I disagree with Mohr. And the usp "opinion" has no effect on my own in any regard. They agree with me on some aspects of the deer plan and politics behind it, yet are free to disagree without needing my approval or me theirs.

As for the audit, An audit can make PGC look great with biased people doing it or it could make them look terrible with people biased the other way having done it. And either could be acheived without telling one lie by the auditor. Thats why an "unbiased" auditor with no "connections" should only have been common sense and priority number one.

WMI has many ties to pgc, that is undeniable, and that shouldve disqualified them period in my view, and that should be at least understandable to anyone unbiased.. As a "stakeholder", and one of the many for whom this audit is taking place, to supposedly address our concerns, I am not satisfied with the choice of audit, and I for one will not accept anything from them other than reasonable change. That would be the only way the audit would be proven "unbiased".

If we are to accept anything less, it imho, would have to come from a 100% unbiased auditor with NO strong pgc ties as wmi has, and the audit will have to of covered all the important "angles". Will it cover all "considerations"? I don't know, but many over on hpa seem to beleive otherwise, and are very happy with the fact they think it will not. Even if it does however, as i said, there is zero chance I will support a result of anything less than what we should only be able to expect (without this audit in the first place) which is responsible change.