And this, IMO, is what was wrong with the entire "know what I own" controversy.

Isn't it completely obvious that PTSC is/was/always will be a gamble? Does anyone really think that GE never recognized this? It's an OTCBB security. Potential is huge, and that's why everyone is here. The BoD/management? It's basically consistent with what one would expect of an OTCBB company. If they were truly great, they wouldn't be here! Further, if posters here didn't think this weakness could be overcome by success with the MMP, they wouldn't be invested.

So what's the typical strength of the BoD/management of an OTCBB? You need look no further than EDIG. You think PTSC is bad? EDIG had a state-of-the-art viable product. Sales (limited) only occurred when they were "confronted" by a customer or someone suggesting that THEY could effectively market the product. Sales on their own? Extremely limited. And when proactive investors approached EDIG with a viable customer base and groundwork already done, they are turned away. And when their patents, with undisputed ownership, were being significantly infringed, they wait 6 years before initiating action. Six years of patent life wasted. CEOs hired and resign in disgust. Management and BoD members often the same folks rotated in and out. Company kept afloat by infusion of capital by BoD/member of management, with great terms, using monies derived from the company. Now patents tied up in litigation, with only a few licensees. And that product? Still viable?

This is just one example. Look around, see the quality of BoD/management of OTCBB companies. They are virtually all a high risk proposition.

Our PPS is a reflection of that risk - pure and simple. How much of that risk is attributable to the BoD? Some, no doubt, based on past performance. But where is the significant risk, really? PTO, litigation, eventual patent expiration.

Anyone wanting to debate that last paragraph, have at it.

JMHOs.

SGE