Debbie, the Crosslet (PDSG) technology is strong. The product is good, the business strategy by our former management was not. We are giving ourselves 120 days to try to find a partner who has the name recognition for this software that Patriot/PDSG lacks. Baron is providing his assistance to us and will be consulting and leading the way for partnering. If we see no progress or evidence of success at approaching 120 days, we will most likely sell PDSG. Oftentimes, when you're looking for partners, you end with a buyer. That is certainly something we will consider.

How easy it would be to omit sections from the above in an attempt to argue that nothing has changed and the 120 days deadline is still relevant.

Baroni was hired as consultant to advise on the best way forward. A dynamic BoD, on receipt of his suggestions, should act accordingly.

As a prospective "name recognition" partner, would it not be a compulsory part of due diligence to at least await the report from the Alaskan Institute?

We are informed that "Channel Partners" can be virtually anything or anyone, and as such, can not exclude a potential "name recognition" partner, which is in the process of due diligence.

Would Attain be that partner? You decide after reading about how they operate - they look more like facilitators with a comprehensive knowledge base from which to recommend, for example, the use of particular software to improve operations.

http://www.attain.com/who-we-are/index.php

Simple logic dictates that a "name recognition partner" would be one already known in the software field, surely, if one was still required?

Just as I am pragmatic about the current BoD, some would go as far as suggesting being an apologist, and I see this a a positive move forward by them, I would ask what might motivate any denial at this attempt at increasing shareholder value, and possible reasons for such.

.

.

.

Be well