claiming y2k readiness as of the magical June 30th date? My "electricity distributor and their providers" have officially announced their readiness, all on the same date.

Why...it's a miracle!

Be fascinated to hear from others...ought to be very enlightening.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 17, 1999

Answers

Maybe that is because July 1 was the deadline, duh! Is it a surprise to get statements from them on the day they said they would be sending them? If you can answer "yes" to that question then your already a doomer. Head for your nearest shrink's office and get your Prozac Rx now while it lasts.

Oh yeah, this is truly horrible news. All these companies are saying that they are now done! This can't be! They are all liars and we know it. It's all a big conspiracy! They are spinning everything out of control!!! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

I'd like to know what percentage made the deadline, and what percentage missed the deadline. Then there's the matter of "readiness" vs. "compliance."

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 17, 1999.

Oh right, the old doomer stand by, compliance versus readiness. I'm sure you'll be singing that one right to the bitter, non eventful end.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

So what percentage did make the deadline?

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 17, 1999.

Is that the best you can do? Doomers@suck.com? How VERY sophomoric! Does your mommy know you're playing with the com-pu-ter?

-- trolls (never@ever.mature), July 17, 1999.

Best I can do? There isn't anything more to be done! Don't get me wrong I'm not here to convert anyone I'm just passing the time until 1/1/00 when you doomers suddenly fall off the face of the Earth never to be heard from again. But it's typical of your meme to attack me on a personal level and not agree with that I said was true. The deadline came, it was met, and that is that. Nothing more to be said unless your a paranoid freak ( hey doomers, that's your cue...)

{Sitting silent waiting for the flames}

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

July 17, 1999

Answers Maybe that is because July 1 was the deadline, duh! Is it a surprise to get statements from them on the day they said they would be sending them? If you can answer "yes" to that question then youre already a doomer. Head for your nearest shrink's office and get your Prozac Rx now while it lasts. Oh yeah, this is truly horrible news. All these companies are saying that they are now done! This can't be! They are all liars and we know it. It's all a big conspiracy! They are spinning everything out of control! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

Hey, doomers@suck.com,

This is not your first intentionally disruptive post. You have abused this threads liberal policy of open opinion to inject nonsensical bullshit for your own amusement. I for one will not stand for it. Neither will, I believe, this forum.

I'm on your tail asshole. Look over your shoulder, do you see me, you garbage heap?

Your life would be better spent watchin' "Romper Room" and collecting those Star Wars thingies from McDonalds.

Don't go away mad, just die.

In a word, Fuck off.

-- mike is ticked... (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

Oh Mikey,

That is not a very nice thing to say. It's just so redolant of someone who can't accept the truth, which is of course, the predictions about Y2K just aren't coming true. I guess it takes a lot of energy to be such a sad little man. Maybe if you tried thinking positive for just ONE second you might realize that your a doomer jerk and you can't stand the heat of the kitchen anymore becuase it's YOUR ass that is on fire.

On my tail huh? Garbage heap? Yeah well, we'll see.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

Moderators and all,

Sorry about the 4 letter words, I think this troll is an enemy. In the classic sense. GBA!

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 17, 1999.

THIS MAN IS AN ENEMY OF MY DELUSIONS! SEE TO IT THAT HE NO LONGER HAS BREATH IN HIS LUNGS TO FILL THE WORLD WITH THIS VILE "TRUTH" THAT THREATENS ME SO!

-- (midwest@freak.show), July 17, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0013JO

Utilities Say They're Y2K Ready, Though Blackouts Expected

Bloomberg News

Wednesday, June 30 1999 08:01 PM EDT

Washington, June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Most U.S. utilities said today that their power plants and transmission lines are ``Y2K ready,'' though experts still expect some power failures when the New Year comes.

Utilities were asked to report their level of ``readiness'' to the North American Electric Reliability Council today. While a full report on the results won't be ready until July 29, dozens of utilities declared their success at finding and eliminating the Millennium bug.

Electric utilities spent billions of dollars over the past several years to prepare for the day when aging computer and analog systems can't determine whether the digits ``00'' represent the year 1900 or 2000. They've been upgrading and testing components of power plants and distribution systems, and setting up contingency plans in case of failures.

``Utilities are scared,'' said Cameron Daley, chief operating officer of Framingham, Massachusetts-based Tava/R.W. Beck, which tested and upgraded systems for more than 100 U.S. utilities. ``The whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks.''

While no utility has guaranteed there won't be blackouts Jan. 1, industry groups said utilities are doing everything they can to prevent problems, including preparing for the worst.

``We believe Y2K won't be a problem,'' said Eugene Gorzelnik, a spokesman for the council. ``There will be a huge backlash if a utility reports it's Y2K ready, and it turns out that it wasn't.''

Edison International's Southern California Edison utility, which has spent $72 million on Y2K preparation, said it plans to dispatch an extra 500 employees on New Year's Eve. Wisconsin Energy Corp.'s Wisconsin Electric Power Co. plans to have as much as 50 percent more electricity available than it normally needs at that time of year.

Still, deregulation has pushed utilities to cut labor and other costs, and those that are deepest in negotiations with regulators haven't been as focused on preventing problems related to the millennium bug, Daley said.

``The utilities most distracted by deregulation aren't doing enough to identify and prevent problems,'' Daley said. ``There are a number of instances where utilities didn't go deep enough into their systems -- they accepted vendors' words that parts of a system were compliant.''

Even if a utility corrects all the problems in its own system, power still may be cut off to their customers. That's because U.S. and Canadian power lines connect all utilities, and when one utility system breaks down, it could cause problems for others.

``We cannot provide warranties (against blackouts) because our readiness depends in part on other parties,'' said Samuel Manno, director of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.'s Y2K project.

At the trade council's suggestion, utilities agreed to conduct the first major test of the entire power systems' ability to properly recognize dates beyond 1999 on September 9.

``We hope to learn what still needs to be done at that point and correct any glitches before they happen,'' Gorzelnik said.

(c) 1999 Bloomberg News

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 17, 1999.

Washington, June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Most U.S. utilities said today that their power plants and transmission lines are ``Y2K ready,'' though experts still expect some power failures when the New Year comes.

The utilities say their ready, but "experts" say they aren't.

oooooooooo-kay.

Come one all together now, if you sing loud enough maybe they'll hear you in the Office of The Lone Gunman:

"The code is broken, it can't be fixed!

The code is broken, it can't be fixed,

The code is broken, it can't be fixed!"

-- (only 6@more months. of this nonesense), July 17, 1999.

Doomer's illusion is that a verbal or printed statement, such as Our firm has met the deadline for Y2K compliance, and we are ready for it, is necessarily a b>true statement.

In real life, saying a thing is so doesn't make it so. Doesn't mean it ain't so, either, of course. "By their fruits ye shall know them," as the saying goes, and we'll know a lot more next year than we know now.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 17, 1999.

Yo,,,,, Suck it; Is that like we all said we would be done Dec. 98 with a year for testing? Or Der Slickmeister shaking his fist and saying the Fed will be done by end of June 99. By the way, Why haven't we seen old zipperman call a press confrence and say he put the pressure on and it got done when he said ????????????????????????

MORON,,,,,,,, Dicks are for CHIX'S! :)

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), July 17, 1999.

Even the government recommends preparation:

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/bigstory/070199/main.html

Y2K: Prepare early for a week of woes

State says you should put aside water, food and a little cash

By Ron Martz

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

Federal and state officials, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Red Cross and the Georgia Emergency Management Agency are urging everyone to have a three- to five-day supply of food and water on hand and enough emergency supplies such as warm clothing, blankets, flashlights and an alternative heating source to tide them over should there be problems as a result of Y2K.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 17, 1999.

Three to five days huh? Sounds like they are telling people to go shopping! Uh huh, truly an ominous development!

And how many of you don't have a flashlight and a blanket at your home?

Face it, the Year 2000 is just too good to pass up without an old fashioned Doomsday campfire ghost story, ala The X-Files. Hopefully somewhere around the Year 3000 there won't be so many idiots with overactive imaginations left in the world.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-06/28/074r-062899- idx.html

D.C. Plans To Mobilize Workers for Y2K Backup

City Still Far Behind In Fixing Computers

By Eric Lipton

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 28, 1999; Page A01

The District government, recognizing that its year 2000 repair program likely will not be completed on time, is planning a massive New Year's Eve mobilization of emergency personnel and other staff to ensure that critical city services are not interrupted if computer systems fail.

Police will be stationed at more than 120 locations across the city, working 12-hour shifts, to take walk-in requests for emergency services. Twenty-one "warming centers," each supplied with food, water and cots, will open. School crossing guards will be on call, ready to replace traffic lights at major intersections. And D.C. General Hospital will have extra staff members -- as many as 175 -- on site.

These are just a few of the 88 contingency and emergency plans the District is feverishly working to put in place by the end of the year. Similar efforts are underway across the United States among governments and private companies, but in the District, officials have acknowledged the city is so far behind on its Y2K fix that it may have to rely on some of these "work-around" techniques.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 17, 1999.

Hope you don't mind Linkmaster but I'd like to join the fun, not that they'll ....GET IT....

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

June 9, 1999

An Open Letter To:

To: Members, Senate Commerce, Science And Transportation Committee; Members, Special Senate Committee On The Year 2000 Technology Problem Members, House of Representatives, Com. on Science, Subcom. on Technology Members, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology Sponsors, "Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act of 1999" (H.R. 775)

CC: Mr. John Koskinen

RE: Year 2000 Liability Legislation

FROM: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Technical Activities Board, Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

Dear Honorable Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen,

As leaders of the Y2K effort of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the oldest and largest international non-profit association of engineers and computer scientists in the world, we would like to offer some thoughts on the pending legislation involving Y2K liability obtained from our years of work and collective wisdom spent studying Y2K. The IEEE has drafted an Institute position on Y2K Legal Liability regarding United States federal law, to which our committee greatly contributed. We offer these additional thoughts in hopes that they may further assist your understanding as you attempt to reconcile two very valid but conflicting underlying public policy goals in structuring and passing the Year 2000 Liability Legislation currently under consideration.

MINIMIZE DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY AND QUALITY OF LIFE: minimize the overall damage to the nations economy and quality of life by reducing the need of organizations to redirect their limited resources away from the task of maintaining their operations in the face of Y2K in order to defend themselves from lawsuits arising from alleged Y2K failures.

MAXIMIZE INCENTIVE FOR Y2K FAILURE PREVENTION: maximize the incentive of every organization to prevent Y2K failures as well as preserve the legal rights and remedies available for those seeking legitimate redress for wrongs they may suffer resulting from Y2K failures.

In addressing public policy issues we have no more expertise than the literate public. However, we do possess expertise in the technical issues underlying the situation that should be considered as you weigh the conflicting public policy goals in formulating appropriate Year 2000 Liability Legislation. In particular, for your consideration we offer the following points pertaining to the technical realities of Y2K.

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: For many large and important organizations, technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way for these reasons:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations. In fact, efforts to become "Y2K compliant" in one place could be the direct cause of such failures in others. If interconnected systems are made compliant in different ways, they will be incompatible with each other. Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely (see COMPLEXITY KILLS below).

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. In the best case organizations can only address those things they can see and those things they have control over. Given this reality, many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties. (The temporary lifting of certain copyright and reverse engineering restrictions for specific Y2K protection efforts should also be considered as long as copyright holders are not unduly harmed.)

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control. Such data may have unknowingly been corrupted, made incompatible by misguided compliance efforts or simply missing due to the upstream organizations lawful business decisions.

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures.

2. DETERMINING LEGAL LIABILITY WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT. Traditionally the makers of products that underlie customer operations are liable if those products are "defective" enough to unreasonably interfere with those operations resulting in damage. Y2K is different in that those customers themselves are also at risk for legal action if they fail to fulfill contractual obligations or fail to maintain their stock values and their failure to "fix" their Y2K problems can be shown as the cause. This customer base of technology producers cannot be overlooked in this issue. As it constitutes most of the organizations in the world, its needs and the implications of legislative actions on it being considered now should not be overshadowed by undue focus on the much smaller technology producer sector. (They are also customers/users of technology products.) Nonetheless, even there product liability is not as clear as tradition might indicate. Several factors make liability determination difficult, expensive, time consuming and not at all certain.

2.1 THERE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN BUYERS, SELLERS AND USERS OF TECHNOLOGY. Computer products themselves have only clocks that have dates in them. Application software products usually offer optional ways of handling dates. The customer/user organizations, especially larger, older ones, have created much of their application software in-house. When new products are introduced into the buying organization, the customer/user usually has vast amounts of data already in place that have date formats and meaning already established. These formats and meanings cannot be changed as a practical matter. The majority of, and the longest-lasting, potential system problems lay in application software and the data they process, not in clock functions. (Clock-based failures, those likely to happen early in January 2000, while potentially troublesome, will be for the most part localized and of short duration.) Various service providers can be optionally called in to help plan and apply technology for business purposes. But it is only when these are all merged together and put to actual use that failures can emerge. It is very rare that one of them alone can cause a failure that carries legal consequences.

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Incoming data from external sources outside its control may be corrupted, incompatible or missing. Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendants knowledge or legal access. Non-technical goods and services the defendant depends upon may not be available due to Y2K problems within their source organizations or distribution channel.

2.3 THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICABILITY. Existing large-scale systems were not made safe from Y2K long ago for good reasons. Many systems resist large-scale modernization (e.g., IRS, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicare) for the same reasons. Wide-spread, coordinated modifications across entrenched, diverse, interconnected systems is technically difficult if not impossible at the current level of transformational technology. New products must be made to operate within the established environment, especially date data formats. Technology producers will claim, with reason, that the determining factor in any Y2K failures lay in the way the customer chose to integrate their products into its environment. It will be asserted, perhaps successfully, by user organizations that economic impracticability prevented the prevention of Y2K failures. Regardless of the judicial outcome, it will take a long time and many resources to finally resolve. And that resolution may have to come in thousands of separate cases.

3. COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE. Even if making all of an organization's systems "Y2K compliant" would render an organization immune from Y2K failures (it will not), the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome. As a analogy, providing any kind of incentive to land a man on Mars within one year would have no effect on anyones efforts to achieve that unless they had been already working to that end for many years. A negative effect will result from management diverting resources from prevention into legal protection.

4. THE THREAT OF LEGAL ACTION IS A DANGEROUS DISTRACTION AT A CRITICAL TIME. There will be system failures, especially in large, old, richly interconnected "systems of systems" as exist in the financial services and government sector. The question is how to keep such technical failures from becoming business or organizational failures. We should be asking ourselves how we as a society can best keep the flow of goods and services going until the technical problems and failures can be overcome. The following points bear on these questions.

4.1 Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name Year 2000 itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade. Y2K is much more about the dates that can span the century boundary represented in data that must be processed by software than it is about any calendar time or clock issues. Because of the vast amounts of these, the complex intertwining among them and our less than complete understanding of the whole, it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it. The current prevention phase is only the beginning.

4.2 RAPID AND EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL ADAPTABILITY WILL BE A PRIME NECESSITY. The key to an organizations ability to continue to provide the goods and services other organizations and individuals need to continue their operations will be determined by an organizations ability to adapt its practices and policies quickly and effectively in the face of potentially numerous, rapid and unexpected events.

4.3 LAWSUITS, ACTUAL OR THREATENED, WILL DIVERT REQUISITE RESOURCES. Preventing and minimizing harm to society from Y2K disruption is different than, and at times opposed to, protecting ones organization from legal liability. Addressing lawsuits, and even the threat of a lawsuit, will divert requisite resources, particularly management attention, from an organizations rapid and effective adaptation. This is already happening regarding technical prevention and will get worse the longer such legal threats remain. Organizational management has much more experience dealing with legal threats than they do addressing something as unique and unprecedented as Y2K. Their tendency is to address the familiar at the expense of the novel. They must be allowed to focus on the greater good.

4.4 JUDICIAL SYSTEM OVERLOAD IS ANOTHER DANGER. Given the great interactive and interdependent complexity of Y2Ks impact on the operations of our institutions on a national and global scale, the effort to determine exactly what happened, why it happened and who is legally responsible for each micro-event is itself a huge undertaking requiring the resolution of many questions. For the legal and judicial system to attempt to resolve the legal rights and remedies of affected parties while Y2K impacts are still unfolding will, in any case, threaten to overwhelm the legal and judicial systems capacity to assure justice in the matter, let alone its ability to continue to do its other necessary work.

For all of the reasons discussed above, we support limitations on Y2K-related legal liability. Minimizing harm and assessing blame are each formidable and important tasks, but they cannot be done simultaneously without sacrificing one for the other. Minimizing harm is more important and there is an increased threat to our welfare if assessing blame adversely interferes with our ability to minimize harm. The value of incentives at this late date is very small. We trust that the collective wisdom of Congress will find ways to reduce these threats. We have additional background material available. Please contact IEEE staff contact Paula Dunne if you are interested in this material. We have other ideas beyond the scope of this legislation of what the U.S. federal government can do to help minimize harm throughout this crisis. We are ready to help in any way you may deem appropriate.

Respectfully,

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Technical Activities Board Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group

Dale W. Way Chairman and Letter Author

Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group Members:

Dr. Arnold S. Berger Dr. Brian Boyle Paula J. Dunne (IEEE Staff) Austin Frakt Dr. Mark P. Haselkorn Vincent E. Henley George Hurlburt Jim Isaak, (Co-chair) Dr. Murray Jennex Thomas John Kevin Lewis James A. Lott, Jr. Mary Lou Padgett Paul R. Seesing Mary Ward-Callan (IEEE Staff)

Contact:

Paula J. Dunne Sr. Administrator, TAB Committee Operations TAB Year 2000 Technical Information Focus Group IEEE Technical Activities Department 445 Hoes Lane Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331 USA (732) 562-3919 voice (732) 981-1769 Fax Email: p.dunne@ieee.org

| Top of Page | Policy Log | Public Policy Forum | IEEE-USA |

Last Update: June 11, 1999 Staff Contact: Deborah Rudollph, d.rudolph@ieee.org

Copyright ) 1999, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Permission to copy this IEEE communication is granted for non-commercial uses with appropriate attribution, unless otherwise indicated.

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), July 17, 1999.

Hey guys, the thread was about the Utilities, you can throw this unrelated stuff out all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the Utilites have met the deadline just like they said they would. Now with five months to go to tie up loose ends they are pretty much in the clear with minor disruptions possible.

If you can pull a spook out of that you might as well check yourself into the nearest Mayo clinic and get yourself a Hale Bopp vaccine because your one deluded individual.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

AHHHHHHH!

Please stop with those multi volume posts.....

uh.....

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Again, what percentage made the deadline? And if your community has electricity on January 1st, will it have drinkable water? Unlike the "optimist" on this thread, I don't know how Y2K is going to turn locally when it comes to things like electricity, water, sanitation, transportation, gasoline, food and so forth. Since I can't be certain, preparation to me is prudent:

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9913.htm

[snip]

Life is filled with risk and surprising outcomes. That is why we pay insurance premiums to cover improbable, but not impossible surprises that can damage our health, homes, cars, and businesses. Every such situation requires a personal assessment. Should your car insurance include a collision rider? If not, you can reduce your current out-of- pocket expense. How risk averse are you?

Right now, people are attempting to assess Y2K risk.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 18, 1999.

BZzzzzt! Your wrong again, Linkmon. Why doesn't that surprise me? Hahaha, I don't have car insurance. No car, see? But, after I pass driver's ed. next year, I still might not get car insurance just to annoy you!

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

Nice try "Al-d"...

That is your best rip off to date isn't it? Yeah you had a hay day with that poor guy. Oh well, do your worst, your not fooling me, and that is who counts right?

-- (doomers@suck.com (the real one)), July 18, 1999.

I told ya, Itold ya, Itoldya.

Pollies are school kids.

nuuuuff said.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

Mike your so far down the doomer well it'd take a crane to pull you out. You know how many times "Pollys" have been passed off as kids on this forum? It's ridiculous. Mark my words, this forum won't be around after New Years, and not because the power isn't on, but because no one will want to show their face here anymore. Y2K is about as worrisome as a cloudy day and the only thing keeping this forum chugging along at warp speed is the nonstop "gut feelings" from a few hundred pessimistic individuals who have predicted the end of the world since they got fired from their first IT job.

Really I'm not trying to convincee you otherwise. It's obvious the truth is about as welcome around here as Hillary is in the Big Apple. No problem, I won't lose any gray matter over it. But, The Truth is out there, and it's not what you think.

-- Tell me I'm wrong that... (doomers@suck?.com), July 18, 1999.

Best I can do? There isn't anything more to be done! Don't get me wrong I'm not here to convert anyone I'm just passing the time until 1/1/00 when you doomers suddenly fall off the face of the Earth never to be heard from again. But it's typical of your meme to attack me on a personal level and not agree with that I said was true. The deadline came, it was met, and that is that. Nothing more to be said unless your a paranoid freak ( hey doomers, that's your cue...) {Sitting silent waiting for the flames}

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 17, 1999

Youre not sitting silent, your the reighning pollianna queen.

I warned you folks a few threads ago about this troll. Don't get in front of it on the interstate cause shell be 5 feet on your bumper at 70 miles an hour. No respect for anything but her own petty opinion.

Crawl back in to your hole troll.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

"Big U.S. Cities Slow On Y2K Readiness"

http://infoseek.go.com/Content?arn=a2636rontz- 19990715&qt=readiness&sv=IS&lk=noframes&col=NX&kt=A&ak=news1486

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 18, 1999.

Mike,

This is your attempt to run me out of here. Don't worry I'll go soon. Maybe I'll be back, maybe I won't, doesn't matter. There are going to be more and more "trolls" as the predictions keep falling short. One day your going to have to ask yourself what is it in me that pisses you off so much? My way of thinking? My pesky little words? Heck doesn't take much of a person to get past that, unless there is something else pushing your buttons.

Whatever it is, I doubt it's in me. Damn man, you don't even know me!

My guess is it's something in you.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

OK, for the word count challenged;

When these guys ===>

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.

Tell these guys ===>

To: Members, Senate Commerce, Science And Transportation Committee; Members, Special Senate Committee On The Year 2000 Technology Problem Members, House of Representatives, Com. on Science, Subcom. on Technology Members, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology Sponsors, "Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act of 1999" (H.R. 775)

This ====>

1. PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE:

1.1 "Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES.

1.2 ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE.

1.3 INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING

1.4 COMPLEXITY KILLS.

2.2 MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT.

=====>IT"S ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

-- Michael (mikeymac@uswest.net), July 18, 1999.

Hey everybody, I've got a big butt, and my butt smells, and I like to smell my own butt.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

Hey everybody, I've got a big butt, and my butt smells, and I like to smell my own butt.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

DoomerSucker,

You are correct, I do not know you. Neither does (I presume) anyone else on this forum. What I do know is your pointless obstructive posts. I am not trying to run you off as you suggested, I simply want and end to your crap. Lurk, smurk, laugh if you like, just have a point when you put finger to keyboard. You have this preconceived notion that all who post here are "doomers", that is not the case. Most here simply believe that their will be many serious problems as a result of y2k. These expectations range from a week to 10+ years. Don't you get it? No one here WANTS these things to happen, but we refuse to be caught with our pants down if we can help it. So join us if you like, we have room for all, but don't hang around just to chastise those who hold an opinion that differs from your own.

Time for bed...............

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

I skimmed through parts of this thread-- didn't read everything. But one thing stuck out, which I will comment on. Additionally, I will comment on the info that my utility sent out.

First, my utility. Has not instilled a great deal of confidence in me that they are ready. But I take that as they're trying to be honest. Paraphrase of the brochure, they doing everything they can to be ready but are giving no guarantees.

Interestingly, the did not send out these brochures with their billings, even though they send out a newsletter of about the same length each month. The mention the brochure in their newsletter. To quote from it:

"If you'd like to learn more about the Year 2000 problem, just visit your local public library. We sent copies of our FYI: Year 2000 brochures to libraries throughout our service territory. The brochure includes answers to commonly asked questions about the "millenium bug," and an update on [name of company]'s Y2K plan. We hope that by sharing the information we've gathered, we'll help all our customers understand the issue-- because understanding is the key to overcoming the obstacles."

I guess it wasn't important that all their customers get their own copy, though...

Other comment on the official line of the Red Cross and a few other orgs as to the "3 to 5 day" prep recommendations--

First: Initially, what I had heard was 'y2k no big deal, no preps necessary.' Then sometime this spring I started to hear, "well you may want to prepare as if for a winter storm..." That made me start thinking that this was a little more serious.

Second: I read this elsewhere on the net, and I'm sorry I can't cite the reference. But the gist of it is: When you hear the Red Cross say for people to plan for 3-5 days worth of food, water, shelter, etc., one tends to think "Well, they only think problems will last for 305 days." But that's not what they think at all. They think it takes the average American 3-5 days to find their way to a Red Cross Shelter. ...

-- winter wondering (thisemail@not.real), July 18, 1999.

If the banks etc, are so confident that they are or will be ready why a message like this from Western Federal Credit Union, dated 06-30- 99...

"Western is preparing for the Y2K. We have tested the majority of our critical systems for Y2K readiness, and are confident our systems should operate properly on January 1, 2000."

If Western was confident they should have said, "will operate."

Should..."4__used in auxiliary function to express what is probable or expected

Or, Our government should be following the Constitution, but they don't.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), July 18, 1999.

That wasn't me posting the thing you cut and pasted into your last response Mike. Obviously. That was the little imposter who tried to pass himself off as me. If you want to attack "kids" I suggest you find out who he is and attack him.

Other than that, my point is I think somewhere you DO want this to come about. After all your wonderful preparations you'll be in a perfect position to "inherit the world".

If it walks like a doomers, talke like a doomer and prepares like a doomer well, you get the picture.

-- When will you people see the real... (doomers@suck.com?), July 18, 1999.

I can't believe so many people even respond to doomers suck.com, who also seems to be doomerssuck.com the real one (could two different people really be unable to spell the word "you're"?)

Responding to him/her only encourages him/her.

The really interesting thing on this thread is the report from the Washington Post. I wonder how many other cities are looking this desperate?

How 'bout we all send a copy of this news article to our local mayor/ city manager, etc, and ask them how our communities compare to Washington DC?

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), July 18, 1999.

Yup. It's the day they *had* to be officially ready. Considering the previously stated readiness of the supplier-generation plant (not the distributor), I find this to be a little too good to be true. However, hope always springs eternal, and we will find out in a little over 5 months if the advise I got from my electricity distributor (to buy myself a generator) will be correct or not.

By the way, this state of readiness letter likely went out only to the customers who have voiced their concerns. It was not a billing enclosure.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), July 18, 1999.

I (midwestmike_) wrote:

"Most here simply believe that their will be many serious problems as a result of y2k. These expectations range from a week to 10+ years. Don't you get it? No one here WANTS these things to happen, but we refuse to be caught with our pants down if we....."

___________________________________________

While I believe my statement is accurate, I have no right to speak for anyone but myself.

Sorry if I made an incorrect assumption.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 18, 1999.

The last post where I deny the previous post is not me was not me.

Stop trolling! I want to be taken seriously!!

Oh, and I really do have a big butt, my butt smells, and I like to smell my own butt.

-- It's really me, can't you tell the difference? (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

Your being really mean to me. My butt doesn't usually smell so bad. Only when I don't take a shower because I'm too busy impressing you with my superior intellect.

-- Waaaaaaa (doomers@suck.com), July 18, 1999.

Thank you, jumpoffjoe! I'm amazed that people can't tell the difference between your and you're. You are=you're. It's SO simple!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 18, 1999.