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.

Non-Tech : Bill Wexler's Dog Pound -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: golden_tee who wrote (413)	3/26/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	Respond to of 10293

Does this mean you're not going to answer my questions? Barb

To: golden_tee who wrote (413)	3/26/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: Marconi	Respond to of 10293

[somewhat OT-pointing to stay OT]Hello Mr. Yoest: Please calm down. I am interested in assessments, opinions, data, and such. Your outbursts are unwarranted. I respect Mr. Wexler's opinions--he is a man worth consideration. He is opinionated, but I have found basis underlying his opinions. He adds color to the colorful world of finance--and the related investments. I am losing patience with your style, Mr. Yoest, and ask you to produce fruit worthy of consideration. My exasperation with your posts is getting to the point as I did with the Zitel thread of skipping over certain individuals. If I had not been preoccupied with computer access problems today, I would likely have shorted VLNC today. I appreciate Mr. Wexler's views on VLNC. I see nothing distinguished in VLNC's efforts except they seem to be exceptionally public with blaming longstanding lack of performance on things, not accounting for it as management. That is a sufficient warning sign, coupled with undercapitalization in a multi-competitor international market populated with leading products that signals technologically they are behind the power curve and would be expected to fall further behind without a decisive and unique breakthrough. Those occur about once every ten years. Odds are that VLNC is not that gambit... Their management's statements confess they are not dignified to the extent of the major corporations that sell lithium ion batteries at this time. IMO, this reflects another aspect to VLNC management that takes them out of the competition. Top management has an appropriate style--that seems to be lacking in what I see with VLNC. When you go out of your way to offend others I respect such as Mr. Wexler, I feel offended, too. Please apologize and let's get on to substance, not innuendo. Regards, m

To: golden_tee who wrote (413)	3/26/1999 12:44:00 AM
From: Bill Wexler	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10293

<<You are either stupid>> Far from. <<or lying about shorting more>> I don't lie. I shorted 2000 shares today at exactly 7 3/4. <<To short a stock that jumps 21% in one day on high volume, without news, would be true stupidity!>> Scam stocks exhibit this type of volatility all the time. I initially recommended shorting Valence when it was trading at around 7 1/2. The stock proceeded to dive to 5 and change and is now back roughly where I started. <<Where are you going to cover?>> When the stock price reflects or very nearly reflects the true underlying value of this company. <<You are completely off base, and are about to understand why you should have gotten a degree in engineering!>> Oh my. You truly are a fool.

To: golden_tee who wrote (413)	3/26/1999 8:33:00 AM
From: lindend	Respond to of 10293

To short a stock that jumps 21% in one day on high volume, without news, would be true stupidity! This is exactly when you want to short bad stocks. When they rise on unfounded rumors and high volume. BTW, one of the best indicators of a great short are passionate attacks and name calling but minimal facts backing up the argument. Each baseless attack on Bill only causes more shorts to investigate the situation and eventually short.

To: golden_tee who wrote (413)	3/26/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10293

Don't forget pal, it can go down 21% on no news, too. Few years back I owned a stock that jumped 12% on no news, and that was equal to a 40% jump based on my buy point; the next day I sold 2/3 of my holding at another 1/4 point higher, knowing that it could go the other way on no news too. I was right, that was 1996, and it has never been as high since. And this was a real co w/ real revs and earnings. Hope you're taking notes, bub.