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: The Ox who wrote (9067)	3/10/1999 5:20:00 PM
From: Rich Wolf	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Michael, please re-read my post. I did not 'bash' you. I posted relevant links, and noted the link from the LTD thread to the post by Bill Wexler, who was shorting the stock. Perhaps you were confused because I didn't post links to every post on the LTD thread. For instance, there was a brief post containing the link to Wexler's thread, where there were a handful of posts seconding his recommendation to short the stock. This was what my comment regarding 'shorting' pertained to. My single paragraph of comments summarized all of what I found. That should have been obvious by my phrasing. I was only informing other people on this thread that there are other threads discussing our stock. You should not have taken all of my comments to pertain to you. Your post, however, did disregard the fact of the operational factory, as well as the issues noted to you by jean-claude. Interesting that you did not choose to thank me for raising many of those issues in my original post on the LTD thread. On the LTD thread, Thean did post both about the TA, as you noted, but he also summed what he saw from the two clearly divergent views about the company's prospects. I found him very balanced and neutral in his perspective, and he had been appreciative of the information I conveyed. However, the particular 'concerns' you raise are mostly red herrings, since past is not future. You never referenced the history of the sequence of events I'd posted on the LTD thread, for instance. They tell you some of your answers. You are choosing to only ask questions, in a naive, innocent tone, like a setup man for our favorite naysayers. You are not acknowledging answers put before you already. You are not even going back to read the information on the thread. I do not take you to be a lazy person, so this indicates you only seek to post the questions. Perhaps this is incorrect. For my part, I would have done more DD before posting one-sided questions. E.g., you could have posted (after having read my synopsis), 'how do you know that they've built this factory, that it's ready for production?' rather than taking as your starting point 'they've nothing to show for the last 5 years!' Such a comment is blatantly (purposefully?) ignorant of what transpired during that time, what their current situation is, and hardly befits a supposedly neutral stance. They have a lot to show: their current product, their next generation, their ability to license this next generation technology, an operational factory which has been prepared with 4 assembly lines in parallel, and so forth. The tone of your 'question' indicates they have nothing: no factory, no product, nothing. I seriously doubt you seriously believe this. And frankly, you were pretty quick to jump on my post, especially since it should upon rereading be clear that no comment was directed towards a particular thread, much less any particular person. You could show others the respect you demand by putting aside your emotions of the instant, and re-reading what's in front of you, rather than shooting from the hip so fast. In this case, you missed your mark. No hard feelings necessary, though. Respectfully, Rich