Actually, contrary to your assertion, I get it PERFECTLY!
You and others want to hold "certain seudo (sic) insiders" equally responsible as the BOD for the actual agreements with TPL, and the consequences of PTSC's poor enforcement of them over the last nearly 6 years, because those "insiders" received contractually due compensation and were required to sign waiver, consent and release agreements in exchange for that compensation and to allow the M.A., Comm. Ag. and LLC agreements to be consumated between PTSC and TPL. And you feel in light of the compensation they received, they gave up their right to be critical of the BOD's decisions or at best, you look at their viewpoints as tainted.
I get it! Only, I mostly disagree with you and for clearly explained and perfectly valid reasoning which you can't refute. On one side were contractually agreed to compensation and terms the company forged, agreed to, and were obligated to with people with no fiduciary responsibility to me or you, on the other side were no such contractual obligations, though still compensation for ambiguous "efforts" to stewards of the company who have a fiduciary responsibility to you, me and those pseudo-insiders. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, no cash compensation of any kind was authorized for BOD members at that time in the company history. If their are/were, please provide the link and I'll stand corrected.
You want to conflate responsibility, and I prefer to hold those who direct and manage our company responsible. We simply disagree. I focus on those running the company, and you and others, through issues like this, want to diffuse the focus to include those who were involved, albeit mostly peripherally, in the process over a half decade ago.
