good morning @cfp - no I don't fight, that's competitive and suggests I'm just trying to win some petty argument .... I prefer to debate.
The difficulty I have with a lot of your responses is you change them to suit your "fight". I'll give you an example: Yesterday you "wholeheartedly" agreed with Scapa's well thought out post - simply adding that you think that GK has enough shares to stay in power and that the RM's should outline their intentions if they are going to only be an interim board.
Less than 12 hours later your sentiment had changed to "I still believe the 249D was and is the wrong solution"
You then went on to again question how fooca would know their thoughts because he categorically denied knowing (I believe it irks you that he knows things you and I don't); you suggested he's been winding people up for two years (I'd like to see you explain that one?); suggested you were attacked by a group of wannabes (who are the wannabes and what do you mean wannabe - wanna be what?); suggested the whole thing was a rush job (even though you didn't know who the RM's were and therefore could not possibly know how long they have or haven't been planning this).
I contend it is you that uses inflammatory language and falsehoods to inflame the situation .. it's an easy game to play, for example I could suggest that you're keen to keep the "fight" going so you feel relevant when you've become irrelevant; but only for demonstration sake of course.
So back to the points - you say it's about being smart. Scarpa explained why a class action would not be smart in his opinion. Can you tell me what is smart about doing nothing and just leaving the current management team in situ ... because without the 249D, which you are not keen on, isn't that essentially what you're suggesting?
