I don't need credibility with facts do I? That is the beauty of...

I don't need credibility with facts do I? That is the beauty of facts isn't it? It doesn't relate to my opinion or my credibility . I actually have put out my opinion on both sides outlining positives and negatives .

Are you trying to say that the BOD knows everything? that they're always correct? and always act in the interest of small shareholders? That they do not get any kickbacks for a merger going through? I'm not sure instead of saying that you "don't quote cherry picked facts" why don't you rebuke or refute my facts?

Is there an objective right or wrong here? Both sides for a YES or a NO vote have merits and demerits. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you what would happen in the future for each event then are able to calculate which is overall worth more then I'm not sure how your facts are "independent" and or "objective".

At which point I've personally calculated my preferred scenario (which changed) of what I want to happen and made an educated guess on what I'm planning to do in the near future based on each scenario that may come to pass. I've written both positives and negatives to the merger why don't you DYOR?

VOTE NO TO INFLATED PE EVAULATIONS. VOTE NO TO UNDERPRICED HEDGES. VOTE NO TO LT GETTING KICKBACKS FOR LETTING THIS FARCE OF A MERGER GO THROUGH. VOTE NO TO DESTROYING SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. VOTE NO TO SHARE DILUTION. VOTE NO TO DEADWEIGHT. VOTE NO SO SLR CAN RERATE. VOTE NO SO SLR CAN PAY DIVIDENDS. VOTE NO POG GO HIGHER DEAL GET WORSE FOR SLR. VOTE NO TO GOING INTO THE RED.