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 : Terayon - S CDMA player (TERN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (1629)	2/8/2006 2:34:23 PM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1658

I didn't say he had anything to do with the demise of Terayon. So what makes you think I think that? I rather thought I implied quite the opposite in fact (this being one of thousands destined to fall, and darts could have picked it). It is HE who would purport that he made some great call of sorts. Hogwash, that. And while most recognize that the campaign of lies Pluvia helped to spread may have affected the stock price negatively as intended at the time, that campaign was a crock of demonstrable lies and fabrications. Sure, the stock and so many more were heading down without Pluvia and the efforts of short-sellers who saw this stock rise against them, but we now know that there was an organized campaign by folks in a seriously LOSING short position at the time, to publically lie about this company. Pluvia was a clear accomplice in that campaign, a campaign much derided by the Judge in the case, for its deceit, and rightfully so. Dan B.

To: Geoff Altman who wrote (1629)	3/3/2006 1:20:38 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1658

I might add, though you may not respond (oddly, I think), that those who planned the campaign against Terayon insist that the information they provided was true to this day, to my knowledge. Yet we know Pluvia claimed publicly right here, that Terayon did not sell a desirable product which in fact they did. While actually lying about a company MAY not be necessary for the scheme Pluvia at minimum marched in lockstep with to be a crime, in this case we have irrefutable evidence on this thread that Pluvia did in fact lie about Terayon, an act which favored both his short position and the short position of the Cardinal Partners plaintiffs since removed from the case. How confident am I of that? Years of absolute failure to rebut me on this point speaks volumes. johnbatchelorshow.com wlf.org Dan B.