Then why not ask me? LOL
I'll save you the trouble.....
All information as to requirements to petition for inclusion on the proxy has been posted here. I have shared that info with a good friend corporate lawyer (he used to occupy the office next to mine at Hughes) who lives over the hill in Santa Barbara. He's lining things up - yes posturing - to be prepared to act (meet, walk through forms, etc., complete them, transmit) should I decide to proceed.
Meanwhile, as I've stated a couple of times, I'm assessing the viability of my candidacy prior to possibly "exercising the system" for no apparent reason. I am currently a candidate as much as Pete or Stan.
I've also been waiting to find out PTSC's response to Stan's submittal. Accepted, or not? If not, why not? The latter would potentially be helpful to me in preparing my submittal, perhaps avoiding something that may have eliminated Stan from contention. A reasonable approach IMO. After all, if you were pursuing employment for a particular job, and a friend had pursued the same job and was denied for some reason, wouldn't you want to know that reason before, say, an interview? I should add that there is no "requirement" for Stan to share PTSC's response, assuming he got one. It would just be helpful, potentially. But I respect Stan's privacy, and if he chooses not to share that info here, that's fine. This, again, assumes there is info available to be shared. I'll call him if I observe continued interest by shareholders in my candidacy.
As for Pete's timeliness, yes he acted well in advance. Are you suggesting that Stan's submittal was not timely? Do you understand the word "timely"? In this case, it would seem to be at any point before the cutoff.
As to my platform, I've already advised that it is essentially the same as Stan's. Recall I was involved in the development his suggestions as stated in his letter to PTSC. Stan and I had talked, saw common ground, and - based largely on our talk - I drafted a set of suggestions for improving the stance of PTSC that I coordinated with some other shareholders and provided to Stan. The intent was to develop a set of suggestions that would be acceptable to the vast majority of shareholders. With my blessings, Stan coordinated those suggestions with Ronran. Stan advised that Ron found those suggestions to be acceptable, though he wanted to add one. BTW, not all suggestions were incorporated into Stan's letter to PTSC, but the more essential ones were (though originally no candidate was identified, only the desired attributes of a candidate). In any case, if you have a problem with MY platform, I suggest you consult with Stan and/or Ron.
I appreciate your wishes of good luck. Assuming you are backing Stan's candidacy, and recognizing our platforms are essentially the same, I find it interesting that you are unwilling to endorse me in addition to Stan. What's more important, the changes we desire in the interest of all shareholders or your personal attitudes towards me? Wouldn't endorsement of both of us enhance the possibilities?
SGE
