BeauBeau - I agree with some of your points and di

BeauBeau - I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.

I do not agree that others should follow my "lead" as I actually do not desire to "lead" the board in any certain direction. My hope is simply that the board can remain a fair, honest and open place for discussion about RFMK but also keeping out obvious agendas whether they be for pumping or for bashing purposes. I think I know what you mean though, as far as others adopting the attitude of fairness, I agree, it's important to have an open mind and see both the good and the dark sides.

I totally agree that as the O/S increases, there is no doubt that the float grows larger over time as well and that in turn makes it much more difficult for the PPS to change in value using the same amount of volume in the past. However, we cannot disregard the possibility of a greater number of shares getting traded daily as the float grows so the PPS and volume ratio may wind up staying roughly in proportion over time, but also maybe not. I think it all depends on the investor exposure the company gets as the story unfolds. If a greater and greater number of investors learn about the RFMK story and become interested and invest/trade then that would in some degree mitigate the growing size of the float. However it is also possible that as the float grows, the investor interest levels remain stagnant and then more and more as time goes on a situation develops wherein there are so many shares in the float just sitting and not trading hands frequently and so a relatively small subset of shares can move the PPS dramatically no matter what puny shares are trading hands among the day traders, etc.

I think it's important to keep the dilution in perspective. The O/S has just about doubled over the last year with Allinder being the CEO. However, there have also been some corporate accomplishments, like launching the CannaCig/Cumulus products and getting out of "debt". Also important it is to keep the two Ironridge financing deals seperate. The first one to get out of "debt" was in fact dilutive and we still do not know how dilutive it could wind up being because Ironridge as far as we know continues to hold a 10% stake and churning their shares all the while getting newly issued shares in order to get their $700k original financing back. Without an audited 10K we can only speculate as to how far along they are in completing that arrangement (how much more dilution of the O/S). Now as for the second part of the deal, it is for $50k/month and all we know so far about that is that Ironridge got 150 pref shares for almost two years worth of this alleged $50k/month which has supposedly started this month (not sure). In other words, I think it is a fallacy to make statements which suggest that Ironridge must go into the market and dump a new traunche of newly issued shares each month in compensation for their $50k/month. That would be mixing the two parts of the deal which IMO is improper. Also another complication is that should the PPS move much much higher during which Ironridge still holds a 10% stake, they could conceivably sell a portion or all of their holdings for much greater sums of money which would not require any more shares to be issued or maybe lessen the number of shares. I would not call it "Toxic Financing" just yet, the game is not over IMO and there are still moves to be made on the board. I would agree though that PAST dilutive financing like the 504D shares to Fairhills and anything BEFORE Allinder was in fact "toxic" because obviously whatever deals those were did nothing for the company and hence only diluted shareholders with nothing in return.

 I agree that the pace of the business plan could be quicker and we have waited too long for many things, most notably the audit and 10K filing as well as the uplist. I have said that for many months. Then again, from a larger perspective, coming into a new CEO position and right away getting financing, Cheryl Shuman, new products launched, affiliates and distributors lined up in just under a year I think is rather impressive. I also rather like the idea that Ironridge is a long term financier and not a short term share dumper like Fairhills Capital (of whom has a SEC litigation against them and is likely the cause of the DTC "chill").

I totally agree that the CEO has over-promised and under-delivered in regards to the audit, 10K filing and uplisting. He made promises of "weeks, not months" back in mid Aug 2012 and there is one more week left in Feb 2013, so that much is obvious. Though there have been quarterly filings made to the OTC markets site, so I think at least shareholders have that much which is good.

I disagree with the notion that the CEO's background is in any way shape or form telling for his performance or future performance in the role of CEO. He was a stock promoter and he promoted many stocks, some of which were less than reputable and turned out to be failures or as they say, "stinky pinkies". But this is not the fault of a promoter, they just do their job and promote the stock. It's like a QA job though, if everything is going right then no one ever congradulates or cares about what is going on or how hard the tester has worked over long periods of time but when the one time that things do go bad then everyone is quick to blame the QA person for the failures and its pitchfork and torches time.

I agree that for RFMK, all the talk in the world means nothing, in the end the company will either perform well or not. The way they peform to build shareholder value is by attaining decent sales and revenues, but that takes time for and development stage business. Performance must be judged on a particular scale when measuring a micro cap start up pinky with very little funds to get business started. We all know that while they are attempting to ramp up the business there is going to be massive dilution and delays from projected business goals. It's easy to over criticize IMO. For me personally, I give more leeway to management as far as developing the business, new products, timing of sales, revenue growth, etc but as a shareholder things I demand ASAP and are requirements not nice-to-haves are FILINGS and completing this audit and filing the 10K would go VERY FAR in this regard. I guess we shall see. I think your complaints are not unfounded but also rather typical of really any pinky start up. Actually I feel pretty good about RFMK because they actually have a product that I can order, receive in the mail and actually use. Most pinkies do not even have a product so IMO RFMK is on a decently good path. Time will tell.

GLTY

$RFMK