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 (21377)	9/3/2000 4:26:35 PM
From: Chisy	Respond to of 27311

I do, I have and I've prospered even in VLNC.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (21377)	9/3/2000 4:28:15 PM
From: Dennis V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Sometimes, when a bit of speech is transferred to the printed page, the flavor changes. I believe Wolly's conspiratorial, (wink) remark was offhand and not meant to convey a fact of knowledge. The guy is impulsive; remember when he blurted out some stuff during a company CC and Lev pointed to the woodshed? DW probably has been stung a couple of times over the MOT remark. It's not much to hang your hat on either way. Taken in the context of DW's overall record, it's just a blip.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (21377)	9/4/2000 12:05:57 AM
From: Tickertype	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, as far as the same standards applying in either direction, just take a look at some of the bashing posters on Yahoo who, on a daily basis, keep saying that Valence has no production, still no product, etc. They state this as though they knew it to be a fact, even though Valence has by now collected some millions in revenues which I suspect wasn't paid by OEM's for vaporware. If Don W. had said "I know", it would tend to imply that he really knew, but he said "we know". Who's "we"? The term "we" implies us, the shareholders, and for most of us puts it in the context I explained earlier. As for making a SEC case out of the bashing or hyping, I'm not aware of anybody actually pursuing anything along those lines, despite the bluster we see every day. So far the only incident I can recall that in my view may actually provide grounds for such a case is the repeated statement by one infamous poster that VLNC is a "stock fraud". But then I'm no lawyer. - T -