And the cherry picking begins:
Your at "WHEN" with RXSF, I am at the "IF" with RXSF. Your stating the PRS and Pro FORMAS as fact. You state they "bought" shares, I state they acquired Shares and converted debt at .0017.
You are both right. They acquired shares over the summer for a number of reasons, doesn't matter really what they paid for them or how they were accounted for - they are insiders, and they all took liabilities off the company books. THEN, they also purchased shares in the open market after the reverse split. NO SALES, so your point is just a point, it has not implications AT ALL.
You state converters are in trouble, I ask why would people dealing with RXSF sell now at 3.00 when projections are $17.41.
Again, cherry picking - no one said holders are selling. The term he used was "converters" and that means debt converters, and that goes directly to the release the company put out. Not sure what your intentions are here, but misdirecting the facts will not serve you well. It appears from the filings, all of the debt on the companies books are convertible to a discount based on prices weeks and months ago, not recent prices. So it goes without the need to explain (except to you) that the one converting those shares did those sales based on a much lower cost basis, hence the huge fall in price. So to imply that holders are selling, then coming up with a false narrative as to you questioning why? is really quite disingenuous.
But most importantly and telling, I analyze the RXSF information you place out, and "RXSF Shareholders" here analyze my RXSF position, not my RXSF information, which would suggest doubt in their RXSF position to this point.
Actually, you analyze the information the company puts out in the most jaded and very calculated way, and its obvious the vendetta you have with CHEEKY which I understand is well documented personally, and on IHUB as well. I would suggest if you have a beef with him, to not take it out on the company nor its shareholders, which is in effect, the end result of what you are doing.
I guess it is easier to PAINT a Rosie picture of what could happen with RXSF, then what has actually happened to date since 2005 with this patent.
The patent was not acquired by the company until 2010. But you know that. The age of the patent is irrelevant, other than trying again to paint a negative picture. Its more important what that patent is and how it protects the companies products going forward as well as preventing competition, and you knew that as well when you again referred to the date of the patent.
