"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:17:47 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 11:16:28 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:
It's sounding more and more like a sweetheart deal with the
Kuwaitis.

Sounds like a "spot" market purchase with expedited delivery
requirement.

And yet, this hasn't been stated at all. It's just bald speculation on
your part.

Isn't that what this thread is all about? Weren't you speculating
a sweetheart deal? Don't be so blatantly hypocritical
in your attempts to criticize.

Oh shut up Scottie.

I guess I hit a nerve. Truth can be so painful at times.

(snip the repitition)
What would your restaurant pay for steaks delivered tomorrow if
your
current supplier suddenly couldn't deliver? You would pay whatever
it takes to prevent customer dissatisfaction and fill that short term
demand.

It depends. We might just take it off of the menu. It happens almost
every month with something or other. We would *never* pay twice as
much for steak just to keep it on the menu.

So much for customer service.

So you snottily say. However, our guests understand that we don't buy
a lot of prepackeaged, frozen, easily stored stuff. Most of our stuff
is freshly prepared. Therefore, there are times that we might run out
of an item (in fact, as I said, it happens to menu items around once a
month and it happens to our specials almost every might before the
close of business).
I know that you aren't used to eating in
restaurants that offer creative menus and fresh products and aren't
chains,

and, and, and....
So much for avoiding bald speculation.
Sounds like a Kreuger tactic. Can't refute the point so spin it into
condescending commentary.

but there are plenty of people who prefer to eat in a
restaurant that isn't going to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Besides, the food procurement business doesn't work the way you seem
to think it does.

Recall a few months back when one of the big complaints about the
post
war
administration of Iraq was a fuel shortage which was aggravating the
Iraqi's.
They were scrambling to get gas to the country ASAP.
Obviously that kind of demand can't be satisified at market prices.

And yet, they were able to get far more gas from Turkey at half the
price.

Yet there were still shortages.

We don't know that any shortages were due to procurement. It might
have been logistics inside a still war-torn country.

This is going to turn into another example of New York Times tabloid
jouralism
and nothing more.

Actually, your complaint should be with the Pentagon auditors who blew
the whistle on this.

Not at all. I expect them to ask questions and demand answers. It's the
spin in the New York Times that appears I find counter productive.

President Bush, in his statements of recent days, seem to back up the
Times and their 'spin". He seems quite firm that Halliburton is going
pay back a lot of money.

Apparently, they didn't see any time issues that
would have caused a problem in dleivery of gas. Of course, we *might*
eventually find out that it's the case, but we haven't heard that yet.

Till then, all we can do is speculate. Still some folks feel the need
to
jump to their feet and cry "Gotcha". Why they take such joy in
finding fault with our own government is hard to understand.

Yes, I thought that all during the Clinton administration as well.

If it was wrong then it is wrong now, except for a hypocrite.

ScottW