How long I have been here doesn't change the relevance of what I have said. I have read other posts. I get it - the "long-termers" aren't happy, they want change. Just because I am not a "long-termer" does not mean I do not want the company to be successful. Of course I do. I didn't invest in because I want it to be unsuccessful.
Doesn't change the fact that careful consideration should be given to such actions and their consequences. Not everyone has nothing to lose. That's a selfish assumption. I'm a shareholder too, remember. And I do stand to lose money potentially.
Sounds like bullying to me - if I or MBarring or anyone raises a point the people pushing the motion don't like, just "shout" them down instead of properly addressing the point.
The motion is not a good thing if it causes more damage than good.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that the motion is or isn't a good thing, on balance. It may be. It may not. I don't know the answer. But when MBarring raises a potentially important point and it is essentially ignored by most with some general cliche about embracing change and not fearing it, there clearly seems to not be proper consideration of the issues and consequences and perhaps just a vendetta by angry shareholders.
