Excuse me for butting in on this, but I just have a rough time letting this go....

"What if someone with 8 million shares has paid for such an opinion. Why should they be obligated to inform you, me or anyone else of such an opinion when we have not shared one cent in the cost of obtaining such an opinion."

What are you saying/asking here?

Are you saying that if some here choose to dedicate funds for such research/insight/opinion, that only those that did so will be privy to the results?

Will those that contribute less than others only be made privy to results proportionate to their contribution, as judged by?

Are you saying that if someone HAS already done this they should withhold the results from their fellow shareholders?

Are you saying that if someone has already done this and withheld the result, that it would be right for them to solicit funds here to do it again, or get a second opinion?

Now, I'm assuming, since you keep referring to an "SEC attorney", that you are suggesting an analysis of PTSC BoD actions for identification of past SEC violations. Do you honestly believe that if the BoD had done something in violation of SEC rules, they'd leave a bunch of evidence laying around? I personally don't believe that they have violated any SEC rules, but I do believe that if they had, they'd be smart enough to hide any evidence of same. I say this while agreeing that there are some "questionable" things out there in the past and perhaps room for speculation, but that such speculation may be as "delusional" as some things I've suggested here - perhaps more so.

However, based on the discussion of your posts along these lines, I strongly suspect that you are not referring to an "SEC attorney", but a corporate attorney, with the interest being the review of PTSC's corporate bylaws towards finding methods to unseat certain BoD members. Milestone has provided such info. Others have provided such info. A draft letter to the BoD has been presented here towards action - per the bylaws - to alter the bylaws and/or permit a change in BoD selection methods (which I believe some have already transmitted to the company).

So what exactly are you suggesting here?

My apologies, but I don't get it, on multiple levels. It's either about going on a ghost hunt (SEC), or trying to get guidance that I suspect we already have (BoD selection method change). The latter hopefully merely in anticipation of a possible serious BoD fumble of either taking no action after the now-infamous 120 days, or taking an action in direct conflict with their stated intent. And I would have no problem with this - prepare, be ready to act if need be. But I'm under the impression that a lot of ground work has already been done.

Help me out here....

SGE