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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bear Down who wrote (2919)	2/18/2005 10:01:11 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 5425

You are offering some good thoughts concerning the position and relationships you and others may have vis a vis Cardinal. On the other hand, once we understand what was going on, it appears more like you and others were but patsies for spreading word of a scam that wasn't. Still you write as if the cease and desist letter is proof of something, though you haven't offered a counter argument to mine. Again, the complaints Cablelabs received from shorts which precipitated that letter, were based in such weak evidence, that Cablelabs pointedly wrote a second letter essentially explaining that they'd come to believe TERN had no intent to deceive at all. I explained the reality of the alleged out of the ordinary insider sales which were supposedly spurred by the first letter (truly unlikely at this point, just ask cablelabs), and I find nothing illegal nor uncommon about those sales, as they were in line with prior years stock sales as I've pointed out (again, I researched myself at the time, and wouldn't lie about the generality of what I found, here today). Happens all the time. On the TERN thread it was noted at the time without argument, that the contacts issue you again raise, also was representative of rather common and legal corporate arrangements. Add to all this the fact that there was obviously no scam on the technology side of things either (though strongly alleged), as Cablelabs did bring TERN's S-CDMA into the standard just as TERN suggested they could make happen, and again, I see an honest company wrongly attacked by an outfit millions in the hole on a short position, nothing more. It's easy to see how you could come to believe otherwise, given your starting point, I just happen to think the evidence is incredibly strong that TERN was scamming noone at all, and certainly not with intent. As for Pluvia, even if he sort of is indeed in the same outsider innocent bystander shoes as I suspect you are, he wrote falsely about TERN and TERN's products, and that is illegal when promoting a short, no matter how you slice it. He did so here on this site. He went overboard, and to this day he can't offer a coherent saving explanation for his writings on TERN, IMO. Dan B.

To: Bear Down who wrote (2919)	2/18/2005 10:10:27 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 5425

RE: "necessitating a plan to get the truth out? It had nothing to do with bringing the stock down." What truth? Really. Surely, knowing Cardinal was way in the hole before they instigated the charges and suits, you can't believe that this was all done out of the goodness of their hearts. It is only too bad that in the cases of some taggers along like perhaps you, your opinion above was genuinely held. Dan B.

To: Bear Down who wrote (2919)	2/19/2005 12:42:48 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 5425

I have to add that for you to use TERN's current stock price relative to what it was during a brief tech bubble, as evidence that the "truth" hurt them - and that they are/were indeed a scam - is disingenuous. We all know about the effect of the Tech. Market bubble. The difference between TERN and say, competitor CMTO, is the original potential of each (TERN having more genuine honest potential and a history of surprisingly substantial worldwide sales of self-designed non-DOCSIS S-CDMA modems and headends), that TERN is still in business unlike CMTO, and that TERN, has actually reached many of its real goals (something shorts in essence claimed TERN surely knew it would never achieve. Shorts were plainly and indisputably wrong in this, and motivated by a losing green position in being so). Dan B.