Question:

 Can you post ‘War and Peace’ for me? /////// (Interview) by Matt Cherry The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number 4. Below, Matt Cherry, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism, interviews Christopher Hitchens about his book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice (Verso, 1995) and his television program, which strongly criticized Mother Teresa. The interview recapitulates the most devastating critiques of Mother Teresa ever made. It also gives a very telling account by a leading journalist into the U.S. media’s great reluctance to criticize religion and religious leaders. As Free Inquiry was going to press, we heard that Mother Teresa was suffering from heart trouble and malaria and there was concern about her chances of survival. It was, therefore, suggested to the editors that it would be inappropriate to print an interview that contains criticism of Mother Teresa’s work and influence. However, in view of the media’s general failure to investigate the work of Mother Teresa or to publish critical comments about her, the editors felt it important to proceed with the publication of this revealing interview. Christopher Hitchens is "Critic at Large" for Vanity Fair, writes the Minority Report column for The Nation, and is a frequent guest on current affairs and commentary television programs. He has written numerous books on international current affairs, including Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies. – EDS. Free Inquiry: According to polls, Mother Teresa is the most respected woman in the world. Her name is a by-word for selfless dedication in the service of humanity. So why are you picking on this sainted old woman? Christopher Hitchens: Partly because that impression is so widespread. But also because the sheer fact that this is considered unquestionable is a sign of what we are up against, namely the problem of credulity. One of the most salient examples of people’s willingness to believe anything if it is garbed in the appearance of holiness is the uncritical acceptance of the idea of Mother Teresa as a saint by people who would normally be thinking – however lazily – in a secular or rational manner. In other words, in every sense it is an unexamined claim. It’s unexamined journalistically – no one really takes a look at what she does. And it is unexamined as to why it should be she who is spotlighted as opposed to many very selfless people who devote their lives to the relief of suffering in what we used to call the "Third World." Why is it never mentioned that her stated motive for the work is that of proselytization for religious fundamentalism, for the most extreme interpretation of Catholic doctrine? If you ask most people if they agree with the pope’s views on population, for example, they say they think they are rather extreme. Well here’s someone whose life’s work is the propagation of the most extreme version of that. That’s the first motive. The second was a sort of journalistic curiosity as to why it was that no one had asked any serious questions about Mother Teresa’s theory or practice. Regarding her practice, I couldn’t help but notice that she had rallied to the side of the Duvalier family in Haiti, for instance, that she had taken money – over a million dollars – from Charles Keating, the Lincoln Savings and Loans swindler, even though it had been shown to her that the money was stolen; that she has been an ally of the most reactionary forces in India and in many other countries; that she has campaigned recently to prevent Ireland from ceasing to be the only country in Europe with a constitutional ban on divorce, that her interventions are always timed to assist the most conservative and obscurantist forces. FI: Do you think this is because she is a shrewd political operator or that she is just na

Question:

Maybe if the left-wings get there act together in 2004, we will see competition.

Well, since the Dems aren’t really the left wing, but something more akin to mid of center, I doubt they will.  They have abandoned their core, whereas the Repubs have enthorned theirs.   But so far, the democrats have been to busy cleaning the egg off their face, and finishing their crow.

Since I’m not a Democrat, I can firmly agree with you here.  The Dems are status quo junkies, and probably will never do a damn thing until the jerks they got now step aside and let real men and women do the job.  The best they can do now is keep the right wing at loggerheads. s.w.

Response:

And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on.

        Interesting! Two questions:         1. What would addressing the issue of crime "head-on" involve that liberals will not "let" conservatives put into practice?         2. How is it that liberals "won’t let" conservatives address crime head-on, but did "let" conservatives launch a pre-emptive war that they largely opposed?         I ask the second question because the current Administration, as conservative as they come, has sufficient power to do as it sees fit: opting out of missile treaties, rejecting Kyoto, disregarding the United Nations, and waging war without the blessing of most of the world’s nations. Under these conditions I would not expect liberals to be in a position to "let" or not "let" a conservative government make policy on foreign affairs, domestic crime, or any other area of government influence.         – Vin

Response:

And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on. Interesting! Two questions: 1. What would addressing the issue of crime "head-on" involve that liberals will not "let" conservatives put into practice?

In large part, liberals won’t let the laws that are on the books be enforced as written.  Liberals are against a strict program if intense control of inmates’ behavior for the purpose of teaching them self control and norms of behavior.  Liberals believe, to a greater degree than others, that crime springs from all sorts of childhood and environmental issues instead of the fact that adults either know right from wrong and need to be held accounting for it, or need to be taught it. 2. How is it that liberals "won’t let" conservatives address crime head-on, but did "let" conservatives launch a pre-emptive war that they largely opposed?

Either they disagree with you take on the war, or, they’re hypocites.  It’s gotta be one or the other. I ask the second question because the current Administration, as conservative as they come, has sufficient power to do as it sees fit: opting out of missile treaties, rejecting Kyoto, disregarding the United Nations, and waging war without the blessing of most of the world’s nations. Under these conditions I would not expect liberals to be in a position to "let" or not "let" a conservative government make policy on foreign affairs, domestic crime, or any other area of government influence.

That’s a complete cop-out, as I’m sure your reply will attest.  Liberals had a chance to block this war, as you implied in your question.  They could have easily voted down the Senate resolution.  But they did not.  They voted to give the President the power to conduct this war.  The other actions that the President took, which you enumerated, are the powers vested in every President, including liberal ones.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on. Interesting! Two questions: 1. What would addressing the issue of crime "head-on" involve that liberals will not "let" conservatives put into practice? In large part, liberals won’t let the laws that are on the books be enforced as written.  Liberals are against a strict program if intense control of inmates’ behavior for the purpose of teaching them self control and norms of behavior.  Liberals believe, to a greater degree than others, that crime springs from all sorts of childhood and environmental issues instead of the fact that adults either know right from wrong and need to be held accounting for it, or need to be taught it. 2. How is it that liberals "won’t let" conservatives address crime head-on, but did "let" conservatives launch a pre-emptive war that they largely opposed? Either they disagree with you take on the war, or, they’re hypocites.  It’s gotta be one or the other. I ask the second question because the current Administration, as conservative as they come, has sufficient power to do as it sees fit: opting out of missile treaties, rejecting Kyoto, disregarding the United Nations, and waging war without the blessing of most of the world’s nations. Under these conditions I would not expect liberals to be in a position to "let" or not "let" a conservative government make policy on foreign affairs, domestic crime, or any other area of government influence. That’s a complete cop-out, as I’m sure your reply will attest.  Liberals had a chance to block this war, as you implied in your question.  They could have easily voted down the Senate resolution.  But they did not.  They voted to give the President the power to conduct this war.  The other actions that the President took, which you enumerated, are the powers vested in every President, including liberal ones.

        Thanks for your response. I am not American and do not have a thorough understanding of the mechanations of America’s political system, nor of the limitations to the power of your President. I did not realize that democrats voted to support the Presidents Iraq war initiative, or were ever in a position to shoot it down.         Understand how Amercia’s situation appears from outside your borders since the tragedy of 09/11/01: this particular President *appears* to wield all the power he could hope to, without having to respond to any meaningful opposition, domestic or foreign. Have we yet seen his itiatives blocked by anyone, anywhere? By Fance/Germany/Russia perhaps?  Americans are upset with France, complaining that they stood in America’s way, but "Old Eurpoe" completely failed to stop the US from launching its attack and occupying Iraq. We know the US never cared about the UN’s opposition anyway because they told us so (and showed us too). Imagine the US response had France somehow *succeded* in "not letting" the USA proceed as he wished!         From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large.         – Vin

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on. Interesting! Two questions: 1. What would addressing the issue of crime "head-on" involve that liberals will not "let" conservatives put into practice? In large part, liberals won’t let the laws that are on the books be enforced as written.  Liberals are against a strict program if intense control of inmates’ behavior for the purpose of teaching them self control and norms of behavior.  Liberals believe, to a greater degree than others, that crime springs from all sorts of childhood and environmental issues instead of the fact that adults either know right from wrong and need to be held accounting for it, or need to be taught it. 2. How is it that liberals "won’t let" conservatives address crime head-on, but did "let" conservatives launch a pre-emptive war that they largely opposed? Either they disagree with you take on the war, or, they’re hypocites. It’s gotta be one or the other. I ask the second question because the current Administration, as conservative as they come, has sufficient power to do as it sees fit: opting out of missile treaties, rejecting Kyoto, disregarding the United Nations, and waging war without the blessing of most of the world’s nations. Under these conditions I would not expect liberals to be in a position to "let" or not "let" a conservative government make policy on foreign affairs, domestic crime, or any other area of government influence. That’s a complete cop-out, as I’m sure your reply will attest.  Liberals had a chance to block this war, as you implied in your question.  They could have easily voted down the Senate resolution.  But they did not.  They voted to give the President the power to conduct this war.  The other actions that the President took, which you enumerated, are the powers vested in every President, including liberal ones. Thanks for your response. I am not American and do not have a thorough understanding of the mechanations of America’s political system, nor of the limitations to the power of your President. I did not realize that democrats voted to support the Presidents Iraq war initiative, or were ever in a position to shoot it down. Understand how Amercia’s situation appears from outside your borders since the tragedy of 09/11/01: this particular President *appears* to wield all the power he could hope to, without having to respond to any meaningful opposition, domestic or foreign. Have we yet seen his itiatives blocked by anyone, anywhere?

At worst, the President might be guilty of not getting his message out to the rest of the world.  But he went to great lengths to get that message out through his initiatives at the UN.  I really don’t know what else he could do.  I guess he could educate more people outside our borders relative to our own internal political dynamic as well as the constitutional limitations, but frankly, I don’t think there’s much to gain in that regard. People are probably more concerned that America seems to have free reign in the world, so internal constraints won’t matter. I’m not a big fan of the argument that people opposed the war, not on it’s merits, but rather on the fact that America seems to be able to do what it wants.  The issue should be judged on it’s merits.  The rest is a red-herring. By Fance/Germany/Russia perhaps?  Americans are upset with France, complaining that they stood in America’s way, but "Old Eurpoe" completely failed to stop the US from launching its attack and occupying Iraq.

To say that we’re occupying Iraq in the sense that this connotes is extraordinarily premature.  We are there until an form of government, chosen by the Iraqis is established.  If we left now, we’d be rightly critisized for abandoning the Iraqi people. And the complaint against France is that they have continued to arm Saddam until very recently and that if they had allowed for a real, united threat of invasion to stand, the war might have been avoided.  It is also that they are supposedly an ally, and yet, when we went to them and made our case that we were being threatened by Saddam, France, despite all the times we fought for them, fought against us. We know the US never cared about the UN’s opposition anyway because they told us so (and showed us too). Imagine the US response had France somehow *succeded* in "not letting" the USA proceed as he wished!

I have no idea what this means. From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large.

There may very well be none, except for our reputation.  But that’s not our fault.  Should be reduce the power to defend ourselves just to be denied the right to do so?

Response:

<snip To say that we’re occupying Iraq in the sense that this connotes is extraordinarily premature.  We are there until an form of government, chosen by the Iraqis is established.  If we left now, we’d be rightly critisized for abandoning the Iraqi people.

        US forces currently occupy Iraq. This is all I meant. I was not suggesting that this was an occupation in the Six-Day-War sense. And the complaint against France is that they have continued to arm Saddam until very recently and that if they had allowed for a real, united threat of invasion to stand, the war might have been avoided.  It is also that they are supposedly an ally, and yet, when we went to them and made our case that we were being threatened by Saddam, France, despite all the times we fought for them, fought against us.

        Not just France.  Are we sure no American companies profited from providing goods, services or even weapons to Hussein’s regime? The list linked below implicates companies from the US, UK, Germany, China, France, the Netherlands, among others. http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck or http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm         I’d be more confident of this list with more sources providing the same information, but I’m not prepared to simply dismiss it. How can we find out more about this? Our positions must be derived from facts and not best hopes. We know the US never cared about the UN’s opposition anyway because they told us so (and showed us too). Imagine the US response had France somehow *succeded* in "not letting" the USA proceed as he wished! I have no idea what this means.

        I was not very clear there. I was musing on the duality of the American position on France/Germany/Russia/UN. On the one hand Americans are *very* upset with France, which implies that what France believes is important to Americans, worth caring about and reacting to. On the other hand the US administration publicly cared little about France’s objections (or those of all nations not on the Willing list) and did what it wanted to do anyway, implying that what France believed was *not* worth caring about, or reacting to. The state said "who cares?" and the populace says "we do!"         This is not a big point, just a passing thought poorly communicated. From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large. There may very well be none, except for our reputation.

        America’s reputation is a mixed bag. The US is widely mistrusted at the moment. There is an appearance that we were misled on why Iraq *had* to be invaded in March/03: falsified documents and photographs, shifting rationale on invasion, no WMD found in Iraq (yet), corporate ties to the executive that will profit from restructure, and now the assertion (but no proof) that Iraq’s WMD were moved to Syria. Behind all this shuffling lies the second largest proven oil reserves on Earth, and the US economy must have oil. This may all be innocent and coincidental, but surely you can see how suspicious this all looks. If this were nothing more than a movie I think audiences would assume this Administration was untruthful But that’s not our fault. Should be reduce the power to defend ourselves just to be denied the right to do so?

        Could you rephrase that? I am not understanding your meaning.                 – Vin

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –    Understand how Amercia’s situation appears from outside your borders since the tragedy of 09/11/01: this particular President *appears* to wield all the power he could hope to, without having to respond to any meaningful opposition, domestic or foreign. Have we yet seen his itiatives blocked by anyone, anywhere? By Fance/Germany/Russia perhaps?  Americans are upset with France, complaining that they stood in America’s way, but "Old Eurpoe" completely failed to stop the US from launching its attack and occupying Iraq. We know the US never cared about the UN’s opposition anyway because they told us so (and showed us too). Imagine the US response had France somehow *succeded* in "not letting" the USA proceed as he wished!    From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large.

He’s got the biggest check and balance there is coming up not to long, called the election.  He could be gone just as easy as that, which is something overlooked by many who take to attacking Bush solely.  His motivations for acting clandestine to his stated reasons, or acting maniacal, as some suggest, are pretty much nil.  He was facing election soon, and to do something potential hazardous to a politcal career is not a stand many presidents dare to take until they are safely in their second term.  He has to truly believe what he is doing is right, and the outcome will redeem himself with his detractors for him to take these steps so close to an election.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip To say that we’re occupying Iraq in the sense that this connotes is extraordinarily premature.  We are there until an form of government, chosen by the Iraqis is established.  If we left now, we’d be rightly critisized for abandoning the Iraqi people. US forces currently occupy Iraq. This is all I meant. I was not suggesting that this was an occupation in the Six-Day-War sense. And the complaint against France is that they have continued to arm Saddam until very recently and that if they had allowed for a real, united threat of invasion to stand, the war might have been avoided.  It is also that they are supposedly an ally, and yet, when we went to them and made our case that we were being threatened by Saddam, France, despite all the times we fought for them, fought against us. Not just France.  Are we sure no American companies profited from providing goods, services or even weapons to Hussein’s regime? The list linked below implicates companies from the US, UK, Germany, China, France, the Netherlands, among others.

The US did everything it could to prevent it, while France did virtually nothing to stop it.  In fact, they encouraged it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’d be more confident of this list with more sources providing the same information, but I’m not prepared to simply dismiss it. How can we find out more about this? Our positions must be derived from facts and not best hopes. We know the US never cared about the UN’s opposition anyway because they told us so (and showed us too). Imagine the US response had France somehow *succeded* in "not letting" the USA proceed as he wished! I have no idea what this means. I was not very clear there. I was musing on the duality of the American position on France/Germany/Russia/UN. On the one hand Americans are *very* upset with France, which implies that what France believes is important to Americans, worth caring about and reacting to. On the other hand the US administration publicly cared little about France’s objections (or those of all nations not on the Willing list) and did what it wanted to do anyway, implying that what France believed was *not* worth caring about, or reacting to. The state said "who cares?" and the populace says "we do!" This is not a big point, just a passing thought poorly communicated.

Except that you forgot the whole chicken and egg routine.  America believed that it was in danger from Saddam.  Given 9/11, that belief was heightened. America went to the UN (including France) to request that it finally enforce its resolutions.  The UN did what it does best, make things worse.  It talked tough, but in the end, refused to act.  If anything, this emboldened Saddam to believe, rightfully, that the UN would NEVER do anything, no matter what he did. The US, after 1441 which was Saddams’ "last" chance to comply, wanted another reslotution, this time explicitly approving war.  France, not only said that they would not vote FOR the resolution, not only said that they would vote AGAINST the resolution, and not only said they would VETO the resolution, not only said that they would NEVER authorized the use of force, they actively worked AGAINST the US.  That is a major betrayal. Now, if they did all of this because war would shift the downside of the issue from the US to France, it would be understandable.  But they never made that case.  The only reason that they gave for any of this was that they didn’t believe war was necessary.  That’s not how you treat a friend in need.  We weren’t asking France to do anything to help.  We’re not irritated with the French for not helping.  We’re irritated that they stood in the way of our self-defense for nothing. It was at that point that the US realized it had no ally in France, and decided to ignore her.  context is very important here. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large. There may very well be none, except for our reputation. America’s reputation is a mixed bag. The US is widely mistrusted at the moment. There is an appearance that we were misled on why Iraq *had* to be invaded in March/03: falsified documents and photographs, shifting rationale on invasion, no WMD found in Iraq (yet), corporate ties to the executive that will profit from restructure, and now the assertion (but no proof) that Iraq’s WMD were moved to Syria. Behind all this shuffling lies the second largest proven oil reserves on Earth, and the US economy must have oil. This may all be innocent and coincidental, but surely you can see how suspicious this all looks. If this were nothing more than a movie I think audiences would assume this Administration was untruthful

Our reputation, in the grand scheme of things, is stellar.  We don’t conquer nations.  We have a whole history for using our strength to fight on behalf of other nations who value freedom.  We shouldered that majority of the fight in the cold war.  On balance, our record is outstanding, and the issues you raise, when viewed in context, is quibbling at best. But that’s not our fault. Should be reduce the power to defend ourselves

just to be denied the right to do so? Could you rephrase that? I am not understanding your meaning.

To reconstruct the conversation: you: From a distance it has not been entirely clear what checks this President’s power inside the USA. For that matter its not clear what checks the USA’s power in the context of the world at large.

me: But that’s not our fault. Should we reduce our power to defend ourselves

just to be denied the right to do so?

IOW, I’m saying that the fact that there are no real checks on the power of the USA to do what it wants in the world is not our fault.  Also, no one seemed to be complaining when we were carrying the majority of the load in the Cold War.

Response:

Read this article.  On the surface, it is a powerful picture of release from a nightmare — and is a further indictment of a thoroughly villainous regime that sought to vanquish the human soul. Certainly it is a blessing that the monstrous acts that occurred at this prison are being exposed for all to see — and we can only hope that this will raise the hue and cry of international disgust to fight to ensure it never happens again.   But scratch the surface and think.  A prison is empty.  Certainly political prisoners deserve to be released, if this is their only crime, but what of the murderers?  the rapists?  the criminal masterminds?  Accross Baghdad, chaos still keeps the city in the grips of fear.  Do we consider the release of criminals into the community to be a blessing?   And finally, what about all the indignation shown in the article over executions — as if the USA isn’t a great inspiration to the world for the justice of executing prisoners.   Oh, but they hung their prisoners!  Oh, what outrage!  Let’s not forget, in his five years as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 prisoners — far more than any other state.   And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world.   Was allowing, directly or indirectly, Iraq’s criminals free to roam and kill again, loot again, steal again, rape again, a good thing for Iraq?  Is the the type of Freedom we will be bringing to all the Middle East? IRAQ’S FEARED PRISON STANDS EMPTY, ANOTHER SYMBOL OF A VANQUISHED REGIME By HAMZA HENDAWI The Associated Press ABU GHRAIB, Iraq (AP) — Falah Hassan spent five years behind the walls of Abu Ghraib prison before he was freed in a mass pardon last fall. On Sunday, he strolled around what was once one of the world’s most feared prisons, playing guide to a visitor while looking for a power generator to loot. "They tortured me every day in my first six months here. After that, it was a beating here, a beating there," recalled Hassan, who said he got a 15-year jail term in 1998 for stealing a pair of trousers and a shirt off a laundry line. Abu Ghraib, a sprawling compound 12 miles west of Baghdad, was considered one of the most potent symbols of Saddam Hussein’s regime, a source of tales of horror and despair. It’s eerily empty now, stripped clean by looters who hauled off desk, chairs, computers, sewing machines and inmates’ belongings. Many cell doors, locked for so long, stand wide open. Critics of Saddam’s regime have long told of the disappearances, torture and executions without trial that befell those suspected of plotting against the Iraqi leader or challenging his policies. Much of that allegedly took place in Abu Ghraib. By the standards of the fallen regime, the punishment recalled by Hassan — nails in the back of his hands, beatings with wooden clubs and iron bars — was moderate. Former inmates have told of chemical and biological weapons experiments on prisoners, and the execution of hundreds in the 1990s as part of a campaign by Saddam’s son, Qusai, to ease crowding. Qassem As-Samawi, an Iraqi journalist who spent time at Abu Ghraib on espionage charges, told of tiny isolation cells where political detainees were kept for up to a year without seeing a single person. "When we hear prisoners shout Allah Akbar (God is great), we know that someone is being executed," said As-Samawi, who was released in 1991 more than two years into a seven-year sentence and later moved to Canada. One of Abu Ghraib’s more storied inmates, physicist Hussein Shahrastani, was jailed in the 1980s when he refused to head an atomic bomb program. He escaped after the 1991 Gulf War and heads a human rights group in London. The prison belongs to the Ministry of Social Affairs but was run by Saddam’s feared intelligence department. In 1996, Saddam fired the social affairs minister for telling a local newspaper that Abu Ghraib was overcrowded and new prisons were needed. No one ever knew how many prisoners it held. But relatives and friends said that in the early 1990s, tens of thousands of people would gather outside each week to visit inmates. "When I visited Hassan, they detained us for three, sometime four hours, until they counted every inmate as a precaution, and then we left," said Mohammed Rasheed, one of Hassan’s friends. It’s not clear when Abu Ghraib was emptied of its inmates. In October, a blanket pardon by Saddam sent home thousands, including Hassan, but it was never clear whether political detainees benefited from that amnesty. Four foreign journalists arrested in Baghdad late last month were held in Abu Ghraib for a week. Newsday’s Matt McAllester said he and his colleagues "were aware of the screams of other prisoners, especially at night when they were taken out of their cells." The four slept on concrete floors in 6-by-11-foot cells. On Sunday, the only people in Abu Ghraib were Hassan, several of his cousins and a few of his friends. As two American helicopters hovered overhead, they searched for the elusive generator. Images of Saddam and quotations from his speeches are slathered everywhere in the prison. "Let us build Iraq and may your enemies die of jealousy," reads one. A large mural shows Saddam surrounded by soldiers, farmers, workers and women soldiers in chadors. Hassan said jailers never gave him food while he was at Abu Ghraib. Only his mother’s weekly delivery of food kept him from going hungry, he said. "Look at me now. I don’t know what happened to me," said the gaunt 26-year-old laborer, his voice bitter as he described himself before prison — a healthy specimen who worked out and lifted weights. "I have no appetite," he said. "I just smoke." Hassan wasn’t having any luck finding his generator. But some things in the prison remained unlooted. In the execution ward, two hanging ropes dangled from the ceiling. The metal arms that the executioner yanked to open iron doors under the condemned stood at the ready. Executions took place Wednesdays, a day after families visited death-row inmates, Hassan said. "Their spirits visit me every night in nightmares," he said. —— Associated Press correspondents Salah Nasrawi and Maamoun Youssef in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.

Response:

Read this article.  On the surface, it is a powerful picture of release from a nightmare — and is a further indictment of a thoroughly villainous regime that sought to vanquish the human soul. Certainly it is a blessing that the monstrous acts that occurred at this prison are being exposed for all to see — and we can only hope that this will raise the hue and cry of international disgust to fight to ensure it never happens again. But scratch the surface and think.  A prison is empty.  Certainly political prisoners deserve to be released, if this is their only crime, but what of the murderers?  the rapists?  the criminal masterminds?  Accross Baghdad, chaos still keeps the city in the grips of fear.  Do we consider the release of criminals into the community to be a blessing?

No, moron.  But Saddam released all of the criminals into the streets of Baghdad months ago. And finally, what about all the indignation shown in the article over executions — as if the USA isn’t a great inspiration to the world for the justice of executing prisoners.   Oh, but they hung their prisoners!  Oh, what outrage!  Let’s not forget, in his five years as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 prisoners — far more than any other state.

Again, you prove how stupid you are.  The issue isn’t simply that prisoners were hung, it’s the offense for which they were hung, and the due precess which they were accorded. And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world.

Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on. Was allowing, directly or indirectly, Iraq’s criminals free to roam and kill again, loot again, steal again, rape again, a good thing for Iraq?  Is the the type of Freedom we will be bringing to all the Middle East?

No, but blame your buddy and mentor Saddam for it.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Read this article.  On the surface, it is a powerful picture of release from a nightmare — and is a further indictment of a thoroughly villainous regime that sought to vanquish the human soul. Certainly it is a blessing that the monstrous acts that occurred at this prison are being exposed for all to see — and we can only hope that this will raise the hue and cry of international disgust to fight to ensure it never happens again. But scratch the surface and think.  A prison is empty.  Certainly political prisoners deserve to be released, if this is their only crime, but what of the murderers?  the rapists?  the criminal masterminds?  Accross Baghdad, chaos still keeps the city in the grips of fear.  Do we consider the release of criminals into the community to be a blessing? No, moron.  But Saddam released all of the criminals into the streets of Baghdad months ago.

Oh, REALLY?  **PROOF** He released political prisoners.  You don’ think the whole world woundn’t have heard about it if he had released murderers rapists and other dangerous criminals?  Again, I ask you for a valid cite to prove your **moronic** assertions. And finally, what about all the indignation shown in the article over executions — as if the USA isn’t a great inspiration to the world for the justice of executing prisoners.   Oh, but they hung their prisoners!  Oh, what outrage!  Let’s not forget, in his five years as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 prisoners — far more than any other state. Again, you prove how stupid you are.

Actually, by constantly employing the same invalidated tactic (its called ad hominem), you prove your own creative and mental limitations. The issue isn’t simply that prisoners were hung, it’s the offense for which they were hung, and the due precess which they were accorded.

The issue isn’t the hangings.  The issue is the US military facilitating, or allowing for ruthless murderers and other criminals to be set free.  These jails were emptied not before the war, but due to it.  Ever think that in the modern world electricty might just be necessary to allow security aparatuses and protocols to remain functional?  Bush has not brought FREEDOM to Iraq.  He has brought anarchy and chaos. And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on.

What, shoot anyone who resists arrest? Was allowing, directly or indirectly, Iraq’s criminals free to roam and kill again, loot again, steal again, rape again, a good thing for Iraq?  Is the the type of Freedom we will be bringing to all the Middle East? No, but blame your buddy and mentor Saddam for it.

Same old tired, and BORING tactics.  I hope you are amused by it.  You probably are. s.w. Time to cut and gut the right-wingnuts! 2004 is too long to wait. REGIME CHANGE IN THE US, TODAY

Response:

To bad the majority of the American public support President Bush.  But nice argument.  Maybe if the left-wings get there act together in 2004, we will see competition.  But so far, the democrats have been to busy cleaning the egg off their face, and finishing their crow.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Read this article.  On the surface, it is a powerful picture of release from a nightmare — and is a further indictment of a thoroughly villainous regime that sought to vanquish the human soul. Certainly it is a blessing that the monstrous acts that occurred at this prison are being exposed for all to see — and we can only hope that this will raise the hue and cry of international disgust to fight to ensure it never happens again. But scratch the surface and think.  A prison is empty.  Certainly political prisoners deserve to be released, if this is their only crime, but what of the murderers?  the rapists?  the criminal masterminds?  Accross Baghdad, chaos still keeps the city in the grips of fear.  Do we consider the release of criminals into the community to be a blessing? No, moron.  But Saddam released all of the criminals into the streets of Baghdad months ago. Oh, REALLY?  **PROOF** He released political prisoners.  You don’ think the whole world woundn’t have heard about it if he had released murderers rapists and other dangerous criminals?  Again, I ask you for a valid cite to prove your **moronic** assertions.

The whole world did hear about it, except apparently for you.  It was on every major news broadcast in the US.  It was appox six months ago.  They even filed the empty cells!  I’m not gonna do your reseasrch for you.  I’d rather see you make a fool of yourself denying it. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! And finally, what about all the indignation shown in the article over executions — as if the USA isn’t a great inspiration to the world for the justice of executing prisoners.   Oh, but they hung their prisoners!  Oh, what outrage!  Let’s not forget, in his five years as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 prisoners — far more than any other state. Again, you prove how stupid you are. Actually, by constantly employing the same invalidated tactic (its called ad hominem), you prove your own creative and mental limitations.

But they’re not ad hominem.  Self-evident maybe, factual for certain, but never, never, ad hominem. The issue isn’t simply that prisoners were hung, it’s the offense for which they were hung, and the due precess which they were accorded. The issue isn’t the hangings.

Really?  Well you’re the one who brought it up.  to wit: "Oh, but they hung their prisoners!  Oh, what outrage!  Let’s not forget, in his five years as governor of Texas, Bush oversaw the executions of 131 prisoners — far more than any other state."   See?  You’re the one that equated the two, and now you claim that it’s not the issue.    Like I said, my characterization of you is not ad hominem. And remember, the USA has probably the greatest number of inmates in its jails than any other country in the world. Too bad liberals won’t let us address the issue of crime head-on. What, shoot anyone who resists arrest?

There you go again.  Climing right back into the slime with the slugs just because you don’t agree with something I’ve said.  Face it.  It’s the only way you know how to debate.  Not only that, moron, you didn’t even deny that you’re not interested in solving the issue of crime!  ROTFLMAOWPIMP Was allowing, directly or indirectly, Iraq’s criminals free to roam and kill again, loot again, steal again, rape again, a good thing for Iraq?  Is the the type of Freedom we will be bringing to all the Middle East? No, but blame your buddy and mentor Saddam for it. Same old tired, and BORING tactics.  I hope you are amused by it.  You probably are.

What do you mean?  Saddam is the one who released the prisoners.  If by tactics, you mean using the truth, then yeah, it’s the same old boring conservative tactic that we’ve always used.  Don’t blame me because you can’t defend against it.

Response:

Question:

your original question: Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor

tom: how did you decide on auditing? [reporting's more enjoyable, btw] ..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice?

Hi there.. really? is reporting better?..

hi, eric: let me start this off by telling you I live and work in the states, therefore my observations and experiences are limited to that and may not necessarily apply to your situation. having worked in public accounting, gen’l ledger, reporting, and tax prep, I’ve found auditing and tax to be the least enjoyable, and reporting [specifically SEC and internal mgt reporting/planning] to be the most dynamic and creative. this is in my opinion, of course. and much of this has to do with my personality. I’m definitely not the typical accounting type [if that even exists anymore]. the mere idea of poring over audit schedules, bank recs, or tax returns all day…perish the thought! but some people like that sort of thing and there is definitely a need for it. I don’t know…’cos my parents keep telling me to be an auditor..and I did well in auditing in university…so thought it could be fun…

internal or external auditing? auditing can be a fine career if that’s where your interests lie. mine did not. and certainly, like most things in life, you can always change your mind later [and probably will]. my advice would be to not just base your opinion on what others keep telling you to do or on the basis of a few classes. explore your options. it seems that you did receive some useful advice in terms of your original question [CA vs. CPA] from David, though. compared to the *australian* CPA cert, the CA cert is definitely more transferable in terms of working in various countries. best and good luck in your career, Tom

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – your original question: Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor tom: how did you decide on auditing? [reporting's more enjoyable, btw] ..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Hi there.. really? is reporting better?.. hi, eric: let me start this off by telling you I live and work in the states, therefore my observations and experiences are limited to that and may not necessarily apply to your situation. having worked in public accounting, gen’l ledger, reporting, and tax prep, I’ve found auditing and tax to be the least enjoyable, and reporting [specifically SEC and internal mgt reporting/planning] to be the most dynamic and creative. this is in my opinion, of course. and much of this has to do with my personality. I’m definitely not the typical accounting type [if that even exists anymore]. the mere idea of poring over audit schedules, bank recs, or tax returns all day…perish the thought! but some people like that sort of thing and there is definitely a need for it. I don’t know…’cos my parents keep telling me to be an auditor..and I did well in auditing in university…so thought it could be fun… internal or external auditing? auditing can be a fine career if that’s where your interests lie. mine did not. and certainly, like most things in life, you can always change your mind later [and probably will]. my advice would be to not just base your opinion on what others keep telling you to do or on the basis of a few classes. explore your options. it seems that you did receive some useful advice in terms of your original question [CA vs. CPA] from David, though. compared to the *australian* CPA cert, the CA cert is definitely more transferable in terms of working in various countries. best and good luck in your career, Tom

If he is going to be travelling during his time of qualification, and wants to audit in the UK, then my suggestion is the ACCA qualification: www.acca.co.uk It is true that the ICAEW is a bit more prestigious, www.icaew.co.uk , but the training can only really be undertaken in the UK, so it limits mobility seriously for a longer period. And I know Australians like to go walkabout. Uncle Davey, at least in England there’s no risk of "going troppo".

Response:

I’ll carry on top-posting so as not to break the flow, here, even though it doesn’t square with my rigid Calvinism. I have one comment, when you say the ACCA is still to get itself established, you presumably are referring to their position in Oz itself? Because in all of Europe it is certainly about the best established UK brand of accountancy training, the ICAEW, which I belong to, having sadly missed the boat on that one. Uncle Davey – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Our friend is best to do the Australian CA program as it has more general portability in Commonwealth countries. The ACCA is still to get itself established despite its bleatings about its success, but it has more restrictions its applications that the CA. If you were staying in Australia of going back into SEAsia, you will find the Australian CPA no disadvantage, but with UK you brand yourself as antipodean and as having been taught by the heirs of convicts Peter French EdD MAcc CMA Teacher and Career Counsellor Australia your original question: Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor tom: how did you decide on auditing? [reporting's more enjoyable, btw] ..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Hi there.. really? is reporting better?.. hi, eric: let me start this off by telling you I live and work in the states, therefore my observations and experiences are limited to that and may not necessarily apply to your situation. having worked in public accounting, gen’l ledger, reporting, and tax prep, I’ve found auditing and tax to be the least enjoyable, and reporting [specifically SEC and internal mgt reporting/planning] to be the most dynamic and creative. this is in my opinion, of course. and much of this has to do with my personality. I’m definitely not the typical accounting type [if that even exists anymore]. the mere idea of poring over audit schedules, bank recs, or tax returns all day…perish the thought! but some people like that sort of thing and there is definitely a need for it. I don’t know…’cos my parents keep telling me to be an auditor..and I did well in auditing in university…so thought it could be fun… internal or external auditing? auditing can be a fine career if that’s where your interests lie. mine did not. and certainly, like most things in life, you can always change your mind later [and probably will]. my advice would be to not just base your opinion on what others keep telling you to do or on the basis of a few classes. explore your options. it seems that you did receive some useful advice in terms of your original question [CA vs. CPA] from David, though. compared to the *australian* CPA cert, the CA cert is definitely more transferable in terms of working in various countries. best and good luck in your career, Tom If he is going to be travelling during his time of qualification, and wants to audit in the UK, then my suggestion is the ACCA qualification: www.acca.co.uk It is true that the ICAEW is a bit more prestigious, www.icaew.co.uk , but the training can only really be undertaken in the UK, so it limits mobility seriously for a longer period. And I know Australians like to go walkabout. Uncle Davey, at least in England there’s no risk of "going troppo".

Response:

Incidentally the Australian "CPA" dos not stand for Certified Public Accountant. It stands for Certified PRACTISING Accountant. The ‘certified’ was bad enough – don’t they still ‘certify’ the ‘insane’? … but to call us ‘practising is the lowest hit imaginable – I wonder when we will succeed past the practising stage? Also – the non public practitioner – they achieve this by a blown up further version of the CPA program ‘ – can only use the "CPA’ designation. The public practitioner, to show that he really has a problem can call themselves a ‘CERTIFIED PRACTISING ACCOUNTANT’ – imagine that on your letterhead? Our friend is best to do the Australian CA program as it has more general portability in Commonwealth countries. The ACCA is still to get itself established despite its bleatings about its success, but it has more restrictions its applications that the CA. If you were staying in Australia of going back into SEAsia, you will find the Australian CPA no disadvantage, but with UK you brand yourself as antipodean and as having been taught by the heirs of convicts Peter French EdD MAcc CMA Teacher and Career Counsellor Australia

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – your original question: Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor tom: how did you decide on auditing? [reporting's more enjoyable, btw] ..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Hi there.. really? is reporting better?.. hi, eric: let me start this off by telling you I live and work in the states, therefore my observations and experiences are limited to that and may not necessarily apply to your situation. having worked in public accounting, gen’l ledger, reporting, and tax prep, I’ve found auditing and tax to be the least enjoyable, and reporting [specifically SEC and internal mgt reporting/planning] to be the most dynamic and creative. this is in my opinion, of course. and much of this has to do with my personality. I’m definitely not the typical accounting type [if that even exists anymore]. the mere idea of poring over audit schedules, bank recs, or tax returns all day…perish the thought! but some people like that sort of thing and there is definitely a need for it. I don’t know…’cos my parents keep telling me to be an auditor..and I did well in auditing in university…so thought it could be fun… internal or external auditing? auditing can be a fine career if that’s where your interests lie. mine did not. and certainly, like most things in life, you can always change your mind later [and probably will]. my advice would be to not just base your opinion on what others keep telling you to do or on the basis of a few classes. explore your options. it seems that you did receive some useful advice in terms of your original question [CA vs. CPA] from David, though. compared to the *australian* CPA cert, the CA cert is definitely more transferable in terms of working in various countries. best and good luck in your career, Tom If he is going to be travelling during his time of qualification, and wants to audit in the UK, then my suggestion is the ACCA qualification: www.acca.co.uk It is true that the ICAEW is a bit more prestigious, www.icaew.co.uk , but the training can only really be undertaken in the UK, so it limits mobility seriously for a longer period. And I know Australians like to go walkabout. Uncle Davey, at least in England there’s no risk of "going troppo".

Response:

Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Eric

Response:

Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor

how did you decide on auditing? [reporting's more enjoyable, btw] ..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice?

in regards as to whether to persue the chartered accountant vs. the certified public accountant certification in terms of where you’ll be working? that is your question, correct? Eric

Tom

Response:

Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Eric

== I believe the CA is the license in England and the CPA is the license in the US.  In the US you have to take a Uniform CPA test and pass it in order to become a CPA.  A lot of the questions deal with US Income tax.  There are also education and experience requirements.  If you want to practice in England a CA would probably be best–and also easier to get to the test site.  The CPA test probably requires you to take it at a location in the USA. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Hi there.. really? is reporting better?.. I don’t know…’cos my parents keep telling me to be an auditor..and I did well in auditing in university…so thought it could be fun…

Response:

Cool… Thanks! I think I’ll do CA then.  :)

Response:

Hi Eric, Last time I looked, the ICAA program (Chartered Accounting – CA) was transferable to both the US (they call it ‘CPA’ there, but this is just an acronym and doesn’t seem to differentiate the subject matter of the qualification) and the UK accounting markets. The Australian ‘CPA’ designation (from the organisation ‘CPA Australia’) did not have transferability to the US (despite sharing the same acronym), although I’m unsure about the UK (or if that information remains valid today). I suggest you check out both organisations: www.icaa.com.au www.cpaaustralia.com.au Hope that helps. David. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi there. I just graduated…and now need to take either cpa or ca program.. I want to be an auditor..and hopefully would travel and work in the future..pref. England and I’m in Australia. Any advice? Eric

Response:

Question:

i need to learn the basics of excel. i was not taught that in my accounting school. does anyone know of a web site that sells a low cost edition of excel?tia guy from long island

Response:

Being in or near a highly populated place like new york should make it easier.   1. Find your local usenet group for FOR SALE, check it out and post a WTB there (wanted to buy) 2. Try ebay — do a search.  Many times there are folks selling older versions 3. Be willing to get an older version (but not older than 97).  A used older version should be very significantly cheaper –i need to learn the basics of excel. i was not taught that in my –accounting school. does anyone know of a web site that sells a low –cost edition of excel?tia guy from long island

Response:

Question:

Not even I can turn down this price. Quicken has been available free for years (with systems or other promotions), but Simply is much more potent. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ACCPAC Makes Small Business Accounting Simple and FREE PRESS CONTACTS 1 million U.S. businesses offered full-strength and industry proven accounting solution free of charge PLEASANTON, Calif., October 16, 2001

Question:

Ryan – Look at FAS by BEST Software (they were recently purchased by SAGE) DeeDee Heyne – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

  dbhent.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Assetkkeper is a pretty good system but be careful when you buy it. They come out with an updated version annually. You pay full price from the first day its available in January, and you pay the same price if you buy it the following December, but they quit supporting the current year version as soon as the new one is out.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I use Asset Keeper by Pro-Ware.  I highly recommend it and it’s relatively inexpensive.  I don’t know if they have a Canadian version, but you might check their website.  www.proware-cpa.com Dick K. I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

You’re right David.  I was not very happy when they told me the software was only good for a year.  Especially when I bought it in October.  They do however prorate the upgrade if you’ve owned it for less than a year.  I only had to pay $75 to upgrade.  I initially resisted upgrading because I know the IRS didn’t change their depreciation rates and I was certain straight line hadn’t changed.  Then I discovered my personal property tax return wouldn’t print out correctly unless I upgraded.  I didn’t like the fact that they hadn’t told me that up front.  I talked to someone who used FAS, and they told me their upgrade was about $2,000 per year which seemed a little high.  I think Asset Keeper is about $300 full upgrade price.  I don’t know how that compares to other programs.  What should I be paying a year for upgrades? Dick K.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Assetkkeper is a pretty good system but be careful when you buy it. They come out with an updated version annually. You pay full price from the first day its available in January, and you pay the same price if you buy it the following December, but they quit supporting the current year version as soon as the new one is out. I use Asset Keeper by Pro-Ware.  I highly recommend it and it’s relatively inexpensive.  I don’t know if they have a Canadian version, but you might check their website.  www.proware-cpa.com Dick K. I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You’re right David.  I was not very happy when they told me the software was only good for a year.  Especially when I bought it in October.  They do however prorate the upgrade if you’ve owned it for less than a year.  I only had to pay $75 to upgrade.  I initially resisted upgrading because I know the IRS didn’t change their depreciation rates and I was certain straight line hadn’t changed.  Then I discovered my personal property tax return wouldn’t print out correctly unless I upgraded.  I didn’t like the fact that they hadn’t told me that up front.  I talked to someone who used FAS, and they told me their upgrade was about $2,000 per year which seemed a little high.  I think Asset Keeper is about $300 full upgrade price.  I don’t know how that compares to other programs.  What should I be paying a year for upgrades?

You got a break that I certainly didn’t. I only upgrade every few years as I feel the need. I upgraded to version 14 in Aug 99 because I found that version 11 was not calculating properly for upcoming fiscal years ending in 2000. When version 15 came out in Jan, I specificly requested to be given partial credit toward the upgrade. I was informed that it would be unfair to those customers who paid full price back in January, and that next time I should upgrade in January to get the best value for my dollar.

Response:

You might want to look at Franklen Software’s DSP-11 (?) product.  They have a website and sell direct.  I think its 50USD. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

    I know this is not exactly what you are looking for.  But have you considered just hiring an outside accounting firm to do this?  I do this for several clients (U.S. not familiar with Canadian if different).  Now many of these clients could afford to buy a software like the fixed asset from PT complete or the one from Intuit.  But then they have to mess with it.  They prefer that I mess with it.  That includes keeping up with the software upgrades and tax laws and making sure the journal entries balance.  I charge a standard monthly fee for this.     Advantages that you gain is that you do not have to maintain the records or write the journal entries.  Saves on labor and allows you do other things.  You do not have to buy (or upgrade) software.  You do not have to keep up with changing laws (granted that is not often.)     This may not be applicable to your business, but perhaps at least it is alternate solution. — Dean L. Covey www.coveyaccounting.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

I use Asset Keeper by Pro-Ware.  I highly recommend it and it’s relatively inexpensive.  I don’t know if they have a Canadian version, but you might check their website.  www.proware-cpa.com Dick K.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am looking for a relativley inexpensive PC-based fixed asset management system (Canadian Version). The system must handle both accounting and tax based depreciation. Can anyone offer any suggestions. Thankyou.

Response:

Question:

I am looking at some of the software packages that allow you to accept client checks over the phone, fax, email, etc., and print a c heck out to deposit.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to a good package for this?  Inexpensive?  So far, the sites I’ve found on the net selling it provide no phone number or address, not even a company name.  I am leery of giving out MY checking information to order software from some possible fly-by-web outfit. Also would like to know if anyone has used these packages and whether they’re ok or if you’ve had problems. Thanks, — Carla Before you buy.

Response:

in alt.accounting: I am looking at some of the software packages that allow you to accept client checks over the phone, fax, email, etc., and print a c heck out to deposit.  Does anyone have any suggestions as to a good package for this?  Inexpensive?  So far, the sites I’ve found on the net selling it provide no phone number or address, not even a company name.  I am leery of giving out MY checking information to order software from some possible fly-by-web outfit. Also would like to know if anyone has used these packages and whether they’re ok or if you’ve had problems. Thanks,

We have used http://www.checkmagic.com/ ($19.95-$59.95) for a long time. It prints blank checks by itself, which you can use for client checks over the phone. It also prints filled in checks on blank paper from within QuickBooks or Peachtree. This is very valuable if companies must switch between several accounts. We have not found banks that need magnetic toner for a while.   Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.              World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester 450+ page QB book/free updates $10 QB add-ons http://www.blocktax.com/    Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540

Response:

We have used http://www.checkmagic.com/ ($19.95-$59.95) for a long time. It prints blank checks by itself, which you can use for client

Thanks Mike!  I checked out that website and called the company.  They said that their program was really not designed to input a client’s checking information, which is what I primarily want.  It’s more for printing your OWN company’s checks  The program looks great, but I have seen others on the net that will even let you keep a data base of checking info on clients; useful for processing repetitive charges and such.  This is the type of program I am really looking for. Thought I’d share that information.  If I light on one, I will post it here to share.  :) Before you buy.

Response:

We have used http://www.checkmagic.com/ ($19.95-$59.95) for a long time. It prints blank checks by itself, which you can use for client Thanks Mike!  I checked out that website and called the company.  They said that their program was really not designed to input a client’s checking information, which is what I primarily want.  It’s more for printing your OWN company’s checks  The program looks great, but I have seen others on the net that will even let you keep a data base of checking info on clients; useful for processing repetitive charges and such.  This is the type of program I am really looking for. Thought I’d share that information.  If I light on one, I will post it here to share.  :)

I do not get commissions from Checkmagic. However, we have effectively created client (pre-authorized) checks and their price is less than that of many programs that only write such checks. They also have a downloadable demo you can try while you keep looking.   Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.              World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester 450+ page QB book/free updates $10 QB add-ons http://www.blocktax.com/    Ft Lauderdale FL 954-566-7540

Response:

Question:

Management & Cost Accounting by Colin Drury is a very good book – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Can you give me a list of these books as it would be very helpful. Thanks. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

There are dozens of text books on this matter. Any and all of them explain all these things in simple english. IMHO – Refer to ‘Desperate Accounting Problem’ above and read the text books. Gabhan

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am doing an accounting project and I have some problems. If any one can answer these questions I would be very grateful. 1. What is overhead absorption 2. How does it differ from overhead apportionment 3. Describe the procedures followed in arriving at an overhead absorption rate. 4. Explain what is meant by over-absorption of overhead and how it might arise. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I am doing an accounting project and I have some problems. If any one can answer these questions I would be very grateful. 1. What is overhead absorption 2. How does it differ from overhead apportionment 3. Describe the procedures followed in arriving at an overhead absorption rate. 4. Explain what is meant by over-absorption of overhead and how it might arise. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Question:

Does anyone know of an off-the-shelf POS program that interfaces with QB6 Pro? Need to set up a cash drawer to sell inventory and non-inventory parts and also record rental payments. If not, have any of you had any reliable success importing transactions and exporting the parts list to a database program such as MS Access? TIA< Ed Schaperjahn HELP! Small Business Solutions

Response:

Quit QB…..try Pastel (already has EPOS built into accounitng system) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Does anyone know of an off-the-shelf POS program that interfaces with QB6 Pro? Need to set up a cash drawer to sell inventory and non-inventory parts and also record rental payments. If not, have any of you had any reliable success importing transactions and exporting the parts list to a database program such as MS Access? TIA< Ed Schaperjahn HELP! Small Business Solutions

Response:

I am also of the opinion that, if the goal is to work in Access, then run the entire process in Access. There are a number of ways to import and export data in QB, but it’s clumsy compared with implementing an Access system with open source code. Also, POS has any number of variations, starting with a PC and a cash drawer to bar code, credit card authorization, and so on.   If you like, I will be happy to point you to some of the non-QB all-Access alternatives. Respectfully,  - Carl Dick 949-261-2694 Does anyone know of an off-the-shelf POS program that interfaces with QB6 Pro? Need to set up a cash drawer to sell inventory and non-inventory parts and also record rental payments. If not, have any of you had any reliable success importing transactions and exporting the parts list to a database program such as MS Access? TIA< Ed Schaperjahn HELP! Small Business Solutions

- Carl Dick 949-261-2694 800-997-7944 www.cpaccess.com

Response:

I am also of the opinion that, if the goal is to work in Access, then run the entire process in Access. There are a number of ways to import and export data in QB, but it’s clumsy compared with implementing an Access system with open source code. Also, POS has any number of variations, starting with a PC and a cash drawer to bar code, credit card authorization, and so on.   If you like, I will be happy to point you to some of the non-QB all-Access alternatives. Respectfully, – Carl Dick

Carl, I would be happy if you gave me some pointers to Access-based and other POS software. However, these would only be for future reference. This client is penny-wise and pound-foolish and does not want to convert their accounting system from something else besides QB. Hell, I can’t even get them to install a peer-to-peer network. Instead they pass floppies back and forth to print. Go figure?! I thought a quick and dirty something would get them to spring for more. Thanks for your input, though. Ed Schaperjahn HELP! Small Business Solutions

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am also of the opinion that, if the goal is to work in Access, then run the entire process in Access. There are a number of ways to import and export data in QB, but it’s clumsy compared with implementing an Access system with open source code. Also, POS has any number of variations, starting with a PC and a cash drawer to bar code, credit card authorization, and so on. If you like, I will be happy to point you to some of the non-QB all-Access alternatives. Respectfully,  - Carl Dick 949-261-2694 Does anyone know of an off-the-shelf POS program that interfaces with QB6 Pro? Need to set up a cash drawer to sell inventory and non-inventory parts and also record rental payments. If not, have any of you had any reliable success importing transactions and exporting the parts list to a database program such as MS Access? TIA< Ed Schaperjahn HELP! Small Business Solutions – Carl Dick 949-261-2694 800-997-7944 www.cpaccess.com

Go to http://www.winsellpos.com/ Winsell Express is a nice little POS program that I am setting up for a friend right now. You can export a *.iif file that can be imported directly into QB. The only problem I have is getting it to open a Fujitsu cash drawer from the Epson TM-300PD receipt printer. Any suggestions? Best regards, Craig Moore Moore Computer Services

Response:

Quicksell 2000 is access based and imports to Quickbooks. http://www.smspos.com Phyllis Phyllis Davis-Minik Owner   Advanced EDI & Barcoding Corp Pensacola, Florida                        |  (850) 492-9333 Ext. 12 $$$Find out how to improve your inventory accuracy$$$ FREE email newsletter: http://www.edi-barcoding.com/news.htm

Response:

Question:

Exactly !!!!!! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to offer an explanation on this issue. Feel free to object. I believe that the GCWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles ability to move weight, acceptably. The GCWR is primarily a function of engine and rear end gear ratio. I don’t have a Ford brochure at my disposal, but using a GMC/Chevy brochure reveals the following information. In all GM truck brochures that I have seen since 1994, they provide a GCWR table. The only variables in this table are engine choice and rear end gear ratio. Picking an engine and gear ratio specifies a particular GCWR value. I also believe that the GVWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles chassis capability to hold weight (basic vehicle plus cargo). The GVWR will be largely determined by such things as axles, springs, wheels, tires and I suppose chassis construction. Therefore, I don’t see any conflict between the specifications for the Ford F250 and F350 GCWR and GVWR specifications. In other words the trailer towing capability is determined not by either weight rating individually, but by both weight ratings. It seems very reasonable to me that the F350 can carry a heavier hitch weight due to it’s larger GVWR. The fact that both(F250 and F350) have the same GCWR is sort of irrelevant. Possible trailering of large fifth wheels with heavy pin weights may well be within the GCWR of either the F250 or F350, but may easily be eliminated by the lower GVWR of the F250. Bob Commonsense tells me the F350 should handle a bigger rig yet, it’s rated the same as the F250.  Can anyone explain why the GCWR is the same for both vehicles? Mark

Response:

It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW.

So you are saying that your truck’s springs are the limiting factor in its GVWR – take a look at some specs on different classes of trucks; you’ll find that the GVWR is based on a huge number of variables, such as wheels, tires, springs, chassis, axles, drive shafts, U joints, brakes, cooling system. engine, warranty records, marketing concerns, and legal restrictions.  Simply adding air bags to anF150 does not turn it into an F250. Whe you buy your new trailer, either match it to your current truck or replace your truck. — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!!

You may be right. I sometimes do miss the point.  BTW more than two exclamation points assisted by caps is considered shrieking. <hype snipped  the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!!  

I am no Ford expert, and I feel sure we will hear from some folks that are.  But if you are saying what you APPEAR to be saying, why do I get the impression that the difference in price oughta be about $50? Is this REALLY true?   Will KD3XR

Response:

See my comments below. You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!! You may be right. I sometimes do miss the point.  BTW more than two exclamation points assisted by caps is considered shrieking.

Oh !  My net edicate is not always everything it should be ! <hype snipped  the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!!   I am no Ford expert, and I feel sure we will hear from some folks that are.  But if you are saying what you APPEAR to be saying, why do I get the impression that the difference in price oughta be about $50? Is this REALLY true?  

I don’t recall what the price difference is, but I know that it is not much.  I think Ford has some liability issues that get charged in for a higher GVW truck.   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Will KD3XR

Response:

I said it once and I will say it again … EVERYTHING is the same between an F250 and an F350 EXCEPT the springs.  I hate the F350 springs because they make the truck so stiff that it rides terrible.  Let me repeat: the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !  The two trucks even have the same Gross Combination Weight Rating. (GVWR.) An F250 with air helpers rides MUCH better empty. BTW: I wish Ford sold these trucks with air suspension and I don’t understand why they don’t.  The high/ rougher ride is one of the biggest trade offs of these trucks over a "regular" half ton. (Although the ride in an F250 is pretty good …) Kim     – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW. So you are saying that your truck’s springs are the limiting factor in its GVWR – take a look at some specs on different classes of trucks; you’ll find that the GVWR is based on a huge number of variables, such as wheels, tires, springs, chassis, axles, drive shafts, U joints, brakes, cooling system. engine, warranty records, marketing concerns, and legal restrictions.  Simply adding air bags to anF150 does not turn it into an F250. Whe you buy your new trailer, either match it to your current truck or replace your truck. — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

According to the Kelly Blue Book web site: F250 XLT 2WD  is $17,993 (invoice) and $20,445 (list) F350 XLT 2WD  is $18,848 (invoice) and $21,450 (list) Pretty expensive just for springs.  I think there is a bigger difference between the two than just springs. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!! You may be right. I sometimes do miss the point.  BTW more than two exclamation points assisted by caps is considered shrieking. <hype snipped  the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!! I am no Ford expert, and I feel sure we will hear from some folks that are.  But if you are saying what you APPEAR to be saying, why do I get the impression that the difference in price oughta be about $50? Is this REALLY true? Will KD3XR

Response:

Bob, Thanks for the explanation.  It makes sense to me.  I’ve been lurking in this NG for a while and the one reoccurring theme is, do not exceed the capability of the tow vehicle.  I’m interested in buying a 5th wheel so I want to ensure I buy the appropriate truck.  The problem is you start talking about a 30 footer and the weight adds up quick.  Keeping the weight under the 75% of GCWR and Max. loaded trailer weight guideline gets difficult.

One solution:  1999 Ford F450 – maximum loaded trailer weight as high as 18,800 pounds! — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

"I don’t recall what the price difference is, but I know that it is not much.  I think Ford has some liability issues that get charged in for a higher GVW truck." The difference is about $800. Another difference is that here in Minnesota a F250 is licensed as a car, or for my F250 that amounted to $341.00 per year. A F350 is licensed as a "truck" which costs $10 per month ($120 annually). And yes, the according to the dealer (Boyer Ford Truck), where I purchased mine yesterday, the difference between the 250 and the 350 is springs and "certification" of components (mainly axles). Pat Caulfield New owner of a V10, crew cab, short box, 4×4.

Response:

Alan, I saw in another thread you just bought an F450.  Good luck with it.  Unfortunately whatever I buy has to double as a daily driver.  I’d prefer to buy the F250 for that reason. Mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bob, Thanks for the explanation.  It makes sense to me.  I’ve been lurking in this NG for a while and the one reoccurring theme is, do not exceed the capability of the tow vehicle.  I’m interested in buying a 5th wheel so I want to ensure I buy the appropriate truck.  The problem is you start talking about a 30 footer and the weight adds up quick.  Keeping the weight under the 75% of GCWR and Max. loaded trailer weight guideline gets difficult. One solution:  1999 Ford F450 – maximum loaded trailer weight as high as 18,800 pounds! — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

I said it once and I will say it again … EVERYTHING is the same between an F250 and an F350 EXCEPT the springs.  I hate the F350 springs because they make the truck so stiff that it rides terrible.  Let me repeat: the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !  

You may, if you wish, write this daily for a month or more. Unlike many people, I am not one to start believing something just because it is shouted repeatedly.   If you’re right, fine. But simply repeating yourself makes no points. I was sorta hoping to hear from a credible source that Ford is guilty of selling an F-350 that actually is merely an F-250 with stiff springs. Hey, maybe it’s true – but I am not yet convinced. Will KD3XR

Response:

Norm: The way certification was explained to me is that the axle manufacturer would now certify the axle to a higher rating for warrently, liability, etc.reasons. Pat Caulfield – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is consistant with the Ford truck brochure, page 41. Suspension – Front Suspension – Rear The Front GAWR on the 250 is indeed 4850 lbs – but the Rear GAWR is only 4970 lbs. Unless there is a different part number for the axles, etc, I don’t know what exactly the "certification" means (not being sarcastic – I really don’t know). It still seems like a "marketing"  exercise to me. Norm <snip And yes, the according to the dealer (Boyer Ford Truck), where I purchased mine yesterday, the difference between the 250 and the 350 is springs and "certification" of components (mainly axles). Pat Caulfield New owner of a V10, crew cab, short box, 4×4.

Response:

Thanks for the verification ! Kim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "I don’t recall what the price difference is, but I know that it is not much.  I think Ford has some liability issues that get charged in for a higher GVW truck." The difference is about $800. Another difference is that here in Minnesota a F250 is licensed as a car, or for my F250 that amounted to $341.00 per year. A F350 is licensed as a "truck" which costs $10 per month ($120 annually). And yes, the according to the dealer (Boyer Ford Truck), where I purchased mine yesterday, the difference between the 250 and the 350 is springs and "certification" of components (mainly axles). Pat Caulfield New owner of a V10, crew cab, short box, 4×4.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!! EVERYTHING is the same between an F250 and an F350 EXCEPT the springs.  I hate the F350 springs because they make the truck so stiff that it rides terrible.  Let me repeat: the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!!  The two trucks even have the same Gross Combination Weight Rating. (GVWR.) An F250 with air helpers rides MUCH better empty. BTW: I wish Ford sold these trucks with air suspension and I don’t understand why they don’t.  The high/ rougher ride is one of the biggest trade offs of these trucks over a "regular" half ton. (Although the ride in an F250 is pretty good …)

It’s been my experience that high GVWR and soft suspension are mutually exclusive… — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

Alan, I saw in another thread you just bought an F450.  Good luck with it.  Unfortunately whatever I buy has to double as a daily driver.  I’d prefer to buy the F250 for that reason.

Thanks, Mark … my F450 will be a daily driver, but then I’ve not owned a car in over 20 years so I’m not concerned about a truck that drives like a truck! Hey I spent 2 years driving "deuce-and-a-halfs" in the Army – ANYTHING feels soft after that! — Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

– Alan Hepburn  (Email: Alan at Hepburn dot com) "…But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Response:

You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!! EVERYTHING is the same between an F250 and an F350 EXCEPT the springs.  I hate the F350 springs because they make the truck so stiff that it rides terrible.  Let me repeat: the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!!  The two trucks even have the same Gross Combination Weight Rating. (GVWR.)

Where did you get this information? Mark       ‘30 Ford Model ‘A’                            ’98 Ford Taurus               ‘59 Edsel Corsair                       ‘99 Mercury Cougar               ‘94 Ford Club Wagon w/7.3L Hypermax Turbo Diesel               ‘98 SunnyBrook 33FKDS Travel Trailer

Response:

I think that my local highway department will do this…  I KNOW that they will do it for a heavy truck … Kim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW. Just curious,  who do you think will "re-certify" a truck with aftermarket add ons. Second question,  what will the value of that "re-certification" be? Erich inquiring minds want to know

Response:

The problem with the F350 are springs that are plain old too stiff !!! The F250/F350 trucks already have a "velvet shackle" type connector on the front of the rear leaf springs. Don’t get me wrong here, Ford has done a fairly good job of the design, but there are certain limitations when one wants to build a truck that will haul 3700 lbs in the bed: empty ride suffers.  The best way around this limitation is to equip the truck with air springs because the spring rate changes with changes in air pressure.  Thus, when the truck is empty, decrease the air pressure for a GREAT ride and when the truck is loaded, increase the pressure to handle the load. Kim   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Though I haven’t tried them I’ve read that "Velvet Shackles" can smooth out the ride. Dig around in the web site below and you can find out some info on them. There are apparently more differences between the F250 and F350 than easily meet the eye.  Check out and search the following BBS run by Jason Lester: The Ford Diesel Web site Gordon Santa Rosa, CA Hi people. I have a 1999 4×2 F250 crew cab with the Power Stroke Diesel and the 6 speed.  The truck weighs about 6200 lbs empty, without fuel.  The truck does NOT have the trailer towing package. These trucks are quite stiffly sprung.  With our 32′ 5th wheel attached and everything loaded in, the truck is near its GVW and handles quite nicely at that weight.  I do not think it is necessary to add a big allowance to your expected weight when specing one of these trucks as they, unlike some other trucks on the market, are built to be operated safely at their maximum GVW. I too was trying to decide whether or not to buy an F350.  The ONLY difference between an F250 and an F350 from what I can tell, are the springs.  As far as I can tell the frame, brakes, axles, steering, etc is identical. It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW. An F350 rides quite a bit rougher due to stiffer springs, a penalty that I did not want for using the truck as my daily driver. Just my $0.02 Kim According to the ford truck brochure (page 41) the Ford SD 250 and 350 (SRW) 2×4 specify the same ratings for axle (front and rear), springs, brakes, wheels, etc. Why then is the 250 rated at 8800GVWR and the 350 at 9900GVWR? I am beginning to think this is so specified for marketing reasons – who would pay more for a 350 if a 250 will do? I agree with Will that for a safe and comfortable towing experience, de-rating the max specs is a sensible exercise – however I am finding that with acceptable (de-rated) tongue weight loads, the corresponding trailer weight loads amounts to reduction of 40 to 50% of max. Any comments or data appreciated….. Norm ‘99 SD PSD LB CC AT TT ABS

Response:

You TOTALLY missed the point, Will !!! EVERYTHING is the same between an F250 and an F350 EXCEPT the springs.  I hate the F350 springs because they make the truck so stiff that it rides terrible.  Let me repeat: the frame, brakes, axles, front suspension, engine, transmission, tires, rims, differential, driveshaft etc ARE ALL THE SAME.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE SPRINGS !!!!  The two trucks even have the same Gross Combination Weight Rating. (GVWR.) An F250 with air helpers rides MUCH better empty. BTW: I wish Ford sold these trucks with air suspension and I don’t understand why they don’t.  The high/ rougher ride is one of the biggest trade offs of these trucks over a "regular" half ton. (Although the ride in an F250 is pretty good …) Kim     – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW. If air springs would qualify your truck for "recertification", you kin bet yer bippy Ford would be happy to sell you one that way.  But they don’t. If you find some guy who claims he can "recertify" on that basis, you will probably have to wait in line, because he will be too busy selling inspection stickers for owner installation. If you get my drift.  (In my state you are supposed to AT LEAST take the windshield in for inspection!)* Understand this: while ratings are somewhat political, in that they reflect some mysterious agreements between engineering, accounting and marketing interests within the maker’s organization, they are NOT simply based on what the truck will hold up.  Hey, you can get a li’l ole rice-burner truck to hold up a 40′ fiver if you put blocks of wood between the frame & axle! The ratings consider MANY factors beyond mere arbitrary political questions.  They consider brakes, engine, tires, transmissions, cooling systems, etc ad nauseum. My dad used to say you cannot make a silk purse outa a sow’s ear.  My version: you can’t increase the real capacity of a truck with helper springs. *For the humor impaired, the reference is to black market vehicle safety inspections, conducted in the dark of night by scofflaws. Will KD3XR

Response:

According to the ford truck brochure (page 41) the Ford SD 250 and 350 (SRW) 2×4 specify the same ratings for axle (front and rear), springs, brakes, wheels, etc. Why then is the 250 rated at 8800GVWR and the 350 at 9900GVWR? I am beginning to think this is so specified for marketing reasons – who would pay more for a 350 if a 250 will do? I agree with Will that for a safe and comfortable towing experience, de-rating the max specs is a sensible exercise – however I am finding that with acceptable (de-rated) tongue weight loads, the corresponding trailer weight loads amounts to reduction of 40 to 50% of max. Any comments or data appreciated….. Norm ‘99 SD PSD LB CC AT TT ABS

Response:

Hi people. I have a 1999 4×2 F250 crew cab with the Power Stroke Diesel and the 6 speed.  The truck weighs about 6200 lbs empty, without fuel.  The truck does NOT have the trailer towing package.   These trucks are quite stiffly sprung.  With our 32′ 5th wheel attached and everything loaded in, the truck is near its GVW and handles quite nicely at that weight.  I do not think it is necessary to add a big allowance to your expected weight when specing one of these trucks as they, unlike some other trucks on the market, are built to be operated safely at their maximum GVW. I too was trying to decide whether or not to buy an F350.  The ONLY difference between an F250 and an F350 from what I can tell, are the springs.  As far as I can tell the frame, brakes, axles, steering, etc is identical.   It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW. An F350 rides quite a bit rougher due to stiffer springs, a penalty that I did not want for using the truck as my daily driver. Just my $0.02 Kim       – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – According to the ford truck brochure (page 41) the Ford SD 250 and 350 (SRW) 2×4 specify the same ratings for axle (front and rear), springs, brakes, wheels, etc. Why then is the 250 rated at 8800GVWR and the 350 at 9900GVWR? I am beginning to think this is so specified for marketing reasons – who would pay more for a 350 if a 250 will do? I agree with Will that for a safe and comfortable towing experience, de-rating the max specs is a sensible exercise – however I am finding that with acceptable (de-rated) tongue weight loads, the corresponding trailer weight loads amounts to reduction of 40 to 50% of max. Any comments or data appreciated….. Norm ‘99 SD PSD LB CC AT TT ABS

Response:

Good questions.  I am also considering buying a F250 SD or F350 SD.  The GVWR for the 250 SD PSD SRW is 8,800lbs. and the 350 SD PSD DRW is 11,200lbs. but, the GCWR is the same for both at 20,000lbs.  Commonsense tells me the F350 should handle a bigger rig yet, it’s rated the same as the F250.  Can anyone explain why the GCWR is the same for both vehicles? Mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – According to the ford truck brochure (page 41) the Ford SD 250 and 350 (SRW) 2×4 specify the same ratings for axle (front and rear), springs, brakes, wheels, etc. Why then is the 250 rated at 8800GVWR and the 350 at 9900GVWR? I am beginning to think this is so specified for marketing reasons – who would pay more for a 350 if a 250 will do? I agree with Will that for a safe and comfortable towing experience, de-rating the max specs is a sensible exercise – however I am finding that with acceptable (de-rated) tongue weight loads, the corresponding trailer weight loads amounts to reduction of 40 to 50% of max. Any comments or data appreciated….. Norm ‘99 SD PSD LB CC AT TT ABS

Response:

It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW.

Just curious,  who do you think will "re-certify" a truck with aftermarket add ons. Second question,  what will the value of that "re-certification" be? Erich inquiring minds want to know

Response:

I would like to offer an explanation on this issue. Feel free to object. I believe that the GCWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles ability to move weight, acceptably. The GCWR is primarily a function of engine and rear end gear ratio. I don’t have a Ford brochure at my disposal, but using a GMC/Chevy brochure reveals the following information. In all GM truck brochures that I have seen since 1994, they provide a GCWR table. The only variables in this table are engine choice and rear end gear ratio. Picking an engine and gear ratio specifies a particular GCWR value. I also believe that the GVWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles chassis capability to hold weight (basic vehicle plus cargo). The GVWR will be largely determined by such things as axles, springs, wheels, tires and I suppose chassis construction. Therefore, I don’t see any conflict between the specifications for the Ford F250 and F350 GCWR and GVWR specifications. In other words the trailer towing capability is determined not by either weight rating individually, but by both weight ratings. It seems very reasonable to me that the F350 can carry a heavier hitch weight due to it’s larger GVWR. The fact that both(F250 and F350) have the same GCWR is sort of irrelevant. Possible trailering of large fifth wheels with heavy pin weights may well be within the GCWR of either the F250 or F350, but may easily be eliminated by the lower GVWR of the F250. Bob

Commonsense – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -tells me the F350 should handle a bigger rig yet, it’s rated the same as the F250.  Can anyone explain why the GCWR is the same for both vehicles? Mark

Response:

It is possible that I will buy a trailer in the future that will put my truck over its GVW.  If that happens, I intend to add air springs and get the truck re certified to a higher GVW.

If air springs would qualify your truck for "recertification", you kin bet yer bippy Ford would be happy to sell you one that way.  But they don’t. If you find some guy who claims he can "recertify" on that basis, you will probably have to wait in line, because he will be too busy selling inspection stickers for owner installation. If you get my drift.  (In my state you are supposed to AT LEAST take the windshield in for inspection!)* Understand this: while ratings are somewhat political, in that they reflect some mysterious agreements between engineering, accounting and marketing interests within the maker’s organization, they are NOT simply based on what the truck will hold up.  Hey, you can get a li’l ole rice-burner truck to hold up a 40′ fiver if you put blocks of wood between the frame & axle! The ratings consider MANY factors beyond mere arbitrary political questions.  They consider brakes, engine, tires, transmissions, cooling systems, etc ad nauseum. My dad used to say you cannot make a silk purse outa a sow’s ear.  My version: you can’t increase the real capacity of a truck with helper springs. *For the humor impaired, the reference is to black market vehicle safety inspections, conducted in the dark of night by scofflaws. Will KD3XR

Response:

Bob, Thanks for the explanation.  It makes sense to me.  I’ve been lurking in this NG for a while and the one reoccurring theme is, do not exceed the capability of the tow vehicle.  I’m interested in buying a 5th wheel so I want to ensure I buy the appropriate truck.  The problem is you start talking about a 30 footer and the weight adds up quick.  Keeping the weight under the 75% of GCWR and Max. loaded trailer weight guideline gets difficult. Mark – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to offer an explanation on this issue. Feel free to object. I believe that the GCWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles ability to move weight, acceptably. The GCWR is primarily a function of engine and rear end gear ratio. I don’t have a Ford brochure at my disposal, but using a GMC/Chevy brochure reveals the following information. In all GM truck brochures that I have seen since 1994, they provide a GCWR table. The only variables in this table are engine choice and rear end gear ratio. Picking an engine and gear ratio specifies a particular GCWR value. I also believe that the GVWR is basically a value that provides a measure of a vehicles chassis capability to hold weight (basic vehicle plus cargo). The GVWR will be largely determined by such things as axles, springs, wheels, tires and I suppose chassis construction. Therefore, I don’t see any conflict between the specifications for the Ford F250 and F350 GCWR and GVWR specifications. In other words the trailer towing capability is determined not by either weight rating individually, but by both weight ratings. It seems very reasonable to me that the F350 can carry a heavier hitch weight due to it’s larger GVWR. The fact that both(F250 and F350) have the same GCWR is sort of irrelevant. Possible trailering of large fifth wheels with heavy pin weights may well be within the GCWR of either the F250 or F350, but may easily be eliminated by the lower GVWR of the F250. Bob Commonsense tells me the F350 should handle a bigger rig yet, it’s rated the same as the F250.  Can anyone explain why the GCWR is the same for both vehicles? Mark

Response: