I'll use an example that, while it may not be attributable to Brian's role, though I suspect it was, conveys how I think the position, as "simplistic" as you think it is defined as the company has defined it, can help.

Since I became a shareholder in PTSC, I HAVE taken issue on this board and with the company directly about its communications. People have voiced their disagreement with me indicating I was being too negative in some of those posts, (to which I have no problem with their disagreement, I only mention it to address your point about me being more offensive). I know others have addressed the company's general communications as well, and specifically others have addressed communcations with shareholders.

However, when I first became a shareholder, there was NO monthly or regular or even semi-regular letter to shareholders. Since the letter I referenced announcing Brian's appointment, Pohl issued two additional letters in about a year and a half, so they were sporadic at best. Since that time, Turley instituted a more regular shareholder letter to speak more directly to shareholders and our concerns and Goerner seems to intend to continue with that and even make it monthly (my read on his actions so far). The content of what they address in those letters is often many of the issues that we discuss on this board.

So is the increased frequency and content a result of Brian's advice to the company? I'd suspect in large part it is.

Secondly, what if Brian or whoever holds that position were to communicate something that is inaccurate, in violation of SEC regulations or confidentiality agreements with licensees, or purposefully hurtful to the company and did so, as you are requesting, from a position as an official conduit of communication from the company to shareholders? Consdering the company isn't paying him, what is their recourse other than pursuing him legally or trying to control the damage at that point? I absolutely prefer, and expect that the COMPANY will issue communcations to shareholders either through its CEO, COB, or through its Investor Relations agent, as that is the proper controlled channel to do so. That's not meant as any disrespect to Brian or any future Rep to the advisory board, that's just the way it should be, and, due to most SEC regulations on this issue HOW IT MUST BE.

From my perspective, (and I think this is fact, not opinion) all of us here who have concerns about communication from the company should focus our attention and efforts in getting the company to do a better job through its ESTABLISHED COMMUNICATIONS VENUES. Also we need to be realistic in our expectations about what can and can't be communicated, NOT at attacking Brian or any future shareholder rep.