``O`Farmer is right. It is time we acted like responsible adults, and assumed some responsibility for what is going on...

If the company wants this 100 Million share approval as a ``Poison Pill`` defense then let them say so. I will vote for it in a blink of an eye, with a provision that if it is to be used for any other purpose it requires shareholder approval via a special shareholder meeting...

If it is to be used for ``growing the business`` as the PR says, then they can wait till the shareholder meeting when they will tell us what that growing business needs are that can not be met by the 35 million shares on the shelf already, and than ask for the approval of additional shares...

It is not slacking by demanding the company be honest and up front with the share holders. The law demands it. And we have to begin demanding it too...``

Funny; when I voiced concerns earlier this year, I was put down as a basher and dismissed as a nay sayer. At that time our stock was at 19 cents---now it`s under 13 cents. If future results are projected by the company`s past five years, I`m in big trouble. I feel like a fool for being a cheer leader for most of that time--I thought I knew better. An acquaintance of mine just went to Canada to pick up ``an unknown inheritance``---a big scam deal shown on 60 Minutes this past year. I feel like she must feel---loss of self respect, feeling like I`ve been had, justy plain stupid!

I haven`t decided how to vote. I don`t think it makes much difference. One side of me says, trust the company; they are in a much better position to know their needs. After all they have hung in there and are still in business with real orders. The other side is on the side of Gil, wanting them to account for more potential ``spirial-death financing.`` Since I have until the day before the SHM to vote electronically, I`ll continue to read the posts that outline the reasons to vote pro and con and decide later.

ORY