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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Quad Sevens who wrote (6937)	12/7/1997 3:59:00 PM
From: Richard S. Schoenstadt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 31646

>>>What's next, a DNA sample from Owen? Fluor is one of the world's pre-eminent egineering/construction firms. I would imagine the SI division within such a company is substantial.<<< No. Let's just try and get the facts instead of speculation. (For example I would imagine is speculation I would imagine the SI division is substantial too. But why not try and get the facts.) We know next to nothing about Owen. That is a long way from trying to get a DNA sample. I have the information you gave on Owen. Before raising the questions about Owen I reviewed all the info I could find out about him here and on the Web. What you have told me I already knew before I asked these questions, In searching for that info about Owen here is what raised the question in my mind re. Owens position at Fluor. It's from MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS: SPECIAL REPORT Year 2000 Supplement-September 1997 And it says this about Owen. "The scope of Year 2000 projects, which tend to be IS-led, often ends at the plant level, except for applications with a financial tie-in, or networking and communications," says Ken Owen, a principal consultant for Fluor Daniel, a systems integration, software, and engineering services company." I have no idea what Owen's position was at Fluor. But it strikes me as a critical point. If Owens was an excecutive at Fluor (as I and I am sure most others here automatically assumed) , better yet the head of the SI division there, then his quitting his job at a "pre-eminent engineering/construction firm" is in my opinion a ringing endorsement of Tpro and it's potential. On the other hand if he was only a consultant at Fluor then his changing client's from Fluor to Tpro is neutral at best if not a negative- since it might indicate that Fluor decided he wasn't such a hot consultant. You think it's unreasonable that someone wants to know how long Owen was at Fluor, what his position was, and what the size of his division was? I am amazed that anybody is offended by someone wanting to get such simple facts on such a critical point as this. RS