I've been out all afternoon (CA time) and just got back on line. Scanning away, I noticed this post by B-Lunist.

I surmise via this post that Brian has elected to resign as Shareholders Representative. IMO, Good. But not because I have anything against Brian personally or as a shareholder (since I'm fairly sure he owns many multples of the number of shares that I current possess). So why am I glad, assuming he has indeed resigned? Because it sends a loud clear message to PTSC management and other shareholders. WE AREN"T BEING LISTENED TO OR APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED in PTSC decision-making. As reflected in my post this morning, this should have happened long ago - that message to management needed to be sent. IMO, all shareholders are at minimum very frustrated.

And to make things perfectly clear (since I did read a post to the contrary earlier - a mis-interpretation of my post and my intent), I do not blame Brian for anything that has or hasn't happened to our investment, or any good or bad decisions that have been made by PTSC. He is NOT TO BLAME. I understand that he wasn't making any of those decisions. And I understand that he probably had zero influence on those decisions. And that's the point I was making. If you are tasked with a job, but are totally blocked and/or ignored by the people (management) that invited you aboard - for no compensation - it's time to jump ship. Otherwise you're "set up" for the ire of fellow shareholders - the very people you're supposed to represent. And you are sitting there as an ineffective figure-head - a pawn of (inherited by current) management for "appearances sake" only. Not an enviable position. And thus a position that should be abandoned (and IMO should have been abandoned long ago).

I hope like heck that PTSC management gets the message.

Now, where I do have a problem with Brian is when he goes off criticizing PTSC management/BoD. All his criticism may be (probably is) fully warranted. He's a smart guy and expresses his concerns well.

But when you (he) are THE ONE and ONLY officially recognized, designated, advertised voice of shareholders and supposedly have the ear of management, it seems extremely disingenuous to criticize. It is, at least to some extent, an ackowledgment of your ineffectiveness - at probably no fault of your own (as I am sure Brian TRIED). There's the rub. Once you recognize your ineffectiveness - and the criticism should be a "recognition" - and that you are being ignored, and used, the obvious thing to do is resign. And IMO the obvious thing NOT to do is moan about management's decision-making. Again, you (he) are identified as the one and only with management's ear.

My only other problem is Brian's apparent "taking the low road" and choosing to interpret the current situation in the worst possible way. No more from the Js. TPL screwed us. All based on his interpretation which ignores both facts and possibilities/probabilities. This, while he should recognize that his words carry a ton of weight - MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S IMO. More "low road" rhetoric, all on perceived things that have already been addressed here (per his stated list of topics), does not do us any good. We already KNOW these things, most/all perceived as bad. Do we need to hear it all again - from the person described above, the loudest voice?

And why isn't he open to discussion of other possible interpretations of the situation? Why doesn't he take the invitation to examine the conjecture and offer some criticism that makes some sense? He has stated that he doesn't KNOW the deal with the Js. But to simply blow off any other interpretation, backed with (possibly delusional) reasonable arguments? Tell me where I'm being delusional - PLEASE. Identify the flaws in my reasoning (contingency deal), or any else's reasoning on their conjecture (e.g. royalties).

I wish Brian the best, and wish he will stay here on Agora and provide his insights. And, assuming he has resigned his position, given a little "cushion" time, he should join in or even lead the criticism of PTSC management. I have no problem with that. Just don't be donning that "Shareholder's Representative" hat while you're doing it. That's my point. I thought that was pretty clear in my initial post, but apparently it was not.

Now I'll turn to accepting the mass stoning I'm sure I received throughtout the afternoon. On second thought, it's getting late, so I think I'll just get stoned. I'll save the suffering till tomorrow (nothing like reading a bunch of nasty posts about yourself while suffering a hangover!).

SGE