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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BelowTheCrowd who wrote (5587)	12/20/1999 4:49:00 PM
From: golden_tee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

I do not remember wexler suggesting a short of VLNC at $10+, but rather at $7.5. I think you are just plain lieing here. Show me when wexler posted a $10+ short pick before the <$5 decline? Do you have a poor memory or just think we are all stupid?

To: BelowTheCrowd who wrote (5587)	12/20/1999 5:28:00 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Correction...NVLS +29...yipeeee!!

To: BelowTheCrowd who wrote (5587)	12/20/1999 5:58:00 PM
From: Mike M	Respond to of 10293

Shorting 1000 shares of VLNC at 7 1/2 or even 10 doesn't exactly hedge 1000 shares of VLNC at 75....It may hedge 100 shares....but then the argument breaks down and you are losing money. Let's put things into percentage terms and see if this argument holds water. 35% return on the long(if you didn't hedge your long like Bill did) versus a 100 to 150% loss on the short POSition. Bad hedge.

To: BelowTheCrowd who wrote (5587)	12/20/1999 7:59:00 PM
From: Pallisard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Michael, I have no argument with you or your trading strategy, and I appreciate your reasonable approach, in contrast to Wexler's. Wexler began all this by coming to the Valence boards several times since March denouncing VLNC and its management as a fraud without evidence or justification. Now he's acting like an injured party, carrying on a vendetta. I'm beginning to think he might be one of the litigants in the hopeless suit now pending. Whatever losses he incurred in Valence are well deserved; I only feel sorry for the naive people who fell for these subjective, selfish predictions. After all, it is merely a ploy to influence potential investors negatively, isn't it, or do you think he's performing a social service for us poor, unsuspecting longs? Obviously you were savvy enough to know when to quit, and obviously, his services are no longer needed Can you answer directly, do you think VLNC is a fraudulent company which is soon to go bust?