See my response below underlined-

you wrote .. "You have pieced together selected information that paints this dire picture that the insiders are conspiring to enrich themselves at the expense of retail shareholders."

No, you are wrong with your above interpretation, I am not the only one who sees you in the way described but instead, why don't you provide some facts to counter my facts regarding the no news volume trades and RGs silence of this positive and important GSA news at the CC that I referenced in my post. I welcome reasoned logic rather than your usual kneejerk opposition to any position I take.

Let's talk about some inferences below that you are referring to as facts which are not really facts at all- which are as it turns out- is the basis for your latest tirade-

I do however think that if Mr Bibeau's purchase was not part of an established Trading plan, that Shareholders should also have had equal access to the same level of exposure to whatever is significant public information too. That said, I do not believe that the GSA Award was the reason Bibeau purchased shares, he doesn't need that singular, public and non-Material event to make his decision. But my point is that this GSA release timing fosters perceptions of lack of fairness and transparency that exists with this company. Had they PRed it at or around when they were notified (March 18th ?), there would be no issue surrounding it, their own actions brought this discussion about.

How is it that you know for a fact that Mr. Bibeau's purchase was in any way improper? Please provide facts. "Perceptions" and "dots" don't count. By the way- Since when does a company immediately inform all players of every action on every front of the awards of contracts. Where I come from - a publicly-traded company - the people in the trenches are many times the last to know some of the more significant goings on at the highest levels and in other departments. Could it possibly be that Paul Bibeau made the purchase without knowledge of the GSA Schedule award? Would you consider that improper? Will you spin this AGAIN to make it appear that management then - if that were the case- would not have it's sh*t together in some way?

I have come to learn that in tiny companies, you are investing more in the people who lead the company than the actual products or services of the company.

You wrote .. "The whole financial system is chock full of companies that are less than perfectly candid and perfectly timely in their communications."

I cannot influence the "whole financial system", I am however able to focus my efforts on the companies I invest in. I do expect them to be "candid", and I do not expect to see obvious evidence of front running the stock by buying ahead of PRs by the company. This is not IBM or some large corporate giant, this is a tiny and tightly run $50M company

What evidence? If you were referring to the volume increases prior to the latest news runups etc, I can tell you of my experience only. I was (probably one of many people) sniffing around & eyeing this stock for more purchases at the same time just out of a sense that something positive was around the corner after all of the bad news of late. I didn't end up pulling the trigger but the point is that you could almost tell something was up in my opinion. That same kind of trader's instinct could have accounted for the volume etc - as one buy comes in the next guy and then the next guys jumps in the pool one right after another. It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It happens all over the stock market every day.

I do not expect that the very week the stock trades at it's lowest price in 3 years, and the company receives news of very positive developments from their efforts, that they officially sit on it for 30+ days; while in the meantime someone(s) apparently knows and is buying shares in huge quantities in an otherwise no news environment. I do not expect nor accept that; neither should any other shareholder.

As for me being "disgruntled", I am not happy with the actions of leadership in this company, but I back up my views with either facts or evidence that I base my observations and/or opinions on, which is more than I can say for you and most other detractors.

It's become funny actually, I post about actions of the company and provide documentation or "dots" to support my position, and you can only counter my remarks by posting suspicions about me personally. This Board is about the corporate ongoings of PTSC.

The stock trades at 13 cents today and has been as low as 8 cents for a lot of the reasons that I among others have been writing about for quite some time. To listen to you and others who defend the status quo, you'd think the decimal point was moved over two places to the right.

And finally-How would we ever know where the share price should actually be without you chipping away at management during one crucial stage after another for this company? And don't try and tell me that message boards don't effect share price. Maybe your persistent "in the know" negativity is the precise cause of the share price being where it is at today.

Of course you have brought all sorts of valuable information to this board. I don't dispute that. I believe you are seeing things through a very dark lens right now and instead of still seeing the potential as of right now (a perspective known to be the ONLY perspective when it comes to investing) you have gone around the bend on this one

My Ts & Os