Read the majority of the posts over the last several days. My initial knee-jerk reaction regarding the proposed new slate of directors was one of trepidation. After all, they are newcomers to the scene, and they seem to have little "skin in the game". Thus, a natural fear/concern that their goals would not be aligned with those of long-term investors [I originally bought in July 2008 ( at ~ $1.70/share with less than 35 million shares outstanding if I recall correctly) , having discovered the company from the annual TSX-V top 50 list (was 3rd of 10 resource mining sector stocks)] . I think that is a completely understandable reaction given the general banking/ investment climate that has been brought to light over the last several years. So despite their credentials and accomplishments, they are unknown entities to me, and I suspect to the majority of posters on this forum. What will they do with our company and how will they respond to our concerns?

On the other hand, we already have an abundance of evidence to attest to how Mr Smith et al. will repond to our concerns as shareholders, if past (non/weak)-efforts are any indication of future behaviour. I read over Teleprobe's posted letters that he indicated he would be sending to Mr. Smith and the other directors. His tone was respectful and the content/concerns well thought out. Whatever the reason for a lack of a response from the majority of directors, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Even though I wasn't slighted personally, to me its dismissive and disrespectful. In this instance I would argue against the old adage"better the devil you know than the one(s) you don't".

Cheers, luker