From Sudbury .... Again, as follows, are your words verbatim, exactly in order, as you expressed them.

“The fact that you guys are sticking around says alot about what potential you see
in this company run by Peter.....but, I’m not getting that from your comments.”

What am I missing? You’ve used basic syntax. Your sentiments are plainly stated.
To your credit, you don’t speak the language of lawyers.

Very directly, you’ve said we’re “sticking around.”
You’ve attributed our being here as “saying alot” about our “potential” under “Peter.”

Also, your message was short. So I didn’t quote you out of context.
Just the opposite. The context is all about Peter winning the vote.

“Sticking around” has nothing whatsoever to do with (as you put it) “what potential you see in this company run by Peter.” Just as you’ve written plain and simple, I’ve quoted you plain and simple.

Obviously, what’s “silly” (your word) here is your whole train of thought. First of all, Fancamp’s primary investment attraction is not its “potential” under Peter, who’s a geologist. The overwhelming sentiment of this Message Hub is that we’ve had more than our fill of geophysical “potentials.” Second of all, we’re here in spite of Peter, not because of him.

The investment attractions are the hard assets of the company, which already exist. No one’s denying Peter’s past contributions in acquiring them. But, for year after year, Peter has been growing more and more out of touch with the reality that investors are being hurt badly because he doesn’t have a clue as to how to capitalize on what we have.