I appreciate your thoughtful and positively framed response. To explain further, my criticisms and analysis are not, nor do I believe most others' that I read here, an effort to "hang the one/s" who might be culpable for suppressing the share price. Rather, it is as I stated, an effort to cause them to change their methods and focus so that it is geared toward ALL shareholders, and not a select few whom they represent, or to step aside and let those who would do so step in.

To say what is past is past, is fine. I have no quarrel with that though with the caveat that what is past must be legal and in compliance with the SEC rules and requirements governing public companies. However, what is more important, is are those questionable decisions of the past being repeated with new and continuing questionable acts? Is the company management and BOD learning from and making correction to their past mistakes? Are the allegiances of some of the BOD members who BECAME BOD members as representatives to protect SPECIFIC shareholders' interests standing in the way of what is best for the overall shareholder base?

Those are some of the questions that my (and others' IMO) are addressing in our critiques and quesitons. They are certainly valid questions and as a PUBLIC company OWNED by ALL the shareholders, we each have a right to ask them and ask them vigourously and until an answer is provided, JUST AS, Swartz or the Falk Trust had a right to put CJ or Gloria on the BOD to protect their interests.

And looking back over the last two years, while you imply that the ongoing criticisms of some here (and whether you put me in that category or not, I have and will continue to be critical as well as supportive) have hurt the company or reflect an agenda contrary to what I infer, if you look at what has happened over the last 2 years objectively, you might consider these facts.

As I posted yesterday, BOD compensation has decreased from 2007 to 2008, and per the las CC, will be decreasing further in 2009. For a company that has lost nearly 80% of its value, and has limited cash, that seems appropriate, doesn't it. You might consider that those actions have been taken in response to shareholder pressure, rather than altruistic motives within the company.

We now have a CEO with some substantial qualifications, that is FINALLY executing on the M&A vision that was first sold to PTSC investors back in 2005. This is after many shareholders, including myself, criticized Pohl and the BOD for depleting the cash resources through the dividends when it was clear that to execute on the proposed business plan, cash would have been of paramount importance, and after a clearly inexperienced CEO was put in place upon Pohl's departure. Again, you may discount the shareholders' voice in bringing about that change, but I think you would be shortsighted in doing so.

In short, just as in any other human endeavor, without pressure or an understanding of what is desired and expected, management will tend to stay in its comfort zone and do what comes naturally to them. Even GREAT athletes need coaches to help see what they need to improve in, and to explain mistakes they are making. That doesn't hurt them, it helps them, and ultimately helps the product they are seeking to put out.

You may interpret it differently, but that is a positive mindset. Seeking to improve by pointing out the mistakes of the past and holding those responsible to corrective measures moving forward is essential to improvement. As a public company, transparency into the process that proves OUR management/BOD is doing that is not only helpful, but essential and our right as shareholders.