thank you mr. bailey for presenting mr moore's view and explanation. obviously there were different views on ownership. very complex shboom next generation shboom etc. my information came directly from ptsc. they thought and went to court trying to present their view. a decision was never rendered and none of us will never know who was right. it is refreshing to know that mr moore had more going for him then presented in the past. i will be the first to appologize for any inconvience to him . this could have been presented long ago, to clarify there was a different point of view and most inconvience would have been eliminated.

unfortunately with his dealing with tpl, how could anything be construed as constructful or beneficial to ptsc shareholders. after all we owned 50 percent of the mmp by buying out mr fish. moore and ptsc could have partnered and and owned 50 percent respectfully. one would have to remember ptsc would probably be a much different co. if a different outcome in that relationship had happened. i for one can not imagine any one teaming with tpl with his past track record. so you see guilt by association.my view etc. he had opportunity to communicate with ptsc shareholders and explain the differences of opinion and why they settled without a judge ruling. we ptsc shareholders will probably never know why es our bod went this route. you are absolutely right no one should be slandered. we were operating on information supplied by and viewed from management as they thought truthful.