e_j,I'm not going to get into an argument with you cause its not...

e_j,

I'm not going to get into an argument with you cause its not worth it. But your points are a bit on the hysterical side?

Point one is a bit silly isn't it. Point 2, asic is there to protect investors, if you believe their is a case for asic then they would take issue with the directors or individuals for their actions. Unless its a financial matter which is not likely.
Point 3, asic has been after him for 9 years, this is not something new, or to unexpected, or maybe even a bad thing. I don't know the guy, so I don't care. But he won't have much control on the company now.

I can't remember the last one. I'm not trying to start an arguement, but when people come from extremes on either side, you have to question motives.

I would have thought some people would have seen DS's problem as a benefit for the company.

DV