Conference 7.286::dcu

    Can anyone post a 1 to 1 comparison of savings and loan rates at the
    Firefighter's CU and DCU?

    
    RE: .1
    
    Yes Keith, anyone can, including yourself.  I'd strongly encourage you to
    give them a call and post the comparison.  I would but I'm busy trying
    to make DCU as successful as they are.  With something like a 76%
    loan to share ratio, it certainly looks like their membership thinks
    they're a good deal.
    
    You can also get any other questions answered.
    
    Lookin' forward to the info!
    

>>    dollars that it can't loan out. This money is invested in low interest
>>    overnight funds and the Eascorp fund. Far higher interest rates could
    
    Please define "low interest."  3%?  5%?

    
    RE: .3
    
    I don't have all the actual returns with me at the moment.  Invested
    funds bring in a range of returns, depending upon instrument and length
    of time.  I can post actuals later.
    
    I think what Dave meant was lower interest compared to the interest DCU
    would receive if it loaned the money to the membership.  At least
    that's the way I read it.
    

    Re .-1
    
    Yes that is exactly what I meant. As far as real investments (as
    against loans) are concerned I am fully in favour of DCU ONLY using
    very conservative places to park the money eg Eascorp. No more Cape
    Cod Real Estate Speculation thank you! The comparision I am drawing
    is that the rates returned on these conservative investments are much
    lower than could be obtained by LOANing to the members (ie investing in
    the members). That is exactly what LA Fireman's Credit Union does.
    
    Dave
    

    Gee, thanks, Phil.  I guess I made a mistake assuming that since you,
    Dave and others are making statements about how much better this other
    credit union is that somebody out there would have the actual numbers.

Someone does. Just call 'em up and ask.

-Glenn-

    
    > Gee, thanks, Phil.  I guess I made a mistake assuming that since you,
    > Dave and others are making statements about how much better this other
    > credit union is that somebody out there would have the actual numbers.
    
    Seeing as how I never saw an answer to the "3 boards" question,
    methinks those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
    
    - Sean

    
    Mr. MacNeal, I posted everything the LAFCU person could give me in our
    conversation before she had to run off to a meeting.  I posted all
    pertinent numbers from the materials that were mailed to me.  Now *YOU*
    want more.  Simply call them and get them yourself.  You have the info
    posted here that you need to contact them.  If I or anybody else
    called them , you'd simply continue to ask more questions or for
    different numbers.  Since none of us know what *YOU* want, we simply
    can't do the job YOU expect.  Why do you think everybody in here is
    your errand boy?  I don't see YOU posting very many facts.  Here is
    your big chance.  I encourage you to run with it.  Looking forward to
    your findings.
    

    
    RE: .3
    
    As of December 31, 1993...
    
    Our current investment portfolio indicates returns ranging from 6.21%
    to 3.63% for securities.  The average is 4.67% for about $80 million. 
    
    We have another $32 million in lower return CDs and accounts.  These
    range from 4.12% to 2.88%. 
    
    The weighted average return was 4.29 with a total of about $113 million
    invested or held in accounts/CDs.
    

    I should think the burden of proof would be on those making the claims,
    not on those asking questions about the authenticity of those claims.

    
    RE: .11
    
    Keith, please pursue the architects and backers of "relationship
    banking" for their "burden of proof".  It sure would be a nice change. 
    
    Also, I know of no level of information that will satisfy your apparent
    disbelief of the information that has already been posted.  You seem to
    be the only one you'll believe.  So please DO get the information and
    post it.  You can then refute what has been posted or confirm it.
    

�    Keith, please pursue the architects and backers of "relationship
�    banking" for their "burden of proof".  It sure would be a nice change. 
    
    Ah, the old savior from kindergarten -- "But he did it first".
    
�    Also, I know of no level of information that will satisfy your apparent
�    disbelief of the information that has already been posted.  You seem to
�    be the only one you'll believe.  
    
    I posted some very simple questions about the LAFCU.  They have yet to
    be answered.  I'm surprised that someone who is so concerned about the
    DCU using improper benchmarks has proposed another benchmark, but
    refuses to make the same comparisons he is demanding of the DCU.
    
    I think it's very clear what I believe -- facts over hypothetical
    situations, posted interest rates over claims of "they're obviously
    better".
    
    What are you afraid of?  That the information you post will lead us to
    believe that the DCU is indeed competitive with LAFCU?

Mr. Macneal,

If you're so interested in facts, why is it that I can't recall a 
single posting by you which includes them?  My observations are 
that many people post information in this notesfile regarding the 
DCU and other financial institutions.  You seem to consistently
ask for more information than what someone else has taken the 
time to provide.  If you're that interested, why don't you do 
your own legwork?

>    I posted some very simple questions about the LAFCU.  They have yet to
>    be answered.

Didn't your kindergarten training also include how to use a telephone? You know,
it's that thing with the cord on it and those neat buttons on it.

>    I think it's very clear what I believe -- facts over hypothetical
>    situations, posted interest rates over claims of "they're obviously
>    better".
>    
>    What are you afraid of?  That the information you post will lead us to
>    believe that the DCU is indeed competitive with LAFCU?

You're unbelievable. First you say you only want facts then you throw out some
wild-assed accusation towards Phil that has absolutely no basis in fact. Do your
own homework and try calling the LAFCU yourself. What are you afraid of?


-Glenn-

P.S.: I think I've got thise posted just at 1pm. There's the whistle. Lunch is
over; gotta get right back to work now...

�Didn't your kindergarten training also include how to use a telephone? You know,
�it's that thing with the cord on it and those neat buttons on it.
    
    I got beyond that and learned to try to not duplicate efforts and waste
    the resources of myself and my employer.  Since claims are being made,
    I assumed that the facts were already collected and readily available. 
    It appears that I'm wrong (note, this last statement is a hypothesis
    based on data that has been presented to date.  This is not a fact).
    
�You're unbelievable. First you say you only want facts then you throw out some
�wild-assed accusation towards Phil that has absolutely no basis in fact. 
    
    Well, I'm glad that you do indeed have the ability to differentiate a
    fact from speculation.  I'm also glad that my response clearly
    indicated that this was speculation and that I wasn't trying to pass my
    speculation off as a fact.
    
�Do your
�own homework and try calling the LAFCU yourself. What are you afraid of?
    
    Wasting my time (and money -- it is a long distance call) if someone
    else has already done it.  

>    Wasting my time (and money -- it is a long distance call) if someone
>    else has already done it.  

Gee, any reasonable person would have figured out quite a few days ago that no
one has this info. Try your phone; they're great inventions.

-Glenn-

�Gee, any reasonable person would have figured out quite a few days ago that no
�one has this info. 
    
    So if noone has this info, why all these claims?  Yes, they did provide
    a bonus to their members (and the facts on this have been presented and
    I haven't disputed them).  Are people simply speculating that since a
    bonus was posted that their rates are better, that they have more
    branches, that they have free ATM access, etc.?

	SET MODERATOR HAT = ON

	Please feel free to dispute facts or attack positions. BUT please
	avoid attacking people by impuning motives or name calling. Thank
	you very much.

			Alfred

    OK, I'll go halfway and post the info on DCU savings and loan rates. 
    These are from LIVEWIRE.
    
)0 Digital Credit Union                           LIVE WIRE
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 Loan Rates (Weekly)                                         Date: 28-Jun-1993
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
Page   1 of 1  
                          Annual Rate (%)      Terms      Amount Financed
      Fixed Loan             (months)           **           (%) ****
    --------------        ---------------    ---------    ---------------
  
    New Vehicle               5.90 *            12 mos.         100
                              6.90 *            24-60 mos.      100
                              7.50 *            72 mos.         100
                              
     Used Vehicle ***         6.90 *            12-24 mos.      100
                              8.40 *            25-60 mos.      100
                              
     New Motorcycle           8.90 *            12-36 mos.       80
     Used Motorcycle ***     10.40 *            Up to 36 mos.    80 
 
 
   Fixed loan notes:
  * Based on automatic payment methods(automatic transfer or payroll deduction)
    for full term of loan. Add .5% if other than automatic payment
  **   Based on loan amount and approved credit.  
  ***  Vehicle must be paid in full before it become 10 years old.
  **** The lower of 100% of purchase price or book value. 
 
   Consumer Loans          APR (%)         Revolving Loans       APR (%)
   --------------          -------         ---------------       -------
    Personal               15.00 *         VISA Credit Card       12.90
    Computer                7.50 *         (for avg. daily balances of
    Share Secured           6.50           $2500 or more in billing cycle)
    Stock Secured          11.50 *         VISA  Credit Card      14.50
    Certificate Secured     2.50           (for avg. daily balances less
      (above base CD)                      than $2500 in billing cycle)
                                           Personal ADVANTAGE     14.50
                                           Credit Line
 
 
   Consumer loan notes:
     *  Based on automatic payment methods (automatic transfer or payroll 
        deduction) for full term of the loan.  Add .5% if other than automatic 
        payment.
     o  Revolving lines of credit may change any time.
     o  Consumer loan rates carry a fixed annual percentage rate, meaning your 
        rate stays the same for the term of the loan.  
     o  For information about Student Loans, First Mortgage programs, or Home 
        Equity programs, call DTN 223-6735.









                       FOR DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
 
    
)0 Digital Credit Union                           LIVE WIRE
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 Investment Rates (weekly)                                   Date: 14-FEB-1994
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
Page   1 of 2  
 e
 ADD 4064.0/PAGE/LOG
 )0lqwqwqwqwqwqwqkTMqqrrsssrrqq 
 xdxixgxixtxaxlxU.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
 mqvqvqvqvqvqvqjqqppoooppqq 
                      DCU's Investment Rates (Feb 7 to Feb 11)
 
 
                                            Term (months)
                                      Annual Yield (%) / Rate (%)
    Certificates
  (Minumum Balance)     3-5     6-12    13-23   24-35   36-47   48-59   60
  -----------------     ----    ----    -----   -----   -----   -----   ----
 
    Jumbo               ---     3.72    3.81    4.51    4.99    5.35    5.71
    ($90,000)                   3.65    3.74    4.41    4.87    5.21    5.56
 
    Mini-Jumbo          ---     3.67    3.76    4.46    4.94    5.29    5.67
    ($50,000)                   3.60    3.69    4.36    4.82    5.16    5.51
 
    Regular             3.15    3.61    3.71    4.40    4.89    5.24    5.61
    ($100)              3.10    3.55    3.64    4.31    4.77    5.11    5.46  
 
 
  More   --> 
 
 ADD 4064.1/PAGE/LOG
 )0lqwqwqwqwqwqwqkTMqqrrsssrrqq 
 xdxixgxixtxaxlxU.S. News                         LIVE WIRE
 mqvqvqvqvqvqvqjqqppoooppqq 
 
   Investment rates, cont'd 
 
 
           Savings/Clubs/
           Checking Accounts       Annual Yield (%)      Rate (%)
           -----------------       ----------------      --------
 
           Primary Savings              2.80              2.76
           Clubs                        2.80              2.76
           Money Market                 2.90              2.86
           Checking                     2.17              2.15
             (balances > $1000)
           Savings IRA                  3.56              3.50
 
 
            To return to the previous menu, press  PF3 





                       FOR DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
 
)0 Digital Credit Union                           LIVE WIRE
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
 Investment Rates (weekly)                                   Date: 14-FEB-1994
 qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
Page   2 of 2  
 



















































                       FOR DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY
 

Ok, here's the deal with LAFCU...Phil saw an article about them
in one of the credit union trade rags that he reads.  From there,
he called somebody and talked about a lot of different issues.  She
sent Phil a copy of the brochure discussing the dividends, etc.

I don't think she sent anything else...perhaps Phil can say for sure.

Anyway, what is apparent from the brochure is that their Visa rate,
effective 1-Jan-94 is 10.8% APR.  

Keith, they don't list a phone number, but their address on the
brochure is 1520 West Colorado Blvd., Pasadena CA  91105.  I do not
know if they'll discuss their rates and policies with non-members.
They talked to Phil since he identified himself as a board member of
another credit union.

Chris

    Thanks for the information, Chris.

    
    Like I told you Keith, you had all the info you needed to contact
    LAFCU weeks ago.  It's all I had to go on and it took me about 30
    seconds to get the telephone number and dial it.  I look forward to
    the results of your research.  BTW, never mind checking the credit
    card, we already know the results there.
    
    
================================================================================
Note 764.0                 "Refund lights members up"                 89 replies
ASE003::GRANSEWICZ "Candidate for DCU Director"      33 lines  25-FEB-1994 14:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Pasadena, Calif. = "We're a ten" declared a direct-mail piece
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of Los Angeles Fireman's Credit Union here.  The bonus and refund were
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    not a sure thing," stressed Marketing Director Darlene Diamond.  Still,
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>              <<< Note 776.20 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
>
>    OK, I'll go halfway and post the info on DCU savings and loan rates. 
>    These are from LIVEWIRE.
>    
>Digital Credit Union                          LIVE WIRE
>qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
>Loan Rates (Weekly)                                       Date: 28-Jun-1993
>qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
    
    	Keith, these might be a tad dated.  You can find the rates at the
    	HLO branch though.
    

    
    Re: .13
    
    > I posted some very simple questions about the LAFCU.  They have yet to
    > be answered.  I'm surprised that someone who is so concerned about the
    > DCU using improper benchmarks has proposed another benchmark, but
    > refuses to make the same comparisons he is demanding of the DCU.
    >
    >I think it's very clear what I believe -- facts over hypothetical
    >situations, posted interest rates over claims of "they're obviously
    >better".
    >
    >What are you afraid of?  That the information you post will lead us to
    >believe that the DCU is indeed competitive with LAFCU?
    
    Keith,
    
    Asking you to spend your time and resources on getting the information
    that you claim to want so badly is perfectly reasonable.  Your refusal
    to do your own legwork makes your real interest come into question.
    Personally, I think this is really about you being right and Phil being
    wrong.  If that's what you're up to have a ball.  I just wish you'd
    own up to it.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    
    

    

    No Steve, it is as simple as this.  Dave and Phil have made a claim.  I
    have asked them to substantiate that claim.  I do not understand the
    reluctance on Phil's and Dave's part to substantiate their claims.

    
    Re: .26
    
    > No Steve, it is as simple as this.  Dave and Phil have made a claim.  I
    > have asked them to substantiate that claim.  I do not understand the
    > reluctance on Phil's and Dave's part to substantiate their claims.
    
    So you say.  I don't accept your "spin" on it.
    
    Steve
    

    No spin, fact.

RE: Note 776.26 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    No Steve, it is as simple as this.  Dave and Phil have made a claim.  I
>    have asked them to substantiate that claim.

We have asked for the names of your three boards.  You have never
responded with the asked for information.

>I do not understand the
>    reluctance on Phil's and Dave's part to substantiate their claims.

I do not understand your reluctance in responding with the names of the
boards you have been on.

Your asking questions selectively has made Phil and others less willing
to respond, IMHO.

Phil and Dave have provided more information than anyone else here.  You
have quite often responded in such a way to cast doubt in whether you
are interested in the subject or just interested in causing people to
type.  When provided a way to get the information, you choose not to. 

I do to not understand your reluctance to followup and gather than facts
as Dave and Phil have MANY time over.

	- mark

>              <<< Note 776.26 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
>
>    No Steve, it is as simple as this.  Dave and Phil have made a claim. 
    
    Please state claim and reference the exact note.
    
    DCU has said we can't issue bonus dividends and interest refunds
    because it was "unfair" to various parties and that it was bad strategy. 
    This credit union illustrated that it is being done, and that the
    credit is successful.  I've posted everything I received.  None of
    their daily rates were given, other than what appeared in the flyer
    they sent or the board message they sent.  If you wish to do a rate
    comparision be my guest, but LAFCU was posted as an example of a credit
    union that has remained true to its credit unions roots (including
    bonus dividends) and is highly successful.  It's a simple phone call
    away Keith.  We would ALL appreciate it if YOU would take a moment to
    contribute some facts to the discussion which you seem to want to have.
    

�I do not understand your reluctance in responding with the names of the
�boards you have been on.
    
    1) It doesn't matter since whatever I say will drag us further down
    this unproductive rathole.
    
    2)  This has been a thinly veiled attempt to harrass me.
    
    3)  It has absolutely nothing to do with the DCU
    
�I do to not understand your reluctance to followup and gather than facts
�as Dave and Phil have MANY time over.
    
    If I were making claims about X being better than Y, I would.

>    No spin, fact.

In your mind only.

-Glenn-

>�I do not understand your reluctance in responding with the names of the
>�boards you have been on.
>    
>    1) It doesn't matter since whatever I say will drag us further down
>    this unproductive rathole.
>    
>    2)  This has been a thinly veiled attempt to harrass me.
>    
>    3)  It has absolutely nothing to do with the DCU

I'd say you are harassing the readership of this conference. You claim to be
able to make certain comments because you have been a member of three boards.
Yet when are politely asked to name the boards (or at least what type of boards
they were) you refuse. How can we believe the statements you say that you base
on your experience of having been on other boards when we don't know which or
what type of boards those were? You're insistence on not answer the question
(that you brought up yourself) is harrasment. If it has nothing to do with the
DEFCU then why do *you* bring it up in the first place. This is the DEFCU
conference, after all.

And I wouldn't say any the comments in here have been thinly veiled. I know mine
haven't been! It's quite clear what your agenda is -- and it doesn't have a
whole lot to do with the DEFCU.

-Glenn-

�    Please state claim and reference the exact note.
    
    From Dave Garrod's posting in 776.0:
    
�    We then got to talk about the LA Firemen's Credit Union and how its
�    business model was totally different. It puts membership satisfaction
�    first and foremost and strives to distribute excess profits to its
�    owners on a regular basis. It even has a better capital ratio than DCU!
�    It has achieved this by cultivating a membership that gets its loans from
�    it. They do this at extremely competitive rates. 
    
    Right there in the last sentence, Dave says that LAFCU has extremely
    competitive rates.  Since Dave said it, perhaps he has the rate info.

    
    Re: .31
    
    >1) It doesn't matter since whatever I say will drag us further down
    >this unproductive rathole.
    > 
    >2)  This has been a thinly veiled attempt to harrass me.
    >
    >3)  It has absolutely nothing to do with the DCU
    >
    
    This is my last say about your notes.  I'm not going to play your
    game anymore.
    
    It's now a rathole only because you have been challenged to put up or shut
    up, and you don't like it.
    
    The only harrasment going on is the aggravation that you're bringing on
    yourself.  There's nothing thinly veiled about it.  A number of requests
    have been made for you to provide the data that would show that you
    should be taken seriously.  Not only have you not done it, but you've
    not even acknowledged that the requests were made.
    
    Finally, you're right.  It has nothing to do with the DCU, but you have
    been the creator of that.
    
    
    There's been not more than a single reply or two that has supported
    you.  Wake up and smell the coffee.
    
    Steve
    

�    There's been not more than a single reply or two that has supported
�    you.  Wake up and smell the coffee.
    
    Well, Steve, if you take you own advice, 5 out of 7 directors (and a CU
    CEO) can't be wrong.

    People! Can we knock off the "you're harassing ..." nonsense.
    I don't want to have to start deleting notes. Thanks.
    	
    			Alfred

>    Well, Steve, if you take you own advice, 5 out of 7 directors (and a CU
>    CEO) can't be wrong.

*Now* what are you talking about? Do you have the gaul to suppose that since 5
out of 7 directors and the DEFCU CEO haven't come into this forum to disagree
with you that they therefore agree with you? Simply unbelievable.

-Glenn-

    No, Glenn.  Steve and others think that since very few people in here
    seem to "on my side" that I must be wrong.  I have applied that logic
    to the current flap over relationship banking.

Doesn't the number of people that you say are "on your side" tell you something?

-Glenn-

�Doesn't the number of people that you say are "on your side" tell you something?
    
    First, I have never said that anyone is on my side.  Others have. 
    Interesting to note that even though they claim no one is on my side
    they also are claiming that they don't know what my side is (although a
    few claim to have "figured me out").
    
    Second, since you follow this logic, doesn't it follow that since 5 BoD
    members and 1 CU CEO endorse relationship banking, the other 2 (5>2),
    are wrong?

RE: Note 776.36 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    Well, Steve, if you take you own advice, 5 out of 7 directors (and a CU
>    CEO) can't be wrong.

Short memory???

I remember a short while ago, that a previous president (DCU CEO same
position as Chuck Cockburn) who is now a criminal on the run and 7
directors who are no longer around, were wrong...

	- mark

    
    Do you guys have a phone?  Maybe the petty squabbles would be better 
    solved by using it...  This is really getting quite boring and I'd rather 
    not have to next unseen past something that might be important.
    
    It's quite obvious you agree to disagree... I have found in the past
    that NOTES is *definately* not the place to 1. have a petty squabble
    and 2. air dirty laundry...  no one gains from this and it really puts
    the moderator in a difficult position of having to cut real discussion
    off...
    
    That said, let's get back to the subject at hand.
    
    
    John
    

    Agreed, John.

RE:              <<< Note 776.36 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>   ..., 5 out of 7 directors (and a CU CEO) can't be wrong.

	But this is the whole point!  From my reading of this conference, 
	I would have say that most writers here believe they *are* wrong.
	That is what this string is all about, IMO.  

�	But this is the whole point!  From my reading of this conference, 
�	I would have say that most writers here believe they *are* wrong.
�	That is what this string is all about, IMO.  
    
    That is not the point of this particular rathole.  The point of this
    particular rathole is that there are many vocal noters who don't like
    what I have to say.  Given this these same noters conclude that I must
    be totally wrong.  I am simply pointing out that if they accept that
    conclusion that in order to be consistent that they should also accept
    the board's/management's conclusions.

    
    In a largeer scope, the equation seems to look like this:
    
    n >>> 5+1+m
    
    where
    
      n is noters opposed to the current strategy
      m is noters supporting the current strategy, 0>m>3
    
    But, of course, the equation that really counts will be crystal clear
    when the votes are tallied.
    

>    That is not the point of this particular rathole.  The point of this
>    particular rathole is that there are many vocal noters who don't like
>    what I have to say.

No. It's not what you say but how you say it and how you twist words with people
all for the sake of an apparent game you like to play.

>Given this these same noters conclude that I must
>    be totally wrong.

How can you assume at what "these" noters have concluded? Are you playing martyr
again?

>I am simply pointing out that if they accept that
>    conclusion that in order to be consistent that they should also accept
>    the board's/management's conclusions.

The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

-Glenn-

Gentle Readers of this conference,

Mr. Macneal appears to have a noting style that rubs many writers of this
conference the wrong way.  Is it possible for the readership of this conference
to view Mr. Macneal's contributions as playing a devil's advocate role in
this conference?  Many times, I've seen him ask a simple question, and I've
seen writers begin assuming they know *why* he was asking the question.
While I believe that Mr. Macneal might face less hostility if he changed
his writing style, I find many of his questions interesting and would prefer
to see more answers (including the ones which inform Mr. Macneal how to go
after the information).  But I'm quite dismayed by the attitude of several
who seem to be saying "Go away -- nobody wants to read your notes".  

Consider the possibility that, while you may not agree with Mr. Macneal's
opinions, personal philosopy, or noting style, he adds to the discussions
by presenting a perspective not typically displayed in this conference.

- Deb

>              <<< Note 776.46 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
>
>�	But this is the whole point!  From my reading of this conference, 
>�	I would have say that most writers here believe they *are* wrong.
>�	That is what this string is all about, IMO.  
>    
>    That is not the point of this particular rathole.  

	Then we will have to agree to disagree.  I personally do not agree
	with the majority of the board and will try to vote them out!  
	Whether or not I agree 100% with Mr Gransewicz, and I do not agree
	with everything he believes, I think he is more correct in this thread
	than the rest of the board.