First, I think you are actually in agreement with about 95% of this board about dividends/what to do with all that money. I`ve only noted maybe one or two posters who are advocates of that approach. Everyone else (self included) seem to have acknowledged that the company has stated it`s intent to distribute more dividends, and some agree with me that if they`re gonna do it, make it a big honkin` one (to get the most possible attention) - but make it the last one.

This approach satisfies the company`s perceived need to reward shareholders near term. As an investor, my problem with this approach is that it causes me to do tax handling of profits (dividend) on their terms, not mine (though, at a 15% Fed tax rate, it is the same generally speaking as a long term capital gain had I held and sold after a year). But, on the other side of the coin, I can retain all my shares and still derive a near-term benefit. So, I don`t have a big problem with a dividend IF they also announce that it is the last dividend, and give us further guidance on their future intent. In the longer term, one more dividend won`t matter. Of course the company stance could change and they could poo-poo the dividend approach, making this discussion moot.

I found your mine analogy interesting. We appear to be sitting on the Comstock mine here. Do you think Mark Twain and other investors in the Comstcok were pissed about the handling of the income (over 10-20+ years)? What I`m getting at is the old friendly argument between me and ORsurgeon re: recurring revenues. While I acknowledge that the big players in the market want to see a fairly visible recurring revenue stream, it appears to me we`ve got one via 9 more years (plus - even in 2016, we can hit `em for past infringement, if they haven`t already been nailed, just no royalties) of more and more predictable recurring revenue via licensing. Do I care about the company`s health 10-15 years from now? Heck no, I`ll be enjoying the wealth derived from this investment over the next few years (or dead from the excesses! LOL).

Then, what else to do with the money? I`m a very strong advocate of share buy-back. Nothing but good can come from that, IMO.

But then what else? Well, I also like the idea of buying out a company with huge ``useable`` tax losses on the books that`s already listed on the NAS, or preferably NYSE (to escape MMs) if only for the tax benefit (meant money in our pockets) and the listing opportunity. I honestly don`t really care about the product of that company if the coming tax burden is greatly relieved and we can get out of OTCBB hell. The pluses could easily outweigh the cost. If they had a good product, all the better.

Not good enough? Well, I AM NOT an advocate of buying out another company without the above attributes. That is, unless that company presents virtually NO RISK. IMO, the reason we languish at this PPS is primarily due to perceived risk. I personally feel the risk with PTSC is very minimal at this point, but the market and big players still see it as a high risk proposition. And there is also the inherent manipulation due to being an OTCBB. But the risk is the bigger issue IMO.

So why in the world would we want to introduce MORE RISK (perceived) by acquiring another company that does not have all the desired attributes (booked losses, listing, and risk free/within reason)?

Other options? The best IMO would be to pursue acquiring another company having all the positive attributes AND which could promote Ignite/Inflame.

And what was that about PTSC having a patent for remote/wireless battery charging? TIA for any help on that (was that PTSC? little help...). IF this is real, heck with I/I, go for this unique tech that has legs - if it`s real. Buy a company compatible with this potential.

You have now inadvertently joined the SGE book club! LOL

And I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE