At the risk of doing what I said I didn't want to with my post, I'll offer this response and limit it to this. While I agree you and I may find out much about these items with the next dry and complicated SEC filing (though it won't be all 11 licenses), we're already engaged and are paying attention. PR's usually serve not only to inform but to create the buzz and to attract those who may not already be engaged, to take note. And unfortunately, without creating that buzz that attracts new buyers, the share price will NOT increase.

The danger in settling on that "find out when we find out" strategy, and this is especially critical IMO since RG continues to emphasize that shares will be the main currency used in his M&A activities, is that allowing the share price to languish and decline in the face of such positive news, diminishes not only the current value of our investments, but SERIOUSLY limits the company's abilities with respect to share based M&A transactions. It will have long term implications on share values and company strength moving forward as the lower share pricing requires much more dilution which in turn feeds into a lower share price. You tell me if you'd rather have RG offer $15M worth of shares at 23 cents to an acquisition target (which would result in 62.3M shares more in dilution) or have him offer that same $15M at 53 cents (which in turn would mean "only" 28.3M shares in dilution).

I definitely think RG is moving the company in the right direction, and truthfully, I have no complaints with anything he HAS done so far - ie I fully support his ACTIONS. (That being said, there is inaction that I don't support and that's where I focus my comments) But in moving in those directions PTSC no longer has the luxury of sitting back and just collecting MMP monies and reporting them when required and "hoping" that that will be enough to attract buyers to move the share price upward . They HAVE TO, IMO, PROACTIVELY manage the share price with any and all measures (though I disdain the "tout" sheets that they seem to show up on whether by their instigation or not, and I would exclude those from the measures I'm referencing) that they have at their disposal so that they don't waste these positive actions that they are taking by ending up diluting the share base to such an extent that it takes years to recover the value. Already, we've seen hugely disproportionate depreciation, especially in light of what should prove to be substantial money being added to the bottom line.

One last comment - If Swartz has been a seller through all this, and indeed would CONTINUE to be a seller moving forward into spikes, then that is exactly the kind of situation that intelligent and proactive measures by the management & BOD should be addressing so as to eliminate his negative impact. He should be long past being an issue that PTSC should be "combatting".