Oh, so now the bar has been moved to third party shorting? Why would the financing make it more likely for a third party, that has no more access to shares than you or I, to short? There are plenty of companies out there that I would short in preference to SFMI, especially at the levels it's at now. And "not that my analysis was wrong but...." You don't find any problems with my analysis that demonstrates clearly that there is no toxic aspect to the financing at all, but you still continue to beat the horse to death, beat it some more, bury it, and dig it up again to beat it some more? All without any justification for your hysterics? It's very easy to shout "Shorting!" or "Toxic financing!" or "Dilution!" as long as you don't have to provide any justification as to why any of these apply- and I have seen no analysis of the financing from you at all, other than as I said to equate SFMI to completely different companies simply because they used the same source for financing. When I asked for an analysis showing how the companies compared to SFMI, none was forthcoming. And you wonder why your input is not very well received? Give it up.