RE:"Realistic Other View" post,do not read if u hate discussionI had a busy day today and may have some catch up to do on the posts. However, I'm reading plilong opinion, and I might disagreed on the appreciation of the facts. Sometime, actions can't be see in the best interest of the shareholders. When Pierre Laurin borrowed $ 1M to invest in the company, it was to avoid a bankruptcy. Money was hard to find for all the small cap. From time to time PLI was able to get $ 250K or $ 500K loan from shareholders. So, yes he borrowed money and put personnal assets in garantee for it. Can we agreed that not letting the company going in bankruptcy was the best thing to do for all shareholders? When Camofi called back the loan, there was 2 choices; Either you send a check, or Camofi take 14M shares in garantee and drop it to the market to get their money back. Would it be in the shareholders best interest to see 14M dropped in a bad market conditions with a weak volume? I'm not sure. So PLI did a loan to their CEO instead, was it a bad idea in those circumstances? I don't think... I can hardly agreed with a comparaison stating that shareholders that borrow money to buy shares will assume their lost, and the CEO had a special treatment that might be considered disgusting? Well, the ceo is not a regular joe shareholder, he's the number 1 employee. In this particular case, the ceo worked 7 days a week to drive this company and keep it alive. Nobody can say that the company would had stand in this black period if the ceo would had left the boat. Pierre Laurin was the heart and soul of the company. I see that loan by PLI as an incitive move to keep the CEO in place. If the guy have nothing to gain and loose everything, why would he stay? And in that period, seeing your CEO leaving wouldn't have be in the best interest of the shareholders in my opinion. But plilong, I respect your opinion and your view, and I'm happy at the end that you made money. Wish you best of luck, and an happy retirement!