possible way forward, page-10

Harry not interested in "you said, I said" discussions but in response to your last post will correct your comment to acurately represent what I did say prior.
I said AVQ cant blame Bergen or SMM on the fact it has had to use Bergen as a funding source nor the cause of "AVQ's current woes". Nothing in my last comments mentioned the cause of why AVQ are involved in the court case and I think airing my thoughts on this here would not help AVQ.

The court case and the potential to unravel as it has, has always been the main reason for my comments from the day we became involved in litigation. Imo AVQ should have been developing (investing shareholder funds) and promoting itself through our VN and OZ projects.
We would have had a much better investment story to have consistently excited or interested the market with over the last three years.
SI should have been off our publicity press screen until the litigation is concluded one way or the other.
Instead we have primarily promoted and relied on the SI nickel project, the litigation and even the court timeframe and outcomes, yet it has not eventuated. Thus some ask why, while others make baseless comment(imo)why AVQ had to use Bergen!

I dont hide my lack of confidence in both management and the board (virtually the same). I cant fathom not only the above thoughts but the fact that the management and board members have received bonus performance share issues during this period of massive SP loss from 7c down to 1 cent!
I could say a lot more but why, my views are known here.

Harry it is clear the company is excited about SI so I hope they can rationlise the tenement holdings to a manageable size AVQ can affordably fund and get on with the job of exploration and not highly speculative litigation.
Highly speculative prospecting offers more upside potential to raise capital imo.