You say: "Your assumption that comments regarding our BOD are lame at this time....you have made that same statement for over 3 years now."

Really? Show me. Was that the case when they made all those acquisitions and I was screaming/complaining about taking on unnecessary risk? Was that true when they issued dividends and I complained that the better use would be to buy back shares/warrants? Was that the case when they fired RG? (though, based on what I know now, it was a smart move). Need I go on?

Granted, announcing things at a sparsely attended AMS is not the same as putting out a lengthy PR. But it is sufficient, and common practice.

You say: "Criticism of the PTO in my post. I think you really need to get a grip on your ego."

What? What does the first sentence have to do with anything? What are you trying to say? Please explain.

BTW, ego isn't a problem. And any time someone attacks the ego of another, they are basically saying they surrender to the superior argument, or that they are intimidated by a superior thought process or, at minimum. superior communication skills. That may not be your true intent or attitude, but that is how EVERYONE else reads it. Better luck saying something bad about my dog.

Further, do you even know what an ego is? How are my arguments affected by my ego? Please explain. Is there something wrong with having a healthy ego? Is it better to have a very weak ego? Do you prefer to consume the thoughts and advice of someone with a very weak ego? Can you figure out just how weak that attack really is? Baseless and non-sensical.

JMHOs,

SGE