What are you talking about?

"To each his own....but if you feel the need to state your constant defense of anyone who reminds us that the BOD is worthless and that the astute point lambert made that there is no formal PR of what Gloria stated.......then u are defending the undefensible again."

Let me get this straight... You're mad at Milestone for his defending people who say, repeatedly, that the BoD is worthless, because doing so is "defending the undefensible again".

Okay, then I guess I have to agree with you, assuming that is your true perception and you know how to effectively communicate.

I might add that attacking the BoD at this particular time is lame. The BoD admitted to the errors of their ways in the past - no excuses, an honest admission - and advised of their intent (an intent, IMO, that is completely reasonable). As to the need to announce their intent, it was done at the AMS - sufficient, and basically comparable to a PR; an open forum for the purpose of informing those with a vested interest, available to all with a vested interest.

While some keep suggesting that the requested wait is all BS, and suggest the BoD is doing nothing, I suspect there is a lot going on:

First, I suspect that Baroni & Co are engaged on two fronts: aiding the PDSG entities in securing contracts AND identifying and aiding in the courting of possible buyers of those businesses under the PDSG embrella. BoD would monitor and advise on Baroni's efforts, and would be actively involved in any courtship.

The PDSG entities have been put on notice (unless they are deaf and blind). Their feet are held to the fire to produce results if they wish a continued existence. Whether they remain with PTSC or are sold to an interested party, they have to produce to achieve either outcome. The alternative? Update your resume, in the current job market. The BoD should be monitoring progress.

Considering the above, the request for 120 days was entirely reasonable IMO. None of the above can be done over night (except if they had elected to just close the doors to all the PDSG entities immediately - to nobody's benefit). Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the actions that the BoD have set in motion are heading PDSG in the direction for a more positive ultimate outcome. Would you have preferred the continued status quo?

Also keep in mind their stated intent at the PTSC level to do what most shareholders prefer they do with future MMP revenues: Share buy-backs and dividends.

So, is this an appropriate time to again attack the BoD? Golly, it appears that they've:

- Acknowledged their past mistakes.

- Are taking smart steps in managing PDSG toward success and/or divestiture.

- Voiced their intent to do exactly what the (probable) majority of shareholders would prefer they do with future MMP revenues.

Am I defending the BoD? In the current circumstance, YES. It's your choice to dwell on the past to focus on the present and what it may mean for the future of PTSC.

And then there's the PTO. Unbelieveable.... There's your target for (equally worthless)criticism. At least criticism of the PTO at this moment in time is justified.

JMHOs,

SGE