Thank you for your response. My retort, by item:

1) First, repricings stopped over a year ago. And who made that happen? You suggest S&L has/had absolute control. So why'd THEY do THAT? Second, just what did PTSC have going for it at the time the golden loans were made? S&L risked nothing? Their infusion is all that kept PTSC from filing chapter 11. They had a heavily disputed set of patents (under attack from both Fish and Moore, separately) and a chip design they hadn't been able to sell for YEARS. They had already sold their GPR/Plasma Antenna tech. (the only thing of value that they could sell, and they didn't get much). No risk? Yea, they paid in millions for interest in a company with very bleek prospects.

2) No comparables? I realize it would taken a lot of effort to find one (especially sense their probably isn't one out there). So why did they go along with removing the repricings? For 7 million shares? How many multiples of that could they have made?

3) The timing, recognizing the Markman and a new CEO, still defies all logic. Some sort of urgency? Why? A friggin' couple of weeks makes a difference? Why? Very suspicious. Gotta hit while you might find disgruntled shareholders? Post Markmen will be too late?

4) Well, you think it's all about greed, and I think it's all about eliminating the warrants with minimal pain. Greed? Why didn't they completely unload when we were over $2? No more repricings were in the offing - they had all they were going to get. Why do they still have near 40 million shares and millions of warrants? Oh, to get dividends. But then, why have they been selling to convert? So they could get less in dividends? You ignore the evidence. Explain the above.

5) I NEVER said that. On the contrary, I've stated multiple times that you and I are in agreement about the divies. My preferences would have been first to buy back all the warrants, or second to buy back shares at the lows. Acknowledging that, the BoD was IMO just being prudent. Name off a dozen profit-making companies that could have bought out with the funds available ($40-50M). Not dogs, but real profit-making companies. Dogs/wannebees = high risk, probable loss. Any = perceived risk by the market.

6) Agreed. But think of this: that guy that funded Holocom did a probably more promising/less risk-laden deal than that done by S&L with PTSC. Oh, but S&L incurred no risk....

7) The question was sarcasim. You depict S&L has extremely unwise people who don't have a clue as to what they are doing. Meanwhile, the basis of your complaint is that THEY are making too much money. If making tons of money on a business deal is stupid, I guess they're guilty as heck!

8) If S&L weren't our friend, and is as greedy as you suggest, why are they still around? They aren't getting any more shares/warrants, that's done. Why haven't they just dumped and walked away? Especially when you suggest they are so risk averse. Give us the names! Give us their credentials!

9) See 10 - original. Love that "just a thought". Now see 11 - original.

10) Well, how well has S&L done at managing their money? See any big losses in there? Almost all gains? Must be pure luck.

11) Your guys have too much integrity to short? If they are involved directly with virtually any brokerage house/clearing house, they are into shorting, in fact, naked shorts. And again, S&L basically has all it's going to get. How can they possibly squeeze more? Through divies the warrants they're getting rid of?

12) Nutshell: Your proposition holds no water til you disclose the talent you have in mind and their motives for bothering with PTSC.

Good debate.

SGE