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: Tickertype who wrote (21376)	9/3/2000 3:35:27 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 27311

With all due respect, Ticker, that is a pretty lame argument. He didn't say he believed he knew, he said he knew. Let's put it into today's context and use a bashing, rather than hyping, example. If I said I believe VLNC is still having significant production problems and cited the basis for my belief (e.g., the failure to meet the schedule for delivery against the $15 million cell phone order, the statements of production status in the SEC filings, and the lack of a quantified purchase order for 9 months), that would be one thing. However, if I said (which I'm not) that I knew VLNC would be unable to meet its existing purchase orders in a timely or profitable manner, that would be something else entirely. In the first example, I am clearly speculating based on available facts. You could present the reasons why you believe my speculation is wrong. In the second case, I am either lying or in possession of material inside information. If somebody made a bashing comment presented as a fact that went far beyond the publicly-available facts, you guys would be referring the post to the SEC and/or trying to get VLNC to sue. Apparently the same standards of integrity don't apply to hyping statements. At least in your mind. Apparently we agree on one thing, however. One should not take Don Wolanchuk's bluster seriously.