'a' has been posting the latest Weiss Ratings on a couple of threads, specifically the "downgrades" of AT&T, SBC Comm. and US West.

Without access to Weiss' "proprietary" model, the original article seems to be based on increase of Y2k budgets. So, let's take a look.

AT&T

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 450 M Estimate for 1999: 190 M Total: 640 M

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 140 M Estimate for 1999: 125 M Total: 265 M

From 1999 Q1

Total Expended to date: 171 M Estimate for 1999: 94 M Total: 265 M

Hmmm. No budget increase. And spending of 31 M in Q1 roughly projects to the actual budget.

Maybe it's project status?

From 1998 10-K:

Remediation: Substantially complete Testing: >67% Deployment: >50%

From 1999 Q1:

Remediation: 96% Testing: 89% Deployment: 93%

Well, looks like substantial progress as well. Sorry, but got to give Weiss Strike 2 here as well.

U S West

Ahh, the biggie. Shows up with a huge budget increase. Let's see:

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 115 M Estimate for 1999: 60 M Total: 175 M

From 1999 Q1

Total Expended to date: 169 M Estimate for 1999: 98 M Total: 267 M

Wow! A whopping 53% increase! And, at first glance, seems correct. But, take a look another quarter back:

From 1998 Q3

Total Expended to date: 90 M Estimate for 1999 and Q4 1998: 95 M Total: 185 M Additional Costs Capital Expenditures: 70 M Overall Total: 255 M

Seems a pretty good guess that U S West changed their reporting in Q1 to include capital expenditures in Year 2000 costs. In fact, it seems that actual expenses may have actually gone down. The worst that can be said is they didn't properly report costs and capital expenditures in the annual report.

Sorry Weiss. That's 3.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999

Sorry, formatting error. Try this again:

'a' has been posting the latest Weiss Ratings on a couple of threads, specifically the "downgrades" of AT&T, SBC Comm. and US West.

Without access to Weiss' "proprietary" model, the original article seems to be based on increase of Y2k budgets. So, let's take a look.

AT&T

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 450 M
Estimate for 1999: 190 M
Total: 640 M

From 1999 Q1

Total Expended to date: 500 M
Estimate for 1999: 250 M
Total: 750 M

So, an apparent increase of 110 M, or 17%. But wait. The Q1 data includes 103 M related to TCI, merged with AT&T in 1999, which was explicitly excluded from the 1998 annual results. So the increase is not a reflection of increased spending on what was previously budgeted, but a reflection of the addition of a subsidiary, and its related costs. Strike 1 for Weiss.

SBC Communications

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 140 M
Estimate for 1999: 125 M
Total: 265 M

From 1999 Q1

Total Expended to date: 171 M
Estimate for 1999: 94 M
Total: 265 M

Hmmm. No budget increase. And spending of 31 M in Q1 roughly projects to the actual budget.

Maybe it's project status?

From 1998 10-K:

Remediation: Substantially complete
Testing: >67%
Deployment: >50%

From 1999 Q1:

Remediation: 96%
Testing: 89%
Deployment: 93%

Well, looks like substantial progress as well. Sorry, but got to give Weiss Strike 2 here as well.

U S West

Ahh, the biggie. Shows up with a huge budget increase. Let's see:

From 1998 10-K

Total Expended to date: 115 M
Estimate for 1999: 60 M
Total: 175 M

From 1999 Q1

Total Expended to date: 169 M
Estimate for 1999: 98 M
Total: 267 M

Wow! A whopping 53% increase! And, at first glance, seems correct. But, take a look another quarter back:

From 1998 Q3

Total Expended to date: 90 M
Estimate for 1999 and Q4 1998: 95 M
Total: 185 M
Additional Costs Capital Expenditures: 70 M
Overall Total: 255 M

Seems a pretty good guess that U S West changed their reporting in Q1 to include capital expenditures in Year 2000 costs. In fact, it seems that actual expenses may have actually gone down. The worst that can be said is they didn't properly report costs and capital expenditures in the annual report.

Sorry Weiss. That's 3.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Gee Hoff. I guess Weiss group is just a bunch of "doomers" like CIA, FBI, State Dept., Senate, Defense Sec. William Cohen, former Fed chairman Paul Voliker, financier George Soros, Dr. Ed Yourdon, etc etc etc

What's wrong - haven't you sold your AT&T stock yet? :)

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

Here are some snips from a May 17th article in the New York Times about a CAP Gemini survey:

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/4702

[snip]

The largest companies in the nation continue to fall behind their schedules for Year 2000 repairs, and most suspect that their budget estimates for the remaining work are too low, according to a survey in April that was the latest in a closely watched series that began in 1994.

About 22 percent say they do not expect to have all of their critical systems tested and ready to adjust when the clock ticks over to Jan. 1, 2000. That is up from 16 percent in November and 12 percent last August.

The number of companies that have actually encountered a computer failure stemming from Year 2000 date miscalculations jumped to 72 percent in April from 55 percent in the previous survey, which was completed in November. Eight percent of the 152 Fortune 500 companies and 14 government agencies responding said they had severed relations with a supplier, customer or partner because of Year 2000 problems. This is the first time that such moves have been reported.

The surveys, which are sponsored by CAP Gemini America, a New York consulting firm, are carried out by Howard A. Rubin, an information technology researcher based in Pound Ridge, N.Y. The respondents are typically chief information officers or project managers. . . .

About 85 percent of those polled said that spending would have to rise beyond current estimates, mostly to support more testing and the creation of emergency command centers and other contingency plans aimed at keeping business running despite any Year 2000 glitches. Projects are slipping past their expected deadlines at 92 percent of the companies.

"It's typical information technology," said Prof. Leon A. Kappelman, a software management expert at the University of North Texas. "You don't get any recognition until the last 30 days that your project is going to be late." . . . .

For all the problems, the respondents seem confident in their ability to manage their way through Year 2000 disruptions. Three out of four said that their Year 2000 programs will give them a competitive advantage, the survey found.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 27, 1999.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 27, 1999.

The methodology Weiss says it uses:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990726/fl_weiss_r_1.html

[snip]

The Weiss Y2K Ratings for the large nonfinancial corporations are based on a proprietary model that compares publicly available data on Y2K budgets and expenditures over time, and in relation to industry peer groups, while also reviewing the company's own assessment of its Y2K status.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 27, 1999.

With the State Dept. saying 'failures in EVERY region and EVERY country' - who in their right mind would not prepare for trouble??

-- Dan G (thepcguru@mailcity.com), July 27, 1999.

Dan G , the answer to your question is :

Hoffmesiter, Marma, Anita Spoonera, Decker, Poole.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

More info on Weiss', err, "methodology" on Y2k:

Weiss Ratings

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Gee, Hoff:

With your Big Brain, maybe you ought to go to Weiss and tell them how confused they are.

Better yet, start your own rating service.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 27, 1999.

"With the State Dept. saying 'failures in EVERY region and EVERY country' - who in their right mind would not prepare for trouble??" DanG

DanG,

Makes you wonder WHY someone would tell another not to prepare. Maybe because they know it will cause a bigger problem later and that has been their goal all along.

No preparedness (Polly view) = Panic

Bunch a Moh-rons!

br14

-- br14 (br14@bout.done), July 27, 1999.

Hey Anita.

Since you've been so busy quoting the "25 Rules of Disnformation" to Maria, you might want to consider an old saying..

Something about Pots...and Kettles...

Nice to see such informative and on-topic responses, though.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION

http://www.trufax.org/research2/disinforules.html

Pots and kettles? I prefer cast iron -- better heat conductivity, can be set directly into fires, long heat retention.

Oh, by the way -- #24: Silence Critics "...consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the *need to address issues* is removed entirely."

NOTE: "need to address issues" -- have you contacted Weiss and told them about their "errors"? If you haven't, then you really haven't dealt with the issue, at all. Their errors, if any, should be corrected by them, right? Perhaps, they can address your concerns more directly than by posting them here.

And if you are smart enough to find this kind of "serious" error, well, then you're smart enough to start your own company, right?

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 27, 1999.

Err, interesting, Anita.

Weiss bases ratings on budget increases, percent of budget spent, and reporting status.

I research and post the budget increases, percent of budget spent, and reporting status.

Yet I fail to "address the issues"?

Interesting criteria you propose. So we can ignore all the posts from people regarding the FAA, utilities, and anything else as "not addressing the issues" unless they contact the organization first?

BTW, it doesn't really take much brains to start a company. Not much potential in starting one with a 5-month life-span, though. See, that's where the brains come in.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Mr. Hoffmeister: As you patrol this forum 7x24x365, could you please care to tell us what you do for a living?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

Like I have said MANY times before, Weiss and Co are not BEHOLDING to any Wall Street cronies or corporate buffoons. They have been around a long time and started out rating banks and insurance companies.

They tell it like it is.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

George, I have asked Master Hoffmeister this question a number of times and not received an answer to date.

I think it's time to identify the PR CRONIES infesting our forum. I also think it is time that they understand if y2k is a serious event they will be held accountable in a court of law for the DECEPTION they have created.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Dan G:

George obviously hasn't checked out the Preparedness forum. I began three threads there and have contributed to several others. Hmmm...haven't seen George's contributions there, though.

I see the 25 rules of disinformation are circulating again. Most folks saw those last year sometime.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

Anita, never hurts to be reminded about these excellent rules of DISINFORMATION, especially since we KNOW that the forum is infested with PR CRONIES.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Y'all just don't pay attention. Hate to disappoint Ray, but I listed a somewhat reduced description here:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000i Nz

Course, it could be part of the smoke-screen, eh Ray?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoffmiester, just a YES or NO will be fine. Do you receive any remuneration for participating on this forum???????????

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff:

Kind of curious that the exact numbers on which Weiss says their conclusions are based, contradict those same conclusions. Do you suppose there's a bug in their proprietary methodology?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 27, 1999.

Flint, do you mind if Hoff answers my question FIRST?? Maybe you'd like to take a shoot at it !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

shoot=shot=do you ???

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff and Flint, PLEASE, just a simple YES or NO !!!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Flint ole boy, I was missing you early this morning in the "PHONES will work??..." thread. Glad to see you here, but I don't think that Hoff will answer you anything consistent though. I've noticed he is the 'touch-and-go' type. He won't answer Ray's question either (for the nth. time I believe) simply because the answer could possibly be a rotund 'YES indeed!' I'm afraid . Still, whatever, Hoff is not constructive in the y2k debate, but he does patrol this forum 24 hours a day it seems, seven days a week, many times just disturbing the discussion for the sake of it.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

What I find really pathetic is when pollies accuse third parties that are auditing the progress of firms with distortion and lies, and then accept the self-reported status of these same firms.

Have you guys ever heard of Independent Validation and Verification?

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

'a':

IV&V would certainly be nice, but Weiss by their own admission has not done any. Their ratings are based solely on self-reported numbers, according to their own admission. Hoff is taking the *same* numbers Weiss claims to have used, and showing by simple arithmetic that Weiss' ratings don't match. *Why* they don't match, I don't know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 27, 1999.

Actually, Flint, I just think it relates to a lack of true research.

Weiss appears to be a fairly credible source in insurance and possibly finance. At least with the banks, he sent out surveys. Here, he seems to be trying to get by with a minimum of effort and analysis. But it does provide a fairly high profile issue, and gets his name and company out to the more general public.

To George

You give me far too much credit. In fact, my guess is that you have far more posts here than I. That would be a definite for my buddy Ray. So, just who do you work for?

To Ray

Ray, I'd answer you, but I'd really hate to disappoint your fantasies here.

You could get the sysops to verify my IP, I suppose.

But then, I could IP spoofing...:)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, I believe your answer is sufficient !!

Thank You,

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, I respect your experience FWIW, but you are just one programmer who installs SAP office automation software for a living. I have a buddy who does the same thing for Mosaix. He's a PC weenie.

You yourself say you have been out of the mainframe arena for 8 years, and have only been in IT for 16, so your exposure is limited. You are not Cap Gemini. You are not the Weiss Group. Your "research" over the course of a few hours perusing self-reported SEC filings to extract an optimistic picture is insignificant. These companies are reporting data directly to Weiss, Hoff, NOT TO YOU. Well, at least some are. 37% are so hopelessly screwed they apparently aren't returning calls.

And then you accuse Weiss of falsifying the data to somehow boost their image. You're a nut. Would anything short of collision between the Earth and the moon convince you that the situation is not rosy?

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

'a':

If Weiss said everything *is* rosy, would you change your mind?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, I respect your experience FWIW, but you are just one programmer who installs SAP office automation software for a living. I have a buddy who does the same thing for Mosaix. He's a PC weenie.

SAP is office automation software? Too funny, 'a'. Ya might want to talk to someone who actually knows something about SAP before you insert your foot further.

You yourself say you have been out of the mainframe arena for 8 years, and have only been in IT for 16, so your exposure is limited. You are not Cap Gemini. You are not the Weiss Group. Your "research" over the course of a few hours perusing self-reported SEC filings to extract an optimistic picture is insignificant. These companies are reporting data directly to Weiss, Hoff, NOT TO YOU. Well, at least some are. 37% are so hopelessly screwed they apparently aren't returning calls.

As for limited experience, agreed. Truly, though, it doesn't matter if you have 30 years of experience; it's still a limited view. My experience does span a number of operating environments, and 7 different organizations, among them some of the largest corps in the US. My perspective is from my experience, as is all of ours.

And no, in this case none of these companies reported anything to Weiss. He did basically the same thing I did; research SEC filings.

And then you accuse Weiss of falsifying the data to somehow boost their image. You're a nut. Would anything short of collision between the Earth and the moon convince you that the situation is not rosy?

Careful, now. Never accused Weiss of falsifying anything. Just of using a superficial and flawed measurement system.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Well Hoff and Flint we will have our answer very soon as to how accurate the Weiss ratings are.

Can't say as much for my simple question as to if either of you are remunerated for participating here !!

Your Pal Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

'a':

As much as you research csy2k, I would think you've seen the reports of Weiss' misreporting on banks....insofar as they STATED that if their survey hadn't been returned, the results were NOT included in the survey. They reported LOW progress on SEVERAL banks that hadn't responded to their survey at all. I know we're not talking about banks here, but if a firm didn't respond to their survey and they STATED their method (which can be confirmed by anyone with the same input), why are Hoff's findings debatable?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

Anita, have you ever had a company rate your bank?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, now you're gonna tell us SAP doesn't make office automation s/w? LOL! Lets go at it! Reminds me of the thread where I smoked your buns when you claimed "SAP programs couldn't be modified to accept a windowed 2 digit date"

Regardless, the point is, I find it hard to believe that Weiss is paid millions for figures that Anita Spooner and Flint could produce more accurately. I also think its quite interesting that when a bad news headline appears ("Y2K budgets jump as much as Five-Fold") Hoff appears on scene to magically turn shit into gold. With all the other bad news out there, do you really think we need to be putting our imaginations into overdrive?

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

'a', that foot just went in ankle deep. Never said you couldn't do something that stupid. But here's a little hint, 'a': SAP already accepts and automatically windows 2-digit years. And as I recall, your little buddy from Canada never came back with his, err, update.

And just a guess, but I doubt seriously that Weiss is getting paid millions for his Y2k ratings.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

"a" commented:

" Hoff appears on scene to magically turn shit into gold. With all the other bad news out there, do you really think we need to be putting our imaginations into overdrive? "

"a", it is my contention that Hoff has a responsibility to turn S*** into gold. He appears on the scene for very SPECIFIC reasons.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

'a':

Your false assertions have been thoroughly routed. Every one of them, which includes almost every sentence you've posted. Maybe it's time you declared "victory" and stopped to lick your wounds for a while?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 27, 1999.

'a':

I'd be curious to know exactly who IS paying Weiss. It certainly isn't the companies on which they report. Does that mean that *I* am? (as in the government?) What a ripoff!

Ray: My kids are all grown now, and I have no intention of responding to someone who follows me around demanding that I answer questions. You're acting like a 3-year old child who continuously demands, "Mommy...are we there yet?"

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

Hee Hee, too good.

Just looked up Mosaix (had never heard of it before).

'a', anyone who compares SAP to some call management software just went in to the knee.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

That's their product, idiot. They consult in many of the same areas as SAP. My bud does online transaction processing. Your turn...

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

Anita, Hoff and Flint, have any of you used the Weiss bank rating service? Have any of you used any bank rating service? I have used them for years and have found them to be honest and reputable.

Next question, will any of you EVER state if you are being paid to participate on this forum. I believe this is a legitimate question since you will have been paid to support a specific position regarding y2k.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Ahh, and what areas are those?

General Ledger? A/P? A/R? Sales? Logistics and Distribution? Materials Management? Warehouse Management? Production Planning? MRP? Purchasing? Human Resources?

And just how many of these non-Call Management systems have they installed and implemented for the Fortune 500?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, Flint and Anita,

It is quite apparent that MANY corporations and MOST governments are LYING about their y2k remediation status. It also appears that you three SUPPORT their position of LYING. Why do you so adamently take the position of these LIARS when the evidence is so overwhelming against them?

Anita, you have permission to use your last excuse once again.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, calm down. I said the guy did the same type of work you did. He installed workflow automation software USAA and BC/BS, not call management. Some of it is was SAP products. And I checked the website, looks a lot different since they merged with Lucent. Looks like they are no longer a consulting group. He quit Mosiax last year, is now part of a 5 man firm.

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

Well Ray, since it is "quite apparent", could you give me at least one example of a corporation that is LYING about Y2k?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoffmeister, Flint and Anita,

if it can be proved that someone participating on this forum is being paid by an entity of government or a corporation or anyone else with a specific agenda should they be allowed to continue to participate on the forum?

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Gee Hoff, you forgot to include government.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Flint: What "false assertions" would that be?

My prediction that the market is going to crash due to y2k? Banks runs are probable? 50% chance of depression? CIA projects disaster overseas? Japan's financial system is mired irretrievable in debt? FAA is lying? Clinton isn't a Hitler? Maria is an ignoramus?

Be more specific.

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

Sorry Ray. Governments too. I do remember something last summer about an audit catching a false report. So try for one of each, OK?

As for paid participants, they should probably be outted on the forum. That goes for those with specific agendas on both sides, as well.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

What about IIRC BellSouth and AT&T saying that 50% of their vendors compliancy statements, upon further inspection, were bogus? I would assume some of the vendors were "corporations", and even though some may have not technically been LYING, I'm sure some were...

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

Well Hoff let's start with one of your FAVORITE organizations, the FAA. If these folks aren't a bunch of LIARS I don't know who is.

Then we could throw in the DOD, who got caught in a bald face lie last year.

Rest assured there are MANY corporations LYING about their y2k status in order to keep their shares afloat. If you think that EVERY corporation is telling the truth about their y2k status you are either the most nieve person I know or you have an agenda to support.

Your Pal, Ray

PS Governments do LIE and the farther behind they get the more they LIE.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Ray:

This is my FINAL response to you on this forum. I suggest that you copy and paste it and save it on your P.C. so that you can remember it. You seem to have a very POOR memory, Ray...consistent perhaps with folks your age.

I'm an out-of-work programmer, Ray. I've mentioned it on MANY threads. I have time to kill, Ray. If ANYONE would pay me to either post here or do the work that Weiss SAID they did, I'd jump at the chance. Why am I out of work, Ray? Because the large system work in both MY area and pretty much around the nation is already contracted out or DONE. It's DONE in my area, Ray. It's DONE for MY town, the next town on either side, and the next town on either side of those.

Like George, Ray, you want all companies to jump up and provide YOU statements of compliance. If they don't, you ASSUME they aren't done. You assume that there's no reasonable answer to your questions if they aren't answered also. As I said before, you exhibit the self- importance of a 3-year old. When exactly did you and George develop these fantasies of self-importance that ASSUME that if someone doesn't answer your questions or provide compliance reports at YOUR demand that there's something amiss? Both of you are just like the rest of us, Ray...about as important as a gnat on an elephant's back.

I have NEVER worked for a company or municipality who chose to engage in a press release when compliance was obtained. Why? What's the news in it? It's only important to you two. For the rest of society it's page 58 news, demanding a one-line statement even on page 58.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

C'mon, Ray. Been thru the FAA before. Is that the best you can do? Do you have something specific in mind? Careful now, you may want to review this thread first:

The FAA: "They're all LYING"

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Anita, may I remind you of your response to a previous question:

"Ray: My kids are all grown now, and I have no intention of responding to someone who follows me around demanding that I answer questions. You're acting like a 3-year old child who continuously demands, "Mommy...are we there yet?"

Anita, it appears you use this response selectively !!

Your Pal, Ray

PS do you support governments and corporations that LIE with regard to their y2k status??

Remember, you have used the above excuse once already tonight.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

'a':

AM *I* paying for the Weiss reports? I really never looked into who was paying Weiss, but if *I*'m paying for it and *I*'m out of work right now and *I* feel I could do a better job...um...I might have found a niche for myself, right?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 27, 1999.

Hoff, weve played this game before and it is truly a waste of time.

I am going to start a new thread sometime this week asking the simple question "Do You Believe That All Governments and Corporations Have Been Truthful About The Status Of Their y2k Remediation"

I'll be looking forward to your response. It appears that you really believe that ALL have told the TRUTH.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Yes, Ray, for once we agree. Rehashing discredited accusations does prove tiresome.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 27, 1999.

Sorry Hoff, I will never agree with anyone that PROMOTES government and corporate LYING as you continually do.

The only question in my mind is WHY. I'm sure we will find out in due time.

Ypur Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Anita Spoonera,

You say that I want all companies to jump and provide ME with statements of compliance.

Well no, Anita. What I (and you and everybody else) wants and needs is all companies to provide THE WORLD with statements of compliance. Otherwise, you are right this time, we should all assume that they aren't done. And being damn close to August 99, with 100 theoretical working days left, just what else should we all assume??? That they are fully compliant??? And that they just ain't saying so 'cause they are all shy????? It looks like an elephant, it walks like an elephant, it drinks and eats like an elephant, it's got ears and trunks like an elephant... but it's a DUCK!!

And as far as the emotional side of your own personality is concerned Anita you exhibit the crabbiness of a bitchy, unsatisfied, fat old lady maa'm.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 28, 1999.