Question:

Jim Summers87 wrote: > >Well, > >when you’re 27 and still in college (went back after an absence) and have > >really no money, you’re short, not attractive, shy, you run with what you > >can get. >   Is she attractive or is she also ugly? If she’s ugly, why do you think she is > getting so much attention from other men?

     Well, not that you asked me, but my guess would be because she can. Ugly women have no problem getting male attention, it may not be from the alpha males they really want, but they will always settle until something better comes along …

Response:

"Mike Richards" <MRicha…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:wRpDb.1465$tw1.99658@nnrp1.ptd.net… > Yes I have, the first night I met her.

Then why are you bitching, you got to poke her a few times and get your jollies. Mark a notch on your belt and move on to new fresh meat. Some guys here are like 40 something and never touched a nother womans skin.

Response:

Jim Summers87 wrote: > >Yes I have, the first night I met her. >   Jesus, then she’s a slut. Why are you running around with trash?

     A girl who fucks you on the first night you met will do the same for any other guy she is attracted to.

Response:

>Well, >when you’re 27 and still in college (went back after an absence) and have >really no money, you’re short, not attractive, shy, you run with what you >can get.

  Is she attractive or is she also ugly? If she’s ugly, why do you think she is getting so much attention from other men?

Response:

>She’s not a knockout. She’s a little overweight but has a great face and I >thought was a "great peson." You know, what "really matters."

  Perhaps you overvalued her? This is the problem with Shy guys. They lower their looks standards so much and then start treating very mediocre girls like Queens. She then thinks to herself, "Wow, I’m hotter than I thought!"

Response:

Mike Richards wrote:

(snip) So its 100% all her fault? And your not to blame at all? Relationships take two and its not all fuzzy and warm, sometimes you argue. So if she wants out, oh well let her go and move on like she is. Don’t dwell on the why and how could she. — FiRe "Shut up brain,or I’ll stab ya with a Q-tip" Homer J.Simpson "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy". Ben Franklin www.Station60.com

Response:

I think she’s pretty. Not a knockout, but she has qualities. "Jim Summers87" <jimsummer…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20031215170635.12131.00001004@mb-m05.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Well, > >when you’re 27 and still in college (went back after an absence) and have > >really no money, you’re short, not attractive, shy, you run with what you > >can get. >   Is she attractive or is she also ugly? If she’s ugly, why do you think she is > getting so much attention from other men?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Pumpkinhead wrote: > "Hugo Drax" <hugod…@aol.com> wrote in message > news:brl5ac$4kikd$1@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de… > > "Mike Richards" <MRicha…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:GknDb.1446$tw1.99058@nnrp1.ptd.net… > > > I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person > > > since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not > > so > > > angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship > > > has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. > > We’ve > > > had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have > > > been wonderful. > > Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your > > girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative. > He might prefer girls who make it clear when they want to be fucked.  I know I > would.

Good luck ever finding a girl who lets you know what the hell she wants. They expect you to be a mind reader …

Response:

> I go into her room and she’s talking to a bunch of different people online. > One guy seems suspicious. She had told me that "tonight i’m going out with > my friends from work." I’m like, fine, i’ll work on my studying and take > home finals. Out of the blue I said, "what are you going with this guy > you’re talking to right now?" She starts to get all flustered… "how could > you think that, etc etc." Then I see they’re IMing each other about fasting, > and all relgious stuff. Then she, still flustered comes in and says "i think > it would be good for us to see other people as well as date." I’m like "what > the hell are you talking about, where did this come from?" She starts saying > how she’s not "sure she wants to be with me for life."

Dump her now before she dumps you.  She’s only wasting your time. > I guess you can’t trust ANY female,

Trust no bitch.

Response:

okay, darkfalz.  give it up.  it’s pretty goddam obvious that it’s you. – k i t z – pop. six. squish. uhuh. cicero. lipschitz. http://spinning_plates.tripod.com

Response:

"Mike Richards" <MRicha…@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:GknDb.1446$tw1.99058@nnrp1.ptd.net… > I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person > since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not so > angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship > has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. We’ve > had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have > been wonderful.

Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative.

Response:

"Hugo Drax" <hugod…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:brl5ac$4kikd$1@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de… > "Mike Richards" <MRicha…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:GknDb.1446$tw1.99058@nnrp1.ptd.net… > > I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person > > since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not > so > > angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship > > has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. > We’ve > > had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have > > been wonderful. > Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your > girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative.

He might prefer girls who make it clear when they want to be fucked.  I know I would.

Response:

> > Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your > > girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative. > He might prefer girls who make it clear when they want to be fucked.  I know I > would.

Then a Realdoll is your only option or your hand.

Response:

Yes I have, the first night I met her. "Hugo Drax" <hugod…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:brl5ac$4kikd$1@ID-155262.news.uni-berlin.de… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Mike Richards" <MRicha…@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:GknDb.1446$tw1.99058@nnrp1.ptd.net… > > I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person > > since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not > so > > angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship > > has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. > We’ve > > had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have > > been wonderful. > Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your > girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative.

Response:

I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not so angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. We’ve had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have been wonderful. Saturday night we go out with her friends from work to her work Christmas party. She introduces me as "the boyfriend" and we had a great time. Lots of drinks, shots, and I felt comfortable out in public which for me can be problematic. The next day, Sunday, i’m still at her place because the forcast is snow and the plan was me to stay there until Monday since her place is very close to my college. She has a master degree by the way, and is going to school for her Psy D, while I went back to school and i’m a senior undergrad in accounting. I’m two years older than her also. Anyway, Sunday is a bit off. It’s snowing like hell and she wants to go to church. She asks if i’m going, I say no, it’s terrible out there. Plus I haven’t been to church in like… 25 years. She hasn’t gone much either, but in her words, "God is sooo important in my life." So, she goes to church, then comes home because they canceled for today. I’m sitting there trying to watch some football while working on some take home finals. She keeps talking, i’m a bit touchy, so she goes onto the internet to chill a little. We’re laughing, talking, planning to walk down to the corner store to get some hot chocolate. I go into her room and she’s talking to a bunch of different people online. One guy seems suspicious. She had told me that "tonight i’m going out with my friends from work." I’m like, fine, i’ll work on my studying and take home finals. Out of the blue I said, "what are you going with this guy you’re talking to right now?" She starts to get all flustered… "how could you think that, etc etc." Then I see they’re IMing each other about fasting, and all relgious stuff. Then she, still flustered comes in and says "i think it would be good for us to see other people as well as date." I’m like "what the hell are you talking about, where did this come from?" She starts saying how she’s not "sure she wants to be with me for life." We have fights about me wanting to live together because both of our bills are out of control, but she’s against living together before marriage. Tonight, she tells me that I "scare her" when I talk about "getting married." I’m like what the hell is wrong with you? I can’t win! Then she comes in with the "you’re not religious enough, you care too much about money, etc." She finally leaves, i’m there at her apartment, my car won’t start, snow is flying everywhere. She finally comes home, we talk a bit, she makes dinner and we watch Survivor which she’s more into that discussing our issues and lives. But I sit there and fake it. This morning my car won’t start and she has to drive me two blocks to my final and pick me up. We get back and sleep for a bit, she parts her arm around me and kisses me as we left in the afternoon. But…. she wants to "date other people," because "if you love something and it comes back, it’s yours." Like I haven’t heard these lines before. Pretty nice huh… a week after my birthday and a two weeks before christmas. She’s so into God, yet she can’t even be honest with me. I guess she makes up the religion rules as she goes along. But you know what, i’m always the loser. She breaks up with me, i sit here alone, the loser. She goes out and can do whatever she wants. That’s what sucks the most. I guess you can’t trust ANY female, and if you’re not out there making new connections while you’re "involved" with someone, you’re going to be the loser because no matter what, she’s going to drop you. Better you have a couple backups than to sit around sulking "why me!" LOL… So you might as well be prepared. —

Response:

Hugo Drax wrote: >>> Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck >>> your girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes >>> initiative. >> He might prefer girls who make it clear when they want to be fucked. >> I know I would. > Then a Realdoll is your only option or your hand.

HaHa,,and if the real doll turns you down you know your truly fucked. — FiRe "Shut up brain,or I’ll stab ya with a Q-tip" Homer J.Simpson "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy". Ben Franklin www.Station60.com

Response:

>Dump her now before she dumps you.  She’s only wasting your time.

  This is good advice Pumpkin. You’ve got to sense these things and pull the plug on the bitch. She will be humiliated because right now she’s setting him up for a fall and turning the tables on her is the best thing.

Response:

>Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your >girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative.

  It’s more likely that she found a guy who is better-looking and has more money. If she’s pretty, there is no stopping beautiful women. They always trade up for the wealthier guy.

Response:

>Yes I have, the first night I met her.

  Jesus, then she’s a slut. Why are you running around with trash?

Response:

She’s not a knockout. She’s a little overweight but has a great face and I thought was a "great peson." You know, what "really matters." "Jim Summers87" <jimsummer…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20031215164747.12131.00001001@mb-m05.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Did you get to fuck her? I have the suspicion that you did not fuck your > >girlfriend and she ended up straying for a man who takes initiative. >   It’s more likely that she found a guy who is better-looking and has more > money. If she’s pretty, there is no stopping beautiful women. They always trade > up for the wealthier guy.

Response:

Well, when you’re 27 and still in college (went back after an absence) and have really no money, you’re short, not attractive, shy, you run with what you can get. "Jim Summers87" <jimsummer…@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20031215164838.12131.00001002@mb-m05.aol.com… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Yes I have, the first night I met her. >   Jesus, then she’s a slut. Why are you running around with trash?

Response:

eerie rodent of unusual size & typing ability wrote: > Tom Elliot <TE4…@nospamhere.com> wrote in > news:3FDDF8A7.357BAD2C@nospamhere.com: > >    Women always make up the rules as they go along, and the rules > >    change from > > one day to the next, > Get it in writing.  That’s what attorneys are for, eh?

That doesn’t work with women. Written contracts and promises mean nothing to them. They ALWAYS have an excuse to do anything and everything. My ex never kept a single promise she made to me. When a woman gives you her "word", it means absolutely nothing, while to most men keeping your word is a point of honor.

Response:

Tom Elliot <TE4…@nospamhere.com> wrote in news:3FDDFBC7.BAEF2C31@nospamhere.com: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> eerie rodent of unusual size & typing ability wrote: >> Tom Elliot <TE4…@nospamhere.com> wrote in >> news:3FDDF8A7.357BAD2C@nospamhere.com: >> >    Women always make up the rules as they go along, and the rules >> >    change from >> > one day to the next, >> Get it in writing.  That’s what attorneys are for, eh? > That doesn’t work with women. Written contracts and promises mean > nothing to them. They ALWAYS have an excuse to do anything and > everything. My ex never kept a single promise she made to me. When a > woman gives you her "word", it means absolutely nothing, while to most > men keeping your word is a point of honor.

Well sure, you can say that, but if you were gay it would be a different story…

Response:

Tom Elliot <TE4…@nospamhere.com> wrote in news:3FDDF8A7.357BAD2C@nospamhere.com: >    Women always make up the rules as they go along, and the rules >    change from > one day to the next,

Get it in writing.  That’s what attorneys are for, eh?

Response:

Mike Richards wrote: > I’ve been dating this girl for 7 months… i’ve really grown as a person > since i’ve been dating her. I go out more, I’m more open minded, i’m not so > angry, i’m back in college and have plans for the future. The relationship > has been my best ever, and I felt I could trust this girl completely. We’ve > had our ups and downs, but overall (especially the last few months) have > been wonderful.

There is your first mistake, trusting a woman. There are a few women who are honorable and trustworthy, but they are a very few. Your second mistake is having "downs" in your relationship. With a woman, things had better be "up" and fun all the time, or else it is a "bad relationship", and she is going to start looking elsewhere. <snip> > Pretty nice huh… a week after my birthday and a two weeks before > christmas. She’s so into God, yet she can’t even be honest with me. I guess > she makes up the religion rules as she goes along. But you know what, i’m > always the loser. She breaks up with me, i sit here alone, the loser. She > goes out and can do whatever she wants. That’s what sucks the most.

   Women always make up the rules as they go along, and the rules change from one day to the next, usually depending upon what their prospects are. And just remember that when a woman says "I love you" it really means "I really like you a lot at the moment, but don’t expect that things won’t change". > I guess you can’t trust ANY female, and if you’re not out there making new > connections while you’re "involved" with someone, you’re going to be the > loser because no matter what, she’s going to drop you. Better you have a > couple backups than to sit around sulking "why me!" LOL… So you might as > well be prepared.

      I agree. You have to have a backup plan for when (not if) you get dumped. Most women are always receiving male attention, either at work or school or wherever, so there will always be "someone better" for her, and most women are very emotionally weak and can’t resist the temptation. And I’ll bet that’s what is happening in your case, she’s got an interest in some other guy. And since you are posting to a shyness support group, I’ll assume that you are shy. Most women are very extroverted and can’t understand shyness, so it’s very unlikely that you can find a woman who will be supportive of you. Most women want a guy who is the life of the party, one who can keep her entertained 24/7 . Even if you do find a girlfriend who can accept your shyness, she will have plenty of female friends, co-workers, and siblings who are going to disapprove of you if you are shy. And if your girlfriend’s female "friends" don’t like you, you are finished.

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not trying to say "my situation is worse than yours,"  That isn’t my point at all.   The fact is that given all the crap in the last 2 years I am a very happy person.  I have a great kid (no brain damage thank G-d).  I may be unemployed, but I’m not yet destitute.  I’ve lost all that weight and feel great.  Life isn’t bad.  In fact it’s pretty good. So do the best job you can at work and when you go home at night "fuggedaboudit."  So your ex is difficult?  Smile, but your lip and when he walks out the door let the issues go with him.  Screw him. You have palpitations.  You aren’t sleeping.  You need to stop and realize that if you died tomorrow from all the stress, would it have been worth it? Life, my dear determined, is to be lived.  Loved.  Lusted.

I agree 110% with you.  I totally own my stress.  I allowed it to get to me. Lately I have been lusting for life.  Things have been grand.  I am very grateful.  I was thinking today about how I felt, and thought, "what a total waste of energy stress is".  Why am I doing this to myself?  And I’m going to get over it.  But thanks for the butt-whoopin’!

Response:

Not to be mamby pamby, but stress is a self-inflicted illness. When I was younger I had colitis, migranes, you name it.  It took me years but I have finally taken the attitude of "I do the best I can, and I let it go." You talk about stress? In 2001 I lost 2 dogs (February and June), in September my mother died.  The next month my 2 year old son nearly drowned.  I found him unconscious, under water in the pool. Oh yeah, I also got laid off in 2001.  I spent 2002 looking for a job. Unsuccessfully.  After a highly successful career in sales and marketing. Can you say recession? Now — you have a job.  You have a daughter who no doubt loves you.  He is a good father to your daughter.  Hallelujah. I’m not trying to say "my situation is worse than yours,"  That isn’t my point at all.   The fact is that given all the crap in the last 2 years I am a very happy person.  I have a great kid (no brain damage thank G-d).  I may be unemployed, but I’m not yet destitute.  I’ve lost all that weight and feel great.  Life isn’t bad.  In fact it’s pretty good. So do the best job you can at work and when you go home at night "fuggedaboudit."  So your ex is difficult?  Smile, but your lip and when he walks out the door let the issues go with him.  Screw him. You have palpitations.  You aren’t sleeping.  You need to stop and realize that if you died tomorrow from all the stress, would it have been worth it? Life, my dear determined, is to be lived.  Loved.  Lusted. Don’t let the bastards, or your own worries, get you down.

Response:

Things have been going pretty smoothly for me for quite awhile.  I almost forgot what it was like to be stressed out.  Thankfully, I’m getting a refresher course…  Things are getting super crazy at work, and being the office manager/bookkeeper/dispatcher all in one, I’m expected to make the boss happy, the employees happy, the customers happy, and still balance the books…  My daughter’s Dad is a constant source of agitation, and while he’s a great and doting father, he is one of the most difficult people I know. How is the stress affecting me?  I haven’t been able to sleep.  I’m grouchy and short tempered.  I don’t have a problem eating, but it all goes straight through me.  I’m getting migraines, and my period started over two weeks ago and hasn’t gone away…  And guess what jay jay?  My heart palpitations are definitely affected by stress.  I won’t say panic attack, but the tension definitely gets my heart to flip-flopping.  Exercise is still my greatest stress reliever, but I haven’t been to the club in two days. Oh well, this too shall pass… — determined

Response:

Great advice, fantastic attitude the only way to go (if you don’t have Xanex LOL Seriously, life can come at us pretty hard and fast. Sometimes we get a low when nothing bad is happening at all. I tend to sweat the small stuff, an internet insult, a bad haircut for me or my dog etc. but when all the mist is cleared from the windshield I appreciate everyone and everything I have, every pound  lost that stays lost and pretty much how i’ve lived my life in the past few years. Even if I tense up or even panic, I now know it will pass (and hopefully before I do) We have to make NOW the best time!. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not to be mamby pamby, but stress is a self-inflicted illness. When I was younger I had colitis, migranes, you name it.  It took me years but I have finally taken the attitude of "I do the best I can, and I let it go." You talk about stress? In 2001 I lost 2 dogs (February and June), in September my mother died.  The next month my 2 year old son nearly drowned.  I found him unconscious, under water in the pool. Oh yeah, I also got laid off in 2001.  I spent 2002 looking for a job. Unsuccessfully.  After a highly successful career in sales and marketing. Can you say recession? Now — you have a job.  You have a daughter who no doubt loves you.  He is a good father to your daughter.  Hallelujah. I’m not trying to say "my situation is worse than yours,"  That isn’t my point at all.   The fact is that given all the crap in the last 2 years I am a very happy person.  I have a great kid (no brain damage thank G-d).  I may be unemployed, but I’m not yet destitute.  I’ve lost all that weight and feel great.  Life isn’t bad.  In fact it’s pretty good. So do the best job you can at work and when you go home at night "fuggedaboudit."  So your ex is difficult?  Smile, but your lip and when he walks out the door let the issues go with him.  Screw him. You have palpitations.  You aren’t sleeping.  You need to stop and realize that if you died tomorrow from all the stress, would it have been worth it? Life, my dear determined, is to be lived.  Loved.  Lusted. Don’t let the bastards, or your own worries, get you down.

– Diva 219/136 Fourth year at goal

Response:

LOL, not so much a butt-whoopin as a reality check.  I remember dating a shrink years ago.  I said to him "I was depressed because I had no shoes and then I met a man with no feet." He said to me, "Having no shoes is no picnic.  You deserve to be miserable about it." In other words, you own your own misery AND happiness.  It’s just that you are working so hard to better your life.  In the end you are the only one who can control how you respond to the world around you.  Stress REALLY is a waste of energy. I mean, what is the worst thing that can happen?  You can get fired from your job?  Doesn’t sound likely — but even so, the sun will still rise. Your ex is a jerk?  Be grateful you aren’t still married to him! You sound like the kind of take charge person who won’t let the BS get to you and we’re all entitled to wallow now and again.  Having no shoes is no picnic!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not trying to say "my situation is worse than yours,"  That isn’t my point at all.   The fact is that given all the crap in the last 2 years I am a very happy person.  I have a great kid (no brain damage thank G-d).  I may be unemployed, but I’m not yet destitute.  I’ve lost all that weight and feel great.  Life isn’t bad.  In fact it’s pretty good. So do the best job you can at work and when you go home at night "fuggedaboudit."  So your ex is difficult?  Smile, but your lip and when he walks out the door let the issues go with him.  Screw him. You have palpitations.  You aren’t sleeping.  You need to stop and realize that if you died tomorrow from all the stress, would it have been worth it? Life, my dear determined, is to be lived.  Loved.  Lusted. I agree 110% with you.  I totally own my stress.  I allowed it to get to me. Lately I have been lusting for life.  Things have been grand.  I am very grateful.  I was thinking today about how I felt, and thought, "what a total waste of energy stress is".  Why am I doing this to myself?  And I’m going to get over it.  But thanks for the butt-whoopin’!

Response:

|Lately I have been lusting for life. And that ain’t all.

Response:

I agree 110% with you.  I totally own my stress.  I allowed it to get to me. Lately I have been lusting for life.  Things have been grand.  I am very grateful.  I was thinking today about how I felt, and thought, "what a total waste of energy stress is".  Why am I doing this to myself?  And I’m going to get over it.  But thanks for the butt-whoopin’!

ok – back when I was still married, my ex was in the navy and I was preggo with ds…  I was working and going to school.   We knew we had a limited time at the base he was stationed at, and most likely would be transferred to at least another state, if not overseas…   I really wanted to get an associates degree underneath my belt so I was more employable wherever we went.     Anyhow – at one point I was taking 5 or 6 classes a semester. (lets put it this way – the first semester I went to school I took 1 class. The second semester I took 2 classes and I managed to complete over 60 hrs, with a major in business mgt and a minor (only 2 classes away from a dual major) in computer science all in under a year and a half – so that is a "2 yr" degree in less than 1.5 yrs). Anyhow – one semester I needed help figuring out what classes to take, so I met with my counsilor.   His suggestion – since I was taking 6 courses (27 credits when you include labs and such) and working for an accounting during tax season, and pregnant…   Suggestion = STRESS MANAGEMENT.    Yeah – it was a blowoff course.   It was an "easy A" and helped the GPA a bit.   But – the reality was, I learned alot that semester from that course.   I taught me a bit about time management, as well as dealing and coping with stress. To this day, when I do get stressed, I do try to remember some of those key things I found that worked, and I put them into action. How do you think I survived those first years of being a single mom, working 50+ hrs a week,  juggling life, work, kid and then tackle school, where I peaked at taking 4 classes one semester; and I finished that degree in 2.5 yrs.   Oh, and I managed to find love during that time too. It all comes down to learning how to deal with life’s stresses.   Stress management is a wonderful thing.

Response:

Question:

Kinda depends on how in depth you wish your eventual knowledge to be. AAT might be better if you do not wish to work in practice or immediately at the top Nikki

Response:

ACCA is too difficult for whom has little accounting knowledege??

Response:

Most qualified accountants start with little accounting knowledge. I started with none and was terrified of not being able to do any work, but some casting (footing or summing) was found for me on my first day. Roger —  http://mypage.bluewin.ch/aroc

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ACCA is too difficult for whom has little accounting knowledege??

Response:

Hi, I am going to sit for ACCA Paper 11(H) in Hong Kong later. The delay was due to typhoon. I think there may be some Hong Kong students sit for their Hong Kong variant paper in overseas. Therefore, some one has had the P11(H) in this week. If you have the information about the exam, please tell me. Thanks! Tommy

Response:

The difference is mostly historical. In the past, only three accountancy bodies in UK had received Royal Charters. They are the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.  Members of these three accountancy bodies are called Chartered Accountants. Nowadays, all six recognized accountancy bodies in UK have  received Royal Charters. The official title of Certified Accountants is actually Chartered Certified Accountants, who are members of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants (CACA). The designations they use are either ACCA or FCCA, depending on the length of their membership. Y.M.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I wonder about the terms "Chartered" and the  "Certified" accountant. How do they differ?  Obviously the need for both terms indicates some type of difference. **Tippy**

Response:

You are mostly correct, but the ACCA now stands for the association of chartered certified accounts – it changed the name when it recieved the full privy council chartered status a couple of years ago. Jonathon Power (ACCA in a few months) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The difference is mostly historical. In the past, only three accountancy bodies in UK had received Royal Charters. They are the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland.  Members of these three accountancy bodies are called Chartered Accountants. Nowadays, all six recognized accountancy bodies in UK have  received Royal Charters. The official title of Certified Accountants is actually Chartered Certified Accountants, who are members of the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants (CACA). The designations they use are either ACCA or FCCA, depending on the length of their membership. Y.M. I wonder about the terms "Chartered" and the  "Certified" accountant. How do they differ?  Obviously the need for both terms indicates some type of difference. **Tippy**

Response:

You are kidding what then UK Knows about accounting can be pasted on the back of an Australian Postage stamp – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi The ACCA (Association Of Chartered Certified Accountants) is UK based. It is the worlds premiere accountancy institute and represents accountants in general practice, industry and state organizations. It certently would offer you more that say the CPA. Regards Dr. N.J. Wilson UK Hi All, I am an accountant in Vietnam. I just heard about ACCA and it’s seemed very challenge to get an ACCA. They told me that I could take the exam from Vietnam and a lot of benefit I could have from becoming an ACCA. But all things just heard from their side, could anybody tell me more about this. Other thing, it seems that the tuition, which is about 6K to 8K, which is quite high in comparison with our salary in Vietnam. Try with ACCA may be the big investment. Should I try to take the exam or not? I was abashing. Could I receive your suggestion soon? Thank you for your attention, Ho Viet Ha

Response:

There’re totally 14 papers to become a certified public accounts. A degree in accountancy will be a better route to a CPA. It’s because a maximum of 10 papers could be exempted from the bodies if you follow the profession. You’ve to finish the remaining 4 unexemptable papers and get 3-5 yrs working experience to be qualified. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi All, I am an accountant in Vietnam. I just heard about ACCA and it’s seemed very challenge to get an ACCA. They told me that I could take the exam from Vietnam and a lot of benefit I could have from becoming an ACCA. But all things just heard from their side, could anybody tell me more about this. Other thing, it seems that the tuition, which is about 6K to 8K, which is quite high in comparison with our salary in Vietnam. Try with ACCA may be the big investment. Should I try to take the exam or not? I was abashing. Could I receive your suggestion soon? Thank you for your attention, Ho Viet Ha

Response:

Hi The ACCA (Association Of Chartered Certified Accountants) is UK based. It is the worlds premiere accountancy institute and represents accountants in general practice, industry and state organizations. It certently would offer you more that say the CPA. Regards Dr. N.J. Wilson UK – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi All, I am an accountant in Vietnam. I just heard about ACCA and it’s seemed very challenge to get an ACCA. They told me that I could take the exam from Vietnam and a lot of benefit I could have from becoming an ACCA. But all things just heard from their side, could anybody tell me more about this. Other thing, it seems that the tuition, which is about 6K to 8K, which is quite high in comparison with our salary in Vietnam. Try with ACCA may be the big investment. Should I try to take the exam or not? I was abashing. Could I receive your suggestion soon? Thank you for your attention, Ho Viet Ha

Response:

ACCA (Association of Chartered and Certified Accountants) is highly recognised in South East Asia. You could choose International Variant which mean that you will learn and be tested based on the International Accounting Standard (IAS). This will improve your mobility in finding jobs in other countries. The Countries in Asia , I am aware of, that values ACCA highly include Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Vietnam. The qualification is highly recognised and it is equivalent to a UK Honours Degree as stated in an act of Parliament. It would be accepted into Master Degree in most Universities in UK and even Australia from what I had enquired. Do take note that the examination is also of a very high standard. The passing rate for Level 2 and above could range around 50% and sometimes to 40%. Hope that this might be helpful. Nelson

Response:

Hi All, I am an accountant in Vietnam. I just heard about ACCA and it’s seemed very challenge to get an ACCA. They told me that I could take the exam from Vietnam and a lot of benefit I could have from becoming an ACCA. But all things just heard from their side, could anybody tell me more about this. Other thing, it seems that the tuition, which is about 6K to 8K, which is quite high in comparison with our salary in Vietnam. Try with ACCA may be the big investment. Should I try to take the exam or not? I was abashing. Could I receive your suggestion soon? Thank you for your attention, Ho Viet Ha

Response:

Hi .. I’ve been taking the ACCA papers for a couple of years now & I seems to be stuck at level 1. I don’t think I’m stupid cos’ I got thru college with pretty good results. So should I struggle on or just give up ? Calynn

Response:

never retrieve – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi .. I’ve been taking the ACCA papers for a couple of years now & I seems to be stuck at level 1. I don’t think I’m stupid cos’ I got thru college with pretty good results. So should I struggle on or just give up ? Calynn

Response:

how many paper must done in ACCA?

Response:

how many paper must done in ACCA?

For the professional scheme, there are altogether 16 papers.  These are broken down into three levels: LEVEL ONE: 1.1  Preparing Financial Statements 1.2  Financial Information for Management 1.3  Managing People LEVEL TWO: 2.1  Information systems 2.2  Corporate and Business Law 2.3  Business Taxation 2.4  Financial Management and Control 2.5  Financial Reporting 2.6  Audit and Internal Review LEVEL THREE: Options (2 from 4) 3.1  Audit and Assurance Services 3.2  Advanced Taxation 3.3  Performance Management 3.4  Business Information Management Core (essential) 3.5  Strategic Business Planning and Development 3.6  Advanced Corporate Reporting 3.7  Strategic Financial Management For more information, use the link below: http://www.accaglobal.com/students/professionalscheme/newscheme/struc… – leongsh..

Response:

Question:

 "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people is horseshit.

More happy horsecrap from Karl. It never ends. — Harry Krause I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. -GW Bush

Response:

With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was.

But we didn’t stop him.  We "punished" him, wrecked the environment over there for the next 30 years with all the oil we (and they) spilled, and drove him out of Kuwait – but, and here’s the point – we didn’t "stop" him. All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  I predicted at the time that Israel was the real issue, and that by merely taking the point off Saddam’s knife (instead of killing or capturing the bastard) we were going to INCITE a war over there eventually, instead of preventing one. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that.

Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers. The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil.

I’m aware of that.  I’m not actually suggesting that we should have annexed the area – we should not have.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie

We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign.

Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie

Heheheh. Funniest pair of posts in weeks. — Harry Krause Quotas are bad for America. It’s not the way America is all about. -GW Bush

Response:

But the truest posts. Bill – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. Yep…they never considered a clown like Clinton to be a serious threat to a sitting president who’d done a good job, and so the Bush campaign didn’t think it was necessary to run very hard against him. Peggie Heheheh. Funniest pair of posts in weeks. — Harry Krause Quotas are bad for America. It’s not the way America is all about. -GW

Bush

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was. But we didn’t stop him.  We "punished" him, wrecked the environment over there for the next 30 years with all the oil we (and they) spilled, and drove him out of Kuwait – but, and here’s the point – we didn’t "stop" him. All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  I predicted at the time that Israel was the real issue, and that by merely taking the point off Saddam’s knife (instead of killing or capturing the bastard) we were going to INCITE a war over there eventually, instead of preventing one. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that. Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers. The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil. I’m aware of that.  I’m not actually suggesting that we should have annexed the area – we should not have.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over. — — http://www.denninger.net        Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!

I can’t argue with Karl on this…Desert Storm was a fiasco. About all it did was enable us to test some advanced weaponry under slightly more severe than field test conditions. — Harry Krause Laura and I really don’t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis. -GW Bush

Response:

All we did was piss him off and give him the ability to build a coalition down the road.  

Something he has yet to be able to do, and it’s been 10 years. We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that. Nonsense.  Viet Nam was an entirely different world.  They had a real army and real arms.  Saddam had neither.  That was no "war" by any traditional interpretation.  It was a "push button" blow up this and that campaign – you could pretty much count the number of American casualties on your fingers.

The "war" we fought WAS just that, but continuing it to march on Bagdhad and conquer Iraq would not have been. The Arab world didn’t want us there..Certainly the USSR would have jumped into it with support for Iraq–and they did have a real army and guns…and perhaps China (and btw, North Viet Nam wouldn’t have had an army or weapons without China’s support).  Iran has no love for Saddam, but it has even less for the US…and common enemies make new bedfellows.  Continuing on could have been a very long and protracted affair–something the country would not have supported–not after Viet Nam, and CERTAINLY not with cameras focused on every bomb target and a media with a definite anti-war attitude reporting it. We did the right thing.  But I also argue that we have no interest whatsoever in trying to "protect" dictatorships from one another.  And like it or not, that’s what Kuwait is.

They asked us–begged us to. We were only the lead nation of a UN force, at least on paper. We should have left it alone. If Saudi Arabia or the UAE want our help, they can damn well invite us in for a permanent military presence and provide the land for us to use as, for all intents and purposes, as US Government property (as have other countries who wanted that protection.)  Note that they haven’t – and don’t – because they don’t really want us there EITHER.

You just made MY point. We did what they asked us to do. There is an ueasy relationship with the US and those countries.  They like our oil money, but they hate our philosophy on life and how we live.

Well, duh, Karl. We like their cheap oil, but we’re not real fond of their philosophy and how they live either–especially when it comes to human rights and the way it treats women. We went over there and committed aggression against another nation because someone else was scared that they would get THEIR asses kicked.  There’s a problem with that kind of thing, and it should be obvious.

Refusing to support your allies would be a bigger problem. Again–they asked for help.  Quite frankly, the entire UN "shield" that we operated under belay the true interest – it wasn’t our oil flow we were protecting, it was the oil flow for Europe and the others in the UN and NATO that we were really flexing our muscles over.

Again…duh!  You’d rather we left ‘em hanging out to dry? Sheesh, Karl…the "100 hours war" did more for US prestige in the world–in fact, restored it in some places–than anything we’d done since WW II. More importantly, it restored our own national pride, especially in our military, who came home this time to brass bands and ticker tape. Or have you forgotten what they came home from Viet Nam to? We    could    not    risk    that happening again–or even an anti-war media spin.  We did what we were asked to do and got out–we set an objective, we accomplished it, they came home heroes. Take it from a career Army brat who lived through WWII, Korea and Viet Nam in the military–we did the right thing for that time and in that place. Peggie

Response:

Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie

Timing is everything. 123 days to go..

Response:

If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job.

I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Powell has absolutely no experience that would qualify him as Secretary of State. He may well be a retired General but he sure as hell ain’t Marshall. — Harry Krause Gov. Bush will not stand for the subsidation of failure. -GW Bush.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. I think you have the rose glasses on. Powell is the same brave leader who proposed that we only try economic sanctions on Iraq for Kuwait invasion — as if it has changed the actions of Cuba. Powell was a politician from his first days in the military — always trying to take the easy way out and never making a stand on a tough issue until he could see that his superiors were committed. With him as SecState we will drift (ob:boat) until a crisis is howling though the sewers of Washington, with the net effect that the US military or US Treasury (or both) will take a terrible beating.

Oh please. With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!) The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory. Yeah, I know, we’re beholden to the almighty black gold.  And this is THEIR (the mid east nations) fault?  No, its ours.  We have alternatives available that we have refused to exercise, including biologically renewable fuels that will even burn in boat (and car) diesels, along with home heating and industrial plants (and which, by the way, are CO2 neutral due to their closed-cycle nature.)  We choose not to exploit them because its easier (and marginally cheaper at today’s prices) to swing our big dong around as the only remaining country with an army that can project power wherever and whenever we want. Powell was (and is) exactly right in his assessment. Unless there is a DIRECT threat to our nation we have no business doing anything military anywhere in the world.  "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people (rather than because there’s a legitimate reason to rain a few hundred million worth of cruise missles down on their cities) is horseshit.  In Rawanda, while we pissed and moaned about 3,000 Albanians who were brutally murdered (and ultimately went to war over it) there were a HALF MILLION people slaughtered under nearly identical circumstances WHILE WE SAT THERE AND LAUGHTED AT THEIR PLIGHT. That we have a representative republic does not give us license to FORCE that form of government on anyone else.  If you think we have that right, be aware that the sword of force cuts with two edges, and you are inviting others to try to undo what we have here. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

Yup.  Timing is why we got Clinton.  Hillary put him in play to get national recognition.  With Bush Sr. Really high rating, not Democrat of any stature was going to run against him.  Then Bush ran a poor campaign. bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie Timing is everything. 123 days to go..

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. The "one vote per acre" crack was intended as a rebuttal to the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won vs. Gore. The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless. What counts is the electoral vote, and the folks who wave the map of all the less populated states and try to establish that this creates a strong mandate for Bush are incorrect. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four. The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score.

I’m not certain of that at all. I believe that the events of the next couple of years will determine this, and while this series of events will certainly not make anyone happy, its simply not going to be the determinant in 2004.  Both republican and democrat bases will be energized by this – which will leave the net effect at zero. If the economy undergoes a recession during the next 2 or 4 years, or there is a major bungling of some international incident Bush is toast. The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job. The former is not under Bush’s control.  The economic cycle may nail him without mercy, as it did Carter – we shall see….. — — http://www.denninger.net    Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

With regards to Iraq, IMHO we should have stayed the hell out.  Kuwait simply wasn’t worth going to war over – they are not a democratic society, had no intention of becoming one, and really, in all truth, were not much of a friend to the United States.  We went in there because Saudi Arabia was *afraid* that Saddam would invade there NEXT – and that’s the truth.

There was no question…either Saudi Arabia or the UAE was his next stop. His goal was control of all the middle east oil. Kuwait by itself may not have been worth going to war over, but stopping Saddam in his tracks was. No amount of sugar-coated bullshit changes the historical truth about WHY we undertook that "quest" (and then fucked it up beyond reason when we quit without finishing the job, leaving Saddam there to piss many more tens of millions of our tax dollars down the chute for the next 10 years!)

We did finish the job we set out to do: stop Saddam. Whether or not we should have had a different goal–take out Saddam too–can be debated forever. The big fear was that committing to taking him out could have set up another Viet Nam situation, and no one was willing to risk that.   The bottom line is that if we’re going to play "national interest" cards then by God we ought to go over there and annex the fricking land as a US protectorate.  Then we can bitch when someone plays around in a way that we don’t like, because it <IS US territory.

It’s easy to play Wyatt Earp from an armchair…not so easy for those who know how the deck is stacked. But even the armchair critics knew that not all the Arab players wanted us there…and annexing any part of the middle east would NOT have been a politically OR economically smart move…remember, they control the oil. We did it right–we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and gave Kuwait back to the Kuwaitees…then got the hell out before we could piss off anybody else. The only alternative would have been to invade and take over the whole middle east and annex it…and I don’t THINK we could have done that, ‘cuz somebody else would have gotten it into on their side, and that would have been the start of WW III–nuclear style this time. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yeah, I know, we’re beholden to the almighty black gold.  And this is THEIR (the mid east nations) fault?  No, its ours.  We have alternatives available that we have refused to exercise, including biologically renewable fuels that will even burn in boat (and car) diesels, along with home heating and industrial plants (and which, by the way, are CO2 neutral due to their closed-cycle nature.)  We choose not to exploit them because its easier (and marginally cheaper at today’s prices) to swing our big dong around as the only remaining country with an army that can project power wherever and whenever we want. Powell was (and is) exactly right in his assessment. Unless there is a DIRECT threat to our nation we have no business doing anything military anywhere in the world.  "Protecting" Albanians (by blowing up their homes) because Madam Albright happens to have ETHNIC TIES to those people (rather than because there’s a legitimate reason to rain a few hundred million worth of cruise missles down on their cities) is horseshit.  In Rawanda, while we pissed and moaned about 3,000 Albanians who were brutally murdered (and ultimately went to war over it) there were a HALF MILLION people slaughtered under nearly identical circumstances WHILE WE SAT THERE AND LAUGHTED AT THEIR PLIGHT. That we have a representative republic does not give us license to FORCE that form of government on anyone else.  If you think we have that right, be aware that the sword of force cuts with two edges, and you are inviting others to try to undo what we have here. — — http://www.denninger.net        Cost-effective Consulting Solutions http://childrens-justice.org    SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY! GO HOME SORE LOSERMAN AND TAKE YOUR SAD SOCK PUPPETS WITH YOU! Boies – most overrated liar (and worst prognosticator) on the planet.

Response:

the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won

vs. Gore.  The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless.<< — Gould Right.  Irrelevant and immaterial.  Case dismissed.

Response:

Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president.

I think you’d better add up the electoral votes again…he won by a *1* vote margin. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four.

Maybe…maybe not. It depends on what’s going on in country and/or the world at the time. Bush Sr’s popularity right after the Gulf War was so high that if it had just happened a year later–in election year–he’d have beaten Clinton–or any other candidate–with a landslide. It just happened a year too early. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score. Last President to slide into office with such a small margin in the electoral college was Rutherford (aka Rutherfraud) Hayes. He greased through with a single electoral college vote. In reality this race might be as close, since there were fewer states when Hayes ran for (and was after a single term was run *from*) office. Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. You checked wrong, at least for President.  It won’t be that way until the Electoral College is abolished. Not one vote per acre. That’s actually closer to the truth.  The votes of people in less densly populated states (the ones with more acres per person) count more than in other states. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. If you want your vote to be weighted greater, move to those desert and plains states. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Not when it comes to the Presidential election. Steve Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

The latter I don’t expect, since Colin Powell will be the Secretary of State and he’s arguably the best person that anyone could choose for that job.

The best joke I heard this morning on the radio… Bush, Cheney and Powell, following the yellow brick road to Washington, DC, to meet the wizard who can grant them what they need most: Bush            a brain Cheney          a heart Powell          courage — Harry Krause As governor of Texas, I have set high standards for our public schools, and I have met those standards. -GW Bush

Response:

Steve I understand about the electoral college, really I do. The "one vote per acre" crack was intended as a rebuttal to the statistics that somebody asembled here about how many "counties" Bush won vs. Gore. The number of states, and the number of counties, and the size of the cattle herds in Bush country are meaningless. What counts is the electoral vote, and the folks who wave the map of all the less populated states and try to establish that this creates a strong mandate for Bush are incorrect. Bush won, sort of, the electoral college, (by a 4 vote margin) and is our next president. He’s no worse than the other choice and he *will* be gone in four. The fact that a lot of states where almost nobody lives voted for him is just a footnote and doesn’t affect the score. Last President to slide into office with such a small margin in the electoral college was Rutherford (aka Rutherfraud) Hayes. He greased through with a single electoral college vote. In reality this race might be as close, since there were fewer states when Hayes ran for (and was after a single term was run *from*) office. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. You checked wrong, at least for President.  It won’t be that way until the Electoral College is abolished. Not one vote per acre. That’s actually closer to the truth.  The votes of people in less densly populated states (the ones with more acres per person) count more than in other states. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. If you want your vote to be weighted greater, move to those desert and plains states. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Not when it comes to the Presidential election. Steve

Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas.

Suburbs went mostly for Bush.  It was the major metropolitan CITIES that Gore carried.

Response:

Last I checked, it seemed like the standard was one person, one vote. Not one vote per acre. There are places in the desert and plains states where entire counties might not have much more population than a square block of Manhattan. So what? Everybody is just as equally American as the next guy. (or gal) Chuck Gould Float and let float.

Response:

Depends on which suburbs in which cities. In most–if not all–cities, the suburbs range from blue collar to very affluent. The very affluent ones have the smallest populations–fewer affluent people, larger lots, bigger houses. Upper middle class suburbs have larger populations, but the majority of the suburbs are blue collar, middle class, lower middle class…and some are predominantly black/ethnic. In the industrialized north, that means a large number of union members…most of whom voted for Gore. I happen to live a large county that spans the whole gamut…affluent and upper middle class at the north end of it, just the opposite in the entire south end of it…mostly academics in the middle of it. Guess who carried it…it wasn’t Bush. In fact, my congresswoman is a black democrat who hasn’t even had a close race in at least 6 elections. Peggie – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas. Suburbs went mostly for Bush.  It was the major metropolitan CITIES that Gore carried.

Response:

Got this in e-mail: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

It makes for amusing reading, but all it really shows is that Gore carried the largest major cities–NY, Chicago, LA, Detroit, including the so-called "inner cities" where populations are the most dense and crime is the highest, and Bush carried the rest of the country. But that was kind of evident from the map showing which states went for which candidate. I like it though. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677

Bush carried all the flyover zones. Harry Krause I understand small business growth. I was one. -GW Bush

Response:

Amusing is right. You’re not accounting for the suburbs which comprise the majority population of most large metropolitan areas. Perhaps you can enlighten us to the corollaries you’ve drawn? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It makes for amusing reading, but all it really shows is that Gore carried the largest major cities–NY, Chicago, LA, Detroit, including the so-called "inner cities" where populations are the most dense and crime is the highest, and Bush carried the rest of the country. But that was kind of evident from the map showing which states went for which candidate. I like it though. Got this in e-mail: Counties won by Bush: 2,434 Counties won by Gore: 677 Population of counties won by Bush: 143 million Population of counties won by Gore: 127 million Square miles of country won by Bush: 2,427,000 Square miles of country won by Gore: 580,000 States won by Bush: 29 States won by Gore: 19 And now for the most remarkable finding…. Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Bush: 0.1 Average Murder per 100,000 residents in counties won by Gore: 13.2 The Federalist’s crack staff of researchers found one more interesting fact that might help explain these disparate murder rates. Gun ownership in the counties won by Mr. Bush is much higher than in the counties won by Mr. Gore! Considering the fact that the murder rate in "Gore Country" is 130 times higher than it is in "Bush Country," it comes as no surprise that the Miami Herald has found thus far, 445 votes from convicted felons in the Florida presidential election-almost all of them for Albert. (Undoubtedly, this is true for felons on death row….) Of note, the report only reviewed 8% of the state’s voting records. Project that finding on the total Florida vote and one might deduce that almost 5,000 felons illegally voted for Gore.

Response:

Question:

Ciao Amico o Amica, sono Uncino, ti chiedo se vorresti  dare uno sguardo al mio sito,  http://www.uncino1.it in modo di avere anche un tuo parere grazie, aspetto risposta saluti Uncino P.S.: se vuoi che la tua e-mail sia rimossa da  e cancellati, ti ringrazio, saluti Uncino

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Invisible personnel and life control surveillance system-Information webpage: http://pages.hotbot.com/health/alan.yu/ http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/ http://home.earthlink.net/~alanyu6/index.htm Can we believe what Al Gore says? Part Eight: Al Gore used to exaggerate his contribution (e.g. in creating the internet) in order to gain votes. In the third debate, Al Gore made more exaggerations. Here is another one. Al Gore said "For the last eight years, I have had the challenge of running the streamlining program called Reinventing Government. And if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means. The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people, and it’s now the smallest number that we have had since – the smallest in size since John Kennedy’s administration. During the last five years, Texas’ government has gone up in size. The federal government has gone down; Texas’ government has gone up." According to an ABC news report, Al Gore made the same claim on the first Presidential debate that "the Reinventing Government initiative he spearheaded decreased the number of federal bureaucrats by 300,000 during the eight years he’s served as vice president." According to news report from ABC NEWS.com on Oct. 6, 2000, most of that reduction–96%–came from shrinking the military after the Cold War, not from Gore’s program. "From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2000, the number of full-time, civilian federal employees dropped by approximately 282,000, from 2.14 million to 1.86 million, (But most of that reduction–96%–came from shrinking the military after the Cold War). According to OMB data. Of that, 271,000, or 96 percent, were the results of a decrease in the military’s civilian workforce." Furthermore, according to a Washington Post report, "much of that reduction –two-thirds–came from shrinking the military after the Cold War, not from Gore’s program" The above information proves that Al Gore exaggerated his contribution in the Presidential debates in order to gain votes. Gore also said, "The federal government has gone down; Texas’s government has gone up."  However, according to the Washington Post report, "the increase in Texas’s government was minimal, especially considering that Texas’s population was growing. The number of Texas state employees has grown about 2.3 percent in the five years Bush has been governor, according to state records." AI Gore’s exaggerated debate style might easily convince the audience that he is a good debater, but a good debater (as a orators) doesn’t equal a good President. However, since Al Gore frequently exaggerates his contribution in Presidential debates to gain votes, he could become worse if he is really elected to be the President. (attachment)-ABCNews & Washington Post 1. ABCNEWS.com on Oct. 6, 2000    More Fuzzy Math? End of Cold War – Not Gore – Responsible for Workforce Reduction By David Ruppe Oct. 6- Al Gore claimed during Tuesday’s presidential debate that the "Reinventing Government" initiative he spearheaded decreased the number of federal bureaucrats by 300,000 during the eight years he’s served as vice president. But a look at federal workforce numbers prepared annually by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which supervises the administration of government agencies, tells a different story. The end of the Cold War, it turns out, and not Gore’s initiative, has probably had more to do with the scale-back than anything he had done. Military Scaled Back Almost all of the net federal workforce reduction from 1993 to 2000 occurred in the Defense Department, according to OMB and Pentagon figures – just as the U.S. military was massively scaling back its personnel from Cold War levels. From fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 2000, the number of full-time, civilian federal employees dropped by approximately 282,000, from 2.14 million to 1.86 million, (But much of that reduction–96%–came from shrinking the military after the Cold War, not from Gore’s program.) according to OMB data. Of that, 271,000, or 96 percent, were the results of a decrease in the military’s civilian workforce. The White House says the Pentagon cutbacks, which began under President Bush, accounted for about 80 percent of net cuts in federal jobs under the Clinton administration. As Department of Defense non-civilian personnel were cut by more than 700,000, the size of the civilian force that supported them was also cut, says a Republican Senate defense staffer. Vice President Gore’s claim to have reduced the federal bureaucracy by 300,000 is dependant on cuts in [the defense department] that very clearly had little, if anything, to do with Vice President Gore’s ‘Reinventing Government,’ " he says. 2. Washington Post on Wednesday, October 18, 2000; Page A15 Debaters’ Messages: Not the Whole Truth By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer ….. Gore, meanwhile, bragged that he headed the reinventing-government initiative, making it sound as though that effort was responsible for decreasing the federal work force by more than 300,000 people. But much of that reduction–two-thirds–came from shrinking the military after the Cold War, not from Gore’s program. Then, Gore asserted, "The federal government has gone down; Texas’s government has gone up." Gore was right, but the increase was minimal, especially considering that Texas’s population was growing. The number of Texas state employees has grown about 2.3 percent in the five years Bush has been governor, according to state records. =======

Response:

Invisible personnel and life control surveillance system-Information webpage: http://pages.hotbot.com/health/alan.yu/ http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/ http://home.earthlink.net/~alanyu6/index.htm Can we believe what Al Gore says? Part eight: Al Gore used to exaggerate his contribution (e.g. in creating the internet) in order to gain votes. In the third debate, Al Gore made more exaggerations. Here is another one. Al Gore said "For the last eight years, I have had the challenge of running the streamlining program called Reinventing Government. And if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means.   The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people, and it’s now the smallest number that we have had since – the smallest in size since John Kennedy’s administration. During the last five years, Texas’ government has gone up in size. The federal government has gone down; Texas’ government has gone up." According to an ABC news report, Al Gore made the same claim on the first Presidential debate that "the Reinventing Government initiative he spearheaded decreased the number of federal bureaucrats by 300,000 during the eight years he

Question:

Do a quick search for the Screen Actors Guild web page.  All the info you could want is there. Joe – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello, I am new to this, and I saw several posts.  I’m afraid I’m not current with the times…  I do know there is a Strike going on, but what was the reason?  How long has it been going on? I understand it’s impact is taking a serious toll on Talent Agencies in LA as well as the Editing studios and etc… Does anyone see an end to this soon?  I am currently in Cleveland, and there’s not much of a market here.  I would like to get to LA but I was told to hold out for a while longer.  Any advice? -Steve

Response:

The Facts S.A.G./A.F.T.R.A. wants actors to receive "Pay-Per-Play" for broadcast network and cable network commercial usage. Pay-Per-Play means an advertiser pays an actor each time a commercial airs. Pay-Per-Play is the only system that fairly compensates actors in accordance to their actual exposure. When an advertiser chooses to use a commercial many times, the actor in the commercial becomes over-exposed, her image indelibly linked with the product being sold. Given the actor’s strong association with the product, other advertisers refuse to cast her. The greater the over-exposure, the longer the unemployment. Pay-Per-Play means advertisers only pay for actual usage of a commercial. Flat fees force smaller advertisers to pay a premium when a commercial only airs a few times. $4,200 for "one day’s work" is a lie. Under the advertisers’ last offer, an actor is only guaranteed $500, the amount paid to perform in a commercial. If the commercial does not play or is "held"-a common occurrence-the actor receives no additional money in the first cycle. The actor is also contractually barred from appearing in any other commercial selling a competing product. If the commercial does play on broadcast network television, the $500 already paid to the actor is applied to the $2,575 flat fee. This means the actor really only receives a $2,075 payment for unlimited use. If the commercial plays on a cable network, the maximum the actor can earn is $1,627. If commercial airs on a limited number of major cable networks, the actor would receive far less. The only people earning a guaranteed $4,202 a day are the attorneys negotiating on behalf of advertisers. Based upon data just released by McCann-Erickson Worldwide, Actor payments now make up less than 1 % of the total cost to produce and air commercials. Currently actors earn a maximum of $11 a day for unlimited use of a commercial on cable television. Advertisers claim the S.A.G./A.F.T.R.A. cable proposal amounts to a 350% increase. Even if the advertisers’ unproven allegation were true, an actor would earn $38.50 a day for unlimited cable usage of a commercial– Less than the minimum wage. Advertisers say they are offering a 60% increase in cable residual rates. Their latest offer is only an 11% increase. $29 million dollars of the "60% cable increase" comes from a $29 million decrease in broadcast network payments. S.A.G./A.F.T.R.A. wants Internet usage included in the commercial contract. Advertisers say they don’t have the authority to include Internet usage in the commercial contract even though they’ve already spent millions buying and creating Internet-only advertising agencies. Advertisers refuse to provide accurate monitoring records of commercial usage. They demand we trust them. A S.A.G. monitoring study of 38 commercials uncovered over $110,000 in unpaid wages. The study reveals actors can’t afford to trust advertisers. Advertisers say the pay-per-play system is flawed because networks are capturing only 50% of all television viewers as compared to 90% in 1970. They fail to mention that the number of total television viewers has grown by 66% in the last thirty years Network is just as valuable today as it ever was. And, since cable now delivers nearly the same share as the big six networks, it deserves the same payment system. Despite the notion that actors earn millions – 80% of S.A.G. members earn less than $5000 a year. Advertising revenues are up dramatically. According to Advertising Age, total gross income for the top 500 U.S. based ad agencies increased by over 22% in 1999. Additionally, an accounting by the Cabletelevision Advertising Bureau revealed a 33% gain in cable ad billings to over $10,000,000,000 ($10 billion.)

Response:

Hello, I am new to this, and I saw several posts.  I’m afraid I’m not current with the times…  I do know there is a Strike going on, but what was the reason?  How long has it been going on? I understand it’s impact is taking a serious toll on Talent Agencies in LA as well as the Editing studios and etc… Does anyone see an end to this soon?  I am currently in Cleveland, and there’s not much of a market here.  I would like to get to LA but I was told to hold out for a while longer.  Any advice? -Steve

Response:

Question:

*Sometimes??? LOL….. i’m a bean counter, words are always getting me into *trouble! Q. Know how many accountants it takes to change a lightbulb? A. What sort of answer did you have in mind? <s *aaahhh, a challenge…… ok, a keen obsever of the beauty of life outdoors? From my easy chair, sure.  I like to look out the window – when there’s nothing good on tv.

Don’t bother Gene, it’s crappy today. Stick with the TV. IT’S crappy too, but at least you expect that Beav

Response:

*eh….. Don’t you just hate that sometimes?

Sometimes??? LOL….. i’m a bean counter, words are always getting me into trouble! *Gene, you might want to try activity instead of that vile E word <vbg That’s what everyone keeps telling me.  Problem is, I don’t WANT to try activity!

aaahhh, a challenge…… ok, a keen obsever of the beauty of life outdoors? Peanut free, and proud to be! Be well, travel with a light heart and and good control. Gene Goldman  (drinking Aspertame-laden soft drinks with reckless abandon) Type 2, Diet & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Does Diabetes cause Aspertame?  Stay tuned to this ng for up-to-the-minute details. Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request

advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap! And in case I don’t see ya’ – Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!

and Good Luck! — k t1 13 yrs now sending as Tiger Lily

Response:

*Sometimes??? LOL….. i’m a bean counter, words are always getting me into *trouble! Q. Know how many accountants it takes to change a lightbulb? A. What sort of answer did you have in mind? <s *aaahhh, a challenge…… ok, a keen obsever of the beauty of life outdoors? From my easy chair, sure.  I like to look out the window – when there’s nothing good on tv. Peanut free, and proud to be!   Be well, travel with a light heart and and good control. Gene Goldman  (drinking Aspertame-laden soft drinks with reckless abandon) Type 2, Diet & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Does Diabetes cause Aspertame?  Stay tuned to this ng for up-to-the-minute details. Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap! And in case I don’t see ya’ – Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!

Response:

Gene, my brothers 1…. mathematician and chem engineer                              2….. oilfield something engineer and systems mgr both have another version of that joke!!! LOL….. answer being……. what would YOU like it to be? — k t1 13 yrs now sending as Tiger Lily

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *Sometimes??? LOL….. i’m a bean counter, words are always getting me into *trouble! Q. Know how many accountants it takes to change a lightbulb? A. What sort of answer did you have in mind? <s *aaahhh, a challenge…… ok, a keen obsever of the beauty of life outdoors? From my easy chair, sure.  I like to look out the window – when there’s nothing good on tv. Peanut free, and proud to be! Be well, travel with a light heart and and good control. Gene Goldman  (drinking Aspertame-laden soft drinks with reckless abandon) Type 2, Diet & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Does Diabetes cause Aspertame?  Stay tuned to this ng for up-to-the-minute details. Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request

advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And in case I don’t see ya’ – Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!

Response:

*eh….. Don’t you just hate that sometimes? *Gene, you might want to try activity instead of that vile E word <vbg That’s what everyone keeps telling me.  Problem is, I don’t WANT to try activity!   Peanut free, and proud to be!   Be well, travel with a light heart and and good control. Gene Goldman  (drinking Aspertame-laden soft drinks with reckless abandon) Type 2, Diet & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Does Diabetes cause Aspertame?  Stay tuned to this ng for up-to-the-minute details. Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap! And in case I don’t see ya’ – Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!

Response:

Ok everybody.  After several comments on my sig line, and my inconsiderate focus on only one aspect of diabetes, I have modified my sig to accomodate everyone here – I hope.  Please forgive my previous lack of concern, but understand that I am euphamistically impared. I welcome your comments, and will consider future adjustments. Be well, travel with a light heart and good control. Gene Goldman   Type 2, Diet, Aspertame & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap!

Response:

eh….. Gene, you might want to try activity instead of that vile E word <vbg — k t1 13 yrs now sending as Tiger Lily

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ok everybody.  After several comments on my sig line, and my inconsiderate focus on only one aspect of diabetes, I have modified my sig to accomodate everyone here – I hope.  Please forgive my previous lack of concern, but understand that I am euphamistically impared. I welcome your comments, and will consider future adjustments. Be well, travel with a light heart and good control. Gene Goldman Type 2, Diet, Aspertame & [insert that vile "E" word here] – so far, so what Anyone inferring from my posting a Usenet message that I thereby request

advertisements, spam, or unsolicited offers for goods or services will be invoiced for my usual and customary consulting fees, and I do NOT come cheap!

Response:

Question:

Much is said about the many lenses that go on Leica.  Are they all THAT good? Which ones are just OK?  Is their collectability that makes the prices so high, or do they all perform so astoundingly. I hear a lot about "flare free contrast" (veiling glare) and sharpness, but some Leica lenses are not even coated.  Many are not all that fast (f3.5, 2.8). I apologize for doubting, but I want to know more.   Thank you – – TW

Response:

Leica Facts: 1. Leica doens’t produce ANY of its compact cameras. All compact cameras are produced by Matsushita (Parent Comp. of Panasonic, Quasar etc) for Leica. 2. Leica outsources mechanical components from Uwe Weller Feinwerktechnic (Germany) and Minolta. 3. Leica outsources optical subassemblies from Kyocera/Contax and Hughes Elcan Optical Technologies (Canada). 4. Leica outcources lens elements from Minolta and raw class from Hoya. 5. Leica doesn’t really manufacture–they mostly do R&D and assembly. 6. Parts are produced by contracted suppliers above to Leica’s specs. 7. Leica holds more than 50 lens-related patents. 8. Leica develops their own glass melting  and lens coating formulae. 9. Leica lenses are among the best available. 10. Leica is NOT an optics specialist like Schneider or Zeiss.     Zeiss:         – is a non-profit company–income is used to fund researches and employee benefits.         – holds rights to the Contax name and liscences the name to Kyocera of Japan.         – owns Schott, the legendary raw glass supplier to Zeiss/Contax, Schneider/B+W, and Heliopan         – is recognized as the undisputable leader in optical technology (at least outside the photographic community…)         – is responsible for numerous innovations in optics of the past 150 years         – produces everything from binoculars to million-dollar optical instruments         – lenses are among the best available. Now, I don’t know how good Leica lenses are compared to other manufacturers’–I haven’t done any formal testing myself, neither have I come across any scientific evidence. But as good as Leica lenses may be, I doubt that they are much better, if at all, than Zeiss/Contax lenses. Personally, I think Leica lenses are grossly overpriced compared to Zeiss/Contax lenses. (I do like their bodies…) Leica has produced some of the finest cameras and lenses and is deserving of the highest respect. But their products have often been overrated. Leica is a religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Much is said about the many lenses that go on Leica.  Are they all THAT good? Which ones are just OK?  Is their collectability that makes the prices so high, or do they all perform so astoundingly. I hear a lot about "flare free contrast" (veiling glare) and sharpness, but some Leica lenses are not even coated.  Many are not all that fast (f3.5, 2.8). I apologize for doubting, but I want to know more.   Thank you – – TW

Response:

BTW, most of the M Lenses are not color corrected. Leica is working on replacing all these lenses. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Much is said about the many lenses that go on Leica.  Are they all THAT good? Which ones are just OK?  Is their collectability that makes the prices so high, or do they all perform so astoundingly. I hear a lot about "flare free contrast" (veiling glare) and sharpness, but some Leica lenses are not even coated.  Many are not all that fast (f3.5, 2.8). I apologize for doubting, but I want to know more.   Thank you – – TW

Response:

Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

Most of the information on Leica was obtained from a research report published by Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co. (I believe they are the underwriter for Leica.) The report was published in June 97. "We believe Leica will introduce new, color-corrected lenses. Color correction is achieved through the use of special lens elements… Most lenses in the Leica M system are not color corrected." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

Much is said about the many lenses that go on Leica.  Are they all THAT good?

   No. However, few if any of them are downright terrible, either. Which ones are just OK?  Is their collectability that makes the prices so high, or do they all perform so astoundingly.

   Some are high priced because of rarity. Examples are the 90mm f/2 Thambar and 105mm "Mountain" Elmar. Many Leica lenses on the used market are quite reasonably priced, given their quality, at least if you shop around. In general, the newer the lens, the better it will perform on any quantitative test, like resolution, edge sharpness, and the like, and also, generally, the more it will cost. This is not to say that the older lenses are godawful or that some people don’t prefer their look to that of their modern counterparts. I hear a lot about "flare free contrast" (veiling glare) and sharpness, but some Leica lenses are not even coated.

   None of my Leica lenses is "flare free." I can produce pictures to prove it. AFAIK, all post-War Leica lenses have been coated; some pre-War lenses were coated from the factory, and many that were not have been coated subsequently. Remember that before WWII, Zeiss held the patent for lens coating as we use the term today, and few if any other manufacturers made coated lenses before the end of WWII. Many are not all that fast (f3.5, 2.8).

   True enough, but there are two other points. First, they are all sharp enough to use wide open. Second, and equally important, the RF Leicas do not have a mirror flopping around in them like an SLR and one can EASILY hand-hold a Leica at shutter speeds 1-2 stops slower than one can an SLR with an equal amount of camera shake in the pictures. Because of that, the lenses don’t need to be that fast. I’m a big fan of "available darkness" photography, and so far haven’t found the speed of the lenses limiting. The fastest lens I own is a 50mm f/2 DR Summicron, not exactly super fast by today’s standards. Leica also makes a 50mm f/1.0 lens, if you really need speed (and have a fat bank account). I apologize for doubting, but I want to know more.  

   No need for apology. I’ve been called Thomas, too.    Seriously, there have been NUMEROUS, seemingly endless threads here on Leica lens quality or lack thereof and value for dollar vs. that of every other camera maker in the universe. Do a search on Deja-News and read them.    These opinions are my own, not those of the Library of Congress. The return address in the header is intentionally invalid. Use the address below instead.                                                 Howard Sanner

Response:

Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information. Most of the information on Leica was obtained from a research report published by Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co. (I believe they are the underwriter for Leica.) The report was published in June 97. "We believe Leica will introduce new, color-corrected lenses. Color correction is achieved through the use of special lens elements… Most lenses in the Leica M system are not color corrected."

To give Schroder et. al. the benefit of the doubt, them being just poor accountants, and allowing for the usual language translation snafus it may be that Schroder & Co. are saying that the lenses are not Apo’s – which they aren’t.  Most 35mm lenses aren’t, though apochromatic correction is quite common in modern view camera lenses. Now, the performance of a Rodenstock Apo-Sironar S mixed with the performance of a modern Summicron, and constructed using aspherical elements – now that makes my mouth water.                                         Nick Lindan

Response:

You see, I think it makes perfect sense for people to buy Leica for qualities such as the solid feel, the heritage, or even the look, we buy Swiss watches for the same reasons. I just don’t think that one should expect groundbreaking optics simply because it’s Leica.

Agreed.  They are as much works of art as cameras.  And as works of art they last – The M3 was introduced in ‘53 and is still going strong and considered a working camera 45 years later.                                         Nick Lindan

Response:

You see, I think it makes perfect sense for people to buy Leica for qualities such as the solid feel, the heritage, or even the look–we buy Swiss watches for the same reasons. I just don’t think that one should expect groundbreaking optics simply because it’s Leica.

 As a matter of fact, you can expect groundbreaking optics from leica… Just check out their newest designs for the M series. The 35mm f2 and f1.4 are extraordinary, even wide open. They exhibit incredible flatness of field and resolution WIDE OPEN! There are many lenses that won’t look as good stopped down. The 50mm f1 is an amazing lens, you can get results that are literally impossible to get with any other lens (with the possible exception of the Conon f1…but I have never heard anything about its performance…). The new 135 f3,4 APO is also an amazing performer throughout the range, even wide open. I am of the opinion that what makes Leica lenses so special (at least the newer designs) is that they are a complete package. They are plenty sharp, contrasty, wonderful color reproduction (despite the nebulous claims of accountants…), great out of foucus rendition, are small, and are as well built as can be. They are also easily the best lenses when used wide open (shoot with the 50 f2 summicron and the Zeiss 45 f2 wide open…the difference is not subtle. Sharpness may be comparable, but the Leica retains much more contrast. The Zeiss gets better as you stop down, and it is a wonderful lens, but not wide open…). The only potential drawback is the price…:-) But hey, if you want the best, it costs…I never mentioned the word "value"… Isaac

Response:

HUH? First of all, I cannot believe that you’d trust a bunch of accountants in regards to optical matters. Second of all, what does "color corrected" mean? I have a feeling that if you asked them, they wouldn’t know. Funny how in all of the years Leica has been making lenses (and being tested BTW), NOBODY has pointed out the fact that the lenses weren’t "color corrected".      The reason for this is simple, "color corrected" doesn’t really mean anything at all when used in conjunction with a lens. Corrected for what? To what standard? What are the cut offs of the different frequencies of light and in what proportion do they have to mix to be "color corrected"? You see, a lens (for pictoral use) has to transmit ALL frequencies of visable light. There hasn’t been a lens made within the last 45 years from ANY of the major manufacturers that had color transmisson problems (none that I’ve heard of at least). At the same time, none of the major manufactures have ever made "color corrected" lenses either…hmmm kinda makes you think…     You mentioned that someone was going to look like a fool, well, I’m prepared to risk that…I am asking you to tell me what "color corrected" means, and who it is that makes lenses that are. It’s very easy to throw some jargon out there to impress people (it appearently impressed you), but quite a different matter to give us an intelligent explanation. I am well aware that you have never shot with Leica lenses, new or old, or else you’d never take such weird information as gospel. I agree with another poster that what was probobly meant was that the lenses are not apochromaticaly corrected. Not only does this not have a lot to do with color reproduction, it is  also not necessary for most lens designs (it really only makes a visable difference with longer telephoto designs, and the "M" series only has two longer tele’s…a 135 and a 90…oops, they’re both APO lenses!).     I guess the bottom line is that I would trust the report you cited if I were thinking of buying stocks (I hope they have more relevent info in it than what you have quoted), but I would NEVER, under any circumstances care what they said about lens design… Hoping to hear back Isaac Most of the information on Leica was obtained from a research report published by Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co. (I believe they are the underwriter for Leica.) The report was published in June 97. "We believe Leica will introduce new, color-corrected lenses. Color correction is achieved through the use of special lens elements… Most lenses in the Leica M system are not color corrected."

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

BTW, most of the M Lenses are not color corrected. Leica is working on replacing all these lenses.

post……

Response:

Much is said about the many lenses that go on Leica.  Are they all THAT good? Which ones are just OK?  Is their collectability that makes the prices so high, or do they all perform so astoundingly.

That depends on what you think is good.. If you want flat 2 dimensional pics, the newer Japanese lens will do fine for you.. But if you want a more realistic look to your photos, the Leica glass is just the ticket.. Many Leica lens are priced well within anybodys price range but the collectable lens are high priced….. I hear a lot about "flare free contrast" (veiling glare) and sharpness, but some Leica lenses are not even coated.  Many are not all that fast (f3.5, 2.8).

The design of these lens is the reason many are a bit slow.. Leica purposely left in some abberations and a slight bit of coma to give the overall picture rendition a more realistic look (more like what the human eye sees) which makes some lens a bit soft wide open.. Stop down 1 or 2 stops and they come alive… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I apologize for doubting, but I want to know more.   Thank you – – TW

Response:

Most lenses in the Leica M system are not color corrected."

 Absolutely not true… Even the uncoated lens reproduce colors as good as any other lens new or old…….

Response:

post……

Call it BS all you want. I have quoted my source, and you can verify the information if you’re doubtful. The report was published by a well established research firm in a regulated industry through a regulated disclosure system. Go ahead and prove them wrong, expert. I challenge you to. Go to www.firstcall.com or call the firm directly. Tel: 49692179 And when you know you’re wrong, don’t forget to remind yourself what a pathetic moron you’ve made yourself look like.

Response:

I still like that M-6 and the beautifully made compact lenses with their big openings that go on it. I feel I wont rest till I own one.

Response:

You see, I think it makes perfect sense for people to buy Leica for qualities such as the solid feel, the heritage, or even the look–we buy Swiss watches for the same reasons. I just don’t think that one should expect groundbreaking optics simply because it’s Leica. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I still like that M-6 and the beautifully made compact lenses with their big openings that go on it. I feel I wont rest till I own one.

Response:

See the thread: Leica lenses not color-corrected – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

post…… Call it BS all you want. I have quoted my source, and you can verify the information if you’re doubtful. The report was published by a well established research firm in a regulated industry through a regulated disclosure system. Go ahead and prove them wrong, expert.

Research firms are like opinion polls, useless…… They take people who don’t know the first thing about what they are researching and paid useless suit and tie, why not try out these optics you claim are poor quality….. You might be surprised.. I have found that people who knock equiptment whether it be Leica, Nikon, Canon, or whatever piece of equiptment, are nothing more than wannabes….or are I challenge you to. Go to www.firstcall.com or call the firm directly.

Tel: 49692179 And when you know you’re wrong, don’t forget to remind yourself what a pathetic moron you’ve made yourself look like.

I know I am not wrong since I have used Leica cameras and optics for over 30 years and have outstanding color prints and slides to back up my claim. But then, why am I wasting my time with someone who prefers to call people names…… I don’t know any morons personally or on this group……

Response:

You see, I think it makes perfect sense for people to buy Leica for qualities such as the solid feel, the heritage, or even the look–we buy Swiss watches for the same reasons. I just don’t think that one should expect groundbreaking optics simply because it’s Leica.

Response:

And as works of art they last – The M3 was introduced in ‘53 and is still going strong and considered a working camera 45 years later.                                    Nick Lindan

I have 2 M3’s that I bought in 1968. I used them through Vietnam as well as various places such as Africa, Granada, and Asia.. and they are still working fine even after having only 3 CLA’s since 68…… and 1 shutter curtain patch….

Response:

I don’t think it’s necessary to be defensive (or offensive) about Leica equipment. It doesn’t matter what people say or think. The bottom line is the quality of the photographs. Richard

Response:

the "M" series only has two longer tele’s…a 135 and a 90…oops, they’re both APO lenses!).

 You forgot the 180mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4.5 and f/4, 280mm f/4.8, 400mm f/5 and f/5.6 and f/6.8, 560mm f/5.6 and f/6.8, and 800mm f/6.3.. all made for the Leica M series and will also work on the screwmount Leicas….. True, they are no longer made but they’re still around.. including examples in my gear….. Of the above mentioned lens, only the 200mm f/4.5 is uncoated…… and they all perform flawlessly…..

Response:

Maybe they aren’t "color corrected" because theres nothing to "correct" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – See the thread: Leica lenses not color-corrected Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

Research firms are like opinion polls, useless…… They take people who don’t know the first thing about what they are researching and

Please do not comment when you know nothing about this company. The company’s an underwriter for Leica. This company helps Leica finance operations through stock/debt issues. They talk to Leica’s top management directly on a day-to-day basis, and their businesses rely on each other’s. What makes you think you know better than them? Instead of taking the word of a high paid useless suit and tie, why not try out these optics you claim are poor quality…..

Never did I say Leica’s optics are of poor quality. Go back and read the posts, please. or are

Envy? The four 17-inch wheels on my BMW are worth about a good Leica… I know I am not wrong since I have used Leica cameras and optics for over 30 years and have outstanding color prints and slides to back up my claim. But then, why am I wasting my time with someone who prefers to call people names…… I don’t know any morons personally or on this group……

Sure and that makes you an unbiased, scientific expert on optics and your words the bible…;-) You know some people swear that they get better sound with their sound systems if they first stew the interconnect cables? I’m sure they think they’re not wrong, too. There are too many factors that can steer one’s perception; cognitive dissonance is one of them. I appolgize for calling you what I did–I never called people names on this NG. But please do not call people’s information "a crock of BS" in any case.

Response:

They are NOT accountants. These analysts are people who have technical expertise in the subject matter and are hired to followed the companies. They get prosecuted by securities commissions if they publish faulty information. The report has a few pages on the various aspects of lens design. Beleive me they know what they’re writing. These companies hire Metals and Materials Engineering Ph.Ds to follow mining companies for god sake. BTW, Canon’s Lens Work II has information on lens color correction and ISO recommended values… (page 200) The reference is the original subject within limits of the ISO recommended "CCI" (color shift) values as the book points out. No I haven’t shot with Leicas–this I had pointed out. And I don’t exclude the possibility of buying a Leica system, which I have thought about. But when I do, the decision will not be due to "knowledge of superior image quality", which many people claim to have.  Rather it will be on the basis on other wonderful qualities of the system. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – HUH? First of all, I cannot believe that you’d trust a bunch of accountants in regards to optical matters. Second of all, what does "color corrected" mean? I have a feeling that if you asked them, they wouldn’t know. Funny how in all of the years Leica has been making lenses (and being tested BTW), NOBODY has pointed out the fact that the lenses weren’t "color corrected".      The reason for this is simple, "color corrected" doesn’t really mean anything at all when used in conjunction with a lens. Corrected for what? To what standard? What are the cut offs of the different frequencies of light and in what proportion do they have to mix to be "color corrected"? You see, a lens (for pictoral use) has to transmit ALL frequencies of visable light. There hasn’t been a lens made within the last 45 years from ANY of the major manufacturers that had color transmisson problems (none that I’ve heard of at least). At the same time, none of the major manufactures have ever made "color corrected" lenses either…hmmm kinda makes you think…     You mentioned that someone was going to look like a fool, well, I’m prepared to risk that…I am asking you to tell me what "color corrected" means, and who it is that makes lenses that are. It’s very easy to throw some jargon out there to impress people (it appearently impressed you), but quite a different matter to give us an intelligent explanation. I am well aware that you have never shot with Leica lenses, new or old, or else you’d never take such weird information as gospel. I agree with another poster that what was probobly meant was that the lenses are not apochromaticaly corrected. Not only does this not have a lot to do with color reproduction, it is  also not necessary for most lens designs (it really only makes a visable difference with longer telephoto designs, and the "M" series only has two longer tele’s…a 135 and a 90…oops, they’re both APO lenses!).     I guess the bottom line is that I would trust the report you cited if I were thinking of buying stocks (I hope they have more relevent info in it than what you have quoted), but I would NEVER, under any circumstances care what they said about lens design… Hoping to hear back Isaac Most of the information on Leica was obtained from a research report published by Schroder Munchmeyer Hengst & Co. (I believe they are the underwriter for Leica.) The report was published in June 97. "We believe Leica will introduce new, color-corrected lenses. Color correction is achieved through the use of special lens elements… Most lenses in the Leica M system are not color corrected." Leica M lenses not color corrected???? Please state the source of that information.

Response:

Question:

My brothers & I have a small CNC machining company (100% job shop) and we use peachtree for the normal expected accounting/payroll chores.   I have job costing setup for us to track profitability of each job we do however I have a problem when it comes to tracking direct labor costs. Since my brothers & I are all owners and have decided to be salaried employees, it seems to be a problem to record hours time tickets on time tickets and to know what hourly rate should be used for calculating actual labor cost on the jobs.  Since we pay each week a fixed amount and don’t always work the same total hours for each week, it seems like our hourly wage would change from week to week.   How can I use time tickets to record time and calculate actual labor costs when the employees are salaried? Thanks, tom

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My brothers & I have a small CNC machining company (100% job shop) and we use peachtree for the normal expected accounting/payroll chores. I have job costing setup for us to track profitability of each job we do however I have a problem when it comes to tracking direct labor costs. Since my brothers & I are all owners and have decided to be salaried employees, it seems to be a problem to record hours time tickets on time tickets and to know what hourly rate should be used for calculating actual labor cost on the jobs.  Since we pay each week a fixed amount and don’t always work the same total hours for each week, it seems like our hourly wage would change from week to week. How can I use time tickets to record time and calculate actual labor costs when the employees are salaried? Thanks, tom

For my costuction clients I set up a job called "small jobs and Repairs", "VaCATION AND SICK"         post the non job hours to these or similar jobs — Frederick E. Jorden http://fejcpapc.com/ Frederick E. Jorden, CPA PC (804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

Response:

Question:

 Anyone familiar with the new regulatory proposal for the practice of accounting?  apparently it sets out to add more regulation to the practice of accounting (we really need this!) and who can call themselves accountants.  at a professional meeting today, I heard a lot of people (non-cpa accountants) state how it will negatively affect our practices, and I was wondering if anyone aside from big 6 accounting firms are in favor of it. your input is greatly appreciated since it seems that we are going to be asked to generate a grass roots opposition to this proposal. Thanks, Mike Feraci, EA

Response:

 Anyone familiar with the new regulatory proposal for the practice of accounting?  apparently it sets out to add more regulation to the practice of accounting (we really need this!) and who can call themselves accountants.  at a professional meeting today, I heard a lot of people (non-cpa accountants) state how it will negatively affect our practices, and I was wondering if anyone aside from big 6   accounting firms are in favor of it. your input is greatly appreciated since it seems that we are going to be asked to generate a grass roots opposition to this proposal.

I don’t think this affects financial statements prepared "for management purposes only"  Is this part of the American Express/ CPA controversy? I see Amer Express TV ads extolling the virtues of having a CPA on staff for lending, taxes, bookkeeping, etc.

Response: