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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9864)	3/26/1999 11:03:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry, apart of self delusion, I do not think that those that brought the info about turning down the offer knowingly were trying to mislead us. Actually, it fits very well the current character (all or nothing) of the operation that such an event indeed occurred. Whatever the facts, I believe that such smaller initial orders would have been better than a $50 MM order Fred just mentioned as a potential initial PO. One can easily choke on such a large order. Zeev

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9864)	3/26/1999 11:07:00 AM
From: Mark Johnson	Respond to of 27311

Lev said at the shareholders meeting that if they needed a PO to fulfill CC obligations they could have had one, He called it a "favor". If you were interested enough to attend the meeting you would already know that, instead of spewing BS all over the internet.

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (9864)	3/26/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: Ray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 27311

Larry: " Zeev, I don't buy the premise that VLNC could have had a smaller contract some time ago but turned it down. There is no evidence of this, and it is totally contradicted by statements in the SEC filings such as "we have no products for sale," and "we have provided no commercial samples to any potential customers." Sometimes if things are repeated often enough on this thread they become accepted as the truth. That doesn't mean it is the truth. " True - about repetition sometimes generating belief. And it is also true that SEC-document statements that are for CYA purposes and at odds with other public statements can be taken as truth, through repetition, by those not diligent enough to look further for more revealing information. IMO, the statements you quote from VLNC's filings do not speak the truth. They appear to be remnants of earlier docs and now much out-of-date. If you have more convincing evidence that VLNC has has not shipped commercial samples to potential customers, please post it.