Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : VALENCE TECHNOLOGY (VLNC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pallisard who wrote (14328)	9/6/1999 1:38:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Respond to of 27311

<<Larry doesn't respond directly to issues, if it doesn't agree with his agenda or further his opportunities to produce negative points of view.>> On the contrary, Pallisard, I would much rather respond to reasonable analysis (see my prior post) than your tripe. <<He also doesn't talk to management because he knows their statements will disagree with his agenda.>> Let's talk about this talking to management issue. I've listened to almost every conference call for more than two years. I've read every PR, and probably have a better command of their SEC filings than anybody else posting on this thread. Material information can only be legally disclosed via official channels. Shareholder hand holding is accomplished through phone calls to management. Do you think all of Fred Kellet's purported discussions with management might have led him to think contracts were imminent in 1997, first quarter '98, third quarter '98 (when he reported a 99% probability within weeks of the analyst visit), early 99, mid-99, etc.? Or do you think he simply made all this up? <<He's not really interested in the truth, he's interested in making statements that will convince others that Valence is failing and possibly to sell their some or all of their position.>> On the contrary. I am very interested in the truth. Like I was last November when Lev refused to say whether they had sent out production samples, but this thread claimed contracts were imminent anyway. Like I was last December when the SEC filings indicated they had yet to send out production samples, but this thread claimed these filings were dated attorney disclaimers. Like I was in January when Fred claimed 6 production lines could generate $3 billion in annual revenue when we now know that VLNC is expecting to reach a $76 million run rate within 12 months. Like I was in March when Paul claimed that Castle Creek would have to file with the SEC if they were shorting. Like I was in April and May when VLNC's filings said they had no products for sale but this thread claimed contracts were imminent. Seems to me that not only am I interested in the truth, but I am pretty good at finding it.