Looks like I need to chime in.

I honestly don't recall Milestone being a strong advocate (maybe one or two posts on the subject?) of the "Delusional PTO Contingency Theory". If anyone were to be crowned "King" of that conjecture, it would probably be me. You and I went round and round on this subject, here and privately, ultimately agreeing to disagree (and there's nothing wrong with that). While some may have bought in to the concept and others remained open to the possibility, and recognizing that the subject did receive a lot (too much) attention at various times, the conjecture from me was I believe consistently characterized as "delusional". IMO, that's hardly a declaration of an absolute. And, as I concluded long ago, we'll probably never know one way or the other unless there is some action in Texas, which isn't known to have happened yet, suggesting that it never will (seeing the '336 done, and the '148 with a final rejection). We'll likely never know. The point here is that I don't believe it is fair to "place blame" for that conjecture on Milestone - dump it on me.

As for Milestone's true identity, does it really matter? Sure, it is a "curiosity", but that's about it. I value his input as I do yours and that of many others (some of whom would probably surprise you). And there is the extremely strong possibility that full disclosure would be about as important as the true identity of anyone else posting here. Has EVERYONE else posting here disclosed their true identity? As a matter of fact, very few have - I can only think of three. Though I've never come straight out and identified myself, anyone who has paid attention over the years would know my name. But I may serve as a perfect example. Google my name, and you could easily conclude that I'm the President and CEO of a recognizable computer/software retailer based in CO. Not me, different person, same name. And no I'm not CEO of that nail care company either! LOL

As for candidates for the BoD for the next election, even with a return to five members, wouldn't those candidates still have to be approved (qualifications, etc.) by the existing BoD to get on the ballot? There's hurdle number one. Now assume complete success, and candidates of your choosing get on the ballot, and are voted in. Unless the "new regime" constituted a majority, though their voices would be heard, would any of their initiatives be approved? I suggest that for any new initiatives to be approved they would have to be in near perfect alignment with the desires of the BoD majority. Likewise the ability to block initiatives proposed by others. But perhaps it is enough just to know that their voices would be heard (and it might be, and maybe this should be or is the focus). And finally, assume that "PTSC land" were eventually cleared of debris and became the planned Dividends Distribution Company - what initiatives would be brought forth? New M&A? Or would decisions be confined to how much in dividends, how much for share buy-back, how much for war chest/treasury?

Just some things to consider.

SGE