Lmo, Thanks for you're reply. As for the time delay, I would think it would be lessened with the higher processing speeds of todays computers. If 30 seconds is based on current processing speed, I don't know if it can work that well, but if it's 5 years old technology, with our hottest processors today it would probably be about 5 seconds today, I think that could work.

I know there's a time when you need to stop improving and start producing, but improvements can always be made. I believe the advancements we're making in computing speed will make technology that wasn't feasible 5 years ago very feasible in the next 5 years.

To me the key to security in transportation is preventing explosives from reaching planes, busses, trains, etc. If in order to do it, passengers had to pass through an arch where they were scanned and delayed 5 seconds before passing through it wouldn't be that bad. The key would be getting the time down to say 5 seconds while establishing a secure place for scanned passengers to wait, this would be especially hard with busses and other street level transportation.

I don't know that CDEX or anyone currently has an answer, and I know we can never end all forms of terrorism, but if we can do a better job protecting mass transportation vehicles and places where people gather en masse, we can greatly lower the death toll.

Gary

I'd like to ask a conceptual question and see if anyone know the answer. As I understand it, one of the ways CDEX and others detect the presents of explosives is from the signiture they present at certain UV or IR frequencies.

In that both UV and IR are present to some degree in normally lit situations, or could be somewhat enhanced without people noticing or requiring protection. Would it be possible to develop a sensor that worked more like a camera that operated specifically on those frequencies. Linking the sensor to a computer could identify potential explosives and the computer could then provide the image directly to security people who could virtually see the image. If it also had the ability to provide a normal photo, or had a regular camera in parallel, the security people could be certain of exactly where the threat lies.

I'm not saying we can do this, purely asking the question.

Gary

Leo, I really don't know if the Nasdaq or other bigger exchanges permit majority control by the CEO or BOD.

I certainly know of Nasdaq companies where the CEO and BOD combined control such a high percentage of the stock that nearly 80% of the other shareholders would have to vote against something they agreed on to defeat it, so for all practical considerations they have control, but they still must take the vote.

It seem to me the difference is, Fayiz can simply declare something without openly putting it up to a vote. He really doesn't have to announce what he's doing though it generally comes out after the fact. I think the major exchanges frown on that sort of control, but I don't know that their rules prevent it.

Gary

Leo, I totally agree. If a RS to get on the Nasdaq were done it should only be done with an equal reduction in the authorized shares.

We do however have a problem, it's the fact that Fayiz holds all the cards, at least right now. As long as he has total control of more votes than the combined votes of all other shareholders he can do whatever he wants. If he truly wants to bring the company to the status of a Nasdaq company he needs to be willing to let all our votes count. I don't know if the answer is retiring his shares, or selling them to other shareholders, but his total domination won't work if shareholders are to ever feel like they truly own a part of the company.

Gary

Leotx and Penny, I certainly don't want an R/S now, but don't think we should be dead set against it forever. If we obtained a share price of 50 cents or so and the company asked for a one for ten R/S to reach a price where they could go on the Nasdaq I'd support it. The point is, they need to get sufficient price appreciation before making such a request.

Leotx, that was a great post.

Gary

While I suspect you may be right, I also think Fayiz is making choices. Do I build 4 more ovens that can more than double my capacity, or do I buy back 2 billion shares. I actually hope he can afford to do both, and it's fine that he doesn't reveal what he's doing until it's done.

If he were to announce a plan to buy back billions of shares the price would probably double or better and he couldn't afford them. Fayiz issued billions of shares in a stealth manner, it would be best if he retired them in the same way. One question is, how many of the billions of shares he issued does he have at least some control of. If those who bought his billions of shares each agreed to sell back half of what they purchased at current prices, I believe they'd make a very healthy profit when it was announced the float was nearly halved.

I suspect we'll learn a lot by or at the next Annual Meeting. Of course the news that can really move the stock is the SEC filings, which include audits for a few years. If the filing hasn't been done by the Annual Meeting, I believe Fayiz will commit to filing by the end of the year. I for one am willing to wait provided we get that commitment. If he says it won't happen till next year, after saying it would happen this year last year, I would be inclined to support shareholders moves to force his hand.

Gary

I think we'll know a lot more about why Placer Dome is investing when we see the assays, I suspect that won't be too much longer. At that point I think investors will see the real value of this partnership.

It's unfortunate that companies like MAGR cannot develop production mines on their own, but the reality is they can't. There intent from the very beginning had to be to find something worthy of a partnership, and they should be very pleased that it's with a company with the resources of a Placer Dome.

I'd certainly rather have 20% of something tremendous than 100% of something I could never touch.

Gary

PennyFever, I think all who attended the meeting indicated the attorney didn't want Fayiz to speak as he did. I don't think it's a surprise that the minutes reflect what he wanted to say, but what should be important to investors is what Fayiz said.

As I remember it, the official minutes are a toned down version of what people said occurred. You can call them a lie, but Fayiz probably agreed that they were what he wanted to be on the record, regardless of what he actually said.

Frankly the SEC has most companies concerned with everything they do. Companies err on the side of secrecy when it comes to providing information to investors that the SEC could in any way consider hype. The result is companies don't talk about their plans for the future that can't be based on something that's concrete in the presents. The fact that a company's nearly concluded partnership negotiations won't even be mentioned, they'll announce when it's concluded. Fayiz probably only created trouble for himself by speaking of Valley Design, when it came to Hybrid, the first time most people heard the name of the company was when the acquisition announcement was made. That's the way the SEC seems to want business to be run.

Gary

Penny, I realize that, but if I'm not mistaken when the meeting was announced they indicated there had to proof of stock ownership.

I would hope that before the Annual Meeting many of our questions will be answered, but regardless, the Annual Meeting will provide an opportunity to learn what the company plans for the coming year. While it appears that Fayiz is well advised legally, it also appears that he sometimes goes a lot farther than his advisor recommends as to what he says, but what he says doesn't appear in the minutes of the meeting as approved.

I believe Fayiz is working to make what he said at the meeting happen, even if it never was a part of the official record. I also believe that more was probably learned at the dinner after the official meeting than at the meeting itself. Let's hope he hosts another dinner.

Gary

Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case though as I remember the announcement of the meeting they indicated you needed to provide proof of ownership.

Has any announcement been made on the dates for the meeting, as I remember it last year it was after Labor Day, but it seems like people think it will be in August this year.

I hope that I can attend, but it will depend on when the meeting is.

Gary

I'm back from a Tahoe vacation, it seems that ValiMed has gotten at least some publicity during my absents.

With what occurred in London last week it seems to me that far more needs to be done with explosive scanning devices. Cameras are not the answer unless they can find explosives, this could be where CDEX steps in. If I remember correctly, with certain UV frequencies, CDEX is able to detect nearly all known explosives. It would seem to me that cameras functioning at those frequencies could detect the explosives.

The key would be positioning the cameras at all places where people board busses, trains, etc. The camera feed would be interprited by computers and potential threats would be passed to police as well as bus or train operators approaching that stop. The beauty of this is the police, etc. would see a picture of the scene showing the explosive and whoever was carrying it. The operator of the bus or train would be advised to not permit passengers on until police took required actions.

Seeing who placed a bomb may answer some questions, but the only way to save peoples lives is preventing the bombs from getting on trains, busses, etc.

Gary

Just back from vacation and skimmed through the last hundred plus posts. It seems like there's still much speculation over shareholders.

I'd like to ask a question of those who attended last years Annual Meeting. How did they document the fact that you held shares in the company.

I purchased shares shortly before the meeting, and if I had attended I would have brought a statement from the brokerage indicating my ownership. However, as I remember it the company indicated they had a list.

Did people attending get checked off? Was anyone refused entry to the meeting or dinner because they couldn't prove they were a shareholder?

It's my belief that CTKH had lists from all the brokerages holding stock that indicated whos names they were holding them for. Does anyone attending the meeting remember the company checking if they were on a list, or was admission purely on an honor basis.

Gary

I really question why people who don't appear to believe in either the management, the technology, or both remain invested and put down those who do believe.

I know it's frustrating year after year to continue believing, I've been involved with one biotech for about 15 years and it has yet to live up to it's potential, but I still believe it will, and when it does I'll be very well rewarded. I'll admit I would have been smarter to have traded it when it's run up, which it has several times, but I'm not much of a trader.

I'm only a small investor here, but I still believe in the investment. Unlike many, I'm hardly down at all, but I believe the company has the potential to eventually get everyone who stays with it profitable. I believe it's in an area that will grow tremendously and all it needs to be successful is a small piece of the pie.

I don't know when MP will finally open up and say what's happening, but I suspect it won't happen as long as he has something in front of the SEC. I believe he's being overly cautious, but after taking over a year to do the registration, I can't say I blame him. I believe when he openly addresses shareholders again we'll be impressed with what they've been doing since they last addressed the shareholders.

By the way, I'll be in Tahoe for the next week, I don't know why but things frequently happen when I'm gone, perhaps something will happen with CDEX, we'll know in a week.

Gary

LMO, CDEX is little different from a drug company whos drug needs to undergo tens of millions of dollars, or more, in trials. If it spells out what it has and what it needs it can build a prospectus that attracts investors.

I don't know that ValiMed will sell ten, ten thousand, or ten million units in its current form, but I do know it's a device that could be utilized in tens of millions of places throughout the world. When you consider the number of pharmacies, hospitals, etc. that handle, and occasionally mishandle drugs, you can see the need. When you hear about things like talc being used as a forgery of a real drug you realize people are probably dying so that a few people can make huge profits, you can see the need.

I've known people who buy drugs in Mexico, they're convinced that they are the real thing. Wouldn't it be nice to have a stand on the U.S. side of the border and charge even a dollar for each drug you verify. I think you'd do a lot of business.

The same if probably true of liquor, cologne, etc. though the fakes are not deadly like some fake drugs may be. The point is the manufacturers and the government would like to find the fakes, the manufacturers because it costs them the sales, and the govt. because fake liquor usually has fake tax stamps as well. I know, this device hasn't been marketed yet, but I gather it's close.

Does anyone here believe the scanners at airports, etc. aren't going to change substantially in the next decade, and probably at least once a decade thereafter. I believe such devices are practically in their infancy when compared with what they'll be in twenty years or so. The point is, we still have all sorts of potential here, as well as in finding explosives in the field, like mines, etc.

Gary

LMO, I may be referring to it improperly, but other companies I've been involved in did stock offerings through major brokerage houses, the were done under the same Quiet Period rules as any other IPO, and some people called them IPO, as they were the initial offering of those specific shares.

Again, there may be a better term for it, but companies can offer additional shares at any time. I know they frequently do it by private placement, but I believe that shareholders would benefit far more from a public offering that was managed by a brokerage house with perhaps several other brokerages participating.

When I was with a major brokerage I used to look forward to such offerings as they were commission free and you generally got the stock for slightly below where it was currently trading.

What's important is that the brokerage manages the offering. They distribute prospectus's all over the country, they run a road show where officers of the company publically discuss the company with brokers and investors, in short, they create interest, and normally stock appreciation, before the offering takes place, it's the sort of thing that CDEX needs right now.

Gary

LMO, if you think they need $5 million for operations, what would be wrong with a properly run IPO for 5 million shares. I have a feeling that if it were run by a number of brokerages with a proper road show before the share price would rise substantially before the offering, and I wouldn't be surprised if they raised $10 million from the 5 million shares.

I know it was painful when the LOCH shares were reduced by 45 to 1 in becoming CDEX, but it reduced the OS to levels where issuing 5 or even 10 million new shares won't hurt that bad. If we had hundreds of millions, or billions of shares outstanding, you'd need to issue hundreds of millions of shares, or even billions, which would seem like an act of desparation.

I've previously seen other companies stocks move up substantially while they did a properly managed IPO, I see no reason that couldn't be the case here.

Gary

Why should we force CTKH to do something they've already said they are doing. Why not believe that they're looking to do it properly, with years of audited records and paperwork needed to support moving off the pinks.

If you force them to report immediately, you probably delay the move to the OTC as they'd have to change their emphasis.

I certainly want them to be a reporting company, but I want them to do it right, and hopefully move off the Pinks. I believe the company is on track to tremendous growth, let's not get in its way.

Gary

Thanks guys, it's good to know there are some interested people here who seem knowledgeable.

I too believe something big's just around the corner, I just don't know how long it will take to get there.

I've seen partnerships take many months longer than anyone thought but they eventually happened, I've also seen some that no one had any idea were in negotiations until they happened. I'm looking forward to whatever happens, I believe it will be very positive.

Gary

d4diddy, are you talking the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California. I've spent a fair amount of time at Catalina, and fished or dived a few of the others. If this is where you're talking about you're right, the waters can be very clear, but they are fairly cold.

I haven't actively been scuba diving in many years, but now that I'm retired I may try to get back into shape for it.

Gary

Is anyone here still following MAGR.

It's made a nice move in the last few months, and it could have a lot farther to go if the partnership they discussed in their latest PR comes to pass.

I believe the fact is, they need a partnership to commercially have a mine, what's positive is the assay's, which investors still haven't seen, must be quite good as potential partners are talking with them.

I think something's going to happen in the near future, but I don't know how near.

Gary

I think you're probably right on the money with the possible exception of the number of employees. I find it hard to believe that they can double, triple or even quadruple output without adding employees.

If these new ovens do what someone said, one day process, they'll either need to work through the weekends, or shut the ovens down for the weekend. As I understand the other ovens you can time things so they cook over the weekend.

I'd really like to see the company give us the details for the new ovens several have spoken of. If they're everything that people have said we might hear about 60" or bigger flat panel medias, now if they can do that with CNT's it would really be huge.

The point is we need to hear it officially from the source for it to have value and be reflected in the stock price. It may all be true, but until it's official it's of little value.

Gary

LMO, I've only been involved with the company for less than two years, but I was watching it well before that. I know everything has appeared to take longer than anyone thought it should. What I don't really know is given all the litagation if it could have been done any quicker.

I believe that MP is being blamed for things that were totally out of his control, nor could they have been controlled by any other CEO. The wheels of justice move very slowly most of the time, so does the SEC, MP couldn't take control of either.

I believe that investors may have assisted in getting us to where we are, but in some cases they slowed things down as well. Again, this was out of MP's control.

The point is, we've now come a long way, they do have a product, they have other products in development. What we need are substantial sales, if we get that success will happen.

Gary

Lmo, almost everything you have said that management wouldn't do they have done. Everyone would like to hear more from management, but that's true of almost every company I've ever been involved with or considered investing in.

Instead of trying to wrest control of the company by putting it down, why not compliment them on how far they've come and try to help them go further.

If you're saying you're the man to be CEO, it has to mean you know people who would be interested in buying the devices that CDEX is prepared to sell. Get those customers to CDEX, let them know that you referred them. Let them give you credit for assisting in the sales.

If you do that, you'll be a lot closer to getting investors support than you are today. I'm not saying you'll be supported, but you'll be far more respected doing that than you are in constantly putting down the company's efforts.

Gary

Thanks WMO, this has been copied over to RB where people added that these ovens are not only much larger, they also have much faster throughput, and they're building a total of four of them. It sounds like these four ovens could do more than double the production of the existing 12 ovens if what people are saying is correct.

One of the contributors on RB indicated the processing time would be a day, vs. 3 days in our current ovens, and 15 days that he indicates it takes our competitors.

I don't know if any of this is accurate or where people are getting this information, but if it's all true it sounds like CTKH will be able to make 60" media, or larger, that could be huge.

Gary

Thanks Dunkj,

I have a question on the ovens. Is this three more new ovens in addition to the six they discussed last year, or are these part of the six that were building last year.

I was of the impression that we were up to 12 working ovens, if we're adding three more, that makes 15. Is that it for this year or are there more to come.

Of course another question might be, are the ovens we're adding the same size as the others, or are we building larger ovens that will give greater capacity, as well as larger media capability.

Does anyone care to estimate how many ovens CTKH can install in its existing facilities before they need to expand or build a new structure.

Gary

Crow, I'm not saying that money's no concern, but there really aren't that many shares outstanding. I really believe a properly run offering could be quite positive for the stock. I've heard some say the company's too small to interest major brokerages in participating, but with a share price above a dollar, I really don't think that's true.

The thing that's important about an offering is that many brokerages who currently know nothing about CDEX would suddenly learn about it. If it were properly managed I wouldn't be surprised if the stock moved up substantially before the offering, and the funds raised by it insuring the company would be around at least a few more years would tend to lift it further.

To me the problem with private placements is that little interest is generated in the stock. Essentially the company may find a few people who will buy large quantities of the shares, but in doing it, they generate no interest from the general public. An offering often results in customers of the participating firms buying in hundred to thousand share lots, but the result are that for every million shares in the offering you get thousand of new shareholders.

When I had an account with a major brokerage I generally felt I was getting a great deal when I got shares from an offering for two reasons, for one they were generally made at a few cents below where the stock was trading, secondly the brokerage received no commission. In such offerings the brokerage gets a certain amount of stock for their participation, they can sell it as part of the offering, or I believe they can hold it as an institutional investment.

If I were CDEX I'd look to issue enough stock to put at least $10 million into the bank. I believe such an offering would gather substantial interest and might take less stock than anyone would currently think as interest in the offering cause the stock price to rise.

Gary

Crow, as I see it a $10,000 investment won't seem that large if insurance companies see the device as reducing the chance of costly mistakes being made and adjust their rates for those who have them. The loss of one wrongful death suit caused by the wrong drug could buy dozens of the units.

The ValiMed unit properly utilized will prevent mistakes. If the pharmacist crosschecks the label on the drugs with what the ValiMed says is in the bottle it will eliminate the possibility that someone made an error. If the inventory is checked to determine it validity, the possibility of counterfeit medicine will be eliminated. In summary, one device can provide a lot of protection, in the beginning they may not qualify for lower insurance rates, but in time they might become a requirement for doing business.

Gary

Crow, if you listen to some of what's being said about counterfeit drugs, I don't know that we really know how good our supply system is. Clearly if the counterfeit is at least the generic equivalent of the product it's replacing you wouldn't expect to get feedback about it not being effective. The real problem is when it's simply a sugar pill, or something like that.

The Administration is trying to make a case for not buying Canadian drugs because they've found some counterfeit's there, but I don't really know how well we've checked out our own distribution system. I know people who swear by the drugs they purchase in Mexico, I've never tried as my drug coverage is great.

In most cases in the news recently it's been pharmacists greed that made for improper drugs being administered. What we really don't know is how much counterfeit medication has filtered into whats on the shelves in most of our drug stores and hospitals. ValiMed could answer that question.

Gary

Crow, I really don't know that one of the major hospital groups or drug chains isn't negotiating with CDEX as we speak. I'd be willing to bet they will eventually be buying the ValiMed or similar device at some point in the future. We need to see that it's the ValiMed unit that's being bought.

Gary

Mark, I'm certainly no expert, but I believe the hospitals were offered the opportunity to try before you buy. The fact that they bought speaks for itself.

Also if LMO has any proof that the units are only processing discarded drugs I'd like to see it. To the best of my knowledge working pharmacists are using the ValiMed in the hospital pharmacies.

As I see it these units do many things, starting with receipt inspection of the drugs ending with verifying the right drug is provided to the patient.

Gary

Crow, it's true they don't have much money, but they also don't have that many shares outstanding and they're consistantly trading above $1, getting $10 million or more with an offering shouldn't dilute the company so much as to be objectionable. Personally I think share price would go up, not down on a properly run offering.

If CDEX were trading for pennies, had billions of shares outstanding and had to issue billions more to bring in millions, I'd be very concerned. Frankly, it could have been that way if CDEX hadn't bit the bullet in converting from LOCH, but the 45 to 1 R/S had its intended effect. We now have a company that's trading for over a dollar that upon good news could reach the requirements for listing on the Amex, or eventually the Nasdaq, which should be the long term goal. We just need that good news.

Gary

LMO, I really don't know that FDA approval is needed, were devices that read bar codes FDA approved, I doubt it, yet they're the way most pharmacies, etc account for inventory.

If FDA approval is needed, desired, etc. I don't believe it will be anything like a drug trial, they take many years, even decades. I believe there are two things our scanner must prove, one is that it doesn't in any way harm the drugs being scanned, the other is that it can accurately identify drugs. Now if the scanning device is already being used with drugs in other applications, only the accuracy of the device will need to be proved.

To me the fact that hospitals are already using ValiMed is a strong indication that FDA approval isn't required, or perhaps the FDA doesn't even have a methodology for testing a device such as the ValiMed. Of course the FDA develops individual protocols for the approval of drugs, so it certainly could work with the company to develop a protocol for approving a drug scanning device if it's deemed to be necessary.

I'd be interested in others thoughts regarding this. I know the FDA certainly approves all drugs, all devices implanted in people, and all the manufacturing facilities that make drugs. I don't know that FDA approval is required, but it is certainly desireable if the FDA is willing. As I see it the Pharmacist is ultimately responsible for what's dispensed, the ValiMed can potentially help tremendously, but ultimately it will be up to the pharmacist to determine if what's on his shelf will effectively treat the patient if the ValiMed unit indicates it's not compounded exactly like the drug that was originally scanned into the database.

I believe the ValiMed can prevent pharmacists from making big mistakes, but it will not stop pharmacists from substituting generics for name brands and charging for the name brand. I.E. if they want to cheat the consumer they still can unless ValiMed units are generally available to the public.

Personally most of the drugs I take are generics and I'm perfectly happy with them, but I know that's what they are. When I'm at Costco, etc. I usually choose the store brand to the national brand if I have a choice. I'm not saying the big name brand may not be a smidge better, though I don't know that it is, I just know the store brand seems to work for me.

If it were up to me, the drug patents would be extended substantially longer in exchange for substantially lower prices for the name brand drugs. To me it's a shame that drug companies are forced to recover their costs quickly, thus prices are extremely high, because they know as soon as generics are available that's all most of the insurance plans will allow.

Neither the drug industry or the FDA has proven themselves trustworthy. Drug companies constantly are found trying to get or keep approval of drugs by not revealing all side effects to the FDA, but the FDA's also full of surprises when after a drug has delivered everything they asked for, instead of approving it the FDA asks for far more, often requiring new trials which extend approval by years. My point is, trust and verification is needed by both the FDA and drug manufacturers, the easiest way to make that happen is by not allowing sealed settlement against drugs, or doctors for that matter. If when a drug company or Dr. paid a patient or their heirs for what they caused it became public record, it wouldn't take long to determine what medicines or doctors should be avoided, we wouldn't need the FDA to protect us, we'd protect ourselves. A law that made all payouts public, even if no legal action was involved, would go a long way toward solving the problems we're having, and would greatly lower malpractice costs as Drs. who couldn't be trusted wouldn't have much business, and drugs with negative side effects would want them known to avoid unneccessary payouts.

One of the problem with many miracle drugs is that a very small percentage may have adverse reactions, in some cases death. It would be wrong to withhold the miracle drug, but hopefully they might develop a test to determine who will probably get an adverse reaction. Huge payouts shouldn't be given where patients know the risk, they should be paid where the company knows the risk but doesn't alert the Drs. or the patients.

Gary

Penny, I think we're in complete agreement.

IMHO Fayiz doesn't need to repurchase all 4.5 billion shares, but getting the float down to say 2 billion would be huge. If he doesn't have to disclose doing it, he probably benefits by saying nearly nothing while he goes about getting it done.

In the short run the stock may go nowhere, but in the long run it would be far more valuable from his actions. Let's just hope he's taking the actions.


Gary

Crow, if you read the PR from even the strongest of companies you know they all have major disclaimers. I frankly wonder why anyone who reads an annual report ever buys stock, the SEC has forced companies into being so negative that it's amazing that anyone buys stock any more.

I believe we all realize that CDEX is an emerging company in an emerging industry, though I'm sure someone could apply better wording to it. Bar codes have now been around for dozens of years, I don't know that they'll go away, but I fully expect that it won't be that long before advanced scanners and software scan what's being purchased and identify virtually everything without the bar code. Numerical codes on the variety and sizes of things like apples may be a bit tougher, but the sensors should be able to read the numbers on the apples.

I suppose CDEX's equipment may actually be able to tell a Delicious apple from a Fuji, but it might actually be able to do something that would be more valuable to the consumer, tell us how ripe, or overripe the fruit is. Just as wine goes from its best to undrinkable rapidly, so does fruit. Wouldn't it be great if you could scan fruit and know when to eat them for the greatest flavor, taste and texture.

My point is, this is an industry that's in its infancy. In a decade I'd be surprised if we're not identified at check out counters, etc by our eyes, fingerprints, etc. eliminating the possibility of stealing money from a credit card or ATM, I doubt that we'll be carrying significant currency as our eyeprint or fingerprint could tie directly to virtually any number of accounts.

I believe that companies like CDEX are leading us there, they only need a small piece of the action to be very successful. I believe CDEX made a good move on ValiMed, and there device that can detect counterfeit liquor, wine, etc is a step in the right direction as well.

Gary

Penny, I know that on a P/E basis we either need to bring the outstanding shares down or the earnings way up. However, I still believe you must look at future earning potential, not earnings now in a company at this point in its development.

Sure, I'd love to hear that CTKH has repurchased billions of shares, at these prices it wouldn't cost that much. I don't know if it could be done without an announcement legally, but I don't know the penalty if they did it without announcing it. To my understanding, Fayiz didn't announce the sale of billions of shares until it was a fact.

I certainly don't want a R/S, at least not until nearly all shareholders agree we should have one to reach a specific goal. I wouldn't be against a one for ten if the goal was getting on the Nasdaq and the price was already above 50 cents. The key is getting the price up, and shareholders satisfied before asking for a small reverse split to achieve a goal we all can agree with. Give me 50 cents and I'm a very happy shareholder, the kind who can see a R/S to get on the Nasdaq would be to my benefit.

Gary

I believe if we have financials that show the company's making a profit, regardless of its size, it will justify something above a penny, that's a substantial gain from where we are now. How many sub penny stocks are debt free and making a profit, I doubt if there are many, but I'd certainly like to hear about any others.

Sure it would be great if we're earning tens of millions, that's what we need to actually warrant being in the pennies on an earnings basis. Right now our value is in its potential, not in its earnings.

Gary

The good news is probably the fact that just a little positive good news is all that's needed to really move the shareprice.

I believe that good news might simply be CTKH filing to get off the pinks, regardless of the strength of the data that's presented. Sure, I'd love to see a big contract for CTKH media, but the reality is, the kind of materials CTKH provides rarely gets mentioned.

When we buy computers we generally know who provided the CPU, but who knows who provided what's in the flat panel display. The same is true for essentially all the devices with displays. When you open up most electronic devices you generally find components supplied by a wide variety of companies, including some people that you think of as competitors of the company whos name is on the device. If you opened up two identical models, I'd be very surprised if all the minor components in them were supplied by all of the same companies. Yes, the CPU may be from Intel, AMD, etc. but the likelyhood is if something fails it could be something like a capacitor built by perhaps hundreds of companies.

What I'm counting on is the Cetek Process eventually getting recognition. Should that happen, perhaps the day will come when people will want to buy TV's etc with flat panel components by Cetek, or should it be DisplayTek.

Gary

Crow, do you believe the people who are using and appear very satisfied with the ValiMed unit are a part of this scam you're describing.

You compliment LMO, no matter how much good information is provided, people like you two can always find something bad that can be said about it.

I grant you, it's taking far longer for CDEX to emerge out from the shadow of LOCH then most people thought, but it continues to happen. I don't know that the stock will take off, but I still believe it has the strong possibility of trading at double digits in the not to distant future. What it will take is one really substantial contract, or several smaller ones, either I believe are possible.

With every positive step that CDEX has taken LMO has cautioned that catastrophy's awaiting with the next step. Most recently when CDEX got on the OTC he cautioned that they wouldn't get the required number of Market Makers, I believe it was something like two or three, they currently have something like a dozen for those who keep track of such things. I don't know what his next crisis might be, but I'll bet it will be overcome, probably easily.

Gary

Orangeman, it's true that many Institutional investors only invest in stocks that are $5 and more, but there are some who may invest substantially below that level.

Also Institutions only report on holdings at the end of the quarter. Some times, Institutions that like a stock, but it's not one that fits their profile, will buy a stock on the first day, or near the beginning of a quarter, they will hold it until just before the quarter's end and sell. At no time does it show they've invested in the stock, whatever gains or losses are handled in the books, but publically it's never known they were in the stock.

Gary

LMO, I see nothing embarrassing about the quarterly, but I also don't see any effort to communicate with shareholders beyond essentially the minimum required in such communiques.

There were some positive possibilities mentioned, but I cannot blame the company for not wanting to discuss something until it happens. A partnership, contract, sale, etc. isn't a fact until everything required to complete it has occurred. Much may be in discussion, perhaps some of it is only a signature away, but we won't hear substantially more until it's a fact.

Gary