>No problem, as long you stop referring to this other board. One last time, I'm not interested.

I did not refer to any particular board but rather to other boards. There are many. As for you not being interested that is fine, you are not the only person reading this forum and my original reply was not in reference to a post by you.

>I'm not disgruntled; apparently neither you.

I never said that you or I are disgruntled.

>So, I'm not sure why you keep going on with this subject of disgruntled shareholders.

Sculpin seems to think that the selling is being done by someone manipulating the share price. To forster discussion I have offered an alternative which fits the facts as I know them. If you and Sculpin never mention sharprice manipulation again I will never have to offer an alternative opinion.

>I happen to believe that Sonomax has such a unique product that will catapult them into this >very lucrative earphone market. So, I promote Sonomax because I believe in it, and I will not >take part in contradictory games. If investor can’t see the value in Sonomax then I suggest just >get out and don’t be disgruntled.

We can both agree that Sonomax is a great company with a great set of products. Disgruntled investors have a variety of reasons for not selling and if you ever talk to one you might understand thier reasoning a bit better. I am nto saying it make perfect sence but never the less it is understandable.

>As for your statement that the instos could have bought 60 million shares on the open market >over 3-4 months because there were about 10 million shares sold at 4.5 cent in a month, does >not compute. Not just because it would have taken 6 months at that rate, rather because it >would have created an additional 60 million shares of extra demand on the market. Something >like 20 million shares per month. We would have seen 9 or 10 cent trades.

As for 60 million shares in 3-4 months under 5 cents, that would be a simple task for an institution. You did not understand what I wrote, or I did not explain clearly. The 10 million available at 4.5 cents was the visible part of an iceberg that was sitting there. The shares did not or still have not sold (I did not check this week or last). If an institution wanted to start a 60 million share position they could have had thier first 10+ million in a single day and wait for the sells to repopulate! In any event, there are methods that could be empolyed to shake out a 60 million share position in a relativly short time.

The simple points are as follows:

1. The price is low because more investors are selling then buying.

2. All investors have thier own mind set for this stock and thier own time frames which determin thier level of satifaction or dis-satisfaction.

3. Institutional involvment at 5 cents when a stock trades at 4 cents is a massive deal IMO. I do not care about how they could have done this that or the other thing, the point is they are in at 5 cents and not 4 cents.