Where is all the calamity from canada, japan and states Fiscal rollover 4-1-99??

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I am sick and tired of all the doomsayage! April 1, 1999 was supposed to be a big deal for Canada, Japan, New york due to fiscal rollover! Not a single story of any problems even on the doom and gloomers sites! Thats real nice! You go out there "blessing" each other and scaring the hell out old people and for what? NOTHING happens. I knew it was a scam all along. I hope everyone enjoys their spam and pablum! What a joke!

-- Mark (mrk298@aol.com), April 02, 1999


As has been stated on numerous threads, fiscal year events are fairly tricky to monitor. If a system did fail, it would most likely be a system to print out a report. These are interior to the various government offices. Unless you have a cousin in the treasurer's office, you would not find out about it. For all we know, they have dozens of geeks working right now trying to find quick work arounds. Or maybe all is well. The point is, we would not know.

As has been pointed out over a dozen times, April 1, 1999 is the start of fiscal year 1999 for Japan. So don't expect anything from Japan.

One possible problem is if New York State or Canada (or the United Kingdom on 4/6/99, their fiscal year 2000 start)started canceling contracts with outside companies. This is quite unlikely, but if it did happen, people would be talking quite publicly to the press.

Lets all calm down and sit down and watch the show. This is not a movie where the explosions, fireworks, and special effects all happen in the first hour of the movie. This story will unfold very slowly over the next year. If you do not have the patience to deal with this, why don't you spend your time doing something else to give you quick gratification. Rent some porno tapes. Become a day trader. Get a job. Just let events unfold at their own rate so we can use this forum for constructive purposes. Like speculating on the end of the world.

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), April 02, 1999.

Show me one geek who predicted "calamity" on April 1. Its called Y2K for a reason.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 02, 1999.

"Show me one geek who predicted "calamity" on April 1. Its called Y2K for a reason.

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), April 02, 1999. "

heh, heh, heh....

"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Y.

see fo' yo' sef!

-- Geek Spotter (3457897@0987435239.23490587), April 02, 1999.

BTW - do you really think no one has noticed how the day for problems keeps getting pushed back? 9/1/98, 9/9/98, 11/1/98, 11/11/98, 1/1/99,the EURO introduction, the airline booking date - now we are up to the first of April and it seems everyone here has backed off to 7/1/99. Hey, cmon now, set a date for trouble and stick to it. And no fair trying to blow up teeny crap - major trouble means AT LEAST some entity had to shut down for at least FIVE DAYS - one working week to be MAJOR TROUBLE. Crap, I have seen computer glitches shut down offices for two to three days - just common software or hardware trouble. Shut down the boatyard here for 22hrs 50min just last week. That was trouble for me with a capitol T - but we aren't on the street selling apples yet!

What a load of dung-eating hypocrites you GIs are. We have been lectured for months (by you) about how important April 1 was to be in the breakdown of society. "The code is broken - it can't be fixed"

And all you can find is one line buried in a long E.Y. essay to prove your point? Hell, someone found a post that Charlie Rueben made about recomending buying gold, but the whining from you pollys then was "but that was so long ago"!

Tell us how one little snippet equates to "being lectured for months" or predicting that "9/1/98, 9/9/98, 11/1/98, 11/11/98, 1/1/99,the EURO introduction, the airline booking date" would shut down corporations for at least a week?

-- Arachnid (arachnid@spider.web), April 02, 1999.

I didn't expect for their to be any evidence of failure because of the fiscal rollover dead on the 1st of April. It probably won't be until after easter or the week after that we may start getting reports if problems did/are occuring owing to the rollover.

So it didn't surprise me when we did not hear anything, if we don't hear anything in the next few weeks then I will be surprised, and it would be a good sign. However the 01/01/2000 will be a different ballgame because that can potentially affect everything where as 04/01/1999 is primarily an accounting/prediction/looking forward event.

Regards, Simon

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), April 02, 1999.

Come on Mark. Don't sit on the edge of your seat looking for calamity to happen at these dates. The problems may or may not be occurring. Theoretically, they are probable unless complete or near complete remediation was accomplished. But when we will see evidence of them in the news media is inknown. Keep in mind that government sources themselves still place great risk on the supplies of oil and water and these risks may not play out until next year. Remember also that even if all government "mission-critical" systems get fixed, this doesn't mean that they other non-remediated 70,000 systems (or whatever) are not going to disrupt services. The risk is there and it's potentially severe. Someone used the analogy of playing Russian roulette--five chambers may be empty, but the sixth? Do you feel lucky. Is the risk (not probability, but risk) minimal enough to you to justify ignoring the existing threats? There's still good reason to monitor unfolding events, plan prudently, be open and flexible in your thinking, and not get stressed out over what might happen or what hasn't happened.

-- bdb (cb_rex99@hotmail.com), April 02, 1999.

Be patient, glasshoppah...

If you'd do your research, you'd know that these things take time. Be careful...you may get what you ask for.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), April 02, 1999.

A few points. It's not 2000 yet. It can take time for an effect to materialise. The effect may only materialise to those folks internally who know the system. Those folks may or may not recognise any strange accounting errors. Those folks will not want the outside world to know they are in difficulties. They will be fixing on failure, with full power, computer time, test systems and personnel resources. Think about all these factors. This is not rocket science.

Patience glasshoppa - time will tell.

Let's all hope that us programmers and IT types who GI are wrong.

Don't hold your breath.

This will play out during the rest of the year - probably very slowly.

It will take a major catastrophic public failure to spook the herd.

Until this happens, which is an outside possibility as IT'S NOT 2000 YET we have some entertainment in Yugoslavia to fill the front pages.


-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 02, 1999.

Patience my friends. In time Y2K will seek you out.

Unique and incredible Y2K glitches will manifest themselves slowly over the next few weeks....and when they do, we won't hear of them unless there is a major problem in State Welfare checks. Even then the spin will place blame on other causes instead of Y2K. No my friends, as pointed out earlier, speculation about why there are screw-ups will populate the Forum here...not official Y2K confirmations.

A company IS NOT going to announce it is having Y2K related problems. Even less-so from government agencies.

So we will be left to speculate...for now. At some time later this year, the mounting glitches, problems and disruptions will begin to cascade into an unspoken understanding by all that: "Y2K IS HERE."

But as I said earlier, Y2K will be the least of our problems. It will only make a bad situation worse.

Being self-sufficient is prudent now more than ever.

The global time-bomb is ticking.....

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), April 02, 1999.

Here's a link on this topic. It contains other links on this topic. <:)=

Is April 1st really that significant?

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.

Hello from Canada where things are not perfect at Revenue Canada.

Mark, my neighbour is an accountant at Revcan(our version of the IRS),and I am sorry to disappoint you, but there are internal problems at Revcan!

I have been asking my neighbour a lot about the BRAND NEW accounting software from the German company called SAP that revcan installed into the countrywide system.

Well, it appears that it is not functioning at 100%. He showed me an internal memo that told people to enter in accounting fields using the date 31mar99, because they could not enter in the date 01012000. They said that they would go back to those entries at another time to fix them up.

Another problem rearing it's head is that they have about two weeks to come up to speed with the new software that Revcan has installed. My neighbour told me that because it was rushed into place, most people using the software haven't been properly trained in how to use it. He also told me that they expect him to do some of the training of the people at his location, and at the same time, do his regular work even if it means coming in early, leaving late and working through his lunch hour. And, to top it all off, he won't get paid overtime.

There are other problems that he has told me about, but I think that it can be shown that all is not well in Canuckville.

So there you go Mark, I hope you are a little more uncertain about Y2K today.

-- bob lambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.

Pure BS, folks.

SAP is Y2k compliant. All date fields are stored with 4 position years. SAP doesn't even allow entry of dates in the format 31Mar99; the allowable formats are DD.MM.YYYY, MM/DD/YYYY, MM-DD-YYYY, YYYY.MM.DD and YYYY/MM/DD.

Note that even if a user enters a 2 digit year, SAP will automatically window the entry to a 4 digit year. So, even entries entered with 2 digit years do not have to be "fixed".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.

Just an observation...

Anyone on this website/list initially came looking for information. Anyone who remains on this list (young, old or in between) is seeking information, company, a place to spout off views or whatever. It's certainly a free internet as far as that goes. This is not some list like "Hotel California" were you can check out but never leave. And as far as I understand, SPAM is unsolicited junk advertisement or product offers sent to a list or a personal e-mail address.

Having made this observation, I am reminded that since I have been monitoring this issue (Y2K-January 1999) on this list, there have been some posters that have said with assurance that this or that will happen but they have been in the clear minority. Most posters have given advice or information with the "your mileage may vary" caveat in place in one form or the other. No person who has logged on to this site has been compelled to do a single thing, including coming back for more. One doesn't have to buy 400 lbs of wheat, a grinder and a generator to participate here. (BTW, I own no wheat other than a loaf of bread going stale and a couple of pounds of flour.) Any action that any list poster or lurker has taken to prepare or not for Y2K has been, or should have been, initiated by their own judgement and beliefs. If someone did not use good sense or rational thinking, well why exactly is it this list's problem or fault? This list has produced a fairly balanced view of the problem, IMO. Many posters have weighed in (myself included) to say hedge your bets, don't close too many doors behind you, don't overdo.

Mark, you sound very bitter. Did you or someone you know overdo for Y2K and hurt themselves financially or in some other way? If the things posted on this list bother you to the extent that it appears to have, I suggest that you not come back or seek another site more in line with your views. Of course it is a free internet you may torture yourself at will if that's your bag. This site represents a cross section of individuals with differing agendas and ideas. It is the individual's responsibility to sift through the things posted here and on other websites for that matter, using common sense as their guide, before jumping off the deep end.

And you know what? I don't care if you are a troll. I never care about that. What's the point of trying to figure out where someone is coming from? This post is a timely reminder to anyone happening to be reading it and the concepts should be applied regadless of status: troll, DGI and the various derivatives thereof, GI and Polly in an infinite number of forums not only Y2K.

With all due respect...

-- Ramp Rat (Aviation_R_us@noname.nocity), April 02, 1999.

I just entered in 31mar99 as a textual example. I know you can't enter the field like that. I'm not stupid!

-- bob lambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.

I see. I thought you were quoting from the memo.

Still BS. SAP can handle 01/01/2000, or any other date using 4 position years. Like I said, even if you enter 2 position years, it is still converted and stored as a 4 position year.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.

That may be, but you don't have a front row seat at the game like I do. I'm not kidding, I don't believe Revenue Canada is completely compliant!

-- bob lambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.

No, I don't know if RevCan is compliant.

I do, however, know the information you posted regarding SAP is completely bogus, and yes, I've had a "front-row seat" regarding SAP for over 6 years now. Which calls into question the rest of your information.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.

The info that I posted is not bogus.

I speak to the revcan accountant every morning on the bus to work. I saw the memo with my own eyes. If you think that I am posting bogus info then that is your problem. I have no reason to post something that I did not experience first hand. It seems that you are victim to trusting in nothing and nobody except for yourself.

You may be an expert in accounting software, but it appears that you have some difficulty with interpreting what I typed in. I don't know anything about accounting software, but I can hear and see for myself what is happening with my neighbour at his office at Revcan. So you may believe what you will, but in the end Y2K won't come down to what you know about accounting software, but in truth, it will reveal what you know about your relationship with other people.

Your criticism of my post is unwarranted, because you see it from a technical perspective and not the toll it has on life. I hope you are right, but I think that you should speak to the people on the frontline of dealing with the problems that they face that are kept hidden from public view.

-- b lambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.

Are you sure that both of you are talking about the same SAP? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.

Computers shut off during Y2k test

(Not fiscal year related)

-- none (none@none.none), April 02, 1999.

From what I've read, SAP can be a slow and difficult package to implement. Hoffmeister might have better insight as to what's involved in switching to SAP or what happens when the effort is rushed.

Rushed switches and upgrades can (likely will) be a byproduct of y2k remediation efforts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 1999.

Hoff -

One place I have worked has learned first-hand what "a front row seat" for SAP costs. If you don't plan thoroughly and do the months and months of homework, especially in business process analysis and re-design, it's something like being at ringside and getting spattered with blood.

This company did not plan well at all. They then lost $2M during implementation and continue in the red. Personnel resigned in frustration when their already difficult jobs became completly unmanageable in the new system. Company couldn't bill customers at all for the first three months, then billed incorrectly for the next nine. Couldn't accurately determine corporate revenues for first six months. Primary customer is royally pissed off and is looking for another business partner. The exec who brought SAP in was forced to resign. Recovery continues...

Bringing in SAP (or any other ERP system, for that matter) without thorough planning and good project management will hose your company just as thoroughly as not fixing Y2K...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), April 02, 1999.

Another good point Flint. UPGRADES. If this is the same SAP, how long has it been Y2K compliant? Not everybody is running the latest and greatest. (I know nothing about SAP). <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.

Much of the difficulty in an SAP implementation stems from a companies willingness/unwillingness to modify their current procedures to "fit" the SAP model. I've seen implementation last 6 months, and seen them last 2 years.

No doubt, the users have a period of adjustment. People used to doing things a certain way for years do not typically change overnight effortlessly.

But the fact remains, the information posted about SAP date handling was false. Period.

As to being on the "frontline of dealing with the problems that they face that are kept hidden from public view", I've spent the last 17 years doing just that.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.

[sorry, but the link to this article has died]

[added bold emphasis mine]


13 States, District Face Y2K Problems

Unemployment Checks May be Slowed

By Stephen Barr

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 23, 1998; Page A03

Thirteen states and the District will have to put electronic bandages on their computers next month so they can pay new unemployment insurance claims into the year 2000, Clinton administration officials said yesterday.

The federal-state unemployment program provides one of the first large-scale examples of the problems caused by the "Y2K bug." Computer experts have warned that payments for billions of dollars in Medicaid, food stamps, child welfare and other federal-state benefits could be at risk because surveys have shown that states are moving slowly on the Y2K problem.

Many of the computer systems in the unemployment insurance program, which processes claims, makes payments to the jobless and collects taxes from employers, are more than 30 years old. The systems processed more than $20 billion in state unemployment benefits in fiscal 1998 and provide crucial data on economic trends.

Persons filing claims for jobless benefits are assigned a "benefit year," which means that -- starting Jan. 4, 1999 -- unemployment insurance systems will have to be able to process dates and calculations that extend into 2000. Y2K problems may occur when computers next month try to process a first-time claim with a benefit year that covers both 1999 and 2000, officials said.

Some states that have not solved their Y2K problems will use a simple temporary fix, such as ending all benefit years on Dec. 31, 1999, while other states will use different techniques that essentially trick the computers so they will perform accurate date calculations, officials said.

If the computers are still not ready to operate on Jan. 1, 2000, states then will rely on emergency backup plans, including the writing of benefit checks by hand, officials said.

John A. Koskinen, the president's adviser on Y2K issues, and Deputy Labor Secretary Kathryn Higgins yesterday stressed that the nation's unemployment insurance system would not suffer serious disruptions.

"A year out, we know where our problems are. . . . It's an enormous help to have that information," Higgins said.

Koskinen pointed to the contingency planning for jobless benefits as a clear sign that the government will be able to maintain important services and programs, even if computer systems encounter Y2K problems.


Labor Department officials listed Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont as lagging on Y2K repairs. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also are running behind schedule, the officials said.

Delaware, according to the Labor Department, will not have all computer systems converted until the last possible moment: Jan. 1, 2000. But state officials said the most critical systems have been fixed and suggested that even experts can disagree on how to assess Y2K readiness.

The District should have its unemployment system fixed by March 31, the Labor Department said.

Overall, the repair bill could run to $490 million for the unemployment insurance systems, according to preliminary estimates.


-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

I am sure that the hoffer is right. He probably knows a lot about accounting software from SAP. All I'm saying is that the package, according to the Revcan accountant, is cumbersome and it is difficult to train thousands of government employees in a short space of time.

It is just an observation, but there are problems. I guess what I am trying to say, is that the fix is likely to cause problems, just as much as no fix would.

-- b lambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.

Now this is timely...

Study: Adding ERP gobbles time, money

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), April 02, 1999.



As it turned out, Canada, Japan and New York easily passed their first test, although they cautioned that it was a tiny victory since the passage of April 1 tested only the portion of their systems that deal with the fiscal year. In addition, there is still the possibility of problems emerging as their systems look deeper into the new fiscal year.


The Year 2000 Project Office for Canada's Treasury Board Secretariat reported no problems with government computer systems.

"So far it's been a nonevent," said Jim Bimson of the Year 2000 office. "We haven't heard anything today, but I'm not that surprised since we really have to wait a while for some transactions to occur. Most of the computers are still working in the last fiscal year."


Lou Marcoccio, year 2000 research director for the technology consulting and research firm Gartner Group Inc., cautioned that in the overall scheme of the millennium bug, April 1 is barely a noticeable point.

The bulk of year 2000 failures will begin to take place after July, as more companies and governments start their fiscal years and more computer systems look forward into the next year, according to a recent Gartner Group study of 15,000 companies in 87 countries.


-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 02, 1999.

Back to the topic of this thread...

Major problems would have occurred, if the software had not been fixed to handle fiscal year 2000.

I agree with much of the postings, that many more potential error points are upcoming. But, once again another immoveable deadline date has been passed successfully.

Many may have looked at statements such as these in anticipating problems:

Ed Yourdon:

Oh Captain, My Captain

O Captain, my Captain, I hope someone has told you that the problems will begin long before the strike of midnight. They have already begun: 37% of the companies in this country have already experienced Y2K problems. On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not....

Michael Hyatt:

Y2K: It's Closer Than You Think

Milestone #2: April 1, 1999. On this date, Canada, Japan, and the State of New York begin their fiscal year. This will, of course, include dates beyond Y2K. As a result, planning systems, especially budgets that have not been repaired will fail as they attempt to process Y2K dates. Since New York City is the media capitol of the world, problems there will grab headlines worldwide. Problems in Japan will remind everyone again of how interconnected our world is. The Japanese will also be forced to admit that there systems might not make it. I expect the stock market to react and begin (or continue) its downward spiral. Public confidence will continue to wane and the number of Y2K optimists will continue to dwindle...

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.

None you are an idiot.

-- Someone (who@knows.com), April 02, 1999.

If I am not mistaken, today is a government holiday, at least here in the U.S....don't know about Canada.

Closed gov offices = no (or very limited) computer processing.

Won't see failures, if they occur, for several weeks, IMHO.


-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), April 02, 1999.


I will definitely keep you posted on any developments at revcan. At the very least it will be interesting to see how low level people at revcan deal with the new accounting programme.

My position is that I am sure the package is a whole lot better than the previous one at revcan, and if there are any bugs they will be taken out. Just so you know , I am just a regular citizen, so I don't work at revcan, therefore I am not privvy to all info that is in revcan. I suppose we shall just have to wait and see, and hope that everything is working OK.

-- blambie (blambie@home.com), April 02, 1999.


Why do you insist on repeatedly re-posting the same inane piece on so many threads?

-- Lurker (lurkey@turkey.org), April 02, 1999.

OK, Someone. Name names!

-- none (none@none.none), April 02, 1999.

b lambie,

Thanks for posting this information.

Mac's post about SAP's difficulties are right on the mark. I've seen 2 very prominent companies can SAP after millions lost and upper mgmt. resigned. The larger the organization the harder the implementation no matter what the tool....add a government type mentality and the problem is magnified many times over.

With all due respect to Hoffmeister, who know doubt knows more than all of us about SAP, and is probably right about the date issue; Hoffmeister obviously has a large vested interest in that particular tool. Just because b lambie may have been misunderstood on a detail does not throw out his substantial point: implementation of a tool such as SAP through out an organization can take years assuming parallel systems are running which is a luxury that will run out, if it hasn't already.

-- Texan (duh@ranch.com), April 02, 1999.

I don't necessarily doubt that b lambie has heard grumblings by new users of SAP. I've yet to do an implementation that didn't have this occur. It was the issue regarding dates that drew my attention as being completely wrong.

Users complaining about changes to procedures is a fact of life.

Having no direct experience with "failed" SAP implementations, I can only go by "war stories" I've heard. They tend to fall into two general categories: Failure of organizations to be willing to modify existing procedures, and inexperience of the implementation partner. However, SAP has over 20,000 new installations since 1994; something must be right with the software.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 02, 1999.


Give me a break, son. Just because the SAP installation in your shop is rosy doesn't mean RevCan's isn't a piece of crap. How do you know that they didn't customize the user interface so that it wouldn't accept dates later than 31031999, because if it did, it would crash other non-SAP parts of the system?

Geez man...learn to think out of the box...

-- a (a@a.a), April 02, 1999.

First, I've been through 6 SAP implementations. My experience is not just at one shop.

Second, this is exactly the type of stuff that comes from people who have absolutely no clue as to what they're talking about. Customize the user interface? How would they do that? Buy SAP, then build all new online programs? Ummm, OK. Sure, let's buy a Y2k compliant system, to handle Y2k, then modify to not be Y2k compliant. Makes sense to me. NOT.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 03, 1999.

A big Thank You to Hoffmeister for taking the hyperbole hype-sters to task. I have followed several discussions on different ngs, and seen the same things happen before. Some anonymous person makes a claim, then they are called on it, and the backpeddaling begins. They go from 'having inside info' to having 'a freind' who works there to 'i talk with this guy on the bus' until eventually they fade out. Good work, HM!

Lurker, you said:


Why do you insist on repeatedly re-posting the same inane piece on so many threads?

-- Lurker (lurkey@turkey.org), April 02, 1999. "

You have to forgive Kevin. That post is his security blanket; as long as he continues to post and repost, he doesn't have to think about the fact that he's been hoodwinked. AND...he just learned to cut and paste in Jan. so he is like a kid with a new toy. While his l-o-n-g redundant posts are a nusaince, just ignore them. He'll catch on eventually!

-- Flamenco (don'th@ve.one), April 03, 1999.


I would like to respond to your saying that I am backpedalling.

First of all, I couldn't log on last night because the site was overloaded. Secondly, I intend to show you that my neighbour "on the bus" is a revcan lower level accountant.If you want to follow this thread, I will let you know next week what his thoughts are on the new accounting package.

I would also like to clarify what I said.

I entered 31mar99 because it was just a simple entry into the post. Of course, I realize that you can pretty much enter any date into the accounting sytem and it will be OK. The point that I am making is that it was just a date and not the actual entry that one who uses the software would use. I hope I am making myself clear.

All I know,is that the accountant at revcan was told to wait to enter in certain information, and to hold the information around the date (let me spell it out for you) on the Thirty-first of March in the Year of our Lord Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-nine, so that they can go back to it at a later time to fix it up. Do you understand? The analogy that comes to mind, is keeping an aircraft in a holding pattern before allowing it to land safely,ie, keep the financial information in a holding pattern until it is safe to land the numbers in their correct landing bays.

Can anyone explain why revcan did this? If the system is working OK, then obviously they would have told everybody to just go ahead and enter anything they darn well pleased. Am I right or wrong?

As I mentioned, stay posted for further news from me, and if I am blowing this out of proportion then I will come out on line in this thread with a full blown apology!

regards to all blambie

-- b lambie (blambie@home.com), April 03, 1999.

b lambie, thanks for this, this is very important, what you have described is a simple workaround for a very serious problem - this date has not been plucked out of the air for no reason (think fiscal year april1 rollover) - the holding pattern anology is perfect - I suspect (and have heard of similar instances) that this type of fuddling and fudging of figures is much more prevalent than we know.

good job - keep us posted - maybe start another link next week with a recap.

later, Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 03, 1999.

Got it bookmarked, blambie.

-- Flamencodon'th@ve.one), April 05, 1999.

Hoff: Are you saying that SAP cannot be customized? Wow, it looks like I know more about the product than you do, and I've never even seen it. As to why a company would do such a thing -- maybe because they were not 100% y2k ready, as I said in the post, dumbass.

Flameco: your fascination with colored text and html has given away your true identity. Welcome to the thread, Mutha.

-- a (a@a.a), April 05, 1999.

No, a, people can always do stupid things. Like posting about software they know nothing about. But then, you knew that.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 05, 1999.

So I'm a "mother" because I thought it would be cool to have a unique handle huh 'a'? ("pink flemenco" get it?). I guess it is the cardinal sin to use different fonts or color (funny I see others doing it).

After reading a bit more from the archives, I find this forum far to extreme for my tastes. Have fun with your name calling; I'm out of here!

-- Flamenco (don'yh@ve.one), April 07, 1999.

Was just wondering if b lambie had any updates?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 09, 1999.

wondering that as well

-- (...@...), April 12, 1999.

and still wondering

-- (....@....), April 30, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ