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: John Curtis who wrote (3364)	7/14/1998 12:00:00 PM
From: lws	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Vis Mark Visnic: First, I welcome Mark Visnic's participation in this thread despite the somewhat self-congratulatory tone he mixes with his putatively altruistic motives for posting. He has argued forcefully for the necessity of caution when investing in a speculative venture such as Valence. Regardless of his true motive, he serves the basic purpose of the thread, which (for me) is to stimulate my own continuous reappraisal of my reasons for maintaining an investment in Valence. Nevertheless, Mark's thoughtful critics also have some points useful for countering his own. He seems to discount excessively the dated nature of the 10K, the special history of Valence (which predicts extra caution when dealing with the public), and the general tendency of startup companies to face problematic futures for all the usual reasons. His treatment of these issues has been at best oblique and somewhat superficial. The result is that his repeated warnings based on the 10K have now left us with the feeling that he has nothing of substance left to say. In this light, I want to present Mark with a lawyerly challenge which may prove interesting to him and useful for the rest of us. As a lawyer, Mark knows one job of the lawyer is to make his client's case as strong as possible by drawing out the similarities and differences his case may share with other related cases. To date, Mark has argued the anti-Valence position with skill. My challenge to Mark is to play the lawyer for the pro-Valence side by arguing its case as effectively as possible. I would appreciate seeing his analysis of how Valence should be understood in light of its history, its progress (?) since March 30, and its status as a problematic startup. I would also like to see how we might distinguish the Valence thread from the Chromatics thread. I apologize in advance to the others who feel they have already effectively made the pro-Valence case (they have); it's just that I'd like to see Mark's thinking on the matter. Finally, let me thank Mark in advance should he want to undertake this challenge with any depth. Participating in these threads does take time.