"There's no confirming your scenario one way or the other IMO......."

Nor Ron's. Apparently it is not permissible to some (YOU) if someone has a contrary opinion, even when it's backed up with something (logical thought). Was I in any way abusive to Ron in my post? Or is it that YOU are the "thought police" and felt the need to interject, offering nothing of substance to the conversation? Where's that freedom of speech thing? Lost on you?

BTW, did you even read Ron's message? Did you even notice the part where he said/acknowledged "I don't know enough about the Barco situation to make a comment that has any real confidence underlying it, so take the following as being one
of those rare times when I'm offering complete, rank speculation. My suspicion..."?

"Ron's a lawyer and you're not? Right?......"

That is correct, and I never claimed to be a lawyer. But in my last real job, my boss was a lawyer, and four of my subordinates were lawyers, active in the CA state BAR. I only provided guidance to them, and corrected their errors, for eight years.

"Why compete with positions of supposition?......"

Why not? This is a message board where alternative speculation should be welcomed and discussed. Do you have any substantive input that suggests my speculation is wrong? Apparently not....

"I believe Barco vs. PTSC will be dismissed and terms will be sealed (ala J3 with no $$$$)."

How dare you offer an opinion? Are you a lawyer? Do you any basis for your opinion? If so, please splain it.

At least when I offer an opinion, I make an attempt to explain "how I got there". This intentionally opens the door for others, capable of thought, to shoot holes in my thought process (which I welcome). You, obviously, are not one of those "others".

BTW, Ron and I "agree to disagree" fairly often. And neither of us have a problem with that.

SGE