First, ttccrr, thank you for the civil reply.  Our debate wages on!  You locked on the past and suggesting it foretells the future; me focused on all the changes that have occurred and suggesting the past has little to do with the future.

But both you and mvaar keep suggesting something that simply defies logic, at least to my way of thinking.

I suspect you agree that S&L hold a lot fewer shares (shares and warrants) than in the past.  By how many?  300M+?  I think we can agree that S&L definitely holds less than 30M at this point (maybe many fewer).  So 300-320M fewer shares (I use these numbers because I believe it was ttccrr that has stated, many times, that at one point S&L held 350M).

So they now hold less than 10% of what they once held, right? 

Does that sound like something someone would do if they held absolute control over a company, especially a company in PTSC's circumstance?  In other words, is there more money to be made by holding less - assuming you have absolute control?

I guess what I'm saying is that IF I held that number of shares and I had absolute control over a cash cow, I'd sit on them and force a fat dividend with every signing.  Heck, with just the dividends to date against 350M shares, I'd have some 6-7X my money back, and still be sitting on all those shares.  And if I had that absolute control, I'd install a very low-key Pres/CEO to keep things just the way they are to the greatest extent possible, and let TPL deliver the bacon with minimal risk and no outlay.

How do you explain all the conflicts between what I would have done (you would have done?) and what has happenned?

Why'd they sell shares?  Why'd they convert warants?  Why'd they agreed to eliminate warrants?  Why'd they allow divies to end?  Why'd they allow the Holocom deal?  Why are they allowing Turley to travel and speak (that costs money)?  Why are they allowing Turley to do any R&D?  Why are they allowing Turley to even entertain the idea of M&A (and do any DD along those lines)?  Why allow Nick to join the club?

If you truly had absolute control, wouldn't you have done things a bit more in your favor?  Or more to the point, more to favor you into the future?  After all, per your own agruments, if things went haywire on the patents, you'd still be able to rape retail and make tons more money - if you still held all those shares/warrants.

They reduced their share count to reduce exposure, may be your response.  Per your own arguments (re: why S&L even got into PTSC), there was never any real exposure.

So Why to all these things?

Maybe because S&L doesn't have all the control as you suggest?  Maybe because they've recognized that there is more money to potentially be made if they are in the same boat as retail?

I'll again be away for most of the day, but will watch for a reply.  Maybe you guys will "learn me" yet!  But, as you KNOW, I'm pretty thick, and

I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE