I'll do you one better. Follow Willie Nelson's lead and you can run your 
old diesel truck on bio-diesel!

-----------------------------------------
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You do realize that you can easily convert your old diesel truck into a vegie 
> car.
>
>
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: "casest97217" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> Yes sir. Me and my old diesel truck are just doing our part to try 
> and kill off anything left.
>
> --- In [email protected], "Orin Rehorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>   
>> Green Kool-Aid drinker alert!
>>
>>
>>
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
>>     
> Behalf Of
>   
>> casest97217
>> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:37 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [EDI-L] Re: SCAC CODE LIST
>>
>>
>>
>> And to think that I've been neglecting the standards committees in 
>> their time of greatest need for the fight on Global Warming; How 
>> selfish of me, I feel so ashamed. :) Stephen
>>
>> --- In [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%
>>     
> 40yahoogroups.com> , "David
>   
>> Frenkel" <frenkel@> wrote:
>>     
>>> Craig,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You might start a letter writing campaign to your elected 
>>>       
>> officials. The
>>     
>>> vast majority of industrial standards in the US are developed and
>>> administered without government financial assistance. The eroding
>>> manufacturing base along with mergers and acquisitions have cut 
>>>       
>> into the
>>     
>>> membership base of many of these standards organizations 
>>>       
> including 
>   
>> X12. The
>>     
>>> economics of fewer members means higher member fees and higher 
>>>       
> cost 
>   
>> to
>>     
>>> purchase finished products, i.e. standards.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately e-commerce related standards have not been on the 
>>>       
>> radar of
>>     
>>> policy makers to help the SME that cannot afford to purchase the 
>>>       
>> standards
>>     
>>> you are discussing that will ultimately help them be more 
>>>       
>> competitive.
>>     
>>>
>>> David Frenkel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____ 
>>>
>>> From: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com>
>>>       
>> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> ] On 
>> Behalf Of
>>     
>>> Craig Dunham
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:14 AM
>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:EDI-L%40yahoogroups.com> 
>>> Subject: [EDI-L] Re: SCAC CODE LIST
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I, too, am like many in this group that feel that you should 
>>>       
> defend 
>   
>>> and support the standards. However, I'm also a realist and know 
>>> that too many of these "agencies" realize that they have the 
>>>       
> public 
>   
>>> by... well, by the *unmentionable body parts* and impose 
>>> astronomical fees and charges to use their "proprietary" data. 
>>> these practices of over-charging for the data ends up meaning 
>>>       
> that 
>   
>>> far too many people will take far too many short-cuts or just 
>>>       
>> ignore 
>>     
>>> the request for the data all-together.
>>>
>>> I had found, previously online, a zip file that contained a 
>>>       
> fairly 
>   
>>> current and accurate SCAC code list in Excel format. I downloaded 
>>> and have used it once or twice. But what I tell all of My trading 
>>> partners, however, when they ask what the SCAC code is and where 
>>>       
> to 
>   
>>> get it - I point them directly to 'the other source' for the 
>>>       
> code - 
>   
>>> the freight line/trucking company/shipping service - that they 
>>>       
> are 
>   
>>> using. Any of these carriers should be aware and know what 
>>>       
> they're 
>   
>>> own SCAC is.
>>>
>>> Yes, the NMFTA has control of the data and may even be 
>>>       
>> so "generous" 
>>     
>>> as to give one or two codes at no cost... but by charging 
>>>       
> hundreds 
>   
>>> and thousands of dollars for controlling this information - 
>>>       
> that's 
>   
>>> just highway robbery.
>>>
>>> And I have a bone of contention in the original post - about 
>>>       
> having 
>   
>>> the "intelligent conversation" and describing the "benefits from 
>>> using the standard correctly".... For any of us in the EDI world -
>>>       
>
>   
>>> using the standard correctly is simply getting a correct SCAC 
>>>       
> code 
>   
>>> in the required segments and documents. Period. As EDI people - 
>>>       
> it 
>   
>>> is not our job to see that this vendor or that supplier or this 
>>> retailer or that distribution center purchases or subscribes to 
>>>       
>> what 
>>     
>>> is - arguably - a horribly overpriced collection of data. That is 
>>> left to the person providing the code - and that is on their 
>>> conscience.... It is not our place, as EDI professionals, to 
>>> dictate another company's business practices and tell them that 
>>>       
>> they 
>>     
>>> have to subscribe or purchase such data....
>>>
>>> Instead, it is the job of our warehouses and distribution 
>>>       
> centers, 
>   
>>> of our manufacturers and shippers, of our own internal receiving 
>>>       
>> and 
>>     
>>> logistics and routing departments to monitor and enforce the 
>>> compliance with NMFTA and their codes. It is their decision to 
>>> require only an NMFTA coded carrier for any shipments and to be 
>>> valid in their status with their SCAC code.
>>>
>>> If the NMFTA feels such a need to provide data in such an 
>>>       
>> overpriced 
>>     
>>> way and some companies feel the need and drive to purchase said 
>>> overpriced data, that's fine. But they cannot expect the rest of 
>>> the supply chain universe to be the same. I'm fairly sure that 
>>>       
> the 
>   
>>> NMFTA makes money off of the creation and maintenance of the SCAC 
>>> codes and that UPS and FedEx and Yellow Frieght and all the other 
>>> carriers out there pay regular fees to keep that SCAC code in 
>>>       
> good 
>   
>>> standing and current. But charging end users of that data - 
>>>       
> again, 
>   
>>> the suppliers and retailers - too high of a price to access small 
>>> bits of that data is just too much.
>>>
>>> Again, is the SCAC data a good requirement and the standard 
>>> important? Yes. But the way that the data is provided - well, 
>>> that's up to each of us individually to decide and implement.
>>>
>>> Craig Dunham
>>> EDI Coordinator
>>> Big 5 Sporting Goods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>       
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>     
>
>
>  
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ...
> Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, 
> <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>
>
> Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> 
> IS REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>   


...
Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, 
<JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC>

Job postings are welcome, but for job postings or requests for work: <JOBS> IS 
REQUIRED in the subject line as a prefix. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Reply via email to