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: allen menglin chen who wrote (6460)	1/30/2000 7:56:00 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10293

Rofllol! That reminds me on ENMLs toothpaste which was useful for cleansing hot-plates.... Hey, where can I buy those red-hot Qcom cell phones? In our town, only lame NOKas and Ericssons' are offered? Not to speak of clumsy Mot's.

To: allen menglin chen who wrote (6460)	1/30/2000 8:06:00 PM
From: LiPolymer	Respond to of 10293

M.C. Allen, living in the past... Here are some of my thoughts on that article written back then: Mr. Carlsen, I read with great interest an on-line copy of your article today. If I were putting this newspaper together, it would not have been an easy decision where to place this article. The content suggests it is "news", the tone "editorial" and the writing style "entertainment". I considered taking your article apart paragraph by paragraph, but instead will generally make my point by paraphrasing a portion of what you have written: "Lev Dawson wanted to get rich, so he hyped an unproven idea for a new battery to stockholders and customers, even though he knew all along there were problems with the technology that would ultimately cause the product to fail. By the time anyone caught on, Mr. Dawson had escaped with his ill-gotten gains and was living the life of a gentleman farmer, raising sweet potatoes in Louisiana." Is this what you intended to say, Mr. Carlsen? Do you think the disclaimer "the executives -- including Dawson -- deny any wrongdoing" is providing objective balance to your highly subjective portrayal of Mr. Dawson? In my view you are acting recklessly in your profession, dangerously close to libel. It seems clear you did not research the root cause of Valence's failure to successfully market the solid lithium battery, what is often referred to as the "Motorola debacle". Contrary to what is insinuated in your article, the Motorola contract was not canceled due to safety concerns. Rather, during acceptance testing, it was found the batteries did not consistently meet the minimum number of recharge cycles. If your research was current and your approach to the subject was fair, you would know and should have stated Valence's current policy in regards to contract announcements, that such announcements will not be forthcoming before the product has passed acceptance testing at the customer. But bringing the Valence story all the way to 1999 would have taken away much of the sensationalism you were seeking. I cannot portend their reaction, but do not be surprised if you hear from the company's legal counsel about this piece. I could go on, but the hour is late. Your "Phantom Riches" article is one of the worst examples of biased sensationalism, masqueraded as investigative reporting, that I've ever seen in my life. Even if not an owner of Valence stock, I would find it truly revolting. There is still time to redeem yourself, by printing a clarifying retraction to the November 15th article, and also toning down the biased sensationalism in the remaining four. Sincerely, Gary Smith Are you really basing your investment decisions on what you read in the SF Chronicle? Between this drivel and Herbie Greenberg's "Garbage Index" (I bet Carlsen's DD consisted of calling Herbie) you guys really know how to pick 'em! With all due respect, Gary