still, i have to disagree with you on this. where did the BOD say they bowed to share holder pressure? share holders, as i recall, wanted the money in the treasury directed at something other than handing out dividends to the warrant holders. the decision to diversify was not the problem....the problem was the companies the BOD chose to purchase were, in hindsight, not good choices and have all been written off as loses. and yes i did say hindsight....but again these are the people in charge of making those decisions on acquisitions and potential acquisitions. with their record of, to date, all acquisitions being deemed financial losses, they should have been replaced. you cannot blame the share holder for the decisions the "qualified" BOD made, just as you cannot blame share holders for being unhappy with the results the "qualified" BOD have accomplished. you can paint the picture any way you want but there is a bottom line and that bottom line is the BOD. Have they produced or not is the only question one needs to ask. In answering that question, if you need to blame the PTO, Lecky, TPL, Brian, or the shareholder....than the question is not being answered objectively.

when you look at the history of PTSC and how the board became the BOD and the day we aligned ourselves with TPL, you will see the elimination of all R&D, elimination of all employees leaving us with just a BOD. the share holder did not make these decisions. the bod is responsible for turning PTSC into a company of just a "think tank" comprised of our revolving CEOs and a static well compensated bod. have they done well? imo, no. the company really now just holds ownership of 50% of the mmp. they have nothing to do with licensing or litigation. their function, since they eliminated the employees and the R&D was to increase shareholder value. they have not done that and have even publicly stated so. no one complained about receiving dividends......they complained about the warrant holder being awarded dividends when they were not qualifed to receive them. shareholders saw this is a give-away to S&L. twist it, turn it, spin it....you want to remove any blame from those in charge of the decisions and place the blame on the people (share holder) who had no real voice in those decisions.

i would rather have no ceo, no bod, then what we have....all imo

teremoto