"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.

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

Halliburton is going to move slowly. False statements in this
kind of situation don't go over very well. They won't say anything
the lawyers haven't confirmed and triple checked.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

More speculation. You don't know where the actual destination was.
It could have been well into Iraq. It might have been cheaper to
buy Kuwaiti gas at over $2/gal than try to move Turkish fuel to southern
Iraq. Certainly quicker.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ScottW

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. Mine was a secondary point at best. I made sure to
note that it was pure conjecture on my part anyway. "Sounds like"
might be your way of saying the same thing, but it has the ring of
"that's the way it is".

Call any supplier with unforecasted/new requirements and request
immediate delivery and see what you have to pay to get it.
You pointed out that of the 4 major gas distributors
in Kuwait only 1 could meet terms of the contract. This clearly
indicates contractual requirements above normal market.
The most obvious circumstance that comes to mind is short lead time.

That's one possibility. However, Halliburton hasn't used that "excuse"
in their defense. One would think that that it would be the first
thing that they would point out.

Halliburton is going to move slowly. False statements in this
kind of situation don't go over very well. They won't say anything
the lawyers haven't confirmed and triple checked.

Well, they've been throwing out a lot of "statements" supporting their
view. If there was a lead time issue, it wouldn't be hard to vet that
through a lawyer.

More likely are "logistical security arrangements", which also apply
to the Turkish distributors, whom they apparently got plenty of gas
from, despite having to truck oil further and probably further through
dangerous Iraq. Kuwait is just across the border from the secured port
in the south. All they'd have to do is get the trucks to the port of
Umm Kasir, right across the border, where it would then be distributed
in country. Seems like it would be far easier to truck gas 50 miles as
opposed to 200 to 500miles depending on the route that they'd have to
take (don't forget that Northern Iraq isn't exactly the most secure
part of the world right now).

More speculation. You don't know where the actual destination was.
It could have been well into Iraq. It might have been cheaper to
buy Kuwaiti gas at over $2/gal than try to move Turkish fuel to southern
Iraq. Certainly quicker.

That *is* a possibility. I'll grant you that.

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, 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.

"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

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:16:25 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Oh shut up Scottie.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Well, yes. I know that you live for this, so I hope it makes your
Monday really swell.

You really *are* a piece of work...

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:16:25 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

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.

No, I just told you the truth. You don't understand the food business
and you use it to make an imperfect analogy. I note that you have no
answer except to moan and **** again. I'm sorry, my friend, but it's
*you* who was snotty, while I was trying to take the high road and
discuss facts in my original reply. *You* started with the hypocrite
stuff and playing the "you're just a waiter" card again (by bringing
up my line of work gratuitously). You need to look in a mirror and see
that you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of. I didn't
attack you and the *only* thing that might have ticked you off was the
use of the word "bald" in the phrase "bald speculation". Everything
thing else I discussed was based on the facts as I knew them (except
for *my* very plainly stated speculation, LABELED AS SUCH) in a
previous post.

No, it was *you* who got nasty, so as far as I'm concerned, that's the
way you want to play it.

Stop being ****ed that I told you about Arnold from the beginning but
you didn't listen. That's not *my*fault.

Once again, your comment about customer service was ill-chosen. For
you, it's all about, "If it's on the menu, you should have it in-house
- quality be damned" For you, it's "Let me speak about things I don't
know anything about in an attempt to deflect the conversation". For
you, it's, "Digital phones are the same thing as food - I know all
about the digital phone business and I grill lobsters at home, so I
must know all about the restaurant business". Well, when you dine at
McDonald's, I guess it's right to be ****ed if they run out of Quarter
Pounders, since it simply means that someone didn't keep the freezer
stocked properly.

But, you can be happy that you pushed my button this weekend, I
suppose. Forget about discussing an issue without invective.

Finally, I note that you actually snipped out or didn't answer any of
the actually *relevant* points, so I guess I'll take a victory in the
debate over getting ticked off for a moment. *That* gets the week
started off on the right foot.

Have a nice day...

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:16:25 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

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.

No, I just told you the truth.

So exactly what are these restaurants I go to that lack fresh food,
creative menus and are chains? Reality is you don't know anything
about
my dining habits. I have 3 favorite local restaurants and none are
"chains".
All have very good food IMO, (I've never experienced the "we are out"
line your place does regularly). The creativeness of their menus is
subjective so not much point in that argument.

You don't understand the food business
and you use it to make an imperfect analogy. I note that you have no
answer except to moan and **** again. I'm sorry, my friend, but it's
*you* who was snotty, while I was trying to take the high road and
discuss facts in my original reply. *You* started with the hypocrite
stuff and playing the "you're just a waiter" card again (by bringing
up my line of work gratuitously).

Where did I say "you're just a waiter" in this thread?
Are you really that sensitive about your line of work?
I don't give a crap if you're a waiter. I tried to use an analogy
that I thought an elite restaurant dedicated to customer service could
relate too. Unfortunately, your establishment seems more concerned
with the profit impact of leftovers. Don't blame me if you have
misrepresented the quality and customer service of the establishment
you serve.

You need to look in a mirror and see
that you are guilty of the very things you accuse others of. I didn't
attack you and the *only* thing that might have ticked you off was the
use of the word "bald" in the phrase "bald speculation".

Yup, it was snotty, condescending, and very hypocritical as you were
already admittedly engaged in speculation yourself. Do I really need
to label my comments as speculation or can I assume that nuance won't
be too difficult for you to sort out for yourself?

Everything
thing else I discussed was based on the facts as I knew them (except
for *my* very plainly stated speculation, LABELED AS SUCH) in a
previous post.

No, it was *you* who got nasty, so as far as I'm concerned, that's the
way you want to play it.

Nasty is in the eye of the beholder. I think it is you being overly
sensitive.
Honestly, you never used to be such a wimp. What happened?
Realizing that retirement opportunities aren't materializing any time
soon got you down?


Stop being ****ed that I told you about Arnold from the beginning but
you didn't listen. That's not *my*fault.

Arnold doesn't bother me as much as hypocrites like you who complain
about him and then emulate him.


Once again, your comment about customer service was ill-chosen. For
you, it's all about, "If it's on the menu, you should have it in-house
- quality be damned"

Wrong, if it's on the menu you should have it and it should be of
excellent quality. That is unless we're talking about the local
Country Kitchen.
I didn't think that was the case, but I could be wrong.


For you, it's "Let me speak about things I don't
know anything about in an attempt to deflect the conversation". For
you, it's, "Digital phones are the same thing as food - I know all
about the digital phone business and I grill lobsters at home, so I
must know all about the restaurant business". Well, when you dine at
McDonald's, I guess it's right to be ****ed if they run out of Quarter
Pounders, since it simply means that someone didn't keep the freezer
stocked properly.

Same ol bs Dave. I haven't had a McDonald burger in years.
I don't think I've even had a burger in 6 months.
Why do you resort to unsubstantiated gratuitous comments?
It actually diminishes an already weak argument.


But, you can be happy that you pushed my button this weekend, I
suppose. Forget about discussing an issue without invective.

Finally, I note that you actually snipped out or didn't answer any of
the actually *relevant* points,
so I guess I'll take a victory in the
debate over getting ticked off for a moment. *That* gets the week
started off on the right foot.

I snipped repetitive speculation. There was nothing new of
substance to rehash. If repitition garners you victory in your mind,
enjoy it.
It does explain one thing though. I now have some insight into your
reasoning for those endless threads with Ferstler. I think you two
share the same criteria for victory.

ScottW

Scottie yapped:

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.

So exactly what are these restaurants I go to that lack fresh food,
creative menus and are chains? Reality is you don't know anything
about my dining habits. I have 3 favorite local restaurants and none are
"chains".

dave was probably speculating that you're as ignorant about dining
in restaurants as you are about running them. That might not be the
case, but your ignorance about the latter is clearly and
emphatically established by your own stupid words.

Is it just coincidence that you and duh-Mikey are such close
neighbors? Look -- fresh juicy bugs! Yum!

"George M. Middius" wrote in message


dave was probably speculating that you're as ignorant about dining
in restaurants as you are about running them. That might not be the
case, but your ignorance about the latter is clearly and
emphatically established by your own stupid words.

Watching these two bozos fighting each other instead of me has its more
interesting moments. They can't play nice with me and they can't play nice
with each other. Must be the water.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottie yapped:

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.

So exactly what are these restaurants I go to that lack fresh food,
creative menus and are chains? Reality is you don't know anything
about my dining habits. I have 3 favorite local restaurants and none
are
"chains".

dave was probably speculating that you're as ignorant about dining
in restaurants as you are about running them.

Definitely speculating, very hypocritical of him.

That might not be the
case, but your ignorance about the latter is clearly and
emphatically established by your own stupid words.

Don't you ever tire of criticizing with absolutely no
attempt to substantiate your statements? Or is that
just to much to ask of you?

No matter how eloquently you manage
to phrase your school yard banter, when reduced to it's core,
you provide the content of a 3rd grader. It's boring.


Is it just coincidence that you and duh-Mikey are such close
neighbors? Look -- fresh juicy bugs! Yum!

I rest my case.

ScottW