With all due respect, I agree with gcduck. Maybe it's just a matter of philosophy regarding investments.

First, let me point out my disagreement woth one thing you said in this post -

"As to Mr. Turley, I am likewise comfortable with his abilities and his sincerity.  On the other hand, he has been on the Board for several years "

Mr Turley joined the BOD in February 2006. Hardly several years, and certainly not a long time to make a significant impact thru BOD decisions.

As to your marketing campaign, my view is that it gets a short-term bump in price. Sustainable?? I doubt it based on the huge number of shares outstanding and the history of the trading price of this stock. Certainly when it ran to over $2 most here thought it was sustainable, or surely at a much higher price than it is now. Let's just throw out some numbers. What if your marketing campaign attracted 30 investors, each willing to plunk down a half million dollars. That's $15 million, which would buy around 30 million shares assuming the they get them all at .50. Of course, your whole scenario calls for the sp to increase, so they should get much less than 30 million shares. If the campaign gets the sp up to $1 and it's evenly distributed you're talking about maybe 20 million shares. So we've now produced a marketing campaign that's raised the price to $1. If you assume the price is much higher than that, your investors have received that many fewer shares.

Now I'm not informed as to how many actual investors there are that fit your scenario. But I myself find it hard to believe you could do much better than what I've stated above. Maybe I'm naive. But getting these investors to plunk down a half million on a company that could be worth nothing should a negative trial verdict come in seems like a stretch to me. If you could present some statistics to refute the numbers I've used above for potential investors, I'd certainly be very happy to hear them and maybe be persuaded to join your way of thinking.

One other thing I dispute in this post I am responding to.

"Frankly, I don't know what PTSC management wants at this point, but I do know that unless they have actually desired a 60% drop in our stock price since April 2006, they been 100% ineffective at increasing value for us,"

You seem to define shareholder value strictly by the sp. Again, I don't subscribe to this philosophy, and of course I must throw in, neither does Warren Buffet. Buying a company with intrinsic value that is greater than the current sp and then holding that company is what it's all about. Has the BOD increased the intrinsic value of the company? We could debate that. But I believe the groundwork has been and is being laid to do so.

Best to you, ron. All in the spirit of debate.