CON-Men ..LOL

LOL.. shysters LOL

I'm so interested to hear how you explain what happened, when nothing positive happens for these Share buyers.

This excuse will be a DOOZY !

Naturally, like all my other posts, you'll remove this one too. Oh well .. lol

Filing ? LOL.. Must be a BK filing coming.

TOO FUNNY

How about one of you new pumpers post a link to the Float numbers.

YOu keep saying "low float", "low float". lol

This is the 2nd time I've asked.

Prove up the Float numbers of 42M that you post.


If the .003 price was going to rocket up from here, you wouldn't be spaming the message boards and pumping for 4 days like you've been doing, you'd be buying every share you could; and YOU'RE NOT.

"...we don't support Pumps, Promos, or BS.."

Glad to hear it.

Yup, see you at the finish line.

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=8631194-944-119239&type=sect&dcn=0001213900-12-002897

BSGC
Preferred stock, $0.0001 par value - authorized 1,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 79,657 and 79,657 shares, respectively

Common stock, $0.0001 par value - authorized 249,000,000 shares; issued and outstanding 144,027,690 and 137,027,690 shares, respectively.

Where do you arrive at the Float as only 42,000,000 ?

Your link to the float please.

Thanks, but you now post here constantly, so why not post your price objectives and predictions here too ?

A few of us early buyers on this Board want the stock to run, but judging from all the pumping and Board spaming, you guys are making this promotion activity and back and forth look like a professional P&D operation.

You're not part of a P&D campaign, are you ????

Hey Flex ,

Undervalued ? What price are you looking for here ?

1 cent ? 4 cents ? 8 cents ? 20 cents ?

I need your excellent DD

The boileroom is working hard.

I love it because I own lots of shares, but .. man, this is so obvious it's laughable.

You guys need a better script.

Thanks for the gains though :) !!!

BSGC is a pretend social media stock, it's REALLY a Patent Licensing opportunity play; but Management is either too incompetent to exploit it, or they are intentionally killing it.

I'm on the fence deciding which it is.

To keep the record up to date ...

August likely saw Felcyn take her usual monthly $8000 cash pay, Johnson his usual monthly $10,000 cash pay, and Flowers his usual $25,000 monthly cash pay.

I didn't post it for July, but they probably loaded their pockets with those same level paychecks then too; and the month before that, and the month before that; and on and on and on.

Collectively they've taken over $2.5 Million in cash out of PTSC in compensation ... They've likely got big fat personal bank accounts, while Shareholders have a thinly traded 10 cent stock.

PTSC leadership pays themselves handsomely; even when their decisions produce failure, even when the stock price is under a thin dime, and even when we lose money year after year.

I wonder what they spend all that easy money on, we KNOW it's not on PTSC stock

Yawn.. this NONactivity was expected by those of us smarter than the promoters and hypsters that control this board.

Leadership isn't trusted, so there is little interest by investors. The stock suffers because Management and leadership have a history of business failure, and highly questionable judgment.

Never diluted ?

LOL.. what do you think repricing Financing Warrants does ?

Don't even TRY to play with me.. lol

I own it already, but you're trying to sell snow to the Eskimos here

LOLOLOL

"Funny" indeed.. well, you're stiring up buys for someone wanting to get out.

1M in volume today and we've broken under 2 tenths of a cent (.002), and you've made BSGC posts on 6 boards. LOL

Are those your shares you're selling, or do you actually get paid for that of promotion helping to distribute shares ? lol

lol, Thanks for the numbers but that is not a "fully diluted" count, and you're just scratching the surface.

"all potentially dilutive securities, which include convertible notes, outstanding preferred stock, warrants and options, have been excluded from the computation, as their effect is antidilutive."

BigString has a "Going Concern" issue. "BigString believes that it does not have sufficient capital to fund operations for at least the next twelve months".

New Longterm Options for management: "On February 13, 2012, BigString repriced options to purchase 5,125,000 shares of BigString’s common stock under its Equity Incentive Plan. The exercise price of the repriced options was reduced to $0.02 per share and the term extended. As a result of this repricing, the original options were deemed cancelled and new options with an exercise price of $0.02 per share were deemed issued. In addition, the Company granted new options to certain of the Company’s employees and consultants. Options were granted at an exercise price of $0.02 per underlying share with 25% vesting every three months for one year."

The Financeers: "In February 2012, BigString issued 7,000,000 shares of its common stock upon the conversion of convertible notes totaling $105,000. The conversion price was $0.015 per share."

So much more to write, but this worthless and incapable leadership isn't worth my time right now.

The 8 and 8.25 trades are suspicious, but the volume is more important, and the lack of volume, only 23,000 after 2 hours, is telling us that PTSC stock is screaming that we have a credibility problem.

Investors believe PTSC is NOT trustable, that leadership has broken trust with Investors before and so they are likely to do it again.

This discouraging interest shows the lack of credibility, capability and competence the marketplace of investors has in the PTSC BOD and it's Management.

The MMs don't control volume, investors aren't buying at any price, so the excuse of the MMs minipulating the stock continues to be laughable.

Bough, thanks for the seat at the table view.

PTSC's words can no longer be trusted enough to move people to action.

PTSC leadership isn't trusted, so their words aren't trusted, and so investment in this company isn't trusted.

For the past six years of Shareholder Equity and stock price distruction, that's been 100% accurate.

Yesterday should have been the biggest bang for the latest PR.

Yesterday PTSC was not even able to break the 1M volume trade mark.

It looks like current shareholders were the only one's adding to their positions, and from the volume of only 50K two and a half hours into today's open, and a price back under 10 cents, it looks like they've spent all their money.

PTSC leadership still has no credibility in the eyes of Investors.

It isn't enough that the MMP will generate more revenues from Licensing, it's that for the past 6 years this leadership has proven themselves untrustable to manage any revenues in a way that increases the stock price.

The earlier morning volume was encouraging, but it's dropping off now along with the price. Lets hope late morning brings renewed interest. I continue to think it's mainly present Shareholders adding to their positions on these PRs rather than new Shareholders.

Since PTSC says they have already actually filed Complaints, eventually that news will get filtered down to those company's watchers, and that will bring us more attention.

There are many issues with today's PR.

Complaints with the ITC are great, it's a streamlined process compared to a typical civil court proceeding. Aditionally, they are paralleling Civil complaints in the N District of Calif.

The question I have is how much of this aggressiveness can be backed up; and will it.

I also wonder why they speak as if the 336 has already received a supportive ruling from the Judge. Unless they know something that is yet to be publicized, it could be a dangerous front running strategy.

I too am interested to see tomorrow's trading, lets hope it's not a selloff opportunity like those positive Ruling announcements were just last month.

More important than price tomorrow, watch the volume; more will be learned there at this point.

All in all, it's certainly a positive change.

"Am i missing something? "

Yes, you're missing a great deal; unfortunately you often do.

Look, no offense, but you need to be better prepared and informed before writing or debating on substantive issues/topics.

Lets just drop it.

Have a nice evening.

"Really, thats not what the q says."

First : What "q" are you talking about ?

Second: If you can afford it, please go buy some intelligence or someone to debate for you, it's not fun exposing your incompetence on matters dealing with PTSC

NOW.... what verbage does the "SEC filing" say about who the "Vendor" is, is not, has been, or has not been named ?

"we get to pick a whole other marketing representitive that will look out for our best interests!"

The new "Vendor" name was purposely redacted (removed), WHY ?

What purpose or harm would releasing the name of the Vendor (approved licensing Agent/Negotiator) achieve ?

It would seem to me to be just the opposite. The announcement of a high profile and successful Vendor with a rock solid reputation would be a positive and motivating incentive for the 300 companies that have already been notified and the hundred more that are already aware that they are notification targets to be more accomodating and receptive to licensing.

I believe in order for this agreement to have been signed, there had to have ALREADY been a new Vendor selected; for all kinds of practical and fiduciary reasons.

Can you tell us any reason why the principals at TPL could not, under a newly or differently formed corporation, be PTSC's newly named Vendor ?

"I dont dislike you just your methods"

Thanks, but no worries. I'm not here to make friends, I'm just here to see that my money and I don't get gamed or cheated.

I'm a believer that "Sunlight disinfects".

Bravo, Never.

"Those such as myself have HOPE and therefore post Optimistic
thoughts."

"HOPE" is not an investment strategy

The fact that you post "optimistic thoughts" because you have "hope", unfortunately indicates that you cannot point to or articulate FACTS that would intelligently support the odds of success for the stock.

After taking in approx $300,000,000, the MMP is already a success. PTSC, in large part due to it's failed Leadership, is not.

Now, with the final ruling on the 336 due, we'll see if the MMP can survive for even more success. Regardless if the MMP gets a favorable ruling, with this leadership and their history of operational and investment failure, I suspect investors will shun the stock; or it will trade at a discount compared to if other people were on the BOD and running the company.

You are so off the mark about the implications of the new contractual relationships and how they pay a role, it would take too long a post to try to clue you in.

You are in a complete fog about what was just signed.

"Do you think that he MAY own many shares of some other stocks and is tapped out of ready funds to use for PTSC.."

"Should he sell his other investments to buy Patriot stock.."


After taking about $1,500,000 in cash from PTSC, the company he is the CEO of, he can't afford even 100 shares, 1000 shares, 10,000 shares even at 8 cents ??

LOL LOL Stop, LOL LOL ..oh, STOP.. My side hurts from laughing so hard

LOLOLOL, yeah .. sure .. Right .. What a crack up !!!


THAT ANSWER IS TOO FUNNY :) lololol

"Why don't you post a chart and defend telling people to buy the stock at prices previous to todays trading ..2007 ? 2008 ?, 2009 ?, 2010 ?, 2011 ?, 2012 ?????? (and don't just pick the narrow band of time the absolute low point occurred)."

LOL, Yeah, I didn't think could, or would.


You also forgot .. Tell me why even the CEO apparently doesn't think enough of his own leadership/success abilities with PTSC to buy shares at 5 or 8 cents when his Options are priced at 45 cents ???


He's pulled out about $1.5M in cash from Salary/bonus' since 2007, how good of an investment does he think PTSC is ??? How many shares does he own ?

LOL

"Yet ive never heard one positive re-enforcement from you to as why your invested and would encourage others to invest."

Unlike you(and others), I'm not willing to hussle and swindle others into buying a stock which has gone down in price for 6 straight years running. Yes, I'm a Shareholder, but I don't lie and Con people even if doing so might make me a few dollars.

Have you seen a chart ? I've posted them before.

Why don't you post a chart and defend telling people to buy the stock at prices previous to todays trading ..2007 ? 2008 ?, 2009 ?, 2010 ?, 2011 ?, 2012 ?????? (and don't just pick the narrow band of time the absolute low point occurred).

Lets see how honest you are. Go ahead, defend buying this stock, defend telling others how great of an investment this would have been had they bought. The short pops sales are not a reason to invest, those are too far and few; and the potential for a complete price collapse to 3 or 4 cents (or worse) is entirely possible with the MMP uncertainties, and bumbling and history of leadership failure by Gloria, Carl and Cliff.

Hell, the CEO has options priced at 45 cents, yet even he won't buy PTSC stock at 5 and 8 cents ..LOL, why should anyone else ???

You are so out of touch or intentionally misrepresenting the reality of the situation, it's laughable.

More "to the moon" type of posting silliness; you guys are hilarious. No analysis, no thought, no evidence, no facts.

Most of you here are clueless, and wouldn't know critical thinking from the cartoons images on a bubblegum wrapper.

Does anyone know if PTSC leadership has their friends and family posting on message boards ? It's not illegal and other companies have been caught doing it, so with such shameful corporate performance and continued anti transparency requests to the courts and the SEC, I can't imagine any arms-length investors would genuinely support these _________________ (fill in the blank).

The removal of TPL as "Vendor" is potentially positive, HOWEVER, you are over optimistic in your reading, interpretation and implication of those clauses.

Although selection of the Licensing Vendor exclusively by PTSC (on paper) is a radical change, there is still plenty of opportunity for "expense and more" through Allicense; and TPL, through PDS, until we know otherwise, has equal control with PTSC over MMP decisonmaking.

Who is the new "Vendor" ? They may not be chosen yet, but I highly and seriously doubt they haven't already chosen one. I suspect that PTSC and PDS will continue to keep the Vendor's name confidential. It could even be a new independent TPL or PDS created entity for all we know.

"A new MMP Program Vendor" .. As I read it, by "Mutual Agreement", TPL will no longer be the lead on Licensing.

Except for the 3 current cases (infringers) presently in litigation, it looks like TPL is being cut out as the exclusive Licensing Agent of PDS, with PDS assuming that role and "selection of a new MMP Program Vendor by PTSC to replace TPL", but PDS will continue contracting directly with Alliacense for Support. However, TPL is still a half member of PDS.

Why is TPL cutting back from their activities ?? I think it's due to TPL's legal problems because of the successful Brown suit/award, and also their impending Moore (and other ?) legal troubles. Personally, I would not be surprised to see TPL eventually need to cough up Moore's interest back to him. That said ... PTSC Shareholders better hope that does not happen (I've written at length why in the past).

If TPL is in formal "reorganization", or soon to be, then as I recall, this mutual agreement will change the previous Agreement terms upon which ownership interests adjusted when one of the parties suffered such a structural Organization change.

IF the above it true, with the entry of this new agreement, I believe PTSC has either just exercised or just surrendered their right to exert additional control over the MMP.

(ps... yes, I'm aware of my statement just above, and the earlier bolded text indicating a selection by PTSC. But PTSC's selection of the Vendor is entirely separate from voting control within the PDS entity over MMP licensing and decisionmaking activities. This imformation was not released or was redacted)

Unfortunately, it doesn't look that way to me. As I've written in the past, and nothing has occurred since to change my view, I believe it's more likely we'll see the 5s again than have just seen the bottom.

What are your indications that a "solid bottom" was found ?

Thanks for the exchange... one last retort

"Furthermore, as time tolls on the Patent, the potential recovery becomes less and less and the attractiveness of share desirability falls with the lessened time for that recovery. " Comment: Never underestimate lawyers to invent ways to collect, especially if the date is a "Hard Date", which IMO, is still debatable based on whether the re-exams have/will give the Patents a longer life span. No one knows the correct answer to that question as yet. Nobody !!

I can tell you with complete assurance and confidence, that the "re-exams" neither "have" nor "will" give the patents a longer lifespan.

Signed
Mr Nobody ;)

Bough .. you said: "if MPP is worth 1/2 billion that still gets past $1"

Public legal affadavits by CJ (PTSC) value the MMP Portfolio at at least $1B. IMO, the value is somewhat more ~$1.5B.Possibly, but beyond personal suspicions, have you any support for this number ? Question is How BIG is the Universe??.Unfortunately, "size" is also restricted by "time" and "practicality" in this case Cliff has indicated PTSC's net net is ~25% after taxes, operating expenses, legal etc. If so, then using baugh's numbers, PTSC's $200M half share drops down to an even lower $150M or 38 cents per share full valuation.

Potential licensees are cash-rich currently, less likely to quibble over an extra million or two, Why interrupt current business plans for a gnat licensor?? Additionally, you discount the potential value of "steady cashflow stream" of dividends for a few years. No, I don't discount it, but there is presently no formal dividend policy/requirement. However, assuming the BOD actually does issue as large of Dividends as prudent and feasible, lets even say $40M per year for 3-4 years; that is only 30-40 cents per share. Furthermore, as time tolls on the Patent, the potential recovery becomes less and less and the attractiveness of share desirability falls with the lessened time for that recoveryAlso, there is a thing called Momentum. "Momentum" is great, but to what end ? Imo the time constraints on the Patents (absent some extension) counteracts any momentum like a brick wall. At some point not too far away, it becomes "Musical Chairs".

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder & the Greater Fool theory, aka Speculation.True enough Tie this into a professional marketing program and softly threatening PR's by TPL, and you could have more licensees ponying up more $$ and faster than forecast.This is a speculative best case scenario Greed drives Lecky. Personally, I believe PTSC/ TPL is low-balling the $1B figure. I'm not so sure you're right. I think the number, unfortunately, was likely presented to motivate Carl and Gloria, to appeal to their greed(if you will); and therefore, I hate to say it, but I believe $1B was an inflated representation. Volume! Volume!

The $1.00 / share is achievable on a speculative basis. I question whether the $1.00 is sustainable. REMEMBER: The closer the share price gets to $1.00, the more public information will be out there for the investing public to ponder, whether it be earnings statements, PR's, BOD changes, BOD buying shares??, many things. People constantly fail to take the value of New information into account whan forecasting ultimate share value.Sorry, I don't quite get your point. Is there something magic about $1 ?

Also, though the timeframe and lookback is 6 years, it is unclear legally whether thru re-exams, the "life" may indeed be longer. PTSC/TPL have refused to clarify this point at SHM to date. Interesting thought.... Lets hope, but the law is clear on the timeframe. The issues are: can the Patent(s) be extended, can TPL competently notify and prosecute/negotiate with hundreds and hundreds (thousands ?) of infringers within a proscribed time period, and can PTSC keep enough of the License fees to satisfy their Stockholders through dividends

Finally, after much thought, I am giving PTSC a better than 50-50 odds of winning the "Ring Oscillator" issue, based on the legal bar hurdle, Ronran described earlier for the the T3 to overcome. The T3 may be able to stretch the MH out, but baring any backroom deal by the Judge et al, I just don't see the Ring issue being invalidated. Restricted maybe, but not significantly in any case, IMO. I certainly hope you are right.

"Through their failures, PTSC leadership has placed it's present shareholders in a tough tough position. Perhaps this is why even at 8 cents you don't see the 3 amigos buying significant, if any, PTSC stock.".......This goes without saying....Remember who their ultimate allegiance is to>>>Swartz...PTSC Shareholders? Let them eat cake!! Tic toc tic toc

Bough .. you said: "if MPP is worth 1/2 billion that still gets past $1"

Unfortunately, you're forgetting that TPL gets half of that "1/2 billion" and that negotiating/engineering/collection costs (not counting litigation costs) are historically approx 20% off the top.

SO:

$500,000,000 - 20% = $400,000,000 divided in half = $200,000,000
$200,000,000 divided by 400,000,000 shares = 50 cents per share.

This is presupposing that ALL gross revenues that PTSC receives are passed through to it's shareholders; which is not realistic. More importantly ... who can you sell your shares to at 50 cents if that person also calculates the maximum share value is only 50 cents ? Any potential buyers would likely demand a huge discount to buy the shares. Furthermore, because a Patent is a wasting asset and we have only 3full +6(residual) years left to collect for Infringments, as time is passing, with each day the discount would likely become greater and greater.

Through their failures, PTSC leadership has placed it's present shareholders in a tough tough position. Perhaps this is why even at 8 cents you don't see the 3 amigos buying significant, if any, PTSC stock.