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: David L. Johnson who wrote (3582)	3/29/1999 12:21:00 AM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8117

I'm all for getting it right the first time. Too quick to market with a so-so product would put you in the position of rebuilding the name should any bad publicity come from an inferior product. That's like a quick step forward and slid back three. Doc, I spoke to Mike shortly before he left and told him about a clean house production co. in Barrie On. He sounded quite interested. I'll give you the site address so you can pass it on to him. As follows; southmedic.on.ca

To: David L. Johnson who wrote (3582)	3/29/1999 10:52:00 AM
From: Jack Rayfield	Respond to of 8117

Dr. Johnson- Thanks again I look forward to your update. Your post only served to intensify my interest in knowing the steps necessary to make the conversion and a rough time table. It appears from your response that mass production will be designed from the ground up now that the design is final. Obviously hiring several thousand employees is not economical at this point. I am sorry for the mistake in thinking that Pyng was already working with a third party manufacturer that could handle the entire manufacturing process. I think my confusion stems from something that Andre included in his AGM notes that I posted for him back in January. "Pyng is persuing a two track policy. That is looking into contracting out most or all of the manufacturing (and Mr.Jacobs had paid a deposit to a company called Innovative Tool and Design to that end) while simultaneously preparing for at least some in house production. 2 engineers have also just been hired. Dr. Johnson said that one of the production manager's mandates down the road might be to phase out their own job!" I just assumed since the 11 different models you speak of were minor variations that a third party manufacturer such as Innovative Tool and Design could incorporate any minor changes relatively quickly into the basic design discussed in Jan. My characterization of the changes as minor also comes this excerpt of AGM notes: "Mr. Jacobs said it would have been possible to be further down the production road, but that this would have resulted in recalls. The reason for this as explained by Judy Findlay is that approx. 12 different changes have been made to the FAST 1. These are all of a minor nature. ie. too much adhesive on the patch,not enough adhesive, problem with the line kinking, changing the angle of a tube and several packaging changes." I have already admitted my total ignorance of the conversion process. Thanks for your FYI response and I look forward to more education in the process. It appears that most of the members of the thread do not share my interest on this topic. I will patiently await further details on this subject. I am sure you will let us know more when you deem it appropriate. Do really appreciate you taking the time to respond. Best Regards Jack