With all due respect, I cannot believe people here still "sucker" for these supposed initiatives/shareholder letters.

History: The person in question pointed out serious weaknesses in PTSC's management performance for years. FREQUENTLY. How many times has it been suggested that he was offered the SHR position "just to shut him up"? Weaknesses were rightfully pointed out, which was good, but they were repeated relentlessly, which IMO constituted bashing - if nothing else a violation of the Agora TOS (redundancy in posts).

Then there was the silent period for three years while he supposedly had the ear of management - the prime opportunity to voice SH concerns. Action attributeable to his voicing of concerns? Little to none, it would appear, because the same issues "dangle".

During the B-silent period, two "Letters from Shareholders". Results?

Well, IMO the primary "result" (intended or not) was that the complaints about management got a whole lot of "air time", repeated over and over, under the guise of "doing something proactive". The ONLY known result was that every perceived failure of the company got attention to the extreme. A real good thing for Longs - not!

While I do believe it is a good thing to recognize perceived, and real, failures of this company, we don't need our noses rupped in it through redundant posting. And how was this latest initiative designed to be handled? Repost with your name/handle added. Maximum exposure, using others to repost - quite ingenious really.

And what is the primary issue of the "challenge"? And how long has this been an issue? Can you say "FOREVER"?

And gosh, do ya think that management might already be aware of this issue with retail? We've been bitching about it for how many years? And the SHR presumeably made noise about it for some three years (one would expect).

Does anyone honestly believe this "challenge" is going to influence the BoD members in question? Is this going to cause a sudden "change of heart"?

If your answer is "no", then the purpose of the initiative becomes blatantly obvious (whether intended or not).

If your answer is "maybe" - because RG might apply some pressure that conceiveably could influence these people to act, then see below for "yes".

If your answer is "yes", then the intent of the "challenge" has already been met - or was with the first posting of the letter. RG made it abundantly clear that they read this forum with interest. The message has (again, for the umteenth time) been sent.

Our power over the BoD? The strength of any "threat"? Non-existent. We, retail, have had the opportunity to vote our support or lack thereof for the BoD members in question how many times? And I'd bet that the "audience" here has voted their proxies according to their attitudes about these folks. Result? No change in BoD, no change in incumbent BoD member behavior.

Do we sudenly have some newfound power over the BoD? Maybe, via RG. RG has received the message. There is no reason to allow the "challenge" to be reposted 20-30 times. And BillW did act by requesting that people express their support via email/pm rather than through redundant posting by each and every supporter.

In an attempt at fairness, I will suggest that perhaps the above was not the intent behind the Shareholder Letters, past and present. Perhaps it's all on the "up-'n-up". But that doesn't change the rest of my argument.

This issue has been around forever.

Noise made in the past has had zero effect.

The noise made now has probably already been heard - yet again.

Continued reposting, while it may not hurt much (since everyone here is aware of the issue unless they are in a coma), DOESN'T HELP.

The BoD is going to do what they choose to do, and we have (apparently) very little influence on their decision.

Please note that there is very little, if any, bashing of Brian above. Bashing the post, yes, the person, no - I went out of my way to suggest that the obvious outcome of such posts may have not been the intended outcome. It IS (or would be) the outcome none-the-less.

JMHOs,

SGE