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: golden_tee who wrote (7852)	2/27/2001 1:27:55 AM
From: Dr. Voodoo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Hey Watch this, I've been practicing my BW imitation, Bill, see if I got this one right....OK? Here goes... {{{yawn}}} zzzzzz...zzzzzz....zzzzzz

To: golden_tee who wrote (7852)	2/27/2001 11:33:22 AM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Respond to of 10293

"Are you saying Lev DIDN'T say there would be a disclosure of the lock up?" - Lev said that there would be a disclosure when the deal closed. An 8k was filed upon completion. It did not state that there was a lockup on the shares. Thus, when the deal was finalized, there was no lockup. It was disclosed. Are you saying that VLNC was at fault because an 8k should disclose things that DIDN'T happen? So let me get this straight, VLNC said nothing about it, therefore it was disclosed? What kind of looking-glass logic is this?? I'll bet if I went over to that bastion of deep thought over on the Yahoo boards I'd find at least two or three posts stating that the lack of mention of a lockup did NOT mean one didn't exist. So how long until Valence sues Greenberg? I'm waiting...