Special Report

KPMG has been collecting statistics, analyzing data and preparing a facts and figures that may stun the world. The company's focus of late has on Y2K glitches and number of problems reported by the mainstream media. What does the study show? It clearly demonstrates that the Y2K bug did strike with a vengeance.

Nine nuclear plants that were struck by the bug in the US and Japan. Satellites suffered problems that prevented the Pentagon from processing data received from the communication devices. Satellite failures in France led to the military losing information. Kidney machines in Scotland failed, credit cards across the US wouldn't work as systems failed to accept them. Traffic lights in Jamaica failed to operate.

A special report tieing the links to these stories has been posted at The Bunker.

Thanks...UB

-- Uncle Bob (UNCLB0B@AOL.COM), February 15, 2000

Answers

My wise old gran always said, "the only dumb question is the one you don't ask"...so, I ask, just who is "KPMG" and what is their expertise?

Thanks!

-- Birdlady (Bird@nest.home), February 15, 2000.

Biggest accounting firm in the world, who, a few years ago bought a small firm named Peat Marwick and hochenschlack.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 15, 2000.

According to KPMG's account of its history, this was a merger betweeen Kynveld Main Goerdeler and Peat Marwick Mitchell (International). On January 1, 1987, the merger created Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG).

One of the larger accounting firms.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), February 15, 2000.

There is a prior reference to the KPGM article on this forum. Can you honestly say that its contents contain "statistics, analyzing data and preparing a facts and figures that may stun the world"? As best as I can determine, the KPGM results support the "bump in the road" theory, although they possibly suggest a bigger bump than some have claimed exists.

Perhaps you are more easily stunned than I. But, I think everyone always agreed that Y2K computer problems were not an illusion. The question was how they would affect the world in general. The failure of traffic lights in Jamaica to operate is not going to have any significant impact. Nor does it appear that Y2K in general will.

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.

Bob, I've had the feeling of late that Y2K truly has hit--namely in the oil sector. But why just oil? Why not manufacturing and other similar problems?

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

A grain of salt --

KPMG was one of the biggest players in the Y2K "remediation" game and made a lot of money in this process. This report is part of an effort to get and maintain contracts through the leap year date and maintain their feeding at the Y2K trough for a bit longer.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), February 16, 2000.

Yawn, i doubt that anyone would be stunned by that list of petty little happenings. Maybe doomers are still "stunned" and embarrassed that nothing much happened at all.

Mara, what sort of feeling do you have? Can you describe it? Maybe a lie down on a psychiatrist's couch would help you elucidate.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), February 16, 2000.

KPMG also has a lot of 'splaining to do to justify their prior consulting fees.

-- ImSo (lame@prepped. com), February 16, 2000.

I DON'T GET IT. why are they compiling this report and why would the governments of the world and corporate america (from whom KPMG likely gets their business)want them to publish the results? i believe it may be happening but i am hard pressed to believe they will be allowed to freely disseminate the results without some sort of "screening" or "editing" from these entities. so then we would get mush. what do you think?

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), February 16, 2000.

tt--

Believe it or not, government entities and corporations do not get to "screen" what private consultants have to "disseminate".

Sheesh.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 16, 2000.

After months of lurking, I just have to speak out: IMSO, the period goes inside the quote marks.

-- (WJC@PLA..com), February 16, 2000.

"After months of lurking, I just have to speak out: IMSO, the period goes inside the quote marks.

-- (WJC@PLA..com), February 16, 2000."

Thanks, WJC, for the correction. If you follow my posts here, it will not surprise you that I have an opinion on this, generating an ongoing argument with my mommy.

You are right, of course, that standard grammar (I didn't look it up, but say, Strunk's, for instance) requires that the quotation mark follow the period in the sentence of mine to which you are referring. I have steadfastly refused, more or less, to follow this idiotic and arbitrary standard because it is one of those grammatical standards which obfuscates instead of clarifies, and I feel certain it has its origins in the dark reaches of some influential knuckle- rapping schoolmaster instead of reason. Current standard usage requires the closing quotation marks to sometimes go (excuse the split infinitive--another beef of mine) after and sometimes go before, the punctuation mark. (See, for instance, p. 2463 of the Random House Dictionary, 3rd ed.).

But quotes SHOULD enclose EXACTLY what is quoted, and the (current) rule for where to put them at the end of the sentence arbitrarily limits the ability to express meaning because typically only one closing period, exclamation mark, or question mark is used.. Consider the following examples:

She replied, "But this is the best of all possible worlds!" IMHO, should really be written,

She replied, "But this is the best of all possible worlds."! IF she replied in a matter-of-fact fashion, but in the context of the question her answer was incredulous to the asker;

She replied, "But this is the best of all possible worlds!". IF she made her reply exclamatory, but the writer was simply reporting the event;

She replied, "But this is the best of all possible worlds!"! if both she and the writer were incredulous.

The clearest use derives from always keeping exactly what was quoted within the punctuation marks, with the final punctuation for the whole sentence following.

In all these examples, what is quoted is entirely enclosed, and what is part of the larger sentence carries its own punctuation. The arbitrary rule that the closed quotes goes AFTER periods (usually) and BEFORE colons and semi-colons is, well...stupid. It's a nice rule for eighth grade, and for a pedant such as I, fun to argue with mom about. In the long run it does not serve clarity of writing, though, and should be abolished. I remain ahead of the curve, or behind it; I'm never quite sure which. When I am in charge of the world, there are a number of things I need to fix...

Thank you for caring about our language. I wish everyone were as good a steward. But why pick on me with the fields of linguistic butchering out there to harvest? (Sorry about the mixed metaphor).

I am so boring I can't stand it.

-- Imso (lame@prepped.com), February 16, 2000.

IMSO, I agree with you on this one.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 17, 2000.