"If you feel that funding commitment for SFMI offers false hope, then you have an axe to grind that is beyond money."

No axe to grind and no knifing on my part. I simply disagree with your observations, and this being a forum to debate, offered my opinions. I'm sorry that you find opposing views to yours so threatening, but that seems like a convenient defense when someone simply points out something critical about the company.

As far as funding is concerned, that was quite a deflection on your part as that had nothing to do with the points I was making about your largely irrelevant observations about the stock's trading behaviors in relation to the "big picture".

But since you did mention it now, I'm not sure how anyone can comment on the funding pro or con at this point since there aren't enough details to weigh in one way or the other. I guess one could say that funding is worse now than it would have been at .02. And funding is far better now than it would be at .0002. How's that for balance? And you could say that it is better than status quo of nothing. I did mention in my previous post though that funding directed towards an NI 43-101 seems like a waste of money as this company needs funds to keep the lights on and generate revenues. Money purposed for a document/rule applicable to the Canadian exchanges by a US-listed company seems to me to be ill-advised and purposeless. Though maybe you could ask Rich Kaiser or the company to expand on that.

"I was responding to what was encouraging about yesterday, definitive news that these companies will survive and we can hope for recovery, and there was a nice buying spree for half a day with buying far outweighing selling like 10-1...not seen for awhile."

I wouldn't be so quick to make the leap that the news of funding means the companies WILL survive. That would be another irresponsible opinion of hope. Here's where the concept of being balanced comes into play. The realism behind the funding simply means they can survive longer. How long the company can survive is unknown because, as stated before, we don't know the terms, numbers or possible toxiciity of the funding. I would be curious to know why you would think that funds earmarked towards an NI 43-101 translates into survival? I provided possible reasons in my post from yesterday.

"The small trades under .002 were paints and anyoneone with level 2 can see for themselves."

No doubt. However, the point I was making before you deflected into the funding discussion is that these paints have been made for years and haven't meant a thing in the grand scheme of things regarding the share price.

"You seem to like the "death knoll" approach, and you only drop by here to look for a coffin to nail."

Oh the drama. It's called being realistic Pic. The death knoll was written by the company, not by me or any other posters in these forums. I merely made an observation that regardless of these trading behaviors that you've chronicled over time, that they have never translated into some sort of "aha!" moment that I believe you are searching for. And I'm sorry, but I haven't seen any viable reason to take the contrarian viewpoint that you do.

I will not be posing again this year, so try to be honest/balanced in your sure to come knifing.

Sorry if my posting ran you into hiding for the new year. Interesting irony that you mention being honest and balanced. So if I disagree with your opinion that means that I'm not being honest and balanced? Seems like a stacked deck to me. Aside from disagreeing with you, please point out where any of my points are not honest or balanced.