavellian" to acquire a controlling stake via the backdoor before making your intention known, or is this just standard practice when planning a takeover ?

TU for the perfect backflip dude.