You seem to be hitting around the edges of my questions, but, in any case, just how was S&L to go about selling to convert if not in this fashion? They have done away with a ton of warrants. And to OUR and their benefit.  And I think they COULD have dumped a lot more a lot faster into the runs of '06 - we would have never seen a buck.

Yes, we agree that there was another way the warrants could have been handled, if the avenue was open.  PTSC could have bought them back "on the side" (in lieu of giving divies).  I'm not sure if that would have been look upon as fondly by the market as the divies, but you and I would have liked it better.  But do keep in mind that the company advised that they were advised by legal counsel that a divy was the best way to reward all, equally, dependent on their investment.  This makes me suspect that there were legal hazards, that I can't fathom, if they had used the money to buy back warrants.  Perhaps fear of a perception by longs that S&L, and S&L alone, were being rewarded.  And I do think there indeed would have been a lot of screaming about it if the followed that avenue.

So, another element of agreement, with caveats.  But what's done is done.  You must admit that they could have sold us down to the pennies, and didn't.  And they've sold to convert warrants when they didn't have to. Perhaps there are responses to these aspects in follow-on posts....

SGE