Okay, so Brian says that he knows nothing about the J "Business Resolution" in one post, then offers his conjecture suggesting bad things in another - and you think he may know the truth. Which is it?

Now throw in the things I addressed in my "follow-on" post

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

- including that ridiculous explanation for the MOU. And he's a lawyer? If and when he can counter every argument I made in this post

http://www.agoracom.com/ir/patriot/m...

he might be able to make a believer out of me. He's been invited to do so, multiple times. Perhaps he will - with some sound logic and reasoning. And if he did indeed resign, and his resignation is accepted, he should no longer be encumbered and should probably be free to respond.

I understand that Brian did in fact fire back at me. Fair is fair, and I'm really sorry I missed it. If anyone happened to copy it, please forward via pm.

I just hope there was some truth in it, some sound basis for criticism of me/my posts and what I say/opine. And if, by chance, he asked "and what have you ever done to support this company?", I would be happy to remind him of 4/9/99, when I managed to write and publish an article about PTSC's ShBoom in a site sponsored/endorsed by Sun Microsystems, which got well over 500,000 hits and was featured on PTSC's home page for over six months. I suspect that article provided PTSC with more mass recognition (by the JAVA community) than any single PR ever issued by the company in its entire history. Was I compensated for that article? Yup, a whopping $500. from EarthWeb. That and a big THANK YOU from Jim Lunney - PTSC Pres/CEO at the time.

I was told that he "claimed credit" for some share/warrant buy-backs. If he was able to make that happen, congrats and thank you. But, unfortuantely, he apparently was not able to persuade the company to finish the job. But every bit helped.

Amazingly to some perhaps, at this moment in time I hope current PTSC management looks at his resignation and requests a meeting - recognizing there is something wrong in "shareholder land". Then perhaps Brian can resume is role with some conditions attached. He is very good at identifying every (perceived) mis-step by the company.

And I believe he stays "in touch" with shareholder attitudes via this forum, IHub and perhaps elsewhere. And never again should we (Ron) have a need to put together a "Letter from Shareholders".

However, though I didn't bring this up before, if Brian was staying tuned in and doing his job, neither of those letters should have been necessary. The message/questions should have been presented to management long before the letters were fully compiled (since each was discussed for over a month before being submitted), and a response could have been issued via a note to shareholders or whatever. That is, if management were willing to listen, and act. Isn't this what we, as shareholders, should expect from OUR rep? Isn't it what we expected up front? Why did others have to step in? Perhaps Brian can provide an explanation. If not, in recognition of this, perhaps Brian should just keep backing away.

JMHOs,

SGE