Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : 2000 Date-Change Problem: Scam, Hype, Hoax, Fraud -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (860)	9/14/1998 5:07:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

Bill - Nonsense. I continue to be 100 % correct about the Y2K hoax. there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Y2K problem will cost even a fraction of what the scamsters have been predicting. Correction. There is zero evidence that you are willing to listen to. I can point to plenty of evidence that says software projects are LATE, LATE, LATE (http://www.spr.com), but I know that sort of information doesn't seem to fit your view of the world. Your stating that there is no evidence is akin to saying that until Isaac Newton discovered calculus, gravity didn't exist since there was no evidence. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence (Has Microsoft ever delivered a product on time?) that points to the very safe conclusion that we're just not very good with software projects. The bigger the project, the worse we get. Can you offer ANY contradictory evidence? - David

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (860)	9/14/1998 7:07:00 PM
From: Bill J. Landis	Respond to of 1361

>> You are a fool. Check out the date I started my y2K thread. by the way, I've been short Zitel long before that...when it was trading in the 50s. << That's 1 of how many? I know you started the thread back in May of '97 before, but I read all the replies through July of '97 and you never "initiated" a "Y2K Short Portfolio." Sure, you were short Zitel, but what about the rest? How are we to know why and when you decided to include the various stocks in your portfolio. Even I can be 100% right about what the market did yesterday ;). >> Nonsense. I continue to be 100 % correct about the Y2K hoax. there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Y2K problem will cost even a fraction of what the scamsters have been predicting.<< If I'm not mistaken even YOU have admitted that at least several million (or even thousand if you wish, makes no difference) will be spent on Y2K. A million is a fraction of a billion, a trillion, even 100 trillion, so, as usual, you are far from 100% correct, but very skilled at contradicting yourself. How do you explain the large amounts budgetted by numerous corporations (Citibank, Ford, et al.)? >> keane is not a Y2K company. it is a well-managed consulting firm that has been growing steadily long before the y2K problem entered the picture. Most of keane's recent growth has been fueled by non-Y2K work. Read the 10-Qs.<< Keane does Y2K work, ergo, it is a Y2K company. By your statement above, it appears as though one of your criteria for being a Y2K company is being poorly-managed. Also, if Keane had been growing steadily long before Y2K entered the picture, then they would have had to been growing steadily back in about 1975 or so. Just tossing a little fuel on the fire ;).

To: Bill Wexler who wrote (860)	9/14/1998 8:53:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1361

Bill, I really get a kick out of this thread. I bet when we are in the Year 2000, most "bugs" are going to be blamed on Y2K. Any plane that crashes first thing the media will say - Y2K. Car won't start beacuse it's 40 below - Y2K If there is a thunder storm and the power goes off - Y2K Flush the toilet and it overflows - Y2K *Windows 98 locks up - Y2K I can go on and on................. I believe Y2K will cause "bugs", but the airtime they are going to receive in the media is going to be very large. Still, I am not too worried about Dec.31/1999...or the day after. IMO