RE: Insider buys 120,000 shareswhaler,
I can understand why you would prefer to wait as long as possible to explain the rationale behind your suggestion that selling could be other than intentional; that selling at the price levels to which the poster referred could result in a loss; and that something other than company funds could be used to acquire the shares. We could wait until hell freezes over or until Randy gets a dewatering permit, and you'd still not be able to explain that drivel.
So as expected, you wander away from explaining what you meant, and also avoid a response to the question "What is your interpretation of ISM's feelings when they request a special meeting of Ursa shareholders to elect a slate of Directors that ISM nominates to replace the existing Directors?"
It was worth your while to ask for a link to a post regarding ISM's thinking on URSA management, but when I responded, you refused to give your opinion on the same subject.
As for claims that ISM or Randy Miller are selling, I have seen nothing in insider reporting to indicate ISM is selling. I don't anticipate becoming privy to Randy Miller selling shares, nor do I know that he ever bought any. I have an idea on the range of ISM's cost of shares. Transactions after July 28, 2010 are detailed in SEDI. We know from ISM disclosures that as at September 30, 2009 they had yet to divert funds to investment in other penny stock mining companies. Therefore ISM bought its initial 6,850,000 shares somewhere within the UMJ price range in the Oct 2009 to August 2010 period. So yes, I do have an idea of the cost of their position - enough to know that ISM would not be selling at a loss, at the price levels in cupricity's comments.
You comment here and on other forums about a control position at 20%. 20% is obviously not an absolute control position, nor is it an effective control position in UMJ - just where do you get this "20% control position". You have also suggested that companies with that % of share ownership are often given representation on the Board. I'd be interested in knowing what mind altering drug would have to be taken for URSA management to consider offering ISM representation on their Board, after their recent actions - and their past record of accomplishments. There's a saying "Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in." There's some wisdom to the saying, but there seems to be some doubt that the ISMers know where to pee - my bet, from watching them in their own tent, is they're not "house broken".
"Tad over zealous" - you have to be kidding! ISM's handling of this matter has given a very clear signal why you would not want to have their "expertise" involved in the management of UMJ. The management of the companies have had two clashes settled by Court action - did the outcome look to you like UMJ is in need of advice from ISM? My conclusion is the outcome was clear - there's one company of the two that could take some extended training on rational judgement and preserving a degree of dignity - and it ain't UMJ!