I share Borredo's attitude. I hesitate to sign up to something I have not had a chance to read, in final form (or at least near final form). The "draft" compilation of inputs I last saw needed some strong word-smithing, as the language is IMO poor, rendering the questions not completely clear. I don't want to see a bunch of questions open to wide interpretation, because we mon't get the answers desired.

Of course I also want to assure I agree with the ultimate content of the questions. While I might find a particular question(s) to be not truly pertinent or important to me at this point in time, it's inclusion wouldn't necessarily be harmful, so that wouldn't prevent my participation.

And I'm very pleased that my questions about share buy-backs were included. But here, again, I get concerned about the possible result of word-smithing and the inability to see the result. Others had posed similar questions to Hawk, and got an answer that I regard as non-responsive; though I do admit that part of my reaction is because the answer they got is not what I wanted to hear. I just think of the last time the company bought back shares and all the information the company had at its disposal at that point in time ($ amounts being negotiated, etc.), and our PPS at the time. Are things really that much different? The only differences are the deal is now done, and there's a CC hanging from it. Company officers weren't buying then (for IMO the same basic reasons that they aren't buying, individually, now). The corporation was.

I guess the indirect "request" here is please don't alter the words I chose to ask these questions in the simplest possible terms, without IMO any chance of mis-interpretation. At least run 'em by me if they are changed! And I suspect all other contributors feel the same.

So when I see a near-final draft, I will then consider my full backing of the action.

Isn't that a reasonable stance?

JMHOs,

SGE