It is amazing the difference in peoples opinions about how bad this situation will get. They seem to break into two basic camps, no (or small) problem vs. end of the world. The no problem crowd will not buy into the end of the world. The end of the world will not buy into no big problem. I shall reserve my opinion, as to not influence answers.

So my Questions are as follows:

To the no big problem camp, how bad does it have to get, and how many things have to go wrong in order for you to say End of the world?

To the end of the world camp, How much do you think needs to be fixed and what has to happen before you say no big problem?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), August 21, 1998

Answers

Actually, I am conservative by nature. I guess that means that I realize we don't have a constitutional right to electricity or grocery stores and may have to learn to live without them at some point. On the other hand, I don't forsee rioting and looting. I think people will pull together. I know they lost electricity for a week up in Rochester, NY a couple years ago during an ice storm. I didn't hear about any rioting. People just holed up in their houses and sat by their fireplaces sipping soup. I do think there will be a huge migration to the south. I'm not so sure I want to join it since I can see where that would mean food would be in short supply there. I'd rather stay where the food is.

-- Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com), August 21, 1998.

I see a huge middle ground between the two extremes. While others have constantly tried to describe my positions as falling into the "no big deal" camp, I do not feel that way. Here is what I do expect.

There will be problems, some of them big and some of them prolonged. Many, if not most people will be inconvienienced at some time and in some way. I fully expect some people to suffer genuine hardships, but I expect the numbers to be relatively small. A few may even die.

There is a middle ground, and a lot of people reside there.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 21, 1998.

I have no idea what will happen. They're working on it, aren't they? :)

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 21, 1998.

I'm in the middle. The biggest problem I see is the social reaction to the uncertainties.

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), August 21, 1998.

Many people are going to be shocked, some pleased, some scared. Almost everyone is goine to learn a lot about self reliance, be that the ATM doesn't work or 911 doesn't answer anymore or that there is no phone to call 911. To whatever degree the future brings new experiences, know now that YOU are the one you need to learn to depend on.

I'm nearer the EOTWAWKI camp with much hope in the ingenuity and self interest of those who run the system (ie Elec and Phone). I think that at this date it is humanly impossible to fix enough to get to the "no big problem" stage.

It appears we (the world) are in the beginnings of a financial meltdown which will only be be complicated by whatever happens as a result of "the bug".

PREPARE NOW, please. The more you prepare now the less you will need from me in the future.

-- Gary Hale (garyhale@hotmail.com), August 21, 1998.

Unfortunately, this particular "century" computer problem was timed at the beginning of a new millenium. I believe that religious and other types of "millenium fever" are fueling much of the "end of the world as we know it" hype. (plus a catchy melody by R.E.M.)

I prefer to use the phrase "the end of our civilization as it is currently configured." (I think I made up this phrase myself, and I certainly wouldn't mind if it became a part of the lexicon!) I believe that this is where we are headed. In my mind, this means large scale breakdowns of the infrastructure for medium to long periods of time, massive movements of populations, food riots and other similar problems in inner cities, huge transfers of wealth, ethnic and class brought to the point of open warfare, and the military stepping in to "protect democracy." (it will probably be quite Orwellian. It already is.) None of this means "the end of the world."

I am 35 years old and I believe my generation and the one preceding has very little understanding of history. We've never really lived through any "real history." My parents were children during WWII, and sure, they were part of events in 1968, and Watergate, etc, but when it comes down to it, most people in the western world today have lived in a world of relative prosperity and security. We don't seem to understand that history flows along strong currents, and occasionally, there are waterfalls. I remember as a child, the mother of a friend had a number tattooed on her arm. She did not even attempt to hide it, and said that she wore it proudly as a statement to the world that things are not always the way they appear to be. At 6 or 7 years old, that was my first lesson in history.

In the 1930's and 40's, the civilization as it was configured then changed, power shifted, etc. Again in the 1990's in the Communist world, things were reconfigured. That one still is in the process. In this country, we seem to believe that it can't happen here, but it has and it is. It's just been at a pace that's been imperceptible to most. It appears to me that the pace will change fairly abruptly in the next two years, and "civilization as it is currently configured" will be quite different in the first few years of the next century.

So, to those who believe it will be just a minor problem, I think maybe you don't understand the forces of history and the nature of power. It's not a technolgical problem. If that's all it was, Reagan would have talked about it when he was in office, Bush would have gotten the ball rolling, Clinton would have made it a national priority in his first term and Gore would have made it part of his "Reinventing Government" initiative. Government will be reinvented, you can be damned sure about that! Huge numbers of companies will "go out of business" and everything will get gobbled up by a new "government business partnership" in order to "protect us and our interests." I'm really not much of a conspiracy theory believer, but at the same time, I don't see how it can happen any other way.

'Nuff said for now...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), August 21, 1998.

Im with PShannon all the way.

Vic

-- Vic (Light_servant@yahoo.com), August 21, 1998.

I'm with Vic and PShannon. It won't be the end of the world, but it will be a huge setback for freedom and human rights in America.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), August 21, 1998.

Quotes that roll through my mind at night

"Our entire way of life is at risk, we are so dependent on digital equipment," the GAO official said (in July). "We won't be able to conduct national security, collect taxes, distribute benefits, manufacture products"

"In a memorandum last Friday (Aug 7) to top defense officials, Defense Secretary William Cohen says the Pentagon "is making insufficient progress in its efforts to solve" the department's Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem., or manage commerce." . . .

Gartner Group: "Among the industries furthest behind were essential services such as government, power, gas, water, transport, health care, education, agriculture and food processing."

"The difficulties can't be finessed, buried, re-scoped, bought off, reorganized away, or dragged out until they're finally fixed. There is too much complexity to handle, too much damage to undo, too little time to allocate, and too few people to deploy." --Bruce F. Webster, Chief Technical Officer, Object Systems Group Chair, Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group

"Embedded systems underpin the world's business processes. For example, the world's energy supplies (oil, coal, gas, nuclear) depend on embedded systems. Manufacturing processes are particularly dependent. Food, drink and clean water come primarily from processes that depend on embedded systems. Vehicles of all types use microprocessors. They are also vital in railway networks, telecommunications, medical equipment, broadcast media and so on. Offices and workshops are dependent on embedded systems for everyday operations. According to research conducted over the past year, around 5% of simple embedded systems failed Millennium Bug tests. For more sophisticated embedded systems, failure rates of between 50% and 80% have been reported. In manufacturing environments, the typical overall failure rate is around 15%."--UK's Action 2000

"The Y2K problems affect virtually all telecommunications network components. Because a single noncompliant component could potentially shut down an entire network, rigorous testing will be necessaryGiven the embryonic stage of the Administration's telecommunications initiatives, with only 19 months (June) left, I am concerned that this may be too little, too late." --Congresswoman Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT), Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Ways and Means

"I'm working with power companies and transmission network operators every day of the week on the Y2 issue, and as far as forecasting how severe this thing is going to be..:we're all still operating from ouiji boards trying to peer into the Y2k future. My best guess continues to be that there will be significant regional impacts."--Rick Cowles

"While Y2K experts recommend setting aside basic necessities -- food, water, cash -- in the event of Year 2000 disruptions, at least one in seven Americans are so poor they can barely afford day-to-day essentials, much less set anything aside."-- Shaunti Feldhahn, (Westergaard column)

Think about hospitals, water plants, sewage treatment facilities, traffic signals, railroads, mines, refineries, drilling rigs, pipelines, nuclear plants, nuclear missiles, seaports, airports, the Leonid meteor storm, Sun Cycle 23, the GPS rollover, interconnections, interdependencies, population-dense cities, terrorism, sabotage, current levels of awareness and concern, the focus of government on national, state, and local levels. 498 days and rolling.

I'm afraid I have to side with fellow optimist, Cory Hamasaki: "There is no reason to believe that we won't see a complete collapse of civilization. Anyone who says that things will be fine hasn't got a good sense of history or current events." (http://www.sonnet.co.uk/muse/DCW-90.TXT)

Show me readiness of power companies, telecommunications, railroads, some major banks, the DOD, the military, a hospital or two....Just throw a few crumbs and I'll gladly change my mind! Meanwhile, I say, keep preparing. Keep trying to tell your loved ones, neighbors, communities, and to get them to act. Time is short, and the problems are huge and real.

-- Faith Weaver (faith-weaver@usa.net), August 21, 1998.

I'm in neither camp. I do think something will happen, but don't see it as the end of it all. I think too many people are sitting around with their beans and computers waiting for the world to end so there's a lot of that going around on the internet. I can see how if a certain chain of events happens it could be the end, but I don't believe that will happen.

I'm looking forward to rationing of electricity and fuel, martial law in some parts of the country (people area going to riot and loot if they know exactly when the power's going off. It's human nature) to prevent looting. Bare grocery shelves due to both last minute preparedness and interrupted deliveries, but I expect most things to even out and be back to normal by summer.

What I don't expect to happen is loss of water in the cities. Sure, it's possible, but that and emergency services will be priorities when it comes to power rationing. No water to a city, and that city immediately becomes unlivable.

-- Renaldo W. (renaldo_w@hotmail.com), August 24, 1998.

Paul said, "While others have constantly tried to describe my positions as falling into the "no big deal" camp, I do not feel that way. Here is what I do expect... ( qualifing snips) ...I fully expect some people to suffer genuine hardships, but I expect the numbers to be relatively small. A few may even die."

(sigh) Paul, you are an utter moron. Sorry to say this, but the time has come. First you say that you aren't in the "no big deal camp" then you say the number of people that may really be hurt or die is SMALL.

That qualifies as no big deal, Einstein.

Ya know, your lack of self awareness worries me, pal. You're fun to have around, kinda like that old wall behind the gym in school where you could bounce a ball off of, ya know? But I am growing concerned with your state of mind. You are NOT going to make it, Paul. Not when you think that there is a "middle ground".

As I have said before, the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

Wake up! There is no middle ground here! It will be bad, or it will be nothing! Your decision to do nothing to prepare gives you the greatest vested interest in defending your position that there is. You will very possibly die if you are wrong. That postion is stupid. And as you have stated that you are not preparing personally, then one is left with no other conclusion than that you are the same.

Middle ground, LOL, LOL what a joke.

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 24, 1998.

Will,

I hate for you to give up what has become a sport, (i.e. sniping at me) but could you give your response to the poster of the question rather than to my response? If I'm such a moron, pray enlighten me with your wisdom.

Better yet, if it is so obviously an end-of-the-world type of problem, why do you believe it to be so? Any proof you can point to?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 24, 1998.

Sorry, Will, but there is a middle ground. Even Ed Yardeni isn't predicting the end of the world--he says recession possible.

"It will be bad, or it will be nothing!" Why do you think it has to be either/or? We could have significant problems that affect our way of life without it being "the end of the world." The oil crisis in the early 70s affected every American's life, but it wasn't the end of the world.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), August 25, 1998.

I really enjoy reading responses like pshannon's and Faith Weaver's. On the other hand, when people begin to call each other names just because of a difference of opinion, I am really disappointed. When facing any potential crisis as human beings I think it is important to focus on the facts: not heresay, not feelings or emotions, not even opinions. Right now the facts about Y2K do not look promising. I know that progress is being made, and I'm thankful for that, but even as the progress is being made, many companies are finding that it is a much larger and much more expensive project than they realized. When someone like Bruce Webster (WDC Year 2000 Group) says, "I personally think that it's worse than I've been willing to acknowledge," it causes me great concern. As to personal preparedness, I just don't see where it would hurt anyone to have extra food and supplies around. If you are purchasing things that you would eat or use anyway, what have you lost? Think of it as a sort of savings account. You may not be earning interest on the items, but if prices go up, which they probably will even without Y2K, then you HAVE saved money. Thanks Mr. Yourdon for allowing us this forum.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), August 25, 1998.

Hey Uncle Deedah,

I consider myself in the middle range. (I think it could be awful - but can't sort out the hype(and conflict of interest) vs the pollyanna view of "It *will* be OK, because I can't stand to think about how bad it could get." Time will tell, won't it? Since I can only guess at how bad it could get, I'm taking what I consider to be prudent action. I was planning to move to the country anyway, so my additional steps are these:

I'm pulling both dollars I own out of the bank before 1999, and I'll purchase non-hybrid seeds instead of the fancy varieties I like to grow. I'll also stock up on food. None of this will appear foolish to friends and family, and my reputation will be intact if its turns out I am wrong.

I could get fanatical about TEOTWAWKI *IF* the power companies ever do a public service announcment that it would be a patriotic thing to do to have a kerosene heater on hand for new years eve.... *IF* the gov'ment issued food coupons, etc..., but of course by then it would be too late, wouldn't it...?

I could get more hopefull if the US gov declared the first week of June, 1999 a national holiday and required everyone to roll their systems forward for an integration check. At least we would have a sense of how bad it could be. Testing live in the middle of the winter makes no sense to me...

Aunt Carolyn

-- Aunt Carolyn (none@anon.com), August 26, 1998.

Paul said,"I hate for you to give up what has become a sport, (i.e. sniping at me) [It is fun, I admit...] <> Better yet, if it is so obviously an end-of-the-world type of problem, why do you believe it to be so? Any proof you can point to?"

I have never said that it is the end 'o the world. I have in fact made every effort to bury that old chestnut. My postion has been stated clearly here time and again. Once more;

The only rational choice when faced with a problem of this magnitude in which the WRONG choice has such devastating consequences, is to prepare for the worst. That mitigates whatever results from one's decision. To prepare and not need it is far less painful and dangerous than to not prepare and need it.

The only ones clinging to their cherished opinions are those that do not wish to do this. They are then forced to defend their postion. Whistling past the graveyard, or like our illustrious president, denying until it is no longer possible to do so.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 26, 1998.

Buddy said,""It will be bad, or it will be nothing!" Why do you think it has to be either/or? We could have significant problems that affect our way of life without it being "the end of the world." The oil crisis in the early 70s affected every American's life, but it wasn't the end of the world.

Buddy, hear this, what you have described above is called LIFE. SH*T HAPPENS. The middle ground you want so badly to believe in is just life as usual. That is what I meant when I said it would be bad or nothing. Horrible things happen every day to all kinds of people. That is not the end 'o the world. It is just our lot. It is nothing.

Bad was anywhere near Rome in 476. Bad was the Black Plague. Bad was living south of the Mason Dixon line in 1865. Bad was being Jewish in Europe in the '30s. Bad was Pol Pot and the Killing Fields.

***Bad is when the world turns, when tomorrow isn't like yesterday anymore.***

Y2K could be bad, Buddy. That's why you must prepare. And when you do, you don't prepare for life as usual, you prepare for what can't truly be prepared for.

A different world.

Prepare, and pray you don't need it.

But for the sake of your loved ones, do it NOW!

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 26, 1998.

Sorry Will, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. However, when you make statements such as the following on the subject presented in this thread, you should be able to see where I got the idea that you believe in Y2K as something describable as "the end of the world."

<< You are NOT going to make it, Paul. Not when you think that there is a "middle ground".

As I have said before, the only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead armadillos.

Wake up! There is no middle ground here! >>

If the extremes are "end of the world" and "no big deal" and there is no middle ground, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to be classified in the "no big deal" camp. Therefore, I was forced to assume you belonged in the "end of the world" camp.

By the way, I'm glad I can help amuse you. Good to know I can spread a little humor in the world. I'll keep working on it. :-)

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 27, 1998.

I too have noticed that there does not seem to be much middle-of-the road when it comes to opinions on Y2K impact. I suspect it has to do with whether you believe in the Domino Effect -- i.e., the chain reaction of Y2K. If you don't, then each "little" problem just tends to be just that. If you do, then you see it to be a huge problem.

-- Joe Fox (fox@arceng.com), August 27, 1998.

Additional comment... Likewise, hearing representatives of government agencies, power utility companies, telecommunications, etc., say "We don't know what the effect of Y2K will be" also seems to separate folks into the two camps. Some people are COMFORTED by such statements; others are TERRIFIED by such statements. Very few seem to be middle-of-the-road.

-- Joe Fox (fox@arceng.com), August 27, 1998.

Actually, there was a DEAD SKUNK in the middle of the road!!! Folks, we have a problem... We have to talk about it now!!! Set your computer to 12/31/99 and let it run all night into the next century(millenium). The program I lost was Emma's Cookbook... PS I have no money in the bank!

-- Jerry McGovern (jerry@beachwalking.com), August 27, 1998.

Will,

The way you put it means that one should always be prepared. I have no problem with that. My house always has provisions enough for a few weeks as a matter of routine.

The problem I see is that not everyone can prepare for the worst case scenario--it is impossible. But, by working together people always find a way to get through a crisis. The spirit of cooperation I see with Hurricane Bonnie and other recent disasters is encouraging. As my parents conveyed to me, the spirit of Americans and everyone else who worked together to overcome the Nazis was incredible!

I just don't see the value in building a bunker off in the countryside. If the worst does happen, what will people do when their brothers, uncles, grandmothers, cousins, next-door-neighbors, etc. find their bunkers?

I am preparing by educating myself about this problem. The one thing that always gets me is...If noone knows what will happen, then why is TEOTWAWKI so obvious to some?

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), August 27, 1998.

I think the crux of the matter is the electric grid. If that fails, and remains down for more than a week or two, IMHO the problems will be severe. Spirit of cooperation may have worked well in 1929 or 1940. How many people in 1998 can truly say they have the ability to be self sufficient in supplying their basic needs for food and shelter? Large segments of our society have been conditioned to believe it is their right for the goverment to take care of them. I dont think its unrealistic to forsee what will happen in NYC or LA if theres no electric, no water, no food stamps, no food, no cops or sanitation for even a short period of time .If the grid stays down, how many will be able to cope(mentall,y physically and spiritually) with the radical lifestyle changes that will ensue? I fail too see how anyone could contemplate staying in the cities if this remains a threat. IMHO, those that see the end of life as we know it are almost always talking about a scenario that includes long term grid failure.

-- LauraA (LaaDeDah@aol.com), August 28, 1998.

Buddy-{The problem I see is that not everyone can prepare for the worst case scenario--it is impossible}

It is impossible for *everyone* to do anything at the same time. So what? What does that have to do with YOU and your family? Nothing, it is merely herd mentality coming through loud and clear. Since everyone can't prepare, then you can defer responsibility. Hell, you'll have lots of company and that is comforting, isn't it?

Buddy-{I just don't see the value in building a bunker off in the countryside. If the worst does happen, what will people do when their brothers, uncles, grandmothers, cousins, next-door-neighbors, etc. find their bunkers? }

Buddy, Buddy, Buddy,

As Richard Bach said in "Illusions", "Perspective, use it or lose it."

In the event that y2k is bad, the dangers presented by a panicked society are directly proportional to the population density. Wake up, guy! Does moving out of the city guarantee you safety from these problems? Of course not. Does it significantly improve the odds that you will make it? Without question. At it's heart, your entire post is a study in denial. You delude yourself into thinking that you are being prudent, prepared. You are not, it is simply much more comfortable to keep repeating nobodyknowsforsure. This justifies your position.

I will remind you of a pentagon study that showed in the event of a cyber-terrorist attack that interferes with supply lines to a city, there is no fresh food after three days and no food at all at the retail level after ten. If the sewage disposal goes down

Ahhh, forget it.

P.S. Your assumption that no one knows is flawed. What is true is no one knows precisely which systems will fail and exactly how. Also open to debate is the exact nature of the interconnection Gordian Knot. This complexity is in truth beyond human comprehension, rather like grasping how much is a million quadrillion. The reality of systems failures is undeniable. All the systems in the world are broken and they will not all be fixed. That my ostrich-friend, is a fact.

Pay attention to how much emotional comfort you draw from the nobodyknowsforsure mantra.

-- Will Huett (WILLHUETT@USA.NET), August 28, 1998.

Paul-[By the way, I'm glad I can help amuse you. Good to know I can spread a little humor in the world. I'll keep working on it. :-) ]

You never fail me, pal.

BTW, what will you do if you are wrong about this? Every agency and company are talking contigency plans. What about you, Paul?

Oh, and don't skirt the question with some inanity about why it won't be bad, or how you can stretch a box of Post Toasties a month. Even Koskinen preaches contingency planning.

Straight now, what if you are horribly wrong in your assessment?

What will you do then?

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 28, 1998.

Uncle Deedah,

While trying to avoid the arguing that this question brings up, I'll try to answer your original question.

First, 'end of the world?' No way.

'No big problem'? Nope!

Big problem.......... will cause a lot of trouble for a lot of folks. Will humans survive? If God wills it, we will, just as we have in the past. But, I can't buy in to the 'well, 1 out of 10 survived the black plague,' therefore it won't be TOO bad, concept.

Where do you put that stance? The 'no big problem' guys and girls think it's TEOTWAWKI. The TEOTWAWKI element calls it Pollyanna.

Now, what would it take for me to shift my view to either end? To go 'no big problem' I'd need to be convinced of an underlying worldwide econonomic recovery and compliance from power, banking and transportation.......worldwide. Actually, add telecommunications to that group. Hey folks, we're seeing the effects of international deflation right now. If you bought stocks in June you're holding a loser now. A great portion of the retirement funding of everyone in this country is tied up in market related investments. A lot of people can end up much poorer. I believe -- and it's only my belief -- that unless the iron triangle survives WORLDWIDE we will take a really solid ECONOMIC hit. Now, we could get by with having lights on January 1,2000, only to slide down into a wopper of a depression because the rest of the world tanks.

Worldwide economic recovery plus a worldwide solid iron triangle would move me into the 'not a problem camp.'

To go to the TEOTWAWKI camp will simply take continued lack of remediation of the problem. I don't mean lack of remediation by ALL government agencies and private companies......I mean that MOST of them have to 'get it' or they will contribute to an economic downtrend. In other words, unless we start getting a lot of good news, not just an occasional happy announcement, I would go TEOTWAWKI. Probably about spring of 1999.

What do I think it will be? Doesn't matter.......since I've told you what my criterion are for moving either direction.

I will say, though, that if I wait until the spring of 1999 to prepare for trouble it will be way too late. Just went to plan D for food storage today because of backups in the chain. Hey, this preparation is hard work. Maybe I should forget about it and just become a pollyanna. It's easier. Yeah, Uncle Deedah, that's the only way to go.

-- rocky knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), August 28, 1998.

Will,

<< Straight now, what if you are horribly wrong in your assessment? >>

A fair question. The short answer: My family and I are screwed. But then, you already knew that. (You just didn't think I did.)

The real issue is: Do I believe strongly enough in the possibility of circumstances that would require the level of preparation you advocate? No. And I'll admit, I don't think you should have to believe in those circumstances too terribly strongly to make more extensive preparations than my wife and I are making. I just don't believe it's going to happen.

The fact of the matter is, my wife and I have seen or heard nothing that leads us to believe that a breakdown in the infrastructure of society severe enough to warrant "survival level" preparations is likely. And we have both been researching this at a more than casual level as we are both IT professionals responsible for at least some component of our companies' Y2K plans. Obviously, you disagree with our assesment. That is what works for you. This is what works for us.

C'est la vie.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 28, 1998.

Mr. Neuhardt reminds me of those slick Wall Street pundants who claim we are still in a bull market. Yup, we sure are! The market is down almost 1300 points in the past few weeks and every indication is that we are still in a bull market. And what about that 357 point drop on Thursday??? Aw, it was "only a few percentage points. That is nothing!" (one moron actually said that.) He didn't consider the previous market drops. Let's all keep a smiley face :) :) :). Everything will be OK. We don't need Russian, or Japan, or Latin America. Hell, we don't need anyone but our wonderful Bill Clinton, and our government who will take care of us...just like they always have! It's just a waste to prepare your family for hard times. WE must all be crazy to give a damn about something so useless. I wonder what those people in Russia with no money plan on eating this winter? That could never happen here. We have people like Neuhardt to say it just ain't so!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 29, 1998.

Bank Boston, which may be the Y2K leader in banks, went on record in Newsweek with a horse race with the horses at the starting gate and they've been whippingthe horses for 4-5 years. The horses aren't moving.

If BankBoston and SS can't make it, nobody can. They began years ago..... so says the article!

-- Dave (dave22@concentric.net), August 29, 1998.

why is it that Paul Neuhardt strike such a raw nerve with the doomsayers? What is wrong with moderation? This forum could use more. And more of Paul's civilized and urbain responses to extreme provocation and plain bad manners. I think things will be worse than he does. But the truth is that nobody knows how bad it will be. Each should prepare as he or she believes necessary. Isn't it interesting how fascinating the abyss can seem.

-- Jan S C Czarnecki (czarneck@tbaytel.net), August 29, 1998.

Paul,

Your honesty was refreshing. You said that you just don't think it will happen and admitted you are screwed if it does.

I cannot comprehend such a postion. ( I can't even work up the energy to insult you, I'm so flabbergasted. { But I'll try} )

I am sure you have life insurance, health insurance, fire insurance, etc. Yet the likelyhood of your house burning down is at least as remote as a y2k induced crisis that would necessitate feeding yourself for a month or two.

I love the life I'm living now too, Paul. In fact, I just got a call this morning telling me I have been accepted in a residency that I have worked for for the past two years. Absolutely nothing would fill my heart with more joy than this y2k crap being nothing much.

But there is no way on God's earth that I would sit and do nothing to protect my family from this. No matter how much I don't want it to be true. That is utterly without moral integrity. It is unconscionable.

Your postion scares me, Paul. you not only refuse to accept even a remote possiblity of trouble, you actively work to persuade others to your line of reasoning. That is unforgivable. You will not only suffer greatly when you are faced with this catastrophe, your postion will then endanger many others. Who will feed you and your wife? It is incredibly selfish of you to not even provide a couple of months food and water.

I pity you. There is nothing rational you can offer this discussion group when you plainly state that you will be screwed if you are wrong.

Let's see, your postion demands that you are right, or you will suffer greatly and very possibly die. Ok, so when you post here about how unnecessary preparation is, we are supposed to bask in the warm glow of your urbain objectivity?

Ha!

There is absolutey no ability for objectivity in that position, hence your analysis of y2k cannot be taken seriously. Your reasoning is completely biased. And unstable, I think.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 29, 1998.

Paul is a classic opptimist. I would rather be happy than right.

-- vic (Light_Servant@yahoo.com), August 29, 1998.

Paul claims to be working on Y2K, that he is an IT manager. I wonder when he does all that work? He has a lot of posts during the work week on these forums. If this is any incication of what is being done, we really are screwed!

-- Onlooker (onlooker@peep.com), August 29, 1998.

Will,

<< ...you actively work to persuade others to your line of reasoning. That is unforgivable. >>

Really? When did reasoned discourse become a crime in the U.S.? So far as I can tell, I'm only a villian to you because I have the audacity to disagree with you. (And you, I suppose, make no attempt to persuade people to your line of reasoning?)

I present my opinions and beliefs as that: mine. I have repeatedly said, and will continue to say, that anyone who believes differently should act on their beliefs. I am attemting to add a little bit to those discussions which I am interested in. To be blunt, I don't give a tinker's damn whether anyone agrees with my opinions or not, but I am going to continue to express them. If you don't like them, I suggest you simply skip my posts. They don't seem to be good for your blood pressure.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 29, 1998.

Paul>>(And you, I suppose, make no attempt to persuade people to your line of reasoning?)<<

Sure I do. The difference is I am able to be more objective because my survival does not depend upon my being right, yours does. Ergo, you cannot be objective in your reasoning or arguements. IMHO, attempting to persuade people to your way of thinking is irresponsible, simply because of the consequences to them if you are incorrect.

It would be completely different if you counseled preparedness and THEN argued why it was unnecessary. That would be both reasoned and conservative advice. Your position is actually very radical. And most radicals wind up getting their people hurt.

Captain Smith must have been a lot like you, "Yeah, we'll be screwed if we hit an iceberg, but I just don't believe its going to happen, so full speed ahead!"

Pity there are passengers on your liner.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 29, 1998.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines objective as "concerned with the realities of the thing dealt with rather than the thoughts of the artist, writer, etc." Since this topic was specifically started to solicit opinons (a specific kind of thought) objectivity is, by definition, impossible so long as we stay within the bounds of the subject at hand. (We won't cover the concept that your definition of objective still boils down to having to agree with your opinion or be wrong. That's not part of the subject here.)

Speaking of the subject, I never have heard how it is that if the extremes are "societal catastastrophe (i.e. end of the world)" and "Nothing's going to happen," and there is no middle ground how your position is not equatable to "end of the world" or any other cute phrasing you would want to apply. Despite the banter we have going here, I really would like clarification on this point. I'm sure others would as well.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 30, 1998.

My position, my postion...

Why is it that pollyannas such as yourself insist on catagorizing anyone that sees genuine risk from this global fiasco as an endoftheworlder?

And what,pray tell does endoftheworld mean? Does it mean all of us who see a real threat here, or just the ones that duct tape two 30 round magazines together on our AKs?

Your insistence on this phraseology is manipulative as I am sure you understand. It is an attempt to debase all who disagree with you. Rather like calling all conservatives right wing extremists. My dictionary defines objective as unbiased. This you cannot be, as your life depends on your opinion being correct.

Anyone that makes contigencies for food shortage, bank runs and social unrest automatically covers all your precious middle ground scenarios. That is why this dicussion must polarize between your position and mine.

To prepare or not to prepare, that is the only question.

-- will huett (willhuett@usa.net), August 31, 1998.

<< To prepare or not to prepare, that is the only question. >>

No, the question "To prepare for what?" must be asked and answered first. Otherwise, preparation may be totally misdirected. Last week, had the people in North and South Carolina simply prepared aimlessly, they might have stored water in preparation for a drought instead of boarding up their windows for a hurricane. Preparation is only effective if properly directed.

Come to think of it, that is at the heart of the original question asked in this thread, the direct point of my question to you, and the one you STILL don't seem willing to answer. Why? Is it really that much more fun to berate me than it is to answer a question basic to the discussion?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), August 31, 1998.

I answered the question, Paul, clearly, in English, in my last post. You merely continue to obfuscate.

Prepare for FOOD SHORTAGES, A BANK PANIC, SOCIAL UNREST.

There, is that clear? I can't draw pictures here.

When contingencies for these dire situations are thought through and implemented, then the rest of this broohaha becomes moot.

THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF Y2K:

" I don't think there will be a problem despite the fact that currently systems are broken world-wide, therefore I will do nothing to protect myself and family in the event I am mistaken"

THE HUETT DOCTRINE OF Y2K:

" Billions and Billions of dollars are being spent by very conservative industries to solve something. Ergo there is a factual basis for the position that unrepaired systems will result in some systems failures which could cause severe disruptions in critical services and industries. Therefore, being neither omniscient nor immortal, I will operate in the assumption that some of these failures very possibly could happen and I will take the steps necessary to insure my family can eat, that I will have some control over my purchasing power, and be relatively safe in the event of turmoil."

There is absolutely no information that will be forthcoming prior to 1-1-00 that could possibly change the need for these preparations. Because all such information will by its very nature be incomplete.

Contingency planning is the ONLY RATIONAL OPTION.

What is astounding is that you attempt to argue against this position. Your "prepare for what" analogy was pathetic, especially in light of my having specified what.

I shouldn't bother, but I worry about you, Paul. Really. Your position is irrational.

Buy food, store water and then I'll sharpen the SWORD OF TEOTWAWKI and you can mount your faithful steed, POLLYANNA, and we will go at it for the next year, ok?

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), September 01, 1998.

Will,

<< Why is it that pollyannas such as yourself insist on categorizing anyone that sees genuine risk from this global fiasco as an endoftheworlder? >>

I don't. In this discussion I am using the original post on the thread and my original response to define terms. The original post separated the world into only the two extremes, while my response (and others' that you decided not to harp on) indicated that those two extremes were not the only views and that there were people between those two extremes.

Additionally, I would remind you that it was not I but Uncle Deedah, most definitely not someone who could be described by those preferring such simplistic labels as a "pollyanna" who originally broke the world into these two camps in this discussion. You can discover that by reading the original post.

<< THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF Y2K:

" I don't think there will be a problem despite the fact that currently systems are broken world-wide, therefore I will do nothing to protect myself and family in the event I am mistaken" >>

Gee Will, why is it that endoftheworlders such as you insist on categorizing anyone that does not see this as a global fiasco as a Pollyanna? :-)

Okay, since you have repeatedly said you do not believe in a middle ground on this subject, I suppose I can see where you are coming from. However, there is an inherent contradiction in your responses when compared to the subject at hand, namely "what would it take to get people with the extreme opinions to move towards the other end of the spectrum, and is there a middle ground?" You deny the possibility of an intermediate position and then deny having a position at either extreme as those extremes are defined. It is obvious that you have strong opinions, yet you leave yourself no place to frame them in the context of this discussion. Are you seeking to redefine the extremes presented by Uncle Deedah in the original post? If so, fine, but that message has not yet been stated. If not, you either have to pick one of the defined extremes as representing your position or admit to a middle ground between them.

<< I answered the question, Paul, clearly, in English, in my last post. You merely continue to obfuscate.

Prepare for FOOD SHORTAGES, A BANK PANIC, SOCIAL UNREST. >>

Well, what I actually meant to ask about was what disturbances might Y2K problems generate that would lead to food shortages, bank panic and social unrest and the probability of those disturbances occurring. As I was admittedly unclear on that point, I'll accept responsibility for the confusion. And, in the interest of keeping the discussion on the point at hand, I'll not ask for those details again. For now.

<< Your "prepare for what" analogy was pathetic, especially in light of my having specified what. >>

It wasn't an analogy. An analogy is an implication of similarity between two otherwise dissimilar situations. An analogy would have been "It would be like studying a history text to prepare for a math exam." What I did was present a question and a direct clarifying example of a disaster situation requiring preparation. The question "prepare for what" is, and remains, at the heart of any and all preparation discussions.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 01, 1998.

In an attempt to demonstrate the middle ground I believe exists in this discussion, let's pick one section of Will's earlier list of preparation items: Bank panic. Now, the only truly "prepared" position for a bank panic is to not have any money in a bank. Overlooking the fact that this cure, if carried out by even a small percentage of the population causes the very disease it is intended to guard against, let's look at two things that such preparation for a bank panic implies. Then, let's see if there is an implied middle ground that acknowledges a need to guard against risk without picking the most extreme protection possible.

First, it implies that you do not need to make preparations for the possibility of banks remaining open but making mistakes in the accounting and handling of your deposits. After all, if you have no accounts there is no need to keep an independent accounting of deposits and withdrawals made at the end of 1999 and through the first few weeks of 2000. There would be no need to cancel automatic payments or deposits into or out of that account if the account is closed. It relieves you of the burden of deciding how much cash you need to keep on hand to wait out problems in the ATM and teller systems. It implies that the act of manually calculating and confirming the yield on interest bearing deposits would be unnecessary. It would imply that verification of the proper payment of checks you write to creditors would be unnecessary.

Second, it implies that you are willing to place yourself into a position where you can not use banking services to protect your assets. One example of this would be demonstrated in the payment of a mortgage. Without a checking account, you would have four choices for payment. One, find a verifiable instrument other than a check, such as a money order, to use for your payment. Problem is, these things can set you back a fair amount of your cash in service charges and may be unavailable for some period of time as the issuers straighten out lingering Y2K problems. Second, you could make your payments in person, pay with cash and get a receipt. This is problematic if your note holder is physically remote and you don't have access. Option three would be to stick a wad of cash into an envelope, mail it off then hope that an honest person opens it and gives you both proper credit and a proper receipt. Otherwise you will have no record of the transaction, no proof you made the payment and no recourse when they foreclose on you. Option four would be to default on the loan, or at least suffer the consequences of skipping payments until you re-establish a bank account. Not good if you hope to get a loan again any time soon.

Is there a middle ground implied? I believe that there is. Keeping just enough money in the bank to meet your obligations while taking measures to ensure the bank properly accounts for your remaining deposits would represent a middle ground. Willingness to continue the use of checks while ceasing use of electronic fund transfers would represent a middle ground. It's up to each individual to assess the level of risk, their tolerance for risk and what level of preparation is appropriate for that risk.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 01, 1998.

Paul, generally I'm with you in this argument with Will, but I think you left out an option as far as the bank situation is concerned - save up enough money to pay your critical bills up several months in advance, before 2000. For most people, this would definitely require some planning beginning right now.

-- Deborah Barr (debbarr@concentric.net), September 01, 1998.

<< Paul, generally I'm with you in this argument with Will, but I think you left out an option as far as the bank situation is concerned - save up enough money to pay your critical bills up several months in advance, before 2000. For most people, this would definitely require some planning beginning right now. >>

You're right. It is an option that I didn't think of and would, I suppose, be possible. It would require advance planning as it would necessitate the cooperation of your creditors (not to mention a change in saving habits). For instance, the terms of my mortgage specifically exclude making advance payments. I can make extra payments with the overage applied to the principal, but I must adhere to a minimum of one payment each month or be in violation of the agreement.

I would darn sure get any agreement to make advance payments in writing. That way, if the creditor reports you as being deliquent on three payments when you actually paid them in advance you have some recourse. In fact, I might pass those agreements by a lawyer before acting on them just to make sure that they are really binding and effective.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 02, 1998.

Neuhardt! Aren't you an IT professional working on Y2K? You sure waste a lot of time making comments here. Like I said, if we have to depend on your ilk to solve Y2K, we are screwed!

-- Onlooker (onlooker@peep.com), September 02, 1998.

Onlooker,

I suppose you wouldn't want to hear from any IT pros then? What about Cory Hamasaki? Isn't he supposed to be an expert? He sure spends a lot of time spreading misinformation and speculation.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 02, 1998.

Couple of things: A) Lay off Paul's use of time. 1. You don't know what he does & when he does it, where he does it from (remote/on-line/in town/contact basis/etc.) and you aren'y paying him to produce lines of code. (That's his business/leisure choices. By the way, after fighting code all day, i'd rather cover real issues with somepeople who cares than a computer who doesn't in a company that doesn't.)

B) Banking - middle of road, avoiding the skunks and opposums, position. I've got 35 bills that regularly are paid each month: 9 are automatic withdrawal: including car & house, electricity, insurance, water, etc. 25 are paid with checks printed from MSMoney on a Win 3.1 PC at home. Groceries are paid by debit card probably 12-15 times month, total asume 400.00 . The kids get lunch money/allowance for school every week, this is 120.00.

Middle of road: Assume my paycheck still comes in. (Big assumption.) (I'm not on automatic deposit.) My wife's teacher's check should still come in for January and February 2000 because their district still does all payroll manually (I've checked!) but it is automatically depositied.. So that gives us some preparing to do:

My check: in October/November 1999 (or before) get the company to pay me ahead two months, convert vacation time to cash, keep some or most of this in cash, some in the bank. Enough in bank to pay all expected bills (if minmum payment to everything) for Jan & Feb. Keep rest in cash for food/water/barter/gasoline. Wife's check: in October, change to check, not direct deposit. When recived (before christmas vacation) deposit it.

Keep paper copies of everything. Let automatic payments tay as is. If there are errors, everybody will have them = not worth worrying. If not, nobody will have them = not worth worrying. Write checks from PC in January, mail. (keep copies of everything. Yes = my PC will turn over wrong, I've tested after resetting date, it will work and MSMoney will calculate dates correctly from Windows 3.1 and DOS 6.22.) If no power, write them by hand. Mail. Walk, ride bicycles, keep warm, work, if possible. We have several overseas programmers inSlovakia - make sure the company flies them here before 12/27/99.

Keep Christmas gifts to survival levels and survival items (camping, hiking,etc.)

Leave IRA/401K/insurance alone. Leave taxes alone. Don't file anything until April 15, 2359, and then do by snail mail.

the big stuff (automatic

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1998.

That last line should have been deleted, my error. (So that's why we test things, wish this thing had a "preview" and spell-checker.

My moral obligation to pay bills is satisified if the check is mailed in January & February. It gives me a receipt and a paper copy. If their bank can't process it, or the mail is lost, or it is delayed, or lost in their company, my money is not spent until they get it right. My bank (Wacovia, GA) is saying they are fixing the problem, and is advertising their efforts. Good first step. They have the car loan, home equity line of credit: USAA has house payment -- they are talking about the problem. It is a start. If transfers die between banks, oh well.

My worries start with power, water, radio (police/911/fire) and natural gas. If those work, food is next. Medical? Find out who around us is a doctor/nurse/dentist/optomistrist.

So am I a middle of the roader, or an opposum?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 02, 1998.