TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) 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.

Technology Stocks : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Mike Winn who wrote (8068)	12/30/1997 6:15:00 PM
From: Richard S. Schoenstadt	Read Replies (5) of 31646

Mike, I see the neighborhood thugs have given you their typically warm Tpro welcome. You must see we can't use your type here. Somebody who is honest, decent and knows what he is talking about. But that said I guess there are a few of us who are really perverse and would like to hear something other then mindless bombast and rah rah. In particular I would like to know what you make of the contract with BMY. You have stated that you believe Tpro misrepresented the contract. I can't believe that. I can't believe that BMY would allow Tpro to issue such a press release unless there was a real year 2k problem at BMY. And futher I can't believe that Tpro would dare to make up such a press release or distort the nature of their relationship. It seems to me that BMY would have a real problem with someone inferring that they had year 2k issues at all their plants, if that was not the case. So in my mind the press release is accurate and the deal does what Jenkins says it does - that is validate Tpro's yr 2k products. (Although we will have to wait for the pilot project to end and the contract for the 125 plants to be formalized to be absolutely certain.) Also there was an equally important press release that CK posted shortly after the BMY announcement. This concerned a statement by Unilever's Chairman in Britain that the year 2k was more serious then they thought and that they were raising the cost estimates of fixing it. According to their technology director the costs of tackling the problem were soaring in part because of problems concerning embedded chips. Now why would a company issue such a statement unless they believed it was a real problem. They have absolutely nothing to gain. As for those of you who are attacking Mike, talk about stupid. Here is somebody who directly works with embedded processors, knows what he is talking about and you are trying to drive him off the thread. I want to know why he doesn't think year 2k is such a big deal and how he answers the above questions as well as some that others have posed. In case some of you have forgotten, according to Jenkins, when this yr 2k issue was first discussed at Tpro early this year there was internal dissension as to whether or not it was a real problem. So it appears that somebody can be expert in this area and in good faith believe there is not that big a problem. Mike keep posting. I will certainly listen to what you have to say. I know there are others who are interested. I hope you will take seriously what seems to me some of the substantial evidence indicating that there is a real yr 2k problem in embedded chips. By the way this does not preclude the possibility that Tpro is also hyping the problem. RS

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next