I'm not arguing that his words CAN be parsed and interpreted many ways, if one wants to find them and try to apply every possiblity to them. Rather, and especially in the context of this being RG's FIRST post SEC filing of his tenure, what I am asking you is WHAT MOTIVATION would RG have to be essentially intentionally misleading, as being a smart guy, he'd have to expect his words as phrased would be taken by the majority to mean that the J's money is included. If he didn't think people would take it the way I have, then I think we've overestimated his skills. If he did it on purpose, I think he's opened himself and the company up to liability. I personally think he's a pretty smart and capable guy, and he came in to set the things he CAN control on a path of clarity and direction and his letter was a first strong and bold step in that direction, as much as it disapponts me as to what I think it says about the settlements. But those settlements are not his doing so IMO, with his language, he put the settlements behind him, and is moving on to the M&A beef that he was brought in to work on.
As for the term transaction, ALL of PTSC's SEC filings refer to License Agreements, for all the deals PDS has made. It does the same for the J's deals. So IMO, your getting into the Clintonesque arguement of what is the definition of "is"?
