Hi Peter.  Thanks for taking the time.

This first one might seem pedantic but I'd rather see a CEO of a company I'm pretty heavily invested in (for me) get everything right and look like he's getting everything right.  You said: Now I am not inferring that leasing has anything to do with current negotiations...

The word is implying not inferring.  When something comes from you, you are implying (or not implying as in this case).  When you hear or read something and form an opinion from that, you are inferring.  Please don't start sounding like the internet illiterates who pollute social media.  Please please please.

Now to matter two.  You said: And I have been very clear that leasing by a third party does not affect how we account for the revenues.

I can see that and understand that, and I can also see how a leasing option increases the number of customers you can entertain.  I can also see how leasing might complicate a negotiation.  In a straight sale there are two parties involved in negotiations -- you and the customer.  In a lease situation, there are three -- you, the customer, and the leasing company.  I can see how this could slow things down, particularly in the earliest situations (like now) where no three-party routines have been established and the leasing company in particular might be gingerly feeling its way forward, despite its expertise and experience with other products and industries.  This might be particularly noteworthy to investors (for good and not so good reasons) in a situation like the one PYR is in where indications were that Client A looked headed for a sale, but you implied in the recent Q-and-A PR (and we inferred) that this might now be changing to a lease situation.  Can you comment at all on the relative speed of a sale situation vs. a lease situation in the context of this paragraph?

Slow might be fast, but time is still time and one can never get it back.

Anyway, many thanks for your time.  Greatly appreciated.