I would like to expand on one of your statements. You said the following:

"We, as owners of the company, should expect better than the lowest common denomitor of minimal SEC reporting compliance threshold that we largely receive"

The above statement sums up, quite well, two opinions I received many months ago from friends who are auditors. One worked for the former Auther Anderson and the other for a large investment bank. I'm in sales/marketing so reading between the lines on financial statements isn't my forte. I certainly understand the basics and can find the general information I am seeking. Several quarters ago I emailed PTSC's 10Q to both persons looking for their opinions. I wasn't seeking their advise regarding the investment per say, but more specifically how they viewed the information provided in the Q. Ironically both persons formulated very similiar opinions about the report.

The one guy said financial statements are like a good book, you can tell the well written ones from the shoddy ones. He audits some of the largest companies in the world and said it takes him about 5 minutes to formulate an opinion as to the condition of a report. While he agreed Patriot's report was in compliance he was also of the opinion that they weren't going out of their way to reveal anything. He considered the report to meet bare bones requirements of the SEC. He rattled off several companies I knew and others I didn't. He said those companies supply excellent financials that explain in great detail the Q from top to bottom. He asked me what business PTSC was in so I summed it up in short order. He laughed at the notion that this was all the detail they could provide. He cited the ARS information as a perfect example. He was currently working with several companies on preparing their Q's and laying out how they would explain their ARS situations in their reports. He considered Patriots explanation of the ARS to be minimum SEC compliant, noting he had several clients on the hook for hundreds of millions who's explanation where far superior and more importantly, more concise so shareholders could understand the potential ARS situation. My other gentleman basically said the same thing noting the report certainly didn't appear to be geared towards better informing investors. One of the last things he said to me was,"It did it's job, nothing more nothing less." These persons had no vested interest in PTSC. I highly value their opinions knowing they have strong expertise in their fields. They helped me to confirm what I had long suspected about the general method in which Patriot operates. It is all on a need to know basis, and shareholders don't need to know.

My tone has certainly become more pessimistic as of late. The redaction of PDSG's guidance is just another example of terrible mismanagement by a company that is literally forcasting revenue streams of only a few million. There is no excuse for that at this juncture and I pity those who defend it. Why would anyone be surprised that Patriot filed an 8K over the matter? They have to for god sakes, it's not like they should get a cookie for being good boys and girls, it's REQUIRED! Brian, yourself and others are 100% correct in your criticism of the company and the lack of transparency that seems to exist. I stopped guessing if that criticism was justified along time ago. I have the opinion of two highly respected friends, and that's all I need.