Cory,

My qualifications so not run exactly in the vein you asked for, but my added qualifications in the rest of computers and computing should suffice. Your view of personal in your field appears to have been tarnished by having to deal with co-workers and management who are clueless or just plain incabeable of or no desire of understanding computing beyound the glossed over superficial outer layers. You understand in depth which causes you to be frustrated with the incompatance of others. Unfortunatly this also causes you to be biased to the point where you will not accept that there are others with your ability and understanding of the minutea of the situation. Although I understand your reaction I believe your bitterness causes you to be biased toward the ability of others to find, fix and complete the remediation of mainframe systems. I have a lot of experience myself with the dorks we are forced to work with (the ones the law does not allow us to strangle). But resenting those individuals who we should not have ad to work with/for should not close our eyes to those who were proficient in their work. My view was to (mentally) put the dorks in their place, ignore them and go on with my work. I listened to everyone and discarded the words of those who were blowing their own horn with hot air. But by listening to the others I learned more than I ever thought possible. I know there are compitant people out there working and fixing the Y2K errors in the mainframes, I made a point 20 years ago to a lot of them saying "why not do it right in the first place so you don't have to work so hard to fix the problem later. I can not say how many listened, but some seem to have. I have faith in those who did quality work and were proud of the standards they kept. I believe those who can do a good job well have been doing it and fixing the mstakes of those who were/are slackers. It is my hope that management is now learning to recognise those who have always done their job right and will choose to get rid of those who do nothing but "brag" about how good they think they are. Y2K is a good lesson for those powers that be who have failed in managing by accepting brownnosed and ass kissed. The cost of those weak ego thrills have costs their companies a lot of money.

Cory you are so bent of expressing your negitive feelings about about what you have delt with that I believe you have closed your mind to the posibility that there are good workers who are busting ther butts fixing the screwed up mess of the incompatants. You have chosen an idea and closed your mind. Your prejudice towards others who do not work in your area is blatent. Calling hardware tech's weenies shows bigotry towards others not like your self. Personally I feel you have so much emotional/mental garbage that you should not be listened to due to your closed mind.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 29, 1999.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 29, 1999

Answers

So your saying, cory has an opinion that is biased by his coworkers? Did you read the question?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), July 29, 1999.

Or are you saying your a polly because you work with on a very efficient crew? That's still not an answer.............

SNIP

Serious question here, folks. It's 5 AM, I haven't strolled over to the 7-11 for a cup of Volcano Roast coffee and a malasada yet. I'm working on WRPs 116, 117 and I realized that I haven't seen any articles from an IT expert Pollys. If there are any out there, pleae consider writing a 1 page, ascii text, article for the WRPs.

Here's what you should have:

15 years in IT, mainframe applications, systems design, or large applications support, preferably some years in an old line, IT intense business such as insurance, banking, reservations, service bureau.

Applicable undergraduate degree, BA/BS in CS, math, a physical science, or electronic engineering.

Significant programming experience, not just click-em ups but COBOL, S/390 Assembler, PL/I or similar. Large database work is also good. That's multi-gigabyte tables and multi-table applications.

Disaster recovery experience, in the IT sense, is also good.

I'd like someone with those quals who is also a Polly to please explain why they feel that way.

There used to be a fellow on c.s.y2k, Moshe, who was close but he's dropped out.

I'm not interested in Polly essays that are simply wishing really, really hard. I'm asking for IT expertise because I don't want another analogy article. To comment credibly on IT, you must have specific expertise.

If such a Polly will please speak up, I'll run your piece in a WRP. I realize that you can just upload it to c.s.y2k or this forum or your own webpage but I guarentee that more people will read it in a WRP than anywhere else.

...and within 30 days, Howard B. will be quoting you. (This is an inside joke from c.s.y2k.)

-- cory hamasaki (kiyoinc@IBM.net), April 07, 1999

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), July 29, 1999.

PITIFUL...no substance...no credibility

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), July 29, 1999.

Thank you for finally posting your response to Cory's request. Unfortunately, all you have to contribute is a variation on the "they're really working hard on it" theme. We know they're working hard on it, or at least some of them are. The question is whether they will get done in time, and the answer has to be that it is very unlikely that they will. Even if the managers were to finally understand that their lackeys and bootlickers are destructive to the company, it's much too late.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), July 29, 1999.

Please tell me this is Cherri imposter. The post is pathetic.

br14

-- br14 (br14@bout.done), July 29, 1999.

I think this is an imposter. I never noticed so many (any) spelling errors in Cherri's posts before. And she may be a polly but she is usually a lot more articulate than this post.

-- Hannah (Hannah@Colonial America.com), July 29, 1999.

Assuming this is the real Cherri....

My qualifications so not run exactly in the vein you asked for, but my added qualifications in the rest of computers and computing should suffice.

It doesn't.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 29, 1999.

You know, this diatribe becomes laughable given time. The questions appear to ask for proof where no proof can be had. Both schools of thought attempt to validate their beliefs by asking the other to 'prove this' or 'prove that'. Both ask for historical renderings of other programming jobs, so as to make a comparison as to you y2k remediation will---or won't---be completed on time.

Most laughable is the suggestion that one's resume needs examination to justify their place in an argument. Neither camp has 'proven' that y2k is beyond the idea of perceptions acting as individual realities. Quite simply, those working in IT are likely to have optimistic takes on the issue if they have experienced success individually or are surrounded by those who have experienced similar success, while those who work within corporations that are lagging behind or who have experienced myriad problems are quite likely to see something bordering on TEOTWAWKI.

Extremists in both 'camps' have only added to the problem. On the right, we have those who see no need to prepare and on the left, we have those who are preparing for life in the bunker.

With these types of postings, all that occurs is the further polarization and politicizing of an issue that should have been left up to those in the trenches.

For shame.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), July 29, 1999.

"Cory you are so bent of expressing your negitive feelings about about what you have delt with that I believe you have closed your mind to the posibility that there are good workers who are busting ther butts fixing the screwed up mess of the incompatants".

Looks like you (Cherri) have not read many of Cory's posts. BTW, "incompatants" is not a word. But incompetent is and certainly what you are.

-- Steve King (parse@earthlink.nospam.net), July 29, 1999.

Typical polly response. I suspect a little green envy, must be one of those hardware tech weenies............hmmmmmmm?

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), July 29, 1999.

She needs to remediate English 101. Back to your hole polly!! THE TRUTH POINTS TO ITSELF.

-- jaime estrada (beseme@dedo.net), July 29, 1999.

What can one say!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 29, 1999.

I must agree that this is not likely from cherri. Unless she has a substance abuse problem, I find this hard to believe. It 'sucks' for lack of a better term!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 29, 1999.

I'll bet it's real. What would you expect a polly argument to look like?

-- (its@coming.soon), July 29, 1999.

I think the post is from Cherri. If you go back to some of her previous posts, they are loaded with mispellings. I counted 16 mispelled words in her post above. There's a difference between mispelled words and typos. Cherri, your post lacked substance, and may I suggest you keep a dictionary next to your computer? It may help with your credibility.

-- ~~~~~~ (~~~~@~~~~.com), July 29, 1999.

Right '~~~'

Like misspelling 'misspelling.'

-- (Grammar_Gramma@mispeel.inc), July 29, 1999.

My take on all these responses;

1) If you cannot look past someone's spelling to see the content, then you should never wear sunglasses while you drive - you will crash!.

2) Cherri brings forth some very valid points in her response - In particular was bringing to light the bias that is taken against anyone who has a viewpoint other than Cory's (or many of us - for that matter).

3) Cherri may not fit the exact criteria that Cory is looking for - but I know that many of us *do* fit that criteria. Why don't we answer Cory's pleas for a "Polly" viewpoint? Oh, I could go on for days but would it matter? See point #2.

It doesn't really matter to Cory or many others what the views and opinions are of those of us who are in the trenches with this issue. Because at this point Cory is just trolling for more opinions to "shoot down". The problem with this is - Cory will only quote/print what he chooses to extract from anything someone has to say - Then - He will twist it and spin it to go in his direction *ONLY* and claim the **victory** over the "subversive writings of in-coherent minds___etc...".

Most of us "Real" mainframe professionals know what Cory is all about and have written him off right along with Ed. It's over for these guys. Enough of us have poked our heads out of the trenches and seen what these so-called "EXPERTS" are spouting - we are literally in stitches over the misinformation and total nonsense that these folks are pushing.

Give it up Cory - go back to work in the REAL world for a while. At that point talk with some of "your peers" to get angles on the issue.

But, whatever you do, DON'T tell them your real name - because if they associate you to the crud you have been peddling, you will be sipping your Volcano Roast Coffee - alone.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), July 29, 1999.

Don't feed Cory the troll. It only encourages him.

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), July 29, 1999.

I always wondered whether Cherri is really a doomer, who poses as a polly just to make them look bad. I think that this proves it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

Blah blah blah, more polly nonsense. The reason no polly has come up with a response to Cory is because they know they'd only end up looking as stupid as Cherri. Perhaps this "response" will stand as a symbol of what happens when idiot pollys try to play the game with the big boys.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 29, 1999.

My dyslexia gets worse when I am tired. (I probably spelled that wrong too) There are times I would rather continue getting my thoughts down than interupting my train of thought to look up the correct spelling of a word. I preder to write without a spell checker for I feel it is a crutch that will not help me in learning by "rote" the correct illogical spelling. US American spelling is a bastardization of a lot of different languages and is illogical. I think logically so there lies the problem. Besides it is obvious when someone uses a spell checker, they say things like "I two saw there dog chasing the maleman." At least I try.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 29, 1999.

Yes, Cherri, you and Maria both think SO logically. LOL!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

What can I say, what can I say!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 29, 1999.

Being one of the few people in Christendom who can type Illegibly, I understand the problem.

You Do have a couple valid points about the perception and biases being generated by the environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your main point appears to be that, because Cory is surrounded by a group of failing efforts, that he has generalized to all efforts; and, since you are surrounded by generally a group of succesful efforts, cory's generalization does not stand up, and that is why we will be OK. My question, I guess, is why would EITHER generalization hold up?

I STILL don't quite see where you get your confidence in the general national, cross-industry remediation effort. It would appear that you and Cory were doing the same things, with the POSSIBLE exception of the fact that Cory has documented multiple contacts with multiple IT folks in multiple industries, all with the same story.

I'm NOT saying that there are NOT the same multiple contacts in multiple industries with total success stories. Yours and Deano's successes are to be applauded and you are to be thanked. We just haven't been treated to the same level of contacts, the same level of anecdotal evidence that it will be fine (and, yes I'm VERY aware from my medical researches, that the plural of anecdote is NOT data).

At the risk of sounding like someone I REALLY disagree with, I would submit that what you have written, which may satisfy your definition of an answer to Cory, truly needs to be redone, to exclude the (NOT a quote but an approximation)"You have been jaundiced by the idiots and dorks" and to avoid the "I have faith" and "It is my hope" lines of thought; and to include "People in XXX industry have done QQ and people in YYY industry have done ZZ" with if not data, then more semi- hard anecdotal evidence.

respectfully, Chuck

PS BEFORE I hit the submit button, i corrected no fewer than 50 misspellings, and mistypings, most on the fly. i really Do type illegibly

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 30, 1999.

Just shows what an MBA from an Engineering School will get ya....LOL

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 30, 1999.

Say no more Ray, say no more! :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), July 30, 1999.

Chuck commented:

"We just haven't been treated to the same level of contacts, the same level of anecdotal evidence that it will be fine (and, yes I'm VERY aware from my medical researches, that the plural of anecdote is NOT data). "

Chuck, obviously you haven't you been reading company "Press Releases" lately, how about OMB reports. Take time out to get the FACTS. Ooops, almost forgot Der Bonkah !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 30, 1999.

Immediately upon deciphering Cherri's post, I doubled my rice & bean stockpile. If this is what passes for "knowledge" amongst our IT crew, we are seriously fucked.

-- a (a@a.a), July 30, 1999.

Cory has asked for an experienced person to lay out the case for prospects of success in remediation of the Year 2000 set of problems on a scale that will enable the tools we rely upon to continue to function.

Instead of laying out the case that the work is done, Cherri's response is an ad homenum attack on Cory.

Representative of her response:

" You understand in depth which causes you to be frustrated with the incompatance of others."

She has not laid out any evidence that the Year 2000 set of problems have been resolved.

In almost two years of reading Cory Hamasaki's assessments, I have seen him focus on the scale of the problem and the timeframe for effective repair, using antecdotal evidence to illustrate his points. His critics fail to follow this example.

His critics resort to personal attacks, conjecture and half-truths, with a measure of self aggrandizement thrown in, as in the case of Poole and Dino. Their failed methods are predictable and futile. A question rises as to their motive, although it is incedental and not relevant.

Nonetheless, Cherri has chosen to attack the person and ignore the issue. Consideration of her protests remain without merit.

-- Tom Beckner (xouttbeckner@erols.com), July 30, 1999.