Okay, I have a few minutes....

Referring to the post to which this replies:

1. Yes S&L deserves a profit.  You're mad about it being too much profit. Fine. Are you mad at longs that bought tons at 4 cents a share?

2. Not really responsive.  So S&L had a lot of control. Big surprise.  And you're mad about that. Fine.

3. Completely non-responsive.  Some "secret" reason that only you understand.

4. First, I said in the last year, not over the last seven.  They have all the shares they're going to get. That part is done.  They are eliminating warrants when they don't have to, even post Markman. Why?  Because the y hate retail? because they aren't in the same boat as retail at this point?

5. You put words in my mouth. Nope, I didn't like the divies. Yes, introducing a great deal more risk into a proposition that is already perceived as too risky would be stupid IMO.  Has nothing to do with anyone's capabilities or lack thereof.  You didn't rerally respond to my question.  You deverted to criticism of the BoD.

6. We agreed!

7. You didn't understand the question, apparently.  try again.... S&L took a risk (of their time, if nothing else) in investing in PTSC at precisely the right time, made millions, but are afraid of risk?  So they couldn't persuade PTSC use the money in a similar fashion when the timing is right? With what you consider zero risk? 

8. Non-responsive.  The new "mystery BoD".

9. Non-responsive.

10. Your "mystery BoD" supposedly has integrity.... Non-responsive.

11. So the "mystery BoD" could do it, and you point out that PTSC would be a great target.

12. Non-responsive. 

13. Easy to answer?  easy to be non-responsive.

14. More talent than S&L.  Now tell me again about how S&L has been too richly rewarded....

Now how about focusing on the questions I posed today?  They had all been posed previously, but maybe they are better-worded today?

SGE