"I would not want to do anything to jeopardize any real progress the company might be making".
Nor would I... but, in every instance in which you are addressing "progress"... you also have to address both of the elements that come paired with it, in terms of risk, and cost. The deliverable we have in the "benefit" of the most recent NI43-101 compliant report provides an example, or two, or three... in series... with indisputable proofs. Dan sold the BS story to the private placement holders, conned people into selling shares well below market using price as the source of advantage for them, rather than any REAL advantage as the advantage... thus dragging us down, yet again... based only on the promise of progress. The progress didn't happen. But, according to Dan... he's actually DELIVERED... in spite of all the obvious and undeniable proof of the opposite ? So, how SHOULD we value ANY promises from the same source now ?
The "spin" that has been applied, after the fact... only lies about what really happened. If they'll lie about what DID happen... when that's easily proven as fact... why would you think anyone would trust them to not lie about things they're addressing as "plans"... "for our benefit" ?
And, while I clearly didn't ever judge I should believe any bit of the pile being shoveled before, that's not a reason I'd believe proven liars now. And, now, we'll have good reason to expect all those that were lied to before, who were surprised at the result (or, the lack of it)... likely get it, now.
So, I have no reason at all to have any confidence at all... that there is any real progress occurring... based on their word. There certainly is no tangible evidence yet of a lick of that progress occurring, if there is any.
And then, the problems apparent in that much of what has been addressed by Byrnes as a probable sequence of events... directly conflicts with what we were told before... while the changes made impose vastly larger new costs, and risks, rather than any new potential in obvious benefits to be delivered.
In fact, there is a parallel issue to address in the significant risk that if there is anything occurring... it isn't progress... rather than something more like the opposite.
So, in measuring those risks versus the potentials ? It seems clear that it shouldn't be particularly hard to avoid landing any punches that aren't intended to be landed, were it about "progress" being obstructed... and not problems. But, if you're not even in the ring... you don't ever get to make that choice... whether or not it proves necessary ?
So, the choice is one between being ready and well prepared to do what needs doing... if anything... or being along for the ride, without any potential to influence the outcome... whatever it is that the ride turns out to be ?
|
