I'm assuming your "pick out one item" was in response to my questioning the severance issue and leaving the rest without comment. If so, I was simply asking on what basis is severance due our directors shoud they leave or be replaced? Is there a contract in place that entitles them to it as there has been with the plethora of CEO's & CFO's that have been removed? Please share if you are aware of those contractual clauses. To date, I don't recall others like Dr. Nick or Pohl receiving severance from their roles as director (Pohl as CEO yes, director no from my recollection). Corrections welcome.
As for the rest of your points:
Dilution: Seriously? Is that really your concern at 410M shares. Even if you gave CJ a 1 year $144K severance in stock to go away, that's less than 1/2 of 1% dilution. Less for the other directors.
Selection: Well, as stewards of the company, the BOD SHOULD do the selection, recognizing their failure and replace themselves with directors with the pertinent skills, connections, and knowledge, that their historical performance shows they clearly lack. Typically, management helps advise as well. Mistry and Schrock are examples of the typical selection process. OR, shareholders can nominate one director or a completely new slate of directors for election. It's not rocket science, and it's not some "brave new world" process that's never been done or tried. Rather, it's common, proper, and happens all the time with legitimate companies.
As for your not so subtle undertones, your "victim" characterizations, and this promotion of a "paradigm of helplessness" to create change or improvement that you love to peddle, it's as much a part of the problem as anything else. As shareholders, it's OUR company. Your discouragement to change has us at under 9 cents. Ultimately, we shareholders, as in the ROYAL WE, have the BOD, company, and shareprice WE DESERVE because of years of allowing these directors to remain.
You asked earlier who could've foreseen these troubles with TPL? Many of us, that's who. For years, I and others questioned the company about the agreements this BOD negotiated with TPL and how they could present this very scenario, and yet the company did little to prevent it, and possibly inadvertently promoted it through their actions, inactions, and transactions since.
As for your derision about the efforts of those who HAVE tried to enact change, mock all you want. It says more about you than those who are willing to try. With all the aliases you've used over the years, if you REALLY are a shareholder, the joke is ultimately on you, as it is on me, and the rest of us who have lost money with PTSC. You may think it's funny, I don't find it so.
