And I disagree with you Teremoto.

Revenues in the coffer is exactly what should make the PPS grow. That and any other positive news which one would expect to raise the PPS. Maybe I'm the only one, but when I get concerned is when the money in the coffer is placed at risk (acquisition/investment). And I suppose you'd say that just having the money in the hands of our BoD places it at risk. But it seems the positive aspect of merely getting those revenues, and what getting them really means as far as the value of PTSC, is lost on most people.

In case you haven't noticed, it does seem that when there is any good news, the PPS frequently does go down. IMO, certain people are following the Swartz path and selling into that news and, perhaps more importantly, the volume. How often can you sell successfully at the Ask? And this selling is virtually always followed by bashing (for the reload).

Example: Recent news of an add to the BoD. No PPS movement initially, but with the bashing that ensued, the news was lost in the distraction and ultimately the PPS went south.

Now I'm going off on that subject....

Even though that news/action (add to the BoD) was very intriguing, not much discussion. Some have tried to generate discussion re: the add to the BoD, after all it does pose a giant question mark (why him?, why now?). On the surface it makes no sense. But now we've had the AMS, and mention of an attempt/quest for partnering up some or all of what remains of PDSG with a larger, more recognized entity.

Just look to the PR announcing the addition of Mr. Mistry. Cognizant. The handwriting is on the wall IMO. It was a posturing manuever, IMO, lining up the ducks. It answers the questions "why him?, why now?". It appears this is not yet a "done deal"; they're probably still haggling and doing appropriate DD. But IMO the target and intent are pretty clear.

And just who is behind this posturing manuever? Who approved it? Maybe our BoD? The question remains, however - will the objective behind this move be met?

As I have posted many times, I'm not happy with the past decisions of this BoD. Primarily, I hated the acquisitions and the risk they presented. But now, as I posted earlier (yesterday), it appears they are moving in the direction I personally prefer - share buy-backs coupled with dividends (hopefully when the timing is right). It also appears that they are dumping the bad parts of PDSG, and trying to promote the possibilities on the good parts of PDSG. The proof will be in the pudding as far as our future, as we see how things fall together (or not).

All we can hope is that THIS BoD has learned certain lessons from the past. Right at this moment, I'm pretty happy with where I believe they're taking us.

Replace them? First, tell how you're going to make that happen. Then consider all that this would entail. Talk about presenting risk.... Right now we have a (somewhat) "known quantity" in this BoD. And they've told us fairly precisely where we're headed - and IMO it's to a better place. Replace that with a complete "unknown"? Now? Yikes.

JMHOs,

SGE