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: Pronichev who wrote (5426)	11/21/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: MGV	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

"Darkgreen, I value your posts.They are certainly relevant They make me think. The problem is they are usually delivered in a meanspirited way which I don't understand and is a bit distasteful. Michael Pronichev" My tone here is mostly something less than conciliatory. You are right about that. I also can understand that it can be distasteful. I began posting here on 6/29 with regard to the 10K and substantive issues raised in it. I had no agenda in doing it. Battery technology is a sexy sector. I had lightly followed VLNC since investing in it in 1992 and pretty much breaking even by selling some at 21 and some later at 6. That was the basis for my interest. No grudges. No short interest. I also had noticed the stream of statements/predictions from FMK that ultimately proved to be inaccurate. I was interested in hearing a reconciliation of some of the more recent representations with the substantive discussion in the 10K regarding the status of operations and balance sheet / working capital condition. Literally within minutes the hard core cheerleaders and hacks collapsed ranks and launched a fusillade of personal attacks and attempts at character assassination. The insults ranged from impugning intelligence to being a professional short preying on thread innocents ( a concept I consider loathsome) to "punk" name calling (as Emmo noted). The attacks in all honesty really pissed me off. Maybe there is no excuse for callous responses to the attacks but its not easy being apologetic for being callous when a steady stream of manipulative, offensive, and also thoroughly false statements persist. The stuff about being a ULBI employee, shareholder, short, vindictive VLNC class action participant, writing false information or losing a large amount on VLNC at some prior point in time really bothers me. I understand that the person(s) responsible for the attacks may want to catalyze just the response I have to it because it obfuscates the substantive point of the posts. It is extremely hard to resist. Its happened again today. First a mark johnson, then a dennis v., then somebody else, take potshots or misrepresent facts and before you know it, I've responded to each one. I realize it is a waste. <shrugging shoulders> I thought your post warranted an explanation.