PYNG Technologies Message Board

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: m. jacobs who wrote (4172)	7/14/1999 5:18:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) of 8117

Mr. Jacobs My initial reaction to the accusation of publicly posting information gathered in our private phone conversations was it was bull. We have talked several times in the last 18 months and I have always strived to avoid posting anything you said in public. As you know I do share alot of what you say with a select few thread members by PM primarily to cut down on the number of calls made to you by these members. I assumed that the answers given to me would be given to any one that called. But after reviewing my 99 posts that are still active in my profile, to my horror I did find 8 statements that I made that reflected information directly from conversations with Pyng they are by post #. 3740-Back in November 1998 my understanding was that once the field trial data was gathered and the design was finalized then the time needed to ramp up production would be 3-4 months. 3815-But in my conversations with Pyng starting in April or May 1998 until December 1998 there was no concern about ramping up production. My impression from these conversations was that there were many companies that could produce the product if Pyng decided to outsource. According to my notes from last September it would take 3-6 months after the field testing (which originally was estimated to take 90-120 days but ended up taking about 11 months) had been completed to finalize the design and institute volume production. 3836-When I talked to Pyng late last year and found out they were planning to make a new training video/CD/DVD. One of the reasons I was given for the new media was that the device had changed since the original one was made and the new media would be much better quality and translatable into 5 languages. 3893-I did call the local unit of RM in San Diego in Nov/Dec and the person I spoke to had not heard of the FAST 1. But I do not remember the RM San Diego unit being listed as a test site in any of the PRs. Although it was mentioned to me as a possible site also. 4070-And the useage at the field trial sites appears to have been much lower than expected only RM achieved even 5 a month versus the 5 a week that I think was the goal in selecting the sites. As they took almost a year versus the 90-120 day originally projected. State approvals had to be a significant factor in the 4x timeframe. 4092-I think the prototype production only produced 10-15 a day (this could be way off) because it was such a manual process. 4093-Also, individual Laidlaw/AMR EMS sites are not as closely tied to the parent corporate entity as Rural Metro sites are. They basically function as independent units making most decsions at a local level including which medical devices to test and use. 4109-I guess since the distributor agreements will be semi-exclusive that Pyng may be able to start mining the "7 binders" of contact names they have collected over the last 3 years and sales to them directly letting the distributor create their own customer list These are the only post I can find after reviewing them all that I devulged any of Pyng's phone comments. Would you mind telling me which one offended you to the point that you would make such a broad statement? "It is considered by me to be a private conversation between individuals, however, sometimes that confidentiality is broken when my comments are posted on this chat line. To add insult to injury they then come on this chat line and accuse us of failing to communicate with them." I called you last week and nothing you told me has been posted publicly. Also have about 10 pages of notes from our conversations over the last 18 months. After reviewing my transgressions I think I have substantively been true to my "do not post in public Jacobs comments" pledge. It is funny how you pick me out of the growing list of the "hardcore minority" to post to and used "insider" rules and regulations to explain why Pyng's public false statements have not been corrected. I would think that there are rules and regulation regarding this subject but I am not a lawyer. I may have asked for what you would consider "insider" information but to me the proper response would have been to say I can not answer that question rather than using the existence of these regulations to avoid giving public updates to statements already made in public/company promotional materials that most people would consider still valid until Pyng corrected the statements. I do not apologize for seeking my own sources or comparing current statements to prior statements and asking for explanations. Most of the shareholders do not call you to get updates and for them the statements made were valid until updated and even though I knew differently my knowledge was not public. But I pride myself in the intergrity catergory so I will sincerely apologize for posting these bits of information gathered from Pyng in public although you never stated you considered our conversation private or ask for the info to not be publicly posted I understood that.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next