Thinking about the approach Ron is currently pursuing, it does seem reasonable with one added step.

Ron will do initial draft based on input from Ads, whose input is based on contributions solicited from this forum.

Ron will share the draft with Brian, our shareholder's rep, and incorporate his input as appropriate.

Ron will then share the (possibly revised) draft with little ole me - me being one looking to assure that the letter can do no harm, and has truly pertinent questions worded such that there is little chance of misinterpreting the intent (I'm the former contracts guy, and preparer of directive documents guy, remember?). I again commit to providing a "justification" for any suggested mods.

Then Ron, having acted on my input (if any - I'm sure Ron has the legal eye of writing to avoid interpretation/intent problems - but a second set of eyes is always wise), will coordinate the (possibly revised) draft with Borredo, who has voiced his criticism. I ask that he too provide "justification" for his proposed changes, and try to do as I plan - ponder whether each question is pertinent, answerable, understandable in clarity, hasn't already been satisfactorily answered, and won't do harm.

Even this limited coordination effort will be a bit cumbersome (each revision should be re-coordinated with prior reviewers), but it will be the work of an advocate (Ron), a semi-insider (Brian), the common long-term Long (I'm right cheer!), and a critic (Borredo - assuming he'll choose to be involved). (BTW, there ain't nuttin' wrong with being critical, buddy).

Once that's done, I would like to see the result posted for all to read. Then all can choose to support it or not. Hard to sell an effort when it's unclear, so I'm suspecting that many more might get behind the effort if thay can see the document. And some may withdraw.

The only good reason I can see for withholding the document until after it's formally delivered is that sharing it here first might remove the impact when received by the company - as they'll probably have already seen it. But heck, they've probably already read the basic inputs compiled by Ads. They responded directly to the question I had in the letter to shareholders! The impact, IMO, isn't the issue - the issue is getting management's attention and ANSWERS.

I hope all understand that boardening coordination toward total concensus would be near impossible. If the above approach is questionable (specifically, who will be involved), perhaps that's worthy of limited debate. My feelers won't be hurt if people object to my participation.

And to clarify my position on this whole effort: I don't really care if it's done or not, as I'm reasonably comfortable with the info I have in hand and I don't have expectations of getting much MORE of a "warm and fuzzy feeling" from the final result - management's response. Nothing earth-shattering is going to come of this, IMO. But I do buy off on the idea of posing questions whose answers may provide some greater insight and that may calm the nerves of the nervous.

For your consideration,

SGE