IMO, the answer to your question is fairly obvious. It's because several people here are willing and capable of challenging their propositions, and they don't want to be challenged, period.

Personally, I WANT any propositiopns/speculation I post to be challenged. That's exactly why I post it. THAT is a primary purpose of this board, for me at least.

But it's clear when one comes out of the shadows, proclaims his opinion, and says everyone else's opinion is BS, that there is no desire to even allow further thought/consideration, in the face of many, many unanswered "weirdnesses".

Both of these fellows have made an attempt to explain the MOU. Both were extremely weak, yet one indirectly ackowledged that their purpose is for contingency planning. What contingencies? Unknown, other than they IMO certainly had nothing to do with the examples provided (suggesting they were some trivial things, like if payment is not made - trivial? No other mechanism to covering this contingency - like a stipulation from the Judge? These guys are lawyers, right?).

IMO, there is a game afoot. Think about it. We used to have ttccrr spewing endless complaints about management/BoD actions of the past (many valid, BTW). But this went on endlessly, repeated over and over. He finally got the boot for bashing. And it was bashing. We knew, we acknowledged, we didn't need to keep hearing about it. Especially the events of 7-8 years ago.

So, seeing how that approach to bashing doesn't work (trying to lower the PPS), how do you direct attention to the perceived failures of management/BoD without giving the appearance of bashing?

How about proposing a letter to the company, from concerned shareholders, addressing every perceived failure of the company? A pretty clever way of achieving the same objective under the guise of doing something good. Lots of attention. Many, many repeats of those perceived failures (a la ttccrr), yet a perception that everything is on the "up 'n up".

Two letters. Virtually no result. But, I suspect that no real result was expected. How would you expect the company to respond to a cited failure, which in hindsight was clearly a failure? You expect the company to come back with "yup, we're totally incompetent, and really messed up - sorry"?

I could go on with this, MY OPINION (perhaps shared by some), but the picture IMO is pretty clear. I'll add that whenever someone starts bringing religion to a stock message board, my antenna go up. Such has no place here. And such, IMO, is probably an attempt to gain trust.

So I'll close this "opinion statement" with one thought. At some point in all of our lives, our Daddies told us NEVER to trust people in certain professions. For me, one of those were carnies. Can anyone guess what the other one was?

Now, go back and read this again. Poke holes in it. But, in this instance, I will not respond. I've established my opinion, and seriously doubt that I could possibly be swayed.

It IMO does explain their absense. IMO, it certainly has nothing to do with them being "thin-skinned". A thin-skinned lawyer? Give me a break.... Afraid of an argument? Professional arguers. But if you no effective argument? Bail. Go to where there can be no argument.

All JMHOs,

SGE