|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=500341319-22022000>The
one source I use for SIC level data is the National Trade Data Bank, and I get
my data on CD-ROM subs at the local business library.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=500341319-22022000></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=500341319-22022000>NTDB.org should be the website, not sure, look for Dept
of Commerce and then NTDB.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial>Gitanshu<FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=500341319-22022000> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=500341319-22022000></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face=Arial><FONT color=#0000ff><SPAN
class=500341319-22022000>> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>Does anyone know
where I can find a complete listing of the SIC code listings?
</DIV></BODY></HTML></x-html>From ???@??? Tue Feb 22 17:06:07 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27044
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:05:06 -0800
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA21457
for metastock-outgoing; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:08:43 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA21454
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:08:41 -0700
Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA01070
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 13:23:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from heidi (dialup-209.244.65.168.Chicago1.Level3.net [209.244.65.168])
by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA08630
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000222135407.0079ea30@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Sender: stubner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 14:08:34 -0600
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Heidi Stubner <stubner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: MS 6.52 EOD Printing Problems
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Extremely aggravated MS user here. Lots of wasted paper!!! . . . and time!!!
At 07:58 PM 02/11/2000 +1000, you wrote:
>Count me in as a sufferer too!
>
>George.
>
>At 21:05 10/02/2000 -0800, you wrote:
>>Feb 10, 2000
>>Bill,
>>
>>Attached is a copy of the letter that I personally wrote to you
>>informing MS that their 6.52 EOD program had a serious printing problem.
>>
>>The majority of the MS users that have encountered this problem have
>>since responded to your Dec 1st 1999 memo.
>>
>>As of Feb the 10th 2000, I have not had the courtesy of receiving any
>>written response from MS acknowledging the serious 6.52 EOD printing
>>problem and how MS proposed to resolve it.
>>
>>In addition, MS is forecasting to release 7.0 EOD update while existing
>>6.52 users stew in the 6.52 printing mess.
>>
>>When does MS begin to function as a responsible software supplier and
>>respond to this serious problem. The nonresolution of this problem has
>>demonstrated MS's lack of consumer follow up..
>>Why not acknowledge the problem?
>>
>>If 7.0 is the solution to the problem; then I strongly recommend that
>>all 6.52 paid upgrade users be given a rebate to be applied to 7.0. I
>>also suggest that all 6.52 users be given a rebate for the tremendous
>>amount of aggravation and inconvenience everyone encountered when they
>>upgraded to 6.52.
>>
>>When will MS becomes a responsible software supplier and resolve these
>>glaring software flaws?
>>
>>Surveys with no follow up is a joke and I seriously question MS
>>corporate integrity.
>>
>>Give me a straight answer and tell me when will MS resolve the 6.52
>>software printing problems?
>>
>>Attachment:
>>Subject: Re: Printing Charts with version 6.52
>> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:16:20 -0800
>> From: "Lino A. Alessi" <linoaalessi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Bill Forman <wforman@xxxxxxxxx>
>> CC: Metastock User Group <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>November 29, 1999
>>Bill,
>>
>>I am deeply disturbed by the lack of adequate response I have seen from
>>Equis during the past 2 weeks concerning the obvious printing problems
>>that MS 6.52 demonstrates.
>>
>>I also have had the same 6.52 printing problems and I would like to
>>express to the group how a professional, reputable and reliable company
>>tries to resolve an obvious problem.
>>
>>Since I purchased the 6.52 upgrade in September, I have gone back to the
>>
>>Xerox company concerning the Xerox 8C printer. Xerox quickly responded
>>and tried to determine whether their printer was at fault. Xerox even
>>replaced my 8C printer with the Xerox DucoPrint 11C. Xerox has gone the
>>
>>extra mile and has responded in a very reputable manner and never during
>>
>>our search for a resolution did Xerox stonewall the problem.
>>
>>Living in Silicon Valley allows me to call many software companies in
>>the valley to explain to them what MS 6.52 software problems I am
>>confronting. Bill, the problem is in MS 6.52, and MS has not responded
>>to this glaring problem in a reputable and honest fashion. The
>>difference in response between Xerox and MS has been amazing. As a
>>business owner, I am bewildered over what the group writes about Reuters
>>
>>your parent company- is their philosophy and lack of reliability in
>>supplying consistant data influencing Equis in their business practices?
>>
>>How can a reputable and reliable company not respond or acknowledge such
>>
>>an obvious and glaring problem in their software? The credibility of
>>Equis is at stake. Please, no more 6.52 patch fiascos.
>>
>>I want to know when will Equis resolve the 6.52 printing problem?
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>Lino Alessi
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
|