You wrote "1. at the shareholder meeting i never heard any "slam dunk" comment." and bunch of other "stuff" (your word).

Well, he did make the "slam dunk" comment about the Markman result. about 6 feet in front of me.

That said, it's just not worth responding to the rest of the comments, other than to say that if you bothered to look at SEC documents you'll Cliff Flowers has a very good severance package and that the number of shares outstanding has nothing to do with a salary or bonus. The bonus is defined as discretionary as the BOD paid it out even when their own income from PTSC was exceeding PTSC's gross income. Maybe you have forgotten the squandering of company money, the secrecy of the settlement with TPL, the comment made by your beloved Cliff Flowers that he, the CFO and Interim CEO and member of the Board, said that "PTSC is too risky an investment" or maybe you decided not hear hear that gem too.

Flowers IS overpaid. Period. There are just 3 employees (presumably him, and receptionist and a mystery person) so not much people management there. There's only one source of PTSC income (plus any interest) so really not much CFO work either (certainly no collections or deliquency issues to chase down). There's really not much corporate management work either: it's pretty much something like Carlton Johnson says "We're doing this", Gloria says "OK" and checks her bank balance and with the 2 out of 3 vote assured, Cliff Flowers just checks his bank balance. From an operations standpoint, so long as the office door is locked on his way out on the days when he actually goes in, what else is there? It's not as though he has to worry about cyber-threats, servers down, buggy software that stops big transactions, plant failures that block production flow etc etc. Frankly, except for the adrenaline rush twice a month and three times in the bonus month it must be almost boring. I doubt he has a pager or smartphone to be on call 24x7x52 in case of a production issue and he's certainly not accountable to shareholders - contemptuous, yes (but all 3 are) but not accountable.

The "Share Holders' Annual Meeting" ("SHAM") did indeed consist of three parts (plus sundry after meeting comments) and all three were under control of the PTSC BOD which determined the end of the third session. In any case, when shareholders get together in one place once a year, isn't that also an annual meeting of shareholders?

You're entitled to your views and opinions but it seems you may have been a bit too "near beer'. :-)