FG, what I can't understand is how you could possibly say the terms are unacceptable? All we know is the number of shares and the price. We have no idea of the conditions of the transaction. length of restriction. when the shares will be issued (subscription, remember?). As of 8/14/01, NO SHARES WERE ISSUED.
Also, $.10 is a very low price, but what is more appropriate?
$.25 or $.45. tough question. say the subscription period is over 1 year from now and the shares are then issued as restricted for another 2 years (insider restriction period) then the float is unaffected for 3 years. furthermore, in that time the $1.7 million raised within the 1 year subscription period was all that was needed to suppliment sales as production steadily increases as does front-end costs of the increased production.
If all this were true, I think your statements would look awefully silly. (remembering of course that these posts are able to be referenced long after all have forgotten about them, as UB and others keep demonstrating with posts from 2000).
My point is this, Bill Branum is well known for his conclusion jumping. Don't fall into this closed minded game. Pursue the matter and discover the true facts as I and others are trying to do.
JMHO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
