CET, RMS, and all you other dudes from GNIABFI and the Debunker's Site... please show us your reasons for being the way that you are. Bring upon us all that you have to show. We are the "doomers" because we take a hard look at the facts. If you have something to show us, please do so! Don't tell us about the ifs and whys and whenevers, show us! We want facts. Do you have any? We are waiting, and waiting, and waiting..... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999

Answers

Dear Sysman,

I am not one of those dudes but I have a question that is what I believe a "fact" that needs to be addressed. The fact (or fiction?) is that the IT part of the y2k bug will not be a singularity in Jan 2000 but will be spread out primarily from the fall of 99 through the spring of 2000. Bill Byars made a post on this forum about this.

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

Bill requested some comments about this from some IT folks but did not get a reply. Would you be kind enough to give us your perspective of the "fact" that the y2k bugs will be spread out over six or more months and thus have a much lighter impact?

-- Tomcat (tomcat@cat.com), April 29, 1999.

Sysman:

The reason that I am the way that I am is the same reason that you are the way that you are -- no one has convinced me otherwise. I admit that I am a natural optimist and I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I will listen to any argument they have to make and then make my own decision on whether to accept it or not.

I am involved with Y2K within my company and I am very aware of the issues. I am also very aware of all the work that is going on and NOT being released to the press or general public due to legal concerns and the simple fact that the press is generally NOT interested in releases that say "We fixed and tested more systems and they are OK. We have more systems to test and fix next week, ..." So, the lack of widespread good news reports is not an issue to me and not evidence of a major coverup or conspiracy as some claim.

What I see is that the majority of the so called bad news about Y2K is largely anecdotal and unverified. Many of the 'verified' stories have been later shown to be false. There are software engineers talking about global economic theories, history professors talking about banks and mainframe computers, and now retired professors and game inventors talking about embedded systems.

What I do NOT see is a substantial amount of factual information that would lead me to believe that there will be catastrophic problems. I have said before that the whole process of extrapolation that is going on in this arena is entirely one-sided: bad news is "proof that things are worse than what people are saying, proof, that the government is lying to us, etc." while good news is "just an isolated case, but what about ....."

The fact that there are Y2K problems is not a reason to assume the worse. The fact that failures are found is not a reason to assume the worse. Snapshots of Y2K readiness taken last summer or in January or April or whenever tell no more about the whole Y2K picture than a single frame tells about a movie.

Also, there is simply too much inexactness bandied about when terms such as compliant, ready, and compatible have no consistent meaning. There seems to be too much incorrect logic going on, resulting in erroneous conclusions. If something is not compliant, that does not automatically infer it will fail or stop functioning. If a component of a system is non-compliant, it does not mean it needs to be replaced. Very often, a software fix at a higher level will allow the overall system to accept the incorrect date from the non-compliant device and interpret it correctly. So, when I see number like 50 billion embedded chips, they don't mean anything to me because probably several billion of those are in VCR's, coffee makers, and other non-essential, non-critical devices that probably won't fail and, if they do, won't cause any widespread failures.

How many of those 50 billion do we really need to worry about? How many have already been replaced/remediated? How many have workarounds in higher level systems that make their complaince status irrelevant? Those are what I believe are the real issues and that is what companies, large and small, domestic and international, have been and continue to work on. Take a look at any company's website that lists their products and you will see that the overwhelming majority are compliant or have readily available patches/upgrades to make them compliant.

Finally, I simply have more faith in people, industry, and the government than apparently you and most of the others here do. If that makes me a polly, so be it. Your statement "We are the "doomers" because we take a hard look at the facts" pretty much sums up your attitude, i.e. "anyone who disagrees with us is a moron because the facts are clearly on our side." Despite your implication to the contrary, I (and I am sure Stephen and the other 'pollys') also take a hard look at the facts. We simply draw different conclusions than you do.

In closing, to paraphrase:

If you have something to show us, please do so! Don't tell us about the ifs and whys and whenevers, show us! We want facts. Do you have any? We are waiting, and waiting, and waiting..... <:)=

P.S. Still 'waiting, and waiting, and waiting...' for your Beach response. I am suprised that it is taking this long since, as a polly, my arguments are obvioulsy shallow and incorrect and easily refuted by someone like yourself!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Whoops! try again!

Off bold Off italics

I hate it when I do that!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

RMS,

"The reason that I am the way that I am is the same reason that you are the way that you are -- no one has convinced me otherwise. I admit that I am a natural optimist and I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I will listen to any argument they have to make and then make my own decision on whether to accept it or not."

Sysman didn't ask you for an opinion. He asked you to present your FACTS and explain why they are good rather than bad.

Get it right.

As for being an optomist, that doesn't mean crap. Analogy & true story:

There is a man who decides for variouus reasons, ie. money, that he is going to subject himself to an experiment. He is going to ingest or inject, for medical doctors, a strain of Botchulism(sp?). He knows and has been told that there is ONLY a ten percent chance that he will experience nervous system damage and or facial disformity resulting in disability. Now this man is an Optomist. Gosh, it's only a TEN PERCENT CHANCE THAT I WILL BE DISFIGURED, OR DISABLED. No Prob. Right?

The optomist allows himself to be subjected to the test.

The pessimist says "No. The chances are too great and dispropotionate to my logical sense of what is an acceptable level of risk."

So let me spell it out for you.

The Doom an gloom crowd has assesed the facts and also the lack of facts or independent verification and said

"The chances are too great and dispropotionate to my logical sense of what is an acceptable level of risk."

The Pollys feel that it is an acceptable risk.

Also, to elaborate, whatever the percent possibility that there will be errors is not the main point the Doom And gloomers have been making all along, although it can and may have an effect. The point is that the amount of RISK IS MUCH TOO GREAT to ignore the possibility when it can have such a dramatic effect on the essentials of life as we know it today. (WATER, ENERGY,FOOD!)

Go Ahead RMS, keep believing the risk is acceptable.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 29, 1999.

And I stress that Pollys "feel" the risk is acceptible, because simply put, they don't know.

And I stress again. THEY DON'T KNOW...

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 29, 1999.

Very well put RMS! Most of the doom and gloom crowd is not involved in Y2K. Yeah , yeah I know - some of yall are, but not to the degree I am. I have so much documentation on hundreds of companies that are Y2K ready I'd be a fool to think anything but the fact that this is going to be the biggest non-event in history. Our compliance is at 100% and our vendor compliance ia t 100%. If our vendor compliance is at 100% that means all their vendors are at 100% and so on and so on. The list is endless.

Sysman, you wanted to know why we feel the way we do, there are my reasons. I have no reason at all to feel otherwise. There will be problems, but so and far between most will go unnoticed.

My .02

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

Thomas:

Get it right yourself! Sysman, not you, asked me why I was the way I am and I answered him. I have posted my opinions and the reasons for them on numerous other threads so there is no reason to repeat the same things here again. As far as facts go, there is no such thing as my facts or your facts, facts are just facts. As I said in my response, had you read it carefully, I see the same facts that you and the other doomers do, I just don't interpret them the same way nor draw the same inferences and conclusions as you do.

Regarding your 'analogy and true story', that is fairly indicative of most of the alleged 'facts' about Y2K -- no names, vague details, incomplete story. Pardon me if I don't accept this as a true story. But you are right as far as the fact that I do not believe that the risks associated with Y2K justify making a significant change to my current lifestyle. You believe otherwise and that is your choice. I have not told, nor will I ever tell, anyone who chooses to prepare for severe consequences related to Y2K not to. That is a personal decision and I respect everyone's right the examine the factual evidence and draw their own conclusions, as I have.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

I smell lazy doomsters. Try doing your homework yourselves. The proof is everywhere, just look.

-- (get@life.willya?), April 29, 1999.

Y2k discussions are about risk; assessing the risk, and the appropriate response.

I don't comment on anyone's personal decision of the appropriate response. But, misguided as I may be, I do feel there is a need to discuss the facts, and balance the argument. I've yet to see a situation where relying on one extreme side of a potential situation produced an adequate answer.

The "Doomer" side is based on a series of "if this happens, then this might happen, which could cause major disasters". From a personal perspective, Y2k is all about assessing the liklihood of those ifs, mights, and coulds.

Daily life is a continual assessment of risks/benefits. IMHO, there is a higher probability of dying in a car accident than having any form of TEOTWAWKI occur due to Y2k. It doesn't stop me from driving my car, though it may for some. Again, IMHO, we as a people were far closer to TEOTWAWKI in the late 50's and early 60's than due to Y2k. Some built bunkers, some didn't.

In essence, I would rather live my life, than be constantly preparing for its potential end.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Usually, five will clear it up.

-- put fifty (close@tags.in), April 29, 1999.

REASON #1 I spent weeks trying to track down bunches of stories about this and that, and failing in the attempt. Got little or nothing in the way of facts. Whenever I hear about a company that can't possibly get done in time its always "can't tell the name", "can't talk about a client" and such as that. Now if there was anything to this malarky, the whistleblowers would be coming out our ears by now. And if they were afraid, they would be using anonymous servers and posting every damn detail down to the number of times the team leader went to the bathroom for God's sake - at least I would be. Where are the whistleblowers? Where are the courageous people who step forward and tell all? This is supposed to be a threat to the entire fabric of the Nation - and no one has the nerve to even put the facts out through an untraceable server? GET REAL! The reason there are no whistleblowers is because the problems are being worked out. Do I think everything will get done in time? OF COURSE NOT! But ENOUGH will be - I think that point is already behind us.

Now THAT is my a prime #1 reason for being an optimist - NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD AND NAMED NAMES.

REASON #2 - most of the doom cryers don't understand the things they are yelling doom over. Analysts give lectures about economics - check with Yardeni if you want an economists views - but be sure to get his latest. Mainframe programmers try to tell me how hardware works - and project impossible failure modes into hardware. PC programmers project themselves into OS stuff - there is a HUGE difference between someone talking about their field and someone talking outside their field of expertise. Now my career has been very odd, an oddball mixture of experience from many areas, mining, farming, computers on both low level and high level programming, networks and electronics - and I can tell when someone starts blowing hot air at me over any of those subjects. And I have seen more HOT AIR over Y2K than any other subject in my experience.

So my second reason is simply that most of the educated and professional doomsayers are talking outside their fields of expertise. Would you let someone who read a couple of books about medicine prescribe for you? Then why are you taking similar advice about this problem?

REASON #3 - the very attitude of the average doomer. Denial of any possiblity of things coming out all right. Defensive attitudes more reminiscent of someone whose religion has been attacked rather than the curious and knowledge seeking attitude of someone who wants to know what is going to happen. Frankly, most doomers don't WANT to think things are going to come out all right - for various reasons, ranging from the Christian takeover of the US govt. to old hippies wanting a return to flower power - one heck of a lot of the doom side is there because of irrational reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Y2K in fact.

So reason #3 boils down to - I don't listen to people who are telling me things for irrational reasons, and I don't care how they attempt to make it sound rational.

No one has presented me with any compelling reason to believe in the TEOTW or TEOTWAWKI or even the 5 year recession scenario. I really don't think anyone will at this late date, though I am always willing to listen to anything RATIONAL. At least half the posts on this board give very irrational reasons to believe in the doom scenario - and most of the rest betray a lack of understanding of the underlying technology. Now if you want my reasons for not thinking the technology is about to turn around and bite us - read the old threads that I have started. And then tell me just where I am wrong. But give me real reasons, not isolated incidents. We work around isolated incidents all the time (and the reason why I have time to write this is because I am helping work out an incident (not Y2K related) that affects 4 locations - and the guy on the other end is working with another of us right now).

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999.

Beano,

"If our vendor compliance is at 100% that means all their vendors are at 100% and so on and so on. The list is endless."

Logical inconsistancies are an enathema to a well reasoned mind. Assume nothing and risk nothing. Assume readiness or compliance and risk the unknown.

Only a fool believes everything he reads, but in business only a fool believes what he can see and verify for themselves short of legal leverage. Which the government itself is divided over. Just read the headlines!!!!

You go do YOUR homework. Watch CSPAN for crying out loud.

Just do something!!!

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 29, 1999.

Paul Davis,

With All Due Respect, I was at Yardeni's page last night and he was calling for a 70%, I repeat, 70% chance of recesssion.

What did I miss?

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 29, 1999.

Well, Mr Hale according to this chart, I've apparently lived through 5 recessions. No economist, but my impression of a recession is something you don't know has happened until after the fact.

So, just curious, just how do you prepare for a recession?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Michael and Thomas (where do you get that Father crap from son??), my darling little idiots. Please continue to live in your little pessimistic world. Please continue to look for lies and conspiracies. Please continue to waste your lives on always looking for fault. People like you crack me up. Have you always been this way?? What a life you must lead...... I think I'm supposed to feel sorry for you now but for some reason I don't. I recon the world needs pessimistic fools like you so the successful, optimistic ones have some entertainment.

Oh, and Thomas - that Beano crap is old......the other idiots on this forum already beat you to it. Goddamn genius, aren't they??

Ain't it about time for another bag'o'beans'n'rice??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

I think that the "doomer" group (and it's a small one) is concerned about possible outcomes. As has been said before, It's about Stakes, not Odds. Larry Sanger wrote an excellent essay that says it all, for me. www.sangersreview.com (go to Philosophy & Y2K in the Left column, then to, Is It Rational To Prepare For Y2K?

There seems to be a disconnect going on between the Polly and Doomer folks. The Pollys say they do not discourage preparation, yet I don't see any meaningful statements or advice about preparation, as we have here. So just what are they actually positioning for? I think they may be locked up in a psychological battle within themselves, and this speculation is described by Matt Vaugh, Y2K Without Tears. http://michael.mcelwain.com/final2.htm

And then there is the reality of public opinion. We are a really small % of the population here on the Yourdon site, possibly less than 10%,(possibly far less) of those who hold strong opinions about Y2k. So I ask the Pollys, with so many on your side of the argument (not too bad a problem, and it will be handled successfully as it arises) why bother to try to convert this forum? Is this a clean up act on your part? Can't rest until we are all marching together? We don't cause any harm to anyone. Very few pay any attention to us. Just walk down the street or down the hall and ask others what *they* think about Y2k and you Pollys will stand confirmed in your thinking. In the battle to influence the hearts and minds of the majority, you are currently so far ahead of us that you are clearly winning. Why not just declare Victory and go home? Don't you have it in your hearts to tolerate even a tiny minority dissenting opinion? Or is there something about our viewpoints that creates a nagging feeling of deeper uncertaintly for you, and you just have to rub that out?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

How could I have missed the doublespeak?! Shame on me!!

Thomas says a fool believes everything he reads. Then he goes on to say 'read the headlines' , 'watch CNN'. Thomas?? What part should I pick out to believe?? The part where we're doomed, or the part where life goes on as we know it?? Please clue me in on how to be as smart as you.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

If it's about stakes not the odds, then you probably don't get on a plane. The stakes are very high in the event of a plane crash, while the odds are low, lower than ground transportation. Further, the probability goes up when one considers the INTERCONNECTED attritubes of getting off the ground: manufacturers, maintenance, flight crews, airport facilities, suppliers, and so on. Yet millions of people seem to get on planes every day. hmmmmmmmmmm Interesting thread.

FWIW, I've asked the doomers to explain it to me and no one ever stepped up to the plate. My only response was "find out for yourself" "do your homework" This smoke and mirrors way of reaching conclusions goes beyond my thick brain. But you say you want me to prepare (so you won't have to shoot me or feed me). Then convince me that something will happen. In this thread, at least there are some pollys who have stepped up to the plate.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 29, 1999.

Gordon,

There are more people listening to the "doomer" point of view than what you have stated. The rumors started on the internet at places like this forum are coming back to me from people who didn't want to hear about Y2K six months ago. This is what pisses me off. You are wrong about the effect that Yourdon's forum is having. Goodness, Drew Parkhill from CBN spends a lot of time here and I suspect there are others. Don't underestimate the power of rumors and urban legends.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 29, 1999.

RMS: Your posts are excellent! For myself, I have decided on a level of preparedness but little than I was not going to do on my retirement property in any case. Your perspective and therefore the context from which you speak, resonate with the facts as they are currently known.

One final point. There IS one good aspect of being a pessimist. All of your surprises are favorable!

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), April 29, 1999.

Sysman, I was pretty close to where you are back in June 1998. Things have changed quite a bit since then.

• Early 1998 -- there was talk about some gov't agencies with a two-year fiscal look-ahead. Nothing ever came of that one, and I was skeptical even then.
• If GaryNorth hasn't removed it, he said in one of his 1998 postings that he expected the bank runs to start by the end of 1998. That one didn't happen either.
• January 1999 -- many people were looking anxiously to the impending fallout from the JoAnne Effect. Very few problems, and they were corrected in hours or days.
• April 1999 -- one-year fiscal lookaheads. ZDTV took cameras to the NY offices, and were rather disappointed that nothing fell over.

In short, it's been one failed doomer prediction after another. After each one, the self-proclaimed experts keep pushing the end-of-time dates out a little further. (Is what I heard true, that some "experts" are saying that Y2K problems won't hurt us until 2002?) No, Sysman, it's time for you to show us some evidence.

Show us the widespread failures that are supposed to be happening now.

Show us the food, oil, whatever shortages. Show us the panic buying. Show us the cash shortages, too (show us the money?)

Show us some hard evidence of a widespread gov't and industrial coverup.

Do you have any?

I'll be waiting. And waiting. And waiting....

-- Dirt Road (got.it@got.beyond.it), April 29, 1999.

Ok, I have one for you:

Someone at my company came in one day (Wed) and set the system date on our development machine ahead 3 days (Sat). This was done in the morning and wasn't noticed until noon. We can't even get anyone to admit to WHY it was done. When the date was noticed it was set back to the correct date (Wed). At this point we experienced new and unusual problems. We contacted the vendor that sold us the software, in an effort to correct the area that was stopping us from doing our job. The vendor was not helpful. We spent 2 and 1/2 days with our system basically down. We could not do any programming, because nothing would compile. When Monday rolled around everything was back to normal, but we still don't know exactly what caused the problem.

For those of you who think that setting back your system clocks will allow you to get around the y2k problem ... think again.

This is just one problem that exists for that particular y2k solution I keep hearing about. I'm sure there are others.

-- DJ (reality@check.com), April 29, 1999.

Gordon:

There seems to be a disconnect going on between the Polly and Doomer folks. The Pollys say they do not discourage preparation, yet I don't see any meaningful statements or advice about preparation, as we have here.

Exactly, if you read the threads from us Pollys above, you will see that they say that preparation is a personal choice. What I or Paul or Stephen do (or do not do) in reagrds to our preparation should have no bearing on what anyone else does. Why are you so worried about what we think you should do? If we are so stupid about everything in regards to Y2K, why would you care what we are doing to prepare?

I think they may be locked up in a psychological battle within themselves, and this speculation is described by Matt Vaugh, Y2K Without Tears. http://michael.mcelwain.com/final2.htm

A good example of what I wrote about above. Here we have a student espousing psychological theories and people posting and referencing it as if it were some peer reviewed paper by a professional psychiatrist! He is a JUNIOR in college, which means he probably has completed a good 12-15 semester hours of psychology courses. I've not seen anyone call him an 'expert' (yet), but these are the types of references that get posted all the time to 'refute' what us pollys say.

So I ask the Pollys, with so many on your side of the argument (not too bad a problem, and it will be handled successfully as it arises) why bother to try to convert this forum? Is this a clean up act on your part? Can't rest until we are all marching together?

Who said we were trying to convert you? I thought this was an opinion forum, for people to express their opinion.

We don't cause any harm to anyone.

Debatable when doomer philosophies are convincing people to quit jobs, cash in 401k's, stock up on weapons and food, etc. Maybe not direct harm, but certainly a lot of potential harm.

Don't you have it in your hearts to tolerate even a tiny minority dissenting opinion? Or is there something about our viewpoints that creates a nagging feeling of deeper uncertaintly for you, and you just have to rub that out?

I guess I would ask the same thing of you. Why do so many responses to us pollys from your fellow doomers like aaaa and INVAR and the like consist primarily of invective and rhetoric and little or no factual or even credible evidence. Are your convictions so weak, your beliefs so shallow that simple words on a forum trouble you so much that your rational thought processes become muddled?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Doomslayer,

Ahhhh, you give us too much credit. We really don't have much influence (sorry fellow doomers, but I believe that's true). If the public ever starts to panic it will not be because of any of us, including the star doomer of all, Gary North. No, if a stampede begins it will be because of "official" statements from Koskinen, or Greenspan, or Clinton himself. Nothing less will convince the majority. The public antenna is pointed in *that* direction, no ours. We are only preaching to the choir here, and we are a minor branch of an obscure religion. Nothing to worry about. Relax. Your Polly position is safe.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Paul, you said > "Now THAT is my a prime #1 reason for being an optimist - NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD AND NAMED NAMES."

I suppose you would require confirmation from the company, as well, or otherwise most level headed people would call it a rumor.

Reverse the roles. You're a medium sized corporate CEO, CIO, or whatever. You have just had your name plastered all over the internet in a y2k anonymous bulletin about your y2k company's lack of readiness, in fact the rumor states you haven't even spent 10% of your y2k budget, it's almost May, and there is no way in hell your company is going to make it. What do you do?

Do you:

a. deny the 'rumor' b. in a fit of truthfullness, confirm the rumor and kiss your stock value goodbye, oh, and don't forget about waving tah tah to the customers. c. downplay the rumor by dispensing smoke and mirror verbology d. stonewall and don't respond

Please choose one of the above, and then as Paul the internet observer once again, give us your conclusions.

-- (orwelliator@biosys.net), April 29, 1999.

Hey, EVERYONE, now that we have this new and improved web site, did you take a look at the picture connection at the bottom of the page?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Whoops, between the time I typed my comment and it got posted, the picture changed. No fair. The previous one had a Bill Gates mugshot.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

I wonder if all of you posters would be willing to share what preparations you _will_ have on hand before Dec. 1999?

-- none (none@none.none), April 29, 1999.

RMS,

You sure are hard on that kid Matt. Did you read the posting? Are you just shooting the messenger? How do you know that he hasn't run this by his "expert" professors as part of a research project? After all, perhaps you will agree, this whole reaction to Y2k is a living lab of psych reactions on the part of *all* members of our society. You need only read the intense replies on this forum alone to see that this issue is creating some strong feelings. Give the Kid the benefit of the doubt. Read the essay. And if the shoe fits, wear it.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

"The Year 2000 issue is potentially the biggest challenge ever faced by the financial industry." - B.I.S.

Polly - "Who's da B.I.S.? More of dem lyin' consultants, I bet."

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 29, 1999.

Certainly. I will have split some extra firewood, made sure my propane tank on the gas grill was full, picked up an extra bag or two of charcoal for my Weber, and that is about it. I always have probably two weeks of food in the refigerator, freezer, and pantry (before they are empty) and three extra bottles for my bubbler. Any other questions?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Gordon:

Read it and its a baby boot -- not even close. If a professor reviewed and approved that patronizing, condescending, one-sided drivel as a "scholary work", he should be fired on the spot.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

BTW Gordon, since I seem to have your attention, I will remind you of a statement you made in the "Secondary Clocks" thread below:

RMS,

If everything you say is true, then how do we get 2 models of the same PC, coming off the same assembly line, 1 serial number apart, and one is compliant and the other isn't?

This is an example of the doomer "facts" that are posted continuously. I say this is nothing more than an urban legend and once again I challenge to provide a source or admit that either you made this up or repeated a rumor without doing any research to verify it.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Judge for yourself

I don't think it was meant to be a dissertation.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), April 29, 1999.

Deano -

"Michael and Thomas (where do you get that Father crap from son??), my darling little idiots. Please continue to live in your little pessimistic world. Please continue to look for lies and conspiracies. Please continue to waste your lives on always looking for fault. People like you crack me up. Have you always been this way?? What a life you must lead...... I think I'm supposed to feel sorry for you now but for some reason I don't. I recon the world needs pessimistic fools like you so the successful, optimistic ones have some entertainment."

Deano, congratulations for saying absolutely nothing nor disputing anything. Your ability to attack rather than to argue points is exceptional. However, your inability to be logical is frightening. If you can't dispute a point of view you simply chose to attack the person that holds the point of view.

Read Gordon's statements above. IMHO, they are right on.

Also, your statement, "I think I'm supposed to feel sorry for you now but for some reason I don't" is very telling.

Why would you think that your feeling sorry for me would have an impact on anything? Do you place your importance in this discussion so high that your misplaced feelings would have an impact on me? Is your opinion of yourself really so high that you think your condescending to my level would make me feel better. I think you should understand that what ever you say has absolutely no impact on me.

By the way, I am an optimist. I think you are an elitist. There is a difference.

Mike ==============================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

RMS,

The real issue here is, who's listening to us doomers anyway? Glad to see you are making some preparation plans, "just in case." Now, go down the hall, or wherever, and ask people what they think about this whole Y2k issue. I think 90% will tell you somehing like "Oh I've heard about it, read about it, thought about it a little, but I'm not overly worried about it. If it was that big a problem, the government would be telling us it was." Betcha 6 gallons of my Hard Red Wheat against a couple of those full BBQ Propane tanks of yours. And I don't make that wager lightly. You guys are in the Cat Bird Seat. Be happy! The majority believes *you*, not what we are pestering about.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

sysman, i agree that one should be as positive and hopeful as possible, but that doesn't mean you want to bet the farm (or your life) on a positive outcome, especially if the cost of prudent preparation is fairly low, and it is, at the moment.

my dreams are a dead giveaway to how i really feel. i keep having dreams that we will muddle thru in north america, but that elsewhere, millions of people could freeze to death. i come from the northern great plains, where -40 on january 1 is normal, so yes, i know what cold is.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), April 29, 1999.

Deano,

My reference was to CSPAN and the coverage of the litigation limits that they are considering in reference to Y2K.

You mean to tell me that every single congressmember is overreacting to the possibility of serious repurcussions to Y2K? They are actually considering limiting lawsuits that result from Y2K fallout!!!!! People these are the members of congress you all voted for!

Don't badger me about doublespeak. Get your information from kosiken if it makes you feel better.

The Congressional Debate is serious stuff. Don't you DARE tell me it isn't.

As for someones comment about show me proof in the pudding that things won't be ok? Are you familiar with the Stock Market axiom, "Buy on Rumor, Sell on News."? Well it fits very well when one is trying to figure out what to believe in an environment that is full of disclaimers, legalese, and companies lawyers restricting them from disclosing Y2K remediation and compliance is done. Hell, they can't even tell you who did their independant verification!!!!!!Why does that make you feel better?

Washingtom Gas spoke at a foruum I attended and they were telling their employees LAST YEAR that they should do their research now and make a decision now so they could prepare their families and not worry about them if need arose, because they were needed by the company to live inside the control center. SERIOUSLY!

Also in the same disscusion they addmitted they had absolutly no acknowledgement of what their suppliers where up to in their "Remediation." The best the spokesman could say was that they were working closely with the electric and their suppliers in the pipeline.

Washington Gas is ready if and only if the Electricity works and they have a pipeline that supplies them GAS! That's from the horses mouth! And that is just one reason I have chosen to prepare.

Whoever said their suppliers were 100% compliant? Tell that to Wash Gas... Why don't you tell me what your company does, and if its a life critical system. (FOOD, HEAT, or WATER) If it isn't then you arn't focused on your own immediate needs.

In addition to that OXFORD HEALTH CARE in NY has recommended to their employees that they prepare for Y2K!!!!!! Thats from my twin sister who works in their HCFA compliance dept. Should that make their employees feel better? Tell them why you feel that it is not an issue, that the risk is manageable? THEIR COMPANY TOLD THEM TO PREPARE? WHY? Because it's OK?

These are companies that have serious concerns!!!!!!

Are you going to tell me that I shouldn't be concerned about HEAT? or Electricity for that matter, since Wash Gas's concern about Electricity implies that EVERYONE in the National Capitol should be at least REMOTLEY CONCERNED!!!!!!!

Tell me that this doesn't make sense!!!!!!

Please,!!!!!

Oh, and Hoffmeister, you are souunding like your own self. Now read 70% chance of Recession taken in context with the understanding that the Utilities in the Nations Capitol are neither certain their suppliers are just remediated, let alone compliant and that they have been gaged by their legal departments for fear of litigation. I take this to mean that someone is not speaking up, as a result of a serious lack of moral responsibility.

Hoff, you didn't notice the double digit interest rates in the 70's? How much of an increase in interest rates can the stock market withstand in a 6-12 month time span, now? What if we return to double digit interest rates? It's in the low sevens now!!!!!Where will business get the money?!?!?! (Consumers, Price increases?) What kind of price increases will you need to see in order to feel a reccession? Or mabey I should ask, what kind of interest rate hikes can the company you work for handle and still stay in business, avoid layoffs, sustain the growing economy? Can the market handle a 3-5 point increase? Can Greenspan keep from raising rates if there is a global recession? Will he do it quarter point by quarter point? How much do you think the market will dive? Cite october's rate decreases due to the 500 point drop in the dow to bolster businesses confidence? But will Greenspan's succesor be as wise as he is and know how to handle an increase or decrease? (Greenspans retireing this summer, right? Or is it next summer?)

Tell me these questions all have nice answers!

Thank you.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 29, 1999.

RMS,

You said: "Who said we were trying to convert you? I thought this was an opinion forum, for people to express their opinion. "

I think you got lost on your way to the forum.(g) Actually if you'll push that little blue area at the top of the screen...the one that says "about", you'll find the following definition of what this forum's purpose is:

[This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.]

Now, don't get huffy, you're more than welcome to hang around and state your opinions, AFAIC, but I think you should realize that the purpose of the forum isn't just to "express your opinion".

Oh, and about that little part that says "who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people".... have you ever contributed anything concerning this?

So, like Gordon asked....what's it to you what this itty bitty little forum and its members do, say, or think?

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

Mr Hale:

Interest rates? Inflation? Higher gas prices? Come now, this is TEOTWAWKI?

Seriously, no one ever promised continual highs without dips. Economic cycles will do what they do; cycle. I know my limited forays into trying to "time" markets have been met with complete disaster. Do I think the market is too high now? Yes, but I certainly have no desire to attempt to time it. Since my horizon for needing the money is over 10 years down the road, and since all but Mr Yardeni's most pessimistic ( and minimal probability ) scenarios call for it being higher still, my guess is I'll stay at my current 60/40 ratio, and continue to dollar cost average.

Given even a certainty of a coming recession, I would not pull all of my money from my bank, and stock months of food. But again, these are just my personal assessments.

So, I'll ask again, how do you prepare for a recession?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Cary:

I started a thread not too long ago on this subject. But be sure to check out Mr Yourdon's main intro to the forum at his web-site:

www.yourdon.com

To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 98,000 messages through late April, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions!

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Sorry Cary, my mistake. I got here originally through Ed's home page which says:

To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 98,000 messages through late April, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions!

That seemed like an open invitation to discuss Y2K issues, regardless of your viewpoint. I didn't realize that those of us that are not "like-minded" were not welcome. Seems to me that a 'dialog' or discussion usually needs some difference of opinion or it it just someone making a statement and everybody else chiming in "I agree!" or is that what you really want?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Damn, Hoff! You're quick!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

I thought this was an opinion forum, for people to express their opinion.

That does not appear to be the intended purpose.

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

If one is unconcerned, and does not want to discuss contingency plans, then why would one post here?

 
FWIW, I've asked the doomers to explain it to me and no one ever stepped up to the plate.

I have not made the attempt. The main reason is that I have no desire to subject myself to the sarcasm and vitriol. The personal attacks and sweeping generalizations (in both directions) seem much uglier than they were six months ago, and tacking an implied "IMHO" in front of one's submissions doesn't justify anything. I still believe that two wrongs don't make a right.
Once again: not having received a satisfactory response or rebuttal does not mean that none exists. Inability is not the only possible explanation.

"Then convince me that something will happen."

That's not why I'm here. I was glad to find this message board because of its stated purpose.
This was not set up to be an "evangelistic" forum, and I absolutely cannot understand why people hostile to its stated purpose would expect anyone (okay, me) to spend time and energy trying to persuade. It has never occurred to me to go to optimistic forums and repeatedly insult the intelligence of those who want to be there.
Attempts to inject some "balance" or "rational analysis" or "perspective" lose all credibility with me when every other sentence seems to contain sarcastic ridicule and/or a specious blanket statement. And, again, this is not a neutral meeting ground, but a service intended for those concerned about the impact of Y2K.
If you were to invite yourself into my living room and belittle my fears, is it really any surprise if you don't get a composed, neutral reaction? Or if I decide your style of communication, and the place you chose to mock me, makes talking with you a waste of time?

And here, once again, I've spent too long on something that would be completely off-topic, if it wasn't at attempt to defend the main purpose for this excellent forum. Maybe we need moderators or something, to keep at least some of the threads free of this "Prove it, loser" / "No, you prove it, shill" static.
I really try to refrain from personal insults, folks. Life is just too short to debate unseen people who don't feel the same way. Time for a break from here, maybe. My e-mail address is valid.

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), April 29, 1999.

Mark - I feel sorry for anyone that's as pessimistic as half this board is. I have no idea what's it's like to live my life in doubt of my fellow man all the time. I'm not saying I trust everyone (certainly not), but I am definitley not going to spend my life digging for lies and conspiracies. What the hell kind of life would that be? You're damn right about me in one respect though - I am a winner, period. You can call it arrogance if you want, most losers mistake confidence for arrogance. That's what makes them losers - no confidence! I did not come from money, but my goal is to make as much as possible in my lifetime. Hey, those great founding fathers yall are always harping about are the ones that made up the rules. I'm a capitalist PIG and I LOVE IT! I own 2 SUV's, a house on the Intracoastal Waterway, a cabin on the Sante Fe River and a big ol' boat. I just had a huge swimmimg pool put in. I go where I want on vacation and never have to worry about money. Why? Because I play by the rules. Rules that someone else made up, all I do is follow them. Makes life real simple I tell ya!

You spend your time doing whatever it is you do and I'll do the same. All I did was express my opinion like Sysman asked and then get flamed by assholes like you.

Get a fucking life dude!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

Deano,

You got an awful lot "at stake" here. Done real good for yourself, and have a right to be proud of it! Damn, it would be terrible if this stupid Y2k crap, coupled with a world economy in depression, cost you most, if not all, of those sweet assets. Since we are giving advice and opinions here, how does one deal with such a risk? I mean how do you factor in any possibility of losing it all, and not start getting the shakes? If I had all that you have, I would be mad at anyone that even suggested I was going into the tank next year.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Deano, buddy, I just hope by playing by the rules and not making yourself 'aware' of what is going on around you (hardly a conspiracy) in the form of vast governmental control on the federal level, global corporatization, the U.N. infringment of our public property, the UNESCO program to expand our wilderness area to encompass over 50% of the Unites States territory, that you are able to hold onto your things and lifestyle.

Good luck.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 29, 1999.

Gee, Gordon, if you buy into the North-Milne-Infotragic scenarios, we all have quite a bit at stake, wouldn't you say?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Hi RMS & Hoff,

"To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 98,000 messages through late April, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions!"

Yup, that's what it says alright, it also says what I pointed out too. You know, the point being here guys....no one knows all the consequences of Y2k, but surely you don't believe that it will be negligible. Might be where you live, but might not be in someone elses neck of the woods, whether thats S. Ca or London, Eng. You don't know and neither do I. So we can argue this till the cows come home, but basically the only thing that might have a positive effect is sharing knowledge of how to do things in a less than perfect world. Who knows, maybe someone's area will be hit next week with a terrible natural disaster such as a tornado, and what has been shared here might help them and others. So you have a choice, you can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

---Grr....You said a mouth full!

Deano....if everything is so great in your life, why are you so angry? And can't you dig deep in your box of adjectives and find something else besides the "f" word?

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

So you have a choice, you can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.

I guess that is where we differ, Cary. In my opinion, the people who are saying "Y2K is systemic and can't be fixed so don't waste your time trying, instead buy my book or video" are part of the problem, not part of the solution. As I said, I am heavily involved in my company's Y2K efforts and our products are used by major utility and industrial customers world wide so I AM part of the solution if I help to ensure that those companies are operational come 1/1/2000. All of the red herrings that are thrown around such as the "Beach Bug" do nothing to solve the problem but divert attention away from real issues and delay their resolution.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Cary & Mass delusions - you're right, it would piss me off to no end if I lost my 'stuff'. Have worked damned hard for it. Everything you mention with the exception of Y2K, has been happenning all my life. The ecomony goes up and down and back up again, some idiots are fighting a stupid war somewhere on the planet, trees and owls are being lost by the dozens. It's horrible I tell you! But life just keeps ticking on doesn't it? Mine sure does, along with everyone I know and love.

I don't think Y2K will amount to anything at all. I have stacks of evidence that makes me feel very comfortable in my decision making. I've been at this for a long time now, right in the middle of it, lawyers, examiners and all. No biggie.

Carey?? I'm sorry I offended you. I didn't realize I was the first one ever to use the 'f' word on this forum. Ya know what's funny Carey?? I've seen INVARibly Stupid, Andy, and several others use the 'f' word quite often and not one doomer ever says a thing about it. But a Polly uses it and......well, I think I made my case.

Yall have a nice day. Time to go home and enjoy Thursday.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

Hoff,

I think I see what the problem is here. Tip: you don't have to buy into all those worst case doom and gloom scenarios, you can rent them. Costs a whole lot less going in and then later on if you don't like it, return it. Or buy it later, if you got the deal with the option to convert from lease to own. ;-)

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

RMS:

"I guess that is where we differ, Cary. In my opinion, the people who are saying "Y2K is systemic and can't be fixed so don't waste your time trying, instead buy my book or video" are part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Sir, truly, 95% of the people you will meet here don't believe that. More like "Y2K is pervasive to the extent that your life will not go on like it did before Y2K, so better to brace for the changes now, rather than later (December)."

Honestly.

Lisa

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 29, 1999.

Hi RMS,

"I guess that is where we differ, Cary. In my opinion, the people who are saying "Y2K is systemic and can't be fixed so don't waste your time trying, instead buy my book or video" are part of the problem, not part of the solution."

Hold on there Cowboy (g) I for one am very very glad that there are IT people such as yourself out there working on this problem...could you work a little faster? (g) I think its gong to be mighty bumpy in a few places in the US, but the more we can get fixed now, the better off we'll be. I'm not such a fool as not to understand that. I worry a great deal about other areas of the world that don't have our resources, awareness or the same effort and time we've put in here, and that's the wild card...so, I think we all need to be a little bit prudent and figure out all the ways we can, to work around what we might have to do without. "As I said, I am heavily involved in my company's Y2K efforts and our products are used by major utility and industrial customers world wide so I AM part of the solution if I help to ensure that those companies are operational come 1/1/2000." Well incase no one told you today RMS, thanks! Keep up the good work. "All of the red herrings that are thrown around such as the "Beach Bug" do nothing to solve the problem but divert attention away from real issues and delay their resolution."

Naa, there's always going to be red herrings, in this case I doubt seriously that's delayed anything.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

Grrrr....you said...

I really try to refrain from personal insults, folks. Life is just too short to debate unseen people who don't feel the same way. Time for a break from here, maybe. My e-mail address is valid.

And then you've done exactly what "they" want you to do - which is stop your online posting, your involvement, and most importantly, your caring.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Deano,

"I don't think Y2K will amount to anything at all. I have stacks of evidence that makes me feel very comfortable in my decision making. I've been at this for a long time now, right in the middle of it, lawyers, examiners and all. No biggie."

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but answer me this, if you think its going to be "no biggie" why are you hanging around wasting your time here?

"Carey?? I'm sorry I offended you."

Apology accepted.

"I didn't realize I was the first one ever to use the 'f' word on this forum. Ya know what's funny Carey?? I've seen INVARibly Stupid, Andy, and several others use the 'f' word quite often and not one doomer ever says a thing about it. But a Polly uses it and......well, I think I made my case."

I wasn't involved in those threads Deano, or I most certainly would have said something. Don't think that everyone is all alike, and indeed there are those of us who do find it offensive. I just happen to speak up when it is directly in my face.

"Yall have a nice day."

You too Deano! Me, I live in the sunny South, so I'm gong to go soak in my hot tub, take a nice relaxing swim, then get into my SUV and go eat dinner....somewhere nice, with candlelight I think. (s)

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 29, 1999.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

RMS,

After posting my comment to Hoff above, I got to thinking about my wager to you. If you lose, I don't want any "leased" propane tanks, just solid no-claims-attached ones. OK? But then again, if this all turns out to be a low class non-event, I won't need the extra propane anyway, so maybe it won't matter about ownership. And if it turns out to be real chaotic, the propane company will probably lose all its records and won't even know where its leased tanks are anymore. And of course in that event you could just report them as stolen, along with all the other stuff that will be stolen, or confiscated from us. Just don't tell them I have them. That wouldn't be fair. Agreed?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Gordon:

Not sure what you are talking about but I'm talking about the propane tank (and I own it clear and free!) that I throw in the trunk of my car and take down to the local You-Rent-It place to get it refilled. Mi propane es su propane!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 29, 1999.

Excuse me, but i have a question. Exactly WHOM is responsible for actually saying "It's broke, you can't fix it. So don't bother trying, just buy my book." It seems to me, in my currently senior state, that I have NEVER heard ANYONE suggest that the folks stop working and simply prepare. Kindly enlighten me with the name of ONE person who has done this.

And DO NOT try and suggest that the essay that E Y wrote about a year ago in reference to the end game bug out strategy, as an examination of the rationality thereof is what you are refering to. A careful reading of this essay suggests the OPPOSITE.

Chuck a night driver

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 29, 1999.

Sysman, What a guy! Standing up right in the middle of the whole thing and daring anyone to take a shot...I want you on my side if things get touch and go next year! A "natural optimist"....I like that. It reminds me of a story I once heard (Sysman, this is my lead in to humor so don't get pissed at me again thinking I'm getting personal-I think?). An optimist is when "a minister falls off a ten story building and he yells into his friends at each floor window 'everything is going okay so far!'. Here is a question..." would it be easier being an optimist if someone lived on a farm in the country than it would be in a highrise apartment building in a large metro area?". Sorry for being philosophical but depending on where one lives could affect ones view of the theoretical. Sysman, I have already given you where I sit on this whole thing so I won't bore you again except to say Yourdon has expressed the opinions that closest resembles where I am. However, I also find myself an optimist in that Y2K is only a bigger version of other devastating things I and others have had to traverse in life. It was optimism that won the day as I battled my way through hardship and it will be optimism (and appropriate preparations) that will win the day as I and others find our own unique pathway's through whatever comes our way from Y2K. Y2K is part of our lives now..how we respond to it individually will most likely be the same way that we respond to crisis in our lives right now. After all the swearing, posturing and food fights(hey thanks everyone for a better week with this stuff!) we will all go with the ole "gut feeling" when it comes right down to it. Moral= "hope for the best,prepare for the worst and in every rainbow always see that beauty can come from even a storm!". I am now done waxing poetic and I am going to go outside and have a very good imported cigar! See you later Sysman!! "The Walleye Guy"

-- Mark Howard (walleyemar@aol.com), April 30, 1999.

As someone who is neither in the "doomer" or "polly" camp (not publicly anyhow), I have a question for the Pollys: even Koskinen suggests that major infrastructure failures are likely in many countries abroad. The CIA has expressed the same beliefs many more times, and much more forcefully. So has the World Bank...and the UN...and Gartner...and...and...

My question, then, is twofold: (a) do you think this concern is overblown, and (b) if you think it is well-founded, and then you combine the infrastructure-level problems, secondary-level failures, human response, and economic fallout, isn't it naive to suggest that Y2K will be a nonevent for us...in essence, that we live in a vacuum from the rest of the world?

It seems to me that there is so much hangup about precisely predicting the exact impact of primary failures, and that the secondary cascading impacts are underplayed. But maybe that's just me.

I know your answers will be as unique as your personalities. Thanks for your consideration...

Scott Johnson
Editor,
y2ktoday

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Scott-----Thanks for your comments. You have asked super questions! I don't think all of the agencies you listed have over blown their strong warnings. To listen to much of the discussion here and everywhere else might lead one to the conclussion that once "the big players" get their act together that every thing is going to be just peachy keen in the USA. That might be true given a perfect scenario but I have not seen many who would be willing to quantify that. The real issue it seems has always been the unknown,or at least the wild card, of the global scene. It is almost 2 am here and I don't have the exact % but a huge portion of our GNP is generated by, dependent upon and stimulated by the international community. Can a company, a state or a country "wall off" itself to protect from outside infection? Sure! But the outcome of that is obvious. DEATH! To think that we can survive in a vacuum is like telling a salesman that he can make a good living by sitting in his home office and not make any sales calls! This economy is indelibly and forever dependent on the international market for it's survival. Scott, your absolutely correct. The USA can not, has not and will not be able to live, survive and prosper in a vacuum. All of the agencies you listed are not stupid. They know something...and what they know is what you have suggested in pt.b of your comments. We in the USA need to let go of our irrational, imperialistic and arrogant thinking and come to grips with the fact that this super power of a nation we call home may be brought to it's knees for a while by something that is out of our control coming from "underling" and less advanced nations around the world. If we are so advanced how come we are in this mess?? All the agencies you listed Scott know something, thanks for bring it to our attention!! "The Walleye Guy"

-- Mark Howard (walleyemar@aol.com), April 30, 1999.

Carey - I was being genuine in the apology. I recon I get like that when someone calls me ignorant (and 2 of them did right off the bat) for expressing my opinion and the reasons why. There was no reason for that, the man asked for facts from Polly's and I gave him mine. And I do have the facts (documented) that I base my prep decisions on. From what I have in front of me, Y2K statements from companies in all walks of life - software and hardware suppliers, public utilities, distribution centers (for all types of goods), service providers, airlines, banks and mortgage companies - I have to be optimistic. Who wouldn't?

Yall be nice......it's my stupid b-day.......I can officially start the 39 and holdin' thing.......we're doing that candlelit dinner thing at Ruth's Chris tonight (funny you should mention that!).

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 30, 1999.

A brief answer to Scott's question. I believe that the primary consequence of Y2K problems will be economic. Of course the U.S. will be affected, but the argument can be made, and some have made it, that it is quite possible that the economic consequences in the U.S. will be positive.

Now, anybody care to argue the case for this forum having no influence when the editor of y2ktoday.com is a regular? I rest my case.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999.

Deano,

Congrats on your b-day.

I will say however that it seems you have the very confirmation that it going to be ok that I don't.

I think thats sufficient cause for me to be disgruntled and for you to be A-OK.

You still haven't given me anything other than an opinion.

Facts, talk. Independent verification is meaningless unless shared with the public, and If the CIA, Kosieken, and most others concerned with the global economy state that they are worried about their level of preparation and testing then I believe that is cause for worry. To be honest with you Y2K may not drastically effect our lives here in the US, but I'm cogniscent enough to understand that we live in a world economy and the repuurcussions of partial loss of oil, global transportaion echoed by the Government should not be taken lightly.

I never said it was TEOTWAWKI. I simply think the facts and the concerns echoed point to an end result that I find unfavorable. That entails pulling my money out of the bank, most of it. Stocking food for 6-8 weeks, Mabey more, and haveing the other essentials in order if I may need them. Oh, and buy a gun.

Trusting in the resilience of society is good. It's just that that is a double edged sword. People can both help each other and Riot. And it wouldn't be the first time they rioted in DC. or Detroit, or LA.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me my concerns above are a non issue and why. GAS & ELECTRIC!

Thanks,

Father

PS Mike, I'm an expectant father.

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 30, 1999.

Happy B-day Deano!

"Y2K statements from companies in all walks of life - software and hardware suppliers, public utilities, distribution centers (for all types of goods), service providers, airlines, banks and mortgage companies - I have to be optimistic. Who wouldn't?"

I believe you, but let me caution you a little on the airline industry (I was involved in it for about 20 years). Even if the FAA accomplishes all remediation to make our systems here in the US safe & secure, I pretty well can guarantee you that not all airports are going to have the same status, here and definitely in the rest of the world. How this will exactly effect your business, I can't say, but just something I thought you should be aware of.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 30, 1999.

Thanks guys! Getting old kinda sux ya know.

It's pretty obvious we live in a less-than-perfect world today, technology-wise and otherwise. I see statements on here that say "We must be at 100% compliance, nothing less will do!". I totally disagree with this statement. Bogus data travels our communicaions lines every minute of every day and things work just fine. They always have. We live in a fix-on-failure society and we've become pretty damn good at it. Mistakes are made and then quickly (most of the time) corrected.

Things could get a little ugly because of what other nations are not doing. I agree with that but I don't see it any worse that the early 70's were. It wasn't a party for sure, but it wasn't all that bad either.

My biggest fear is the bank run, stock run thing. If enough people do it, it will cause problems that could have been avoided. IMO, all due to bad information and panic.

Thanks again!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 30, 1999.

Deano,

You are RIGHT!

Afraid of Bank runs and stock runs.

Now just ponder for a moment just who is preparing to take money out of the bank. And then think again about who really needs to take money out.

My thought is that small business will need to have more cash on hand than any sector for payroll. We have continually heard reports of industry stocking up on material etc. Just how much? Not sure. Could it cause a slow down in the durable good sector. You bet it can. So if companies have all this stock. Who are the suppliers going to sell to. How many months can a small business pay payroll without and orders? Not to say that 30-40% of the citizenry polled has decided to take out extra cash.

Is the BAnk run a certain thing? I really don't know, but we are creating a strong case for it.

As for the stock market. Anyone reasonable might say it's headed for a correction. The only element missing is if people take out a dissproportionate ammount of assets due to Y2K, such as Mutual Funds, buy cash, CD's, whatever. then the Market will tank, but the major component of the market has been Mutual fund Managers who have a steady influx of Investors money which has to go somewhere!! I'm hoping that it continues as such. Even still we need to see a 20% correction to drive interest rates up and to position the economy for a reccession-depression. That's 2000+ points. And if you ask me it's not out of the realm of possibilities. And it is still a possibility if there is not a bank run, but would happen first or second quarter 2000.

Just ponder that thought.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.t@att.net), April 30, 1999.

Look at this -- 73 responses and not a peep from the 'dude' that started it. I guess we hit too hard and he has no response. Sorry about that Sysman!

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.

(get@life.willya?),

"I smell lazy doomsters." According to the statistics page for this forum:

y2kboard@yahoo.com (1337)

Is your name even on the list? I didn't think so.

Well, we do have quite a few comments and opinions here, but just as I suspected, very few FACTS. Even a lazy doomster like myself can find a few facts to support the polly:

A FEW banks have announced compliance.

A FEW utilities have announced compliance.

ONE auto plant (I think it was a Ford truck plant) announced compliance.

Folks, we have 8 months to go.We should be seeing announcements by the hunderds every day. Are you going to tell me that it's all because of the lawyers that we aren't? Why then have these few companies come forward? What do their lawyers know that others don't?

Many of you have said that you are confident because nothing has come of the predictions about 1999 failures. Here is a FACT. The number of programs that do look ahead processing is tiny, when compared to the total number of programs that have a date problem. How do I know that this is a fact? Do I have a detailed software inventory of the 50,000 mainframes? No, I do not. Do I have detailed knowledge of the thousands of PC programs on the market? No, I do not. What I do have is 31 years of programming experience. What I have done is work on well over 1,000 programs in those 3 decades. What I do have is a general knowledge of the types of systems that run on both mainframes and PCs. LOGIC tells me that this is a FACT. Logic also tells me that those programs that do look ahead processing are well known, and that these programs would be fixed first, because they are needed first. Would anyone care to refute this fact? If so, take your best shot. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Here is a FACT...How do I know that this is a fact? ... Do I have detailed knowledge ...? No, I do not. ... What I do have is a general knowledge ... LOGIC tells me that this is a FACT.

In order to refute a FACT, one must be given a FACT to refute. Once again, you have not presented a fact, you have presented an interpretation of various pieces of factual data and personal experience and yet called it a fact. When I or Stepehen or Paul Davis or any other does that, you say that is just one person's unsubstantiated opinion.

Now, if we accept your so-called "FACT", lets take a look at it closely. The "polly premise" that I assume you were trying to debunk is that the prognostication powers of Ed Yourdon et.al. (but not you!) were not to be taken seriously because they incorrectly predicted serious failures on 1/1/99, 4/1/99, etc. etc. Regardless of what your opinion is of why they did not occur, the FACT (and this is a FACT) is that widespread failures due to date related problems did NOT occur and no amount of handwaving can change that.

Lets go further. Assume you are correct that these programs were given higher priority because they "are well known" and thus fixed first. If so, this would seem to refute the standard doomer argument that we will never find all of the Y2K related bugs. Why are look ahead processing programs so much easier to debug than other programs? Secondly, even if these look ahead programs represent only a small percentage of the total number of programs, how does that imply that the others cannot be fixed in time? Unless you have numbers that show how many of these programs were fixed, how many are left, when they were fixed (I assume that many of them were ready well before April 1st and the programmers were thus free to work on other non-look ahead programs since then), how much work is left to fix them, etc., you cannot use LOGIC to conclude that they will not get done. You can use gut feelings, personal intuition, hunches, etc., but not LOGIC.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.

Ok RMS, yes, I am saying that this is a fact, based on my personal experience in the business, and my general knowledge of the types of systems that run on computers. How can we know for sure, without a detailed software inventory? Can we rely on other programmers experience? Let's find out. The results of a survey that I did here about a month ago says that we have at least 875 man-years of programming experience on this forum. I'll start a new thread on this now, and see if we can get their opinion. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Everyone!......Scott has brought up a valid point of the international potential affecting the USA. Let's move beyond "reductionism" = summing up the big picture by analysing it's micro components. I will look up the % of the GNP that comes from the international markets and get back to you. He has a valid point. Certainly there must be some folks out there with the ability for a "macro" view? I'll get back to you with some numbers. But I will tell you one thing...if the stockmarkets in Japan sneeze or even threaten to sneeze our markets start getting the flue- we are bed partners with the global economy and it IS a big deal if,and most likely according to all reports(Fed), negative computer dominoes start coming this way from overseas. "The Walleye Guy"

-- Mark Howard (walleyemar@aol.com), April 30, 1999.

You missed the point Sysman. I'll accept it as a fact if you want. But, even so, it does not change the fact that EY and the others were flat out wrong about massive pre-Y2K failures and in no way does it imply that other software problems will not be fixed in time.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.

RMS,

I can't speak for Ed or anybody else on their predictions. Maybe because of people like Ed sounding the alarm early, awareness was raised, and enough work was done to avoid early problems. Myself, I have constantly said that I did not believe that early failures would amount to much.

We do know of at least one state that did not predict unemployment claims past Dec. 1999 because the system was not ready in time. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Thanks for your kind words Mark. In addition to pure economics, though (and I'm certianly not downplaying that), I am talking about the consequence of much of the world undergoing an almost mystical kind of chaos that, in many places, will come as a near-surprise. Even if that's not the case here in the U.S., it seems to me to be almost self-evident that, if the rest of the world is caught unawares by infrastructure and business continuity problems on a broad, massive scale, then we are talking about a huge international security crisis.

Only Mark and Doomslayer (thanks, Doom... yes, I am a regular, and for the record, I think this forum is a fascinating mix of brilliance, paranoia of questionable justification, optimism of equally questionable justification, and a good measure of downright lunacy... no, I won't say who fits into what category) have addressed my question. Flint addressed parts of it by e-mail a few weeks ago, in an extraordinarily thoughtful manner. I'm trying to ratchet up the level of dialogue because, frankly, Y2K *is* going to hit, even if it's only mostly in terms of perceptions (likely to be more than that; how much more is the question). Pissing contests represent tragically wasted effort at this late date, IMHO. Scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Hi Deano,

"Things could get a little ugly because of what other nations are not doing. I agree with that but I don't see it any worse that the early 70's were. It wasn't a party for sure, but it wasn't all that bad either."

Well one thing we should consider is that in the 70's, we produced a lot of oil here and had lots of rigs working and ongoing oil exploration projects. There were over a thousand rigs drilling for oil at any given time in Texas in the 70's. January '99's rig count was either 7 or 8. That's a big difference. The oil embargo in the 70's was a hardship, but we were poised and capable of making up the deficit....that just isn't the case today. If foreign oil for any reason has a problem reaching our shores, we're in a boat load of trouble.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 30, 1999.

deano, my apologies... I see you did respond to my question after all. But I still want to press you on it: isn't a large-scale information infrastructure disruption a much more pervasive event than the events of the 1970s, which, while serious, were more narrowly bounded?

scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

(get@life.willya?),

"I smell lazy doomsters." According to the statistics page for this forum:

y2kboard@yahoo.com (1337)

Is your name even on the list? I didn't think so.

Well, we do have quite a few comments and opinions here, but just as I suspected, very few FACTS. Even a lazy doomster like myself can find a few facts to support the polly:

look at this crap. dozens and dozens of responses, and sissyman picks on one-discounts the rest. geez-luuuhhh-weez, you doomers are indeed a joke.

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (;ldsflkj@;lasdf;lkh.;ldsf), April 30, 1999.

Hip Hypocrite Hater,

I "picked" on that one post because it made ZERO contribution to the thread. Just like your post, as usual. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.