Serious CUP and HANDLE forming!!! em.

His Brother?

That's exactly what they said in Salem.

In fact, they had the old "witches float in water" trick, so if you floated they burned you. Otherwise you're only option was drowning.

Again, have you throught about the variables involved with you're "basher" theory. One would have to drive it down tenths of points and then sale literally millions of shares on the open market to make enough money to make it worth while.

Just isn't realistic.

But maybe you hear the helicopters....

Lol. em

Now I'm saying that the 900MM shares is insane.

b

Her past conversion dates would be in old form 10's.

Been through them, can't find ANY reference.

FACT.

A conversion of 900MM shares in 6 months is standard!!!!!????????

Are you serious?????

If you are, then we've got to agree to disagree and I'm done trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Again with the Ricky Bobby arguments.

Think through you're statements before you make ridiculous statements.

Again, a single solitary link to something that would PROVE ME WRONG is all that is required to make me go away. (BTW that doesn't include links to here's what you said as the stock was going up or you smell funny bs)

No offense, but I'll trust this SEC document for the FACTS.

And it clearly states she can't convert until 2008.

If you can post me to other federally audited documents for the facts saying where she invested or converted in the past, I'll give up on this line of thought.

Obviously, the other form 10's would have her conversion dates as 2006 in the past. But funny I can't find them.

Yeah, I need it to go down so I can buy in and make the .002 flip on an order of 10,000,000 shares.

Do you guys even understand how baseless the basher argument is when you put all the moving parts together.

I just don't like the freaking pumping.

From the form 10 :

In addition, we have issued, and plan to continue issuing equity securities, where possible, to obtain services, without expending cash. We also plan to continue receiving cash from the sale of our New Jersey net operating losses.

Funny how jabber and pfrenz were out for blood the other night and now all is silent while the form 10 is absorbed.

Unbelievable.

b

How did you interpret me saying it was coming from "one source". I'm the one arguing against the single source Chassman/snuffaluffaguss theory.

Are you having a hard time following me????

I don't believe it was her converting. I've said that all along (where have ya been bud?).

In fact, if you go through this filing you'll see that the INCREASE is from debt conversions, and if you're smart, you'll see that they pay most of their loans with conversion instruments.

I fully believe it was the company using shares to pay debt.

All of you Chassman believers, according to the 10K her loans aren't even convertable until 2008.

I knew not to believe you pumpers.

From the 10-K

(5) Over the period from February 22, 2006 through May 10, 2006, Marjorie
Chassman ("Chassman") infused $780,000 into Xechem. The note will be issued to
Chassman in the amount of $780,000, it will bear interest at 8% and is due May
31, 2008. The note is convertible into shares of common stock at $0.005 per
share (approximately 156,000,000 shares, excluding interest, which is also
convertible into stock at $0.005 per share). The loan has not been documented at
this time.

Over the period from June 2, 2006 through June 5, 2006, Chassman infused
$200,000 into Xechem. The note will be issued to Chassman in the amount of
$200,000, it will bear interest at 8% and is due May 31, 2008. The note is
convertible into shares of common stock at $0.01 per share (20,000,000 shares,
excluding interest, which is also convertible into stock at $0.01 per share).
The loan has not been documented at this time.

Chassman agreed to loan $1,025,000 to Xechem, in two tranches, one in the amount
of $500,000 and the other in the amount of $525,000, which were received by June
20, 2006. The note is convertible into shares of common stock at $0.015 per
share (approximately 66,666,667 shares, excluding interest). The note bears
interest at 8% and is due May 31, 2008. As additional consideration for infusion
of the capital, Xechem will issue Chassman 66,666,667 warrants, exercisable at
$0.02 per share for a period of 5 years. In addition, Chassman has agreed to
extend the due date on all existing notes held by the company to May 31, 2008.
The loan has not been documented at this time.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this board is tilted.

Can't even explore issues here without bias.

Need a new XKEM board.

The thing that started all of this is the snuffaluffaguss argument of Chassman converting yet the acceptance of the increase in O/S.

Anyone else think the company is selling their own stock to make payroll?

No, no, it's Chassman. Give me a break.

Yeah, I need it to go into the sub pennies before I can buy???

Also, I need the volume to completely dry up so I can gain my extra .00001 point?

You're so clouded by thinking people are bashers that you fail to take real criticism of the stock.

Oops, here's the link to this post.

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12722633

Here's another one. Again, let me say this in ENGLISH.

PROVE ME WRONG AND I WILL GO AWAY.

All that I need is ONE (that's 1) hyperlink to an SEC filing showing the company selling shares.

Or do you expect us to believe that the company has never converted any of their shares to pay bills.

You, my friend, need to be ousted as the moderator because your facts are opinion at best.

Pfrenz, Never got an answer to this thread. Here's the FACT you needed.

Before we start with the "you're fat arguments", please just answer this thread and I'll go away.

Or will you delete this thread.

Should change the name of this board from Xkem to "Pfrenz's opinion board."

Anything he doesn't like or can't contradict, he censors.

Need a new board.

LEt's look at the mathematics.

How does your argument make any sense?

I bought in in the rise up and now want it to go lower?

I'm lost, but maybe you can lay out your mathematics for me.

So you can't prove me wrong. Right?

Uh, you were supposed to find an SEC filing supporting your argument.

That was when I was happy we were going up and not down with the company diluting us with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF SHARES.

Now the ad hominem arguments. Again, prove me wrong with one single hyperlink to your SEC DD.

Quit focusing on the "you are fat" and ugly arguments, stick to the topic and prove me freaking wrong.

It's not that hard to understand.

Oh jesus, the snuffaluffaguss argument. She's still selling, she's still selling.

Yet the O/S has increased hundreds of millions of shares in a few short months.

You don't drink the cool aid you make do you?

Again, so have I. Please prove me wrong with something we call a hyperlink to your DD, because AGAIN I'm not FINDING your BS.

Please prove me wrong.

It's pretty simple to do.

Again, moronic answer.

Again, a non answer or effective ANSWER to my QUESTION.

Prove me wrong and I'll go away. I just need ONE SINGLE SOLITARY filing showing them selling ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SHARE.

Otherwise you my friend are adding nothing but pumping.

That's about the most dumbfounding argument I've ever heard.

You want me to prove my own argument instead of you answering my QUESTION.

Should I post the entire HISTORY of SEC filings? But then you'l just ignore them.

Tell you what go to the SEC filings and look for yourself.

You're in high school right?

FACT is I can't find anything to cooroborate your FACT!

That's right, put your hands on your ears and sing the ole "La. La. La......"

Nice try.

Secondly, why increase the O/S. They aren't acquiring any other companies that I know of.

Funny that the TA is gagged.

Good lord.

Can you point me to ANY prior filings indicating sells?????

Or do you expect me to believe that they've never sold a single solitary share in their existence.

I can't find any prior filings indicating sells.

Hate to state the obvious, but isn't this where the pps sales are coming from.

How can you guys gladly say look at the O/S increasing while blaming the stock sales on Chassman forever.

Anyone ever consider that the company is increasing the O/S and selling shares on the market to raise needed capital????

Isn't that what it's used for?

I've been here watching and reading.

Love the posting swirls when we are trading up .002 and people are saying the usual "wwwwwwweeeeeeeeeee", "here we go", "running". Give me a freaking break.

Then I love the big holders spreading rumors so they can unload their shares and disappear.

Then I love the Chassman/snuffaluffagus argument.

However, I still hold thinking that something will drive this higher.

Keep in mind that it only takes ~4000 patients for $1,000,000 in RECURRING annualized revenue.

If the company can execute, we'll be in the green.

I'm still waiting for my verdict on that one since it's only been a month since the approval (got to keep that in mind).

b

Logic would say that the "paid bashers" would have subscriptions so that they could post more than 15 bashes per day.

That would make good financial sense.

But maybe they're like me, taking such a beating on these stocks that they can barely afford groceries much less a subscription to post more than 15 items per day.

That's BS. I'm so tired of the old snuffaluffagus argument.

From the time people started with the Chassman bs to now, there's been about double the amount she even owned traded.

Plus the O/S is increasing.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it's the company converting shares to pay bills.

Quit with the BS.

I don't see anything that identifies the volume as buys or sells except for the signals.

And I've NEVER seen a signal recorded on this page for XKEM.

Moreover, I will not accept that ONLY Sells are identified when they clearly have "blue" and "red" markers. As such, if these were buys, where are the markers?

Don't try to say that a "lack of info" equates to a buy.

Again, here is the info describing the numbers shown.

http://thomson.finance.lycos.com/lycos/iwatch/help/htupiec.htm

Why do we assume that the institutional trades are buys?

They are defined as "trades" by Thomson's and a means to determine if movement is influenced by Institutions.

http://thomson.finance.lycos.com/lycos/iwatch/help/htupiec.htm

As such, they could be SELLS.

b