lack of interest, page-13

Sorry ... hit the "Post Message" button before I could give my conclusions.

So you are correct in one way ... the previous company & business were failures. But since 2009, you essentially have a new company, new directors all with significant resource experience, and a totally new resource business and direction, with two very interesting projects on the go, and some others still in evaluation stage.

While it is very valuable to base investment decisions on the previous history ... that normally refers to the management, not the shell company. In the case of QNL, yes, you have the shell that in a previous incarnation was a failing tech stock, but 2011 sees a totally new resource company with resource-experienced directors and management.

It is a very flawed premise to base investment decisions in QNL on what the old WSG/ICC did between 2003-2008. Best to clear the midnd and not allow sentiment to dictate your investments