Fair enough, you may have offered some rebuttals. Did I not counter most/all of those rebuttals effectively, at least enough to leave the issue open to question? (just as I'm doing today).

I never said that PTSC was involved in National Security issues. I was only making it perfectly clear that NDA/Confidentiality Clause information is handled in a similar manner to classified information - to make the point YOU DO NOT DISCLOSE.

Yup, RG said that. If there is a contingency deal based on some future event, would the RESULTS be refected (when the results have not yet been relized)? So yes, PTSC refected the results TO THAT DATE. There would be reason to reveal possible results based on a contingency.

If they stated that there was a contengency deal in any filings, etc., that would be a violation of the agreement. 'Nuff said.

On the RG credibility issue - reread my post. As for the MOU making demands on PTSC management, why would the Js care?

"Obviously there are ENDLESS possibilities that one can attribute to being contained in the MOU, but that doesn't make them true. In fact I'd offer that all of these othere possibilities that I outline are MORE LIKELY to be contained in the MOU than the idea that there is more money coming from the J3 since more money coming from the J3 is the ONLY thing that the company has made an efffort to dispel!"

Actually, there aren't "endless possibilities" as to what the MOU could have been about. They all, IMO, had to do with MONEY, and they all had to do with some future event triggering that money. And yup, more money (contingency deal) coming from the J3 is the ONLY thing that the company has made an efffort to dispel. Why do you think that is? Maybe because it constitutes a vulnerability (if they didn't dispel the possibility in a very visible fashion)? The only thing....shazam!

Again, all I'm suggesting is that people should be open to the possibility. No absolutes. A possibility. You can choose to ignore it if you wish. I choose not to. And I don't think it's fair of you to chastize those you remain open to the idea. Remember, YOU don't know what's in the MOU (or any license agreements) either. Yet you seem to pretend that you do - based on the company not disclosing something that they are prohibited from disclosing.

I'm done arguing this. You either have a open mind, or you don't. And I really don't want to give this prospect any attention anyway.

SGE