"If the salaries were not accrued, they are not an expense. What you are stating is the salaries were earned, not paid and are due to management in a future accounting period. This is not a true statement."
where did i state the above, no idea where you are coming from as i can't tell which of the above quote is your thinking. i am stating the salaries were earned and thus should be expensed in both 2006 and 2007. IMO the company did not do this. NO one has proved or gave arguements that counter what i am saying. Other than the do you own this stock silly questions.
in the end, the financials are misleading at best. we can argue all day long but in the end the financials are not a true representation of the company. we have convertible preferreds, rex no longer being a profit center, etc., given all of this lack of information and misinformation, you know about as much as i do, which isn't much.
big boys is a term for the highest earners in a company
convert the salary line based on any assumption to get an annual amount and divide by 7 or 9 whichever employee count you desire. It is not alot. Costs are missing.
Market Data 
Markets 
