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: jean1057 who wrote (5160)	11/15/1998 10:16:00 PM
From: gvander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Nice try-- Click my name and you will see I have been a member since 2/97 and have made very few posts--what posts I have made have been contained to lithium battery companies. Even if you count the many times I was INVITED to respond--it is less then one percent of FMK's posts. Also I don't think I made a doomsday scenario either. Exaggeration does not help your position. Again my questions were basic. Also many here pretended to be knowledgeble in high-tech valuation--I just ment to expose the charade. That seems pretty well accomplished if you reread how inaddaquately basic CF issues were handled by some of the so called experts here. Its hardly worth my time once I found out the depth of their knowledge. I'll be lurking until the pump effort begins again. BTW, I should think that most of the bulls here could not really withstand a true short attack so my advice is don't antagonize those who could make your lives difficult to say the least. Just a small short selling fund could easily cause this little company's stock price to collapse. Done.

To: jean1057 who wrote (5160)	11/15/1998 10:22:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

this has been the most down to earth thread on the whole SI The above statement could not be farther from the truth. The pro-VLNC hype and the systematic campaigns to attack any posts challenging the valuation of VLNC makes this thread and the persons promoting it the most unbalanced that I have ever come across. Gvander's observation about the tactics practiced to bury challenges to the hype is accurate. One tactic is to make personal attacks to goad a response in kind and then subsequently attack for responding to insults. Clearly, the predictions and claims by FMK have been proven to be inaccurate on a consistent basis. His technique for avoiding responsibility for the losses that have been taken by persons believing his representations is effective. He disarms questions by "acknowledging" that he too has suffered losses from his VLNC investment because he was "too early" but not wrong in his assessment of VLNC. The conclusion of persons who have relied to their detriment on his recommendations is that he was sincere in his representations because - after all - he too lost money. Most of the people who rally on this thread behind him are not manipulative but rather are in denial or in the case of the hacks (the ones who speak about their father's investments or repeatedly cite offensive posts from Yahoo) are incapable of independent thought on the matter. The misinformation that is generated is clearly purposeful as are the attempts at email intimidation. It has been represented alternatively that I am an employee of ULBI, an investor in ULBI, that I suffered a tremendous loss in VLNC in 1992, in 1993, or in 1994, that I was a member of the class action against VLNC , that I am shorting VLNC, etc. I have also received emailand private messages from pro-VLNC posters with threats to come after me. LOL Given the poor investment quality of the company by normal standards of financial analysis and the spurious track record of the company with mysterious departures and returns of management, the behavior and tactics of people touting VLNC on this thread raises very large red flags.