Just a couple of interesting, IMO, observations - along with some well-founded opinions (IMO! LOL).

First:

"IMO at this time, as we await Reexam results (and hopefully before any additional poor decisions could be made), would be a very good time for multiple members of our BOD to step down... IMO a PR stating such would be welcomed from the investing world.. esp if Goerner & Schrock were to bring in new blood.."

Who do you mean by the "investing world"? Those like us, with our noses firmly pressed to the monitor watching everything PTSC, or those standing several paces away, passively "looking in" (you know, the people we want to attract as new investors)?

I strongly suspect that those we wish to attract, upon seeing an exodus of long-standing BoD members, would react the same way they would usually be expected to react upon seeing such an exodus - that something (that the insiders know) must be seriously wrong. BoD members are often confused with management, and an exodus would serve as an indicator that the future looks pretty grim. Goodbye potential investors.

Second:

For years we've heard pretty consistent griping about how Swartz is actually running the show - that all the decisions were actually his, and for his sole benefit. By and large, that griping came from the very same folks we're hearing from now, about how the BoD made all those bad decisions. While I may grant you folks that assuming Swartz had such influence, the BoD just went along for the ride, who are you blaming now? It just seems a little strange that the target changed from Swartz to the long-standing BoD. I mean, I can understand the griping about the BoD, but why is Swartz mysteriously removed from the picture?

Third:

Why are we at 17 cents again? It seems that many are now saying the BoD is totally to blame. Remember that guy Swartz (S&L), selling a few shares - by the tens of millions? While this is ultimately a good thing IMO, THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON we've gone from two bucks to 17 cents. Every rise met with a sell off, with Swartz a prime participant.

Fourth:

Assuming that Swartz had such influence (as per the old mantra), we KNOW he's on his way out. Even if he now holds 10-15M shares, that's way different from holding 200M (via warrants and shares). He's on his way out the door. His influence is on its way out the door. We need do nothing - it's happening, likely still as I speak. The change in decision-making that folks are screaming for is happening, regardless of would the long-time BoD does.

Fifth:

Who's running the show now? Is it RG, or the BoD? Do we have any hint that the BoD is objecting to anything RG proposes to do? And there are new members of the BoD. Are they beholden to Swartz? The other BoD members? Are they brainless weaklings, saying "whatever you guys/gals want to do....". I doubt it, if only because of egos. Yet this aspect is totally ignored.

I believe all the above with respect to decision-making to be factual, or at least the belief of the majority. And I think the belief is/was shared by those griping.

Now let's revisit that quote:

"IMO at this time, as we await Reexam results (and hopefully before any additional poor decisions could be made), would be a very good time for multiple members of our BOD to step down... IMO a PR stating such would be welcomed from the investing world.. esp if Goerner & Schrock were to bring in new blood.."

So, remove the do-nothing, passive BoD members before THEY make bad decisions? Holds no water IMO.

Remove the do-nothing, passive BoD members in masse right now - cause what would appear to the "investing world" to be an exodus of those in-the-know? Somehow the perception that would give would be a benefit? Highly questionable IMO.

This whole thing comes across as just the "target of the day" to stir things up in a very negative way. An easy target. But there always has to be something, right?

Now I must AGAIN say that I know of no one here that "defends" the long-standing BoD members. Nobody. And Nobody is happy to have them there, making a questionable contribution, if any, while collecting a handsome compensation.

Those that suggest that anyone here "defends" the BoD is IMO blind or unable to comprehend the message. Some, myself included, have suggested that a couple of them MAY bring something to the party, maybe.

Gloria supposedly has expertise in evaluating acquisition candidates from the financial view. Is that expertise being tapped? Is she participating? Who knows? But she supposedly does have the capability. And that capability can be acquired elsewhere. Is saying this defending her? IMO, no. She is by no means "essential", even if she is contributing.

Carlton, as I've suggested in the past, I suspect is a very smart guy - business investment wise. The exact things people bitch about re: Swartz is a testimony to his skills. If his loyalties shift (as they must if Swartz removes himself from the picture - as he apparently IS DOING) to complete dedication to the success of PTSC, is he worth keeping around? Probably, IMO. But is he essential? Absolutely not. Is saying this defending him? IMO, no.

Bottom line to those suggesting "defense of the BoD", the above is the extent of the defense - which is pretty darned weak. IMO, a defense would be an argument that these people are essential to the success of PTSC. They are not. And nobody, ever, has said they are.

So they aren't essential (so there is no effective argument in their favor), and EVERYONE recognizes this. And they are a drag, at minimum due to their compensation, and EVERYONE recognizes this too. NOBODY IS DEFENDING THEM! It's a phantom accusation to say anyone is defending them - it's not there!

So people are unhappy with the long-standing BoD. Everyone is! Get it! Preaching to the chior at it's finest!

The problem is what to do about it.

Making a lot of noise about it is pointless, other than to scare away potential investors, or dishearten existing investors. That is the REALITY. THAT is what some here are objecting to.

Again, nobody is objecting to the idea that they bring little to questionable things to the party. Nobody is suggesting that they are essential to the success of PTSC. Nobody is defending them, at all.

The objection is to the noise - the pointless noise. The probably harmful noise.

To those steadfast in their quest to ouster these BoD members, please do a little bit of research. How is this done elsewhere? What was the affect?

I strongly suspect that in the very few cases where an ouster was effected, it was via an extreme heavy-hitter like Warren Buffet.

But go find some examples. Show us how bitching and moaning about it on a message board will make this work out for you. Show us how removal of passive BoD members made a difference - after all, they only provide oversight to the true management of a company.

And why does a Warren Buffet type typically demand changes? Generally, IMO, it's more because they don't like the BoD selection of management - the people they put in charge of actually running the company.

Don't like RG? That's the signal you'd be sending. It may be the signal YOU ARE sending.

Brilliant!

JMHOs,

SGE