You sure are good at not answering questions. You never answered the questions of our last go-round. In a nutshell, when exactly do you expect to be able to be nominated, and how do you expect to accomplish anything? Note that I don't even ask what you plan to accomplish, but THAT too would certainly be of interest.

In response to your reply to my last post: first you avoid answering my question. I assume you have a very simple answer. Common sense would dictate you simply answer the question, thereby demonstrating your common sense rather than dance around throwing punches that never connect. It is very revealing as to your approach to things.

The next thing you apparently missed (though I think I was pretty clear) is that I NEVER said the lack of BoD bashing caused the PPS rise. I only suggested the possibility (i.e., simply made the rather obvious, common sense OBSERVATION) that even though the PPS rise was, IMO, based on a little buying and a lot of smoke, a 50+% gain since our recent lows WAS SUSTAINED while the tone of this and other message boards was positive. Get it? Smoke with no fire, and we didn't retreat to the recent lows.

So, please tell me what YOU think caused the sudden PPS rise, and why YOU think the rise was mostly maintained.

As for your BoD question, unless you believe that the current BoD is going to nominate their replacements, I don't see how the next election is a threat to them. But perhaps you could straighten out any wrong-thinking in this regard.

As for your suggestion:

"I also believe that directors should be required to invest in our company on a regular basis."

Perhaps some of our legal minds can chime in, but I believe this would be illegal at both the Federal and State levels (anti-kickback, and a possible reason why the concept of Options was created).

I await answers. Demonstrate that common sense for us. After all, you must have answers....

SGE