RE:RE:RE:RE:Where is the quote?
The Twister hard at work, Junglej? If I am the Twister, does this make you the Twisted? If you wanted to say something other than what you wrote, you might have phrased your statement differently. Follow the thread. Your post responded to mine and I had been suggesting that the Treaty Creek litigation was finished and it was not in the best interests of American Creek's shareholders to pursue a course that could have dubious results, potentially devasting consequences, and was preventing Treaty Creek from being explored, which, in turn, hurts the shareholders. You responded by saying that NOT GOING TO COURT is a terrible way to get money from Teuton, as if getting money out of Teuton is an objective, which it is, if you pursue the defamation suit. In the same sentence you were saying that NOT going to court was a poor way to achieve this objective.
The absurdity of this conversation should explain why I suggest that we confine our discussion to our inboxes and allow this bullboard to concentrate on ideas that actually might benefit the shareholders.
Let's clarify the situation, then, Junglej. Given the statement that you just made, that is, that you were saying just the opposite of what you actually wrote, am I correct that you do NOT want American Creek to pursue the defamation litigation? A simple "yes" or "no" is sufficient. Thank you in advance.