Where did I say, or even imply, that I want to keep these people in place? You read, but don't seem to understand....

I have absolutely no problem at all, and would actually cheer, if certain board members resigned. I would be pleased to see Gloria, Carlton and Junior hit the bricks. That's not the issue, at all. But this, though conveyed repeatedly, just doesn't seem to penetrate with you, does it?

The problem is twofold:

1) Making as much noise about as you do is NOT a good thing. How many times do I have to say it: EVERYONE HERE IS UNHAPPY WITH HAVING THESE FOLKS ON THE BOD!!! I think EVERYONE is in agreement. You don't have to keep telling us about it! WE GET IT! (Is THAT clear enough? Do you comprehend??). The NOISE is the problem. Potential investors, thanks to you and YOUR post, may be under the vivid impression that these BoD members are out spending the company's money on pleasure trips to Tahiti. Can you see where there might be a little problem here? Can you see that your posting such things is not only an out-n-out lie, but may be detrimental to attracting new investors? Does this penetrate?

You say kick 'em out the door. How would that look to the market which has no clue as to basis of the action? Ya think they're going to delve into it, or just look at it "surface level" and draw negative conclusions? Probably the latter, IMO.

2) ".... the dead wood has been replaced by experienced oak."

At what cost? How many leaders do we need? How many conflicts (of egos) will it create? How many people do we want overseeing this company? Does it really need THAT much oversight (beyond the current board, sans the three amigos)?

It's the friggin' Board of Directors. They provide a little guidance, offer some industry contacts (which may or may not pan out), and review plans developed by the CEO. And there's their NAME. It's a part time job, to the extreme. They don't actually DO anything. They're not expected to. Learn a little about the charter of the typical BoD. They don't "work the problem", they look at proposed actions and give their blessing, or not. That's what they do at their quarterly luncheon meetings.

So your "solution" to the negative public view of the ouster may just create a whole new set of problems/issues. But you didn't think it through, did you.

Now, have you done your homework assignment - researching corporations where there was an ouster of three board members? How was it done? What does it take to make it happen (not a guess, but some real examples that don't include the likes of Warren Buffet)? What was the result? What was the market perception?

I've done no research, but my understanding is that such action is near impossible. Show us how it could be done, without putting a big bright negative light on PTSC, and you might get some backing.

I can tell you this - you'll get little backing (certainly not enough) by just making a bunch of empty noise about it every friggin' day.

We have posters who used to demand a plan (to be made public). What's the plan? Can you demonstrate that it's a viable plan?

Oh, no plan eh? No examples? No test of reasonableness/viability? Just noise.....see 1) above.

JMHOs,

SGE