RE:RE:LmaoYou don't have to assume nothing. You can be pretty confident that the majority of non-insider shareholders are beyond dissatisfied with holding a losing investment after so may years. I say non-insider shareholders because insiders make money off the losing company regardless, and in the end, they are the contributors to the losing investment. What you can reasonably assume is that the majority of smaller investors cannot be bothered with voting in general. Those that actually take interest in voting, once they understand the system, they realize that their vote does not matter. For the important decisions, such as the directors, you cannot vote "against". You can "withhold" your vote and what does that mean in practical sense, nothing...just by doing that you are effectively not causing change. The best folk can do is pepper the directors with messages of dissatisfaction, in a professional and respectful manner, and appeal to their integrity...partly asking them to rock the boat at the risk that the rest of the "club" may not want you to be a part of it when it comes time for next nominations. And I would guess that $35K+ for this gig is probably too lucrative for most of them to pass up on. But, we are at the point where groundwork for growth has been laid...according to them and these various packages and partnerships. Now they got to start showing that they got it right and growing revenues substantially.