Contrary to what you concluded, my point was not to discredit you. It was to point out that all of us (I isolated you because it is you that I'm discussing this issue with) have continuously ASSUMED positive explanations to unstated or incomplete information from the company. In my three years plus of being invested in PTSC, I can remember ZERO times where the POSITIVE assumptions/explanations bore out. Perhaps you can, I simply can't. If you can, please, please share!
As for trying to deceive anyone here, I can unequivocally deny that I have ever tried to deceive anyone with any of my statements or postings. The only time I think where one might quesiton that is in my revenue projections for the MMP Licensing, specifically around the time of the J3 filings. Even then, I was trying to be conservative compared to most here, and it turned out I was actually wildly optimistic. Even in your accusation of me on this issue, please tell me what am I deceiving anyone about? I've been completely forthright. I've posted my research and my conclusions, and stated that based on their performance historically, absent what should have been and still should be a simple explanation which they can't seem to provide, I can't trust them to be working in the interest of ALL shareholders.
Additionally, I don't, nor have I, accused you of trying to deceive anyone in this or any other instance.
As for this issue in particular, I'm not asserting that this will hurt PTSC in anyway, other than the damage it does by exposing their poor internal controls, oversight, or decision making in putting the PR out the way they did. I'm simply indicating that based on the performance of the group who run the company, (with RG and Schrock I think for the most part, though not totally, exempt), what have they done that would give you CONFIDENCE NOT to question their actions and decisions? I'd point to the TPL agreement as one, but while I think overall its a definite positive, what they've done with the windfall from it seems to indicate that event wasn't more than a one-trick pony and perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
There are a miriad of possiblities of how it can possibly hurt the company, from questionable partners/alliances in the LLC, to general hostile goals of the LLC. I admit, those are UNLIKELY, but you or I have no way of knowing other than trusting that Felcyn and Johnson made a good choice/agreement. Personally, I think Baroni is quite impressive, but conversely, he may be so sharp, connected, and strategically intelligent that he may out maneuver the talent at PTSC. Whether his company is registered and officially legal doesn't change any of that of course, aside from providing an entity against which PTSC can go after if need be, but that it isn't registered certainly doesn't support that he is positively minded either.
You choose to ignore the possibilities, because, admittedly I grant you, they are unlikely. But conversely, I have yet to hear a plausible scenario out of you that would support the PR worded as it was, and the company unable to provide a reason, or an explanation as to why it was, or to admit that it was a simple mistake.
Keep in mind, all that it would take is to clarify the question asked at best, or if you want to be technically correct, post a corrective PR on their website. It costs the company NOTHING to set the record straight. Why haven't they or don't they?
