So let's look at the facts.

1) The "counter cult" complains that S&L has too much influence. What's the source of that influence? Lots of shares.

2) The "counter cult" complains that S&L sells/converts, and now just sells, on every rise in PPS (thereby decreasing their share count and, ultimately, presumably, their influence). BTW, IMO, it's in every rise in volume - more so than PPS movement IMO.

So the counter cult sees nothing but negative in everything in this regard, and S&L, and PTSC, are in a "no win" situation.

So, now, please explain how the concern of number 1 can possibly be removed without pursuit of number 2, which is probably still happening.

The only way I can figure is through direct buy-backs of shares by PTSC from S&L. They have done this to a degree, but (with the warrant buy-back anyway) had to pay a (7M share) premium. It's fairly obvious that S&L is demanding a premium for buy-backs, so PTSC is (wisely) just buying on the open market, and S&L (not having their demands met) are selling on the open market.

Is this concept too complex? Apparently.....

Is your focus on pointing out an obvious and insurmountable "negative", which may at this point be temporary/short-lived, adding anything to the discussion? Is it your way of promoting investment in PTSC?

Be thankful that S&L is selling. They don't have to per anything known.

I do acknowledge that it will be interesting to discover Carlton's fate once S&L (shares) are out of the picture - assuming that day comes. Will he retain his position/influence at PTSC, or will Swartz "reel him in" to aid in the pursuit of his other endeavors?

Now, is the prospect of Carlton staying aboard a true negative? If he stays aboard, how can he best capitalize? Maybe by encouraging actions that will cause a rise in PPS?

JMHOs,

SGE