now that I'm done with the Xmas decorations and can put all my attention to this let me re-phrase things using actual numbers after looking at the appropriate 10k for 5/31/06.

As of 5/31/06 there were 366 million shares outstanding. If Swartz had control of half of that, that would be 183 million shares. Swartz had fully diluted (meaning if all warrants were converted) 36,900,446 shares as of 5/31/06. That's about 147 million less shares than Banosser was inferring. Could Swartz have kept the shareprice down by dumping shares? Sure. He could have held it down a whole helluva lot more if he was trying to sell another 147 million shares. Wouldn't you say?

Another thing - between 5/31/05 and 5/31/06 total outstanding shares increased from 280 million to 366 million, or by about 86 million. I did not research how many of those were to Swartz, but I am pretty sure most of them would have been.

So Swartz dumped probably close to 50 million shares between 5/31/05 and 5/31/06. The runup to $2.25 per share occurred in March 2006. Doesn't look like Swartz was keeping his shares out of the float, does it. In fact I would surmise that Swartz dumping of shares was a significant factor in holding the price down.

But hey, what do I know.