Y2KNEWSWIRE has run an article warning vendors of survival supplies: beware.

The key admission comes near the end of the report:

... with this month's reversal of public opinion on preparedness [emphasis mine], abuse is widespread. Interestingly, banks have no built-in protections for vendors, only for consumers ... vendors: it's only going to get worse ... We have a suggestion that balances the rights of vendors and consumers: Go ahead and let customers use credit cards but require a signed purchase contract [! - again, emphasis mine] that authorizes the transaction ...

Have a look. You see what they're really saying, don't you? Some people are starting to return the stuff because they've decided Y2K isn't going to be that bad after all!

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999

Answers

So what? Am I supposed to shiver or shake if some people are doing this? So much the worse for those who are so foolish. Or is this just one of those inane, "those of you who prepare are dopes" kind of thing?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 01, 1999.

BigDog, this is simply a case of cet playing the "do as others do" card. Exert a little peer pressure, you know. Ohh, ohhh, ohhhhhh ...."they must know somehting I don't know." Panic, return stuff. BS.

I have no sympathy for people who ordered storage food and then try to return it because the world didn't crash on April 1. How can they claim, "I ordered it, but now I don't want it, so I won't pay for it?" Outside of a basic lack of honesty in this transaction, they are endangering people who are trying to prepare.

Hmm, did anyone say, "buying opportunity?" Before the second wave of buying hits?

-- De (delewis@inetone.net), May 01, 1999.

Stephen: I am replying to your post from the following perspective. I provide this perspective so that all who read this may know from where I sit in order to better know from where I stand.

I am someone who decided in November of 98 that I would make preparations for the potential economic consequences of Y2K. I did so, and continue to do so because I believe in "insurance." In this somewhat unique "insurable" circumstance, the "premiums" I will have paid for this insurance will be able to be "consumed" subsequent to early 2000, if this all turns out to be largely a non-event.

In reading the Y2KNEWSWIRE.COM article, there is a premise contained in the article that seems to contradict my personal experience. In early 1998 I had a dispute with a vendor for which I had used a Visa card to charge for their services. I filed the required disput forms and provided the issuing bank with the details and paperwork. To avoid making this a lengthy post, the end result was that the issuing bank, in a steadfast and bureacratic manner, with total disregard for my position as that of a consumer with a 35 year spotless record of honorable use of credit, stood behind the merchant right up to the point where I had to spend money to have my lawyer draft a formal "letter of intent to file suit." It was only then that I received service other than form letters and procedural stone walling. The point is that during the course of this dispute it immediately became clear that this bank had a default position of allegiance to the merchant - not the consumer. Because of my experience I find the contention that an issuing bank will side with a single credit card holder versus a merchant to be inconsistent with my experience.

While this example in and of itself does not prove anything it raises my curiosity. Perhaps Mr. Decker or someone else can provide further experience/perspective?

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), May 01, 1999.

Is this Stephen M. Poole a total Polly, or what? It's only May 1999 for heavens sake! Y2K is NOT over, it hasn't even begun. So what if some people think that Y2K isn't going to be that bad? Who cares what some people think? What if they're wrong?

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), May 01, 1999.

Amused,

What if YOU'RE wrong? Every single prediction of major failure for Y2K has busted thus far. Every one. Without exception.

Every one.

The truth is staring you right in the face and you won't see it: Was Y2K a problem? Yup. But it was blown way, way out of proportion from day one. The problem is being FIXED.

FM beat me to the punch on the Kansas City Star column:

Take a look there, too.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

******************

The truth is staring you right in the face and you won't see it: Was Y2K a problem? Yup.

******************

For one thing this statement is just plain stupid. For another Steve you more than likely live at someplace where the temp. rarely goes below freezing. For those that live in a place that is - 30 below the problem will never be solved. Regardless of what happens it will be prudent for folks at more serious risk to DO SOMETHING. Mind you folks buying a years worth of packaged ready to eat meals is an extreme. I wouldn't buy a weeks worth but a case or three of canned tuna and other fav. cheap canned food with be cheap and help for weeks if needed.

Of course Steve you may have read that the water risk in California is real. Where does allot of the food come from you eat?

California State Water Resources Control Board,

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 01, 1999.

Wasn't Y2Knewswire the other player with World Net Daily in the fiasco whereby apparently libellous doubts were cast on the name of a highly respectable food company, to-wit, Lumen Foods? See:

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

Perhaps a pinch of your stored sea salt might be in order.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 01, 1999.

Brian,

You have to admire the science behind any site that says, "Clean water is essential to our survival."

I've seen that before. They're repeating the same old tired arguments.

Tell those folks if they have any hard evidence of demonstrable (ie, repeatable under controlled conditions) Y2K failures in embedded systems, they should forward the evidence to Michael Theroux. They could even win a prize. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 01, 1999.

Stephen

The above link is from The State of California and is a gov. web site yet you treat them like some Doomer organization. "those folks" what a quaint term to discribe a government org.

You seem to be a smart person then you stick your foot in it. If the Government tells me that water might be a risk, I would at least consider a person phone their water supply and ask about the situation. It is not asking alot to have the supplier recommend prep plans if there is water failure of any type. The real stupid thing is that water is cheap if not free. So why not store some? For any reason.

I live in an area that will never have a Y2K problem with water as it runs down hill and the hills just happen to be above the town. This works for me.

You know Steve I am conserned about folk like yourself that don't understand what it is like to be in a situation where being prepared helped survival. Most folks computers that people use on the forum cost more than the average modest prep plan. And you can't eat a computer. So what the heck is wrong with spending money or in the case of water devoting a bit of time to assure a bit of supplies in case of an emergency. We are coming to the time when there will not be a chance for people to do big changes in their lives. They will look at you and decide that even prepping for a few weeks is not worth it. This is stupid. And dangerous. Do you know what a conscience is?

And in regards to systems failing, the health industry has plenty of problems with their systems. This includes life critical problems. You should know that manufactures have sites up that state whether the equipment is compliant or not and the recommended upgrades, replacements. There are a few sites like GM, CPPA, Trans Alta, that discribe remediating procedures and testing for imbedded systems. You must be really smart to think that they are wasteing their time.

Brian,

You have to admire the science behind any site that says, "Clean water is essential to our survival."

I do actually. Its true.

Steve do us a favour and stick with argueing about how many chips can fit on your head and leave the prep stuff alone. I will credit you with having more experiance with computers. I have more experiance without them.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 01, 1999.

Brian:

Stephen isn't saying water is unimportant, or that you shouldn't have a known supply of good water available if possible.

He's just pointing out the gap between "might be at risk" and any known or demonstrated failure in the water system. If any part of a water treatment plant is a complete technological unknown, it should be known about pretty damn quick. No argument there. But "unknown" doesn't mean "guaranteed to fail." It means unknown.

We can all close our eyes, spin around a few times, point a finger at God only knows what and say "*that* might be at risk." Doing this a whole lot might raise your anxiety level, but it won't increase the risk, or decrease it either. To decrease the risk, we need to evaluate, test, remediate if necessary, and retest. This technique can only be applied to specific, identified items. We can't debug rumors or "concerns." We can only debug specific failures.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 01, 1999.

Flint,

Filtered through you, Stephen sounds so much better. The insulting innuendo, the condescension, are gone.

He gets to take pot shots and have a blast, while you explain what he really meant to say. Go, team!

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 01, 1999.

Flint, why don't you let Stephen fight his own battles?? At this point tday, he is sounding like a petulant child and it only drags you down.

Mr. Poole, your disregard toward information put forward by a government agency (that just doesn't fit your picture of the world) is just more proof of how biased you are in YOUR convictions. Sorry, I'M JUST as biased in mine. However, I am at least willing to listen to Mr. K when he makes annoucements. If that link to the California Public Service Board is not good enough for you, I suggest you begin to read the Bible...'cause you ain't never gonna find the truth here, brother!! Besides, if you left, we might get Flint to start considering something besides arguement for the sake of arguement.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.

Flint

Don't you ever lose your balance on the Y2Knifes edge? It is funny that the big corps. are in the same position, they can't be assured that water, power and telcos will operate after the rollover. If they are just a little conserned the common folk should have this impression. This is a point that can't be argued. If they are conserned why should I not be? Maybe some SEC statements would be in order. Whey would they be conserned if there is no chance of failure. Oh and I have some really good 10 K filings. Here is Exxon as of March 30th 99 saying they can't assure deliveries of their product for the first few weeks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Form 10-K for EXXON CORP filed on Mar 30 1999 12:00AM

FORM 10-K

EXXON CORPORATION

YEAR 2000 ISSUE Notwithstanding the substantive work efforts described above, the corporation could potentially experience disruptions to some mission critical operations or deliveries to customers as a result of Year 2000 issues, particularly in the first few weeks of the year 2000.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Really more to the point of the thread. Caveat Emptor. Without good research a person is in the blind. The worst thing a person can do is panic. Most folks panic and then think prepare. Well they have often no experiance with preparation and need direction. The worst thing to do is to bring out the Visa and charge for stuff that is not needed. The best thing to do is assess the risks and prepare accordingly.

Steve is correct in the buyer beware post but follows up saying that it is not going to be so bad. He has no idea if it is bad or not. I would consider a person become informed as to the risks and make their choices in an imformed manner. Not it is going to be black or white but maybe a whole lot of grey. Education on the matter is paramount. Flint you are at least trying to being some sense to a situation. Steve on the other hand has less than impressive statements in regards to preparing. He should get out of the practice or at least consider what he writes. Exxon's doubt should give him time to reflect on his assessment.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 02, 1999.

Lobo,

If you really like, I could pull up the Government studies from 1990-1992 that said that every man, woman and child in America would be infected with the HIV virus by 2002 ... (do you get the point, or do I need to list a dozen examples? [g]).

Living in Hurricane country gives you a perspective on this. When a hurricane approaches, the government says, "Make preparations. Get out of mobile homes. Store extra food, water, and medicine. Get to higher ground." Good advice, and only a fool would ignore it.

But at the last minute, suppose the hurricane turns away (this happens more often than not). Was the preparation stupid? Of course not. I've said here (a dozen times at least) that I have nothing against common-sense preparation; I do it myself, so it would be hypocritical of me to make fun of anyone else who did so!

But all of the current evidence indicates that, at the very least, the Y2K "hurricane" has been downgraded from a Category 4 or 5 to a 1, and very likely will veer away from the US altogether. The government (and the businesses who were quoted above, etc.) are simply playing it safe.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

Stephen, you wish.

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), May 02, 1999.

So Steve what you are saying is that they lie to us about the risks but tell the truth in regards to fixing problems....... This is not getting much better. At least you put a disclaimer about your prepping up for a emergency. Logic seems to be a problem though. Oh well I don't expect you to fix my computer.

Good luck Stephen M. Poole, CET

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 02, 1999.

Brian,

So Steve what you are saying is that they lie to us about the risks but tell the truth in regards to fixing problems....

No, that's not what I'm saying. Has your argument become so untenable that you must resort to distorting what I've said and putting words in my mouth (or do you simply have a reading comprehension problem)?

This is really very simple. Read slowly:

Government reports are ALWAYS written for political ends. ALWAYS. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I won't go into the myriad convolutions here; I simply mention one angle: elected officials want to appear as Heroes (because it helps them get reelected; duh).

(Actually, my sources in Washington indicate that the smarter Congresscritters are somewhat annoyed that Y2K is winding down; they had just donned their red capes and tights about the time that the thing started going away.[g])

Further, we are talking about the government here, which moves with a speed against which "glacial" would be considered NASCAR-ish. These reports are based on old information, the cautious consensus of every wide bottom who is consulted on the thing, and are ALWAYS out of date by the time that they're released. ALWAYS.

What I said couldn't be clearer: I don't blindly accept ANY government report, period -- whether it helps or hinders my viewpoint. (Find a post here where I've personally quoted a government report to bolster my viewpoint.)

What has been sorely missing from the whole Y2K debate is independent, unbiased study of the problem -- say, some refereed journal articles written by people who know what they're talking about and WHO HAVE NO IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME.

(Reread that last sentence slowly.)

This really isn't that difficult, Brian.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, we are talking about the government here, which moves with a speed against which "glacial" would be considered NASCAR-ish. These reports are based on old information, the cautious consensus of every wide bottom who is consulted on the thing, and are ALWAYS out of date by the time that they're released. ALWAYS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The above statement has my complete agreement. Most info is filtered down from statement of the last survey done by the industry groups involved which could have been even further in the past than the government report discussing it.

John Koskinen has the right idea though and that is individual - community awareness must be developed. The problems if they happen are going to be at the local level. Blanket statements are no help in an individuals risk assessment. Its location location location EH? As I am a Canadian living on the wet coast my risks are going to be differant than someone living in a colder climate. But I know what it takes to live in a cold climate. You should not rely on the statement of someone that lives in a warm climate. The risks are just totally differant. This is what I have a problem with. Even if the power corps. get it together, they have to rely on the business they serve not to get into trouble. And when you are looking at chemical plants that may shut down not to mention other plants and industries there is just no way anyone can make that assessment. This means preparing for power failure in the middle of winter.

Anyway here's Johnny-----

http://www.fool.com/specials/1999/sp990419koskinen.htm

Koskinen: My world. And we think that's important information for people to have. We're not going to be able to do that across the country company by company. So what we hope to do with the working relationship we have with the major industry groups is get them to encourage all of their members to participate at the local level in these conversations, to get all of the elected public officials to talk not only about what they're doing with public safety and all of the other services they provide, but to in fact provide forums where instead of everybody in the country having to call their telephone company there'll be places to go to get information in some detail about how they're doing and when they're going to be done.

We can only hope.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 02, 1999.

Poole --

"What has been sorely missing from the whole Y2K debate is independent, unbiased study of the problem -- say, some refereed journal articles written by people who know what they're talking about and WHO HAVE NO IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE OUTCOME.

(Reread that last sentence slowly.)"

Though I have been poking at you pretty hard on some threads (it's only what you deserve because you NEVER acknowledge any substantive Y2K problems and your talk about preparation is trivial), many of your posts are intellectually entertaining. That's a compliment, BTW. But if you really believe what you write above, you are more profoundly clueless about Y2K itself than I imagined, IT as a profession, the role "refereed journals" play, the inconceivability of "independent, unbiased studies" (and not just because of various agendas but by the very nature of THIS issue) and the list goes on. Truthfully, I'm surprised.

Please tell me it ain't so, Joe.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

BigDog,

you NEVER acknowledge any substantive Y2K problems

More distortion to fit your preconceptions. In fact, I've said several times that Y2K was a problem that needed to be fixed. I've even provided cases (in banking and insurance, for example). My contention is that IT IS BEING FIXED. Again: why is this so hard to grasp by you people? It baffles.

I don't mind honest debate, but I am getting tired of people distorting what I've said. This forum is the worst for it I've ever seen. Even Usenet isn't this bad.

you are more profoundly clueless [yaddada yada, *snip*]

Ah, yes; when all else fails, resort to the ad hominem attack. :)

the role "refereed journals" play ...

And you have just demonstrated that you're ignorant of how the dissemination of scientific analysis occurs. Of course it's not perfect, and yes, there will always be some "bias."

But the idea behind peer review is simple: let's say a renegade professor from New Mexico State writes an article about how Y2K will knock out the food supplies. He'll probably find that he has to publish that article in the mainstream media, rather than in a scientific journal.

Why? Because of the peer-review process. They way this works is, he submits the article to a scientific journal. Before that journal will publish it, the article is circulated to a group of his "peers" -- people of like qualification and profession. If the peers agree that the article has merit (even if they disagree with it -- they're surprisingly fair, all in all), they'll publish it. The journal will then gladly accept, in future publications, dissenting commentary.

Yeah, this is boring, and slow as itch, too. But it's one of the pillars upon which modern science is based, and sadly, this sort of thing has been lacking (badly) in Y2K.

In fact, virtually ALL of the Doomlit position has been derived from renegades, "secret sources" that no one can name, mythical stories of failures that are unrepeatable, and so on.

That last thing is important, too: the results should be "repeatable" and measurable. Have another look at Michael Theroux's challenge. While I won't claim that it's strictly scientific, it's a good layman-level look at the thing. Theroux wants someone to provide him with model and specifications for an embedded device which has supposedly failed due to a Y2K bug. He will then see if he can repeat that failure mode under controlled conditions. If so, he'll publish the results.

Thus far, he's had no takers. The fact is, 99.9% of Y2K Doom and Gloom is pure speculation and junk science, resulting from people speculating outside of their purview. The REAL scientists and (as objective as humanly possible) researchers have largely stayed away from it, because they realize that it's more of a "fad" than of "fact."

Post some FACTS to dispute what I've said. Send some embedded examples to Michael Theroux. No more of this, "I know a project manager with a large utility in the Midwest, and he told me privately that their nuke will be taken off line next month!" That can't be verified. That sort of thing is NOT what you should base future plans on, and yet you people are doing it.

And you call ME clueless? ROFL!!!!!

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

Poole ---

"I don't mind honest debate, but I am getting tired of people distorting what I've said. This forum is the worst for it I've ever seen. Even Usenet isn't this bad."

Coming from you, this is truly a compliment. Thank you! Hopefully, you'll get bored and depart. If not, you'll keep getting challenged. Sadly for your agenda, millions of Americans are preparing diligently and thoroughly for Y2K. It's too late to stop them, though we saw that it made your heart glad that some might be, what? Returning supplies? Got your jollies off on that, didn't you? And you call us sick?

You ARE a wanker. And dumb. REALLY dumb. Which probably bothers you most of all. But you apparently can't be helped.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

So what say we get a couple of 'greys' in and see what they think?

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands of forums in the internet. Forums about sex, & drugs, & rock & roll, & money, & just about anything you can imagine. If Y2K is no big deal, why does the polly crowd waste so much of their time here? I still can't figure out what they are trying to prove. My mind is made up, and will remain so until I start seeing some big changes, or until 2000, no matter what Stephen and company think. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 02, 1999.

J -- They ARE here already on the forum and even on this thread (didja notice the "ET" in Poole's "CET")? Certified extra-terrestrial.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

As to the Credit card issue, the bank will, upon getting confirmation from the card holder [either phone or letter], reverse the charge until the vendor supplies adaquate information showing that the charge is just. Failure to show justification for the charge, the bank will permanently withdraw the credit from the vendor and give it to the customer.

I have a meager background in telephone sales and during that time I became well versed in this scenario.

Often times, even when we had follow up calls from the customer about the contents of the package they received, because they complained to the bank, the bank would withhold the entire purchase amount. And if we could prove that the item was shipped, by verifying that the customer had regesitered it or called for support, the bank still withheld payment to us.

I did, on several occasions, actually win a few with the bank, only later to lose in court because the cost of flying a lawyer around the country for every frivilous lawsuit wasn't warranted.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 02, 1999.

Steven:

There are a number of us who understand the role of peer reviewed journals in scientific research. Unfortunately, IT has not got a history of peer reviewed anything. Yes, there are a number of reviewed journals in the areas of AI, hardware research, language development, etc.

In terms of the current situation, there are not any real journaled efforts in trying to examine the situation. there are companies who have published on the subject, but they are not peer reviewed. I have no idea how one would develop a peer reviewed journal on Y2K, because you would need to use so many disciplines, beyond IT.

And the reportage would STILL suffer from the same problems we have now, namely: The data would still be self reported, and there still wouldn't be IV&V for the reports.

chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.

Thanks, Chuck. And that's only some of the issues.

What Y2K "really needs" isn't "journals" but for those countries and enterprises (mostly SMEs by the millions) that have decided to fix on failure to get to work.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 02, 1999.

BigDog,

I note that you didn't respond in any substance to what I said, you just repeated the ad hominem attack. All that does is convince me that you're not worth bothering with. There are plenty of people here who disagree with me, and at least provide an argument.

And sorry, I don't plan to leave, either. Get used to it. :)

Chuck:

I don't agree. There are plenty of forums in the literature for someone to publish a peer-reviewed article about Y2K. Nor do I think it would take people from dozens of different specialties.

But the real point here is that opinion is divided on Y2K and its effects, and has been from the beginning. The Doomlits try to present the view that their point of view is the majority among informed people, and it's not. In fact, it is (and has been from the beginning) a minority view.

The fact that the government picked up on it simply indicates that they misread the tea leaves. The politicos were hoping it would become an issue; the fact that it's piddling out as you read this disappoints some of them terribly. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.

Steve be a good man and tell me why Microsoft is not quite on top of things. I really need to know why they seem to be starting more than finishing on their SEC report.  Bill might just need a hand with this. More important why is this dirty laundry in a legal statement unless they truely have a problem.
 
 

February 12, 1999

MICROSOFT CORP (MSFT)
Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q)

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Year 2000
 
 

The Year 2000 issue also affects the Company's internal systems, including information technology (IT) and non-IT systems. Microsoft is assessing the readiness of its systems for handling the Year 2000, and has started the remediation and certification process. Contingency plans are being developed in parallel with the testing and remediation efforts.

Microsoft is evaluating its third-party distribution and supply chain to understand their ability to continue providing services and products through the change to the year 2000. Microsoft is monitoring and working directly with key vendors, product manufacturers, distributors, and direct resellers to avoid any business interruptions in the year 2000. For critical third parties with known issues, contingency plans will be developed.

The Company is also reviewing its facilities and infrastructure. Remediation efforts are under way and certain contingency plans are in development.

While Year 2000 issues present a potential risk to Microsoft's internal systems, distribution and supply chain, and facilities, the Company is minimizing risk with a worldwide effort. Microsoft is performing an extensive assessment and is in the process of testing and remediating mission critical components. The current plan is to have the majority of these components resolved by June 1999, with the remaining components resolved by September 1999. Management currently believes that all critical systems will be ready by the Year 2000 and that the cost to address the issues is not material.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Brian,

Steve be a good man and tell me why Microsoft is not quite on top of things. I really need to know why they seem to be starting more than finishing on their SEC report. Bill might just need a hand with this. More important why is this dirty laundry in a legal statement unless they truely have a problem.

... ?

I have read that thing three or four times, holding my mouth one way and the other, and for the life of me, I don't see what you're seeing in this. Looks like a standard corporate Y2K statement written by a lawyer to be as inane as possible.

If you consider this earth-shattering proof of Y2K Doom, you need a shrink, not my opinion.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.

The answer *Ding*

rather than assessing things, MS should have fixed them in a perfect world.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Things might not get fixed. Bill was going to fix the problem. As of Feb. 99 he has lots of work to do. I would think it better that you help him fix his problem rather than telling people it is going to get fixed. Do you see any indication that Microsoft has fixed anything? What I can't understand is if they haven't got it fixed yet, why should we be so confident that it would get fixed in the next 8 months (or even 11 months from feb) and then tested. Of course one can bring up some timescales from a year or two ago saying that corps. should have their systems fixed by Dec. 98. You know that is all I read back then and I am just a LITTLE confused by this situation. Then a smart guy like you says "there is no problem, its your problem" Well then I think that Microsoft is the god of PCs and they are still assessing the situation. You would figure they have it all tied up lock stock and barrel.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you consider this earth-shattering proof of Y2K Doom, you need a shrink, not my opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh and you say that this is an indication that I am a suggesting doom, wrong, I am not a "doomer" as such. More of what you would call a "Naturalist" in that nature is the reality and Y2K is nothing but a call to your birthright which may be insane but hey that is the way I was raised and lived the bulk of my life. It is just so sad that I can read and see the walls you tech denialists put around yourselves. Spending the bulk of your life working in the weather (and Canadian weather can really suck) the idea of reliability is laughable. The only thing I rely on is the ability to survive. I find that I am the most alive when I am in a serious storm on land or on the water. Computers are actually bullshit. They often insulate humans from real work.

Steve, when you are talking about doom and Y2K are you just, maybe, a little, afriad...... maybe going hungry in your life, meeting someone that wants to kill you, "feeling" death before your eyes, seeing loved ones in crisis, having to risk life or limb to survive, fight to win?

This is really what life is all about. It is not doom. Just be clear headed, calm, and react to the times. Life is a funny thing. And in the big picture Y2K is just a step in our paths. But make no mistake any of the above can happen at any time when you are in the natural world. In this respect Y2K is bullshit.

Nature will teach you this.

Tell me Steve, have you ever been taught this....reeeeallly,,, by your own will. You started this with the prep topic and I don't think you have assessed all the options. The only thing that Y2K will do is interupt services that people are lucky to have. Folks are not naturally entitled to faxes and Emails and Nukes. I doubt many have lived without 7 - 24 power much in their lives. The funny thing is living with out power is not rocket science. It is really easy. Nothing to it. Put the candles on the table and pull out a deck of cards. We played backgammon on the lake for endless hours. Nothing like a hot pot of tea on the stove, maybe a shot of OP.

Depends how you live. I am have a reletivly compiant lifestyle only because I know how to fish. And other things. Other folk don't know that it requires a bit of foresight to live and not need alot. Kind of like a lifestyle change. In a way I would be a "hick" But if the power shut off it would be life as almost normal. No forum though. hhhhmmmmm.

But please stay out of the prep stuff. I might start telling stories and us fishermen are bad for that. Nothing like learning from your mistakes. And acomplishments.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

And as a disclaimer, I hope Microsoft does come through and learn from their mistakes and victories. Alot of peoples lives are influenced by MS. Like it or not. Bill G. is a fact of society.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Brian,

Well, I don't know which I'd prefer: the ad hominem attacks, or warm fuzzies from a Nature's Child. I'll have to think on this one.

Brian, again: that's a standard corporate statement. Virtually all of them look like this. They say nothing and admit nothing. Doomlits have an established history of reading way, way too much into that which, by any reasonable definition, is actually just boilerplate.

Do you see any indication that Microsoft has fixed anything?

Yes. At their Web site, they have a host of (free) Y2K patches for their products. They HAVE been working on it.

Then a smart guy like you says "there is no problem, its your problem"

More distortion. I have never said there was no problem. Instead, I believe the problem is being fixed as you read this. I think that April 1st alone indicates that.

I am not a "doomer" as such. More of what you would call a "Naturalist" in that nature is the reality and Y2K is nothing but a call to your birthright which may be insane but hey that is the way I was raised and lived the bulk of my life. It is just so sad that I can read and see the walls you tech denialists put around yourselves.

Now I'm a "tech denialist?" I thought I was a Democrat and a Presbyterian ... :)

Spending the bulk of your life working in the weather (and Canadian weather can really suck) the idea of reliability is laughable.

Brian, go look at my Web site. That's what I've been saying all along: problems happen now, everyday, and we work around them. I believe that the really critical Y2K bugs are being fixed, and that January won't be that bad. What problems there are, we'll do as we always have: work around them.

And do know that you're talking to someone who has ridden out several hurricanes and severe ice storms. I know all about bad weather. :)

Steve, when you are talking about doom and Y2K are you just, maybe, a little, afriad...... maybe going hungry in your life, meeting someone that wants to kill you, "feeling" death before your eyes, seeing loved ones in crisis, having to risk life or limb to survive, fight to win?

No. Since you've slipped into the metaphysical/philosophical/religious arena with this, I'll tell you: I believe that each day is a gift from a loving God. If you want to see precisely what I believe, go to my Web site and read what I say on the subject of faith. I'm actually a pretty conservative Christian, all told.

And don't tell this ol' NC boy that he doesn't know how to fish, either. I could clean that rascal, pass him through the pan, and have you eating dinner before you could say, "cat catch robin." Having been raised in farm country, I know how to raise my own food, too. [g]

You're a delightful fellow, but you are no less subject to predjudice and preconception than anyone else.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 03, 1999.

Poole: "But the real point here is that opinion is divided on Y2K and its effects, and has been from the beginning. The Doomlits try to present the view that their point of view is the majority among informed people, and it's not. In fact, it is (and has been from the beginning) a minority view."

Here's a fact: you're wrong. AS if. Of course, it is a minority view, you dolt, even among "informed people", I suppose, which means the kind of people you consider informed. It is a minority view, period. But you think you have said something of serious importance there?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 03, 1999.