Serious question here, folks. It's 5 AM, I haven't strolled over to the 7-11 for a cup of Volcano Roast coffee and a malasada yet.

I'm working on WRPs 116, 117 and I realized that I haven't seen any articles from an IT expert Pollys. If there are any out there, pleae consider writing a 1 page, ascii text, article for the WRPs.

Here's what you should have:

15 years in IT, mainframe applications, systems design, or large applications support, preferably some years in an old line, IT intense business such as insurance, banking, reservations, service bureau.

Applicable undergraduate degree, BA/BS in CS, math, a physical science, or electronic engineering.

Significant programming experience, not just click-em ups but COBOL, S/390 Assembler, PL/I or similar. Large database work is also good. That's multi-gigabyte tables and multi-table applications.

Disaster recovery experience, in the IT sense, is also good.

I'd like someone with those quals who is also a Polly to please explain why they feel that way.

There used to be a fellow on c.s.y2k, Moshe, who was close but he's dropped out.

I'm not interested in Polly essays that are simply wishing really, really hard. I'm asking for IT expertise because I don't want another analogy article. To comment credibly on IT, you must have specific expertise.

If such a Polly will please speak up, I'll run your piece in a WRP. I realize that you can just upload it to c.s.y2k or this forum or your own webpage but I guarentee that more people will read it in a WRP than anywhere else.

...and within 30 days, Howard B. will be quoting you. (This is an inside joke from c.s.y2k.)

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@IBM.net), April 07, 1999

Answers

Yo!

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 07, 1999.

Why don't you just print the Gartner Group's latest congressional testimony? Is that expert enough for you?

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

You assume that ONLY an "IT" expert is qualified to speak on Y2K? That's ludicrous. IT-types may be good at some things, but from my experience, usually don't understand the hardware details of the target platform.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of embedded processors, which I think you would agree are the "big boogeyman" as far as Y2K and failures in energy and transportation. Right?

Let's revisit the original "5%" figure that was originally claimed for "possibly non-compliant" embedded systems. Actual field research has slashed that to a vanishly-small fraction of 1%. How could the original figure have been so far off?

Because the people making the claim didn't understand the hardware. They assummed that a POSSIBLY non-compliant chip translated to non-compliant operation. One common assumption, for example, was

- if a simple controller program, - which used no date-sensitive calculations, - was later cut into a chip with a non-compliant date/counter circuit, - there could be problems.

In reality, in the VAST majority of cases, as long as that program is masked into that processor as-is, is the ONLY program running that chip, and never touches that "date circuit," one of two things would happen:

1) - it would fail the first time it was tried in manufacturing tests, 2) - or it would work perfectly.

Bottom line: if it's on the shelf, it passed their QC tests, and there would be no "hidden bug" waiting to bite everyone in the hiney.

People who understand the hardware have been shaking our heads and trying to convince the "IT" folks of this, with very limited success.

This in spite of the fact that the chip's data sheets usually explain this sort of thing quite clearly. "No, we've got to TEST it to be sure," you guys said. SO ... industries have done all sorts of expensive tests just to confirm what people like me knew to start with and SAID to start with (but were ignored): there was no problem.

(Shell Oil, for example, has flatly stated that their investigation has revealed virtually NO embedded systems problems. Now, you can claim that they're lying, I suppose; but it's the truth.)

I'm NOT an "IT expert." But that's irrelevant. Being an IT expert does NOT give you the right to speak with authority on power generation and distribution, the design of microcontrolled hardware, transportation, and just about anything else not related to program methodolgy and management.

-- Stephen Poole, CET http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 07, 1999.

More! I just love a good debate. I'll be checking back often on this one!

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 07, 1999.

National Guard page on embedded systems:

http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/y2k/closer.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

"Bottom line: if it's on the shelf, it passed their QC tests, and there would be no "hidden bug" waiting to bite everyone in the hiney."

This statement seems to assume that the QC testing includes the date rollover.

Two questions:

Is that really what Poole is saying?

If yes, the next question is when was the date rollover test made a part of the testing program?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Stephen,

you miss the point. People like Ed Yourdon, Seymour Metz, and myself have decades of experience with large complex systems. We believe that there is a problem and can state clearly what the problem is. Ed chooses to write in a style suitable for management and 'people who think they are significant'. I choose to write for the person on the street.

I have no issues with anything that I've seen Ed write on the enterprise technical problem. Society is in big trouble, get used to the idea.

If you review the WRPs, you may notice that while I comment acidly about management, enterprise systems, and large systems maintenance and development, I make almost no reference to embeddeds, water, or power generation. I have run articles by domain experts such as Rick Cowles but I know my limits and my area of expertise.

People who don't have enterprise systems expertise but choose to run their keyboards on the subject are kidding themselves.

I believe that somewhere out there, there is an enterprise systems specialist, preferably who did a few years of Y2K work, who is optimistic, polly about Y2K. I'd like this person to write a WRP article.

As I said, Moshe from c.s.y2k may have been such a person. Given that the serious doomers have been from the enterprise side of the business, this may tell us something.

The people with experience with the complex systems are the most pessimistic. If enterprise system is another way of saying 'the system that defines the business', then the doomers are those who hav the best understanding and the most insight into the risks and probabilities of failure.

This reasoning fails when I find that one 'enterprise scale polly'. If I can find such a person, I will run their article in a WRP.

I can find lots of Pollys who have little understanding of large complex systems. Unfortunately, their opinion does not swing the balance.

It's very simple, really.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer,

No, Gartner, I've been calling them Garter Grope, does not qualify.

Larry Gershwin of the NIC also testified in a doom-esque style but that's not what I'm looking for either.

Both Garter Grope and Gershwin are reporting on what others say. I'm looking for that one true gear-head, someone who has coded CLCL's and LCLC's and has seen an S/390's 3900 tree eater spit out trash and still thinks that Y2K ain't gonna be no big deal, no way.

Note for non-enterprise'ers, the above paragraph got a few chuckles from the kind of person I'm looking for.

So the polly-hunt continues. Is there anyone who can speak for the polly side of the house? Just one.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 07, 1999.

More!

(P.S., I'm a gearhead, but not Cory's kind of gearhead. . .)

-- Gearhead (2plus2@motown2.com), April 07, 1999.

I fail to see what "enterprise systems" and S/390s have to do with the failure of basic utility services. Most "preparers" are concerned about basic utilities.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

I'm with you on that one Doomie,

The WRPs, which are up to #115 now, focus on the enterprise systems.

Sure, power (water, telco's, etc) are very important but these are not my area of expertise. I can't speak on these matters. It turns out that the known IT failures, Maxwell Online, Oxford for example, took down the enterprise.

My assessment, and I believe it is also Ed Yourdon's, is that a very large number of these systems will fail and the consequence will severe economic disruptions. A depression is not out of the question.

Given that the "Great Depression" somehow contributed to WWII, the chain of IT failures takes down a large number of the Fortune 5,000, causes a depression triggers some kind of societal upheaval has some precedence.

Note: I've repeated said that social consequences are an unknown, these are just guesses on my part. What I am certain of are the problems with large computer systems.

I'm looking for someone with Enterprise side credentials who will argue the Polly side. It's only 8:30 AM in Honolulu. I got some business to handle today but perhaps later tonight, a mainframe Polly will offer to write a one page, concise article for a future WRP.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer,

Do you consider your bank to be a basic utility? Many doomers do. (I do too, but I think the banks are in pretty good shape Y2k-wise. I wish rabble-rousers like Gary North weren't trying to start a run on them to bring them down.) Banking is one of the industries Cory lists.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 07, 1999.

cory:

At the risk of being rude, perhaps the " enterprise systems specialists" that you seek are too busy actually, er, working on Y2K? Perhaps they don't have the time to hang out on lamo doomer forums (like me and...)?

-- Helen Wheels (helen@mag.wheels), April 07, 1999.

Poole said, in response to Cory's request: "You assume that ONLY an "IT" expert is qualified to speak on Y2K? That's ludicrous."

It sure is Poole, especially since he didn't say that.

Cory said this: "To comment credibly on IT, you must have specific expertise."

I have yet to see you make a comment in any forum where you don't twist the original words around to suit your needs.

Why you feel compelled to lash out at someone requesting an informed opinion? An opinion, which oddly enough, probably coincides with your own. Is it just sour grapes because you lack the credentials he is looking for?

What a big baby.

------- remove the NOT to reply via email

-- Isetta (IsettaNOT@earthlink.net), April 07, 1999.

Yes, yes, that's it, that's it. The Polly Specialists are too busy cranking code to spend their time talking about how good things are going and why the future is rosy. But then again, if there are no critical failures in coding staring them in the face, why wouldn't they have time to write a little page of enlightenment? Boy, the more I think about it the more confusing this gets.

-- Whetherman (whetherman@storm.warning), April 07, 1999.

Since cory is here, perhaps he could answer CLs question of a few days ago, that remains unanswered - essentially you have been wrong so far, why should anyone believe you?:

Cory Hamasaki -- "Here's my guess. The backroom processing is doomed. The failures now are little surprises, lost records, missing transactions, incorrect total roll-ups. There have been about a dozen cites on c.s.y2k in December 1998 and the first week of January 1999 for problems. Some are early Jo Anne Effect and others seem to be "99"=error situations. Others are difficult to categorize.

According to Jo Anne's analysis, the problems should not be visibile until February or March. We're seeing the camel's nose."

*** COMMENT: It's now April 5th. Jo Anne Problems? Where are they? Where are these huge Jo Anne problems? Answer: THEY HAVEN'T SURFACED, TO ANY SIGNIFICANT DEGREE. Those that have, are an anthill, compared to the predicted Everest.

reference: http://www.sonnet.co.uk/muse/DCW-107.TXT -- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 05, 1999

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 07, 1999.

Why should we believe that someone with hardcore enterprise system technical skills has any more insight into the ultimate consequences of Y2K, positive or negative, than anyone else? That is like believing that an expert on vorticity dynamics within tornados also has some ability to predict the number, intensity, location and resulting property damage of every storm system that will occur on the entire planet on some given date in the future. Apples and orange groves. A thousand exquisitely detailed anecdotal examples regarding past system failures or isolated remediation efforts has only tangential relevance at best to the question of Y2K's overall impact. Extrapolation simply doesn't work on this one. Too much complexity, and far too many variables. If your intent is to demonstrate that even technically knowledgeable optimists have no real facts to work with, then the defense will stipulate. However, I would also assert that the pessimistic case has an equally unsound and speculative foundation. It's simply a much bigger (and louder) house of cards than what the optimists have been able to construct. All we can really do is toss words at each other on these web sites until reality finally shows its hand. And maybe trigger a bank run in the process. I recommend that everyone go to the beach instead. (Except for the people who are actually fixing things!)

-- Kevin (mail@bawstin.com), April 07, 1999.

Come on, Kevin, if there were no serious techies who were seriously worried, I wouldn't be so worried either. If all the geeks at Cory's level were saying it was all a bunch of unfounded hype, their systems are fine, I'd be a lot more relaxed. They're not. They're saying their ships are going down. Cory's just looking for at least one counterexample. Sure hope he finds one.

Stephen, please explain to me why the recent AHA survey said only six percent of medical devices are compliant. I'm confused.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 07, 1999.

You mean Bradley Sherman isn't considered an expert? I hear that he has loaded Solaris on a PC before and upgraded the memory in his mom's Macintosh.

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

"If all the geeks at Cory's level were saying it was all a bunch of unfounded hype, their systems are fine, I'd be a lot more relaxed."

Perhaps cory could persuade one of the following to write a piece for him?

Tuesday March 30, 8:59 am Eastern Time

IT Managers' Y2K Worries Subside-Computerworld Reports 77% Will be Ready On Jan. 1, 2000

FRAMINGHAM, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 30, 1999--With a little more than nine months to go, information technology (IT) managers are increasingly confident that their companies will beat the year 2000 problem before the clock strikes midnight.

Computerworld newspaper surveyed over 200 IT managers and found that 77% of those surveyed believe all of their organization's information systems will be ready to handle the date change. This finding is up from 71% in October 1998 and 66% in September 1998. Even better is that both small and large firms report an average of 97% of their systems will be compliant.

Compliance

``What percentage of your company's information systems do you expect will be fully compliant by January 1?''

Small Firms

(100 to 499 Employees)

September 1998 96.9%

October 1998 98.1%

March 1999 98.7%

Large Firms

(500 or More Employees)

September 1998 97.1%

October 1998 97.1%

March 1999 98.4%

Contingency Plans

``Have you developed, or do you plan to develop, contingency plans in the event of a year 2000 related failure?''

Small Firms

Yes 80%

No 18%

Don't Know 2%

Large Firms

Yes 89%

No 11%

Nation's Economy

Computerworld also found that IT pros are more confident that the year 2000 will not make any significant impact on the nation's economy -17% foresee less of an impact or no impact at all.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 07, 1999.

Cory,

If you really want to find this Polly Super-Geek, why don't you post this message on c.s.y2k, or, better yet, on another usenet forum where the mainframe geeks hang?

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

Looks like I fit the qualifications. Too bad I don't fit the qualifications. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

Shimrod - My point is that no techie, however serious, can see the big picture much better than the rest of us. The fact that remediating some ancient assembler code somewhere is exceedingly difficult does not imply that there is enough broken stuff still out there to kill us all. Only the facts matter. And we have very few of those. Just a lot of progress reports that can be intrepreted ten ways from Sunday. As far as specific stories about ships sinking, I would need to see a large number of very credible reports before I got worried. I've lived and breathed Y2K for the last 12 months and my impressions are that most companies are in good shape. But I can't "prove" anything, and neither can they. However, I refuse to believe that every major corporation has a basement full of genius programmers who are the only ones who know that the company is doomed. I might be a mush-brained, useless waste of oxygen by c.h.'s standards, but I've worked on enough IT projects in enough places to discount that sort of conspiracy theory.

-- Kevin (mail@bawstin.com), April 07, 1999.

We'll, I've read all the stuff here. Cory has a SIMPLE REQUEST. He wants a POLLY with specific computer experience to write an article for his news letter.

Do we have a POLLY that wants to step up to the plate? Or do we just have a bunch of POLLY jiberish?

Still waiting !!!!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Since you've decided to bring up the topic of the Jo Anne Effect again, here's what Jo Anne Slaven herself had to say about it...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000XvI

[snip]

Companies don't always open up a new fiscal year right away. They often wait until all of the year-end entries are posted before they "roll over" to the new year. This could take 3 or 4 weeks. And accounting system problems aren't the type of thing that is immediately obvious to outsiders. I would imagine that most corporations could muddle along quite nicely for several months with a non-functional general ledger.

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Y2K Pro (???????)

Time to get specific! You have allowed yourself a handle (Y2K Pro) that infers you are a knowledgable individual on Y2K. You have also esposed a VERY POLLY position.

A PERFECT candidate to accept Cory's offer and to present your position to MANY of us so called Doomers.

I imagine you would LEAP at the opportunity, OK maybe crawl???

What's say Y2K Pro????

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Along with Stephen Poole, I notice that Cory is very careful to exclude anyone with equivalent experience in embedded systems. I also notice he doesn't ask this question in any forum where doomism is not rampant. Very interesting.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

The qualifications aren't the problem.

I've been burned before by Cory and his WRP's, picking out pieces of a post to ridicule in a forum where I couldn't respond. Even when he didn't deem it worth responding to in a forum where I could respond.

Tell me, why would anyone actually volunteer for the experience?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 07, 1999.

Hoffmeister commented:

"The qualifications aren't the problem.

I've been burned before by Cory and his WRP's, picking out pieces of a post to ridicule in a forum where I couldn't respond. Even when he didn't deem it worth responding to in a forum where I could respond.

Tell me, why would anyone actually volunteer for the experience?

Oh Gawd I love to see you folks SQUIRM !!!!

Sincerely, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Italics off

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Kevin, Y2K Pro, Cory, es All,

IMO, the reason Cory is asking for an experienced geek Polly is that he knows what it takes to become experienced.

Cory knows that anyone developing and implementing large-scale systems must, by neccesity, learn everything there is to know about the technical details of the whole enterprise. They have to know what people are doing in the branch office in Podunk in order to implement a system in NYC or DC.

That is, a real geek knows not only how his computers and systems work, but they know how the business (and it's suppliers and customers)works.

-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), April 07, 1999.

Y2K Pro,

Jo Anne Slaven also had this to say about the Jo Anne Effect:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000d6v

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes guys, I'm still lurking here :-)

The url already posted is a very good place to go for a description of the Jo Anne Effect. Pam Hystad very kindly put that page in her web space and linked it to the comp.software.year-2000 faq.

The Jo Anne Effect was named after me by Cory Hamasaki. I was the first person to clearly point out to csy2-k readers exactly why accounting problems might crop up in 1999. (The term "Jo Anne Effect" gives me heartburn, but the acronym "JAE" doesn't seem to bother me too much.)

I don't recall ever posting that the JAE would shut down companies or cause economic meltdown. We are only talking about software that generates financial statements, after all. Most companies, even very large ones, can probably whip up monthly balance sheets manually, if necessary.

I would guess that fiscal 2000 roll-over problems might *strongly* encourage previously "pollyanna" managers to get their acts together and do something about Y2k remediation.

The "Jo Anne Effect" does exist, and if you go here

http://www.accpac.com/products/simply/notice9901.htm

you can see what a software company has to say about it. Most problems can be resolved with a software upgrade.

Jo Anne

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Ray:

If Cory quoted bits and pieces of what you write, out of context, to make you look like a moron, and then posted this where you couldn't defend yourself, you'd squirm too. But I wouldn't enjoy it, I'd be damn angry at Cory for pulling such a stunt. And you would have my sincere sympathy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

I guess the fact that no one has stepped up to the plate means that there is not a single technically competent person anywhere who is confident that Y2K won't be a catastrophe. That's clearly the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. Yep, I'm convinced. We're doomed.

-- Kevin (mail@bawstin.com), April 07, 1999.

Flint commented:

"If Cory quoted bits and pieces of what you write, out of context, to make you look like a moron, and then posted this where you couldn't defend yourself, you'd squirm too. But I wouldn't enjoy it, I'd be damn angry at Cory for pulling such a stunt. And you would have my sincere sympathy."

Flint, I think Cory will respond when he returns. Is Hoffmeister the only GEEK POLLY around? I guess it must be tough being in the MINORITY.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Kevin, have you ever heard more MEALY MOUTHED excuses then are being offered up by these POLLY folks.

Does my heart good.

Oh Maria, here is your chance to shine !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Ray:

If you'd been hanging out in csy2k for a couple of years, you'd appreciate Cory's qualification list a lot more. csy2k has many geek pollys, from a wide range of different backgrounds, and with a wide range of relevant experience. All of them have discussed/detailed their backgrounds to one degree or another.

Cory's list is *very* specifically written to exclude all of them! They don't have quite the right degree, or fall a year short in experience, or work with scientific programming or embedded systems, and so on.

And Hoff is correct -- Cory controls the WRP's and his website, and can make whatever comments he wants. I think a lot more people read his site than you might think.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Cory's list is *very* specifically written to exclude all of them! They don't have quite the right degree, or fall a year short in experience, or work with scientific programming or embedded systems, and so on. "

Flint, get a life!!! Who has time for all of your BS. I'm still waiting MARIA !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

OK, if Maria isn't going to step up to the plate where is Y2K Pro(???)

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

Just back for a couple minutes.

I'm chiding Flint and Stephen because they want to debate embeddeds and I'm not sure that embeddeds are a problem. Stephen's first post above appears to say, "You must agree that embeddeds are the big boogey man of Y2K so why do you exclude them, I'm prepared to show you that embeddeds are not the problem that you decline to say they are."

That's right, I decline to debate embeddeds.

My position is that the large systems, the ones built in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, are a big problem. I know where there are unremediated, enterprise scale systems.

I suspect that the enterprise system problem is very widespread. In part because these things have been neglected since the PeeCee-ization of the world.

When Big Ed Yourdon frets about 1 year plus 10, it fits with what I know about mainframe systems.

I'm not saying that Flint, Stephen, or Hoffy's opinion on Y2K is invalid or that only an IT professional can be concerned about Y2K. I'm saying that only an IT professional can debate the IT side of the problem of Y2K with specificity. Everyone else is speaking in generalities.

I don't want to be cruel to anyone, especially Hoffy. Keep in mind the WRP disclaimer, Don't take yourself too seriously. Everyone is fair game in the WRPs, mom, me (fingers like sausages, slamming the keyboard, donut crumbs on my exposed tummy.)

Finally, the quals that I'm asking for are not unusual. Ed and I have 30 years, 10 years would be fine. Ed and I have advanced degrees in Computer Science. I'd accept an BA Math or CS. Is there one IT, enterprise programmer who will state that Y2K is not a problem and will write a convincing article?

Lookit, if Flint proves conclusively that embeddeds are not a problem, that doesn't have anything to do with failures in large systems.

Well, back to work, it's 3:00 PM now. The day is still young.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 07, 1999.

Cory Hamasaki -- "Here's my guess. The backroom processing is doomed. The failures now are little surprises, lost records, missing transactions, incorrect total roll-ups. There have been about a dozen cites on c.s.y2k in December 1998 and the first week of January 1999 for problems. Some are early Jo Anne Effect and others seem to be "99"=error situations. Others are difficult to categorize.

According to Jo Anne's analysis, the problems should not be visibile until February or March. We're seeing the camel's nose."

*** COMMENT: It's now April 5th. Jo Anne Problems? Where are they? Where are these huge Jo Anne problems? Answer: THEY HAVEN'T SURFACED, TO ANY SIGNIFICANT DEGREE. Those that have, are an anthill, compared to the predicted Everest.

If lost records, incorrect total roll ups and such are Everest, then you are correct.

Anyway, consider the situation at Oxford Insurance. They covered up a near total melt down for months, almost a year.

Sorry, I don't have the hang of this editor.

I'm gonna ask you to reread your snips and tell me what the difference between the two statements is.

It's back to work for me.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 07, 1999.

Cory, Give me an outline of what you want and I will give you what you are looking for. Cherri

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 07, 1999.

<<<>>

MANAGERS.... Nuff said

-- art welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), April 07, 1999.

Being a completely non-IT person ("users" don't count) with a mere 15 years or so in project and business management, still, despite these handicaps (lack of techgeek certification), even I am astonished at the conversations that people of otherwise seeming-intelligence have on this board.

I've been reading Hamasaki and Yourdon and Infomagic and Cowles and Milne and Yardeni and god.* knows who else for quite some time (as well as 'official' sources such as all state/fed reports I've found, corporate and utility reports and reviews, et al). I am not a rocket scientist or even a programmer (of any advanced measure anyway), but I'm a reasonably intelligent person who, like everybody else, is trying to put pieces together to make my own puzzle of the estimated future.

I don't always either agree with or understand everything (I can only take someone's word for certain tech details which only education and experience can provide a conceptual grasp on), and in some cases I think the correspondence style is appalling (infomagic for instance, is so charming that even people who agree with him often want to slug him), but I watch the debates go back and forth, and I take the time to read them because hey, this is an area where I do NOT have expertise (IT et al.) and I'm smart enough to know that I should listen and learn, since even a moderately-bad-case-scenario could leave me wishing I'd made better plans.

What I have learned is that IT people talking about IT stuff have just as much trouble communicating as anybody else. No matter that it's about work rather than emotion: business will be personal as long as humans are the ones doing it.

Now Cory, I like your stuff, but I like Aleister Crowley's stuff too so what the hell do I know. I do think, though, that if you are going to quote excerpts of people's writings, and you really want to be professional, put their whole article up on your site somewhere and when referring to that quote in your articles, make a link to it. That's a professional reference which any scientist for example would be expected to provide. This also ensures nobody has reason to consider you biased, unfair, and hostile via literature. You have the forum to use or abuse your WRP's, as they do get lots of readers, and it would speak well for you if you went to the trouble to be not only "right" but "fair."

If you have a request for a person of certain credentials to write for your WRP, and you assure them that many people read this, and others accuse you of spec'ing your criteria deliberately to exclude your critics, then if you are serious you could provide this request in your next WRP, and perhaps out of all those people reading and forwarding it, the Polly you are looking for -- if you are truly looking for them (and if they truly exist) -- will be found.

As for credentials, anybody with two brain cells can fathom that if someone doesn't have experience in {X}, they may have ideas, insight or oversight into {X}, but they are simply not expert on {X} and should not pretend to be. I don't see any harm in Cory asking for specific experience in any author writing about a specific subject.

I wish everybody would try to remember that regardless of our opinions and disagreements, we are all stuck here on this planet, we are all going to face the year 2000, and we are all -- no matter what we think -- on the "same side." People who completely disagree can be tremendously helpful in debating and sanity-checking issues, and eventually can help us all to get a much clearer picture. But if it's a mudslinging match, nobody sees anything but mud.

I appreciate Cory, Ed, Flint, and the many people who continue to discuss this. I just wish there was more discussion and less pontificating, more questions (So what you do you think about...) and fewer statements (...you butthead), and a little more long- term, end-goal, point-of-the-process awareness going on.

Disclaimer: Not being an IT professional someone will likely tell me I have no right to think I know how IT professionals should converse. :-) We're all humans. Let's do it.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 07, 1999.

Ray: you are starting to be funny. Keep it up, you are showing promist. Evenutally you may rise to full comedian status, a la Andy or Prepared.

-- Amused (trying@tolaugh.gor), April 07, 1999.

I often wonder how Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, and the Continental Congress would have debated this issue! Seems like the stakes are just as high. Are we going to hang together or seperately in vanquishing our common foe?

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), April 07, 1999.

Check this out.

While reviewing the "Doomers to blame" thread, I took the link to the "Debunking Y2K webboard". This is the new "Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot" site, where all the pollys are now hanging out. Doomslayer started a thread ON THIS REQUEST. While he did get 13 answers, I see that nobody from there has taken the offer. So what does this say? The polly of pollys know about this, yet none will step forward. <:)=

Debunking Y2k webboard - Cory Hamasaki in search of "Expert Polly"

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Me: "Bottom line: if it's on the shelf, it passed their QC tests, and there would be no "hidden bug" waiting to bite everyone in the hiney."

Tom Carey: "This statement seems to assume that the QC testing includes the date rollover."

That's proof that you didn't understand what I said.

There would be NO NEED to test for a date rollover problem, because _the _program _cut _into _that _chip _would _not _make _date _calculations. It is the PROGRAM, and not the chip, which determines compliancy.

If the program doesn't offer any way to enter a date, how do you test it? Wave a calendar at it? Sing "Found A Peanut!" for three hours?

-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 08, 1999.

Shimrod asks: "Stephen, please explain to me why the recent AHA survey said only six percent of medical devices are compliant. I'm confused."

I have no idea, when one survey that that I just read stated that, of about 1600 total devices checked in one facility, only 1 was truly non-compliant. An additional 26 would possibly report incorrect dates. None of the machines would fail in a life-threatening manner.

All of the hospitals here in Birmingham are reporting basically the same thing; the Gartner Group is saying essentially the same thing now. I have no idea where they got their numbers.

One of the most joyous features of Y2K is that there are zillions of numbers running loose, and it's very hard to catch them all.

-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 08, 1999.

Cory,

Well, I know more than a few IT-types who aren't that concerned about Y2K ... I'm from NC, where IBM has a big shop in the Research Triangle. Why they're not interested in taking your challenge, I don't know. It's possible they haven't heard of it; it seems that only Doomer IT-types spend half their time on line (which is perhaps one reason why Y2K might not get fixed on time) . The rest of us work for a living. :)

Besides, even if you're right, it just proves what I've known from the beginning: the older mainframe-huggin' IT-types are the ones driving Doom and Gloom. The practical, hands-on people (like me), the PC-types, and those in smaller businesses are considerably more upbeat.

-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 08, 1999.

OK Stephen M. Poole, CET, care to discuss this?

"older mainframe-huggin' IT-types" - Yup, that's me. First, why are sales of big-iron going up every year? Could it be that the tiny PC can't do the job of moving huge amounts of data, even with the x-way processors, and the gigabit LAN? Ever hear of mainframe channels? Got any in the PC world?

"hands-on people (like me), the PC-types" - Yup, that's me. I've been a Novell administrator since 2.0.

NOT my humble opinion, but I am considered a 360/70/90 Assembly language expert by just about everybody that I have ever worked with, including IBM. Almost there on the x86, except for the +15 years on the mainframe. Just about everybody in this business that I talk to, and I have found a few to talk to in 31 years, including folks at Research Triangle, are concerned about this problem. If you would like to continue this discussion in public, reply here. If in private, this is a real e-mail address. If not, kiss off. Have a nice day. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Got a brother who twiddles bits (NOT BYTES) for a living, now working on development for some Son-of-Firewire (IEEE-Whatever) firmware. Built some Navy Firecontrol software, had a BIG piece of their Workstation Architecture project, and knows almost as much about ADA as any breathing human (piece of 2 compilers and one Compiler validator across 3 services), and did some Web stuff for one of the soon to be fewer Baby Bells. He as much as told me that I had a serious plexiglass porthole requirement (ABOVE the navel) when I mentioned Ed's current writings. The quote was "Yeah I've read it, but most of us have said 'So' and moved on."

This can be highly frustrating. I suspect that he would NOT be even remotely interested in taking the challenge. i suspect the reason is that he and the rest simply do NOT see a reason for all of the fuss, and without a reason for fuss, why should they consider the writing effort to be worthwhile?

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 08, 1999.

PS - If you would care to take back this doomer bullshit, I'll take back the kiss off.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Sysman,

The attitude that you display has never made any sense to me. A typical discussion goes like this:

Gloomer: "I work with Yaddada Yadda Systems in the Gnarlation-Widget division. I know from firsthand experience that everything will blow up because of Y2K. Can't tell me nuthin."

Non-Gloomer: ""

Gloomer: "Why, how can YOU possibly question ME? I have thousands of years of experience! I've got degrees! I've TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS! I once balanced a peanut on my nose for TWO HOURS in a HURRICANE! NO ONE questions me! What are YOUR qualifications, huh? Huh? Tell us about YOUR experience in IT (or embedded or economics or sanitation or )."

... which is a GREAT debating technique, of course. It's called, deflect attention from the question under consideration (for example, just _HOW_ a 'non-compliant' bank system in Fiji could make Citicorp blow up) and obfuscate (for you Microsoft types, "obsfucate").

(And all the little itty-bitty doomlets and gloomlets, who LOVE you as their hero, squeak, "yes! yes! poke 'im in the eye! Hee-hee-hee-hee!")

Sales of big iron have increased, but sales of PCs continue to eclipse those sales. My bank back in NC solved its Y2K problem with new PCs running NT and a new software package. Cost about a fraction of what they were quoted by a so-called "Remediation Consultant," too.

Continue to hug your mainframe. I, on the other hand, will replace our network later this year and will continue to do useful work. Right now, I'm building a new studio for our AM station and I have fiberglass in every imaginable bodily crevice, so I'm in a bad mood.

(Don't take it personally. I just don't like you much.)

When your mainframe blows up in January, come see me about a job. Can you talk good on the air?

(PS: How come you won't post your email address over at the Debunking Y2K board?)

(PSS: How could you possibly think that no response to Cory's challenge actually means anything?)

-- Stephen (is fiberglass compliant? If so, why?) http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 08, 1999.

guess who said these:

"Would you care to cut the crap, so to speak, and stick to presenting your point of view from that of an adult? "

"I agree that Y2K Pro is a fraud."

"another moron speaks"

"I just call it the IDIOT site..."

"If not, kiss off. Have a nice day. <:)=" (oops, gave it away)

Mr. Poole, you are argueing with an ignoramus. If he could stop his opposable digit from exploring his colon for ten seconds, he would realise he is clueless.

But at least he is consistant in his hypocracy; one day calling names, next calling for a truce. Then spoiling for a fight. Then backpedaling with 'I never said that' ad infinitum. It's o.k. for him to remain anonymous, but everyone else better post their name, address, telephone #; King of the Hypocrites in my book

and deserving of the nickname "sissyman" i think.

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nospammers.thanx), April 08, 1999.

Go to your rooms, all of you.

He started it! No he started it! No he did! No...,

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), April 08, 1999.

I like mainframes, they have individual personalities and will work well if you talk to them nice. They still have their places. As do the smaller and baby computers (PC's) ((MAC's are still in uterus)). You can always learn from your elders (mainframes) they are old workhorses, even though in some situations they can and should be replaced by the youngun's. Theres room for everybody...um I mean each type of computer.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 08, 1999.

Cherri,

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. Looking forward to reading you article in a future WRP.

The rest of you GUTLESS POLLY GEEKS go home to mama !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Dying laughing here. You put up your challenge to exclude everyone who has graduated from school in the last 15-20 years. Then you add it that the person must be experienced in mainframes. I will add, though you did not, ONLY MAINFRAMES. If you have done 15 years of mainframe work, you are very unlikely to have acquired skills in LAN, WAN, RAD or other networking and programming paradigms and protocols that are relevant to the microcomputer world. And, whether you like it or not, the bulk of todays data and communication interfaces flow over networks managed and run by microcomputers.

IBM had its only major layoff ever some few years ago - they cut back on mainframe R&D and let thousands of people go. Dollars spent on mainframes are up - well yes, but that is not signifigant unless you present a chart or graphic showing the percentage of IT hardware budgets that are spent on mainframes. Or just give the percentage of computer dollars spent on mainframes vs other machines for say - 65,75,85 and 95. Dropping like a stone.

And another thing - I have noticed the professionals who cry 'doom' strongly tend to have degrees in IT, not CS. Now I am not putting down the IT degree, but it does not expose one to hardware details and PLC programming, etc. as the CS degree does. A good number of the PLC and 'embedded' doom cryers don't know beans about PLC's or PLA's or ladder programming - but feel free to comment about these matters. This is not good. My own experience on mainframes has been limited to a few months as a Junior Programmer (Honeywell COBOL) and several years practical experience setting up NOMAD2 databases on an Amadahl(sp?) mainframe - and it doesn't bother me to admit it. But few people are going to meet your qualifications - and even fewer are going to be interested in writing the article. OF COURSE - you will at once proclaim that 'no qualified person will take up the challenge'. Meaningless - but it sounds good - to you anyway.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Paul Davis,

Cory Hamasaki is not an unreasonable individual. He has made a fair request. He has taken much of his time over the past 2 to 3 years to provide a wealth of knowledge on the subject of y2k. Now you weasel's, who haven't given squat to anyone use all your time to attack him. Shows me that you folks are running SCARED. What a sorry lot!!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Just a minor addition here - while a single PC can't move massive amounts of data around the way a mainframe can, a group of networked PC's CAN move massive amounts of data. It is all a question of bandwidth. Two or three of the world's 100 fastest supercomputers are groups of networked PC's running modified LINUX kernels to create a single massively parallel supercomputer. They certainly move a lot of data back and forth on those machines - and do it quickly enough to have rankings very high on the scale.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

This is one of those threads that has taken on a bizarre life of its own. I'm clueless, but why not jump into the meme pool?

I thought Cory made it clear that he is not challenging or confirming embedded system stuff because it IS indeed out his own area of competence? That seemed downright reasonable and peaceable to me.

I don't exercise ESP and can't enter Cory's mind (that's a relief). But Occam's Razor suggests that his list of qualifications wasn't meant as much more than a way to put a gate up WITH a door so he got something sensible back.

It does seem odd to me that the Yourdon's, Hamasaki's and related doomer IT biggies haven't been faced off by a similar set of equally weighty counterparts. No, it doesn't prove anything, it's just odd.

If I were Ko-skin-em and gang, I would be ecstatic to identify, promote and reward big-time polly tech experts. De Jagr comes closest to having been converted into that camp, I suppose, but that is mighty slim pickings and his tech expertise is authentically suspect.

Call me naive, but I think Cory would actually LIKE to hear powerful "from the war-front" arguments from polly tech experts who HAVE the appropriate enterprise experience.

But, like Cory, I'm clueless.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 08, 1999.

Ray - Geez, lighten up dude. You waste so much positive energy being an asshole all the time. I recommend getting a life as soon as possible. You'll be suprised at what a difference it'll make on your whole outlook.......really and truly!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 08, 1999.

BigDog commented:

"If I were Ko-skin-em and gang, I would be ecstatic to identify, promote and reward big-time polly tech experts. De Jagr comes closest to having been converted into that camp, I suppose, but that is mighty slim pickings and his tech expertise is authentically suspect. "

Excellent Point BigDog !!!

You can bet there is some heavy duty recruiting going on right now.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Y2K Pro, that's survey sounds moderately encouraging. But I see a big difference between "We're going to be ready" and "We are ready." When an IT manager says "I expect to be ready," and the trench geek says "The system's hosed up and so far the repairs have not gone well," I tend to think the manager might be engaging in the usual thought process--"We'll be ready, because we have to be." What I want to see is the hardcore geeks saying "We had a big gnarly system, we fixed it and tested it and now it's fine." We should be seeing the early parts of that bell curve by now, if we're really coming out of the woods.

Stephen, I'm real glad to hear your news on medical systems, given that I have one family member heavily dependent on the stuff. There's so much conflicting information out there I start to wonder sometimes if there's any point to following it.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 08, 1999.

Cory, Why don't you do it yourself? You know the Polly arguments as well as any of us. It would be an interesting test of your intellectual integrity ...and who knows where it might lead?

-- Tickle (Tickle_yer_fancy@hotmail.com), April 08, 1999.

Ray, I just picked up this thread and noticed that you called my name a couple of times. First a comment about you (and I apologize for being cruel). You have not added any useful words to advance the Y2K discussion. You instead spend your time acting like a gnat, buzzing around, annoying everyone, and not saying much. As Deano said get a life.

As far as the challenge goes, I dont have the time. It takes some research to support your points (but Ray wouldnt understand this). I dont have the time to find all those links. And unlike most of the doomers, I do not speak about areas I do not have first hand knowledge (Ed Yourdon has no background in economics and yet he seems to discuss the impacts). I have a degree in Math, Masters in Space Operations; I worked in strategic missile planning, nuclear war simulations (including optimization techniques such as Lagrangian multipliers) and planning, command control and communications (C3) systems planning and implementation, security systems (including biometrics) for military systems, systems management, and project management for Y2K. So when the discussions center around these topics, I usually jump in.

Suggest Cory look to Mr. Decker (who has an extremely nice writing style) or to Zdnet web site. There have been many upbeat discussions of Y2K there.

Sorry to disappoint you Ray but then again I could care less.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 08, 1999.

5:15AM HST and here I am typing again.

I look forward to Cherri's essay. Now that a few dusty synapses have fired, I recall I asked for a similar article in c.s.y2k about a year ago and there were no takers. At that time I stipulated that the article would run un-edited, with no comments interspersed. This will apply here.

The reason that I've stipulated the requirements, IT enterprise programming and systems development experience, nominal degree (B.S. CS preferred but a B.A. math or physical science acceptable), some applications domain expertise is this combination allows the polly to understand the problem.

A pure academic might overlook the fact that the world is run by IBM style mainframes. He's never seen one and doesn't know that not only are there 50,000 of these things, there are 900,000 mainframe COBOL programmers.

In the mainframe arena, there are technical specialists who are so narrow that they don't appreciate the size and complexity of the applications inventory. For those who wonder why Stephen and Flint seen to be "out of it", it's because their domain expertise does not include dirt-beneath-the-fingernails, COBOL grunt work. A pure mainframe operating systems person, such as a RACF or TMS mechanic, might very likely take Stephen or Flint's side.

I'm asking for nominal academic credentials because surprisingly schools do teach you something.

Finally, I can't write the article because I'm unable to define a set of circumstances that lead to a good outcome.

It's like the scene at the end of "War Games" in which the JOSHUA computer explores all the paths and concludes that there is no way to win the game. I honestly don't see a good outcome for the large organizations.

And... PeeCees don't have the power to supplant large systems. There are two aspects to this issue. 1) PeeCee hardware isn't there yet. 2) the enterprise-running PeeCee applications don't exist. If it will be possible to pull it off in the dawn hours of January 1, 2000, why don't we do it right now?

My sense of this is that we're all about to be "Oxforded". If Cherri or anyone will write a strong Polly case, I'll run it and give it full coverage.

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@ibm.net), April 08, 1999.

Stephen M. Poole, CET

Well sir, are you an embedded systems expert, an NT expert, a mainframe expert, or an audio expert? You seem to be all of the above. Have you ever actually done any programming?

I'm glad that you don't like me, because I don't like people that come to this board and say that we're all a bunch of doom and gloomers. Most here are just concerned about this problem, and are trying to spread the word, and help get others to prepare. Since you seem to think that Y2K is no big deal, I suggest that you hang out at the "Debunking Y2K board" and not here. Why don't I post there? It's the same crowd from GNIABFI. I have only been to 1st grade in name calling. Those guys have a PHD. I have yet to see any sign of intelligent life there.

We have run our non-compliant mainframe on several weekends with the date set to 01/xx/00. Our date sensative applications are being moved to NT, using SQL, Java, VB and the like. So we do have something in common. I wouldn't have a problem with you, except for your viewing all of us as doomers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hip Hypocrite Hater

Your post is hardly worth a reply. Y2K Pro is a fraud. He has been asked many times to show us that he at least has a clue as to what he is talking about. I still haven't seen it, and don't expect that I ever will.

In my opinion, it is the IDIOT'S site. See above.

I have never typed 'I never said that', and have never asked anyone to post their name. You must be confused.

Yes, I did call for a truce, in an attempt to put an end to the name calling, and keep this on an adult level. Sure, I'm still "spoiling for a fight" with anyone that doesn't think that Y2K is a problem and wants to discuss the facts. However I see that you want to keep up the ignoramus and sissyman stuff, so I think "another moron speaks" fits you quite well.

So in summary, kiss off, and I don't want to take it back in your case. And have a rotten day. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Maria-regarding your post: "Ed Yourdon has no background in economics and yet he seems to discuss the impacts".

Yes, that is correct, he is largely capable of doing so due to his co- author, and daughter Jennifer, a degreed professional in economics who IS qualified to spout economic impact.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 08, 1999.

From Sysman: "Well sir, are you an embedded systems expert, an NT expert, a mainframe expert, or an audio expert? You seem to be all of the above. Have you ever actually done any programming?"

An "expert" is anyone more than 20 miles from home with a briefcase. I just moved 514 miles from NC to AL, but the cats clawed my briefcase to ruin, so the jury's out on that one.

You missed my oh, so subtle point (you also didn't appreciate my 'yumor; I'm hurt): it seems to be OK for mainframe IT-types to speculate as authorities on 10 year depressions and armed hordes -- something which is hardly covered in a typical college computer course -- but when someone like me says, "wuuuuhhh?" we get, "are you an EXPERT like I am?"

Point: Y2K is rife with people speculating outside of their specialty. To his credit, I'm not saying Cory is especially guilty of this, but you and I both know that any number of well-known (quote-unquote) mainframe types ARE. Some (many) of them have even written books. :)

But: to answer your questions:

- embedded systems, emphatically yes. My first project was in '76, building a remote control system that communicated via microwave and subcarrier (from there it only gets more boring).

- NT, not really ... though I did a good bit of Windows programming while my back was repairing itself from a car accident (to pay the bills, y'know) ... mostly at the system level (VxDs, drivers, that sort of thing). I also helped write a package for law offices, and I helped Siemen's Power Transmission division with some translation and FTP software, things like that (things that come naturally to someone with my experience -- hardware and gadgetry).

- Mainframes, the hardware I can handle, the other stuff, not really;

- Audio, emphatically YES. All aspects of it (including room design for acoustics) down to the psychoacoustic effects of the slight delay inherent to monitoring our digital audio processing off-air.

But, as I said, this has nothing to do with anything. I hope Cherri does write that article, and I'd like to read it. I will be the first to admit that, if there IS a Y2K problem, it's in mainframes. (It's NOT in embedded systems, though you can't seem to get the Doom and Gloomers to realize that yet.)

But I would also argue that mainframe systems CAN be replaced with PC networks. Microsoft did it. They've got one of the largest and most complex network systems in existence -- Compaqs running NT. Don't say they "won't handle it," because they will. You just don't like PCs.

So, I think that some of this problem is self-created. Mainframe huggers still consider the PC a toy and haven't been willing to consider it in making their contingency plans. As a result, they're stuck trying to modify old code on old machines.

Cory's right; it's probably too late to try the PC thing now, but had it been done a couple of years ago, it would've worked.

But I think I'll bow out now. I've got to get dusted with more fiberglass from the ceiling tiles. After that, I get to finish writing a control program for an audio automation system, repair the bias circuit in an FM transmitter, and figure out a way to keep an ISDN "CAT" link working in a 5-volt-per-meter RF field. Lots of fun.

Later, dooooooooood ...

-- Stephen http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

"Y2k is just going to level the playing field for those who don't know anything about computers." -- Elaine Boozler

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 08, 1999.

Hmmm...let's see..

Essays I've read by IT mainframe gloomers: 23

Essays I've read by IT mainframe pollys: 0

That just about sums it up. Too bad Maria is busy with Space Camp.

-- a (a@a.a), April 08, 1999.

Mass delusions, my the gloomers are so predictable. While typing that comment I thought of adding the "expertise" of his daughter but didn't hit the keys. You are correct, his daughter has a degree in econ, but she has little, very little experience (just getting her feet wet). Does that qualify her to make predictions on the economic impacts of Y2K? I don't think so. But then again you gloomers seem to be gullible enought to believe that.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 08, 1999.

...and Stephen, what do I have to do to be able to use those cool "CET" letters at the end of my name? Is there really a degree in "Certified Electronics Technician", or does anyone that can solder without catching the house on fire qualify?

-- a (a@a.a), April 08, 1999.

a - nice handle dweeb! You're COUNTING essays?? That sure is a cool way to validate findings. You always that gullible??

God you guys are priceless!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 08, 1999.

What's that smell? Oh it's just a's breath. Reminds me of Ray, not advancing the discussion very much.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 08, 1999.

Maria commented:

"As far as the challenge goes, I dont have the time. It takes some research to support your points (but Ray wouldnt understand this). I dont have the time to find all those links."

Gee Maria, you seem to have PLENTY of time to TROLL around this web site.

Sincerely, Ray ..... Not a Doomer but wisely preparing !!

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Maria commented:

"Ray, I just picked up this thread and noticed that you called my name a couple of times. First a comment about you (and I apologize for being cruel). You have not added any useful words to advance the Y2K discussion. You instead spend your time acting like a gnat, buzzing around, annoying everyone, and not saying much. As Deano said get a life."

Maria, no need to apologize, just HAPPY to see TROLLS on the defensive. Stay tuned!! Sincerely, Ray ... Not a DOOMER, but wisely preparing !!

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

This is why we're all in so much damn trouble!!! You people are a bunch of snarling little babies! Cory made a simple request and you idiots have turned it into a bizzare pissing contest!! And people wonder why the social consequences of Y2K will turn the world upside down??? So called "intelligent" people like yourselves are acting like spoiled two-year olds!!

You should all be ASHAMED of yourselves!!!!

-- (sick@of.thiscrap), April 08, 1999.

OK Stephen.

Maybe you aren't such a bad guy after all. I just wish people would knock off this doomer line. Yea, it's just another word, but it ticks me off because I don't think that's what this site is all about. Maybe I jumped on your case when I shouldn't have, and I apologize.

There are no Y2K experts. Everyone suffers from tunnel vision on this issue. Embedded systems are not my area, and I do appreciate your input. However I think others here that are qualified will argue strongly against your remark that the Y2K problem does not exist in embedded systems.

Mainframes and PCs both have their place in this world. I will continue to hug my mainframe, as you say, partly because they are enjoying a rebirth as giant web servers. I think this is a nice merge of old and new technology.

One final point on your "if there IS a Y2K problem, it's in mainframes" remark. Believe me it IS a problem in much more than just mainframes. Windows/98 has a few reported problems. NT still is not 100%, after many service pack attempts. SP-5 is one more try at it. Even if every OS was compliant, there are thousands of non-compliant applications out there. And, IMHO, even a tiny percentage of failures in embedded systems could result in millions of problems. How critical all of this combined will be remains to be seen. Some of us believe that just the sheer numbers alone will result in much more than just a bump-in-the-road. Almost $1,000,000,000,000.00 will be spent attempting to fix just the technical problems, before the lawyers get involved. Again how successful this attempt will be remains to be seen.

See ya. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

A couple of points I'd like to make here:

For Cory, I suspect that the vast majority of people meeting your criteria are not hanging out on internet discussion boards or at least not y2k ones. If you're such a mainframe expert, you must know what newsgroups would be appropriate to post a request such as this in.

The other point is that a couple of people here keep saying that they aren't doomers. If that is a common belief here, then you should know that this is a recent development. The majority of posters to this board have been diehard TEOTWAWKI subscribers for over a year. If the current regulars don't believe in TEOTWAWKI then things have changed and changed quite recently. Maybe your views are closer to us so-called "pollys" than you know.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 08, 1999.

And just what is a 'polly' anyhow? I resist the EOTW crap simply because it is not going to happen. Problems? yep, of course there will be. But not the enormous blast that will knock us back to the stone age some keep harping on about. To put it another way, I expect the equivalent of a migrane or a hangover for our economy/systems for about six months. That is a far cry from the bleeding corpse some here are predicting. So am I a 'polly'? Or just a realist?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

A note for Ray and others:

So you want us to put up or shut up? OK - HERE IS MY COUNTER OFFER. Set up an Internet debate on a chatroom on a Saturday or Sunday - pick a time and date agreeable to all the debaters. You pick four doomers, I am sure I can get Cherri, Stephen, myself and someone else to come in. The chatroom moderator can give us each 10 minutes to explain our views on Y2K, and then 10 minutes to reply to the statments of the others after we have seen them. Let the chatroom viewers vote on who won. ANY TAKERS?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

A polly is one who doesn't see enough of a supply-chain-breakdown- threat to advocate preparation for the general public.

A doomer does. A principled doomer will attempt to disseminate the threats that Y2K present to the populace, hoping they will stash some baby formula, coffee, milk, tuna, water now instead of waiting until December to shop with the other 100 million American households for these items.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), April 08, 1999.

Folks, what ever happened to the term GI? I can't remember the last time it was used here. I know that doomer ticks me off, and I think that many of the battles here are started by doomers this and doomers that. Can we PLEASE get back to GI! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Repost to Paul Davis:

"Paul Davis,

Cory Hamasaki is not an unreasonable individual. He has made a fair request. He has taken much of his time over the past 2 to 3 years to provide a wealth of knowledge on the subject of y2k. Now you weasel's, who haven't given squat to anyone use all your time to attack him. Shows me that you folks are running SCARED. What a sorry lot!!!"

Not interested in a debate. Maybe there aren't as many POLLY GEEKS as you folks would like us to believe. Just want to post as many FACTS to this forum as possible. Also want to be SURE you folks are kept HONEST!!

Ray, Not a Doomer, but wisely preparing. Ray -- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Hum, capital close tag!

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Thanks Sysman, much appreciated,

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Doomslayer: you said:

"Maybe your views are closer to us so-called "pollys" than you know."

You have a good point. I have never said we would return to the stone age, or that it would be TEOTW. But get Flint to post a link to the thread where he described his view of y2k consequences. It is extremely pessimistic. Yet, he turns around and argues that "bump-in-the-roaders" like Paul Davis are correct. That's why he catches so much grief from the regulars here.

Flint, link please?

-- a (a@a.a), April 08, 1999.

a commented:

"But get Flint to post a link to the thread where he described his view of y2k consequences. It is extremely pessimistic. Yet, he turns around and argues that "bump-in-the-roaders" like Paul Davis are correct. That's why he catches so much grief from the regulars here."

a, you hit the nail on the head. Flint is all over the map. I believe he is misleading many folks who are relatively new to this forum.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Yes, Flint is all over the map. The reason is that he really gets off on analyzing and tweaking every argument made by anyone that he thinks has a hole in it. This does have a value (as witness how many on the forum like what he does), although it always enables him to be the winner ("look how rational I am").

While I would definitely like to punch him out because he still hasn't apologized for his extremely nasty "GI thread", the important point is that he openly talks about his preparations. They seem to be as extensive, if not more so, than many "doomers" here. Making Flint or anybody the focus is not a good idea. Let's keep the focus on preparation.

"It's just Y2K, stupid."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 08, 1999.

BigDog commented:

"Yes, Flint is all over the map. The reason is that he really gets off on analyzing and tweaking every argument made by anyone that he thinks has a hole in it. This does have a value (as witness how many on the forum like what he does), although it always enables him to be the winner ("look how rational I am"). "

BigDog I don't know what the reason is that Flint is all over the map but if it is misleading folks it's wrong!!

"While I would definitely like to punch him out because he still hasn't apologized for his extremely nasty "GI thread", the important point is that he openly talks about his preparations. They seem to be as extensive, if not more so, than many "doomers" here. Making Flint or anybody the focus is not a good idea. Let's keep the focus on preparation."

BigDog, if Flint openly talks about his preparations it is a rare moment. I fail to see how one can be 'all over the map' and yet sincere.

Maybe a little enlightenment is in order!!

Ray "It's just Y2K, stupid." -- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 08, 1999.

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Ray and 'a':

You are both confusing the posters with the postings. If someone posts something I think is supported by the preponderance of evidence so far, I agree with it. I couldn't care less who posted it. If I think the posting reflects a bias unsupported by the evidence, I disagree with it. If I think someone is posting simply to attack someone, I complain about it. No matter who posts it.

Both of you have made some very good points, and you've both posted knee-jerk nonsense (as have I, of course). But those who already have all the answers can look pretty stupid in an ambiguous world.

In this forum, anything near a middle ground looks dangerously, even foolishly optimistic. In other forums, I'm blasted as a catastrophist -- for saying exactly the same thing! From my perspective, I start with questions and look for answers. You start with answers and reject all questions for which your answers don't apply. No, on second thought, you reject all *people* who don't agree.

The bugs are my enemy. I think they ought to be your enemy too. Attacking me or Paul or any others neither fixes bugs nor leads to a better understanding of what's coming. I guess I have a different religion.

"The deluded are filled with absolutes, the rest of us must live with ambiguity."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 08, 1999.

Flint, I am not attacking you. I am questioning your motives in leading folks to believe on one hand you believe there are serious ramafications to y2k (rarely stated) and then turning around as you did in this thread (and many others) and including yourself in the 1 week preparation group. There are average every day folks reading this forum, most without any computer background. They are looking for answers ...... not confusion.

Ray

-- Ray (Ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

Ray, if I thought I had the answers I'd say so. I don't have the answers. My take is that a lot of posters to this forum believe they know the future. I doubt they do.

My *pure guess* is that one weeks' worth of preparation will prove sufficient for many people. No please don't misunderstand. My *pure guess* is that most peoples' houses won't burn down either. Does this mean I recommend not having insurance? HELL NO! OK?

From all I've read, I speculate that the ramifications of y2k will be highly variable. Some (perhaps most) of us will be able to struggle by with few or no preparations (maybe not too comfortably). But many won't, and those preparations will prove to be lifesavers! Considering the stakes, I recommend extensive preparations, and I've taken them myself. Yes, of course I *hope* I won't need them. More to the point, I think the probability of needing my preparations is less than 10%. Anyone who looks at a 10% chance of easily avoidable death and doesn't take big steps to avoid it is stupid, I think.

Please note, anyone who does all they can to 'prove' that a 10% chance is *really* a 100% chance is also stupid. You don't need to distort reality beyond all recognition to get the point across.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 08, 1999.

Cory asked the questions THREE times before I arrived at the bottom of this thread to post a comment. If these were exam questions all the Polly's would have flunked it.

How dense can you get?

-- Steve King (parse@earthlink.nospam.net), April 08, 1999.

What's up? I keep watching the new messages page for an update, and I see that the debate has just moved to a different thread, having nothing to do with the topic. Why don't we just start a new thread called "this evenings debate" every day, and keep it there. Some of us are interested in certain topics, and nothing is being contributed, just the same old debate. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Flint, thanks for not disappointing me.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.

PS - Yes, I'm just as guilty. That's why I'm suggesting this. If you want to agrue with someone off topic, post a one-liner saying "meet me at the debate thread" <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

Ladies and Gentleman,

If I might address a few points. Jennifer Yourdon has a bachelor's degree in economics from Trinity. She has taken "some" master's economics classes and works the "the Street." An admirable foundation, but this does not make her an economist, per se.

Maria, thank you for the kind words.

As I have tried to point out, economists are poorly suited for most programming work... although a few make lovely econometric models. Computer programmers, on the other hand, are poorly suited for discussing economic phenomena.

The jury is still out on the number of Y2K-related failures that will occur... although the "drop dead" dates have been rather quiet. The IS/CS folks can argue for days. (Goodness knows, I have heard them. In my experience, the debates usually rage over programming languages, hardware platforms and Star Trek.) Once you move into the widespread effects of computer failures, you move out of the IS/CS end of the pool.

A favorite professor once joked, "Economic knowledge can be divided into two categories: obvious and wrong." Even so, I respectfully submit that professional economists are somewhat more qualified to discuss the greater economic ramifications of Y2K.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 08, 1999.

Holy sh*t, Maria, I sure would like to hear your take on the Russian early warning system! (If already posted, somebody link it please!)

Microsoft may run a huge complex network but that don't mean it does the same work as a mainframe. If you need a heavy-duty transactional system, you kinda need the database all in one place to ensure transactional consistency. You can mess around with distributed transactions but then a connection failure can take down the whole system. You can use PC systems on a monster server with redundant striped disk sets, that gets you pretty high throughput, but it ain't cheap. I ain't no PC hater, my job is building a Microsoft-based transactional system, just thought I'd mention it ain't as simple as it may sound. (Getting easier all the time, though!)

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 08, 1999.

Cory made a simple request, and justified it.

Cherri has graciously stepped up to the plate.

End od problem - any other lurkers polly's out there - just go ahead and put you're peice tgether - we REALLY DO want to read it. I'm sure we all want to save the Infomagic scenario for our worst nightmares.

Maria has graciously declined due to lack of time - that is a very fair excuse and I've used it myself, getting all the links together IS hard work.

P.S.

Maria, Jennifer Yourdon IS eminently qualified to comment as anyone who has read her jointly written book will have no doubt - her recent demolishing of that ZDNET fool was also quite priceless...

Sorry Maria, I don't have the link, I just don't have the time these days what with NASA commitments and Chinese Satellite Trajectory conulting (oops, where's the backspace k

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 09, 1999.

A favorite professor once joked, "Economic knowledge can be divided into two categories: obvious and wrong." Even so, I respectfully submit that professional economists are somewhat more qualified to discuss the greater economic ramifications of Y2K.

Mr. Decker,

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that you were arguing ad hominem. Let me make a practical suggestion: borrow a copy of the book "Time Bomb 2000" and read the chapter on jobs and the chapter on banking/finance. Then let us know in what ways you think Ed and Jennifer Yourdon have misinterpreted the potential economic impacts of Y2K.

I see this as the best way for you to clarify the difference between your opinion and their opinion.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 09, 1999.

Well I would do it but I don't meet the requested specs. I hate to ask a friend to do it because of the flames they would endure. The specs are silly anyway - just why is pointing that out a capitol crime?

It is just a little weird to see this turn into the old 'mainframes are better than LAN's' argument. If you want centralized data stores and fast processing of many inputs at once, you use a mainframe. If you want distributed data and fancy input screens and so forth, you use a LAN or WAN with much processing done on the PC's before it goes back to the servers. Chance of data corruption is higher, but users are generally happier. If you want to combine them, many are now using HTML and accessing the mainframe using an IP connection so as to have the best of both worlds. End of my input on this point.

As for the debate, it seems to me to be a reasonable counter offer. Why not bring Y2K matters to a more public forum?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 09, 1999.

I'm working on it. As fast as life of one of the sandwitch generation can. I did offer to help Koskinen. I handed VP Al Gore a paper with my background on it and told him I could help him with his Y2k situation. He handed it to someone and said to give it to Koskinen, and to get my name, address etc. I had all of that info on the paper along with my E-Mail address. This was last summer. I recieved a letter in snail mail thanking me for my concern and eplaining what was being done on Y2K. *sigh* And after going through security and heading strait for the VP with all the security guys eyeing me as I forced my way to the front of the rope, all it got me was my picture in the paper and on a visit to the VA Hospital, almost committed because they thought I was crazy and was stalking the VP. My mistake for having the paper with me. If he had taken me up on my offer then perhaps things would be a little different coming out of Washington about Y2K. Does anyone have Koskinen's e-mail address? And Cory what eactly do you want? My reasons for not being pessimistic?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 11, 1999.

Sherri,

Here is Cory Hamasaki's Home Page, it has his e-mail address. I am sure he will respond to your questions of what exactly he wants for the article. I thought he was quite specific as did many others who complained about just how specific he was.

Are you serious about contacting John Koskinen last year and the rest of the points you made regarding the subject? Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

Cherri,

Thought I would bump this to the top of the answer list in hopes that you would respond to my previous question. You posted quite an unusual statement above.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

Sherri,

Are you serious about contacting John Koskinen last year and the rest of the points you made regarding the subject? Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999. I walked up to Vice Pres. Al Gore and handed him an outline of my background and told him I could help him with his Year 2000 problem. He did take the paper, thanked me and handed it to someone and told them to get my Name, address etc, and to give the paper to Koskinen.

The visit to the VA was for an unrelated reason and I was kinda showing off my picture in the paper *DUMB* (believe me I stopped after that experience, just as I stopped telling people I was A Vet after I left the service~the reactions were unpleasant). The moronic Doc who saw me (resident or intern or whatever he was) assumed (as I was told later) I was a mental case that was stalking the VP.

** You posted quite an unusual statement above.** What part of the statement do you consider unusual? Cherri

Ray

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 11, 1999.

Cherri asked:

"What part of the statement do you consider unusual? Cherri "

Two things Cherri, first you made this post EARLY Sunday morning on April 11,1999. The thread had already dropped off. At the end of the post you asked Cory, "what exactly do you want?". Now if someone had not caught this I'm SURE you would have waited for a response that never would have come. I have given you Cory's e-mail and I am sure he will be happy to help you out.

Secondly, I think MOST folks reading your post would feel it was unusual, but I will just present it here for them to consider:

"I'm working on it. As fast as life of one of the sandwitch generation can. I did offer to help Koskinen. I handed VP Al Gore a paper with my background on it and told him I could help him with his Y2k situation. He handed it to someone and said to give it to Koskinen, and to get my name, address etc. I had all of that info on the paper along with my E-Mail address. This was last summer. I recieved a letter in snail mail thanking me for my concern and eplaining what was being done on Y2K. sigh And after going through security and heading strait for the VP with all the security guys eyeing me as I forced my way to the front of the rope, all it got me was my picture in the paper and on a visit to the VA Hospital, almost committed because they thought I was crazy and was stalking the VP. My mistake for having the paper with me. If he had taken me up on my offer then perhaps things would be a little different coming out of Washington about Y2K. Does anyone have Koskinen's e-mail address? And Cory what eactly do you want? My reasons for not being pessimistic?

7 Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 11, 1999."

I consider this QUITE UNUSUAL!

If you need any more assistance in contacting Cory I am SURE that many folks here will be happy to assist.

Ray Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

Whew!

Do any of you recognize, there is NEVER going to be any agreement on this issue until 2005? And then the debate will be what we should have done in such-and-such a situation?

Theres so much conflicting evidence, and lack of it, on all sides, in all industries and in all nations.

There are so many conflicted experts, and lack of expertise, on all sides, everywhere.

It just seems wisest to be ready for anything.

Expect change.

Thats the bottom line.

Diane

(P.S. Look forward to reading all sides on WRP, Cory)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

**"I'm working on it. As fast as life of one of the sandwitch generation can.** That means I have children as well as aging parents to take care of.

I did offer to help Koskinen. I handed VP Al Gore a paper with my background on it and told him I could help him with his Y2k situation. **This is something I did??? What is unusual about that?**

on a visit to the VA Hospital, almost committed because they thought I was crazy and was stalking the VP.

***I am a Vet. I went to the VA hospital for a medical reason and while talking to the doctor *smirk* showed him the picture in the paper and told him what i had done. This has nothing to do with this whole thing and I should not have mentioned it, but thought his mentality was questionable. Such as the fact that he assumed Vets were crazy unt6il proven sane, I thought it was rather a funny (or pathetic) incident that "some" might see the humor in...geeze.*** As for the time I wrote the post~~??? what time zone am I in? or you?? and there are a list of people these posts go to when someone writes to them, if Cory had requested answers he would have recieved mine. I do not "sit" here on this PB 24-7 answering the second someone else posts. If I feel like it I look in, if not I don't. It is not a priority in my life. I understand cory's requirements, but do not know what he is asking for. Dies he want concrete, technical examples of why I and others are "so called" pollys? Is that what you consider unusual? Or is it the fact that I would presume to tell Mr. Gore that "I" could help "him"? He is the one who said he wanted it passed on to Koskinen. Is the fact that most people would not even consider doing something like that the unusual part? Perhaps I am "unusual". *shrug* I guess I am missing your point. As for writing "the paper" I will get around to it as I have time. As Maria said;

It takes some research to support your points.

Unless you want some unthought out, off the top of my head half baked, personally opinionated piece of writing. I would rather do as Paul Davis suggests.

A note for Ray and others:

So you want us to put up or shut up? OK - HERE IS MY COUNTER OFFER. Set up an Internet debate on a chatroom on a Saturday or Sunday - pick a time and date agreeable to all the debaters. You pick four doomers, I am sure I can get Cherri, Stephen, myself and someone else to come in. The chatroom moderator can give us each 10 minutes to explain our views on Y2K, and then 10 minutes to reply to the statments of the others after we have seen them. Let the chatroom viewers vote on who won. ANY TAKERS?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 08, 1999.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 11, 1999.

Cherri,

Here is your comment that I questioned:

"And Cory what eactly do you want? "

This appears to me as though you would like an answer from Cory. Is that correct?

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 11, 1999.

My qualifications so not run exactly in the vein you asked for, but my added qualifications in the rest of computers and computing should suffice. Your view of personal in your field appears to have been tarnished by having to deal with co-workers and management who are clueless or just plain incabeable of or no desire of understanding computing beyound the glossed over superficial outer layers. You understand in depth which causes you to be frustrated with the incompatance of others. Unfortunatly this also causes you to be biased to the point where you will not accept that there are others with your ability and understanding of the minutea of the situation. Although I understand your reaction I believe your bitterness causes you to be biased toward the ability of others to find, fix and complete the remediation of mainframe systems. I have a lot of experience myself with the dorks we are forced to work with (the ones the law does not allow us to strangle). But resenting those individuals who we should not have ad to work with/for should not close our eyes to those who were proficient in their work. My view was to (mentally) put the dorks in their place, ignore them and go on with my work. I listened to everyone and discarded the words of those who were blowing their own horn with hot air. But by listening to the others I learned more than I ever thought possible. I know there are compitant people out there working and fixing the Y2K errors in the mainframes, I made a point 20 years ago to a lot of them saying "why not do it right in the first place so you don't have to work so hard to fix the problem later. I can not say how many listened, but some seem to have. I have faith in those who did quality work and were proud of the standards they kept. I believe those who can do a good job well have been doing it and fixing the mstakes of those who were/are slackers. It is my hope that management is now learning to recognise those who have always done their job right and will choose to get rid of those who do nothing but "brag" about how good they think they are. Y2K is a good lesson for those powers that be who have failed in managing by accepting brownnosed and ass kissed. The cost of those weak ego thrills have costs their companies a lot of money.

Cory you are so bent of expressing your negitive feelings about about what you have delt with that I believe you have closed your mind to the posibility that there are good workers who are busting ther butts fixing the screwed up mess of the incompatants. You have chosen an idea and closed your mind. Your prejudice towards others who do not work in your area is blatent. Calling hardware tech's weenies shows bigotry towards others not like your self. Personally I feel you have so much emotional/mental garbage that you should not be listened to due to your closed mind.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 29, 1999.

well now, this is just about the funniest thing re: Y2K yet. Cory "Imadoomer" H. sez that society is in big trouble....as tho that is a fact due to y2k.

He spews mountainous piles of garbage in reference to "pollys" having no expertize, then cleanly VANISHES when he is called on the carpet.

Now that many years have passed since the y2k nonevent (not even a blip on the radar screen) I hope people that followed Corys poor logic/reasoning learned a lesson about how to evaluate data...mainly that if you don't know what you are talking about (Ie "CORY") you should keep your mouth shut and let people that DO KNOW what they are doing handle it. That is how it has always been done, that is how it will continue to get done.

People with knowledge/skills were busy living in the real world while doomers like Cory were trying to build a "fan base" thru fear tactics.

15 minutes....were they worthy it?

-- (sick@of.doomers), August 16, 2002.