Lets address your confusion.

I did. Why? Because it was yet another baseless witch hunt "Which hunt" ? For asking who was responsible for that conveniently timed tout sheet piece ? Are you afraid of more transparency ? ALL SEC reg 17(b) addresses is "consideration" (compensation). So, if they are not compensated for the writeup they do not have to disclose WHO fed them information, brought it to their attention, suggested or recommended they write it up. Perhaps you need to consider events from a less shallow point of view.

Did you actually read the tout sheet? Oh brother...

Did you actually read the post YOU made regarding OTC Magic and its practices? Did it say that all their promos are ALWAYS contracted for? Didn't I ask "WHO" ? Didn't it state that "OTCMagic.com and its management fully disclose that they receive fees from profiled companies or agents representing the profiled companies. Ah yes, "fees", if only it was that simple . These fees may be paid in cash, securities of profiled companies, or both, and will be completely disclosed in each profile"? Was there such a disclosure in that promo/profile (NO)? I see. Tell you what, you contact OTCMagic, or one of their four other domains, or try ABR Consulting LLC located in Nevada, then when you get that "non working phone number", you track them to their home state of Arizona, then after you try that non connecting phone number, you try the next one, and then ... I suggest OTC Magic acted independently AFTER seeing other promos, ten times normal volume, and a recent 25% PPS increase. IMO, they were trying to capitalize on the momentum (after acquiring a stockpile of shares). You mention timing, well, there you have it. I do ? The PPS and volume had already peaked! "Already peaked" ? The highest two consecutive days of volume since way back on March 1st, were August 22nd and August 23rd, the date of the tout publication; with the stock price achieving new highs only after the tout release; so your statements are wrong.

Now, think this through a little further.... How would the PTSC BoD benefit from such an action? By selling shares (which they would have to disclose per SEC regs)? Oh, and as frequently mentioned, Cliff doesn't/didn't own any shares to sell. You are the only one even remotely suggesting this was the motivation for the Tout.

Also, what hazards would be present if PTSC had been directly involved? "Hazards" to the company, or to it's already weak investment reputation and the buyers of those shares; old and new ? Authorizing a misrespresentation of MMP ownership? Who other than you mentioned, suggested or introduced "misrepresentation" ? Authorizing and funding a tout sheet within days of the release of a 10-K (the content of which they were fully cognizant)? All highly unlikely, IMO. Your opinion has proven time and again as being off the mark and poorly considered, so ....

As for the tout sheet.... Other than the MMP ownership issue, was there anything wrong or unreasonable in that tout sheet (other than too many explanation points)? Aren't the things mentioned in that tout sheet EXACTLY why we stay invested, enduring seemingly endless delays and associated agony? As usual, you miss the critical and central issues of most discussions, in this recent example, it's about the "TIMING".

I find it interesting that the only poster directing attention to the CONTENT of that tout sheet has been me. And no, I didn't authorize, fund or have prior knowledge re: that or any tout sheet (other than perhaps an article re: the ShBoom in April 1999, which I wouldn't characterize as a tout sheet since it was published in a technical info domain and not a business/stock/investment-oriented site). As you say, we already know the material of the tout's content, that is old news, so perhaps it's obviousness IS the only reason why you're "the only poster directing attention" to that

FWIW, yes, fwiw indeed