In many of your posts, you compare Y2K to normal computer failures, that do happen every day. I agree, hard drives crash, motherboards fry, and a virus hits, on all kinds of computers, from tiny to giant.

Here's what I don't inderstand. You also tell us that we find ways to work around these problems. Here's my understanding of the usual work around:

1) Maybe, buy a new drive, or motherboard, or whatever.

2a) Restore from the last backup

2b) If you're stupid and don't have a backup, Reinstall software

3) Recover any lost data since the backup.

Note - In case of CIH, maybe fix the BIOS first.

The points here are many. It's fairly easy to recover from any normal failure, if you're smart enough to have a current backup. When you are done, you have a working system. You didn't have to change any "code," maybe just re-enter some data. It isn't really a work around, it's wait 'til it's fixed.

Y2K is different. Programs that do have a date problem, will not work. I am so tired of seeing this from you, that I need to know why you feel that you can compare the two. I do understand how you question the prophets, but I don't understand this. Please enlighten me.

And while I've got your attention, please give me your estimate on the cost of Y2K, repair and legal. I've asked you this many times, without an answer.

Please answer these questions without introducing other distractions. Smoke and mirrors is one of your favorite tricks. Thanks.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999

Answers

top

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

Sysman,

Programs that do have a date problem, will not work.

That is patently false. Some won't work, others can still be used, but with workarounds. How you expect me to take you seriously after saying something like that is beyond me.

I'm not just talking about hardware failures and restore from backup, either. When I was with Heilig Meyers, the mainframe they had would blow up at least once or twice a day -- bad data from the Home Office, general crap out, previously-undiscovered bug somewhere, whatever. We worked around it.

And while I've got your attention, please give me your estimate on the cost of Y2K, repair and legal. I've asked you this many times, without an answer.

LOL! Well, as soon as I start getting answers to every question that I ask, maybe you'll have a reason to complain! The quick answer is, I've seen so many different figures, I don't know how to believe. Nor do I think it's a terribly important question.

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

To "His Most Royal Overly Sensitive Highness Mr. Sysman" You seem hurt, slighted and frustrated that Mr.Poole has not responded to your most astute,proper and thoughtful questions. I have been asking you questions through these threads and e-mails for almost a month now and you have chosen to disregard them ALL with your "Royal Silence". Maybe it is because I am not 'one of the boys', maybe you think I do not belong here, maybe you do not want to lower yourself to my mentality or maybe I have asked you some questions that require some unwanted reflection on your part. I readily admit that all or some of the above are true. I can live with that...but what I can not live with is having to listen to the "Beloved Guru" of Timebomb 2000 'whine and throw a little Royal tantrum' because one of the underlings in the kingdom refuses to answer him.

-- Mark Howard (walleyemar@aol.com), May 13, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

"That is patently false."

Sorry Stephen, this is a true statement. Programs that have a DATE PROBLEM will not work the same way after 2000 that they do today. They will not produce reliable output. Some problems will be minor. Some will be major. Patently false my ass.

"the mainframe they had would blow up at least once or twice a day"

Tell me about it. I spend more time with my head in core dumps, than I do on this forum. Ever see a core dump, Mr. Poole? Sometimes, it's a quick fix. Sometimes, it takes days to find anf fix one problem. It's what I get paid for. Fixing "normal" failures.

You still haven't answered my question, Mr. Poole. How can you compare normal, every day failures to Y2K? Do you understand the question? <:)=

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

Sysman, I have a question. One day one one of these threads you gave Stephen['s ISP number. Which leads me to believe you have access to the data on who post regaurdless of what they put down as their name and e-mail address. Could you tell us who has been using BigDogs "handle" and posting?

Actually it would be interesting to find out exactually who posts what here. So many different names... could some posts be "set up's"? Just a thought.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 13, 1999.

Mark Howard,

I'm going to assume for the moment that we have a technical problem here.

"I have been asking you questions through these threads and e-mails for almost a month now and you have chosen to disregard them ALL with your "Royal Silence"."

I start a fair number of threads here. My mailbox now has 239 messages. I delete the ones that have a title that I posted here, because I've already read it here. I do try to read, and usually answer what is left. If you sent me a "private" message with a title the same as one of my threads, it's history! I also try and stay with the recent answers page here most of the time. Sometimes, things just get too far down, and I don't get around to checking them again. I do have a professional and private life, and can't spend all day here. Sometimes, I do just read and not answer "private" mail, if i thought more of a comment that a question.

I do hope that we just have a misunderstanding here. I apologize if it seems that I have been ignoring you. However, please don't start sending me a bunch of "private" messages. I spend too much time on this topic, right here, and answering private stuff does take alot of time. I see no reason not to keep everything here public. If you have anything specific to discuss, please post it here. I'll be watching this thread for a while. <:)=

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

Cherri,

One of the regulars here, not me, posted 4 or 5 IP addresses from, I beleive biffy or debunker. I did say that I wish we had that here, to stop the multiple-personality BS. I do not have access to your IP address. Mr. Greenspun or Mr. Yourdon may. <:)=

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

Mark,

I also do not check this e-mail account every day, usually about two times a week. I do see a message from you, four pages down, in the middle of my euy2k mail! I will answer now. Sorry... <:)=

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

Cherri,

could some posts be "set up's"?

(Mock horror) "NO! You THINK?"

(Heh.)

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

You still haven't answered my question, Mr. Poole. How can you compare normal, every day failures to Y2K? Do you understand the question? <:)=

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

Sysman,

I have answered your question. You didn't like the answer. There you go.

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

It wasn't Sissyman who posted the IP addy's it was 'a'. to which sissyman replied "nice catch, a!" I think it is hilarious how personal or sensitive info for doomers is deleted by YourtoastED, but anything to hinder debunking efforts is applauded, and left untouched.

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nowayspammers.thanx), May 13, 1999.

"You still haven't answered my question, Mr. Poole. How can you compare normal, every day failures to Y2K? Do you understand the question?"

Ask the Pollies questions on _their_ forums would you? I belive mr pool can be found at doc polly webboard

Is anyone else sick of the unnecissery posts generated by pollie baiting?

-- (rgular@zzzz.zzzz), May 13, 1999.

Mr. Poole,

Please point out where you answered my question. Your "patently false" remark? If that's true, why is the world spending trillions fixing a problem? I don't think you can answer the question, Stephen. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Just more smoke and mirriors for your "cause." Same category as your prophets. Nothing to do with the problem, just more noise, more virus BS.

No answer for the cost either I see. I thought you would maybe have some information to back-up your opinion. But you have none, got that NONE, just hot air, but you continue to argue with published reports, from several sources. Mr. Stephen KNOW IT ALL Poole, CET

Now answer the damned question, Mr. Poole <:)=

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

And Mr. Poole,

"I've seen so many different figures, I don't know how to believe. Nor do I think it's a terribly important question."

Since you really don't know the answer to this question, why do you feel the need to contribute your $.02 to every thread where cost is mentioned, telling us that all costs are over-blown? If it's not an important question, why waste your time arguing your point, since you can offer no other evidence, just your opinion? We need real information here, we already have enough opinions. <:)=

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

Sure, Sysman. As soon as you tell me why all programs with DATE PROBLEMS "won't work."

This is puzzling, because my old computer here has an old BIOS program in it. It won't roll over or do leap years correctly at all. But I've set the date past 2000 and held my mouth every way I know to hold it, and I can still type this stuff to you.

I've also got a program at the office that won't handle "00" year dates. I simply set the date back a ways, and it works. It doesn't work perfectly, but it works.

Answer that question, and then I shall answer yours.

I'm not a puppet on your string.

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

We need real information here, we already have enough opinions. <:)=

THAT could not have been said better!

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

"I simply set the date back a ways, and it works. It doesn't work perfectly, but it works."

ROTFLMAO times 10!!! Mr. Poole's answer to the Y2K problem! Now I understand you, you are a DGI! This may be your best DGI remark yet, much better than the 3 computers line! Nice one Mr. Poole, a classic. I give up.......... <:)=

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

I can give the government definition of compliance:

Nothing whatsoever needs to be done to adjust the machine or software re the next century.

I find the following to be much more practical:

The machine or software can be adjusted to run correctly in the next century with no problem that will impact normal operations, such adjustments taking less than 8 hours by an experienced technician.

The TEOTW folks seem to like the govt definition, the moderates seem to adhere to the latter.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Whoa, Cherry Bomb, light blue touch paper and stand back! You want to know who posts under different names here? Well here's one for ya:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 26106648&P=No&TL=926106648

Doomer declares war Friday, 07-May-1999 15:50:48

206.99.225.3 writes:

INVAR is foaming at the mouth. Why can't I stay away from that loonie bin? I wish Debunky would get more action.

The Time For talk is Over Re: The Pollyanna Factor

Buddy, er...Doomslayer

Hey -- it's your old friend Buddy, er, Doomslayer from Muffy or Bootsie or Tufty or whatever darling name it is you give your Der Boonkah forum.

You said ISP numbers were published here and said to Sysman: "Which leads me to believe you have access to the data on who post [sic] regaurdless [sic] of what they put down as their name and e-mail address." Why Cherry Bomb, it comes from Miffy, Buttsy, Tootsie, you know, Der Boonkah. If you disagree so strongly with people publishing ISPs, why do they do it with every message on Der Boonkah? And why, in response to cpr publishing someone's personal information, did you say:

Re: Really want to keep playing?? ANYONE KNOW A [NAME WAS GIVEN BUT OUTINGSR CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE]: Lets see how close I get. - Monday, 26-Apr-1999 00:08:36

207.227.230.116 writes:

ROTFLMAO

Gotta love you CPR!

Cherri

Sure, the guy was using obscenities on Der Boonkah but you either agree with publishing personal info or you don't. No exceptions, Cherry Bomb.

SIGH -- this happens so often, ya know. You guys come over here, making all sorts of accusations, yet you do the very same things yourselves. Hypocrisy and double standards make Der Boonkah's prognostications on Y2K somewhat suspect, wouldn't ya say? And you guys wonder why we don't go over there to post!!!

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 13, 1999.

Help, I'm sort of new here. Where's over there, and what's a troll?

-- walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), May 13, 1999.

Walt, there's a URL (Universal Resource Locator) up there; cut and paste it in the litle oblong Location box, hit return, and you'll find out what's over there. If by some pernicious chance you were attempting to attract a flame (an insult), then you are a troll.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 13, 1999.

A "troll" dear sir, is comon term used in on-line services and conversation for a person who, deliberately and with malice, attempts to disrupt and inconvenience on-going conversations between others.

This could be inserting slander, lies, disrupting messages, or using false "handles, or it could be inserting "fake" links and programs to disrupt the other users. In short, a vandal hiding behind the anomymous nature of the internet.

term comes from several sources: take your pick. Ancient trolls lived under in the dark under bridges and in forests, eating innocents who walked by. In fishing, you stream a line behind the boat, throw chum (garbage, offal, blood and filth behind the boat, and "troll" by streaming a line hoping to snag whatever follows the baited hook or bloody garbage trail back to the boat. A troll then just streams an apparently innocent remark or comment hoping to incite anger or disruption in the other users innocently using the net.

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

"Programs that do have a date problem, will not work."

This has got to be the dumbest thing you have said yet.

Let's peer into the future for a moment. It's sometime in February 2000, in an office in Anywhere USA. So far everything has been working normally with the company's computer systems, but little does the staff know that a Y2K bug in a supposedly compliant application is lurking in a rarely used option. Mr. Sysman, the office's manager, is running an inquiry which compares some statistics by monthly period. The numbers look fine, but Sysman's eagle eye detects that the line item for Jan 00 is out of order - it is showing up at the top of the screen when it should be showing up at the bottom.

AAAAAAAAACCCCKKKKKKK! A BUG! A BUG! MY GOD IT'S A BUG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After he recovers from wetting his pants, Sysman swings into action.

"Mr. President, we have to shut down immediately. Code Red. I repeat Code Red. Contingency plan "India Dot Alpha Michael Dot Alpha Dot Delta Oscar Romeo Kilo" is now activated. Everybody, to the plane, we must evacuate immediately. I'll try to cover you and pin this bug down for as long as I can."

"What about tech support", asks a sales manager?

"Look you stupid moron, I read core dumps and there's no way in hell that any geek can save us now. It's OVER. We're HISTORY. Now get to the plane and start brushing up on that Arabic".

...

Sysman, if you insist on dueling with Stephen, you will have to remember not to paint a huge bulls-eye on your forehead every time.

-- Computer Pro (first_minister@hotmail.com), May 13, 1999.