Wise up to Y2K: the profits of doom are close at hand

BugWatch, By Emma Connors

Forget all those jokes about the great unwashed.

As far as Y2K goes, there are now signs that the hoi polloi are demonstrating a lot more commonsense than many of the so-called experts.

More than half of 500 punters surveyed recently by Research International Australia felt there had been scaremongering over the issue.

The researchers noted: "Cynicism regarding the issue has become apparent and is most likely to be a response to the doom-sayers, who are seen to be out to make a buck by sensationalising the issue."

Those interested in this issue, and the research suggests that is the majority, should be scrutinising the source of any information as closely as the information itself. For those selling a Y2K product or service (categories of such now include joke T-shirts and tinned foods), it is in their commercial interests to ensure the event is played up as much as possible.

But if a company's continued operation depends on a smooth transition to the next century, it is not likely to make any rash statement, and may even be inclined to say as little as it can.

There is a growing sense that this last course of action is not advisable. The public knows about Y2K, they know companies have to examine their equipment and fix stuff and they would like some details. Boeing has come out recently with a detailed statement regarding its Y2K-related activities that should squash one of the most hardy of the many year 2000 myths.

"No safety-of-flight issues exist with Boeing aircraft relative to the Y2K rollover," pronounced Mr Tim Fehr, vice-president, airplane systems, at the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group.

Boeing started work on resolving any Y2K glitches back in 1993.

Only three of the thousands of airborne systems were found to be affected by the Y2K problem. If ignored, these would cause what Boeing describes as a "display anomaly, a nuisance message or both". In other words, even if airline operators did the unbelievable and ignored advice to replace the affected systems, these would not cause planes to fall from the sky come January 1.

There's a lot more data available from Boeing, enough even to comfort those most alarmed by this issue (www.boeing.com/Y2K/). And this is not second-class, third-rate information disseminated by someone who wants to make a buck.

People should be going to primary sources. And it is in the interests of those sources to tell all they know.

-- Norm (nwo@hotmail.com), May 06, 1999

Answers

"Boeing started work on resolving any Y2K glitches back in 1993."

No other comment should be needed. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 06, 1999.

Norm,

I don't think you really know *anything* about fly-by-wire control systems. If you want to believe that Boeing has everything covered, fine. Do you really think they would publish anything less?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

Gordon:

Please provide some FACTS to dispute Boeings assertions. You have facts, right?

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 06, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

You have some facts, right? You have some facts, right? You're like a broken record. I've been reading your posts for quite some time now and it's crystal clear that facts don't mean anything to you. Why do you keep asking? If you could read and understand facts you wouldn't be a Polly. Can you even begin to comprehend what Boeing said? There may be some anomolies, at 35,000 ft, or in bad weather, or at night, over the middle of the ocean. CRT displays that produce nonsense messages. Do you know what you are strapping yourself into when you board one of the new fly-by-wire marvels? Do you know that the pilots are basically just computer operators? Do you know that if the computers fail or deliver garbage the pilots are SOL? Do you know that they took all the simple mechanical backups out of these planes years ago? Do you know *anything* about this matter? Boeing is telling you in their round about way exactly what Koskinen is telling you in his round about way. You have to be able to read between the lines. Can a Polly do that? I don't think so. Sheeesh!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

As I suspected Gordon, you do not possess any facts. That you refer to modern aircraft by saying "the new fly-by-wire marvels" indicates your level of understanding. The fact that aircraft are piloted this way is hardly "new" nor is it a "marvel".

Do you actually believe that Boeing, Airbus, Aero International, Canadair, Embraer, etc would risk a multi billion dollar business by not being ready?

Of course they are ready.

You also "neglected to mention the phrase "If ignored" there may be some anomolies, at 35,000 ft, or in bad weather, or at night, over the middle of the ocean. CRT displays that produce nonsense messages."

The facts are that they have not been ignored. They have been remediated and tested. Still waiting for some facts - not doomer rhetoric.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 06, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

You Pollys are cute, you really are. Reminds me of sitting in on a high school discussion about world trade and hearing all the sophomoric reasoning. But it can't be helped when you don't know what you are talking about. And I repeat, you don't even know what fly-by- wire means. You are mentioning a bunch of airplanes that are *not* fly-by-wire, or at least not in most of those models. Anyway, Pro, why don't you prove that this is not being ignored by the carriers. Name the airlines that have stated that they have fully examined all their onboard computer programs, including all the embedded chips, and that they are now fully compliant. Name even one airline that has said this. Oh, and don't start down the wrong trail, Boeing isn't an airline and doesn't examine all the systems on the planes they sold anymore than GM is going to examine the systems on all their vehicles. So put your big brain to work and name carriers, with links, please.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

Gordon, it is hard to believe an idiot as large as you can actually operate a computer, ie:"You are mentioning a bunch of airplanes that are *not* fly-by-wire, or at least not in most of those models."

I did not mention specific aircraft, I mentioned aircraft manufacturers - ALL of which build fly-by-wire aircraft.

Since the article in question was on manufacturers,(Boeing)you claimed they were not telling the truth. You have yet to offer a smidgen of proof to back up your assertion. Still waiting...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 06, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Yeah, I know you are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting. That's it for you. Killing time waiting. I sure do wish you could come up with those compliant airplanes. Think you'll be able to do anything for us on that matter. I won't we waiting tho. ;-)

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

...and once again the doomers time out. The sky is falling, the sky is falling - proof? We don't need no proof..

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 06, 1999.

...and once again the doomers time out. The sky is falling, the sky is falling - proof? We don't need no proof...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 06, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Just to prove that you do know what a fly-by-wire airplane is, name one model from each of the above listed manufacturers that is such an airplane. Give the model name and number. Show us all that you really do know what you're talking about. I'm making this easy for you. We'll get to the hard part later. You have to crawl before you can walk you know.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Hey, I'm really sorry. I notice that my challenge to you has got you talking to yourself. Actually muttering, it looks like. I really didn't mean to upset you so much. Take a break. I don't want to think I was responsible for you going into some sort of psych condition over something this meaningless. Hope you start feeling better soon.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 06, 1999.

Gordo:

This is the way debate works, You challenge a statement as being false, others ask you to provide some facts and reasoning for your challenge. Still waiting..

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 07, 1999.

Pro, save your breath.

By now you should know how people like Gordon work. He has no knowledge of the subject which he comments on other than the mantras which emanate from the memetic mind state which he has descended into and now assumes to be a reflection of reality. Asking someone like Gordon for proof is tantamount to heresy in his mind. Like asking the pope to prove he was chosen by God.

Having been an active observer of the air transport industry over many years, it took me about 15 seconds to assess the fact that you chose your list of manafacturers based on the fact that they all produce at least *one* fly-by-wire aircraft. Gordon tries to deflect the conversation onto a "safer" tangent by demanding that you list model code, airframe serial number and colour of pilots underpants. Let him froth and foam.

Anyone who bothers to think for themselves can safely deduce that NO manafacturor of any computer-reliant product would be PERMITTED by its own legal advisors to release a statement as all-encompassing and specific as the one Boeing recently did unless they were sure they could walk the walk. Would the manafacturor of a computer-controlled hospital artificial respirator system announce . .

"No safety-of-patient issues exist with Bloggs respirators relative to the Y2K rollover,"

if they werent damned sure it was true ?

I know it can be fun to watch the process of the meme at work, but by engaging Gordon in conversation you may end up allowing Norm's valuable thread to become mired in a stock polly vs doomer slanging match which will simply drive moderates away and into other threads. Which is exactly what Gordon and his ilk want. Beware.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

You'll still be waiting for FOOD and WATER in 2000, Doctor PAULIE.

Wanker.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

They're Baaack!

Comes yet again to this forum the troglodyte calling himself "W0lv3r1n3". The last time I recall his odious presence, he quoted a California statute in defense of his outraged demand that everyone leave their money in the bank because to do otherwise was "morally wrong" (or some such garbage). He was an expert on banking then, but now he seems to be an aviation "expert". Just what qualifications are necessary to be "an active observer of the air transport industry over many years"?

Instead of the juvenile and ignorant ranting that you have displayed, why didn't you simply explain that "fly-by-wire" is a system whereby the flight controls of an aircraft are manipulated by electro-mechanical devices which are controlled by signals transmitted over electrical wiring after being created and manipulated by a computer as opposed to the previous method which employed a continuous mechanical linkage from the pilot's controls to the flight control element (such as a flap or rudder).

It seems quite likely that neither of you two cretins have ever had your hands on the controls of an aircraft, let along in the guts of one! Do you even understand (besides "magic") what keeps an aircraft in the sky?

You speak as a man with a paper asshole (to use a somewhat indelicate but accurate term--apologies to the sensitive and delicate) when you assume that the lawyers "permit" anything. "Money talks and bullshit walks", is as true an Americanism as exists and the decisions are NOT made by the lawyers. You have obviously never been a member of Senior Management at a Fortune 500 company (I have) if you think that ANY lawyer who is not also the CEO or the Chairman of the Board has any power beyond advisory that is not directly related to the number shares he holds in the company at issue. Legal advice is just that--advice. The executive will do as IT decides is in the best interests of the corporation whether or not it is OK'd by "Legal" or even if the chosen course of action is blatantly illegal. You are extremely naive and ill informed to think otherwise.

Somewhere along the line, your nerve-knot ROM was burned with the "Meme" scenario and little else. Talk about a two-year old with a hammer! What ISN'T a "meme" in your twisted perception of reality?

Your advice to the other cretin concerning "driving moderates away" is clearly indicative of your purpose and exposes you for all who CAN think clearly and who can also read.

As for "Y2K Pro", he (or she) continues to demonstrate irrefutably that parrots and snakes have somewhere along the line produced viable (and I use the word advisedly) offspring.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

Hardliner

Youre consistent in one thing. Giving me plenty of work to do snipping apart your posts in order to isolate and neutralise the massive volume of ad-hominem attacks and non-sequitirs which comprise your argument. I should take my own advice to ignore this kind of post, but I have a few minutes, so this time you hooked me.

*begin snip*

Comes yet again to this forum the troglodyte calling himself "W0lv3r1n3".

*ad hominem. At no point in my post did I resort to name calling. Standard extremist tactic. Ignored.*

The last time I recall his odious presence,

*ditto*

he quoted a California statute in defense of his outraged demand that everyone leave their money in the bank because to do otherwise was "morally wrong" (or some such garbage).

*quote out of context, misquote, transpose "suggest" for "demand" and then belittle the opinion of those you dont agree with. Standard extremist tactic. Ignored*

He was an expert on banking then, but now he seems to be an aviation "expert".

*I never claimed to be an expert on banking then, nor do I now. Im the same thing you are, a poster with an opinion. I am also not an expert on aviation. I am, as I claimed, an active observer of the air transport industry over many years. Does that negate my opinion ?*

Just what qualifications are necessary to be "an active observer of the air transport industry over many years"?

*In my case, simply having lived within a mile of the worlds busiest airport for 26 years, having most of my friends and family working in the industry, and having spent my life in the company of aircraft of one kind or another since the days of the constellation. If you wanted a CV, why didnt you ask for one politely ?*

Instead of the juvenile and ignorant

*Ad-hominem. Ignored*

ranting that you have displayed, why didn't you simply explain that "fly-by-wire" is a system whereby the flight controls of an aircraft are manipulated by electro-mechanical devices which are controlled by signals transmitted over electrical wiring after being created and manipulated by a computer as opposed to the previous method which employed a continuous mechanical linkage from the pilot's controls to the flight control element (such as a flap or rudder).

*because the term is a generic, and I surmised that anyone interested enough to want to know what it meant would simply search for details using Yahoo or similar. Whats your point ?*

It seems quite likely that neither of you two cretins

*ad hominem. Ignored*

have ever had your hands on the controls of an aircraft, let along in the guts of one!

*Correct. Is this a qualifying criteria in having an opinion on aviation ? Do I need to be Buzz Aldrin to have an opinion on the moon ? If you are a commerical pilot, mechanic or other insider in the industry, why not just say so ? Not that it matters really, youre entitled to your opinion either way. And so am I *

Do you even understand (besides "magic") what keeps an aircraft in the sky?

*Yes. Very well thanks. Whats your point ?*

You speak as a man with a paper asshole (to use a somewhat indelicate but accurate term--apologies to the sensitive and delicate)

*Ad-hominem. Apology not accepted (especially as it wasnt aimed at me). Ignored*

when you assume that the lawyers "permit" anything. "Money talks and bullshit walks", is as true an Americanism as exists and the decisions are NOT made by the lawyers.

*Make up your minds. One minute the information on Y2K is blurred and unreliable because of the meddling of the over-powerful legal community, the next, the lawyers are powerless. So do I take it that you believe that the CEO of Boeing basically overrode his legal team and sent out a press release which was blatantly untrue without worrying about the future consequences ? Kindly clarify *

You have obviously never been a member of Senior Management at a Fortune 500 company (I have)

*as well as being a commercial airline pilot AND mechanic. My what a CV you must have. Im impressed. So what ?*

if you think that ANY lawyer who is not also the CEO or the Chairman of the Board has any power beyond advisory that is not directly related to the number shares he holds in the company at issue. Legal advice is just that--advice. The executive will do as IT decides is in the best interests of the corporation whether or not it is OK'd by "Legal" or even if the chosen course of action is blatantly illegal. You are extremely naive and ill informed to think otherwise.

*So you are espousing the opinion that it is regular practice among large multi-nationals (I suspect youd rather not name Boeing in specific due to the nature of the laws of libel, but if you want to, go ahead) to ignore the advice of their legal advisors and publish officially sanctioned information which is known to be incorrect and which (at a finite time in the near future) would be almost certain to produce class action suits which could bankrupt the company ? Yes or no ? Did you do that when you were in senior management, if so how often ? And if so, how do you square this "truth" with the standard "Blame the lawyers for the bad info" stance ?*

Somewhere along the line, your nerve-knot ROM

*ad-hominem. Ignored*

was burned with the "Meme" scenario and little else.

*in your opinion*

Talk about a two-year old with a hammer!

*Ad hominem.. Ignored*

What ISN'T a "meme" in your twisted perception of reality?

*Very little. Thats the nature of the human brain in my opinion. But there are good memes and bad memes. This "lets all get together and chant about how Y2K is TEOTWAWKI" meme is the one manifest in the extremist posts to this site, and the one I'm concerned with. *

Your advice to the other cretin concerning "driving moderates away" is clearly indicative of your purpose and exposes you for all who CAN think clearly and who can also read.

*If that was my purpose, why would I highlight my own hidden agenda ? My purpose is to provide a counterpoint to the noise created by extremism. Which is what I was saying. But well done for manipulating the concept to suit yourself. *

As for "Y2K Pro", he (or she) continues to demonstrate irrefutably that parrots and snakes have somewhere along the line produced viable (and I use the word advisedly) offspring.

*ad-hominem, Ignored.*

*end snippage*

Now, lets see, how many of your points contributed anything to the thread, rather than muddying the water ? Um . . . none. Job well done.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Your seeming belief that the ability to type the phrase, "ad hominem" provides you with unlimited verbal license and renders your motives and past conduct irrelevant is incorrect. You quite simply and obviously do not understand the meaning of the term. (or perhaps you do and are being purposely dishonest)

You have clearly demonstrated that you can type, "ignored" as well.

What you have not demonstrated is an ability to reason clearly, nor have you indicated that you are even marginally aware of "corporate ethics" (which is descriptive although truly an oxymoron) in America.

Until and/or unless you do so, your "opinion" is valueless to me and I shall ignore you.

If the shoe fits, wear it.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

I belive it was Monique who pointed out that Y2K Pro is an absolute fraud. He claims to work in the airline industry, but as she noticed, he has yet to provide the level of insider understanding to support that contention. This thread is an excellent confirmation of her observation.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 07, 1999.

Hey W0lv3rln3, I'm a troglodyte too! Hardliner tagged me that as well several months ago. Ain't he a piece of work?! Ex Jarhead marine you know, been a CIO, CFO, CEO, all them things. Then tells us how corporations are liars and thieves and such. I've asked the ol' coot who the hell he used to work for, but he doesn't answer. Which leads me to believe he has never worked for a major corporation, but was probably rejected by many, hence his pitiful attitude towards them.

Sad really! I miss you, you ol' jasper!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 07, 1999.

Well look what crawled out from under its rock!

As is plainly recorded in the archives of this forum for all to see who earnestly seek it, "Deano the Beach Boy" here has bragged of being adept at acquiring the emotional attachments of young boys (al la Little League) and prided himself on their tears of distress when faced with separation from him.

He has claimed that "winning" was what he taught them, with never a word about teamwork or how to handle the inevitable setbacks that life provides.

He has boasted of the recognition that he has received without ever once indicating that he was proud of their efforts. He's provided us all with tales of his prowess as a "coach", but not once have I heard him tell of the efforts or accomplishments of the boys. . . Some "coach"!

Now he has revealed himself as a liar.

I am indeed a "Jarhead Marine" although any Marine will tell you that there are no "Ex-Marines". I am also currently the Secretary-Treasurer of two corporations (I do not bear the title of CFO, although it is descriptive of my function) and I sit on the Board of Directors as well. I have indeed been Senior Management at a Fortune 500 corporation, although I shall decline to name them for reasons which are none of anyone's business.

As for the, ". . .been a CIO, CFO, CEO, all them things", that "Deano" lies about, they are purely a fabrication of his and you will not find my claim to any of that here or anywhere else.

To the best of my knowledge, neither has he ever asked me where I have worked, although I freely acknowledge that I have not read every thread on this forum. In any case, as I have said, that is no one's business. You may believe or not as you choose.

On this forum, this despicable excuse for a man has also bragged of his material possessions (boat, house, etc.) and in general adopted an attitude of, "I'm so much above the crazy Doomers".

If you have the time to waste, you can read all these things for yourself, here and in the archives of this forum.

And, "Lefty", take your hand out of your pocket and save some of that pity you have for my attitude and direct it toward those poor young boys that are subjected to your emotional abuse.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

Hardhead said:

"I am also currently the Secretary-Treasurer of two corporations (I do not bear the title of CFO, although it is descriptive of my function) and I sit on the Board of Directors as well. I have indeed been Senior Management at a Fortune 500 corporation, although I shall decline to name them for reasons which are none of anyone's business. "

...i.e. people could then check and prove what a liar I am. It is more convenient for me continue my fantasy as a "mover and a shaker" when in fact I am a tired little man with a short haircut and not much else...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 07, 1999.

Polly want a cracker? (or is Polly a cracker?)

That proves it for me! Parrots and snakes just don't mix very well.

If you actually believe that being a corporate officer makes one a "mover" or a "shaker" in any but the most limited arena, you are really living in an illusion .

BTW, fool, no short haircut, enough of everything I'll ever need and enough to share.

I'll leave it to the judgment of the other readers here as to whether I'm "tired" or not. . .

Why don't you "educate" us some more about fly-by-wire?

Since you're here, are you a snake that flies or a bird that crawls on its belly?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

Pantyliner my old friend!!! How the hell are you?? As bitter as ever I see. Some things never change........

Funny you mention my Little League endevours. Of course, you know nothing of what you speak. Wrong on EVERY account, spouting off like you usually do in your pompous assed fashion. Very impressive and very wrong. Some things never change......

Are we losing our memory old coot? I can recall SEVERAL times asking whick horseshit organization you worked for that made you lie all the time. Ya never did answer me. I can only assume that you lied about that too. Some things never change......

I think I actually missed you ol' boy. Glad you're back!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 07, 1999.

Y2KPRO - thanks dude! 'tired little man with a short haircut an not much else'. I about wet my pants!!!!! Perfect way to end the week! Make that 1st Michelob on me!

Priceless!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 07, 1999.

If you actually care, "Lefty", whether or not the other readers here believe you, then you'd best go destroy some of the archives before someone who does care finds your words.

BTW, I just asked you if you'd stopped beating your wife. Did you hear me? (How about showing us where you asked?) On second thought, why bother--I won't tell you. I couldn't care less whether or not you believe me.

As for being bitter, I guess it's true that we judge others by ourselves. For the record, the bitterest thing in my life is coffee that's a "bit" too strong.

I'm actually glad to see you here as well. The forum needs a few reference points in the sub-human range and you'll certainly serve!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

One more thing there Mr Pantyliner - try not to speak about me and my coaching. You, old fart, ain't got a fucking clue what I do on the ballfield. Teamwork is the FIRST thing I go over every season. #1 on the list. Always has been, always will be! Having a winning attitude does breed success! Anyone tells you different is a fool. Losers accept losing. Fact of life! There's a helluva lot more to it than just 'playing the game'. That's the lamest advice I've ever heard. Play to win or get off my field.

'nuff said.

Have a good weekend!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 07, 1999.

"Lefty", you seem to have a slight fixation here on pantyliners, wetting your pants and the concept of "being old". . . Are you a member of the "Depends Brigade"? Why the emphasis? Come on, you can tell us!

Just FYI, I'm not so old that I'd have any trouble at all making you "do the chicken" just before I broke your neck. . .

BTW, nice talk, smutmouth! Give "your boys" lots of "fucking clues", do you?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 07, 1999.

More dipshit pollys, I see. For the record my buddy's dad is a retired pilot for Northwest air. Back in the late 70's, early 80's, they (Northwest)were just starting to aquire their fleet of DC9's. This friends dad was going to be flying these planes and had several thick manuals sitting around the living room. He told me that he was suppose to study them so that he would know how to fly the DC9 but he chuckled and said that they (DC9's)are all "computerized" now and that the flight crew is basically "just along for the ride". We all know that there is a little more to it than that but the fact remains that they have been "flying by wire" for at least 2 decades now. This comes from a pilot.

-- rick (I'mset@home.house), May 07, 1999.

Physical threats Pantyliner? Thought you were above that ol' friend. I'm horribly dissapointed in you........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 10, 1999.

One more thing there Mr Pantyliner - try not to speak about me and my coaching. You, old fart, ain't got a fucking clue what I do on the ballfield. Teamwork is the FIRST thing I go over every season. #1 on the list. Always has been, always will be! Having a winning attitude does breed success! Anyone tells you different is a fool. Losers accept losing. Fact of life! There's a helluva lot more to it than just 'playing the game'. That's the lamest advice I've ever heard. Play to win or get off my field.

'nuff said.

Have a good weekend!

Deano



-- karen (karen@karen.karen), May 10, 1999.

teamwork? - win or get out?

serving up contradictions again, Draino? karen

-- karen (karen@karen.karen), May 10, 1999.

Good Lord, I've stumbled in to loser junction.......

You don't have a clue to a whole lot outside that friggin peecee in front of your face.

too much gloom and doom and way too many losers..........

Don't forget the food banks next year.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 10, 1999.

Karen - haven't had the pleasure.

I believe you were attempting to quote 'play to win' not 'win or else'. This implies giving 100% for you and your teammates.

Nice try..........loser.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 10, 1999.

"Lefty",

I considered for some small amount of time as to whether or not it was even worth responding to you, but as my time is my own (the two corporations that I hold office in are not large, but I do own the controlling interest in each of them) and I am the sort of man who stops to remove a dog turd from the public sidewalk even if it is not in front of my own door, so I have chosen to reply.

I expect no answer from you--indeed you have already publicly provided the pertinent answers on this forum.

You have demonstrated here that you are an emotional menace to youngsters. Anyone who boasts of the tears of young boys as evidence of their qualifications as a mentor should be horsewhipped and certainly not allowed around young people.

You have shown us an extremely poor example of a coach. Despite your belated words about the value of teamwork, the first time around all we heard about was YOUR abilities as a coach (not), YOUR awards for performance and NOTHING about the character, abilities or achievements of the boys who should have been the focus of it all.

You are a dismal caricature of a business manager, else why are you telling people to, "Love it or leave it!" over the internet on company time instead of coordinating the efforts of the team that you are nominally "in charge" of? Do you seriously expect anyone here to believe that you are so effective as a "manager" that your "team" functions without you? Would you tolerate such behavior in one of your subordinates? How would you explain your words here and the time you spent writing and posting them to the board of directors of your employer?

You have shown yourself to be a braggart by informing us all of your five (or was it six?) figure bonus, your SUV, house, boat, etc. It would appear that there is something missing if you find it necessary to boast to others of these things instead of simply enjoying them.

You have shown yourself to be a liar with your assertions that I made claims which I did not and as dishonesty shares a certain characteristic with pregnancy, such casts doubt on all of your other words. As an unreliable reporter of some facts, you have destroyed any value that you may have had as an accepted source about any others, particularly those which relate to your own (supposed) accomplishments.

Now, you reveal your illiteracy as well (do you have a secretary who reads this to you and takes dictation of your posts? If so, get a new one.). I shall leave the judgment of whether or not my ability to express myself with the written word is up to the task of threatening you, but it seems likely that such judgment would be in my favor. If I were to threaten you, "Lefty", there would be no doubt about it. I will give you an additional hint (which you would, no doubt, characterize as a "fucking clue") by telling you that since I truly understand "winning", I would never telegraph my intent and give up the element of surprise by making threats. My description of a hypothetical physical encounter with you was an obviously ill-fated attempt to inform you of inaccurate information within your "nerve-knot complex" and replace it with correct information.

Do you plug your ears and avoid mirrors, "Lefty"? If you could perceive yourself as you appear here and were as astute as you claim to be, it would seem that you must, as no ordinary person could bear such knowledge.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 10, 1999.

Gosh Pantyliner.......you've hurt my feelings........;-)

I guess I'm the only one that remembers I had to defend myself, not my kids. They were never the subject of the conversation......I was. Not by choice either. I offered my opinions on this forum as everyone else has and was immediately attacked by you and others. I was told was an ingorant piece of shit I was. All I did was offer evidence to the contrary. The loser doomers quickly noticed my 'jock-mentality' and commenced in their attacks.

To sum up, I have about as much of yall as I can stand (and I'm sure you feel the same). There is too much pessimism, among a helluva lot of other things, that I will not associate myself with any longer. Life is too good to read your conspiracy theories, black helicopters and all the other crap yall come up with. Live in your world where you look over your shoulder and I'll go hang at the ballfield or the beach and actually enjoy the good life that I've earned.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), May 10, 1999.