You say: "Isn't Brian being crucified for criticing the BOD?"

This tells me you don't comprehend the "gripe" with Brian - at all. You take the very most simplistic view, totally ignoring all the surrounding circumstances. It is those circumstances that are the source of this gripe, not the criticism itself because ALL of those criticisms, as summarized by Brian, have already been addressed previously by others, and most here IMO, including myself, are in agreement with the bulk of that criticism.

Get it? The criticism itself isn't even the issue!

So what is the issue(s)?

He's the designated "Shareholder's Representative", or supposedly was at the time this all started. HE, and ONLY HE, had the unique position of supposedly having the ear of PTSC, its Advisory Committee, the BoD. Of ALL SHAREHOLDERS, he was the ONLY one that had a direct opportunity to influence those decisions. And he was the ONLY retail shareholder in a position to direct all this criticism to the BoD. So direct it there, where it might do some good. Why direct it here, where it does no real good at all? Again, all his criticisms had already been addressed here.

Now, if he had preceded all of his criticism, or stated intent to criticize, with one very basic criticism, perhaps everyone, myself included, would have been a bit more receptive. That criticism IMO, should have been: "I (Brian) have selflessly provided my input to the Advisor Committee consistently and IMO in the best interest of shareholders, and I was ignored - the advice was ignored". This would have established a completely different tone, assuming the statement was true.

The pitfall, however, in making such a statement, after having sat in that position for such a long period of time, is that it points to the real issue with Brian. If you knew you were being ignored, why didn't you do what any sensible person would have done and resign? Years ago!

In essence, it would appear that Brian just sat there, uncompensated, and accepted the fact that the company was making decisions and doing things NOT TO HIS LIKING, and in DIRECT CONFLICT with the advice we presume he was providing ON BEHALF OF ALL SHAREHOLDERS. He retained the position and just went along.... WHY? Isn't this a valid question?

Now, back to his stated intent to criticize, based on things that have already been fully addressed here. IMO, it's like saying "these bad decisions were made, I was the only shareholder in a position to influence those decisions, I was ignored, but I just sat there and went along for the ride, but now I'm going to scream to the very people I was placed in the position to represent". You see nothing wrong with that? This is not worthy of some questions, and some answers? Answers that he refuses to give?

I'll just say again that, if it were me, and I found myself in this situation, I would have bowed out as soon as I realized that my input was pointless (though, as I've suggested, I believe I would have attempted a heart-to-heart with PTSC first), thereby sending a very strong message to all shareholders, and PTSC, - we the shareholders are not being considered in the decision-making, and we demand consideration!

Wouldn't THAT be the desired message? Isn't THAT THE message? Put another way, would voicing criticism here do any good? Would it send the desired message to PTSC? Would it change anything? IMO, no. But it would be expected to cause a great deal of exagerated discontent among shareholders. Is THAT the desired outcome? Again, the same criticisms had already been voiced, and discussed here, by others.

This is why my basic criticism on this front is "don't criticize while you're wearing that Shareholder's Representative hat". IMO, it is completely inappropriate, based on all the above. It would be a dis-service to shareholders - to the extreme IMO. "I'll B and moan but, by God, I refuse to take off this hat FIRST".

I have said, take off the HAT, give it a couple of weeks, THEN B and moan. That would be acceptable, IMO, though it still wouldn't do any good. But the act of removal of that HAT might - it would certainly, IMO, have a better chance of sending THE DESIRED MESSAGE. Desired by Brian? I don't know. Desired by all retail shareholders? IMO, absolutely YES.

So he finally removed the HAT. Good. Unfortunately, his stated reason for doing so IS THE WRONG REASON. He never mentioned doing so to send a message to management - that was NOT his stated motivation. To the contrary, his stated reason was to appease (or get back at) some people on this board - his perceived adversaries. He completely overlooks the fact that these are the very people he was in the position to represent. The people that were depending on him. The people he failed, if in no other way than having not resigned long ago.

My other gripe/issue with Brian was the mass insult he directed at virtually everyone on this board. The insult that has been completely overlooked by some (most?).

Who here didn't offer some conjecture about the settlement with the Js? Or about the 10Q? Or about the Letter from RG following the 10Q? Anyone? Did all that conjecture, from so many, fall directly in line with his conjecture - his opinion? He stated that he didn't KNOW the terms of settlement - that it hadn't been shared with him. But he offered his conjecture, and then basically said that anyone else's opinion was pure BS and wrong. Extremely insulting to ALL, and an insult to the purpose of this board. Saying, while wearing the Shareholder's Representative HAT BTW, that his opinion (in ignorance) is the ONLY one that matters, and everyone else is full of it, kind of ends the discussion, doesn't it?

This is why I said that, if another forum is initiated to hear what Brian has to say, it would be a "dictate forum". No discussion required. Brian has all the answers, and they are not open to dispute. Listen - but don't question anything, because you are wrong and he is right, period.

That blatant insult was coupled with an insult to our intelligence - his explanation of the MOU. I picked it apart. Only one person responded, and by simply saying "do you know all the ways an MOU can be done?". I advised of my experience with such things, and I advised regarding the circumstance underwhich the MOU was borne. His explanation doesn't fit the circumstance - or any circumstance I could imagine. The language in an MOU, like a contract (though it typically isn't regarded as one), is very detailed and specific - deliberate.

This is my last attempt to clarify this whole issue from my perspective. I don't intend to debate it. You guys can debate it if you wish yourselves. If you don't "get it" now, you never will.

But do debate it. The content. Don't do as has been done up till now - ignore the message and shoot the messenger.

All JMHO,

SGE