No. I do not agree to disagree. Apparently your claim is that I am wrong in stating that the second part of the Ironridge investment is a debt/cash financing rather than an equity financing (like the first part of the deal). My claim is that you are wrong in assuming that the A/S at 2B is not sufficient to allow for enough issuance of shares to Ironridge to complete the first part of the deal which we know to be an equity (dilutive) financing arrangement. As regards asking for proof, I was referring to your claim stating,
"Ironridge doesn't do debt financing"
This speculative assumption of yours is the crux of your argument in thinking that the second part of the investment deal is just more equity financing. In order for us to take your argument seriously, we must have reason to believe that what you claim about Ironridges working practices are accurate. Are they? Proof, links?
You state that I provide no proof of my claim, for which I assume you are referring to my statement,
"This $50k per month deal is the SECOND part which is completely different, its a CASH financing (DEBT) which may or may not have even started for RFMK yet"
And as concerns that statement, as a long investor, I have no inside information or anything other to go on than what is stated by the CEO in PRs.
"The first investment , which is nearly $700,000 , will enable Rapid Fire Marketing to settle accounts payable and significantly increase its inventory of vapor inhalers, expand its product line and business operations via a new division. Additionally, the costs of the Company getting to fully reporting status will be offset significantly via the Ironridge investment.
The second funding is a $1.5 million cash financing which will enable the Company to more than meet all financial obligations as well as expand its business on all fronts. The term of this deal is for 30 months whereby Rapid Fire Marketing will receive $50,000 in funding per month."
Specifically, see the verbiage stating, "$1.5 million CASH financing...". This I assume is meant to mean DEBT financing, not more equity financing; I am assuming here the CEO means "cash"=="debt". It could be an incorrect assumption but that is all the information we have on the terms or details of the second part of the Ironridge deal so I cannot provide any other "proof" for my claim that the second part of the deal is a cash/debt deal, not another equity deal. I would agree that we need more clarification from the CEO on this aspect and it would nice for investors to see a 10K along with the detailed terms of the second part of the deal rather than just a generic monthly rate of financing. If you cannot provide proof for your claim that Ironridge has never done a debt financing and has not even possibly done their first debt financing with RFMK, then your claim that the second part of the deal is just more equity financing is all but guesswork, sorry to say. 
GLTY
$RFMK!
