How can anyone come to the conclusion there is an attempt to...

How can anyone come to the conclusion there is an attempt to discredit the board. Holders are not responsible for performance they are. We are all investors and as investors we have a right to question decisions or the lack of. Look what has happened at what is happening since they came in. Just look at the lack of quality details in communications and more recently the total lack of communication for holders, the SP and amount of wasted money.

They left debt to last minute and I appreciate how the last well complicated the plan going forward the Verb deal was totally unacceptable and a desperate rushed plan from where I see it.

Why is it considered a deliberate attempted to discredit by requesting our rights to vote and requesting to find out the exact details/conditions going forward which effect every holder. I do not want to see us heavily diluted and sold out down the track for a bargain price. I expect well over a $1.50 price when they came into office 3 years ago. So if they are all the best experts then why are we in the 30-40c price range.

Isn't their performance important and should be judged as they are the ones effecting and making decisions on our investment. I am sure if other companies were in our position they wouldn't be happy either and I am sure the board would be highly criticised by their performance and chances would happen, wouldn't you all agree. Or should we say nothing, put shares in draw and say all will be right.

I have a right to exercise my rights as do every holders, what's the problem. If holders trust and have confidence in the board then what are they worried about. I am concerned with passed decisions and current ones so I merely ask for details, isn't that the rules and democracy.

RE 500 acres v's 10000 acres is pointless as we spent a lot of money on black swan highlighting only 2 prospects. What is important we can have thousands of acres of land which hold no value, others might only have 500 acres but in highly valued prospects. Big is not always best.

Only our board know exactly what we have and the potential value of this. Why is it we don't know. Why is it we have some people who I believe are not the best people for us going forward. Just look at the huge admin expenses and consultants used. Wouldn't it be better to have a structure in the first place, where we have the experience, not just fill board seats to keep others out and then keep holders silent. Doesn't make sense to me. Have they made bigger mistakes than we all realise. Do they have a game changing plan and we just don't get it. Only our board can in still confidence to the market and holders, so why are they silent.

Seriously gents all many of us want is good open communication, smart decisions and SP above our so needed consolidation, well it isn't happened or happening. If our board had performed well why is our SP at 40c. We wouldn't be arguing, if they had performed well then we would all be supportive, isn't 3 years long enough to say that they are underperforming, so why not ask for some changes and question things. Everyone is accountable and they have performed badly and divided the holders, not the holders. Simple from where I see it. GLTA.