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: stubbs who wrote (3416)	3/10/1999 11:42:00 AM
From: CycloneTech	Respond to of 8117

Hi Stubbs, Couldn't have said it better myself! Cyclone

To: stubbs who wrote (3416)	3/10/1999 11:44:00 AM
From: Paul Loucks	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

For the record, the private placement shares and warrants were restricted until March 1, 1999. I know as I subscribed. If my memory is correct, nobody subscribed in the quantities that are currently being traded (list of subscribers of >20K shares was posted on this thread last fall). Paul

To: stubbs who wrote (3416)	3/10/1999 1:31:00 PM
From: Jack Rayfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8117

Stubbs' I have read back through your posts to get a sense of where you are coming from. Obviously you have a large position in PYT and have chosen to make only positive comments in reaction to other posters comments which you perceive as negative. I can understand your thinking as I too have a pretty large position in PYT. My philosophy is I want all the facts from all available sources. I actively see out sources of information because I am not content to wait on news releases. I have put other people in this stock and I feel I have a responsibility to them to find out all I can. Most of which is shared with a select few members of this and other forums. It is hard for me to believe that you or Mr. Jacobs even read my post. You just saw the part that said that the WR testing did not chose FAST 1 as the only acceptable device and went ballistic. What I can not understand is why you have chosen to strike out at me personally. My original post was simply in response to a request from Ari to comment. The fact that all 4 devices were acceptable and none was chosen as the overall favorite was reported in post 3302, 3367, 3377. It should have been news to no one. Message 8084217 Message 8182671 Message 8189247 As to your point on why I did not call Mr. Jacobs to discuss the issue before posting. Mr. Jacobs has posted on this issue in post 3237 in which he seem to be saying that that since the military was going to be trained on the FAST 1 at Fort Bragg that it was the device of choice. I do not know what the military has told Mr. Jacobs, all I know is what the Major told me. Since I had talked to Major incharge of the WR testing as I indicated in my response, I thought that it was appropriate that I respond to Ari's request and add my two cents. What I really can not understand is why you and Mr. Jacobs only chose to see the negative side of my comments. All in all my comments are positive. I just choose to be realistic and present all the facts not just the positive one. I think that the market is big enough for more than one product. And so what if the Seals or other small specialized groups choose another product. The real military market is in the medics that support the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force which may or may not still be up in the air. I think it is great news that the FAST 1 was selected for training at Fort Bragg, but that in and of itself does not mean that it will be the only device used in the military. I wish that you and Mr. Jacobs would at least read all of the post/ reply and determine for yourself if my tone was as negative as you seem to think. Additionally I have spoken to Mr. Jacobs several times as well as other sources and I do not think that you will find any instances where I have broken the news in public. Usually my information posts are to clarify and add my comments to information already posted. My response to Mr. Jacobs was in defense of myself and to point out that I did not say what I was accused of and that I did talk to the Major that led the WR training. I am very positive on PYT and yes I am looking to buy more. I think that Pyng has made great strides and Mr. Jacobs and staff should be commended for the progress achieved. The only negative issue that I have ever directed at Pyng is related to the implied progress of the reported news and the actual progress achieved. I am very patient and can wait as long as it takes but I would like to see a press release that establishes some guide posts by which progress toward mass production and orders can be measured. If we did not discuss anything on this forum but released news then it would be a pretty dead forum. Maybe I am crazy but if everyone took the attitude you have then there would be no reason to have a thread. We could just read the news releases as they came out and wait.

To: stubbs who wrote (3416)	3/10/1999 2:13:00 PM
From: LOR	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

Stubbs, I am amazed that you could post to me that lengthy complaint .... especially after reading M. Jacobs latest post last night. REALLY, you, BRAD and anyone else who swallows Michael's Lament have a serious gullibility problem. In my view Jack is NOT impatient and neither am I. And you can bet your last dollar that I have spoken to PYNG directly ....and I do mean Michael [ and countless other sources ]. I have expressed my reservations and I suspect Jack also has given PYNG more then ample opportunity to address concerns. There is a huge difference between being IMPATIENT and TRYING TO LEARN THE TRUTH. If an investor chooses to simply stick his head in a sand pile after making a $ 200,000 investment and count on the company he invested in to keep him fully informed....well he'll need a lot of horse shoes stuck up in a certain part of his/her anatomy to be successful. Now, regarding our CEO's latest "MESSAGE OF FRUSTRATION". This high and mighty "we don't compare ourselves to ..." other intraosseous devices that have been around since Adam was a boy stuff might work for you but it just highlights to me that someone is "out of touch" with reality. The FAST-1 may be the "product of choice" in Michael's mind but Michael is NOT the customer. And regardless of what may have been accomplished way back in 1993/94 it sure as heck didn't stop WR from testing FOUR devices in 1998 [ count imm !!! ] and finding those old antequated devices along with FAST-1 and BIG to be on a par with each other "FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THEY WERE BEING EVALUATED FOR" !!! If Michael knows that this statement is incorrect [ and it has been brought to his attention many times ] then Michael has had every opportunity to come on this forum and/or issue a PYNG release officialy saying that the WR tests clearly picked the FAST-1 as the adult intraosseous device of choice ....... NOTICE FOLKS .....ITS NOT HAPPENNING !!!!! The truth is that the FAST-1 should succeed and get a large share of the adult I.D. market. But I object to CEO's who trumpet their involvement in things like the Walter Reed Evaluation and then, for whatever reason seem to imply that their competition [ who are also involved in the EXACT SAME evaluation ] are inferior even after they well know that no device was selected as the "device of choice". In short, I think the product is great but I have reservations about management as regards providing shareholders with an accurate picture. Further, if Michael Jacob's intends to punish this forum by not posting then you should be smart enough to realize what an amazing character flaw that would expose. Personally, I have long since given up on PYNG anyway to keep me informed. It seemed the only way to get any kind of "real" picture of whats going on is to investigate independently of PYNG.. Also, a forum is not a love fest and nothing we comment on is going to make or break PYNG. Nor do I accept that we owe PYNG anything other then respect where respect is due. I have clearly stated that PYNG has made considerable progress since 1993 in spite of the lack of "mass production" orders. I have never questionned the work that has gone into the FAST-1 and in fact love the product. I just do not like [and am trying to encourage change] in the way PYNG has handled information to shareholders .... pure and simple. LOR