Apparently, you didn't understand my response to you.

You assume that Brian didn't request the correction. You ignore the fact that the company has been made aware of other incorrect or unclear statements they have issued in PR's and yet left uncorrected, some of them far more concerning than the profession of a shareholder who will simply provide the perspective of a shareholder on the advisory committee of the company. After all, according to Pohl's release, his appointment to the advisory board, was in the capacity of a shareholder, not as an attorney.

You ignore the fact that the company's communications in PR's have left much more important matters unclear, or uncorrected. I'd say the evidence would more clearly suggest that the company is at fault, and that Brian did try to correct the company. And ultimately, it is Pohl and PTSC who portrayed him as an attorney, not Brian.

So what Brian did is accept an appointment to the advisory board of PTSC at PTSC's request and according to their rules. Over the period of 3 years or so, work to provide input and advice to the company that I generally agree with most of the time, and which took his time and effort in return for no pay, and post nearly 5 years ago, that he did not practice law. Yes, that is OK with me. He owed you and I nothing, and yet I'm confident he worked on behalf of our interests anyway.

And generally on this topic, while I understand the expectation that somehow, the "Shareholder Representative" has grown through discussion here to mean that somehow this person is representing all shareholders in funnelling our issues to the Advisory Board, I think the more appropriate perspective on this is that as a shareholder, he brings to the Advisory Board the perspective of a shareholder, not ALL shareholders, but one shareholder. He is a representative on the Advisory Board that is a shareholder, just as Turley, was the representative on the Advisory Board that was a Technology expert. Certainly, we didn't expect Turley to represent All of Technology's interests to the advisory board. Rather, as a Technology expert, he could bring is his own knowledge of technology to the board and provide advice based on that.

That Brian endeavored to take information and concerns he culled from this board and others, as well as from private conversations, and distill them to what he felt were the important issues and to present them at the opportunities that he was afforded, is laudable, in my opinion, not condemnable and worthy of ridicule as has been the case. In all sincerity, his only responsibilty was actually to present HIS OWN shareholder perspective to the advisory board. If he did anything beyond that, God bless him for his efforts.

You accuse Brian of lying, yet you don't know what was and wasn't represented to the company, unless you were there when it happened. At best, you're relying on hearsay. How can you justify that as moral behavior?