Why is the 12 month performance more important than performance...

Why is the 12 month performance more important than performance over 2 years or over 4 months?
You are selectively looking at 12 months, which so happens to be a poor performance time frame. Yet when looking more broadly, or narrowly a completely different performance picture is painted. Either way it creates a bias.

My point is, you seem to be attributing Andy's lack of follow through in this most recent period as the reason for poor performance, in my opinion that is unjust considering his overall ability to execute on the campaign to date. But more importantly the fact that markets in general over 12 months have declined combined with less than desire-able results published by the company; neither of which Andy has any control over...

You say talk is cheap and it sounds like you want Andy to be crowing from the roof to help increase the price during the POG rally. That sounds like an awful thing to want as an investor as it will create short lived enthusiasm that may not be justified by exploration results over the medium-to-long term.

Let the man do his job and communicate from a position of truth, not speculation. Be patient it's in your best interest.