What if the following line of the last shareholder letter were changed as indicated?  How would most feel about the company and the need to question management.

"We certainly share the frustration expressed by many of our shareholders regarding the share price of our common stock. Management and the Board of Patriot feel that Patriot stock is currently undervalued, and we hope that our activities in the near future will lead to increased investor confidence that will be reflected in a higher share price."

but instead

We certainly realize that many of our shareholders are frustrated regarding the share price of our common stock. However, management and the Board of Patriot feel that based on the information publicly available, Patriot stock is currently properly valued.  That being said, we expect that our activities in the near future will lead to increased investor confidence that will be reflected in a higher share price.

While I believe the letter to the shareholders was fine and somewhat informative, I think PTSC's public references to the value of its shares serves to create expectations that in turn invite the concern, criticism, and desire to provide input that we find in the shareholder letter being discussed here.  While I've refrained from commenting on the effort or the value of the letter, I applaud Ron and others efforts to produce one, and can't imagine what fear there can be that it would be submitted.  JT & the BOD are adults.  They can sure handle criticism.  They can sure decide what has merit and what doesn't, take what does into consderation, and pitch the rest.  For anyone who fears alterior motives on behalf of those producing the letter, do you really think that the letter serves as the lynchpin to those perceived motives.  Really, if there were a legitimate ulterior agenda, the letter won't stop it or aid it, IMO. 

I'd suggest to those who have heartburn about the letter, to formulate their own letter, solicit support if they wish, and send it as well.  Everyone has equal rights, though their voices should be heard in proportion to their shareholdings, IMO.