(Printable) Synopsis of Y2K Items and Issuesgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Synopsis of Y2K Items and Issues
(1) Fewer than half of the largest U.S. companies are expected to complete Y2K remediation on critical systems prior to 1/1/00.
(2) The U.S. federal government has missed three deadlines for compliance.
(3) Corporate budgets have increased up to five-fold for Y2K remediations after underestimating the scope of the problem.
(4) 60% of British corporations are stockpiling goods and raw materials.
(5) Edward Yardeni, chief economist at the investment bank Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, estimates a 70 percent probability that Y2K will cause a global recession or an energy crisis because of weak links in the supply chain.
(6) Two of the countrys largest PR agencies have set up "spin-doctoring teams" to assist companies in "explaining away" Y2K issues.
(7) Y2K compliance claims are often bogus. Vendor "lying rates" have been discovered to be as high as 50%.
(8) An independent bank ratings company has found evidence contradictory to status reports of federal bank regulators.
(9) The Pentagon has acknowledged falsifying Y2K readiness reports.
(10) The electric industry group, NERC, has stated that utilities are 99% ready. However, their report indicates that the actual figure is only 70%.
(11) NERC has refused to reveal non-compliant power companies to the Dept. of Energy, according to a verified internal memorandum.
(12) The Chief Operating Officer of a company which has remediated 100 electric utilities stated, ``the whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks.''
(13) The U.S. House has required that agencies prepare Y2K contingency plans that assume systems failures.
(14) The Year 2000 Program Manager for Washington D.C. has prepared contingency plans for one to two weeks without power, which she cites as the expected national average.
(15) Washington D.C. plans a "massive mobilization" of emergency personnel, and will open 21 warming shelters in local schools on New Year's Eve.
(16) The Red Cross is organizing shelters in every community to provide "mass care services" in the event of Y2K disruptions of power, water, sewer, heat, and delivery of food.
(17) The San Diego Police Dept. has advised each officer to purchase an RV and stock it with food and water in preparation for service disruptions and civil unrest.
(18) Special U.S. Army forces are engaged in a secret operation to protect food distribution centers in the event of a Y2K emergency.
(19) The British government has engaged secret plans for elite special forces, comparable to U.S. Navy Seals, to deal with outbreaks of civil disorder and collapse of utilities due to Y2K problems, and to protect government sites, banks, airports and power stations.
(20) The U.S. Marines recently held a training session in which the proposed scenario was an angry mob of federal workers who had not received paychecks due to Y2K computer problems, and were storming government buildings.
(21) A new disaster law in Oregon provides for emergency powers of the City Manager, including confiscation of equipment, vehicles and other property.
(22) During a Y2K test in Los Angeles, a treatment plant dumped 3 million gallons of raw sewage into a city park.
(23) Austin, TX has ordered 25 generators to protect city operations, sewage and water plants from Y2K power outages.
(24) FEMA has purchased 1,000 generators which shall be distributed to states to be used in the event of Y2K power outages.
(25) A Milwaukee power company has advised customers to consider the purchase of an electric generator.
(26) Senator Bennett, Chairman of the Senate Y2K Committee, has stated that he will stock over two weeks' worth of food and water in preparation for Y2K.
(27) Rep. George Grindley, Chairman of the Georgia Y2K Taskforce, has indicated that he will stock over three months' worth of food and water in preparation for Y2K.
___________________________________________________
References
(1) Fewer Than Half of Major Firms Anticipate Full Year 2000 Compliance in Critical Systems by Year's End
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 10, 1999
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DZz(2) Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Michael Hyatt, July 28, 1999
http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/actions.htm(3) Y2K Budgets Jump As Much As Five-Fold After Underestimating Task of Preparing for Y2K
http://www.weissratings.com/y2k_72699.htm(4) Firms Stockpile to Beat Y2K Bug, The Sunday Times, June 13, 1999
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001ESb(5) Y2K Still Likely to Spark Recession: Forecaster
Jim Wolf, Aug. 10, 1999 (Reuters)
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DfX(6) Public Relations Experts Preparing Y2K Spin-Doctoring
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019Q0(7) User Beware -- Y2K Compliance Claims Could Be Bogus
Richard Burnett , The Orlando Sentinel, July 1, 1999
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/y2k/s070199_y2k01_19.htm(8) 17% OF U.S. Banks Receive "Below Average" Y2K Grades; 5% Rated "Low," Findings Contradict Regulators Tallies
and
Over 30% of Banks Admit Missing Y2K Deadline, Contradicting Government Assurances
http://www.weissratings.com/inthenew.htm(9) Pentagon Exaggerated Y2K Readiness, USA Today, Jan. 26, 1999
http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctd907.htm(10) Cover-up of Laggards Continues: Is electric industry's report intentionally confusing?
David Franke, World Net Daily, Aug. 4, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_franke_news/19990804_xndfr_coverup_la.shtml(11) FEMA Left in the Dark: Power companies cover up Y2K troubles
David M. Bresnahan, World Net Daily, Aug. 3, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990803_xex_fema_left_da.shtml(12) Utilities Say They're Y2K Ready, Though Blackouts Expected
Bloomberg, June 30, 1999
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0011fE(13) Freedom Works: Home Page of the Office of the House Majority Leader
http://freedom.house.gov/y2k/grades/how.asp(14) Official & complete 60 MINUTES Transcript, May 23, 1999
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000rqn(15) D.C. Plans To Mobilize Workers For Y2K Backup; City Still Far Behind in Fixing Computers
ERIC LIPTON, WASHINGTON POST STAFF WRITER, Monday, June 28, 1999 ; Page A01
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DuP(16) Red Cross Disaster Planning: Preparations include shelters in communities country-wide
David M. Bresnahan, World Net Daily, Aug. 5, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990805_xex_red_cross_di.shtml(17) San Diego cops' Special Preparations: Officers told to get ready for family survival, increase in crime
David M. Bresnahan, World Net Daily, July 12, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990712_xex_san_diego_co.shtml(18) Army Prepares For Y2K Food Crisis, Undercover Special Forces operatives in distribution center
David M. Bresnahan, World Net Daily, May 24, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990524_xex_army_prepare.shtml(19) Soldiers Pull Out of Kosovo to Deal With Millennium Bug Chaos
Hugh McManners, Defence Correspondent, The Sunday Times, July 18, 1999
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/99/07/18/stinwenws01039.html?999(20) Marines Train in Preparation for Workers Potential Y2K Anger
STEVE VOGEL, WASHINGTON POST, March 18, 1999 ; Page J06
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DwK(21) City Manager Gets Added Power if Disaster Occurs
SCOTT MABEN, The Register-Guard, August 10, 1999
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001DqD(22) Fears of Sewage Spill Delay Y2K Test at Plant
Los Angeles Times, By Patrick McGreevy and Karima A. Haynes, June 19, 1999
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ycn(23) Cities Snapping Up Generators For Y2K, Austin-American Statesman, July 26, 1999
http://austin360.com/news/1metro/1999/07/26generators.html(24) FEMA Readies For The Bug: What the agency is doing to prepare for Y2K
David M. Bresnahan, World Net Daily, Aug. 5, 1999
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990805_xex_fema_readies.shtml(25) The Alliant Situation: Yet More Bizarre, E.L. Core, December 1, 1998
http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Industry/Utilities/lcore9847.htm(26) Y2K Forecasts, CBN Newsstand, David Snyder, July 20, 1999
http://www.cbn.org/newsstand/stories/990720.asp(27) Georgia Representative Says Federal Government is Deliberately Misrepresenting Y2K Status of Power Grid
http://www.JustInCaseY2K.com/grindley.htm
-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999
God, don't ya HATE it when someone goes and does the reseasrch for ya AND looks like they done it before????I HATE it when someone makes it look that easy!!
Thanks, ma'am.
Chuck
-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 13, 1999.
Thank you, Mabel! This is exactly what I've been hoping to find to supplement the letter I'll be giving my family members at our reunion next weekend. Excellent job.
-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.
mabelWow! Lots of work! You are making the other research folk on the forum look bad. (well me anyway) This is worth a bookmark.
Thanks alot.
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 13, 1999.
Mabel,We're not worthy! Thank you so much for taking the time to put this together and provide it for us all.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 13, 1999.
Mabel,Outstanding contribution to this forum. Please... keep on keeping on!
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 13, 1999.
[0] I recognize that mabel is citing points from a certain perspective here, and that her target audience will fill in the context as appropriate. But for those who may not share mabel's rather narrow convictions, there is a bit more to reality than what she chooses to present.(1) Fewer than half of the largest U.S. companies are expected to complete Y2K remediation on critical systems prior to 1/1/00.
[1A] Ed Yourdon's survey says 93% of US companies expect to reach 99% complete, realistically recognizing that 100% will never be possible. To emphasize: Ed Yourdon himself is NOT happy with the way Cap Gemini is presenting their data. See #10 below for another example of using statistics to make the same numbers tell very different stories.
(2) The U.S. federal government has missed three deadlines for compliance.
[2A] The federal government consists of many organizations, some of which (nominally) met each deadlines and some of which did not. It seems safe to bet that ALL agencies will miss the deadline that really counts, to some degree. Impact unguessable.
(3) Corporate budgets have increased up to five-fold for Y2K remediations after underestimating the scope of the problem.
[3A] This is according to Weiss, who has already backtracked and apologized for a few of them. In any case, the phrase "corporate budgets" is so vague as to be meaningless. Yes, SOME corporate budgets increased. Some went down. Some remained nominally constant, but only a small fraction of the budget was actually spent. Only a tiny, tiny minority (like one or two) went up by a factor of five, and these are the ONLY ones mentioned. The other several million are ignored, creating the impression that the RARE event is NORMAL. Now, does anyone want the truth? If so, see number 6 below -- the truth would be spin! Depicting one-in-a-million as TYPICAL isn't spin, of course. Spin is what *they* do, not what *we* do, right?
(4) 60% of British corporations are stockpiling goods and raw materials.
[4A] Otherwise known as "inventory". Some corporations are planning to keep unusually high inventories as a precaution, an excellent contingency plan. But don't confuse a contingency with a certainty!
(5) Edward Yardeni, chief economist at the investment bank Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, estimates a 70 percent probability that Y2K will cause a global recession or an energy crisis because of weak links in the supply chain.
[5A] And several dozen other major economists have looked at y2k and seen nothing much. The "story" here isn't Yardeni's take, the story is that Yardeni is out on this limb all by his lonesome. But mabel somehow ignores this. Well, she ignored the vast majority who remediated within their budget, why not also ignore the vast majority of economists who understand what this means?
(6) Two of the countrys largest PR agencies have set up "spin- doctoring teams" to assist companies in "explaining away" Y2K issues.
[6A] HAW HAW HAW!!! A classic case of: If they say nothing, they're hosed. If they admit problems, they're hosed. If they claim compliance, they're lying and hosed. If they hire experts at communicating to the public, they're REALLY lying and hosed. And if they really ARE compliant, they cannot possibly say so. Here's "proof"!
(7) Y2K compliance claims are often bogus. Vendor "lying rates" have been discovered to be as high as 50%.
[7A] Straw man, dammit. What is really meant by a "vendor lie" here? When bugs showed up that the vendor wasn't aware of? When optimistic ship dates slipped? Granted, software vendors have been struggling, not always very successfully. Some of them also underestimated the scope of the task. Some of them have made hopeful announcements (they have marketing departments too) prematurely. But this doesn't mean they're bogus and lying. This terminology is badly slanted.
(8) An independent bank ratings company has found evidence contradictory to status reports of federal bank regulators.
[8A] Weiss again. NOTE that Weiss doesn't actually go in and examine any code or conduct any tests. Weiss performs surveys, asking their own questions and interpreting the answers as they see fit. In fact, Weiss has been burned for 'rating' banks as poor on the basis of non- response to their survey! Several banks have hauled Weiss out on the carpet and shoved his nose into their status after Weiss gave them a 'poor' rating WITHOUT ANY DATA!
Yes, federal regulators aren't necessarily any more reliable than Weiss. But the clear implication mabel is making is that Weiss (being independent) is on the side of the angels while the FDIC is in league with Satan is absurd. If anything, Weiss has even less access to the REAL status than the federal regulators.
(9) The Pentagon has acknowledged falsifying Y2K readiness reports.
[9A] Yes, they have. Several times, I think. This seems to be inherent in the military reporting system -- you WILL report good news, soldier. Now, what's the news?
(10) The electric industry group, NERC, has stated that utilities are 99% ready. However, their report indicates that the actual figure is only 70%.
[10A] I will assume that mabel is simply confused here (possibly by Gary North). The 99% refers to the readiness of the industry. The 70% refers to utilities reporting 100% completion. These are not the same thing at all. Let's say (as an illustration) that EVERY utility had ONE, SINGLE and trivial y2k bug remaining. In that case, the industry would be 99.99% compliant, and yet the percentage of utilities that were 100% compliant would be ZERO!
This is NOT a case of NERC making a false claim for public consumption and hiding the 'real' facts deep in the report. Instead, this is a case of mabel comparing apples and oranges and NOT telling us that's what she's doing. Mabel, if you did this deliberately, be ashamed! If you just fell for someone else's deliberate distortion without checking what the numbers actually meant, you are guilty of sloppy reporting.
(11) NERC has refused to reveal non-compliant power companies to the Dept. of Energy, according to a verified internal memorandum.
[11A] What? Is this that Bresnahan nonsense about the 'secret' memo that's been sitting on the NERC website for months? Mabel, why don't you GO to the NERC website. There, you will find a list of all the noncompliant power companies, and you'll find out WHY each one is noncompliant. So can DOE! There haven't been any secrets. I fear you've fallen for another doomer lie, mabel.
(12) The Chief Operating Officer of a company which has remediated 100 electric utilities stated, ``the whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks.''
[12A] Entirely possible. But notice that we're talking about Tava/Beck here. They make their living fixing problems, and go broke if there are no problems. Amazingly enough, they predict problems! They're selling a y2k service, mabel. What do you expect them to say, that nobody needs their service? Doh! If I were Andy, I would assume that Tava/Beck *introduced* these problems so as to generate more business after rollover.
(13) The U.S. House has required that agencies prepare Y2K contingency plans that assume systems failures.
[13A] An excellent idea. Indeed, such plans should ALWAYS have existed, and been tested periodically just in case. It's disturbing that such plans didn't exist before -- the possibility of a major power failure, or a lightning strike to the IT center, or even terrorism, has always been there. WHY weren't these plans already in place?
But please note that having such plans and needing to *use* them continue to be two completely different things. Carrying fire insurance *still* is no guarantee your house will burn down.
(14) The Year 2000 Program Manager for Washington D.C. has prepared contingency plans for one to two weeks without power, which she cites as the expected national average.
[14A] Eh? Expected by whom? Not even Gary North can make this case any longer (though he doesn't admit that, he just kind of quit trying once it became obvious). But a contingency plan for a 2-week power outage is a good idea, and should be in place everywhere.
(15) Washington D.C. plans a "massive mobilization" of emergency personnel, and will open 21 warming shelters in local schools on New Year's Eve.
[15A] Why are these different points? Many organizations are making contingency plans. Contingency planning is a good thing. Yet mabel uses points 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 to detail various elements of various contingency plans. Mabel, one might be tempted to think you really *can't* tell a contingency from a certainty! I'm treating these as all part of the same observation -- that contingency plans are being made. Which I applaud.
I believe plans like these have always been needed and should always have been in place. But it sounds like mabel believes that such plans were never needed, and are only being implemented now because y2k will require their use (as opposed to their existence).
Going back to the fire insurance analogy, this is like if the mortgage company decided that all of their customers needed fire insurance (which hadn't been required in the past). Sadly, I fear all too many buyers would have skipped this insurance. The result of this policy change would be a WHOLE LOT of fire insurance policies being sold, which *should* have been in place all along if people weren't so cheap and lazy.
Now mabel comes along and sees all these fire insurance policies being sold, all at once, and concludes that there is *sure* to be a very big fire. But such a fire really isn't much more likely than it ever was, mabel is only seeing an artifact of a policy change. (Except if I were Andy, I'd conclude that the mortgage company had also secretly hired an arsonist and sold the insurance stocks short).
(22) During a Y2K test in Los Angeles, a treatment plant dumped 3 million gallons of raw sewage into a city park.
[22A] And subsequent investigation showed that this was NOT caused by a y2k bug, and would NOT have happened at rollover. Instead, it could have happened any time since the code was first written, and the TEST just happened to create the right conditions for the failure.
This point raises several important issues. First, the issue of whether some unrelated bug should be regarded as a y2k failure. Second, whether such failures should be considered examples of the type of thing that might go wrong, even if this one wouldn't have. Third, how should we treat second-order y2k problems (problems not caused by date mishandling itself, but arising from bungled tests, bungled or hurried upgrades, slapping remediated code into production without enough testing, etc.) Fourth, how should we regard *real* y2k failures during tests -- isn't that what tests are supposed to be for? So are test failures good (we found the problem ahead of time) or bad (we found problems)?
I'm not going to begin to try to address these large issues here. But I don't consider that sewage spill properly to be part of a synopsis of y2k items and issues.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 13, 1999.
Like Twain said, "There's three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and then there's statistics."We are absolutely up to our cake-holes in data that can be spun first this way, then that, then back again.
Just read the data, draw your own conclusions and do your best to ignore what anyone on either side of the debate says you should conclude.
But do be prepared to be responsible for the implications and ramifications of your conclusions...
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 13, 1999.
Dear Flint,You are uncommonly articulate and persuasive...
Actually, you have said exactly what my logical husband did: that the choice of items seemed one-sided and pessimistic. You both advise, don't confuse a contingency with a certainty. Believe it or not, Im actually agnostic about the probabilities.
The fire insurance analogy is appropriate: low probability, high stakes.
Therefore, the burden of proof for preparation should be preponderance of the evidence. NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. You can argue each point ad infinitum, and yet, with all of the uncertainty, the evidence reaches a sufficient level to justify individual contingency plans.
Therefore, if all of these wise corporations and agencies are going to have contingency plans, my grandma should, too.
The goal of this list is not to convince anyone of a certainty. My only hidden agenda is to convince my in-laws to buy a kerosene heater and bottled water.
-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.
Mabel:Yes, quite excellent! Ask almost anyone to draw an iceburg, and they'll draw the visible tip. We've made a cliche out of that tip, but that's still what people will draw.
The preponderance of the evidence says, we've got problems likely enough to be worth preparing for. Nowhere near beyond any reasonable doubt -- my contention is that the fire insurance model holds. Few of us will need our preparations at all. But some of us are sure to need them -- the fire victims.
My contention was that you weren't presenting a synopsis, but rather a worst case, often artificially so.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 13, 1999.
Mabel,Your reply to Flint is uncommonly forgiving and civil.
Flint's analysis mostly demonstrates that he is uncommonly verbose and insulting.
Flint posted: "For those who may not share mabel's rather narrow convictions...I will assume that mabel is simply confused here (possibly by Gary North)...mabel comparing apples and oranges and NOT telling us that's what she's doing. Mabel, if you did this deliberately, be ashamed!...I fear you've fallen for another doomer lie, mabel...Mabel, one might be tempted to think you really *can't* tell a contingency from a certainty!...mabel believes that such plans were never needed...Now mabel comes along and sees all these fire insurance policies being sold, all at once, and concludes that there is *sure* to be a very big fire..."
And, all of this Flint was able to divine from your posting of articles and links with not one word of personal commentary!
Not satisfied merely to bully you, Flint goes on to hurl sarcastic attacks at Andy, whose name appears nowhere on this thread!
"Except if I were Andy, I'd conclude that the mortgage company had also secretly hired an arsonist and sold the insurance stocks short)...Doh! If I were Andy, I would assume that Tava/Beck *introduced* these problems..."
Flint, I have noticed your veneer of civility is disintegrating recently, but, in my opinion, you have surpassed yourself here in a way that I'm sorry to see. There are some points in your analysis that are worth discussing. Unfortunately, they are so buried in unneccessary ugliness it is hard to distinguish them.
Best of luck, Mabel, in persuading your in-laws to buy a kerosene heater and bottled water.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 13, 1999.
RUOK:You make some good points, and I'll try to be more patient and careful in the future. I don't believe (rightly or wrongly) that if I were leveling the same sort of critique at CPR or Doc Paulie, you'd have even noticed what (I admit) were low blows.
You are, however, quite incorrect in saying that mabel was only giving links without comment. Almost all the actual words were comments, and you'd see this if you looked at them. Like if I were to 'summarize' your post here by saying 'RUOK soils himself again' and providing the link to your post. That's editorial comment.
Highly selective material is also editorial comment, whether you choose to recognize this or not. Which is the point I was mostly making, albeit not as politely as I should have.
As for Andy, consider that part of an inside joke. Andy and I take every possible opportunity to recognize one another's talents.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 13, 1999.
Flint,I, for one, would appreciate any effort you care to make to be more patient and careful. But, following up your comment to that effect by saying that you don't believe I would notice the same sort of low blows leveled at someone else is more of this same "mind reading" you indulged with Mabel. It is presumptuous, at best.
Actually, I did read Mabel's posts, and would ask if you read them as well? Perhaps, you might have noticed that the words posted are NOT Mabel's commentary or editorializing, but the *actual headlines* of the aritcles she posted?
Beyond these observations, I will take a pass on a discussion of the definition of the words "editorial comment", and take you at your word that Andy will consider your remarks about him to be jokes meant to recognize his talents. I'd rather have this thread get back on track.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 13, 1999.
Flint Commented;"[13A] An excellent idea. Indeed, such plans should ALWAYS have existed, and been tested periodically just in case. It's disturbing that such plans didn't exist before -- the possibility of a major power failure, or a lightning strike to the IT center, or even terrorism, has always been there. WHY weren't these plans already in place?
But please note that having such plans and needing to *use* them continue to be two completely different things. Carrying fire insurance * still* is no guarantee your house will burn down."
Flint
I am glad you are going to reconsider personal attacks and stick to the information. But the above statement is what the forum is here for in the first place. And that is to try and understand the risks and the means to prepare. While your "balance" is nice to see at times your opinions count as much as most of the posters. Being able to articulate in a clear manner doesn't always make you right either.
What I don't understand is the lack of an (intelligent) forum so you and the other optimist can post your "balanced" view. I have offered several optimists to set up a forum to help express your views yet I have seen no takers.
So rather than devoting time to lowering mabel, try thinking about assembling all that wisdom you and others carry in a thoughtful manner so we can see what you are really trying to get across.
Then we can go ahead and challange you.
But how are people going to decide if they are at risk if there is no problem. It is just fine for government and business to plan for failure but for the common folk it is three days of canned food. Bullshit.
What kind of fear did it take for you to prepare for 8 months of failure Flint?
I would really like to know. (I don't expect and answer, just let folks come to grips with their own fears without attack)
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 13, 1999.
RUOK:I'd also like to see this thread get back on track. But what track is that? I went to some effort to show that the track mabel sent it down was far from a balanced description or synopsis of y2k, and she agreed.
As for mabel quoting the headlines, this is not often the case. One example, I looked long and hard for any real headline talking about "spin-doctoring teams" "explaining away" y2k. Nope, not what the article said -- the article spoke in terms of communicating genuine success to a skeptical public. I'm sure you can easily understand this problem -- just read this forum for a day or two. Many here could not possibly learn of genuine success, since their "standards of evidence" are such as to prohibit any such education.
Yes, I admit I was presumptuous in supposing you wouldn't yelp if I aimed similar low blows at optimistic targets. My presumption was based on my failure to notice your taking exception to ANY of the many many low-blow attacks against the "polly/trolls" (as if they're the same thing!) on any of countless threads. You, RUOK, have remained resolutely SILENT in the face of these constant attacks. Why am I not permitted to presume you would maintain this same silence if I should join that crowd? But if you can point me to a single exception, where you have even hinted at chiding a doomer for blasting a "polly/troll", then I will be glad to apologize. Failing that, you might think about consulting a mirror?
Anyway, back on track, mabel has done an admirable bit of scholarship, blemished only by a clear, strong bias. Too many of her sources are other threads full of rants, or Bresnahan articles indirectly pimping Mike Adams products. Nor does mabel make any effort to balance any of the views presented, despite ample (and in cases overwhelming) counterbalancing material. I have seen "synopses" of ballgames that emphasize every good thing the home team did, while failing to even mention that the home team lost the game. Mabel has created just such a synopsis.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 13, 1999.
Flint,My original title was to be "Pessimistic Synopsis." Yes, biased.
-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.
OK, Flint...out of consideration to the author or what was originally an excellent thread, this is my last personal response. Fair enough?You could not find the headline about Y2K Spin Doctoring? It is in Mabel's footnotes. Perhaps this will help you - see #6, follow the link from that thread to the linked Reuter's article posted on Yahoo news, Wednesday July 28 headline: Public Relations Experts Preparing Y2K Spin-Doctoring. Yahoo news
As to whether I "yelp" when I see personal attacks on polly trolls...no, I do not. Personally, I do not think in terms of polly/troll, as I do NOT consider them the same thing, though you apparently have divined that I do. Actually, some objections I've made would obviously surprise you, judging by your continued mistatements about me. The first instance that comes to mind is an objection I made to a personal attack on Anita Spooner, which I followed up by e-mail to the sysop, which resulted in the attack being deleted. That is one of several instances I could cite for you, but it will have to suffice.
As for your question about what the track of this thread is, I believe I answered that in my original statement to you.
Apologies to forum participants for my part in taking this thread off topic.
-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 13, 1999.
OK, Flint...out of consideration to the author or what was originally an excellent thread, this is my last personal response. Fair enough?[Fair enough. Your efforts are heard, believe me.]
You could not find the headline about Y2K Spin Doctoring? It is in Mabel's footnotes. Perhaps this will help you - see #6, follow the link from that thread to the linked Reuter's article posted on Yahoo news, Wednesday July 28 headline: Public Relations Experts Preparing Y2K Spin-Doctoring. Yahoo news
[Thanks -- I read the article, and skipped the headline! And you're right, most of mabel's "editorial content" isn't in the words she posted (I was wrong about that) but rather in her process of snipping off the very far tip of the curve and presenting it as a "synopsis". This isn't easy to express. Often the cited material isn't primary source material at all. LOOK at all the Bresnahan citations! And Bresnahan is known to be a genuine shill for the Adams product family.]
As to whether I "yelp" when I see personal attacks on polly trolls...no, I do not.
[Yes, I know. That's why I presumed that if I were to do the same thing, you'd remain silent. So you are admitting it wasn't much of a presumption on my part?]
Personally, I do not think in terms of polly/troll, as I do NOT consider them the same thing, though you apparently have divined that I do.
[I may have expressed myself poorly. I didn't mean to imply that you equated them, I only tried to say that when others equated them, you made no effort to correct them. Even though you NOW say you disagree with those people, you remained silent nonetheless by your own admission. You speak up readily enough when you disagree with ME, yet you say nothing when you disagree with them? How could I know that you disagree with them if you never say so?]
Actually, some objections I've made would obviously surprise you, judging by your continued mistatements about me.
[Not misstatements, as I've explained. I have (I admit) made guesses consistent with available evidence.]
The first instance that comes to mind is an objection I made to a personal attack on Anita Spooner, which I followed up by e-mail to the sysop, which resulted in the attack being deleted. That is one of several instances I could cite for you, but it will have to suffice.
[It's sufficient. Sometimes I can't follow closely enough to catch things before they are deleted, and never knew they existed. But Anita Spooner has always been careful to be clear and thoughtful. I've never seen a justified attack against her yet.]
As for your question about what the track of this thread is, I believe I answered that in my original statement to you.
[OK. I really will try to tone it down a bit (although right now it seems that even civility is only required on one side of this issue, and even discouraged on the other!). And oh yes, I'm now finishing up my 11th smokeless day! The worst current problems are (1) It feels like someone is sticking needles in all my joints; and (2) my patience is still very limited. Maybe next week things will be better?]
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 13, 1999.
Thanks for this excellent and accessible statement of the current situation, and for the on-going discussion which is helping refine and clarify the issues.
-- robert waldrop (rmwj@soonernet.com), August 13, 1999.
Thanks, Mabel! (You GO, girl!!) :-)
-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 13, 1999.
Flint shaves shavings so thin that he almost always ends up on a far away limb of the common sense tree. Ruminating his own intellectual mis-mash is his favorite pastime. Obviously Flint has a hidden agenda, and although he is fully prepared himself, he evidently doesn't care about other people preparing. What's his purpose on this forum??
-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 14, 1999.
AboutThis forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people.
Does this still describe Flint?
-- (a@gentle.reminder), August 14, 1999.
Flint --You'll tell us, when it's all over -- won't you?
This forum could be like one of those classic English murder mysteries, the ones where the characters are kept together in the old house and each is a suspect for awhile, but the real identity of the murderer (paid troll) is not known until the final pages.
Some people (Flint, Decker) are probably just irascible detail- mongers, with an intellectual exhibitionist obsession (Do these guys have JOBS? Families, I imagine, no. They seem to be on around the clock.)
They make us work for our daily doomer bread and butter. Provoking a more honest argument, but also we let them waste a lot of our time and energy. Wouldn't it be ironic if they were not fully forthcoming in their presence here? Unlikely, but then, so is TEOTWAWKI.
January 1, can we take the masks off? Any surprises?
-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), August 15, 1999.