I NEVER said, suggested or even implied that EVERY creditor would get 1%. YOU said 1% to the entire bunch as a group - at least that's how I interpretted it. How do you interpret my words so? Neither of us suggested anything so outrageous! But now you make an incredibly weak attempt to put those words in MY mouth! READ, COMPREHEND.

As for "getting it", I got it the first time around.

You DID and still do clearly suggest that Creditors be granted a 1% interest in PDS as a round-about way for PTSC to gain a controlling interest. Please explain how that would work/function. And explain how that would be better than or even comparable to PTSC acquiring that 1% independently and an absolutely clear controlling interest. Do you prefer bringing on a bunch of creditors having a COMBINED 1% interest in PDS. Why, when there may be a far better avenue to pursue? Once you open that door, how do you close it? You want them (as a group, so you don't somehow misinterpret AGAIN) to receive 1% of PDS revenues FOREVER? Is that gross, or net after the Alliacense cut? And that would be in the best interest of PTSC shareholders? Please explain that one! All the creditors care about is getting their money - nothing beyond that.

And more putting words in my mouth: when/where (ever) did I ever suggest that more checks and balances are not desirable? Never happened, never would.

You have not responded to any of the things I've posted in response to you. Zip. All you've done is fabricate BS and repeat your concepts in a very demeaning fashion.

Thus, you AGAIN prove that conversation is impossible. I'm done.

SGE