Please be so kind as to indicate what organizational skills have been shown other than seeking volunteers to facilitate schemes, which might have been better planned on the back of a postage stamp, in my very humble opinion.

At least with the current BoD one knows what one is getting, even if one is critical of them.

It's one thing to have a viable alternative, but to suggest that support of the current BoD is based on some form of relationship merely emphasizes the paucity of counter-argument.

How can there be an effective challenge to the current BoD when all that is being offered is finding someone else to do it, with other shareholders paying disproportionately for the pleasure?

Many are already showing a paper loss on their investments and the suggestion that giving money to some as yet undecided "DFC" would be a wise move is at best cynical, in my opinion.

Why do you think that those with most to gain from an increasing share price are the least willing to make a fair contribution to any scheme which may bring about a change?

Getting others to pay disproportionate sums is wrong in my book, more so when these are probably the moms, pops, and seniors who can least afford it.

If they thought there was even the slightest possibility of a successful challenge, to benefit all shareholders in general and themselves more specifically, common sense dictates that they would have sold a mere 10% of their respective holdings and offered an alternative slate. That they haven't and are unwilling to do so speaks volumes.

It is common knowledge that if successful, all their expenses could be charged PTSC, and I find it abhorrent that false hopes are being raised for so many, by so few.

It is wrong!

.

.

.

Be well