I hate to be so blatant, but this whole ttccrr initiative is, IMO, idiotic, or at least very naive at best.  It seems there are a bunch of ttccrr assumptions in play:

1) S&L doesn't deserve any reward for helping keep PTSC afloat and enduring the associated risk.

2) S&L, with 10% ownership, doesn't deserve presentation on the BoD.  I defy you to find another company on any exchange where there is a 10% owner without representation on the BoD.

3) That this, of all times, is the time to prompt some ridiculous action against PTSC (OUR friggin' company).  As others have noted: Markman results pending, new CEO.  This is truly idiotic.

4) That S&L is somehow our enemy, while IMO ALL evidence suggests this is not the case.  S&L has demonstrated for over a year that they are far more our friend than our enemy.

5) That the failure of PTSC to place the company in further risk was a bad thing.  I continue to strongly believe that introducing more risk, on top of the risk we current suffer, would have been a bad move.  While I am not happy about the dividends, it sure beats throwing the money at some acquisition that could just drag us into the dirt UNLESS we have absolute assurance of alot more income.  Wait for that assurance!

6) That PTSC's one M&A move (Holocom) was stupid.  Insignificant money and corporate/legal shelters from any liability if it goes south, both equaling virtually zero risk. And guess what, they're about to go black in just a few months time. I consider that move brilliant, the BoD was behind the move, so they must go?

7) That the BoD, or specifically S&L, is afraid of taking any risks when the timing is right. Yea, they've demonstrated that....?  Meanwhile bitching and moaning that these guys don't know what they're doing while concurrently bitching and moaning about how much money they're making.  Alittle conflict there?

8) Now the clincher: apparently these folks he's talking to, influencial and moneyed-up, will be so kind to us retail shareholders when they finish their move to take a level of control over PTSC for themselves. How incredibly naive. Replace the board, specifically S&L - which is acting as a friend, with some unknown quantity with motives unknown (except to make a lot of money - likely at our expense).  We gain what?

9) That if such a bold move were initiated, S&L would sit idly by and just watch it happen, their loss of any control over their holdings. I can almost assure you that IF S&L envisioned having zero control over their $20-30M stake, they would dump their holdings and get what they could.  And what would happen to the PPS as a result?  That $.02 number comes to mind.

10) That the people he's talking to, recognizing the above, couldn't see an opportunity to take over complete control of PTSC, a company with the potential for literally a $B in income over the next couple of years, buy waiting and buying up those cheap shares. 

11) That recognizing the above, the people he's talking to - so well connected and knowledgeable of the market's ins and outs, wouldn't establish some offshore accouts (like don't don't already have them) and short the hell out of PTSC once the ball got rolling, help the downward fall from the S&L sell-off, and make many multiples on their money, and use that money for the takeover.  Keep in mind that by "takeover", I'm suggesting CONTROL, and not a name change or buy-out, so the 50% ownership of the MMP would remain intact.

12) That we, the people he's desparately talking to to get us to conceive the wisdom of his initative, aren't smart enough to also envision the above possible (probable?) scenarios and will support the initiative.  This is the lamest assumption.

I really don't like posting this, as it was essentially what I almost posted last night.  I don't have time to deal with ttccrr's replies, if any, nor those of loloann or anybody else backing his unclear, seemingly illconceived and extremely poorly timed initiative.

While I can agree with some of ttccrr's concerns re: the BoD, past actions/membership (excluding S&L, which has a right to membership based on ownership), this initiative is unclear but on the surface full of holes, and boarderline (pun intended) nuts.

And anyone who backs it is also.  Perhaps with some more details and assurances regarding the motives of the parties involved?  I still don't think I'd buy it, especially at this critical point in time.  Am I the only one that sees this a probable FUD?

TTCCRR says he must have the backing of a lot of shares to make his dream come true.  Don't do it!!!

All JMHO, and therefore things I KNOW.

SGE