Paging familyman,any news on the IBM front?

-- eric micael....allen (bizerr4@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

From my lurking here I recall Familyman showing up just weeks before the rollover asking questions about the usual things. Then four or five hours after the roll over in Australia and New Zealand someone using the Familyman handle started posting frantic messages stating that his IBM location was being swamped with emergency orders.

It turned out to be a ruse. The same MO for a number of stunts pulled on the forum.

-- nomail (no@lie.com), January 03, 2000.

Ruse? What about the phone confirmation? I figured he was just off nursing a hangover after that weekend. Diane? word?

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000.

nomail:

Please lurk more carefully. You are not correct.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 03, 2000.

What part did I get wrong?

-- nomail (no@lie.com), January 03, 2000.

Excuse me Will but what part DID he get wrong?

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 03, 2000.

Well to jog your memory I'll finish my sharing my observation.

Familyman made frantic posts describing chaos at the IBM site while parts were being pulled together for an emergency charter to New Zealand. Then his posts stopped. Not too long after a supposed statement from IBM was posted on the board. I havn't seen him back.

Anything wrong there??

I was angered by this stunt because I had come to give Familyman some credit. I was sucked in for a few minutes. But then realized that The time between failure, diagnosis and ordering parts from from New Zealand to New Jersey in the few hours that had past deserved some skepticisim. I went back to bed.

-- nomail (no@lie.com), January 03, 2000.

nomail,
My impressions from that thread were that Familyman was careful about not prejudging the significance of what he was reporting (he concluded that IBM probably shipped the parts in anticipation of any problems), that his report did not conflict with IBM's later statement (the former concerned order volume, the latter concerned alleged shortages), and that I saw nothing to suggest ulterior motive on his part. Perhaps you perceived something I missed.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 04, 2000.

David,

I respect your view. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I've never claimed to be perfect. But I shared my opinion.

-- nomail (no@lie.com), January 04, 2000.

Actually, his original post most certainly prejudged the significance as the title and text said that they were "swamped" with emergency parts orders for AU & NZ and that they were going to charter a jet to fly them there that day. He later softened that to say they were using a courier service and that the parts 'might' be for a 'just-in-case' scenario.

That is complete bullshit and in fact does conflict with the official IBM statement. If there were not a shortage of parts, why would they need to place emergency orders to be shipped that day if they had no confirmed demand for them? If you accept the fact that IBM's official statement was correct, there is no reasonable scenario for Familyman's alleged emergency orders.

There is another problem with his scenario. If they were simply in anticipation of potential problems, who was generating all of the alleged orders? If IBM is ordering from IBM, you might get one or two orders but not enough to swamp your order intake.

Finally, Familyman's MIA status since he made his last post is the clearest sign that his story was a figment of his imagination.

-- My Full Name (My@email.address), January 04, 2000.

Actually, Familyman had posted off and on for quite a few months before the rollover. IIRC, he started sometime last summer.

As for his absence, did it ever occur to you that perhaps he posts from work only, ie., doesn't have a computer or internet access at home?

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 04, 2000.

nomail,
I respect your view as well. Hope we don't catch any heat on this forum for remaining in amicable disagreement. 8^)

MFN,
I agree that it would have been prudent for Familyman to have deferred starting a thread until he had obtained clarification.

Maybe expediting the orders was necessary to get the parts to NZ by the desired time, and that an analogous order to within the conterminous 48 states would not have needed this treatment. (Warning: I'm speculating on IBM's business rules, about which I know nothing.)

Perhaps IBM policy requires large "customer" orders (even their own) to be split up into many "actual" orders, based on product type, weight, cost, or other criteria. (Ditto, the above speculation warning.)

I interpreted his last post (on the original thread) as a signoff, that he had concluded that there was no significance to what he had reported.

Did he invent this story to get his 15 minutes of fame? I don't know, but I feel obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt, which I would want if our roles were reversed. I concede that there is no significance to the alleged orders even if they did occur.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), January 04, 2000.