ummm, you're arguing a little backwards here. Are you trying to say Swartz coverted his warrants and then purposely did not sell his warrants, thereby removing them from the float, and by doing so he caused the shareprice to go up?

Do you see any holes in that argument?

Your statement that Swartz starved the share availability is ridiculous. With 400 million shares in the float in 2006 there were a ton of shares available to trade whether you look at it from a total share standpoint or a percentage available after subtracting Swartz shares.

I'm done. Argue with someone else as I find it hard to argue with someone that doesn't make sense.