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 : XYBR - Xybernaut -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: StockDung who wrote (5932)	4/13/2004 1:05:35 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 6847

Re: "it appears Pluvis was talking about TERN's products that they made. He was not talking about what products they sold from what I am reading." Doesn't EVEN appear that way in what you've quoted there, I'm sure the un-biased observer will agree. He made no such distinction in your quoted what-so-ever. You've no point here. I'll tell you that when Pluvia had noted that Terayon offered TDMA DOCSIS products from a third party manufacturer, which I believe he did on the thread in ordinary posts prior to his ahem, official 2nd short report, that sufficed to prove he knew damn well it would be false to write, wholly without distinction between products they invented and products they sold, that "Terayon's products are based solely on a technology called S-CDMA (synchronous code division multiple access)." His Dramatically/irrevocably false statement above lead the reader away from connecting the dots to another reality he admitted earlier, i.e. that Terayon was one of only 4 companies on Cablelabs(read: TDMA products then) Standards body. His point was to say Terayon would never likely sell much in the all important DOCSIS market (heck, they hadn't even started yet if you believed Pluvia's statement as written), and I'd say that in his enthusiasm to make a forceful statement, he managed to tell an obvious lie he overlooked. Part of his case was to say Tern mis-led investors concerning its expected inclusion of it's S-CDMA into DOCSIS. In fact they not only apparently weren't exaggerating, they'd worked hard, plainly knew what they were talking about (having sold S-CDMA in a huge way around the world), and were proven in the end correct in their honest assessment of their own capabilities and current standing with Cablelabs. When they promised they'd create a working TDMA/S-CDMA sample chip for submission and expected inclusion into DOCSIS, they obviously were quite truthful in assessing their goals, as they in fact diligently followed through and met with success. Terayon's Rakib brothers were simply innovators of genuinely valuable technology of their own invention and marketing. Very Laudable fellows, not lying scoundrals...or so the pudding would seem to prove in the main, IMO. In my opinion, they are undeserving of the general crass and unsupported innuendo(as I read the original suit) and the plain lie told by Pluvia in his statement you've now quoted yourself. Let's not forget the huge loss position Cardinal Partners held short as they executed their plans to recover by attacking the company (not admitting their short position as they filed suit over a falling stock price on "behalf" of shareholders in "excruciatingly intricate detail (per the judge)" only a single day after their own efforts finally caused the price to fall). This is called conflict of interest. Not disclosing their short position may even ensure a shareholder suit against them. Plainly you and Pluvia certainly worked in concert with them, at the very least IMHO. I've said before, I won't be a bit surprised if Terayon gets a wrist slap for something in all this...'cause with millions hanging on a successful attack against a company, I'd guess pretty much any company could be run into the ground over some technicality or another. Just don't let your Cardinal Partners partners/buddies hide a huge short position when they file suit to help the price go down, ok? LOL. The Judge doesn't like that, and seems to think a suit against them and/or perhaps you is in order. I have to agree. I wonder can you tell me how many shares you, Pluvia, and Cardinal Partners were busy buying back even as your recommentation to short the stock stood? You do realize that getting others to sell short helps you to buy back lower and save your own asses in he process, don't you? Of course you do. When herding sheep and instructing them to sell into your hands, it would seem only fair to inform them that you are in fact buying back, not selling(which fact could kill your selling sheep - not that I think you care). In my opinion, your guys simply operate like touts in reverse. I think they sell stocks at high prices while advising others to buy at those prices, without actually disclosing what they are doing, you buy at low prices while advising folks to sell at those prices, to your benefit, withut disclosing what your are doing. Same difference. Criminal acts in both cases, IMO. My god, Cardinal didn't disclose its short efforts when filing suit on behalf of long sharehohlders for a price fall it largely caused. LOL. Criminal intent is plain to all, IMO, and 'ol Pluvia calls them "our guys." LOL. Everyone should be VERY careful following advice from you folks, IMO. Dan B.