Your opinion seems to be the minority one on this subject. Ask JJ and walrus.

Thats exactly what they did last time. Even after it was passed, because people listened to the fearmongers!

It seems to me that the people who are promoting a "no" vote are doing more "fearmongering" than anyone else!

My arguments for a no vote are not "fearmongering". In fact, although it may seem counter-intuitive, I think most of the no voters are optimists.

I think most of the "no voters" are both hopeful and optimistic that a better result is achievable than that which has currently been offered. I ain't sayin' the sky is falling or the world is gonna end if we take this offer -- I'm just fairly confident that we can do better.

If you vote no, we'll find out if I was right. If you vote yes, you'll never know. You can't win if you don't play the game.

At the casino, I never play more money than I'm willing to lose. The 3% offer falls well within that "zone of tolerance".

PIPE

Well, i think that was done on only a couple of things, not irrelevant things, but not big ones like money. They said, they would not use involuntary STV's and increased the move weight limits from by like 500 lbs? All that I recall. Then they came out with version 1.1, which suprisingly we all voted on and it also passed? , not sure why the MEC Chairman and the Company just did not pen and ink those changes?

My point ? you ask. If some of you guys think that the Company would just offer the money items in HKG without the whole package, i think that is a pipe dream. The process to make changes is for "little" things or operational issues that arise. I think you guys are comparing 2 totally different concepts. Invol STV's were easy to give up through that process, they were generating fear and complaints and they were poorly constructed to begin with and had almost no chance they would ever be used. People will jump at the voluntary STV if given the chance, and they still have not even posted 1 of those.

1.1 gave them the ability to make FDA changes without a memebership vote.

yes, and there were other changes (positive ones). I think it makes sense to have a vehicle to make, easy changes without having to go through the laborious process of a vote. I am confident that our MEC and Chair would only use that process to affect things that HELP us. I think their tenure would be seriously affected if they decided to make degradations with that avenue.

Last point, we voted on it, did not remember the "loss of leverage" discussions back then is all I am saying. Not putting that claim on you LAG, just funny that it did not surface back then that I can recall.

If you are talking 1.1 there was no leverage lost as HKG was a done deal.
There was plenty of talk of leverage with the 1.0 vote.

I only brought up the MEC and changes to FDA because you said this earlier. "not sure why the MEC Chairman and the Company just did not pen and ink those changes?" They couldnt until we approved 1.1.

thanks LAG, that makes sense, I forgot the timing of the change. So we agree on one thing, no leverage in HKG and I certainly agree with you that there is some in CGN ! Not enough to change my mind that turning down this deal will result in something better though.

Good debate, thanks for sticking with logical thoughts, many on this board turn this into a place that makes outsiders look at our discussions and lets just say "not be impressed".

Just so long as none of those outsiders vote in our TA poll, we should be ok. :)