"I also think the present Board, which has become more diversified over the years, is doing a good job and is most sincere where shareholders are concerned."
Then what about all of the concerns laid out in Granger's letter? They lead to the exact opposite conclusion that you've come to. Are they all incorrect or false?
Also, you're trying to argue that Peter Smith is a good geologist and is "passionate about the resources discovered." No one is arguing against that. No one here has said that he's not a good geologist. The fact is that in any exploration company, the role of geologist should be separate from the role of CEO. That fact that you know a lot about rocks does not make you qualified to run a public company. Therein lies the problem with Peter. He runs this company as a vehicle for him to continue this hobby that he's "passionate about." Unfortunately, he does this at the expense of shareholders. He's been running this company for what...20 years now? Where are the resources? He has not brought one mine into or anywhere near production. He simply hops around from one property to the next. A touch of drilling here, a touch of drilling there. It's just a hobby for him. Does that not bother you?
He could have avoided this whole situation by simply stepping down to the position of head geo and bringing someone on board who is actually qualified to run a public company. So when you argue that we should vote for him because he's a good geologist, you are completely missing the point.
Peter Smith has had ample opportunity to make something of this company. He has failed. Time to try something new.