RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:So much fabricated rubbish"A few examples - the share consolidation . . . your response was that the only reason a company, unless they were large and profitable, would do a reverse spilt is to get the share price up to do a dilutive raise."
To be able to do a share offering. Yes, even though those are not my words they do represent my sentiment... and how do you know that was not the original intent? The RS was prior to receiving the financing so the question is, would they have done the RS if they had already secured the much needed financing? You can not do a share offering under 5 cents (which they were) so any non profitable company prepares for it by recommendation from the security's regulators and the exchanges in preparation for that possibility if it is a given that raising working capital is mandatory for their survival. The fact that they received financing eliminated the need to raise funds through an offering but that does not change the probability of that being their original motivation for the RS. I do many things in preparation for an event but sometime when the time arrives it is no longer necessary. Do you really believe that if suitable financing was not secured, then that is not how it would have played out? I will go one step further. If suitable financing was not secured then that would have been their only practical option to deal with the number crunch. The fact that it ended up not being necessary at that moment in time is irrelevant to what actually motivated the RS in the first place...and no it was not to attract funds as stated in one of your press releases since any fund that has a price minimum for their funds has it at $5 and above level. No fund that I have ever heard of would draw a line between a 4 and 40 cent stock or a 7 and 70 cent stock for that matter. That explanation was offensive to anyone that knew any better and was nothing more than a smoke screen.
"Next, you stated that the only reason a Canadian company would pursue an OTCQX listing is to do an equity raise"
No I did not say that. Here is the exact quote. "With that said you are probably now wondering why any Venture company would bother obtaining a US OTC listing. Well SS pretty much hit that nail on the head. The only real motivation for a Venture listed company to create a US OTC trading entity is to open the doors to making stock offerings in the US."
You accidentally missed the operative words and without it changed the whole meaning of the statement. To "open doors" is to create opportunity. "Closed doors" do not allow opportunity. The plural on offerings indicates that it is a forward-looking strategy. So your statement that I said "the only reason a Canadian company would pursue an OTCQX listing is to do an equity raise" has a totally different meaning than " to create a US OTC trading entity is to open the doors to making stock offerings in the US. "
In the future if you are going to attempt a "kiss-kick" response then use direct quotes instead of creating your own paraphrasing.
So glad you stuck to the high road instead of indulging in baseless personal attacks.
Have a nice evening