You miss the point of my post. LL blasted Baroni (with great credentials) and PTSC (the company we care about) based on his finding of a mis-representation in a PTSC PR. Some (myself included) responded that it didn't really matter - PTSC hired the man, what he chooses to call himself doesn't really matter. Yet he persisted to some unknown end - other than to defame Baroni and PTSC.

It apprears that PTSC mis-represented the credentials of the SR in the PR announcement of his appointment. But this issue, raised many times, not ever resolved, which could easily be resolved is not worthy of discussion, never was, never will be.

Of the two issues, which is more worthy of discussion/resolution? Which, in the scheme of things, should matter more?

It just strikes me as very strange.

And, for the record, IMO neither issue is that big a deal at this point. I've actually been giving Brian a lot of thumbs-up on his recent posts - his last a good example. I only tire of his (somewhat valid) attacks on the BoD. Until a viable approach toward their removal is presented, the argument is moot - live with it or leave. The unrelenting attacks, IMO, serve no purpose other than to make PTSC look bad/worse to potential investors or to discourage existing investors. Who benefits from that? Nobody.

SGE