Oh, I feel so insulted, Mark. Get a grip. You can't handle that I've blown many of your arguments out of the water, and all you have to resort with are taunts and insults.
BTW, I purposefully selected the phrasing you highlighted, using poetic license. I knew full well that it's not in Webster yet ... but it is part of the language at this point, and may well be formally absorbed later, yet I don't care. It conveyed the image I wanted, and that was my purpose. Only you are too narrow minded to realize this.
Mr. 'efficient market theory' ... Ha! That's what we DON'T have here. You forget how I pricked your bubble when I pointed out your assumptions of information transmission.
This company has built a facility that puts them far ahead of any competitor at this point in time, in spite of being tight with cash. But that latter situation can and will be easily rectified, and by no means will it hinder them getting to market at this point. When their first commercial PO for a consumer application appears, the game will be over for the shorts.
At this time, there are those who possess the information as to the status of these contract negotiations. I would highlight the numerous references to EPS that were made during the conference call, and the mention of 'Valence branding' the product as well.
Mark you calendar: the EPS sale is being finalized soon, in a matter of weeks, and there will likely be joint EPS/Valence announcements following shortly thereafter.
Then there's the other irons in the fire .... |
