I don't know if this has been posted previously, but I saw this PR today regarding Kaiser's involvement in a company pursuing a class action suit against I-Hub.

IMO, while I-Hub definitely has its fair share of shady characters and behavior, I think Kaiser should be more concerned with his own professional malfeasance.

http://finance.yahoo.com/newsl/global-holdings-inc-files-suit-213000188.html

If anyone cares to answer this, I don't get how/why shareholders and their risk capital are tethered to this particular symbol...that is really all it is. Most shareholders presumably bought into GHDC for the sister play (perceived by some as better) on the War Eagle Mountain. No need for me to recount how that has turned out so far.

Now the same shareholders who were originally invested for the gold play are now invested in the GHDC symbol for a Nicaraguan casino equipment business. Why? To me it doesn't sound like a tantalizing scheme to invest in, but that's just me. It seems to me (albeit removed), that shareholders are invested in GHDC more out of the familiarity with the story/players regardless of how the company morphs and metastasizes, and they are not really invested in the illusory fundamentals of this casino equipment business that people often speak of. If someone came onto this board and said "I have a new stock opportunity to invest into Nicaraguan casino equipment" or if you found that kind of "opportunity" in the market by your own research, would you really be buying into the company? I would understand sticking with the company if they shifted from WEM to investing into a new gold property if that property appeared to be an interesting opportunity. But when did everyone shift from junior gold speculators into casino equipment investors? This doesn't make sense to me from an investment standpoint. Why would someone average down on that? Personally I'd rather average down in a different company.

What happens if in a year from now the company says "We've got a great new opportunity to invest in left-handed smoke shifters in the Arctic Circle"? Do you continue to follow PQ (or whatever new management team gets inserted), or the company, or rather just the GHDC symbol down that rabbit hole too? Why not go out into the market and find a new opportunity in the gold sector?

Seinfeld makes the joke that when fans root for a baseball team, they are really only rooting for the jerseys because the players change every year. It's a funny observation and unfortunately I see the parallels here.

"Why not having told us your thoughts THEN when it might have helped?"

There is a long list of former shareholders (on the SFMI side and now on the GHDC side) that had done just that. And believe it or not, many were trying to help, even though the leading-a-horse-to-water cliche was destined to prove futile yet again. You and many others never hesitated to step up to the soapbox and vilify and try to diminish these ex-shareholders as being disrguntled or bashers, not knowing the whole story, or having ulterior motives.

The tenor of your responses were that you were all big boys and girls and didn't need help from ex-shareholders. However, that sentiment doesn't really reconcile or ring true with your quote to Cowboy above.

One thing you've unfortunately and tragically failed to understand, is that ex-shareholders were never the enemy of this company (or rather the enemy of current shareholders), but you did everything in your power to portray them that way. It's truly a shame...particularly in hindsight as there is nothing that can be done to correct the situation now.

"Not one poster has been right over the years or everyone wouldn't be down 99%."

The posters/shareholders who have been (now proven) right all along, who questioned the company when it wasn't popular in this forum to do so, have subsequently sold, have tried to point out to other shareholders of the shenanigans of the Quilliams, and have been summarily castigated and dismissed as disgruntled ex-shareholders, bashers, a-holes, and what have you. Personally, I'm none of the above. I just wish some people on the board weren't so quick to dismiss the unpopular or otherwise threatening opinions that don't toe the pie-in-the-sky company line. It ultimately would have saved some people a lot of money. Oh well, we all live and learn I guess.

Exactly! And when you do speak to the CEO, it would be to any shareholder's advantage to be as knowledgeable on the subject as possible so that you know whether you're getting BS'ed or not.

Sorry about that...I'm multi-tasking and wasn't following the response path.