Okay.
Just to be very clear, in the statement you've just quoted it would seem that the board, in all of their public pronunciations, are really saying this has nothing to do with the Middle East, and nothing to do with differences of opinion about Mr. Beauregard, or anything else. It simply has to do with a question of insubordination, loyalty to the organization, and internal morale.
I'd like to get a clear answer from either you or one of your colleagues as to how you respond to that argument from the board that this unprecedented signing of a letter asking for the removal of three board members meant a confrontation that could only end one way or the other. I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but how else would you have seen this being resolved? It was put directly into the political realm when that occurred, so how do we...?
The letter signed by the 46 employees wound up in the middle of a political debate. How do you find a solution to that situation?