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 (1639)	3/4/2006 11:52:44 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 1658

Re: "Why would it be odd that I not respond?" Because response is the required element beyond an initiating statement or question, before actual conversation exists. I don't demand conversation, I initiate potential conversation with one who had weighed in previously. The "conspiracy" as you put it, is in evidence before the judge, not a conclusion of mine. It may seem hard to believe that an entity sitting on true ooddles in losses would think to create a redoubled concerted campaign to talk TERN down after the continuing move up had all but ruined them, but I can't say why. If you don't believe it, I'd be interested in your line of thinking. Of course, if you've comprehended the links provided on this thread, you know that the entity known as Cardinal in fact planned an attack against Terayon while holding a hugely losing short position. The bottom line? They are allowed to attack, but if Cardinal's folks told a single lie about Terayon in the process, they are or certainly ought to be screwed. The further bottom line? Regardless of Pluvia's actual connection to Cardinal Partners, lack thereof, or his actual source of information, if he held a short position in Terayon as he claimed, then the negative to Terayon lie he published defines his guilt. He even provided the evidence that he knowingly published the lie, by showing us that he knew Terayon sold DOCSIS products before publishing the report which boldly stated they did not. It would seem impossible to believe you or anyone would suggest that lying about a company in order to profit from ones own position, ought be considered legal, let alone moral. If you'd like to explain on what basis you disagree when I say Pluvia's claim that Terayon had no DOCSIS products for sale when in fact they did, wasn't an obviously illegal lie told to benefit his well noted short position, you are welcome to do so. But again, I doubt that you will respond, which would be odd. Dan B.