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: Rich Wolf who wrote (8994)	3/6/1999 8:35:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 27311

Rich, your posts are becoming ever more emotional, and ever less objective as they were when you first posted under HellQat's name. If you are so secure in your position, why does a simple portrayal of the facts as I set forth in that post bother you so much? If Berg was so anxious to keep pouring money into VLNC, why did he not pony up his $7.5 million in December, rather than allow VLNC to go the floorless route yet again?

To: Rich Wolf who wrote (8994)	3/7/1999 1:36:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

<<Face this: you don't have all the facts, none of us do, so quit pretending and posturing.>> Exactly true, Rich. I don't have all the facts and neither do you. I simply go by what is on the public record, while paying attention to the technicals. It seems to me, however, that the pretending and posturing on this thread has been by those who claim to know more than the public record. For more than 2 years now, there have been repeated claims attributed to inside sources that production is imminent. Along with many other claims such as financing is not an issue (prior to VLNC resorting to floorless convertible shares). Such as VLNC has the capacity to produce more batteries than the entire world demand for laptops and cellphones. Such as the VLNC SEC filings are inaccurate "attorney disclaimers." Such as the latest version of the VLNC battery has energy density only one order of magnitude lower than gasoline. These claims have been wrong for two years now. Have you ever admonished those who claim to have inside sources to quit pretending and posturing? Seems to me that what you really want to hear is the pretending and posturing and what you don't want to hear is a skeptical argument that is based only on verifiable facts. Are you sure you're not in love with the stock?