Here's a chance for knowledgable pollies to advance their cause.

Please recite all facts (as opposed to the opinions or conclusions of others) listed in the public domain which would allow an impartial panel of information systems experts (experienced in the necessary fields such as accounting, manufacturing, engineering, etc.) to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that General Motors will continue production in a normal manner (not significantly hampered by y2k glitches) in 2000.

[For the purposes of this exercise, consider only GM's internal compliancy. This makes the question artificially easy since it allows you to ignore supply problems, customer problems, etc. Without this condition the question would get into a lot of circular issues which no one could ever attempt to answer.]

If you believe that the question is unreasonable, then restate the question in a reasonable manner and give your response to the restated question.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999

Answers

that should be "knowledgeable pollies"

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

Why are you singling out GM? You don't believe that $75 Million bonus they're offering EDS to ensure that they will not have significant problems at rollover will help? It would sure motivate ME, but EDS may be another story.

Who knows? It seems from their website that they at least have a handle on what needs to be done, and they're doing it.

http://www.gm.com/about/info/news/y2k/index.html

Anita

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

Anita commented:

"Who knows? It seems from their website that they at least have a handle on what needs to be done, and they're doing it. "

Anita, the question here I believe is HOW LONG WILL THEY BE DOING **IT**.

Ray

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

Prove That GM Has NOT Beaten The Bug

-- Super Polly (get@grip.sheesh), May 27, 1999.

Anita, I have no grand plan in singling out GM other than it, in many ways, represents American business. If you wish, use Ford, Dupont, 3M, Caterpillar . . . use any of the manufacturing concerns in the Dow Industrials.

By the way, the panel of experts is getting bored.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

GM admitted last summer that in its current state it would have experienced "catastrophic" failure due to y2k bugs. Specifically what has changed since then?

The panel of experts will be leaving for lunch in 10 minutes.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

Puddintame:

I don't work there, and don't know anyone who personally does (not to mention that I don't have a crystal ball), but here's the latest I've heard about their progress:

General Motors Conducts Successful Year 2000 Test at Truck Assembly Plant 02:45 p.m Apr 15, 1999 Eastern DETROIT, April 15 /PRNewswire/ --

General Motors (NYSE: GM) has completed an extensive Year 2000 test on a truck assembly plant in Arlington, Texas,simultaneously running most of the systems and components within the plant with the date moved ahead to the Year 2000.[...]The company has successfully conducted similar tests at car assembly plants at Lake Orion, Mich., and Ste. Therese in Canada. SOURCE General Motors Corporation.

I couldn't find a copy of the original article. It may be in archives somewhere.

Anita

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

From their May 17 10-Q

The Year 2000 program is being implemented in seven phases, some of which are being conducted concurrently:

Inventory -- identification and validation of an inventory of all systems that could be affected by the Year 2000 issue. The inventory phase commenced in earnest in 1996 and is substantially complete. It has identified approximately 7,600 business information systems and about 1.7 million infrastructure items and embedded systems.

Assessment -- initial testing, code scanning, and supplier contacts to determine whether remediation is needed and developing a remediation plan, if applicable. The assessment of business information systems is substantially complete and included a determination that about one quarter of such systems should be regarded as "critical" based on criteria such as the potential for business disruption. The assessment of infrastructure items and embedded systems was substantially completed by the end of 1998.

Remediation -- design and execution of a remediation plan, followed by testing for adherence to the design. GM has substantially completed the remediation of its critical and non-critical systems. A small number of systems will be remediated or replaced in 1999. Unimportant systems have been and will continue to be removed from GM's Year 2000 inventory and will not be remediated. GM believes that it will meet its targets for Year 2000 readiness. In the normal course of its business plans, GM's Delphi Automotive Systems unit is incrementally implementing enterprise software that will replace and thereby eliminate the need to remediate certain existing systems. Implementation of this software at several Delphi sites is scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 1999, and another Delphi site implementation is not expected to be complete until July 1999.

System Test -- testing of remediated items to ensure that they function normally after being replaced in their original operating environment. This phase is closely related to the remediation phase and follows essentially the same schedule.

Implementation -- return of items to normal operation after satisfactory performance in system testing. This phase follows essentially the same schedule as remediation and system testing.

Readiness Testing -- planning for and testing of integrated systems in a Year 2000 ready environment, including ongoing auditing and follow-up. Readiness testing is currently underway. This phase commenced during the fourth quarter of 1998 and is expected to be the major focus of the Year 2000 program throughout 1999.

As well, the link to the testing article Anita referred to:

http://www.gm.com/m o_pr/mo_pr_dt.htm?id=740

FOR RELEASE: April 15, 1999

GENERAL MOTORS CONDUCTS SUCCESSFUL YEAR 2000 TEST AT TRUCK ASSEMBLY PLANT

DETROIT -- General Motors has completed an extensive Year 2000 test on a truck assembly plant in Arlington, TX, simultaneously running most of the systems and components within the plant with the date moved ahead to the Year 2000.

Called a dynamic production test at GM, the operation tested manufacturing and information systems during an 8-hour shift -- while producing 244 vehicles. GM called the test a success with no Year 2000 related-problems with any systems.

GM is in the phase of its Year 2000 program where it is testing systems together in logical units, or clusters, such as an assembly plant. In Arlington, for example, GM tested a total of 79 systems together as well as the plant computing and communications infrastructure. Manufacturing control systems tested included robots, programmable logic controllers, panel displays and personal computers. Information systems included software that provides information related to tasks like scheduling, material flow and quality control.

The company has successfully conducted similar tests at car assembly plants at Lake Orion, MI, and Ste. Therese in Canada.

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

I smell smoke.... Puddintame is that you?????

-- COBOL Dinosaur (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), May 27, 1999.

While Puddintame is generous enough to allow omission of the supply "problem," I'll raise the bar and take a jump anyway.

I happen to know a middle-management type at one of GM's suppliers (I don't remember the name of the supplier, but I think it's in Pendergrass GA). Well over a year ago, he told me they had completed their Y2K program. Then he told me about Life as a GM Supplier.

When GM tells a supplier to jump, they just do it without stopping to ask "How high?". It's a very competitive business, and GM will drop a supplier for any reason they bother to give. You don't get parts in on time, you get dropped. If GM wants more parts, you either increase production or GM will find someone else who will. If GM wants a price break, you give it to them.

If GM wants you Y2K-ready, meaning that your business continues to function across the century change, you get ready and prove it to GM's satisfaction.

And all the time, you watch and wait for other suppliers to stumble so you can grab some of their business. The word "cutthroat" comes to mind.

Wear your seatbelt, don't buy a freekin' tank.

-- Dirt Road (got.it@got.beyond.it), May 27, 1999.

Cobol, you mistakenly think I want GM to fail. We're all coproliths if that happens.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

Just to concur, Dirt Road.

Back in the 80's, I worked for a large corporation, which was/is a major supplier to Ford. Ford was in the beginning of their SPC program, and required all all suppliers to supply proof that they were also using SPC techniques, with the results.

We didn't flinch. Other than to ask "how high did you want that jump?".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 27, 1999.

I think it's also appropriate to repeat Senator Bennett's comments:

The difficult problem with this challenge is that it IS a moving target. Ive had the experience of having my old speeches quoted back to me, and saying, How can you say this is where we are, when six months ago you said. . . And I said, Because six months ago that was true, and what Im saying now is true. (Emphasis mine)

Unfortunately, many people get disappointed when you tell them things are going well. They kind of want this to be the end of the world as we know it. And when you say, Hey, as a result of what weve been pushing for and doing, weve made some progress, they dont want to hear that.

This is a dynamic situation. You poke fun at Polly's for saying things like, "that's an old report," but it is extremely important to note that. That which was true even 3 months ago is not necessarily true today.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 27, 1999.

One of the most important principles in General Semantics is that of dating every abstraction you make. Date is extremely important, esp. in any scientific field.

For that matter, would you ignore the date when making up your mind whom to ask out on Saturday night?

"She was nuts about me a year ago, now she is going out with Rob, but I will ignore everything since a year ago and call her anyway". Good way to get in trouble.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 27, 1999.

Puddintame:

What's a coprolith?

Anita [Just want to know what we'll all be if GM fails.]

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

Anita, Sorry,. . . "coprolite." I thought it was an appropriate word to use in response to "Dinosaur."

By the way, the responses above are interesting and sound like pretty good news for us consumers; however, my high priced team of experts is still reading magazines in the lobby waiting for some facts and figures. Apparently statements by others to the effect of "We passed the cluster test with flying colors!" does not qualify as data. (Scientists! . . . go figure!)

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

GM spent less than 10% of its Y2K budget prior to 1998...

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

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

As Robert E. Cooke, PE, pointed out on a similar thread last month,

one test on one robot subsystem at one (two?) plants out of hundreds.

Progress, yes. Out of the woods? Yea right.

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

Kevin,

GM spent less than 10% of its Y2K budget prior to 1998...

Everytime you say something like that, someone here like me will say this: AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT IS NOT A VALID METRIC OF PROGRESS.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 27, 1999.

Puddintame:

Good enough. I understand the meaning of coprolite.

I think GM is a company to be honored, just like I see Kraft Foods and Samsonite as companies to be honored. They were quite forthcoming in their statements last year (as I'm sure you're aware.) Kraft's problems (including throwing $3 million of food into the dumper because their assembly line saw them as too old) and their company's open admissions of problems regarding Y2k did a lot to wake up the manufacturing industry. We're pretty fond of Kraft's Mac'n'cheese around here, so I waited patiently for them to introduce products to the stores that had appropriate expiration dates. I thought the time would NEVER come, but several weeks ago noticed that it had.

I have to share Hoff's thoughts on why so few companies aren't coming out and openly stating Y2k compliance. [At least I THINK it was Hoff.] Once a company is fully compliant, their systems will freeze. We really think quite a bit of this is happening already and that's why the market has dried up around here recently. Where does that leave the 2,000 maintenance requests that might be fit in BEFORE? There's absolutely NO benefit to a company stating compliance in March, June, September, etc....if they want to throw in some of those maintenance requests that might even have come down from an important person above.

Anita

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

A,

"Last month?"

One robot subsystem? They've tested more than that.

Besides, if all of the robot systems are the same make and model and are controlled by the same version of software, there is NO NEED to test them all individually.

This is one of the longest-running arguments in Y2K remediation for industrial control systems. The project managers and consultants insist that EACH AND EVERY individual machine must be tested, which is silly.

The only reason why you'd want to test them all is if it could be demonstrated that there are subtle differences between models that could produce problems. That's not so in the vast majority of cases.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 27, 1999.

Stephen,

I'm curious. How long do you think it takes an average organization to become ready for Y2K?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Kevin,

That depends on the organization. Insurance companies and banks take longer, but most of them got started a lot earlier. Manufacturing concerns with lots of embedded systems are finding out that the problem is nowhere near as serious as originally estimated, so they're taking a lot less time than originally projected.

To answer your question, large enterprises (again, depending on the enterprise) could take years. Small businesses can solve the problem often by simply downloading a patch or upgrade. In that case, "time required" depends on the speed of their modem. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 27, 1999.

Manufacturing concerns with lots of embedded systems are finding out that the problem is nowhere near as serious as originally estimated, so they're taking a lot less time than originally projected.

Stephen,

Do you an explanation then why a company like GM would be spending a majority of its Y2K budget in 1999 instead of prior to 1999? I don't see GM taking a lot less time than originally projected.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Puddintame -- [using my best Dan Akroid impression of Bob Dole] I know it. You know it. The country knows it...it can't be answered today.

We and they will find out in a few months. It is a work-in-process scenario for all companies. Neither Paul Davis, nor Stephen Poole work with factory automation systems. I know first hand of one factory with 14 printed circuit board insertion machines -- all the same model from the same manufacturer. The manufacturer did the remediation work and did find different problems with different machines.

The reason we and most companies check everything is because of the stakes. It is far more prudent and convenient to methodically do it during the remediation process than try to 'wing it' later. It is simply good engineering practice. Stephen Poole and Paul Davis may be qualified to test a system, but they are unfit to decide the methodology. That's why they do what they do and I do what I do.

Could you imagine a Stephen Poole deciding the validity of testing the engines of a 747? "We only have to check this one...there all the same model." Or perhaps working at a nuclear plant - near you? " It's a waste of time... only check this one sensor. They're all the same anyway."

Give me a Robert Cook P.E. who worries about everything. You can have the Stephen Pooles.

-- PNG (png@gol.com), May 27, 1999.

I wonder if incentive programs, severance packages and golden parachutes are part of the GM Y2k budget? Just wondering...

Can I ask a question along the same lines as Puddintame?

Given the sheer size and magnitude of the GM project, wouldn't it me statistically improbable that ALL of their systems will be remediated in time? Also, given the sheer size and magnitude of GM's Y2k project, wouldn't their be a likelihood of some failures? Statistically speaking of course. Just curious.

As an owner of two GM cars presently and given the fact that I've never owned ANYTHING BUT a GM product you might say I'm a fan.

Mike ============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

dontcha just hate writing on the fly and then reading errors in a post? eegads!

Mike ==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

Michael:

You may be asking the wrong question. I'd estimate an essentially zero percent probability that GM will be fully compliant anytime within the next decade or two.

Now, how about asking how much functionality is GM likely to lose as a result of y2k bugs, and for how long? At one extreme, I'm sure Paul Milne will gladly assure you that GM will soon build their very last vehicle of any kind forever. At the other extreme, some people might expect GM to sail through next year without any problems visible to customers or dealers. My own SWAG is that they will experience a few weeks of technical difficulties that will reduce production on some lines quite a bit, and will also experience some supplier difficulties that may kill certain models or require redesigns. In the longer term (a few years) their sales might suffer from lack of end customers (assuming serious recession).

What indications we have are that GM has done a heroic job nailing most of the big game. But the swarms of mosquitoes, now, that's anybody's guess.

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

Flint, you're right, in answer to mike- REMEMBER< MOST folks talking about remediation are talking about MISSION CRITICAL SYSTEMS, not ALL SYSTEMS.

CHuck, going to get up Mrs. Driver so she can go to work, and I can go to bed.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 28, 1999.

There is also a difference between what will not be remediated, but there is a work around and what will not be remediated with no possible work around.

I love the black & white world that Y2K seems to exist in for some folks.

-- Work Around Sue (workaround@girl.com), May 28, 1999.

"that should be "knowledgeable pollies"" - oxymoron? :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

"We passed the cluster test with flying colors!"

you sure they meant to say "test" :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

GM has expanded their testing - the latest at Arlington (as at Lake Huron and St Therese) appears to one of the first "plant level" tests (done anywhere? Hmmmn - I haven't heard of any other companies at this level? Does this mean that no other plant level tests have been done at Ford or Chrysler or ....).

Regardless, we are discussing GM, not everybody else in the US and Canada or overseas who has apparently not done any plant-level testing - yet.

Quoting: << Called a dynamic production test at GM, the operation tested manufacturing and information systems during an 8-hour shift -- while producing 244 vehicles. GM called the test a success with no Year 2000 related-problems with any systems.

GM is in the phase of its Year 2000 program where it is testing systems together in logical units, or clusters, such as an assembly plant. In Arlington, for example, GM tested a total of 79 systems together as well as the plant computing and communications infrastructure.>>

Great - these three plants have moved from individual processor and sensor checks and remediation and testing; to processor system and controller checks, remediation and testing; to unit remediation; to assembly area remediation and testing (see the previous "single robot group" tested at three plants in April) to line remedation and testing to whole plant remediation and testing.

It means these three plants could be running next year. It means that GM has found a systematic way to check and repair its facilities - and then fully test them.

It means that this same systematic process needs to be applied to every one of its facilities. Those investigated and repaired and tested will likely be able to operate next year, perhaps without significant shutdowns.

The problem is extrapolating from three plants withthree production lines to th entire company with all of its production lines is that any (and every) single repair done in one place means nothing to the next plant. You still have to go there, check it, remediate it, and test it. Particularly with robot assemblies and produciton lines, you can't just Fedex everybody a floppy disk and tell the local network administrator to "change software."

And even if you could, you'd have to give him or her enough time to go to every machine and reload the software. As the FAA will find out (they had some 4800 action items left to meet their latest July deadline) one test at one facility means that one facility might work.

So that only leaves GM reliant on all their infrastructure and all the suppliers in all the cities where their plants are and where their supplier's plants are. No power, no water, no phones, no transportation = no cheap cars .....

So, is this good news? Absolutely. Does it mean that GM can make cars early next year? No.

It means they have a process that, if completed everywhere, will begin to do enough to show that their own plants can be remediated and operate successfully, provided everything else these plants need will also be remediated and tested.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 28, 1999.

I tend to agree with Robert in general, re: testing. No question, processes should be tested.

But, can we assume these are the only tests GM has done? I don't think so. My guess is GM put this press release out to demonstrate an example of how they are addressing Y2k. I seriously doubt they'll be issuing individual press releases for each test.

And more importantly, from an overall view, these types of integration tests, along with the ones the electric utilities have performed, bear out once again one of the main differences between Y2k remediation and normal development.

Because, you have a working system already in place, and functioning. What these tests are demonstrating is, if you successfully remediate and test the individual components, such that the same inputs produce the same outputs, there should be no real surprises when the components are put back into place. This isn't universal, but is being borne out repeatedly. And this is different from development from scratch, where the end result exists only on paper.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

I concur - that's the reason why I am (and only half jesting!) very concerned about the actual levels of testing going on.

See, this particular "kind" test is what's required in every industry, in every facility - to exaggerate only slightly. So, why are we getting a "single" press release? Why is this newsworthy, even from a "polly's peculiar perperspective"?

Shouldn't these very real "successes" be so common at this stage, with so many tens of thousand of them, that we are just overwhelmed with so much "good news" that a concerned reader needs to work hard just to find any glimmer of bad news? Instead, here is one story, about one company, and a reference in that story to only three other plant level tests.

That is the alarming news - that "good news" can be considered "news".

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 28, 1999.

Robert:

I'm just going to throw out an opinion here, FWIW. I've worked at too many companies to count in my adult career in the computing industry. I've never seen ONE announce to the press that testing was going on AT ALL, and I've seen some MAJOR overhauls of systems...oftentimes exceeding Y2k in scope.

I suspect that the limited tests reported to the press were more to point out that testing was taking place than to suggest that these were the ONLY facilities tested. You must admit that GM came forth and stated last year that if Y2k were to occur that day, Milne would be right. As time progressed and remediation began showing more positive results, I'm sure GM felt that they should address the previous year's openness only to suggest that things were moving along more positively than they'd previously thought. Than again, it may be that GM presented the press with THOUSANDS of sites that passed testing and for lack of space the press only presented SOME examples. I don't know...but neither do you.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 28, 1999.

Well, all of the expensive experts have quit on me. They said that they have no data to examine and no methodology to assess. Apparently none of the submissions above would even be considered for inclusion in the prestigious "Journal of Remediation Engineering" published by The Puddintame Technical Press(TPTP).

If any of you Pollies have submissions to the Journal, send them on. However it first has to be reviewed by the TPTP janitor, Ruprecht, to make sure that there are data and methodology sections, otherwise, Ruprecht roundfiles it. (At least that's what he claim to do with it.)

The experts will remain "on call" on a PRN basis.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 28, 1999.

I think you expect far too much in the area of actual publications of individual results, Robert.

The electric utilities have been fairly constant in publicizing their results; I have basically stopped tracking their releases.

But the utilities have realized that electricity is the main concern of the majority of those worried about Y2k, and as such have mounted a fairly extensive PR campaign. Which, by the way, many discount, because they have done this.

As for individual corporations, even as large as GM, no, I doubt if they will publish the results of every integrated test they run. What is the point? As in this case, they put out a release, demonstrating they are doing the testing. I don't expect a flood of releases from them. And don't consider that lack of releases "bad" news.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

Anita, I haven't seen any post from you at Debunky but Mr. Decker left a message there for you. I wonder whay that is? Are you Decker in drag? What a silly goose I am, of course you're not, you couldn't be, could you. It's just that it fits Mr. Decker's sophomoric sense of humor. But I still wonder why he left you a message over there and not over here. Strange...

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 27773923&P=Yes&TL=927742672

Anita... like your work Wednesday, 26-May-1999 22:58:43

12.78.235.93 writes:

I have enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

-- busting (trolls@Yourdon.brd), May 28, 1999.

Bunking? (sorry...I didn't copy and paste your response so in 2 seconds I already forgot your handle.)

I LOOKED at the Bunky?? (debunking???) forum when Outings presented a link. To be honest, I'm not even sure if that's the one at which I looked. I looked at the one with the Doc Paulie???? guy? [I awakened much too early today, so my thinking skills still haven't kicked in.]

I don't know. I've never shared any communiques with Mr. Decker. LOL. Maybe I should start spending my time on the boards of the world to see if anyone else has said something to me that I missed? Maybe I wasn't even the Anita of which he referred? Life's too short to concentrate on such things. I've really got to get off this damn board and get back to my research at hand. It DOES get addictive, doesn't it?

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 28, 1999.

Busting:

Sorry I didn't take the time to check out the link you presented before I responded. It seems that Lisa posted a thread from this board and someone responded with the response I made to A. [Gee... it WAS me afterall.]

A quick glance showed that there's a lot of posting from this board over there, and a lot of posters here that go over there.

Anita

-- Anita Spooner (spoonera@msn.com), May 28, 1999.

Well gee, Puddintame, here's GM's testing methodology:

http://www.gmsupplier.com/apps/gsnhome/y2k/procedures/index.htm

As well, the link to their testing procedures document:

http://www.gmsupplier.com/apps/gsnhome/y2k/procedures/test_usa.doc

Now, being as you have this panel of "experts", I'm sure they'll all be sure to read through the documentation that's been requested, and be able to answer some specific questions. Right?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 28, 1999.

The experts are coming back into the building! They smell something vaguely related to at least a comprehensive plan for testing and want to investigate further. (I haven't seen the experts this excited in weeks!) Ruprecht is thumbing through the plan as we speak! We all anxiously await his decision. (I would have more confidence if Ruprecht had the plan right-side-up, but at this point it's easy to recognize lack of data in most documents.)

Ruprecht is now walking toward the roundfile . . . wait! he's already past the roundfile and is now handing the GM documents to the esteemed Dr. Blinderstein, Chairman of Pollytechnical Studies at Hoffstra University. (I smell a rat!) Blinderstein is nodding approval, but the other experts are demanding data. This scene could get ugly. Stay tuned.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 28, 1999.

For what it's worth GM shares are down 14.3% at the moment !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

Psst. Hey Ray. Maybe youse oughtta check just why GM stock is lower. Get back to us, OK?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

Pssssst, Hoff you seem to have ALL THE ANSWERS why don't you tell us. Please don't tell me about Delpi.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

Good Job, Ray! If I don't need to tell you about Delphi, then I guess there's no real secret about the drop in price, eh?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

Hoff, you seem to take government and industry at their word with regard to just about EVERYTHING rarely questioning any of their BS. I will keep my eye peeled on GM stock. let's see if this is the beginning of a more significant decline. Who knows maybe y2k is or will be factored in.

Happy Trolling !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

Oops. Thought you "Got It".

Hint Ray: there is no "decline".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

Hoff, you might want to use a different quote source. As of this moment GM is DOWN 11 1/2 at 71 3/8.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

Hoff, BTW I am sure that you are aware of an age old saying in the stock market "As Goes GM So Goes The Market". Now I know we are currently under the new Paradigm according to the SHILLS at CNBC but still I would lend some credance to this little ditty.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

OK, Ray, it's like this, see.

Yesterday, Ray had 100 shares of GM stock, closed at 82 7/8.

100 * 82 7/8 = $8287.50

Today, Ray has 100 shares of GM stock, currently (15 minutes delayed, 11:26 AM, 72 1/8), and 66 (I think it was a 1-2/3 distribution) shares of DELPHI (15 minutes delayed, 11:29 AM, 19 15/16).

Total value:

100 * 72 1/8 = 7212.50 66 * 19 15/16 = 1315.87

Total = 8528.37

See Ray, your value has increased, not decreased.

You also might want to get another quote service. Yahoo is now showing the "corrected" value, of GM +3 1/4.

Hope this helps.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), May 28, 1999.

Hoff, here is today's story hot off the press:

"DETROIT, May 28 (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. will complete the spinoff of its Delphi Automotive Systems Corp. Friday with the distribution of a special dividend.

Friday morning, the world's largest automaker distributed 452,565,000 shares of Delphi common stock, or 80.1 percent of the company, and later Friday will contribute the remaining 12,435,000 shares to a GM retiree benefit fund.

Based on Thursday's closing price of Delphi stock on the New York Stock Exchange of $20.50, the indicated value of the spin-off dividend to GM stockholders is about $9.3 billion, or $14.33 per share, GM said in a statement.

Once the spinoff is complete, GM said it expected its own stock price to fall to roughly the value of the remaining Delphi shares being spun off, or $14.33. GM shares ended Thursday at $82.875 on the NYSE.

As previously stated, the distribution will be tax-free to GM and its stockholders. "This transaction creates value for GM shareholders while allowing for an even more competitive Delphi," said GM Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Smith, Jr. in a statement.

Last August, GM said it planned to split Delphi, and in February Delphi completed an initial public offering of roughly 17.7 percent of its common stock.

((Chicago equities news, 312 408 8787, chicago.equities.newsroom@reuters.com)) REUTERS

=================================================

Note that 20% of the spinoff went to a retirement fund. 80% went to GM shareholders. I stand corrected in this regard. Let's see where GM is at the end of next week after this distribution settles out.

The current Real time quote is 71 3/8.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 28, 1999.

...

-- fix (fixr@y.italics), May 28, 1999.