He's one of the most vocal ones criticizing those actions, is he not? He was supposedly in a position to influence, and didn't. And if he did, as you suggest with no basis at all, he felt no compulsion to follow through/follow up? How responsible is that? And if he finally did resign, it took three years of silence and ineffectiveness. Three years.....and those are the three years I'm talking about. Why do you try to confuse by introducing company actions after he lost his position?

Now, for you mis-representations of me (another constant):

Did I ever say Turley was a success? Nope, in fact I believe he was a complete failure. Likewise RG. Again, IMO acquisitions = unnecessary risk.

Did I ever say none of the BoD should resign? Nope, in fact I have suggested that some do so. My only reason for never suggesting that all resign (in a flurry) is the probable impact on my investment and recognition of reality (PTSC is a corporation and therefore must have certain Officers and Directors in place at all times, even if interim. Who would fill all those roles in the interim? And a transition is necessary.).

Right now, re: BoD? I'm more in "wait and see" mode. They've laid their own gauntlet (120 days as communicated by Gloria). PDSG turn-around (via partnering or other effective action), reconsider which BoD members are in doubt. PDSG liquidation (perhaps sans Holocom, which should be able to run itself without intervention if profitable), expect BoD follow-through via reduction in size (and overall compensation). Begin planning action after 90 days if still warranted. Implement action after 120 days if no action or action in conflict with guidance (if things are prepared, they can be processed well before the time threshold).

JMHOs,

SGE