IMO that's a big stretch.

First, she said nothing definitive. It was more an "if we do this we might do that" kind of thing. The things, or "mights", she suggested were/are always an option.

Second, and the more pertinent thing, is that they had previously announced the engaging of Baroni & Co. to aid them along this (which ever) path. It's not like we never were given a glue that the company was contemplating the things she suggested in her email. In fact, in the last 10Q PR or filing they said that they were examining alternatives along the lines of potentially liquidating PDSG.

The only thing that's possibly tough to get around is the "120 days". However, based on reports from the shareholders meeting the "120 days" target was mentioned, but in the context of perhaps hiring a new CEO. At least we're led to believe that was the context and that the person(s) reporting this statement was accurate.

Not to excuse the silence and lack of transparency that IMO we deserve; the landscape has changed in PTSC land since the email was sent.

Leckrone. Weirdness in his battles with Moore. Default on one of our loans, and about to (in less than a month) default on the other loan. The resolutions came about, causing another dispute.

While I have an expectation that PTSC be capable of "multitasking", a lot more has been served to an already full plate.

No excuses.... But IMO the above is deserving of some consideration.

And my thought is that if attention is to be focused on few things, those few things should involve the MMP/TPL/Leckrone.

But I also strongly believe that Shareholders deserve more consideration from PTSC. It's not "us versus them" or "them versus us". It's "WE".

JMHOs,

SGE