Pretty simple really.... PUNT!

In this context, I`d say that means to vote for the share authorization, giving us a further chance to score. Failure to punt is equal to forfeiting the game - you lose. If your faith remains strong, the additional step would be to take advantage of the opportunity to average down (assuming funds are available - which counts me out). All JMHO.

As for the idea of getting a shareholder on the BOD.... An interesting concept and a valiant effort to hopefully improve our situation. But other than the benefit of having a voice with a more keen interest in ensuring ``the shareholder`` is recognized in the course of business (which may - may - be a big benefit), I`m not sure what would really be gained, or if in the end it wouldn`t be detrimental. Don`t get me wrong; I`m not addressing the abilities or motives of the representative, whoever that may end up being. But I`m thinking more along the lines of the facts as I see them, assuming the proposed representative were put in place:

Whoever is selected would never be able to post on any EDIG message board.

We wouldn`t get any ``inside information`` (and that is NOT the mission).

The company and other BOD memebers would have to expend resources and patience to get the new person up to speed sufficiently enough to enable them to contribute. This one goes a long way.... I envision management and engineers spending ``non-productive`` time on this, and, in BOD meetings, the new rep being (inadvertently) more a ``disruptive force`` regardless of their dedication to ``the mission``.

Just thought I`d put these thoughts ``out there`` for consideration, and perhaps further discussion.

SGE