This thought has been bothering me for several months now. Is it possible that a company, believing that they are fully compliant, printing out any such document that cliams the same, can be held liable if, some unknown internal problem developed after rollover, to the detriment of a customer who relies on there service to operate. If this is the case, can it be part of the reason, or all of the reason, why there is so few , if any, compliant large companies, or industries claiming compliance at this late date.

Even a compliance document that stated that said company couldnt be held liable for unforeseen circumstances. Would we have more compliance at this date? Therefore is it possible there are lots of fully compliant entities, but not able to talk about it per legal consul....otherwise if we are not showing large scale compliance at this late date because we are truelly non-compliant, then we are in deep dudu.

So the question, Is it legal restrictions preventing compliance notification?

-- Les (leslie.leblanc3@gte.net), August 07, 1999

Answers

otherwise if we are not showing large scale compliance at this late date because we are truelly non-compliant, then we are in deep dudu.

Now you're getting it.

-- (its@coming.soon), August 07, 1999.

Italics off.

-- (italics@off.now), August 07, 1999.

Whether a company claims compliance or does not claim compliance, it will still be equally liable if it neglected to do something it should have been expected to do. They are not anymore protected.

If my company was compliant, I'd shout it to the rooftops, as a competitive advantage.

-- Spanky (nospam@spamfree.com), August 07, 1999.

Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act

The purpose of the act was to prevent good-faith declarations of compliance from being used later against the companies that had made them.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 07, 1999.

It is impossible for a business of any size in the Western World to become truly Y2K compliant, both at this advanced date and when you figure in that their banks, utilities, suppliers, customers, transportation providers, etc., etc., predominantly have to be compliant, too. The real variables about companies are A) how much do they understand what is going to happen, and B) the details of their lying on the subject.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com (recently redone, with graphics and new updates)

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), August 07, 1999.

minesota smith said

"It is impossible for a business of any size in the Western World to become truly Y2K compliant, both at this advanced date and when you figure in that their banks, utilities, suppliers, customers, transportation providers, etc., etc., predominantly have to be compliant, too. The real variables about companies are A) how much do they understand what is going to happen, and B) the details of their lying on the subject. "

This is so much hogwash - How compliant is YOUR company you doomer?? If it's so impossible then I would say that your company is in deeper weeds than most! Or are you B) Lying ??????????

"www.y2ksafeminnesota.___ (recently redone, with graphics and new updates) "

Jeeze why doncha put a little advertisement in there so you can sell more beans and rice? Got any of them batteries with embedded chips in them?

Where I come from we call this SPAM!!!!!!!!

-- (a@aaaa.hole), August 07, 1999.

MinnesotaSmith........

Do you really believe the crap you post!! Many many companies are compliant.

You can argue the semantics of compliant versus ready until the cows come home. You are also well aware that most companies, for legal reasons, cannot absolutely GUARANTEE compliance. Of course, what's new.......no company can EVER say with 100% surety that they will not have problems even without Y2k.......it's called the real world!!

Logically, because every company is to some degree dependent on other companies, and vice versa, companies cannot unconditionally claim compliance.

You're like a little kid who insists on proof what came first: the chicken or the egg. If we say the chicken came first, you gleefully say that's impossible because chickens come from eggs; if we say the egg came first, you ridicule it because eggs came from chickens......

I think we need a new acronym: Let's call it the GNS (Gary North Syndrome). North argued many years ago that much of the world would be destroyed by Aids already. Of course, he was wrong. GNS refers to a condition where a person uses faultly logic and fuzzy thinking to substantiate their predisposition to TEOTWAWKI thinking.

Minnesota, I dub thee "Sir GNS"........

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), August 09, 1999.