First of all the irony in your statement pretty much sums up the entire point of my post:

"Bottom line is I resent your implication that anybody who still thinks PTSC has huge upside potential is either an idiot or out of touch."

I never said or implied that anyone thinking there is still upside potential is an idiot. Now who's taking things out of context? What your asking me to do is dismiss information provided by several prominent posters who attended the SHM and trade it for more wild speculation by yourself and others. I'm going on the facts provided thus far. If you believe what your saying than you are certainly admitting or agreeing with the notion that the company is actively engaging in misdirection. The question is why, and please don't say the NDA. What's transpiring right now is the same thing that's gone on for the last 2 years long before this board was eat up with the NDA discussions. I hope some of the speculation concerning the re-exam results are true, however, based on the information provided to us from our company, they certainly haven't mentioned anything related to that unless one is "speculating" and trying to read between the lines.

The question concerning Swartz's previous statement is still very relative as far as I'm concerned. Trying to dismiss information provided by the entity that saved PTSC from bankruptcy and one whom actively maintains a seat on the board is just silly. I was glad to see Mr. Goerner's trust purchase shares but as Milestone reminded us, it could only have been done without direct knowledge of the settlement results. That being the case, his purchase simply means he takes an active investment role in his place of employment, nothing more. If we are facing potential royalty opportunities and the company has actively made it a point to emphasize lump sum front end payments, they are clearly engaging in misdirection and for who's benefit? I thought Mr. Goerner's letter was just as informative as the many letters provided prior to this one over the past 2 years and 2 months that I've owned the stock. I have to laugh wondering how many letters will everyone keep reading before they start wondering, "hey, where's the beef?"

One other thing, you keep wondering about TPL. Well I would ask a simple question, could you please explain why they settled with Sony for such a low amount? Also, would you care to explain why Leckrone was so adamant about getting the 584 appeal over with. I never bought into the notion that we would just run to the appeals court and prevail. I came to that conclusion simply based on the known percentage of appeals cases that were overturned. Yet if you read the PR's provided by TPL, at the time, it sounded almost like we were going the McDonald's to order a hamburger. Just pull up to the window and get it done. Anyone who's been in this stock long enough has every right to look at TPL with a leary eye. They have certainly proven that what's good for the goose isn't alway good for the gander. I would be the first to admit that I don't know exactly what's at play anymore. Unfortunately without PTSC providing investors with tangible information, as Dutton pointed out, we are left to speculate and theorize. As we both know that's no fun when your trying to manage your investment. I'm not interested in selling my shares at this time. I am interested in understanding were PTSC is trying to go and how they plan on getting there. At the moment the "were are we going" can't be answered but the how is simple---MMP Portfolio licensing. That's why Eric Swartz's statement is still relative and critically important, did we win? Neither you nor I can answer that 100% one way or the other. If PTSC would provide that one missing link it would stop all of the theories dead in their tracks.