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: kolo55 who wrote (15050)	10/5/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Respond to of 27311

What do you suppose the motive is behind the attacks by Larry and Visnic? They seem to *enjoy* the frustrations and delays, and denigrate or try to neutralize any good news that happens along. I noticed when Visnic ceased, Larry picked up the banner and continued the attack. It's all a bit obvious, isn't it? I think Ticker's idea is correct. Use the NEXT button.

To: kolo55 who wrote (15050)	10/5/1999 12:58:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

To: Larry Brubaker (15050 ) From: Paul M. Klemencic Tuesday, Oct 5 1999 11:49AM ET Reply # of 15053 You must be challenged at reading the English language. I repeat, I never said that CC couldn't and wouldn't short. Your interpretation is in conflict with the quotes you provide. You lied. You have to be the most petty person I have ever read. Stop and look at what you are writing. Get a grip on yourself.

To: kolo55 who wrote (15050)	10/5/1999 1:56:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

<<You must be challenged at reading the English language. I repeat, I never said that CC couldn't and wouldn't short. Your interpretation is in conflict with the quotes you provide. You lied.>> You must be challenged at interpreting the English language Paul. You said last March that Castle Creek must file a change in beneficial ownership if they had shorted the stock. Since they had not filed such a statement, you claimed they were not shorting. I interpreted this statement to mean, they "could not have shorted." You further said in March (your exact words) "Castle Creek invested in Valence because they believe they will be successful. That's why they hired technical experts to review Valence's technology and spent over six months doing due diligence." You also said "Castle Creek is bullish on VLNC." I intepreted this to mean, they "would not be shorting." Certainly you are not suggesting these were unreasonable interpretations of your words when you called me a liar? If so, why don't you tell us what you really meant when you said those words, Paul. And further, you made these comments about Castle Creek (being "bullish on VLNC") as statements of fact. You did not say it was your opinion Castle Creek was bullish on VLNC, you stated it as a fact, as if you had some sort of inside knowledge of Castle Creek's opinion on VLNC. I would submit, Paul, that you were lying in March when you claimed you knew what Castle Creek's opinion was about VLNC, you were mistaken in your interpretation of the SEC filings, you were mistaken when you predicted a 500,000 share increase in the short position, and IN MY OPINION, you are also now mistaken when you suggest that somehow Castle Creek is on the defensive in this game.