Yes, I did write Agora with a brief but compelling (I think) argument towards a ban on provocative avatars (i.e., ones which, by their very nature, would tend to provoke an ongoing pointless argument not relating to the subject for which this forum is intended).

I do have a problem with you, again, putting words in my mouth that were never spoken. Did I ever say or even suggest that I was insulted or offended by your - or any-body's - choice of avatar? What is pissing me off is when the avatar, coupled with associated words in a post that violates the rules of use, prompts a pointless discussion that fills a message list page. Meanwhile I'm posting what I think are extremely important questions re: status of the patents (something everyone here should be focusing most of their attention on) and the question posts are lost in the clutter, and go unanswered until they've been re-posted three friggin' times! The contributors (Opty and Eggber) eagerly provided responses almost a soon as they finally saw the questions. But what if I was less aggressive, and never re-posted those questions? They would have likely gone unanswered, to the detriment IMO of everyone here (and to me in particular). And what if I were a prospective investor posing those questions? Try once, see a slew of posts re: politics, give up, go away.

In any case, you simply aren't getting my point (though I believe I made it perfectly clear). The above may have penetrated, but just in case, I'll offer an analogy that IMO fits perfectly:

You have invited a dozen PTSC shareholders over to your house with a plan to discuss everything PTSC in extreme detail, and even debate various speculation a participant may offer. All are good people that are determined and with a common purpose.

Eleven people show up and everyone's getting comfortable, already beginning discussion. The twelfth shareholder shows up at the door. A good guy and a contributor. But he's wearing a placard with a picture of a political figure and wearing a hat saying "Vote XXXX". Or he's carrying a Bible and wearing his Sunday best. Or he's displaying anything that would make a reasonable person expect a probability of controversy if that person, again - an otherwise good person, enters the room.

Will your little group accomplish its objective? Is it likely that, ultimately, there will be conflict, shareholder against other shareholder, over something not remotely connected to PTSC? Is there a likelihood that valuable time will be wasted?

Okay, so you ignore the above cautionary thoughts/questions, and you let the twelfth shareholder in. As your cautionary thoughts suggested, things go awry, and the meeting becomes a extensive debate about anything other than PTSC.

Now throw in the last wrinkle: two attendees at your get-together are actually curious prospective shareholders. Did they learn anything about PTSC? Did they get answers to any questions? Were they completely turned off by the entire experience?

That's the problem. The avatar invites controversy. Don't let it in. Either that or have a stringent, well-enforced rule that if the subject of an avatar of the type I describe ever appears in a post, the poster is banned. Since the latter is not likely to happen, use the simple approach and have rules for avatars like the rules of use - set some reasonable boundaries, just as done for posts. Bottom line, improve the Agora experience. If I have another experience like recent, I will be compelled to make arrangements with certain posters such that we communicate via email, as a group, and the rest of Agora will be left in greater ignorance to debate anything and everything other than PTSC. And potential new investors? Too bad.

BTW, I will be upset if this post immediately disappears. This has to do with PTSC discussion improvement, and the effectiveness of this message board. Off topic? When it involves the perceptions we may place on prospective investors who, if they do invest, create demand, etc., etc., I don't think it could be more ON topic.

JMHO,

SGE