2. secured over the Company’s assets to the extent permitted by...

2. secured over the Company’s assets to the extent permitted by law and subject to any requisite third party consents; and

Old ground Cait, come on. Security for the loan does not equate to ownership and it especially doesn't relate to the Ablation Unit specifically. If the loan needed to be repaid it would be up to BLR to arrange through what ever means they could, including the sale of the unit if they chose. That does not mean Glasier owns it. There is also nothing to imply that he is the only one who knows how it works, or if he even has a handle on the technicals himself!

Regarding strategy, I don't believe I have ever insisted on a NO vote, or a YES vote for that matter. I'm simply gathering information to share and trying to keep false statements out of the discussion.

Why can't we have a genuine conversation about the future of OUR company without people coming in to skew the conversation with unsubstantiated statements. There are issues on both sides of the argument but as it stands it's impossible to have a genuine discussion about it.

Things I raise are usually gaps in my knowledge or something I am worried about which is why I post them, to see if others can assist me (and others).

So please stop attacking everyone who disagrees with your (almost) zealot approach to the YES and participate in a genuine discussion.

R42.