this post is actually OT due to this line .. T

this post is actually OT due to this line ..

Quote:

---

This is the most sense you have made in the X amount of years I have been here and I applaud you on this!

---

i could retaliate in kind but it serves little purpose .. i've noted for 2 years that
P2O has options which are never discussed on any SMB .. in March of 2016
mgmt indicated awareness of some of those options .. but not all ..

i've also
noted over the years that *i* and other actual P2O investors .. have emailed
mgmt with *suggestions* .. there are numerous options mgmt has re: P2O

that said what efforts/actions mgmt does in parallel with RC's efforts is known only to mgmt ...

i look forward to actual material events being filed .. and i'm not referencing the Q due out in November

when that comes .. is mgmt's call .. but based on other aspects i'd expect *news* by/b4 EOY (not including or excluding MOU version 2 input)

3 material events that *imo* should be addressed this year ..

CEO's form/s updated as CFO's were at the EO 2016
BoD candidates noted in conjunction with AGM date
internal sales addressed specific to P2O

i come back to what i've noted for 2 years .. the plant (as well as blending site)
aren't needed *if* other sites are utilized .. imo if RC can execute and implement
P2O in one southern location .. and another site can be utilized at a site in NYS
or elsewhere in the US or Canada .. agreements could be worked out for
either a partnership or JV
P2O could approach or be approached by another within the sector
(private company) and work out a merger ..
P2O could lease NF and the blending site
or mgmt could implement some of the above in conjunction with bringing NF
back on line .. with all that that entails

i have never believed that P2O has one option .. anyone who has tracked the
sector .. has a clue of what is en route due to actions being taken (globally) elsewhere

it's easy to criticize mgmt when not walking in their shoes .. and zero doubts
i would handle some aspects differently (i've been emailing mgmt for a sector related
blog for 2 years and i would never have gotten rid of IR even with a *then* intent of having an external sales group) than how they have
been .. but i come back to the bottom line (and as i've noted for all who stalk
my every post) P2O exists in 2017 due to 4 specific reasons .. none of which
have changed *imo*

that isn't to say by the EO 2017 .. retail investors won't or don't sell .. they may
again what folks do regarding their money is their business .. one of the reasons
a targeted stock is relentlessly compressed (besides the obvious of NR being
upside down) is to force retails' compliance .. i have never spoken for every
P2O investor .. but i do talk to about 20 who represent others (about 200)
fairly regularly .. all are adults .. some like myself have long divorced their
emotions re: PPS .. because they too recognize it is the easiest method to
demoralize both retail .. and in turn effectively tie mgmt's hands at every turn

bottom line is very simple .. anyone can observe the volume being done
and the tape of trades .. specific to those time stamps' claimed by retail
for the most part 2017 is on par with 2009 re: volume .. for the most part
retails' time stamps have a mirrored trade .. and more interesting (at least
for me) is noting those *bid fills* being *marked* .. legit sells don't work that way

i'm grateful for those retail investors who are kind enough to send me their time stamps (either side) .. posting that data shows all with interest *how handled*

that said .. none of that will matter if mgmt isn't able to execute on any option
specifically the ones mgmt has noted in the last 18 months ..

here's to an update ..

4kids