I'm rather surprised, Zeev, that you say of Wexler's post that: "I did not read his statement as accusing the company of engaging in fraudulent activities."
When Mr. Wexler poses numerous accusatory questions at many members of this thread, implying they are working on behalf of the company, and then implying they are promoting a stock fraud, he's coming as close as he can to saying that Valence itself is perpetrating the fraud. He's on very thin ice. VERY thin.
I also would have thought you'd have defended the people involved when Mr. Wexler went way over the top and accused them of actually being one person with multiple identities. He's quite desperate, to have made such patently ridiculous assertions.
No, there's no reason to be gentle with someone of Wexler's ilk. And there's no misreading that he is in fact coming as close as he dare come to making libelous statements about the company itself. That is his clear intent. He attempts to further build his case by making misstatements of fact, saying previous executives 'fled' the company (they were replaced and/or FIRED), or pointing out a trail of red ink (leaving the reader to wonder, 'where DID the money go???').
You've generated respect for yourself here, for the most part, although many may elect to disagree on interpretations or conclusions. Don't throw it all away defending a person with obvious malevolent intent, who has stooped so low as to slander numerous innocent individuals. It does not befit you.
|
