See Petersen's post promising "There will be no dilution", this just 3 months before Axion disclosed dilution risk in an SEC filing. See JP's convoluted definition of shareholder dilution. See how quickly this post exposing these facts is removed.
Thought I would bump this since you have Kirk and Johnny engaging in outright lies right in this thread. Kirk claims the link is irrelevant, but if you click on it you will find that one of the replies is Johnny's famous "There will be no dilution" post in which he ignores the actual concept of dilutive financing. Kirk also defends Johnny's red herring tactic used explaining dilution by ignoring the concept of dilutive financing and shareholder dilution and only focusing on earnings dilution, which is crazy when you speak of a developmental stage company with no earnings.
Anyway, I could go on but you can decide who the criminals are here, just look at the stock performace since Johnny's and Kirk Boy's posts about dilution.
--s.karlowski wrote: "Let see how long it takes the criminal stock promoters to take down this evidence of JP's lies and deception."
a) Your link provided no evidence of anything at all, and indeed it seems to be irrelevant. Perhaps you can take a moment and either explain it or correct it.
b) By using the word "criminal" in your scurrility, you've tripled your chances of the post being removed -- sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy. But counterbalancing that is the thought that your post is so silly that it actually does more discredit to you than a harassment to anyone else. Perhaps you should fix it and repost it.
c) Petersen's definition of dilution is not convoluted; it is formal and is correct. The fact that you (or I might) not commonly understand the actual meaning of "dilution" is the only really interesting part. Petersen is a securities lawyer, and he thinks that way -- so this is a lesson well learned.
o Dilution is not simply an increase in the total number of shares. Argue that if you wish, and you'll lose -- it's all there in the books.
o In a company which is operating for revenue (not as a start-up), the definition has to do with share issuance that directly lowers the earnings per share. That is a very cool way of defining it, covering many things.
o In a start-up, where there have not yet been any real earnings (and Axion's current earnings are at best tangential to its mission, so it is still a start-up), the dilution definition uses book value instead of earnings. Axion's book value per share went up, Petersen argues.
d) Your link cites an Axion adoption of a Board governance rule that allows the Board to immediately remove a director "for cause", including criminal conviction, moral turpitude, etc, etc. Common-as-dirt governance for a public company. Where is your problem? Oh yah, you won't explain, you'll just cr@p on the floor and run away.