Reposted from the deBunkery:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=934191375&P=No&TL=934191375

Doc Paulie writes:

As posted here, Dick Mills spoke this past week. From what I read, Dick still has the MEME in places, to put it lightly.

Biggest problem is Mills makes a grave error when he infers that a common_CAUSE_failure, is similar to a common_MODE_failure. There is a HUGE difference. I have been saying for almost a year now, that Y2k as sold by the doomers, is INCAPABLE of delivering the goods. The SKIDS are not greased anywhere close to produce massive "systematic" collapse. Y2k is like trying to run-up a massive sand dune.

Y2k has always been married to human fears of the Millennium. Computers do not care about all this. The vast majority of systems do not even care about ANY DATING scheme. But ALL computers care about doing what they do, crunching numbers. If Y2k was capable of fusing pathways inside processors, a case could be built that Y2k is a common_cause_failure. We have no evidence this will happen(cause it is impossible for starters). More importantly we have decades of evidence any major difficulty by computers to CRUNCH-THE-NUMBERS is rather limited, forseen, and dealt with as a normal business issue. From zip code expansions, new area codes, e-com, deregulation, and the constant rewrite of the tax-code, it is handled thank you. Y2k is different only by the NOISE factor in my humble opinion. A case could be made to scale, however here the evidence is clear we have had a major OVER-REACTION and a ton of money has been flushed for no real reason. And even though one would think the money spent an idication of a massive problem, simple investigation shows an issue of the "petty cash" variey in most cases, real, but terriblly overblown across the board.

Y2k simply "could be" a common cause. There is little evidence it is a common_mode_failure. If all computers were running an old version of Excel(obligatory MS slap) which was the only app holding the critical infrastructure of the world afloat, and nothing was done pre/or after failure, yes we could be looking at major problems. This IS the basic argument by the DOOMERS extrapolated to everything connected to copper. Simply pile more unrelated-meaningless but similar evidence onto the publics' Techno ignorance, and y2k is a rather easy sell. Many already believe IT is controlled by a few guys from Skull and Bones, so Y2k FITS, makes sense, to simpletons, but of course in Silicon Valley this issue is rather the water-cooler joke.

All good doomers believe at the core that computers are evil, the tools of the controlling elite. They think massive mainframes lie in backrooms simply waiting to die come 01/01/00. The fact they fixate around the issue of Compliancy disproves their ENTIRE CASE but you see these people are pretty ignorant, not stupid, ignorant, many are mentally myopic like Mills and extrapolate to the whole at the drop of the hat.

One is expected to believe since little is compliant, this condition will lead to massive failure. The belief is we have a COMPLIANT, NON-compliant world. We have built a system so pefectly BROKE, it is about to explode. Never could a doomer realize most is non-compliant simply because THIS IS compliancy. If everything is connected, compliant, and comes out of Redmond Washington, God help us. Doomers actually are attracting the very condition they publically aborre. They want it all to work(flawlessly) and have bought the very sales BS from the very folks they say they hate. Our strength lies in our diversity, the sheer fact most IS NOT connected, running the same apps, and even similarly configurated PC's do not run the same is NOT a problem, it is what is. Centralized anything without forsight to diverse back-ups, is suicide as Ebay is learning the hard way. And here, the PROBLEM is not even technical, it is managerial failure based on buying into one system no doubt driven by massive uncontrollable growth. Computers fail as NORMAL, this IS what is misunderstood. Hardly any of it is even FINISHED is also another item overlooked. IT is a growing, changing phenom, ignore it at cost to your survival.

The older systems have had decades of education. Doomers think mainframes are still around since some yahoo has been asleep. Course OLD means BROKE, never robust, tested, reliable, no never which is the truth. Are there date-issues? certainly. For most the solution is similar---make-it work like has been done for eons. Making it work=compliant in the real world. It is July 1999 and this MIW version is winning hands-down. Easy call if ya understand the issue.

Course little of this matters as one can conclude as NONE of the doomer websites provide a scrap of technical information basically. We have consumer battery embedded chip questions, a HINT as ever there was about the level of understanding. Many of the gurus extrapolate isolate areas of knowledge into a rather scary scenarios easilly bought by those still wondering what an IP is, or how do they empty their Recycling Bins, assuming they have actually reached a point where they are able to delete something, most are not even at this point. Kind of the reason for them Bins in the first place.

Y2k is NOT a common_MODE_failure as IT simply does not apply due to the fact IT is no where's near as common-connected-or as critical as is believed. Just because a PC is on every desk in the world, does not then mean we are about to go back to the dark ages. This IS the belief in large measue, and stop laughing.

For Y2k to be a common_CAUSE_failure one would have to show similar, we have none. In isolated cases, similar miscalculations, date-based or otherwise could have happened which maybe traced to a common_cause, I know of none which went beyond the trade-journals. We have virus issues far more visible and widespread and it didn't all implode, in fact little happened as a result which came close to a meltdown. Y2k is a mental issue of techno-ignorance, millennium religious hysteria, techno backlash, NWO mania, and a general feeling by most that the world is changing just a tad too fast and we ALL need a break(information overload).

If one wants systems with suspect diversity to worry about, one has only to look at the power-industry and the monetary system. One where a squirrel and another where a man named Greenspan can wreck more havoc than any Y2k bug could ever hope to. Of course if this was the real issue, we would have more than a single Y2k website dealing with the power-industry(euy2k.com) and the monetary issue(yardeni.com)now wouldn't we? Y2k is not about what it preports to be about.

Y2k has become the COMMON_CATCH-ALL_FAILURE for many hoping we can return to the good-old days. Course without Polio, Hitler, Nukes, and most everyone not white-male having second-class citizenship. Ironic the very thing which is killing the Y2k MYTH is exactly what most red-blooded Americans say they want, but only can muster lip-service, or worse, ignorantly rush headlong into the very thing they say they hate. They become what they hate, LAW, and guess what? you do not even have the option of ignoring the law, another MYTH you have bought!

Y2k will go down in history as yet another example of what it took to transition from one paradigm into another. More damage has been done due to ignorance and the NOISE than will ever come from some date-overflow in the future. We have had a massive communications failure, human kind.

Doc Paulie

-- a (a@a.a), August 09, 1999

Answers

Oh I prefer his explanation here --

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 23986100&P=Yes&TL=923880103

Tuesday, 13-Apr-1999 02:48:20

208.211.54.153 writes:

Just having a little fun with the fella is all. Probably not the answer you are looking for but I would like to keep you guessing. Never forget the purpose here is digging thru the NOISE of Y2k. Some will not understand this and will assume I am nuts or some stupid polly. Fine, I have been where they are at, making that judgement. 15 months, 1400+ hours and going from 10 to 2 on the doom scale was not by sliding into some denial, I can assure you. Just like my stupid handle(not a doctor, and not a polly in the sense most define), my intent is to stimulate others in using their noodles. I am a big believer YOU have all the answers you need if ya just know how to access them. Biggest obstacle is most are sleepwalking thru life. Hypnotized by all manner of distraction-Y2k is a big distractor. We also have the Millennium Contagion to deal with, this is no joke and very real. Enough on that for now.

I will also tell you we have present some folks here which are the experts on this Y2k issue. Much of the heat present is because most of us have had it "up to here" with the crapola. When I tell you most are out-of-date, trust me. In addition, we have many profiteers who are not only out-of-date, but have no clue what in the hell they are talking about. North is a given, but understand guys like Yourdon fall in that basket as well, most assume otherwise. This is easy to prove as NONE of their "predictions" ever materialize, not even at all in most cases. This is why I pound this baby, no better indicator of a lack of understanding than failed predictions I figure.

How have my predictions done? others here? Know one thing, this issue has very little to do with the actual Y2k problem at all. Even for those directly involved in the dirty work, Y2k is a business and management issue. Technically Y2k is straightforward and boring to the extreme in most cases. Not easy, not cheap, large and very important. But it is being handled. Has been for years. Hope this helps a tad.

Doc Paulie

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), August 09, 1999.

I thought Doc was supposed to be a formidable polly. Doomers believe computers are evil? Sheesh.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 09, 1999.

Oh yes, its that evil MEME stuff that is causing all of this. EVEN in Dick Mills, who many people consider a polly! Gawd, is there no end to the MEME MENACE, and its path of destruction....

And then there are those of us who are prisoners of our evil WET MEMES, which come for us in our sleep, seducing us with their impure thoughts, pulsating images, and oozing surges. The horror, the horror....

Oh, to be a clean-memed polly, living the right kind of life, free from the sin of Y2K....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 09, 1999.

Whereas, Ed and others, who made NON-TRIGGER DATE predictions, are having these predictions show right on. See some of Sysman's posts for the relevant details.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 10, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

At the end of Doc Paulie's long incoherant rambling he says: We have had a massive communications failure, human kind.

After genuinely trying to understand any of it, I conclude that was a royal we. Talk about NOISE...

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 10, 1999.

Looks like typical Polly drivel, completely lacking in any substance. Ho hum.

-- (its@coming.soon), August 10, 1999.

First time I read this Paulie guy on this forum since I got back. What are his credentials?

"Some will not understand this and will assume I am nuts or some stupid polly."

After reading his debunk on Dick Mills' paper, I am certain he is stupid.

Exactly as "it's" said, it's only drivel with no substance. He's only repeating standard polly replies without even giving one example of where Dick went wrong with an explanation. He simply uses sweeping generalization and bully tatics such as " Course OLD means BROKE, never robust, tested, reliable, no never which is the truth." "Course little of this matters as one can conclude as NONE of the doomer websites provide a scrap of technical information basically."

"More damage has been done due to ignorance and the NOISE than will ever come from some date-overflow in the future."

That is the only intelligent thing he's said. His own noise is of the garbled and screaching annoying kind, but he seems very harmless.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 10, 1999.

. His own noise is of the garbled and screaching annoying kind, but he seems very harmless.

On the contrary, no Polly is "harmless." Continuing the denial that Y2K is a significant problem will cause fewer people to prepare and more people to die. This is far from "harmless."

-- (its@coming.soon), August 10, 1999.

It's@coming, you can't save the entire planet. I gave up a long time ago trying to persuade everyone and anyone. Newcomers on this forum will either get it or they won't. Those who will are the smarter ones who will do some research and able to sift out the drivel. Paulie in that sense is harmless since his drivel is easy to sift right out.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 10, 1999.