Gigantapithic wrote: Quakes, you've obviously decided to change your vote to no as mentioned a few times of late. I find you did it with a bit of hubris, suggesting that the no voters didn't come to their conclusion the same was as you and that it was without merit. The information from day 1 until today didn't change. Nothing new has happened other than the release of the PEA. Basically a lot of the no vote group had more faith in the PEA and wanted no part of DML or it's assets. To suggest that we didn't know what we were basing our decisions on is bordering on insulting. Yes there are some no voters that are simply crazy, claiming to vote no while bashing FCU in the same breath, however your first "no" post suggested that the no vote had no reasoning behind their position. I've pasted the quote below. Everything you posted or have hosted in your library has given the no side the info they were looking for. The way I interpreted all the info was "look what DML has, it's deep, less economic, of no synergy to FCU" why would I vote yes. Again, since that awful conference call not a single bit of supportive or new evidence has been provided that has given any reason to support the merger. DML’s assets didn’t change. They were exactly what they were the days before the merger. So anyone who didn’t own DML shares prior for the reason of not wanting to invest in DML was not WRONG. They were right. If everyone is entitled to their own investing logic, and with that did not want to invest in DML then not wanting to merge is a pretty easy decision. Having a few “strategic” reasons provided at a very poor conference call was simply not enough to support the diworsification of the triple R deposit.
Being a uranium investor I long ago decided I was not interested in owning shares of DML. They've been stuck in no mans land since the end of the last U boom. a half explorer, wanna be developer, and producer with a mixed bag of assets and little direction. To suggest anyone who didn't want to be a part of that was without merrit is insulting. I've never wanted to own DML shares, so why on earth would I then want to see the company who owns the best U asset on the planet merge with that company.
While I leave that out there I'd like to pose another question. Is there a single commentator on this forum (excluding the obvious Denison shills) that is supportive of the merger? Is there a single YES voter that doesn't have more DML shares than FCU shares? I actually don't recall anyone being pro-FCU while at the same time being PRO merger. I might have missed these posters but at this point in time don't recall seeing a single one.
Just like we're able to dismiss the no voters that are actually anti-fcu voters and just bash for bashing sake, we can dismiss the equivalent DML posters. But where are the Pro FCU posters (that like the asset and actually own shares) that are for the merger? There's none.
If I'm correct regarding there being very few if any "pro merger, pro FCU posters" and you stand behind your post that I quoted below. You're essentially suggesting that you're right in how you made your decision and everyone else on this board (excluding the crazy side) is wrong.
Something to ponder for the remainder of the weekend. Is there any for the yes side?
I think you summarized the underlying issues quite well, and it ties in nicely with my own analysis. And Stanley’s discussion on “judge and jury” has also played a factor, because looking at the list of reasons put forward by the No team has shown that they provide little if any evidence to support their reasoning – no exhibits to view, no reports cited to read, mostly subjective responses that will have little or no impact on a judge and jury looking for factual information on which to render a verdict.
Read more at https://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.fcu/fission-uranium-corp#uTgYXE8dOOhBVFwm.99