To: Moonray who wrote (10604 ) 12/12/1997 8:25:00 PM From: Bill Ulrich Respond to of 22053
D Anderson, Moonray, re: Why 2 'kay After more research since we started chatting about this back in September (?), it's still seems safe to say that the answer is somewhere in the middle of: 1. big enough to take it seriously 2. not as big as some of SI's finer Y2K shills would have you believe The move by the SEC is interesting -- no doubt investors will be making mental indices of company efforts toward this end. <tongue in cheek>"Hmmm, 3Com is spending a ton of dough on this, therefore I do believe I'll buy a few shares." </tongue in cheek> FBN Associates, a Y2K provider, is doing everything in it's power to do provide it's customers with a reliable 'do-nothing' solution. Should you wish to keep an eye on just how much time is left:magneticdiary.com You'll be happy to note that so-called 'real' Y2K companies such as Veronex are equally on top of the situation: "BankBoston, dating from 1784, is the fifteenth largest bank in the U.S. and among the most progressive, involving itself in film production in partnership with Hollywood studios when Joe Kennedy, President Kennedy's libidinous father, was only watching Gloria Swanson movies... ...using (Veronex's) AIM just to effect a reduction in the lines of code and gather date-related code into one area could significantly ease BankBoston's Y2K compliance problem."veronex.com Yes, I know, you're scratching your head saying, "Huh?" Well, so are we. SI, btw, has wonderful threads for both FBN and Veronex should you be more interested.Subject 17449 and now a message from Veronex CEO, David Hite:Message 2921360 "Do you really want information about Veronex's software products, or do you just want to be heard on the internet?" -MrB