Again, you're wrong to say I don't get it. I get it perfectly! As I said, you see his views as tainted.

Hmmm....yes, I see. Let's not focus on whether they're actually valid, because, regardless of whether they are or aren't valid, Stan Caplan's critiques are awkward. This is so he signed an agreement the COMPANY prepared and REQUESTED/REQUIRED him to sign, that, because in addition to being what the COMPANY wanted, and NEEDED, also served the interests of Stan Caplan. Clearly he (not to mention the 7 or so others) should have REJECTED these clearly improperly-skewed-toward-him benefits contained in this agreement. Clearly he should have done so DESPITE the company's representation and assurances that this was in their best interests, was the result of significant compensation-worthy "efforts" in negotiation, was the best possible agreement they could get, was fully vetted by the ?counsel?, (or at least by the on-BOD counsel - lol), and was pushing for its approval, and pitching to him their pending agreements with TPL as the panacea for PTSC's woes, and the first step to the proverbial pot of gold.

Not to mention that in his prescience, he should have obvously known PTSC would later agree to the breach of the independent manager provision for the PDS management committee, or that the lawyers and accountant who were so handsomely compensated for their "efforts" would fail to assure the adequate enforcement or oversight in the execution of the agreements, or that, they would squander the proceeds of the agreements so easily, or that they would either hide behind the language, or allow TPL to bully them into submission on the disclosure front, or.....etc....etc...etc.

And we should remind posters here of that whenever the opportunity arises so they'll pay attention to this non-PTSC related topic. It is helpful to do so rather than pay attention to the lack of leadership at the company, the lack of vision, the lack of BOD and Management OWNERSHIP, the feeble and inconsistent communication history and lack of improvement, the consistent and now increasing cloaking of the transactions of the main life blood of the company, and the disdain and disinterest they show for the shareholders who own the company they steward and manage. Raher, let's discuss the "awkwardness" of someone's mostly spot on critiques about the company.

Roger that!