>Dan, you clearly pointed out that they would relist before...

>Dan, you clearly pointed out that they would relist before issuing the latest 1c CR.
The latest one would be the proposed 200m shares on offer.

It says exactly this in point 4 clarification, Stig. the 200m shares are to be issued at the market weighted average price. So then, if we're not trading, its a 4 cent cap raise. In order for it to be a 1c CR by definition they have to be trading and the price has to drop to 1c.

So.. clearly point out to me where I am wrong.

> they diluted at 75% discount which you have supported and still appear to believe this is great value by supplying justification.
I think Finran getting 700k worth at 1 cent is paying the devil his dues. It is better than a loan. You would prefer a loan to the company? Okay.
I think both of us would prefer if some angel just came in and gave the company money with no expectations attached to it, but I don't think that's really feasible. I wouldn't say "I support it", I just accept it.

I also see Finran as putting their own money into the company with the potential for loss as a positive sign, as opposed to, again, a loan with interest which would guarantee their funds returned.

I haven't seen you counter this, just complain that the dilution and the discount is unfair to investors.
Curiously you seem to have little to say on the matter of Ken's theft, which is really really very unfair to investors, and I get the impression you don't really believe in it.

>Challenging me is pure sulking, lm not to blame.
So your new point of view is that you are right and anyone who questions you is a sook?
I'm not blaming you for anything, you are just drawing conclusions that are excessively negative.