You say:
"....you have also demonstrated a tendency to defend your positions to the etreme point of refusing to admit when you're mistaken, when you are."
Name one solitary instance. Just one. And perhaps clarify "mistaken". Per YOU? And in those cases, what do I typically do? Agree to disagree.
I am known for admitting to mistakes in my postings (as are you, I might add), frequently with me being the one to identify the error.
BTW, when I argue a proposition that I myself characterize as "delusional", that hardly counts.
BTW, when I say "in the best interest of shareholders", that means the majority, if not all shareholders. I guess I have to add a lot of unnecessary words to make myself abundantly clear and avoid your dreamed-up "caveats". And people wonder why my posts are often lengthy - that's why.
You suggest "...replacements should be people with strong qualifcaitons and network connections in the fields that PTSC is involved, a decent history of effective stewardship/leadrship in those areas, and a respect for the people for whom they would be working."
What if Stan or I possessed strong qualifications if the field of business PTSC (PDSG, and Holocom) is pursuing, a long history of performing, leading and overseeing such business on a very large scale, and demonstrated respect for shareholders, AND a track record of accomplishment for the benefit of shareholders? Not good enough? "Network connections" is an imparative?
How important are "network connections" in the acquisition of a Gov't prime contract? (Answer: virtually NONE). A subcontract? (Answer: a lot, MAYBE). To think otherwise suggests complete ignorance of that field of business. Do you know how prime contractors are solicited? Selected?
We've had Baroni, with all his network connections, working for us for about a year. How many contracts has PDSG signed? That should help answer the question, with information you already KNOW.
FWIW,
SGE
