"Cliff mentioned that he does not read this or other message boards , but is very aware of what is being said here.... He did tell me that many people have huge expectations that will never be met - settlement amounts.....He is a very cautious man, and he was also very cautious to us all at the SHM.....He felt bad about not buying any shares, but as he mentioned at the SHM, he has huge bills."

What does this seem to imply about our CEO?

1. He has no belief that PTSC will realise the income that the MMP would seem to merit nor any personal drive or incentive to work to that end.

2. The CEO/CFO of our company has "huge bills" and cannot afford to buy even $1,000 of PTSC stock, the value of which he is paid to enhance! Huge bills for what? Overspending? Bad financial planning? Uninsured losses? The personal finances of an officer of a public company have absolutely no place being used as an 'excuse' for not having faith in the company he is paid to grow. Indeed, when a senior executive makes such a statement, the Board of Directors has a fiduciary duty to very closely monitor that person's access to funds and decision making and to admonish the officer for making statements detrimental to the good standing of the company. Many companies do an exhaustive background check before hiring anyone into a position where he/she can control the company's finances. I make no allegations, understand, and have no suspicions, but I have had HR reject people I wanted to hire for just this type of reason (risky personal finances). I also saw two long-time co-workers tossed out the door when internal audit found they were faking expense claims and approving them.

3. He is happy to continue taking a very high salary plus bonus when availabe plus fees for Board psoitions, with no significant people management responsibility and no shareholder accountability.

4. He is unlikely to make ANY decision or even statement that could lead to his losing his job as he has "huge bills". Who would hire a CEO/CFO with this history of botched acquisitions, frittered capital and lack of respect for shareholders? With all the protection he has from CJ/GF and from the blatant attitude of the entire BOD towards shareholders, none of these three is going anywhere if they can continue to suck dry the coffers of this company - absent some miracle that sends them to jail.

5. If, as alleged, the CEO has stated that his own company is a risky investment AND that he has huge bills then he has no business being our CEO. A company needs a CEO who has as his top goal the improvement of shareholder return on investment. Period. Personal problems have no business in business. If the company succeeds then the CEO should succeed too.

This may look personal but it isn't. Sadly, I am sure there are many other CEOs/CFOs for whom the above would ring true. I'm just not (I hope) invested in their companies.

Our CEO should be the positive figurehead of PTSC and should be out doing the rounds, building up market confidence in PTSC and telling the MMP story.