"You say we're spinning it?"

Yes!! Spin is simply a biased interpretation. You and Jimmi have chosen to spin the 132 non-opted in shareholders claiming "swamped", "pending approval", "not verified yet", "bogus requests", "missing documentation" - this is spin.

I didn't spin it (as I really couldn't care less) - I simply posed a question: "does that mean 132 chose not to opt in". You became defensive over the word "chose" - of course it was a choice, no matter how innocuous that choice was.

I presume neither of you are so naive to believe that Fine did not paint as positive a picture of the opt ins as he possibly could. He wants that number to be as large as possible - as do you - which is almost certainly why you are spinning this and being so defensive. I couldn't care less what the number is - all but one shareholder can opt in and it makes no difference to me at all.

Learn the lesson that you apparently tried to teach everyone here: be wary of ONLY seeing positives.