I really wasn't surprised to the the reaction by many here. That's why I commented that I "might be banished from the board for this".
Was it an attack? Easily perceived that way. Hopefully, after reading my prior message, many will recognize I could have been a lot nastier. I could have claimed that Brian didn't even try. I didn't. I could have claimed that Brian was totally incompetent in conveying the concerns of shareholders. I didn't. I directed the "fault" on the BoD and other memebers of the Advisory Board for apparently ignoring Brian's input, if it was even solicited.
Questioning his decision to blast PTSC while wearing the "Shareholder's Reperesntative" hat was a valid one, IMO.
Questioning his decision to retain a position in which, through admission via his many complaints, he was ineffective was also a valid one, IMO.
But the reactions did not reflect the above. People claim that I said "the low PPS is all Brian's fault". Nope. People jump to the defense of Brian but, though admirable, this ignored the apparent reality of the situation. People encourage Brian to "stay on". To this, I have to ask "why?". He was in an impossible position; impotent with a title.
In a separate post, I did question some of Brian's recent posts. Much of this concern had not only to with what he was saying (and the lack of basis IMO), his extremely insulting comments about anyone else's conjecture (though they included supporting facts and "clues", and invitations to argue them down, which HE chose to decline), but to do with the fact that he IS the Shareholder's Representative and has the ear of EVERYONE. And some of what he was saying (MOUs) was flat out wrong IMO - especially in this context, or completely unsubstantiated (TPL screwed us). Yet these things were coming from the mouth of our Shareholder's Rep. And everyone's listening. He needed to be called on it, IMO, and I stepped up.
SGE
