Thank you for your balanced post.

Several times you used the phrase "we don't know for sure" - and that's one of my points:

We don't know what were the real reasons for former decisions and we don't know who exactly was responsible for what decision in what percentage.
In the current situation we have three people left who know PTSC all inside out:
- Flowers
- Felcyn
- Johnson

Let's assume Flowers was "in the mix" of the Crossflo decision (he definitely SHOULD have been), can we from outside say if he was critical or pro the acquisition? And even if he was pro do we know if he was the guy who followed the CEO or vice versa?
Isn't it more likely that the demission of Goerner shows Goerner was the guy with main power?
Wouldn't it be quite dangerous to change not only the CEO and VP but also the CFO who might have done a good job the years before even if he supported the Crossflo deal (which we don't know)?
And doesn't the same go for the two remaining BoD members?
Even if they were partly responsible for the Crossflo deal does it mean they have to go because of this allegedly mistake? ( I know you make them responsible for all the stuff over the last years including the divies - I see this completely different.)

In a nutshell: all these posts by Ron, you and others demand a paradox:
those with the powers shall nominate "better" manager and BoD members (who say what is better for PTSC NOW?) and eliminate themselves after this.

IMO in the current situation of complete insecurity regarding the future of the company these three people are ok/good. Neither I see the possibilty to find "better" people (which will cost a lot more) nor do I see a possibility for those new people to do anything proactive with PTSC as long as the sales channel = TPL and the "product production" = USPTO are not intact.

IF things turn out to the good side I'll definitely demand a change in BoD and a new CEO (if he then decides to dismiss Flowers it is his responsibilty) but so far all this permanent hammering on the BoD what they did wrong (in your eyes) and what would be better today (in your expectation) is useless.

GLTY