A must-read from Steve Hewitt:

http://www.gospelcom.net/ccmag/articles/0599/msty599.html

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 18, 1999

Answers

It would appear that whether the position - polly or doomer - everyone has something to sell:

From Steve Hewitt's must-read article:

Dave Hunt has a great book out on the subject of Y2K. It is called Y2K A Reasoned Response To Mass Hysteria. It is well documented, and not only explains why things are looking better, but also explains why we got into the panic problems in the first place. Look for it in book stores everywhere, or you can help support CCMag by purchasing it from our online bookstore.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), May 18, 1999.

Steve Hewitt?? Don't get us started on this guy again. Read all about him in the Wall Street Journal article. If you think this is the kind of guy you want to take advice from, then by all means, fail to prepare. Ifyou read enough abouthim, you might find that his interpretations are pathetically ungrounded.

I doubt that there are any lurkers or newbies left by now, but if there are, this ain't about doomers v. pollies. It about whether you care enough to provide some insurance or safety cushion for your family in the event that things go bad. You don't have to pick sides or argue.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 18, 1999.

From the article:

"The problems the economists foresee don't come mainly from the software bug, because most businesses have already acted to correct it."

"Most businesses"? Perhaps, but certainly not all. "Acted to correct it" is misleading. It implies that the work is done. Obviously, for most companies who have started projects, much work still remains.

If, nearly halfway through '99, surveys revealed that 80% or more of companies were now "done with testing" or "Y2k ready", etc., then I would happily be optimistic, as Poole and Hewitt and others are. Facts, such as they are, simply don't warrant such optimism.

Am I more optimistic than I was last year at this time? Yes, a bit. However, failure to prepare for possible long-term (more than a week) disruptions is still prudent. Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply hedging their bet on a still very uncertain future.

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 18, 1999.

Oops. Started with one thought, got interrupted, then lost track, and the meaning changed. Change "failure to prepare" to "preparing".

-- regular (zzz@z.z), May 18, 1999.

I heard Steve Hewitt and Michael Hyatt on the Dave Ramsey radio talk show "The Money Game". Steve Hewitt told the story of a glitch at an Asian port on January 1, 1999 and mentioned it being fixed in two hours or two days--something like that. The discussion continued with the listener, in my opinion, indirectly being given the impression that January 1, 2000 problems will be fixed just as quickly.

If it's that easy, though, companies and government agencies could just set the clocks of their systems ahead now to 01/01/00, let the systems fail, and then fix them now in mid- May of 1999. If Y2K was this easy to fix, it already would have been in 1998.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 18, 1999.

Steve Hewitt knows nothing about enterprise computing. Zero. Like Poole, he is dedicated to wiping out Y2K preparation. Won't work here. End of story.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 18, 1999.

Big Dog,

Steve Hewitt knows nothing about enterprise computing. Zero.

Considering that the enterprise "experts" are the ones who gave us everything from the Jo Anne Effect to the promise that serious Y2K disruptions would be occurring by now, perhaps they're not quite the authorities that you take them to be, either. :)

Keep posting frantic messages to the Faithful to "ignore these guys." Engage in what C. S. Lewis called "bulverism" -- don't address the argument, attack the person's background and motivation.

Whatever you do, prevent the regulars here from reading the WHOLE story and making up their minds for themselves. When good news about Y2K appears, you must immediately scramble and provide commentary for it, lest they stop preparing.

By all means, they shouldn't read Steve's commentary. Or the stuff at my Web site. Or the stuff at The Y2K Debunker's Bunker.

DO NOT READ THIS STUFF. DO NOT CLICK THESE LINKS. DO NOT GO THERE.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 18, 1999.

Mr. Poole,Thanks for the warning,I won't.

-- Tony C. (yo7@bellsouth.net), May 18, 1999.

Poole -- Quite to the contrary, I sincerely believe the regulars and lurkers should go to your site (though your continued hustling of it is indeed repulsive: 1,000 mentions or so ought to be enough). First, because we're adults, not potential "panic victims" and can make up our own minds. Second, because I'm quite confident that visiting your site only strengthens by contrast the arguments I make about preparation.

The reason I keep urging preparation on your threads is because, alas, DeeCee and the media have proven that ANY statement repeated often enough without challenge does affect people even when they don't believe they are being affected. No doubt, that is why you continue to post here, even though, as I've pointed out, you have galvanized the Y2K discussion and our need to prepare at a time when the happy face news was indeed distracting us.

So, yeah, it's still "prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

Consider what your family needs in terms of energy backup, food supplies, medicines, cash or barter items, weapons and ammunition and the like.

Thanks, Stephen, for continuing to give me the reminder that so many real people, with mom's, children, and neighbors still need the encouragement!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 18, 1999.