"I think everyone on the board is clear as to what Gloria did say, the context and why she said it could show what she really meant"

Well, I'm glad you agree on that. "Context" seems irrelevant for such a simple and seemingly genuine admission, unless you have a spin on it that you'd care to share.

According to Agoracom, unless you are a reincarnation or an alter ego, you only joined this board a couple of days ago. It was reasonable to infer that you are a 'newbie' and not aware of much of the history. This was reinforced IMHO by your opening salvo blaming everything on "Validity issues". My post was intended to help you on some counterpoints.

Any "validity issue" did NOT lose the multi-millions of dollars that the BOD squandered on failed investments, severance (aka "keep your mouth shut") packages for people they ended up not liking (i.e. who probably had integrity) and self-indulgent fees, stipends and probably expense claims.

Any "validity issues" possibly DID slow the flow from initial licensing revenue to a point where the BOD nonetheless took more out of the company than it apparently received. But then so did Leckrone's positioning and tactical gaming where he controlled the income valve by how much effort he did or did not put into MMP licensing - and this manipulation has been confirmed more than once by members of the BOD.

Since it seems you know it all you are right, there is no need to remind you of history. It is either already known to you or you will ignore it. I just hope it doesn't repeat itself.

M&A and thus diversification was not a bad idea, in my opinion. It's just that, like with everything else, the BOD kept saying that they knew what they were doing until it became so apparent that they did not that one of them was moved to come clean on their lack of skills, which lack appears to violate the very publsihed rules by which director candidates are selected. I feel sure this is one of the reasons shareholders prefer a dividend approach to more M&A - at least once we have the dividend checks the BOD can't fritter that little bit away.

Given your apparent research into, and knowledge of, PTSC history can you answer one simple but troubling question? Does CJ recuse himself from any BOD voting which relates to warrants, stock dilution, loans for the company etc. because of the apparent conflict of interest related to his being employed by Mr. Swartz?