Which is why I agreed with you that it is a sweet deal...as long as they can purchase at $2 years down the road. It's a sweet deal for someone who, as you say put their own money in at .075 and it reached $2, but it's not a sweet deal for the investor who put more money in than they are comfortable putting in and there by found themselves "in over their head", until, of course, the stock reaches $2 per share, then they are happy.

Those are the same people who disagree that the company shouldn't dilute at the rate they are diluting, the same people who feel that instead of diluting, the company should sell assets off on the cheap so to purchase other assets such as mprecise, ess-w, only to shortly down the road, for a peanut or two, sell them off too just to stay afloat a little longer, til the remaining of company assets or asset is clinically proven or can be sold at the premium price that brings shareholder value that translates in a higher pps, swapping asset for another asset, until no asset and no company and no shareholder value.

If I had a problem with the company's strategy that involved the dilution of shares, before I sold my shares, I might express it a couple times on a message board in hopes of obtaining a response that might influence my opinion differently, if no suitable response back, I'd sell it all! Why lose more money? I can see adding to one's position to counter dilution, but if you don't agree how or why company is diluting, I'd get the F out of the stock altogether.

Then, add a dislike and distrust of the CEO, too, along with a disagreement of how the company is diluting??? I'd say you are way too far interested in the risk aspect of investing but not much in for the return aspect of it.