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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16050)	11/12/1999 10:20:00 PM
From: Jay Lowe	Respond to of 27311

>> What the analysts in yesterday's conference call should have asked Those are indeed great questions which begged to be asked. I was disappointed when the First Union guy backed off. He had a great opening and then fizzled ... as if he wasn't prepared for the spinmeister's obvious push-back. I don't blame Lev for the defensive maneuver ... and I do wish the questioner had the adroitness to press for a meaningful response. Guess that's why he's an analyst and Lev's the CEO. Definitely the low point of the CC.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16050)	11/12/1999 10:38:00 PM
From: lws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi, Larry, I too was interested in the First Union guy's question. I was perversely hoping for an explanation, but was not surprised that none was forthcoming. I've tried in the past to get such an explanation, but was unsuccessful. Of course I wasn't surprised then, either. If I were in Lev's place, I wouldn't answer. Answering is to risk undermining if not repudiating one set of statements or the other. It's a no-win situation for him. Less perversely, I was glad he didn't answer. He doesn't need the problems of the ensuing uproar. Moreover, in the end I don't think the answer matters. I think the appropriate way to look at it is to consider the situation as analogous to the half-glass situation. It can be described as half full, or half empty. Each is true; neither is "truer" than the other; each has its own connotations. The SEC filings are the glass half empty interpretation; the conference calls are the glass half full. Both should be considered when evaluating the situation. I realize these comments raise as many questions as they answer, but I cannot treat them now. I think, however, that Lev would agree to this interpretation. Building an understanding of the company that embraces both is part of -- if not the essence of -- due diligence. Regards, lws

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (16050)	11/13/1999 12:34:00 AM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Larry: If you wanted to know more.....why the heck didn't you ask?? The conference call was for us! I could have asked any question I wanted.....Don't you have enough resourcefullness to be able to present a question? I know my position is antagonistic to your point of view. But your post....the post I'm responding to... is from your predictable rearview perspective.....Will you ever give us a forward looking statement...??? A couple of darn smart guys have responded to you tonight... lws, and mooter.... Heed their advise, Zeev isn't the only intuitive entity on SI. BTW one of mooter's picks ABMD was up $5.00 today and I didn't see him rearviewing about it..... Think about it!