Replies to post #44567 on ZNext Mining Corporation, Inc (ZNXT)

[hasher]

Do your pearl math magic somewhere else. "Creative Finacing techniques" at work again? LOL typical pearlspeak. almost no one bought at .0001, and at .0002 they are out 65%.. shall I lay the simple math out again. what was your answer about your connection to PAIM or it's insiders, anyways

Lets forget the .0002 buys and concentrate on the few buys at
.0001.

Numbers on 1,000,000 shares

BUY side:
1,000,000 X .0001 = $100.00
Commission $10.00
total cost of 1,000,000 =
$110

SELL side:
950,000 X .00002 = $19.00
50,000 X VWAP of .0019 = $95.00
less commission of $10.00 =
$104.00

so far , if you bought at .0001 you have a gain of $4.00

Now we have to include the transfer agents cost of $25.00 and the brokers minimum reorganization cost of $10.00, and after all is said and done, with everything factored in. the net loss on 1,000,000 shares, pre buyback, is
+$4, -$25, -$10, for a total of a loss of $31.00.

thats at .0001. Most bought at .0002 or higher and they can add another $100.00 loss for every .0001 that they paid over the first .0001

Care to tell me how those few who bought at .0001 can be flat and how you can justify defending the huge percentage of losses for people who bought at .0002 or higher?

What connection to the company or its insiders do you imagine? Say I had any connection, why should I talk about that?

it figures, an insider pumping and feeding the koolaid drinkers "creative math" so they think they are making money

and those that bought at .0002 had lots of chances to break even

typical attitude from an insider, but totally incorrect. They never had a real chance to ever break even, because they had to buy higher than that fictitious .0001, but nice math.. again

[extra]

No one bought at 0.0001 . You could only sell at 0.0001 ,
for a short time, while you had to buy at 0.0002 or 0.0003 .

[puppydotcom]

Why do you make stuff up, since I appear here at random. For those that bought .0001 pre post II buy back, they are flat, and those that bought at .0002 had lots of chances to break even, or make a profit.

your making up a story yourself .. your story applies only to people who got in early and bought new shares ... the people who had the 05% stock stolen from them most likely didn't buy or waited and bought much higher ...

so according to you it was a forced buy back at huge loss and a forced buy in in order to ' at a minimum to break even ....

Please explain how the people who lost 95% of their stock thru the' creative finance manure - have made a profit or broke even
with out sticking out their neck and buying more? ... have the people been paid for the 95 % theft of their stock?

Let’s stick to the facts..

I can hardly wait for this story....

Why are you afraid to disclose your relationship with PAIM or the insiders?