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: FMK who wrote (5270)	11/18/1998 8:48:00 AM
From: Pronichev	Respond to of 27311

Fred Let me clearly state what drives me with VLNC I got involved because an associate (actually a close relative) and his friend have significant holdings in VLNC. They have followed it for years and are convinced as are you that it has only a tiny chance of failure. They differ from you in that they think your projections are greatly underestimated and that this thing is really going to the heavens. I certainly see a lot of potential here, but I am bothered by what could be over exuberance and lack of perspective on their part and so I have been trying to get independent information. and certainly have been using the thread to do that. (This is a new experience for me). It still seems to me that a thread might be able to make a serious impact on the knowledge base, even though we are not insiders. I also tend to be conservative in my investments and skpetical by nature.. If Iget a bit abrasive, ( I apologize for calling you a sour puss) or seem a bit erratic its because occaisonally I am. Anyway, after posting the patent numbers that I have, for Zeev today, I'll try to lay off posting for at least a few days. I could use a break. Best Regards MIchael Pronichev

To: FMK who wrote (5270)	11/18/1998 9:25:00 AM
From: Dennis V.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Miscellaneous musings on Midwest Patents. Analysis of speech patterns indicates that the poster is a lawyer or paralegal and that his accounts have been truthful. Since he(yes,he) is an investor, it stands to reason that there would have been continuing contacts initiated with insiders. Therefore, the assumption that information concerning COMDEX was transmitted months ago when the patent work was done is not sound. Negatives include the nature of the information which is indirect or hearsay. As a lawyer, he recognizes this. I am also interested in whether he considered legal ramifications of an announcement at COMDEX(I didn't say he was a great lawyer!). Submitted for fun, but who knows?