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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : PYNG Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LOR who wrote (6962)	2/17/2003 10:25:59 AM
From: Stang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Lor: How's your schedule for March 12-18? Interested in a trip to Vancouver to contact the local Vancouver press/media and financial/investment community? Is your offer still open for a few cold Molson's :-) Stang

To: LOR who wrote (6962)	2/17/2003 10:51:46 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

LOR The last time I spoke to Chris he did not ask for proof he I assume took for granted that if I were taking the time to call him I had a vested interest. He was not hard to reach and seemed receiptive to the complaint. I think our case is much stronger now. I can not see how the expiry date could be changed by the whim of the CEO who benefits directly when the prior two annual report clearly state: Link to excerpt page sedar.com Excerpt from FORM 20-F ANNUAL "REPORT FISCAL YEAR ENDED 9/30/2001 Actual page 54 listed page on the report 46 The terms of the amended escrow agreements further provide that any escrow not release by 1/27/2003 will be cancelled. New regulations in the CDNX allows for time released escrow with majority of the minority appproval. This has been proposed for the Annual Gfeneral Meeting to be held February, 2002. Actual page 55 page listed on the report 47: The terms of the amended escrow agreement further provide that any escrow shares not released by 1/27/2003 will be cancelled. By the way the cashflow required to release the shares on the same page mistakenly states: For each $1.26 of cumulative cash flow generated by the Registrant from its operations, one property share may be released from escrow. The real required cashflow is $2.66 (maybe Mike thought that he could slide this reduction in on us also with out challenge) so do we have another case of intential misinformation or clerical error maybe the BCSC can decide. If it comes to writing a form letter for signature I think it should be a collabrative effort as I am not sure I know of all the fishy circumstances. I would like to hear from some of the other forum members as the reaction so far has been muted. I think that we could easily get about 50 or 60 of the 164 shareholders on my list to fax such a letter or maybe even call and fax a complaint. Let's see what Ed turns up first. We do not want to go down this road if it can be avoided. We still have time for Pyng to voluntarily drop the escrow amendment, as I say our case is pretty strong in my non-legal opinion. By the way what is up with Mike nominating 3 new directors of his chosing when he singlehandedly killed our bid to nominate Ed as the Minority Shareholder Director. Mike is the only one that oppose this in my opinion. But if the escrow amendment is defeated one way or the other the Minority Shareholder Director may come to fruition. Another reason to VOTE NO ON ESCROW AMENDMENT. Regards Jack