In the thread, "Prophets Batting .0001," Drew Parkhill said:

IOW, my objectivity depends on my ability to agree with you - ?

I never finished college (I was too busy working[g]), but I'll never forget what my journalism instructor hammered into my head: you are responsible for the impression that you create. If I've explained my position badly here or elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility for it. That's why I sign my full name and true email address to every post (to your credit, so do you).

I don't think the objectivity of CBN News on Y2K deserves a gold star, no. Pretend to be Joe Average. Click on www.cbn.org, then click the link "Y2K Insights." Let's take a look at the headlines and links which you've selected for that page (I assume you've selected them; you ARE the editor, aren't you?):

• Germany "Mixed" In Year 2000 Readiness (from Reuters-Yahoo)
• What Do They Know That The Rest Of Us Don't? (from Susan Conniry at Westergaard Year 2000)
• Activists Recommend Community Y2K Preparations (from US Information Agency)
• Capers Jones: "My Sense Is That There Is A False Sense Of Security (from Y2KToday)

Hmmm. Where's the latest NERC report? Where's Peter de Jager? Where's Dick Mills?

Let's click the link, "CBN News Y2K Stories." No need to list these; but I think that any reasonable person would conclude that CBN definitely has an ... erm, bias, if you will ... in reporting only one side of Y2K.

I'll give CBN this: you're not as biased as some Evangelicals about Y2K. (Pax TV is headed for the deep end -- and coincidentally, sellin' a whole lot of $19.95 videos in the process[g].)

(Ah, I know; I'm too cynical sometimes.)

But the fact remains: you're not presenting both sides of the story. You are carefully filtering the news that CBN releases on Y2K to reinforce a generally "Bad" view of the thing. You can't deny that; the evidence is there for any reasonable person to see.

While I've got you on the line, maybe you can tell me precisely what "compliant" means, too. I've been unable to get a single, consistent definition of that word from anyone. It would seem to me that, if I'm going to become as concerned about the Senate Report (which is loaded with "compliancy" figures) as you say I should be, I should at least know what I'm getting concerned about; wouldn't you agree? :)

To see the disconnect between dry "compliance" statistics and the real world (in which millions of people like me will be pro-actively working to forestall and solve problems in the event of failure), look again at the Win95.CIH virus. Multiplied thousands of computers in Asia were hammered, all at the same time (sorta like Y2K is predicted to do). It was a terrible thing, and I'm not making light of the problems that it caused.

But no one starved. There were no bread lines. The lights didn't go off. So far as I can tell, imports to the United States haven't been affected noticeably.

They've already fixed most of the problems related to that incident, so I'll repeat MY prophecy: in less than 6 months, Win95.CIH/Chernobyl will be a fading (albeit bad) memory.

Wait and see.

I would also (humbly, of course[g]) mention that a look at the Bad Meat Crisis and the Michelangelo Hysteria at my Web site might make interesting reading, too. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999

Answers

Stephen,

I take it from the way you write that you are willing to be held to the same standard. In other words: if y2k does turn out to be a major problem, or series of major problems which do cause the sorts of things we are concerned about here, you are then willing to take responsibility for the people who suffer because of their choices based on the impression they got from reading your material? is that correct?

If so, do you think you could explain this to decker?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA. Even for you, Poole, this is a new low. It won't wash even with most of the long-time pollys on this site. Drew Parkhill is undoubtedly the best journalist covering Y2K, period. I'm not even sure he is a doomer, BTW, though he is intensely concerned about potential Y2K economic impacts. No matter.

Attention, regulars and lurkers: Poole alert. Poole alert.

Certified Extra-Terrestrial, indeed. Good of you to post a link to your web site, in your boundless humility [g] [g] [g] :) :) :) and desire to help others [g] [g] [g] [g]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 12, 1999.

Do you really expect equal

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

OOPS, too soon...

Do you really expect equal time to be given to all views? Whenever we talk about circumnavigation must we give airtime to those who believe in a flat Earth? Every news media has some bias. Maybe CBN recognized that there is something fishy about de Jager's sudden turnaround. The major networks have been heavily biased toward bump in the road predictions.

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

you are responsible for the impression that you create. If I've explained my position badly here or elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility for it. That's why I sign my full name and true email address to every post (to your credit, so do you)

OKAY over the next couple of months we're gonna eat all the food we've been saving because you say y2k will be a none event. Now where is your house in B-ham so we (my wife and three kids) can come there for you to take full responsibility for me trusting your position?

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

I've seen CBN's broadcasts, I seen Drew's reports, I've seen Pat Robertson's take on issues. I think we can only hold Drew responsible for what comes out of his mouth. As with a print journalist, I assume, he has an editor of some sort and to some degree he's at their mercy. I would seriously doubt that he has carte blanche as to what is posted to the web site--even if he is their Y2K reporter.

I'm never surprised by the editorials coming from the left leaning newsrag in my town--I'm not surprised by what is posted to a right-leaning television web site. That's why you have to diversify your news gathering--or should.

-- Kay (jkbrooks@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

I'm confused Stephen,

Is this all from Drew or are some of these your comments?

The NERC report has been seen here ( and from what I saw it's not very objective). All of those people (DeJager etc.) have been posted here and extensively commented on. Seems like plenty of balance to me.

The reference to the CIH virus and how that compares to Y2K is perhaps appropriate but it remains to be seen how much damage it has done. To expect imports to be effected now is ludicrous as current imports are still coming in on ships sent out weeks ago. Not to mention the amounts in storage in warehouses dock side here in the US. Any effect won't be seen for another month or so.

So maybe this is all just hysteria. If I'm right and Y2K is a 7 or 8 then I get to eat what I've stored (you're hungry) I get to burn my firewood (you're cold) I get to practice my hobby of target shooting (you die in the riot).

If I'm wrong I get to eat what I've stored, burn my firewood, and target shoot.

LM

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), May 12, 1999.

Sorry to be so last year, but what does [g] mean?

-- Lurkin' (LurkI@lurk.on), May 12, 1999.

Lurkin'

It means [grin]. On the newsgroups, it's done with angle brackets, but this forum thinks those are HTML tags, and the grin goes away.

Stephen:

I find you a bit harsh on Drew. From my perspective, he's making a valiant effort to make as much sense as possible out of this whole mess, and he does tend to reject the loonies' diatribes and look for the underlying facts in everything.

However, I agree that Drew's starting point is conservative, in that his position is that y2k will likely be bad unless the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise. He's not taking a fixed position and forcing things to fit, and for this I admire his work. He listens to all sides and evaluates all the material quite well.

And whether you face it or not, you simply cannot make the case that nothing will happen. There really was a huge number of bugs, and our track record in big projects really isn't very good, and little errors can indeed cause huge problems if they just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The probability of catching and properly repairing all *significant* bugs is vanishingly small. You can make a pretty good case that we're not facing calamity, and that few dominoes may fall. But only time will tell how much water your case really holds when (and if) those bugs strike.

There just is NO bulletproof evidence that things will be good or bad, and I'm not a believer in journalistic 'balance' for it's own sake. Yes, Drew has a bias, but I regard it as healthy, cautious, and informed. I cannot agree that he is sweeping good reports under the carpet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 12, 1999.

Now I understand Poole the foole a little better. I just visited his website.

BWAAA HAAA HAAAA HAAAAAAAA !!!!

What an idiot. Poole, no wonder nobody can take you seriously. What a maroon...

-- . (.@...), May 12, 1999.

And you have the cajones to talk about Drew, who's a REAL journalist, and all around nice guy?

BWAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAAA !!!!!!!

What a galoot...

-- . (.@...), May 12, 1999.

BTW The Chernobil virus only hit Win platforms. I defy ANYONE to claim, with backing data that WIN platforms run the major industries, major import/export, production, Operations Management functions world wide. I'll even loosen it up to the point that ya only gotta show me that they run half of 'em.

The parallel just isn't.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a Night Driver (not@work.now), May 12, 1999.

If Y2K causes any disruptions, it looks like Mr. Poole may be host a party for thousands. Stephen, I suggest loaves and fishes.

For the first time in a good long while, I laughed out loud reading a few posts. Who would have thought, but I guess Arlin & Co. are big believers in the welfare state. It's the same philosophy.

"Gosh, my broker told me Company X was a great investment, but it went bankrupt. Now I don't have ANY money. It's all my broker's fault. He should pay me back... or maybe the government should give me all the money I lost."

(laughter)

Try getting your money back from your broker. And you are paying him! When you start paying Mr. Poole AND he guarantees no Y2K problems in a written contract THEN you may have a basis for claim. Until then, it sounds like a bunch of welfare recipients whining about entitlement payments.

I really have not read Mr. Parkhill enough to comment. Objective journalism, however, is like free beer. There are occasional rumors of such, but I rarely find it. The person who said read papers from both the right and left had a good point. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The only other point I'd add is to read work published outside the U.S. I like The Economist.

Personally, I don't have a beef with Mr. Parkhill unless he is making money selling Y2K stuff. If not, I suggest we cut him a break.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Actually, Stephen, you may want to take'em up on the wager.

If, that is, they're willing to pay back anyone that listened to the advice on cashing out 401k's, if they end up not needing those Y2k supplies.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 12, 1999.

not the welfare state decker, merely maturity, understandably a foreign concept if you're accustomed to hanging out with the y2k kiddies.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

Quote from Stephen, above: ---While I've got you on the line, maybe you can tell me precisely what "compliant" means, too. I've been unable to get a single, consistent definition of that word from anyone.------

Anyone, Stephen? Anyone?

Well, it may interest you to know that in a previous thread titled, "A Challenge For Andy!," the post inserted below appeared. Apparently you were too involved with the debate going on there and didn't notice this one. Well, here it is again:

QUOTE-----Stephen has asked, on numerous occasions, for a definition of 'compliant' and I gave him one which he said was a 'nice try.'

I, OTOH, think it fits, just by inserting a few words here and there, which he was reluctant to do; for his own reasons.

>>>compliant: [a computer which is] ready or disposed to comply, perform what is due, complete, [without being altered from its present programming] OR, [a computer which is] adapt/ed/ to a rule, or to necessity, to perform what is due, complete [without failure related to the problem which it was adapted to compensate for].<<<

The thread, titled Trucking, is: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000mzA

In the same thread, Tom Carey quoted:

[[Stephen M. Poole, CET replies: "We're going in circles because some folks want to keep bringing the "iron triangle" into it -- telephones, in this case. There's no reason to believe that the phone system won't keep working in 2000." A curious response.]]

Indeed! A curious response! And what, may I ask, is your source of information which allows you to say, in so many words, that the phone system will NOT experience problems in that time period?

This is for you Stephen. Others may comment, of course, but I would like to know how Stephen comes to the conclusion that the phone system will "keep working in 2000."

You seem to keep asking, "How do you know it will fail?" I am asking you, "How do you know it will work?"

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), May 06, 1999. --------END QUOTE

Well, Stephen. Here are a few questions you never answered. Care to answer them now?

-- Would you (please@answer.now?), May 12, 1999.

Arlin,

Mature. So, when the government levys outrageous taxes to support a monolithic federal bureaucracy and paternalistic welfare state... and I pay those taxes, I'm mature?

Personally, mature is not the word I'd use to describe a system that destroys personal (and economic) responsibility through regulation and subsidies.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Well, nothing like coming home to find oneself under personal attack :)

First, thanks to everyone for saying nice things about me & coming to my defense. Now...

Stephen,

Nice of you to start another thread attacking me, rather than answering my questions about your blatantly false misrepresentations of my positions in the previous thread. To wit:

>The problem is, you're relying primarily on the IT/IS side for your point of view

As I said before (and you didn't answer), you have *zero* evidence for this statement. You have *no* idea who I talk to. I wouldn't have said this otherwise- although I doubt it comes as a shock to anyone who's thought about it- but the fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist. These are some of the best- connected and best-informed people in the *world.* I talk to them off the record. They do not, shall we say, share your views. There are *reasons* why I believe what I believe- or I should say reasons why I worry about the things I worry about (by that I mean acknowledging where the risks are)- and they are well grounded.

And as I said in the other thread (another point which you chose to ignore):

>At what point have I said I expected TEOTWAWKI or TEOLAWKI? When? Where? There's a big difference- which you apparently don't understand- between expected that Y2K can be a serious economic threat without being TEOwhatever. You scoff off even the economic threat aspect of it. Why should anyone believe you take Y2K seriously?

Indeed, your recent post on the debunking site makes your views clear.

You ask: >Where's the latest NERC report? Where's Peter de Jager? Where's Dick Mills?

The latest NERC report (with, you will note, no commentary from me) is at:

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/insights.asp?file=990429.htm

I linked to it the day it came out, I believe.

as for de Jager, his "How Long Should You Prepare For?" essay is at:

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/insights.asp?file=990416k.htm

His response to his critics of "Doomsday Avoided" is at:

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/insights.asp?file="990318i.htm"

(although I see our archive software is acting up again)

And his actual essay, "Doomsday Avoided," is at:

http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/y2k/insights.asp?file="990308c.htm"

(although ditto with the archive software)

I've posted practically all of de Jager's essays since last September.

Where is Dick Mills? Everywhere. I think I've posted 90% of his columns. Plus the Gartner Group's positive report last October, plus Marcoccio's positive remarks, and so on.

Oh, and another point- the site provides links to all kinds of other sites, including ones with a very positive outlook on Y2K, such as ZDY2K. CBN's site *strongly* encourages people to check out multiple information sets before even *beginning* to form an opinion on an issue as complex as Y2K. Funny, you didn't mention that. (And incidentally, I wrote that copy- that's how I know it's there.)

In other words, you attacked our site without doing virtually any research whatsoever. Oh. Must make it a lot easier to misrepresent me so easily. I mean, good grief, Big Dog (who ought to know) says he doesn't even know if I'm a doomer- and you've essentially accused me of subscribing to TEOTWAWKI (something I've never done, BTW). It may interest you to know- to the extent facts interest you- that virtually from Day One I've told anyone who would listen that we (ie, the US, followed of course later by the rest of the world) would experience a *major* economic boom after whatever negative economic consequences Y2K does or doesn't bring. I've said this on the Web, and on the show. IOW, no one can accuse me of being a general "doomer" - for instance, I predicted Dow 10,000 long before almost anyone else. I've long been bullish on the economy- that was the outlook I had prior to studying Y2K, but Y2K presents a serious monkey wrench to that view, and it's (Y2K) got to be examined as it actually is, not as I think it *might* be.

As for your obsession with the recent virus- sheesh, you're the one who's going nuts over that, not anyone else (that I can tell). And I'm really not interested in your worries over the definition of the word compliant. There probably isn't one workable definition, because there probably doesn't need to be. I do think some groups have working definitions, though (like the British engineering group, although someone like Flint perhaps could correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

Finally, if you think I'm going to let myself get dragged into some sort of ongoing debate with you- sorry, not gonna happen. You have demonstrated a clear tendency to simply overlook or dismiss anything which disagrees with your clearly-entrenched & heavily-evangelized point of view (whereas, by contrast, I think I answered all of your points). And that's fine; I have no disagreement with your right to do so. I simply have too much productive work to do to be tied up in unproductive debates.

To everyone else,

Flint is right, BTW- I really am just trying to make sense out this thing. My views on various aspects of it have changed as new information has emerged- in some cases, I've gone from pessimistic to optimistic, and in other cases, the reverse. I've learned you go where the facts are regardless of your preconceived notions, which may be to the contrary (for instance, those of you who watch the show know that a few months ago I switched my stock market call from "correction" to "10,000 soon" - which proved correct). I will say that my conversations with people all over the country who are actually working on Y2K projects have proven almost invaluable, as have my conversations with leading Y2K folks. You just have to go where the facts lead you (which can be some pretty strange places sometimes :)

Thanks again to all of you who said nice things about me.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 12, 1999.

While I have nothing personally against Drew or the job he has done, I think the point Stephen Poole is trying to make is that he is biased toward Y2K being much worse than he (Stephen) would conclude. I also agree that Drew, and CBN, have broadcast an evaluation of Y2K that is too negative (see Pat Robinsons comments on Y2K on their site). Why is this important?

It is important because many people take what is reported by CBN as gospel. Therefore, by Drews own words, you are responsible for the impression that you create. I think the question Poole asks is a valid one. In traveling across the nation, speaking at churches and Christian meetings (over a hundred since last October) I have met those that now feel they have been led to go too far. They have cashed in their IRAs, quit their jobs, spent thousands on supplies, bought gold, purchased guns, generators, and basically totally changed their lives. Some have allowed Y2K to cause division in their marriages, between their friends and other family members, and have been a part of causing churches to split. Some still hold to their stand, but I am already meeting many that feel they have been betrayed.

You might say that these people have not been too responsible if they only depended on a few Christian sources as their reasons for making such decisions, yet it just shows the serious responsibility one should consider in reporting speculation and opinion without balance. (I met one young couple that had spent over $20,000 on Y2K, and had decided to not have any children until this is all over, although they had the means (financially) and the desire to start a family. They made this decision as a result of the three part Y2K series on Focus on the Family last Fall, and from reading Hyatts Chaos book.)

I estimate that those that have made life changing Y2K decisions that they will regret, to range in the 100s of thousands. I estimate that the Y2K fear business to be over 50 billion. Now, IF Y2K continues to be handled like it is now, by businesses each day, with few results being felt by the general public, what is the responsibility of those that presented such a biased viewpoint of gloom, doom and the need to prepare? What if it can be shown that speculation has been presented as fact? Has anyone read Dave Hunts book, Y2K, A Reasoned Response to Mass Hysteria? He gives some great examples of how this has been done to incite fear and a response within the Christian community.

What if I am wrong. I admit that I believe strongly in my position, and so therefore can be accused of being biased. How will I be held responsible? If I am wrong, I guess I will be out of business. Or, I will depend on the Christian community to forget and forgive me like they have so many others that speculated on past disasters that never materialized. (Anyone remember the Jupiter effect)?

I think the question for Drew, CBN, Focus, Falwell, Ankerberg and others that came out strong with their first extreme Y2K positions, is this. Will they spend just as much time and energy to broadcast the news that Y2K is being handled if at sometime this is the conclusion they come too, or will they just let it go quietly into the night? Hyatt stated to the Focus staff last October (and Dobson broadcast it this January) that there would be several steps down to chaos and that April 1, 1999 would be an important one. He stated that all of the smoke and mirrors in the world would not hide the damage Y2K will do, because on April 1, 1999, New York state would roll over to their new fiscal year (going into the year 2000). Hyatt stated that New York is the center of news for the world, and therefore it would be significant. Now that April 1, 1999 is long overdue, will Focus have someone on their show to discuss this false prediction? Probably not. It is clear to many people that CBN has slowly changed their tune on the devastation of Y2K, as has Larry Burkett and a few other (moving from the worst case scenario). At least, this is my observation. I applaud them for this, and feel that Drew must be part of this move. (Although I agree that this observation comes from hearing Pat make statements on the air, and not from visiting their web site. I agree with Poole that it appears CBN is leaning toward the negative reports on Y2K on their site.)

Hey, IF Y2K causes a disaster, and you did not prepare by purchasing a bunch of junk for Y2K, and you did this because you believed me, come on over. You can join my family and me as we trust the Lord for our daily needs, just like we do now!

If you have a mature response to my thoughts, I hope you will respond. Over all, I have been a lurker, but have appreciated the conversations here. However, it seems that those that wish to oppose the moderates like Poole and others (and myself) are not helped by the few juveniles that simply label people as fools and idiots.

Also, the question was raised concerning CBN making money on Y2K. Although there is nothing wrong with selling books and videos, if this is a concern to you, CBN has sold over 50,000 of their Y2K videos.

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), May 12, 1999.

Steve,

Thoughtful post. I have an iron-clad rule. Never let a man of the cloth pay for dinner. If you are in the Mid Atlantic region, drop me an email.

Mr. Decker

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Steve,

1. "Being responsible for the impression you create" - those were Stephen's words, not mine. You should have attributed them to him, not me.

2. His name is Pat *Robertson* not Pat *Robinson*

3. If CBN has sold 50,000 Y2K videos, that's news to me- especially since we've never *done* a "Y2K video." We did two specials last year, which have been sold exactly the same way every other show is sold. How many copies of those shows have been sold, I don't know.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

LOL! decker you're wandering off into your own headspace and timing again. A mature individual takes responsibility not only or his actions, but for the predictable results and effects of his actions. This has nothing to do with the government at all. It has to do with you, and your responses, and what you are, and what you are not. evading and avoiding issues are not the actions of a mature individual, ergo, maturity might be something you would wish to ascribe to with greater alacrity in the future.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 13, 1999.

Drew,

You made some good points, and, as I said before, I have seen CBN take a more moderate stand as the evidence and information has come forth. (Although I still do not think we are on the same preception of the results of Y2K). Hey, to your credit, you at least do not provide a link to Gary North. To your discredit (grin) you do not provide a link to our site. Are we too biased toward the "bump in the road". We ARE Christian Computing Magazine?!

Also, you stated, "the fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist. These are some of the best- connected and best-informed people in the *world.* I talk to them off the record. They do not, shall we say, share your views." Well, Drew, I will go you one of this. I have talked to John Johnson with the National Semiconductor Corp. (a Christian), Mark Colucci, with Kroger, Gardis & Regas (they write Y2K legal statements for major corps in the USA), Larry McMain at Kraft Foods, etc., etc. I have heard from hundreds and hundreds of Christians that are in the industry in all areas of technolgy that is Y2K related, from utilities, communications, programing, banking, who are SA's, IT's, programers, and Y2K directors. I am sure your list is just as good. However, my list would agree that Y2K is almost all hype and marketing. Come on, when you consider ALL of the 10's of thousands of people who REALLY know the truth and are working to get this problem solved, few are as concerned as those that are selling their books, videos, and a host of thousands of other Y2K products.

Yesterday, I was in the car (where I listen the most to radio). I turned to a local Christian station and heard an entire show (1 hour) on why you should get into having your own bee hive. This is "Christian broadcasting"? Yep, thanks to Y2K. Having a bee hive is now the "Christian" thing to do because Y2K is a coming!

Drew, I am not trying to jump into the debate between you and Poole, and quite honestly do not have a lot of time (as I know you do not either) to spend time debating each other. Just wanted to answer your one statement about your position based on your many contacts. Maybe Poole does not have your contacts and testimony. But I do, and yet we still hold different positions.

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), May 13, 1999.

Stephen M. Poole questioning the objectivity of someone else?

Now THAT is classic Stephen M. Poole. This comedy is really getting good. I bet it'll play out just like a Jerry Lewis movie. Too bad this isn't France. Jerry is BIG in France.

Stephen M. Poole questioning the objectivity of Drew Parkhill? Go one Poole, dig yourself an even deeper hole.

"the real world (in which millions of people like me will be pro-actively working to forestall and solve problems in the event of failure"

You wrote that in your post Poole. Are you a doomer? Or is the fact that 100% compliancy is not possible getting through to you?

I see you mention your website again. When do you ever find time to maintain it? Or is the staff working overtime?

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

Drew,

Sorry, I know how to spell it, the fingers are just now working as well tonight. Here is a quote from the CBN site in the area titled, "Pat Robertson's Official Y2K Comments". He states that as a result of the info and the two specials they did on Y2K, "The results provided the material for two Y2K specials on The 700 Club which yielded a stunning 50,000 requests for the material we offered." I assumed these were in video format, but then you know what happens when we go around and make assumptions...

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), May 13, 1999.

Mike,

Not only does Mr. Poole question the objectivity of Drew, he is now telling Diane how to do research here. Now THAT'S FUNNY!

Mr. Poole,

Please answer my questions here. Thanks. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Dear Steve,

Wow. Those were two exceptionally sincere and rational posts, if rather troubling. Your perspective feels considered and genuine. It's apparently borne of the pulse of real life, not media.

Your history merits careful study. I hope you will post here more often.

Thank you.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Stephen H

If Y2K is going to be a bump on the road then why would the Canadian Military be spending 300 + million on preparing for hype? And broadcast it so the people know?

Why would Koskinen say that there are countries in the world that have not got it together and told them the US is not going to bail them out as the government expects problems at home

Have you read the FEMA management Y2K file? Scary stuff.

Have you actually looked into the health industry? They are worried big time.

Have you read the latest GAO report on water supply?

Did you know that Intel considers failure in Asia will mean a crisis for California business?

Have you read up on international risks?

Do you believe in God or society?

What REALLY has to happen is the church should be involved in looking after the interests of the members and getting info from the utilities that provide the service to the community. Get detailed information and have it in writing or tell your members to prepare. If it is no problem then the utilities would be glad to give you a good picture of what is going on. If not you maybe at risk. If they do give you adiquate info let the members of this forum know and I am sure they would like to move and join your church. Safe haven.

Oh and could you please post your URL? Your site would be interesting to check out!

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 13, 1999.

Brian,

Good questions. Yes, I have looked at most of the info you have asked about. I could provide my own list of questions, asking if you have read many of the reports that would support my position. This is, of course, part of the problem surrounding Y2K. Besides the speculation and the "facts" that continue to be thrown about, everyone needs do some critical study on the source and reasoning behind much of the reporting.

I am not seeking to cop out, but it is after midnight here, and I have to get up and fly to NY tomorrow. I will be speaking at Roberts Weslyan College in Rochester NY tomorrow night (on Y2K of course). I fly back to Kansas City on Friday and speak at a Y2K community meeting held at the Overland Park (KS) Merriott. Not seeking to advertise, but just wanted you to know that I can not spend as much time here as I would like to respond.

I notice that whenever Poole makes a post, if he spends time responding to all of the replies, he is discredited because this may be all he does for a living, or he may even be more than one person. Then if he posts, and doesn't answer all of the responses, he is accused of "posting and running". It is really amazing how this type of communication contains so many flaws... but then, we use what we have, don't we.

Since you asked for my web site, I will give it. Again, I did not do it before, because I noticed that Poole was ridiculed for doing so. You just can't please everyone here can you. Is there an age requirement to post? (grin)

www.ccmag.com If you want to read the many articles we have posted on Y2K, hit the Y2K button, or go to www.ccmag.com/y2k (I think).

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), May 13, 1999.

Steve,

>Maybe Poole does not have your contacts and testimony. But I do, and yet we still hold different positions.

I don't mean this to sound harsh- really- but no, you don't have anything like the contacts I do. I'm talking about way beyond the type you mentioned. Incidentally, people in many of the positions you mention rarely know the overall picture. Heck, I've found that often people don't even know what's going on in their own organizations.

Just one story (among many) to back this up: I knew of a CEO of one medium-sized organization who thought they had Y2K all under control. He even told that to a Y2K expert I knew. When that expert repeated that "no problem" statement to me, I about fell over, because I *knew* that outfit was a flat-out mess. However, the CEO had absolutely no clue. Worse, his IT chief thought things were just swell too. However, I had met a grunt in that organization, and had been told the real story: they were in very deep doo-doo. However, most people would have understandably thought, by hearing from the CEO & IT chief that they had "no problem." I believed the grunt, and not the management.

As it turned out, somehow or other, upper management in that outfit got convinced they needed a Y2K audit. So they brought in a top-notch firm, which in turn presented them with a seven-figure bill - a bill that the grunts had known all along was inevitable. To say that upper management was shocked would be an understatement (the bill, incidentally, did not go to pay for the services of the auditing firm, but rather for the new equipment & upgrades necessary for Y2K remediation). They recognized reality, and started remediation. However, they were *far* from "all right," as they had thought, but they'll get by, though perhaps with some problems.

This is happening all over the country- and I'm not sure that businesses are always finding out in time. The stories people tell me are just amazing- and yet I frequently find them validated later on. I don't know for a fact, but I won't be surprised if some businesses aren't dead right now- they just haven't learned it yet.

As I have said before, even a year ago, and many times since, Y2K *may* be mild in its impact. But *no*one* can *know* that. Mr Decker speculated the other night that US GDP could take a 6 to 8 percent hit in 2000 before recovering. Well, that would put us in the worst recession since 1938 (depending on the final year to year GDP figures). That's not what I'd call a "moderate" economic impact- and the economic impact has always been my primary concern.

I repeat what I said: those really in positions to know *do*not* share a rosy outlook on this thing. Under *no* circumstances would they call it hype or marketing. The steps that have been taken behind the scenes (and sometimes in front) are extraordinary, a recognition of the *potential* problems.

And before someone says, "Well, that's just *potential* problems"- get a grip. That's what risk management is all about. You recognize the reality of problems *before* they occur, and *thus* prevent them. You don't hide from them, or downplay them. (Why does anyone think the Fed launched those interest rate cuts last fall, or the rate hikes of 1994, for instance?)

I want to make a point here, and this is to everyone: the truth is, all the TEOTWAWKI silliness aside, Y2K *is* well-recognized, although usually privately, as, shall we say, a "clear and present danger" to the economy. The Clinton Administration itself (home of Mr Koskinen) admitted as much publicly recently (and trust me, Washington knows it *quite* well privately). And my understanding- though I can't prove it right now- is that Yardeni is not alone on Wall Street in his views, although others are not willing to go public. The fact that major US companies are largely (though definitely not completely) ready is not the issue- a point I made on the show a year ago, in fact.

The fact is, if Y2K does pose the danger many people believe it does, then risk management is utterly essential. And risk management is about going where the bad news is. After all, it's the bad news that can hurt you, not the good news.

My hope is that the US impact is minor. And there's no doubt that is possible (in fact, I said in summer of 1998 that Y2K may never look any worse than it did at that point- an arguably true statement). However, I cannot guarantee a minor impact, and anyone who at this point in time thinks they can "guarantee" either a mild, or severe, impact, is just plain flat wrong. The number of variables is simply too high. I do stand by my statement, though, that, barring Y2K leading to something else (like a war), we'll see a big-time (peaceful) economic boom in the post-Y2K world.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt,

If you were to listen to the high profile AM Christian station in Cleveland (WHK), you would have heard the same BEE LIFE program. It's a pay to air, (I assume) syndicated show. As is the Gold bug show that follows. As is Hank Hennigraf's Bible Answer Man. As are Truth for Life and Alistair Begg. NO one suggested that the content of all of the shows aired on Christian stations was of Christian origin.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 13, 1999.

Wow. Seems like I've ignited another megathread. This is a habit that I simply must break. :)

---

Arlin,

if y2k does turn out to be a major problem ... you are then willing to take responsibility for the people who suffer because of their choices based on the impression they got from reading your material

No. My responsibility is to make sure that the impression that I create accurately conveys my viewpoint. If you read the materials at my site, you should come away with the impression that I expect EVERYONE to make common-sense preparations ALL THE TIME (with or without Y2K -- I state this clearly in the section, "Where I Stand," right on the main page). But I also think that the Y2K thing has been horribly overblown, and as a result, people are panicking needlessly. I try to calm them down.

Just for the record, the most common email that I get from people who've read my site and "converted" (as it were) from Doomlit say, "I'm still going to prepare, but I'm not going to quit my job/run amok/panic about it. God bless you for calming me down."

Now, I will add this: if someone says, "telling people good news might dissuade them from preparing, so therefore it's wrong," that's nothing but liberal psychobabble and I'll ignore it. (You have been warned.) At some point, people have to be responsible for their own ACTIONS.

I will also assure you of this: if I ever see hard evidence that causes me to change my mind about Y2K, my Web site will reflect that as soon as I can type the words and FTP the changes to the site. One of the reasons I came here, in fact, was to make sure I got the other point of view. I've learned a few things (a few scattered gems amongst the flame and mud[g]).

---

Drew,

Well, nothing like coming home to find oneself under personal attack :)

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking CBN's somewhat slanted coverage of Y2K. (A distinction worthy of a Jesuit, I know.[g]) I also stated that you weren't as bad as some other sources.

you have *zero* evidence for [the statement that I primarily rely on IT/IS people for my view].

There's no easy way to search through the old posts here, but one example was a couple of weeks ago. You stated that you'd noticed a clear distinction between the IS/IT types and the techies, who generally tended to be more "polly" -- and then made it clear whose opinion you gave more weight to.

But if I misunderstood and you're now clarifying that, fine; I stand corrected.

The fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist.

Ah, yes, the old "I'm connected" thing. I'm not getting into a chest-hair contest; suffice to say, I've obviously got a coupla'r three sources of my own. Good ones, too. They disagree with YOURS. :)

[Where have] I said I expected TEOTWAWKI ...?

I didn't say that you had; I was speaking in general (in hyperbole, actually).

The latest NERC report is at ... de Jager ... is at ...

(sigh) Drew, you (and everyone else here who knee-jerked in response) should re-read what I said above. I was quite clear:

• you are responsible for the impression that you create, and
• I used a specific example: JOE AVERAGE CLICKING INTO YOUR SITE.

I talked about what Joe Average would see, and what impression he would derive from the stories FEATURED there. FEATURED. Not buried several clicks into the site, right there on top. I can only go by what I see (and this isn't the first time I've checked you out, either).

you're the one who's going nuts over [the virus thing]

You obviously didn't see the posts in which Sysman scolded me over that one. :)

Again, Drew, I have nothing against you personally, I was simply stating an opinion: I think that Joe Average, having wandered into your site, would see a Doomlit-leaning position rather than a Polly one. I stand by that.

---

Steve,

It is important because many people take what is reported by CBN as gospel ...

Well said.

Hey, to your credit, you at least do not provide a link to Gary North.

Actually, he does, but to HIS credit, he provides a disclaimer.[g]

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 1999.

Stephen,

You wrote:

>>you have *zero* evidence for [the statement that I primarily rely on IT/IS people for my view].

>>There's no easy way to search through the old posts here, but one example was a couple of weeks ago. You stated that you'd noticed a clear distinction between the IS/IT types and the techies, who generally tended to be more "polly" -- and then made it clear whose opinion you gave more weight to.

>>But if I misunderstood and you're now clarifying that, fine; I stand corrected.

I don't need to clarify anything; you're simply wrong. What I said was that programmers & techies in general tend to be the most black & white on Y2K; ie, either "big problem" or "no problem." I'm 99% sure I made no preference; it was simply an observation. My guess is because Y2K folks may extrapolate from their own experiences- ie, my project is okay, therefore no problem; or, my project is a mess, therefore big problem.

You wrote:

>The fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist.

>Ah, yes, the old "I'm connected" thing. I'm not getting into a chest- hair contest; suffice to say, I've obviously got a coupla'r three sources of my own. Good ones, too. They disagree with YOURS. :)

Nothing chest hair about it; just the way it is.

You wrote:

>[Where have] I said I expected TEOTWAWKI ...?

>I didn't say that you had; I was speaking in general (in hyperbole, actually).

Please let us know the next time you're going to pass off false statements as hyperbole.

You wrote:

>The latest NERC report is at ... de Jager ... is at ...

>(sigh) Drew, you (and everyone else here who knee-jerked in response) should re-read what I said above. I was quite clear:

>you are responsible for the impression that you create, and I used a specific example: JOE AVERAGE CLICKING INTO YOUR SITE. I talked about what Joe Average would see, and what impression he would derive from the stories FEATURED there. FEATURED. Not buried several clicks into the site, right there on top. I can only go by what I see (and this isn't the first time I've checked you out, either).

I would think it would be obvious to *anyone* that a site which posts items by *date* would have *newer* material on its front page, and *older* material in its *archives.* It's not a matter of "FEATURED"- it's a matter of date (that's why there are little dates above each items). Must I now literally rearrange the site to suit *your* views? The NERC, deJager, Mills, & more, material that you complained wasn't available about is all there- *when* it was *released*. Talk about stretching to find *some* way to make a point...

I don't have anything personally against you, either. Further, quite unlike you, & Steve H, I am *not* wedded to a point of view. I am just trying to realistically follow the facts- not to make the facts fit my box. If *facts* convince me to change my mind on this or that aspect of Y2K- as they have, more than once- I'll do so. But it takes real facts, from credible sources, and not simply slogans, arguments, etc. So far, the facts point to a high-risk global economic environment.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

"I would think it would be obvious to *anyone* that a site which posts items by *date* would have *newer* material on its front page, and *older* material in its *archives.* It's not a matter of "FEATURED"- it's a matter of date (that's why there are little dates above each items). Must I now literally rearrange the site to suit *your* views? The NERC, deJager, Mills, & more, material that you complained wasn't available about is all there- *when* it was *released*. Talk about stretching to find *some* way to make a point..."

I really like this one. Notice the DATE part. This is what computers are for. I hope your site is "compliant" Drew. If not, starting in "00" all your new stuff is going to be at the bottom of the archive. We have this problem, on our non-compliant mainframe. After doing Y2K testing, all the jobs that were submitted, end up at the bottom of a 50 page ICCF display. A real pain in the butt, but workable. I wish everything was this workable. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

I don't need to clarify anything; you're simply wrong.

(Sigh.) I'm not going to bother digging up the old posts; I don't get into "he said/she said" arguments. Fine; I'll just be simply wrong.

(You're not the only moving target here; I'm used to it.)

Please let us know the next time you're going to pass off false statements as hyperbole.

Please let me know if you can find just ONE Doomlit-leaning forum on the Web where the routine posters have a sense of humor about Y2K. I routinely use hyperbole in my posts (look at how often I use "zillions," for example).

To be fair to you, you weren't the only one who didn't get it. Chuck (in the other thread) posted a long list of everyone with their current view, 1-10. (Sigh again.)

For that matter, I don't like being called a "Polly" -- I think that's a cheap stereotype, too -- but I figure, fair's fair. :)

But it takes real facts

OK, serious question (no 'yumor here): what kind of facts would it take? I'm dead serious. What kind of facts would satisfy you?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 1999.

Steven Hewitt,

I have to respond to this statement..

"You might say that these people have not been too responsible if they only depended on a few Christian sources as their reasons for making such decisions, yet it just shows the serious responsibility one should consider in reporting speculation and opinion without balance. (I met one young couple that had spent over $20,000 on Y2K, and had decided to not have any children until this is all over, although they had the means (financially) and the desire to start a family. They made this decision as a result of the three part Y2K series on Focus on the Family last Fall, and from reading Hyatts Chaos book.)"

end snip

If your under the opinion a reporter is responsible for their actions and the poor christians who cashed in are not, your reporting someone else should be responsible for someone's foolish/ignorant actions. Or somehow you as a reporter are "better" and held to a higher standard, because your contacts have given you inside info, therefore what you say is the "word", not what that book/food/techservices person says. That is either an oxymoron (spelling), or how the socialist get intrenched in everyday societal conversation. I think you are wrong. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. No thank you big brother. If a person listens to another persons opinion then makes a drastic financial move on that advice, well that is their choice.

also (snip)

"I notice that whenever Poole makes a post, if he spends time responding to all of the replies, he is discredited because this may be all he does for a living, or he may even be more than one person. Then if he posts, and doesn't answer all of the responses, he is accused of "posting and running". It is really amazing how this type of communication contains so many flaws... but then, we use what we have, don't we."

end snip

Mr Poole has a problem of ridiculing the people on this site at another forum that is going defunct at this time. He deserves alot of the critisism he gets.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

Stephen,

You wrote:

>(Sigh.) I'm not going to bother digging up the old posts; I don't get into "he said/she said" arguments. Fine; I'll just be simply wrong.

>(You're not the only moving target here; I'm used to it.)

Why do you try to accept responsibility & evade it at the same time? I'm not being a "moving target." You were simply wrong.

You wrote:

>Please let us know the next time you're going to pass off false statements as hyperbole.

>Please let me know if you can find just ONE Doomlit-leaning forum on the Web where the routine posters have a sense of humor about Y2K. I routinely use hyperbole in my posts (look at how often I use "zillions," for example).

>To be fair to you, you weren't the only one who didn't get it. Chuck (in the other thread) posted a long list of everyone with their current view, 1-10. (Sigh again.)

>For that matter, I don't like being called a "Polly" -- I think that's a cheap stereotype, too -- but I figure, fair's fair. :)

First, essentially falsely accusing me of promoting a TEOTW view is not what I call "humor." Second, if you don't like being called a "Polly" (although with your views, I would hardly know why), then you do you downgrade others by calling them "Doomlits?"

It's just for this tedious, personal kind of stuff that this forum has so much lost a lot of its worth, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

What facts do I want? The list is long, and I'm far too tired to try to organize it right now. I can tell you that it's *highly* unlikely that the items said list will have been checked off before 12/31/00.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

"I do stand by my statement, though, that, barring Y2K leading to something else (like a war), we'll see a big-time (peaceful) economic boom in the post-Y2K world."

I appreciate that Mr. Parkhill was willing the step out from the role of journalist and offer this. It is an optimistic forecast, not unlike some on this forum. So, does this make Mr. Parkhill a gov't shill? I am waiting for the usual barrage of attacks that occur when someone suggests Y2K may be "OK."

[By the way, R. Wright, of course journalists have a higher standard when reporting information! In theory, a professional, ethical journalist has an obligation to report a story objectively... the same standard does not apply to the commentary here. If you'll notice, opinion and commentary are found in a different section of the newspaper than the "hard" news.]

Steve, Stephen and Drew... thank you for this interesting thread.

Off to work... I hope you Mr. Parkhill and Mr. Hewitt return on a frequent basis. There are folks here who provide interesting and insightful commentary... on both sides of the issue. And while I'm gone, will someone please explain to Arlin the parallel between displacing personal responsibility for Y2K preparations and the philosophy of the welfare state?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 13, 1999.

Mr. P: I have no idea what I was supposed to "get" beyond your actual words, which, as a clarification of the reason for the list posted were the following:

"Having said that - you should admit in turn that the TEOLAWKI types are by far the most active posters and recruiters for preparations"

The list was copied from the stats page, with my memory of where the folks thought they were on the scale, indicating that, since these were the most active posters and a 5-7 was FAR from TEOANYTHING (except perhaps comfort for a while) you were stretching a point or two. Chuck Now, perhaps a case CAN be made that I am far more familiar with the actual personal classifications of the positions of the major posters here, by having had the pleasure of watching the positions evolve over time; but this could call into question either your deductive abilities or your patience with us here. This is NOT a position I would be comfortable espousing, at this time. cr

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Drew: At some point in time, when you have run out of article fodder, you might like to put some thought into:

What facts do I want? The list is long, and I'm far too tired to try to organize it right now. I can tell you that it's *highly* unlikely that the items said list will have been checked off before 12/31/00.

I suspect that there are MANY of us who would be quite interested in this list, and we might be able to add a few things, and you might be able to check off a few for us. Chuck PS I worked on a project that slipped by 2 months from schedule in the first three months it ran, and the top mgt was continuously being told "On time. No issues." When the team leaders were turning in progress reports to Proj Leaders that showed (VERY CLEARLY) the negative variances and issues that DESPARATELY NEEDED top management intervention for cooperation. Things haven't changed that much, and I would CERTAINLY believe the troops in the grass before the CIO's.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Mr. Parkhill,

You stated several times that you had "contacts" beyond those of Mr. Hewitt or Mr. Poole.

Parkhill:

"..The fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist. "

Or: Parkhill:

"........ I don't mean this to sound harsh- really- but no, you don't have anything like the contacts I do. I'm talking about way beyond the type you mentioned. Incidentally, people in many of the positions you mention rarely know the overall picture. Heck, I've found that often people don't even know what's going on in their own organizations. "

Poole:

".... Ah, yes, the old "I'm connected" thing. I'm not getting into a chest- hair contest; suffice to say, I've obviously got a coupla'r three sources of my own. Good ones, too. They disagree with YOURS. :)

Parkhill:

".... Nothing chest hair about it; just the way it is. ...."

SNIP

But Mr. Parkhill, you and I and many others know, the fact of life is that some of your "contacts" are with people with even ** far better sources of information ** then you *** "even you, Mr. Parkhill dreamed of" **. (For an overview of Y2k all are directed to the URLs given below.)

And it is fact, which I am sure you will be more than happy to verify (because one of them appeared on a 700 Club Y2k Special) that Mr. Robertson was briefed privately by two of those "sources" last Summer to the effect that the technical and business impact aspects of the Year 2000 problem were being addressed by the major corporations. He was, in fact, informed that the same Corporations were spending the kind of money it would take to resolve most of the Year 2000 issues, the work was proceeding, the "embedded systems" efforts were not turning up the percentages of problems that could not be solved, that the Utiliites were in the process of getting their houses in order and that was true of the Banks, Security Industries and the Telcos.

And should you not think that I know what I am talking about, I will have either of the two individuals who briefed Mr. Robertson call you directly and jog your memory. But should that be necessary, I will see if that can be arranged with some national level reporters in a conference call for verification because I am certain you will have no problem with your "peers" taking notes, would you??

It is also fact, that Mr. Robertson then re-evaluated his stance on Year 2000 and must have decided to allow you to continue to promote the more, shall we say, "dire" aspects of Y2k in a continual "Watchman-like" manner while not bothering to identify it as "op-ed" in place of what you call "reporting".

It is clear from the subsequent continuation of the CBN/Y2k editorial policy, that information about Year 2000 progress is seldom acknowledged whilst every effort is made to make sure that the readership is informed of all the continuing dangers and perils laying ahead. Poole and Hewitt then, are not the only ones who have noticed not only the "slant" of CBN/Y2k but your continuing efforts to promote that area of the CBN site elsewhere including this forum.

That, of course, is your right and the right of Mr. Robertson. To the credit of Mr. Robertson, it should be noted that one of his closest advisors did make a rather stern statement about "Elmer Gantry-like voices trying use the Year 2000 issue to promote themselves". That didn't make it directly to your Y2k area however even though the Washington Post made some space for it in a somewhat typical unflattering article towards Christian efforts in Y2k subsequently syndicated and carried elsewhere.

Since CBN and the 700 Club are rather large organizations, one must assume (nasty word) that you are given a great deal of "autonomy" within the general framework of CBN to manage the Y2k area and again, it is your right to select what you place therein.

Thus, one may in fact, question the efforts of Mr. Parkhill, without getting into one's views of Mr. Robertson. If Mr. Robertson holds the overall view that it is better to continue to maintain the "Watchman mode" over Y2k because of other views he holds concerning "The End Times" that is clearly his right. And it is his right to give you the lattitude to proceed to present the views on Y2k as you do.

What is *not* your right and is being called into question here, is to insist that you are "factually reporting" the Year 2000 issue in a "BALANCED" manner when that is simply not the case. One need not cite the repeated instances of the use of "unamed sources" or Non-credentialed so-called self appointed "experts" you have given bandwidth to.

Just the example of your "grunt" above serves as a nice example. You suggest (rather adamantly) that because of your "contacts" that others can't "dream about", you have the real story for all.

Now, it is true that you do not come out and state that. Rather, you use the verbiage to lead people to that conclusion and as in so many other efforts of yours, there are some clear contradictions evident that leads me and others to realize that you are dealing in polemics not FACTS. And polemics merge with propaganda for a cause but again, that is your right. To fight for those causes that you believe in to the best of your ability. Some might call that a form of extremism but that would be polemics upon their part.

You go on to give a "story" about a "grunt" (working programmer in techspeak). While charming, even that story "misleads" though it is rather typical of the very slanted gloom bias or "treatment" CBN is giving Y2k. Below, I give the Infomation Week URLs, (an I.T. Trade publication which has hardly been so-called "pollyanna") that come from sources FAR better than yours. This current issue available online, is a snap shot of the current Y2k efforts where your efforts are clearly an "opinion-editorial" assemblage aimed to supplement the views of Mr. Robertson (as well they perhaps should be IF and only IF, they were identified as "op-ed" rather than "factual").

This is not a **recent** development but rather a long term effort dating back to last August and September (1998).

Last Summer, you and Mr. Robertson both were informed by the above mentioned "contacts" that the picture for Year 2000 was getting much better and much faster than CBN was leading people to believe and which CBN/Y2k to this day continues to NOW ***mislead*** people with. Note that I use the term "NOW MISLEAD" deliberately. The picture might not have been as clearcut last Summer as it is now. One could make the argument that prior to the release of the Senate report (itself a out of date report), one was justified in presenting a darker version of Y2k. That is not now the case and I would suggest here and now, you KNOW THAT and thus, the term "MISLEAD" is justified when applied to your current efforts.

One could go into even this example you give of the "grunt" knowing more than the I.T. and Management knew as was revealed subsequently by the Auditors. Even here the bias and slant is used to fortify your now rather weak case. If anything, the story could read, "Management Bozos find more Year 2000 problems and call in Swat Team to mop up previous errors. Stay tuned."

But no, you continue on to "extrapolate" and suggest that there are "many" more companies in this same shape. That speaks for itself. And you have spoken THUSLY, time and again here and on your web site. The overall viewpoint of your site leaves the impression upon any reader that there is not one single area where business, government and the public efforts will be without problems which could be so. But, where you cross the line is the effort you put into questioning ALL the remediation work and deliberately cast doubt upon by allowing readers to draw the conclusions that the Y2k task is to impossible to manage. THAT is clearly false and you know that IF indeed, you do have ANY contacts in high, low or medium positions.

And you need not counter this with demands for specific instances of your efforts because I would respond by merely telling anyone to go read all the articles on CBN/Y2k for themselves and judge for themselves. For, in this case, it is indeed true that "What you are speaks far loudly than what you say (or write)".

However, while the "grunt" story is a charming story, the bottom line of the story is that the deficiencies found for the $700,000 expended lead to more corrections re: Y2k. Since you give us the story that the audit was completed, it should be clear that the work to rectify the deficiencies found is ongoing.

It is also fact, **that** this is the working mode for most companies and not just for Year 2000 remediation. Problems of the scope of Y2k are not solved and ended in one fell swoop but subject to a continual monitoring process until reduced to the minor annoyance level. While your "grunt" might have little regard for his bosses the fact is that they managed the business in such a way that most likely the Y2k beast will be reduced to mouse size.

INFORMATION WEEK: Y2k under Control

By spending tens of billions of dollars, IT organizations think they have the year 2000 issue in hand

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2k.htm

Financial Services: Swift Action now means no panic later Financial firms try to speed up Y2k slowpokes and ease public concerns

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2kfin.htm

Transportation:Signs of Y2k Imbalance Date change prompts early shipments, but most of travel industry appears ready

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2ktran.htm

Government Gets Ready The Feds say they're on track; state and local agencies are more difficult to gauge

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2kgovt.htm

Telecom: Phones keep ringing Carriers are investing heavily to make sure the phone network is Y2k compliant

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2ktele.htm

Utilities:Industry downplays concerns over Y2k Companies say most gas and electric systems appear ready for the future

http://www.informationweek.com/733/y2kutil.htm

Mr. Parkhill, the time has come to remind you of something from a Book we all would do well to read more often and for longer periods of time:

"Their foot shall slide in due time."

Yours,

DOOT

-- DOOT (Doot@OnlyBook.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Parkhill: "Risk management is about going where the bad news is. After all, it's the bad news that can hurt you, not the good news."

[Duh, though this point is lost on Decker-Poole-Hewitt-Biffy. As is the corresponding abandoned American esteem for those who are self-reliant and prepare for themselves, their families and their communities.]

"My hope is that the US impact is minor. And there's no doubt that is possible (in fact, I said in summer of 1998 that Y2K may never look any worse than it did at that point- an arguably true statement). However, I cannot guarantee a minor impact, and anyone who at this point in time thinks they can "guarantee" either a mild, or severe, impact, is just plain flat wrong. The number of variables is simply too high. I do stand by my statement, though, that, barring Y2K leading to something else (like a war), we'll see a big-time (peaceful) economic boom in the post-Y2K world."

[That this is objectionable to Hewitt-Poole-Biffy, which it is, says it all. It's objectionable because it provokes serious PREPARATION as well as OPTIMISM and they, Decker too, delight in separating preparation from optimism. Though I am more cautious than Drew, Drew knows I too predicted a stock market of 10,000 (and recently, 12,000). I am very optimistic about post-Y2K, even IF TEOTWAWKI, actually). Talking to these people is like talking to walls, but we have to keep pushing back as long as they keep up the nonsense.]

Re Hewitt:

For him to say, "come over to my house if something goes wrong" is not funny, it's wicked (using that word biblically). And then people like him and Poole have the gall to accuse people like myself (and SO many other Christians AND non-Christians) who are sacrificing now to have something to give to people in their community who are hurt by Y2K. What utter hypocrisy.

Are there "hundreds of thousands" who regret their preps? I think that's a crock, but what if there are? First, we're see what they regret next year. Second, they weren't/aren't victims, though Hewitt-Poole support one of the more regrettable aspects of modern Christianity, which is the happy victimization and infantilizing of human beings, in ironic lockstep with the world system itself. Even if one accepted their charge that they were sold a bill of goods, I assume it's okay that Walmart, McDonald's, Disney, ESPN et al sell them various bills of (consumer) goods? Or are they victims here too?

Finally, while Decker, for all his apparent "erudition" delights in this sort of puerile thread, this forum would be far better off if this smear thread (let's call it as it is) had not been launched by Poole against Drew and if its perps stayed away.

Poole, why don't you take Doc Paulie's sound advice and get on with the rest of your life and leave us meme-freaks alone?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Decker -- I noticed you intend to pay for Hewitt's dinner since he is a man of the cloth. Does that mean you intend to pay for mine in DC, since I am ordained and pursued PhD studies in theology successfully at Westminster Theological Seminary (leaving before completion to, uh, pursue a 20 plus year career in IT) ..... ? In fact, I'm heading to SC from DC to minister with others in Clemson at a Christian House Church Conference.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Thanks DOOT for the news that Y2K is now under control. I've heard rumors of the problem being "well in hand" before, but was skeptical. There was so much uncertainty surrounding the issue for so long, I'm glad we finally can now predict the outcome with confidence! :)

-- Codejockey (codejockey@geek.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Big Dog,

"Delight" is far too strong of word for my reaction to this thread. I think it generated some interesting discussion... and that's about it.

On buying dinner, my rule usually applies to "working" ministers or students. Those who honestly pursue the ministry often make an economic sacrifice for a greater spiritual purpose. [Can we leave a discussion of televangelists for another day?] It seems appropriate to share the economic benefits of the secular world to support the efforts of clergy.

In your case, BD, I would delighted to buy you dinner. I simply ask we break bread in fellowship... and not discord. Fair enough?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 13, 1999.

---

DOOT,

I am not talking about the people you say I am when I discuss sources. I am talking about others. As for Pat- like many things, Pat hears about Y2K from a variety of people. Some are sanguine, some are more negative than I am.

Further, I do not have a Y2K view set in stone on the outcome of Y2K, as I have mentioned above. It could be mild, it could be severe (on a relative economic basis).

And, BTW, I do not question all remediation work. I have said many times I expect most large US companies to be ready- in fact, almost from the beginning. I have also said that I don't think small businesses have the problems many other people are worried about, simply because so many small businesses are not heavily computer dependent. All of that said, that doesn't mean there aren't problems, or potential problems, in some places, with some remediation work. Studies have shown that.

I do, however, agree with Senator Bennett that Y2K will have an economic impact. And I agree with people like Peter de Jager that some parts of the world, like Germany and France, are probably more behind than they are publicly admitting. If they have problems, that could easily spill into the US economy. As I have said even here, my own views are probably closest to Yardeni's, with the caveat that I am less certain as to the outcome- hence, my definition of it as a "high-risk" event for the global economy (a view arguably shared by the Clinton Administration) and a "risky" (lower grade) event for the US economy. And, despite what you say, I recently did a long segment on the show where I outlined the very positive long-term state of the economy, while describing Y2K as a "monkey wrench" in that view. I have said that several times on different appearances. For that matter, even last fall, I said that regardless of Y2K's impact, I remain long-term bullish on the US economy (by long-term, I mean the next decade or so). That has been my stance virtually from Day One. No one can accuse me of being some sort of perpetual gloomer- at least, that's now how people who talk about Dow 20,000 to 40,000 within 10 years are usually described :)

In point of fact, when I spoke recently to one group, one lady came up and said "Gee, on a scale of one to 10, you're about a 2." I said, no, I wasn't; but with some groups, you need to say "Take this seriously!" while with others, you say "Don't freak out." At least, that's my view.

We all disagree about Y2K. That's fine; we all disagree about most things. That's people's right. I'd have to say anybody who has spent any time listening to me knows I have been & remain long-term bullish on the US economy, with the caveat that Y2K could *lead* to something else; for example, act as a trigger for a regional war in some part of the world (if Y2K causes severe enough economic problems). I don't know if that's likely, but I like to take into account all possibilities. But even here (in this forum) a few days ago, I said my views are most similar to Yardeni's. For that matter, I think Mr Decker's speculation about next year is well within the realm of possibility- as one scenario among many.

Insofar as promoting the site goes- heck, I haven't posted any of my links here in months. The last link I sent to anyone was my story on Bennett's speech to the Washington DC Y2K Group- and that was a straight news story, no commentary at all. I do, however, believe I have a right to commentary. (I mean, look how much Stephen Poole promotes his site- which is fine with me, that's his right). The only reason I put "CBN News" after my name is that I have found in previous cyber-experiences that at least some people like to know when a member of the news media is among them.

As for bias on the site- well, just last night I got an e-mail from someone saying I "just run such a well-balanced site" that I won't go into some of my deeper feelings on Y2K. Bias, like so many things, is in the eye of the beholder. Heck, I've gotten e-mail from public officials thanking me for trying to alert people to Y2K, to take it seriously. As I've said on the show, take it seriously, but don't freak out about it. I don't agree with those who believe the answer is downplaying it.

Oh, and incidentally- you should know that eschatology does not play a role in either my or Pat's Y2K views. Y2K simply is what it is: a man-made technological crisis (or problem) with potential economic implications. No more, but no less.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

---

DOOT,

Oh, and PS: I'm going to post those Information Week articles on our site. Not because of your post; I simply hadn't gotten to them yet. And, BTW, they say nothing that other articles I've previously posted don't say.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

---

Decker:

"On buying dinner, my rule usually applies to "working" ministers or students. Those who honestly pursue the ministry often make an economic sacrifice for a greater spiritual purpose. [Can we leave a discussion of televangelists for another day?] It seems appropriate to share the economic benefits of the secular world to support the efforts of clergy.

In your case, BD, I would delighted to buy you dinner. I simply ask we break bread in fellowship... and not discord. Fair enough?"

OK, but it has to be a VERY expensive dinner. Seriously, though I am a "working" minister of the gospel, I don't trade on the ordination and dispute the scriptural-ness of the seminary and ordination system, though I appreciate much of what I received at Westminster. But that is a story outside this forum.

Also, I am, in fact, doing far too well financially (not great, but well) to need your treat, though I appreciate it and take it at face value. Thank you. Save it for Hewitt.

As for discord, I hate it, actually. Rightly or wrongly, I have felt pushed to it by Poole-Hewitt-Biffy AND you. The discord will end when people stop trying to trivialize Y2K and/or separate preparation (in 1999) from (Y2K in 2000) on THIS forum. Or at dinner. It's entirely up to you, Poole and the rest of the mocking biffy/debunker crowd.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

---

Mr. Hewitt spake unto us, saying:

I have heard from hundreds and hundreds of Christians that are in the industry in all areas of technolgy that is Y2K related, from utilities, communications, programing, banking, who are SA's, IT's, programers, and Y2K directors. I am sure your list is just as good. However, my list would agree that Y2K is almost all hype and marketing...

As I've pointed out elsewhere, Mr. Hewitt has no background in formal systems analysis nor experience in large-scale systems deployment and/or maintenance. The above paragraph would lead me to conclude that he has probably never even attended a major IS project review, especially one in which management is informed two weeks before Cutover (sometimes by the new project manager, who has replaced the previous PM who quit or was "re-assigned") that the million-dollar project was in fact not going to make its deadline at all, and that they had been completely mislead by the project status reports. It's quite an extraordinary moment, and the metrics from Capers Jones and the Center for Project Management and many other organizations indicate that it occurs all too frequently. Some percentage of his contacts (if they're lucky, it will be only 20%, or 1 out of 5) will have been mislead as to project status. They will be informed of this fact at a date quite near to a major project milestone. That's simply a dismal fact of IS project life.

The imprecision of Mr. Hewitt's last sentence speaks volumes. To dismiss all the $B of Y2K outlays and the hard work and long hours and in-depth analysis as being by-and-large the result of hype and marketing is frankly breathtaking in its lack of critical thought. If his Biblical exegesis is of the same quality, I hope those to whom he ministers are diligent in following the example of the Bereans, as his teaching is almost certain to require careful scrutiny.

Please excuse me if this seems ad hominem. I am striving to criticize the argument and its foundations (or lack therefore), and not Mr. Hewitt himself. It is at times quite difficult.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 13, 1999.

---

BD,

Congratulations on your success. I hope dinner proves a more hospitable environment for discussion.

For the record, I do not consider Y2K trivial. The spending alone makes it a significant issue. And per Mr. Elbow Grease's request, I posted my "wild-eyed" Year 2000 guesses... and they are no walk in the daisies.

The reason I suggest a disconnect between Y2K and 'smart living' is that, one way or another, Y2K is over next year. The current level of consumer debt and spending makes me nervous... the stock market bubble even more so. Even if we pass through Y2K relatively unscathed, the wheels could fall off the economic wagon at some future date.

As a native Montanan, most of my family practices self reliance. As part of rural life, they have gardens, livestock, barns, shops, vehicles, heavy equipment, generators, stocked pantries and freezers, well water, trout pools, power and hand tools, fire wood, etc. [I have to chuckle. The last load of firewood was delivered via logging truck. It will last a few years.]

This type of lifestyle just doesn't work in suburbia, but the principles of debt reduction, modest lifestyle and increased self reliance is perfectly appropriate. If you suggest preparation ought to be driven by Y2K, what happens when Y2K passes? Shouldn't we strive for sustainable 'smart living,' completely aside from Y2K?

Note that I stop short of the "self sufficiency" model often supported on this forum. As I pointed out in an earlier post, self sufficiency is mythical. While everyone has a right to prepare as they see fit, I think some preparations are excessive. Of course, that is just my personal opinion....

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 13, 1999.

---

<-

-- ' ('@'.'), May 13, 1999.

As a fellow Y2K journalist, and one who doesn't generally care for CBN but admires Drew Parkhill's work, I want to make a Very Brief Comment on this statement, and submit it as food for thought:

"You have *no* idea who I talk to. I wouldn't have said this otherwise- although I doubt it comes as a shock to anyone who's thought about it- but the fact is I have access to people & information you don't even know exist. These are some of the best- connected and best-informed people in the *world.* I talk to them off the record. They do not, shall we say, share your views. There are *reasons* why I believe what I believe- or I should say reasons why I worry about the things I worry about (by that I mean acknowledging where the risks are)- and they are well grounded."

My Very Brief Comment: DITTO.

Scott Johnson
Editor,
y2ktoday

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Big Dog,

I missed your Dow 12,000 prediction (or at least, I don't remember it). Excerpting Y2K, I would be looking for 16,000 by 2002 (but, I'm just an incorrigible doomer, you know; and what's worse, I have this bad tendency to pay attention to facts). With Y2K, of course, you have the possibility of international disruptions hurting the earnings of multinationals.

Say, was that you Abelson referred to about a week and a half ago?

Scott,

I had figured if anyone in this forum could make the same statement, it was you. Thanks very much for your kind words. BTW, good job on the Jones & Koskinen interviews; I used them both.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

Hello Drew, I would like to compliment you on your work on Y2k.

I'd like everyone to know if you don't already, Drew has been on Y2k full time, it is his only assignment. Last spring I saved a 90-page thread he started on the Compuserve Investor's Forum, where Drew was a regular participant. I didn't plan it this way, but have found that thread to be a very good "introduction" to Y2k to hand to people. As you can imagine, to talk about Y2k in a financial forum in 1998 was not preaching to the choir. It was an excellent, level-headed discussion with lots of challenges and reference material.

Keep up the good work. Best Regards,

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 13, 1999.

Drew --- Actually, it was in a thread we both participated in, you must have been very, very sleepy ;-). Yes, though I believe TEOTWAWKI is a realistic possibility by late 2000, I am generally very optimistic post-Y2K (it's just a question of when "post-Y2K" will begin)! One of many reasons (the optimist-pessimist axis) that the pollys on this forum make me bristle.

Especially as a Christian, why should TEOTWAWKI and optimism be incompatible. Our Lord IS in control. If our culture is fortunate enough to have a brief multi-year pause where we can consider how we have been using/abusing our technologies so we gain a bit more wisdom, I will be delighted and the net result will be a blessing for us all. OTOH, recognizing how many people could be hurt or even die, I do pray that Y2K will be a bump indeed.

I predict(ed) 10,000 late last fall when we were at 8,700 and everyone was worried about crashes and 12,000 by sometime this June (not too wild-eyed, made this one in March). I'm wondering now, truthfully, whether it might stall out somewhere short of that, but hey ......

40,000 though. Hmmm. What have you been smoking lately, Drew?

I do foresee (?) big-time drift downwards beginning in September (not the mythical October); stabilized markets in November and then another nervous sideways drift downward from mid-December 1999 through mid-January 2000 until the initial hard evidence starts to come in. Say, 9,000 by mid-January from 12,000 assuming the lid stays on really bad Y2K stuff until then. Obviously, none of this is very profound.

One caveat, based on following Yardeni and others over the past year and watching their predictions fail to manifest: there is a small possibility the market will not drop under, say, 10,800 even into mid-January of next year. Call it "anti-panic". Despite the pollys, the Y2K reality is profoundly consistent marketplace denial. Interestingly, denial could persist until (pollys would say "if") there is evidence of Y2K BIG BUMMERS.

Anyway, smart doomers might be ready ahead of the crowd to get back INTO the market when the time comes next year or, heck, 2002.

As for Abelson, it is somewhat unlikely but possible. I am, um, somewhat more interesting and with my paws in more than may appear at first virtual blush. Which reference are you referring to, specifically?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

Drew: no problem. Keep up the thorough, solid work. The truth will out in the end, whatever it is. scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Big Dog,

Yep, can't disagree with you. It's hardly like God has never let His people go through hard times before (should that happen). But, you know, boo hoo hoo, we're *Americans*, that doesn't happen to us, etc etc. Listening to some people whine, you'd think we should dismantle the National Weather Service ("A hurricane of destructive force is heading toward the area") because it might "scare" a few folks. How well I remember a wise old pastor once saying, "God's people are supposed to be TOUGH!" Unfortunately, he was from the WW II generation- you know, when Americans had guts, and weren't Rob & Wendy Whiner :)

I first said 10,000 on the air back in July of 97, when we first crossed 8,000, although, of course, I had known it was coming long before I said it on the show.

Oh, gee, I could sit here & write a whole book about the market, just off the top of my head. A lot more fun than Y2K! :) Anyway, my minimum target for the secular post-82 uptrend is 18,800; my *maximum* target is circa 39,800 (I haven't really run the full numbers yet, so it's just a very rough estimate at this point). That would mean, however, a Japan 88-89/US 28-29 style blowoff, and the inevitable subsequent Not Pretty ending. Ohhhh myyyyyy... Incidentally, such a financial/economic crisis would be worse than Y2K, IMHO, because Y2K is an *artificial* crisis, and not a function of natural economic forces. (As I have often said- false doomer charges against me aside- with Y2K, all that has really happened is that we didn't fix all the machines in time. So, we'll go through a window of time where we have disruptions while the rest *are* being fixed. Duh.) IMHO, the current secular macro forces are our secret weapon, so to speak, against Y2K; I believe they will, subtly, aid an economic recovery from whatever problems might, or might not, arise (but I'm just a permanent doomer, don'cha know :) Oh, I'll tell ya, the boom I see post-Y2K will be *explosive* I have *always* said that if this thing is really bad, we will *explode* out of it. Actually, the post-Y2K boom is in many respects the most fascinating aspect of the entire event. If this thing is bad, it will create an artificially oversold condition- ie, again, not a function of natural economic forces, thus setting the stage for the explosion I see. Trust me (or at least trust my opinion :) - the worse Y2K is, the stronger the boom will be. We will see *phenomenal* things- a minimum of 500-point up days, and *possibly* a 1000 point up day. Ohhhhh yeahhhh- you've hit on one of my real passions now: the strength of this secular boom. Man, I *believe* in this thing; it is *for*real*. In fact, for a screaming bull such as moi to change course and say, "Hey, there, folks- Y2K is real" - that *ought* to tell people something (clearly, it doesn't) about the reality of this thing. Unfortunately, most- well, few- people are trained analysts. In any event, for people to call me some sort of negative doom & gloomer is- well, no self-respecting horse would leave it on the ground. *But* - Y2K *must* be faced for what it *is*, *not* what people *want* it to be. This lesson seems to be lost on too many. Don't *even* get me started (and trust me, I'm *not* really started, even at this point :) Okay, okay - rant mode off :)

Abelson mentioned someone who goes online by the name of Big Dog. I thought it might be you - ? It was a week and a half ago, I believe.

Incidentally, re the market & Y2K: the stock market *always* rises right into the teeth of doom. It did in 29, 37, 73, 87, etc. It's merely following its historical norm. Of course, we don't know the impact of Y2K on the market yet. My belief is that while there *may* be a period of wild gyrations (I have been told that many in the industry are expecting this), ultimately, the market will evaluate Y2K as it does every other economic event: earnings, future prospects, etc. Of course, if Y2K turns out to be mild, it will be no different than other adjustments, and most people won't notice.

Debbie,

*Sigh* Well, I've been tracked down, huh? :) I don't even have CServe on my PC anymore- in fact, I'm not even using that PC now (got a notebook, finallyyyyyyyyyy). Thanks for saying hi. Wow, that thread was a longgggggggg time ago. I've changed several parts of my views since then.

Scott,

Ditto to all your points.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 13, 1999.

Drew, I apologize, it was just a clumsy way of saying I am getting tired of all the polarization and I so much appreciate all those who bring level heads to it, you are one. Yes it was a long time ago. As always it is about dynamics and how one approaches the subject - promoting the conversation. Not so much is one pessimistic or not, as we are following a bouncing ball. Thank you all!!!

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 13, 1999.

Drew

"IMHO, the current secular macro forces are our secret weapon, so to speak, againstY2K; I believe they will, subtly, aid an economic recovery from whatever problems might, or might not, arise (but I'm just a permanent doomer, don'cha know :) Oh, I'll tell ya, the boom I see post-Y2K will be *explosive* I have *always* said that if this thing is really bad, we will *explode* out of it. Actually, the post-Y2K boom is in many respects the most fascinating aspect of the entire event. If this thing is bad, it will create an artificially oversold condition- ie, again, not a function of natural economic forces, thus setting the stage for the explosion I see."

I hope the regulars here read your post in deep, thoughtful detail because, as you say, it speaks volumes as to what you *really* hear about Y2K, given your market view.

I agree with your forecast in principle, though not necessarily within the exact range you see. It is an interesting thought that a Y2K-led recovery might, ironically, exacerbate a speculative bubble and lead to a small-form TEOTWAWKI (ie, infrastructure still intact, just a good old-fashioned crunch down) sometime in the first decade of the 21st century.

One wild card I'm sure you're calc-ing (I sure am since I run an Internet start-up that is looking for 10M ahead of 4Q Y2K investment lockdowns) is the "Internet effect". Good bet long-term on this monstrous new medium; crazy bet on any number of individual enterprises. And Y2K risks to infrastructure add a second layer of wild card to the Internet, IMO, into and perhaps throughout 2000, minimally (though one of my forecasts is that the Net is so critical even now that "keeping it up" and making it available for communication and commerce will become MORE critical no matter how bad Y2K proves).

Now, I'm rambling.

Your two key points, if I get them, again require profound thought from some of us "simple-minded" doomers:

1. This market boom may only be beginning and Y2K just its interruption, once market learns how to price it in, even if Y2K 6-8 throughout 2000-01.

2. Crashes and old-fashioned depressions, not to mention war, have not been abolished and the next boom could lay the ground for one that will be remembered throughout the 21st century.

Thanks.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

Interesting comment above (far above) from Steve Hewitt. It is very telling in its intensity, and its bias.

<>

There is an active, rancid, absolute Hatred of people in the national media and government (the same actually) against Christians in general, conservatives in general, and anybody (in particular) who dares make money providing for y2k preparations. It is the first, primary, and most often repeated "curse" against individuals preparing.

Why? Can you honestly believe that the federal government has no financial or power-grabbing motive to present the truth about potential disruptions? They (the national media and the government) have proven themselves capable of supporting and defending criminal behavior to keep Bill Clinton in office - any criminal behavior - including bribery, spying, selling nuclear weapons, and perjury. There is nothing that the national media have not condoned to keep a democrat in the White House. Now, are they an objective source? Is the government an objective source? The evidence is, and the proof is, that they (both the media and government) are more capable liars, with a proven motive, and proven techniques, than anybody urging people to prepare for disruptions.

The string of articles cited in information week are easy to pick apart and show to be simple exaggerations intended to mislead the public - as has been possible with every one of "Norm"s" copies of other sources.

The worst offender is government - it is heavily biased, and when not actually lying about progress nor investigating throught the FBI those who are preparing, is propagandinzing their message to hide the serious potential nature of the problem in favor of keeping the polls up for Clinton.

The only other repeated national position is "keep your money in the banks."

I would submit, as a software test specialist, and somebody who has had to track down and find and prevent the problems between systems and processes, who has to examine safety and accident root causes behind immediate symptoms, who has to fix what programmers regularly "break", re-interpret what designers and builders incorrectly put thogether, etc. that the significance, magnitude, and scope or duration of the problems concurrent with Y2K have not even been guessed yet. By anybody.

IS/IT departments are most strongly affected by potential Y2K problems, but they are not the always the "experts" who understand the impact of Y2K problems - neither, by themselves, are the people on the manufactoring floor, the distributors, the users, the designers, or the CEO's - none have the complete picture.

The only time somebody can START to feel relaxed about the threat Y2K provides is AFTER full, complete, intergrated systems testing - from supplier through next user - of every process in the company, in every facility of the company, in every department of the company has finished all-up testing. Until those test are complete, and after the erros and rework-induced errors are completed, absolute threats of shutdown remain.

Your only other option is to hope nothing breaks.

Note that - no agency, company, or group has even tried tested until everything possible is remediated. If there were no problems being found, surely somebody would report that "Y2K remediation is a waste of time, money, and effort."

Instead - the only people (such as Hewitt) who claim "Y2K is a bump in the road" that are those trying to actively PREVENT individuals from preparing. What is their agenda? Why do they (you) care how I spend my money?

Also - who has a motive here? The government, by keeping Clinton in power, certainly does. The media, by keeping him in power to satisfy their agenda and prejudices and hatred, certainly does?

And evidently, Steve Hewitt has a motive - somebody is paying him to present lectures cross-country to tell people not to prepare......what is his motive? What is his profit, or the profit of those paying for his lectures and travel?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 13, 1999.

Robert -- not that you need my concurrence, but I agree with every word of your post.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 13, 1999.

It is late, and I dont have much time tonight. I didnt even get a chance to read all of the posts, but wanted to make a few comments on some of the ones that I DID see.

Robert Cook and BigDog,

Do you want to know who is paying for me to travel and speak across the nation? No one! I am going at my own expense. Frankly, I shouldnt have to defend this point, but since it has been brought up, I will. I ask for nothing, not airfare, not car rental, not hotel or meals, nothing. We have asked that those sponsoring my speaking engagements allow for a love offering. Now, some have paid for my airfare, and some my hotel, etc., but by far, this has been a great financial loss. The last time I was out before the injury from the wreck I had while speaking in Akron (I have a ruptured disc in my back), I spoke 36 times in 41 days. We figured that our company lost around $200 a day! Some churches have not only not supported us in any way, but the either forgot to provide an opportunity for an offering, or we just got too involved in the meeting.

My magazine has been running late for the last six months, and we had to reduce the page numbers by 8 due to loss ads (I started the magazine on my kitchen table ten years ago, and my presence away from contact with the vendors has hurt).

We also had the editorial areas of our magazine locked out to the public unless you were a paid subscriber. Since we felt this information was vital, we removed those locks last Summer. We have around 17,000 readers to the print magazine, but you CAN read us for free on the web now, and we have received well over a million hits a month from people that do just that.

Do you KNOW how much ad revenue we have turned down!!!! I know of one Christian publication that ran a special Y2K series. The publisher told me that he wanted me to write an article, and then was also going to have a Y2K wacko also write. He had shared with me on many occasions that he believed my perspective on Y2K was correct. When I asked him why he was going to give space to what he called a Y2K wacko his response was that the worst he could be charged with was providing balance. He believed anyone with brains (his words) would believe the information in my article. But he simply could not turn down the money they would make with all of the ads they could sell in the publication for the Y2K disaster supplies, books, etc.

We are NOT a non-profit organization, as I felt for us, it would not be honest to incorporate that way, therefore, there is no one making large donations to our company in support of our stand (though some have expressed an interest in doing so, we can not allow it).

You might find it hard to believe, but you see, I DO find it wrong to make money off of Y2K by selling fear, misinformation, and speculation. Surely you agree? If you are upset after I made that statement, realize that I did not accuse any particular person or organization. I mean, come on, cant we all agree on something here. I saw an article on Y2K that had a big bold headline that stated Blood will run in the streets due to Y2K. This just came out this month. It is from a newsletter seeking people to subscribe as they inform you about the terrible results of Y2K.

OK, now Drew,

Again, I have not had the time to read all that you have responded too at this point, but I was a little surprised at your response to my email. You see, I dont question your many contacts that have been informing you. I was simply stating that I believe I am also in the same boat, and yet I draw different conclusions than you do, although I have a good variety of contacts. Your response was to simply assume that your list of contacts was better than mine. I didnt challenge your list, why do you feel so smug in assuming yours is better. I gave you a few specific names and you give me an anonymous grunt. Hey, have you read any of the many emails we have posted over the last year (and they represent a very small percentage). I have received testimony from Y2K project leaders in HP, Kraft Foods, and many other companies. I have also heard from computer professionals, and of COURSE I have more emails than I can count from the people in the ditches doing the work. Why can you not give me the concession to the point I was seeking to make, and that is that bragging about your connections is not an end all answer to Mr. Poole. Thats the only point I was seeking to make.

I will try to get to the many other posts and defend myself where I have been attacked, and try to provide an honest answer to those that seek real dialog

Later

http://www.ccmag.com

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), May 13, 1999.

Thank you for the info - I appreciate it. I disagree with your conclusions, but appreciate your efforts.

I hope too that I am wrong in my pragmatism, but have nothing to justify a growing pessimism. There is, as yet, no sign that that even 60%, much less 80%, of corporate America will be ready.

Power/power distribution? It's potential appears to be improving, but only 40 plus plants are in successfully getting to integrated (plant-wide) testing. Less than 1%.

World-wide - mixed two ways - less automation, so less influence when automated systems fail. Less remediation and testing, more antiquated euipment - so when (if) they fail - they will fail harder.

Europe? Very, very doubtful of even 50% compliance. So what will happen if/when they fail? Don't know - why don't we tell Belgium to set ahead all the clocks simultaneously and find out? If we lose Belgium in the process, would anybody notice?

Give me some indication that significant disruptions will not occur. In evry case world-wide, it appears that many thousand problems in many tens of thousands of systems (such as in NASA) have been found - and eliminated - at extreme costs, at higher thatn expected budgets, and in longer times than expected.

Exactly the results predicted last year, and the year before.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), May 14, 1999.

Debbie,

Oh, no no no- I didn't mean anything bad! But I agree with you- I am tired of the polarization, and I consider it to have been a major detriment to this forum. Thanks for your kind words (hmmm... maybe I have a flat head, not level one :)

Big Dog,

Well, the principle is what counts :)

I must admit, though, I hadn't thought of the "Net effect" (sorry :) the way you put it.

In terms of the points you mentioned, well, I touched on them in the stock market thread from David Palm, but, basically:

1. A Y2K 8 (depending on one's definition) in the US would probably be so severe internationally it would *really* knock the market for a loop. You then get into the question of whether or not Y2K will knock the market down to a point where it cannot recover to & exceed its current levels. That, I don't *expect* to happen- but until we go through this, we can't know. Regardless, I do expect a bull market on the other side.

2. Nope, crashes & downturns haven't been abolished. I expect a significant downturn sometime to begin sometime between 2007 (absolute earliest) and 2016 (latest). Hard to say when. If I had to guess right now, I would think it *might* be a cross between the 30s & Japan in the 90s. Of course, that's not worth the cyberspace it's printed on :) Incidentally, such an economic mess will be a far greater concern than Y2K, IMHO, because it's real, and not an artificial condition due to a technological mistake.

Steve,

I didn't mean to sound smug. But two points:

1. Your contacts appear to be largely drawn from the same circles, ie, Y2K workers in mainly the private sector. Have you talked to people in the financial markets? Government? Consultants? Risk management? Etc etc etc?

2. If your list "would agree that Y2K is almost all hype and marketing," then you have an unrepresentative sample. Sure, *some* people believe that. In fact, most Y2K workers themselves are optimistic (but then, most IT people are- right up until they miss the deadline- which is not at all to say optimistic people will miss the deadline). But "most" is not "all." Not everyone is optimistic on this thing- by any stretch. Some analyst types are quite concerned about the impact on the economy (although not in all cases publicly). Some will just flat out say they're behind on their own project. Some expect problems, but they may not interfere with normal operations, at least from a consumer's point of view. I've also found, in talking with some people (including gov't officials), that optimism often lasts for about 5 questions. After that, they're at the "I don't know" stage.

Even some trade magazines have written about the possibility of Y2K recessions (such as one from a manufacturing magazine just two months or so back). They certainly didn't dismiss Y2K out of hand.

No, it ain't hype & marketing. Further, the fact that *most* companies will make it is hardly the issue, and never has been. Even if the entire US slides through, what will be the economic impact from South America? Europe, if it's as far behind as some people speculate it is? Or Asia, ditto there? What about the global shipping industry, which by *any* account is behind? And just which international airports are going to be banned? The IATA won't tell us. What will the impact of that be on international trade? No one knows- hence, yet another factor to add to the question of "economic impact"- which, for me, is what Y2K has always been all about (well, in the US- the humanitarian impact will come in other parts of the world).

Why did the Clinton Administration recently call Y2K a potential global economic crisis? To pass the time of day? And do you *really* think Yardeni is the only one in the financial sector who believes the way he does? He's *not*

Unfortunately, because of all the TEOTW scenarios, people think discussing *any* Y2K negative impact means TEOTW. The debate is utterly polarized between "nothing" or "eveything." The real, longer- term problem is where it always was- economic.

And, unfortunately, Y2K has now become a PR mess- no one wants to admit publicly they're behind (and, yes, some are).

I *hope* Y2K is a non-event. I encourage people all the time to get active in their business, in their community, to *make* it a non- event. Some people call that "bias" toward the "negative." I call it trying to get people to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Go check out your local water system (and yes, that problem *is* real). The more you know, the less you'll fear.

But dismissing Y2K as "hype" and "marketing" - I can't see that as the answer.

This probably isn't as well-written as I would like, but I'm off to lunch. With a programmer :)

Peace, love, joy & happiness :)

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 14, 1999.

Steve,

Incidentally, please don't take anything personally. Despite the emotional nature of Y2K, I never go for the personal side (well, except maybe when people lie about me, which has most certainly been known to happen). But I don't mean it that way.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 14, 1999.