Again, you show your illogic is similar to toooldtofly's. I certainly believe the "chance" of things getting better is less than the chance of things staying the same or things getting worse. If you believe otherwise, then as the market proves, you're in the minority.

That being said, selling because of that at this point is no more logical than saying that the person playing roulette should get out of the game because he's lost a bunch of the money he sat down at the table with and the chances aren't good that he'll recover it. The actual likelihood is that he will lose the rest of it. However, there is a possibility that he might win something as well, and if his number hits, he might win most or all of it, or even more back.

According to your logic, he should simply quit. You ignore the oft stated risk factors/tolerance, personal goals/situation, etc. If the guy's playing with his mortgage money, perhaps it IS logical to sell before it all goes away. If he's playing with money he considers can be invested at high risk, then it's PEFRECTLY LOGICAL to continue playing. Ultimately it's his choice (not yours) and the casino is open and there is no law that prevents him from doing it other than not actually physically having the money to risk and thus participate in the game.

So your argument is a straw man argument.

Extending the roulette analogy to be more apropos to the PTSC situation would be to say that the roulette dealer has been screwing up the pure chance nature of the game by giving some of your money to the guy next to you (TPL) even though it was due you. Or even by improperly spinning the wheel and placing the ball either due to incompetence, or willful intent and thus impacting what should have been the proper chances of winning at the game. Perhaps they even took a tip from your winnings even though they screwed up the payout, and even though you didn't offer it (Flowers). Or instead of receiving the 35 to 1 payout you should have when you hit the number in that round of play, you instead get 5 to 1 because they mismanaged the casino's bank at the table and didn't have enough to pay you anymore. Or the dealer gives the guy beside you that has chips on the same number that you did and it hits, but because he also has some chips he kept off the table and hadn't yet played, the dealer still pays him for those unplayed chips as well (Lincoln warrants), etc.

Those issues are nothing that a change in the dealers behavior or a change in the actual dealer wouldn't correct. And being in Las Vegas, I know it's nothing that the Gaming Commission would tolerate! lol.

As for the Apple deal, of course! As do you! When are you going to get it and post it for all those who still doubt?!

Too bad in his haste to screw PTSC and Moore, and in our BOD's haste to hide the fiduciary irresponsibility, Leckrone hadn't required Apple to pay in shares of Apple stock instead of in cash, eh?! I'm sure Apple would have been more than willing to pay in the 20K shares of stock a $5M fee would have represented then rather than in cash, and if so, they proably would have been willing to pay 50K shares. Heck, that would've been no problem for them, you'd think. 50K shares at today's price would be nearly $35M. Much more in line with what one would have expected from the most vaulable company in the world and tech icon that Apple is.