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: golden_tee who wrote (25067)	11/30/2001 12:15:21 PM
From: LiPolymer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Hi Bob, hope all is well. Take a look at PMCS as just one example of why Mr. Dysfunction needs to keep doing his thing here. Better we let him vent in cyberspace, otherwise the stress might result in serious hardship for others in his local community. Hopefully he is not employed at the USPS. ;) Take care, Gary.

To: golden_tee who wrote (25067)	12/3/2001 1:08:58 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

VLNC has been an unmitigated disaster and the people who directly or indirectly supported the outrageous and egregious cheerleading and wild forecasts should be ashamed and embarrassed but probably are not. You all know who they are. They are the very ones that launched vicious personal attacks at a very few who challenged their representations and made recommendations to pay heed to the 10K and 10Q information that contravened their positions(to be charitable). The sheer magnitude of error in their representations must raise questions about their intent. Were they merely very poor thinkers, did they have a self-serving agenda, or a combination thereof. They were not merely wrong, their representations consistently failed and their numbers were off by direction and orders of magnitude. The representations were irresponsible at best. Those who made the representations have disappeared. They have not even attempted to explain how the sources of their information and the assumptions and judgements they represented they derived from their information sources could have been so far off the mark. As for MIKL, it was taken out at 3x what it sold for in 1997. It was a solid company with sound fundamentals and shareholders in it made money because the share price appreciated. Your undocumented representations of gains in VLNC, a stock that has continued to disappoint and whose share price reflects that disappointment, is not credible.

To: golden_tee who wrote (25067)	12/14/2001 8:11:33 PM
From: MGV	Respond to of 27311

I see you haven't absorbed this yet. Keep trying. VLNC has been an unmitigated disaster and the people who directly or indirectly supported the outrageous and egregious cheerleading and wild forecasts should be ashamed and embarrassed but probably are not. You all know who they are. They are the very ones that launched vicious personal attacks at a very few who challenged their representations and made recommendations to pay heed to the 10K and 10Q information that contravened their positions(to be charitable). The sheer magnitude of error in their representations must raise questions about their intent. Were they merely very poor thinkers, did they have a self-serving agenda, or a combination thereof. They were not merely wrong, their representations consistently failed and their numbers were off by direction and orders of magnitude. The representations were irresponsible at best. Those who made the representations have disappeared. They have not even attempted to explain how the sources of their information and the assumptions and judgements they represented they derived from their information sources could have been so far off the mark. As for MIKL, it was taken out at 3x what it sold for in 1997. It was a solid company with sound fundamentals and shareholders in it made money because the share price appreciated. Your undocumented representations of gains in VLNC, a stock that has continued to disappoint and whose share price reflects that disappointment, is not credible.

To: golden_tee who wrote (25067)	1/13/2003 5:34:41 PM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

To:Brad Davies who wrote (7684) From: Robert Yoest Monday, Jan 1, 2001 11:39 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8602 Please, short VLNC. You clearly DO NOT understand this company, it's technology, or it's business plans. Care to explain why every quarter that passes represents a greater institutional holding, and a greater short position? Clearly one is right and one is wrong. The shorts have a hell of a hill to climb here! Psst. The shorts are unquestionably wrong here (and desperate), and the share price will reflect this in spades, in the coming month. Count on it. VLNC will test $20 by the end of January, IMHO. I leave you to stew in your "shorts are geniuses in a bear market" juices. Sentiment just changed... roll with it.