No disrespect inferred, nor any intended toward you. I was simply referring you to them because THEY are the ones who seem to have deemed that people outside of company's officers and directors are some how responsible for the crappy agreements PTSC entered into, and the results of the last 6 years since.

Apparently they are referring to the various early shareholders who I believe had provided some sort of financing (or perhaps other benefit) to PTSC and in return had secured their interests in some fashion to the MMP rights. (disclaimer that I'm going strictly by memory here). Truthfully, I can't remember who they are other than Stan Caplan being one, nor can I remember exactly why each's signature was required, nor am I willing to go back and re-research it because the point is so ridiculous and void of knowledge of how certain business dealings are structured, and who is responsible for what with respect to a public corporation.

And, to be clear, I was not defending anyone. I was simply pointing out how nonsensical the point was that they continue to advance even still. Kinda like if you and I had a financial arrangement that was secured by you giving me some rights to your home as collateral, and you deciding you needed to use your home in another business transaction with a new partner, so you needed a release of my interest from me to make the new agreement. And through getting that release, you by agreement either had to compensate me and/or at the least get my release of the collateral. And after doing that, your wife were to then hold ME equally responsible for the deal you cut with your new partner and the results that ensued or to fault me for having a right to the compensation or to the collateral absent my release.

If that makes sense to you, then perhaps you and I don't share quite the same business perspective that I've come to think we do. For some reason, greeneyes and milestone seem to share that view. If you care to explore it more, I'm sure they have the info available, or you can probably track it down through the Comm Ag and M.A. agreements. Simply put, IMO, it's nothing more than an unfounded attempt to discredit certain shareholders due to their vocal criticism expressed her towards the BOD and Company Management.