I understand your disagreement with me, and appreciate the kind words. Also, that being said, in truth, I don't disagree with the general gist of what you point out.

I guess where we mainly differ is in this sense: If Baroni was the guy they hired to redo their webpage, or to help find them new office space to lease, I'd be less inclined to worry much about such specifics. However, in the context of:

• PTSC specifically stating because of "ongoing activities" they're not going to discuss MMP
• then not even publicizing their previous MMP license aside from posting a PR on their website
• the "odd" circumstances under which this PR was issued where the CEO was absent both literally from the company and in the PR itself
• but the PR being one of the most disseminated PR's in recent history by the company
• then to be followed almost immediately by a PR retracting their PDSG guidance

I surmise from that context that much "hope" has been placed on this hire and the anticipated "strategic assessment". In fact, one can argue that in the context of these events, PDSG, a solution presented as THE solution to PTSC's inconsistent revenue issues, is struggling to gain traction, and may have taken on an urgency to be successful more immediately in light of the MMP saga and possibly pending significant decision from USPTO (could be significantly positive or significantly negative - we'll soon see I believe).

So, to me, as you may have inferred by now (lol), the Baroni hire has tremendous significance. Based on Ms. Hartley's communication to me and others, it seems clear that the company sees it that way as well. With that in mind, IMO, it warranted further study & DD by interested investors to see what possible impacts his involvement might have. That's why I was so interested in the particular entity, because he clearly has significant ties with other entities already, that could have provided this service, so WHY this new unknown entity being used instead? Perhaps there are specific partners involved? Perhaps he intends to use it a springboard to join PTSC/PDSG? Perhaps he wants to play matchmaker for us on more than just contract issues and sees an opportunity to do so in a primary role where he doesn't have to share with others? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.....

Conversely, from the company's perspective, I would think that if they see this hire as significant as I think they see it, ie. something they think can be a "game changer" for PDSG, and someone who they've now invited in to analyze the entire operation of PDSG, its structure, its product offering and presentation of that offering, its marketing of same, etc. etc. etc., it certainly seems as though they would be THOROUGHLY familiar with Baroni Management Company LLC. Also, it seems obvious to me that the way the PR was presented and disseminated, they wanted it to create a buzz about PDSG. If so, then it would stand to reason and they would have expected, that people, investors among them, might have some questions. So even if they didn't know every specific about it, it would seem that answers to SIMPLE questions such as why can't we find any other job/project/PR's connections to a Baroni Management Company LLC, why is there no publicized way to contact this company, why is there no website, why is there no LLC registration, etc., would be answerable in a way other than we have no answers and can't even work to provide any. I found that pretty remarkable, though perhaps you do not.

All in all, perhaps in the end what it REALLY implies is that we're over reading into the Baroni hire. Perhaps, I'm trying to cling to any glimmer of hope and make it shine. Perhaps it's just simply not the significant event I thought it was. In reality, considering the history of events over the last 3 years, that seems a MORE plausible explanation now to me than a company that is desparate for some success not knowing simple answers to a question about a SIGNIFICANT hire. Ultimately, I guess that's what happens when a company keeps trying to tell you they're being successful, yet won't tell you much of anything about that success, and does so in the face of a declining stock price, questionable alliances, and rising expenses. I guess I'm subject to having to try and decipher the tea leaves, and as seems typical by most of us here, being wrong about potential positive aspects.