I only have a few questions left. Unfortunately, they are the same questions I had a year ago. I'm a very slow learner, it appears.

1. If it took SSA nine years and enormous sums of money to reach compliance, barely, why will the IRS be ready so easily? Medicare/Medicaid? After all, I thought their computing situations were at least as complex as SSA? Yet they started in late-1997, so won't they be ready in 2005 or, say, 2002 based on lessons learned from SSA?

2. If the U.S. power, water, sewage and telecom industries will be ready, why do so few even self-report their readiness? Why is there minimal-to-no IV&V? Why are testing results in some industries semi-rigged for PR purposes or unpublicized?

3. How can the DOD and related agencies be ready, given their stated rates of progress as recently as a year ago and the complexity of their software/hardware environment? For extra credit, won't there be chaos and confusion within advanced weapons systems all around the world? What is the likely impact of this on terrorism and the threat of local-regional wars breaking out in 2000?

4. Since oil producers have said it isn't cost-effective to check for embedded systems because doing so would break the production chain itself and they will fix FOF, doesn't this mean that show-stoppers at rollover could drive the price of fuel through the roof for a long period of time?

5. Since entire countries (China, Russia, Italy, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, others) will be almost entirely noncompliant, won't there be major destabilizing impacts upon the international geopolitical situation and serious disruption in the global supply chain for a variety of critical commodities over a period of many months?

6. Since many other countries, including advanced ones, are a year behind the U.S. in compliance efforts, doesn't this suggest they will face the level of breakdown at rollover we would have faced in December, 1998? Since even Koskinen/Bennett say that the level of U.S. breakdown would have been severe at that point, isn't it logical to state that the level of breakdown in these countries will be severe?

7. Wouldn't it have been better to raise a consistent, intense international alarm about Y2K and the need for global preparation, to mitigate all the effects possible above and acclerate remediation?

Whether it is tens of billions or hundreds of billions (what are a few zeros between friends?), it is evident that Y2K (software plus embeddeds) is a real crisis that would cripple entities who don't remediate. Presumably, this is why Bank of Boston, Citibank, GM and others actually spent hundreds of millions of dollars (God bless them).

Alas, that leads to my final question, still unanswered a year later:

8. Given the reality of Y2K impacts for those who don't remediate and questions 1-7 above, how can we possibly escape an intense global recession, minimally, or more likely a global depression (when one adds the unwinding of a historic market bubble to Y2K impacts)?

An inquiring mind wants to know.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

We can't escape it, but I'll try if somebody will just open the door.

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), August 24, 1999.

Excellent questions Big Dog. Your logic is inescapable to those of us who have the ability to follow a chain (or a web) of potential failure scenarios. Unfortunately, it has become apparent to me that not may people have this ability. You can talk, draw flow charts, show govt data, and still they say "No big problem". I think the ability to see the interdependencies requires a clear non-biased point of view. This is very difficult to achieve. Hence, the "y2k disconnect". I am anxiously awaiting the new year so I can see whether its me thats crazy or the rest that are ignorant. Either way I'm ready.

Keep up the good thoughtful posts.

I enjoy reading them.

-- incredulous (cantbelievit@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Hey BigDog, when ko'skinem was here in MN someone asked him your #1 question(I think is was Minnesota Smith). His answer was(Try not to laugh) that since SSA had so long to do it they took there time so the companies/agencies that just started last year are working MUCH faster, so they'll be OK. Really.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog, those aren't the real questions. Americans are tired of such things and want answers to the real issues such as "Will Bill marry Monica later? Did George really use drugs? and "Does Calista have anorexia?" Get with the program. Gotta go. Springer just came on.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

7. Wouldn't it have been better to raise a consistent, intense international alarm about Y2K and the need for global preparation, to mitigate all the effects possible above and acclerate remediation?

If y2k proves to be something beyond a mere hoax, your question #7 will be the issue that will force people to examine governmental systems. It appears that in the complexity of today's world, we need a fourth branch of government which would stand for ethics and disclosure. The media is no longer organically capable of performing that service. The Justice Dept. and others seems politically compromised. If y2k stings, maybe people will demand an open and honest government.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 24, 1999.

BigDog,

Of all the thousands of words, dozens of books, and hundreds of speeches I've heard about Y2K, I don't think I've ever seen such a nice, simple, straightforward, succinct statement of the concerns that we GI's have about Y2K.

Bravo!

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog:

Your questions echo mine. Fortunately (or not, as the chips fall), we will start to have *some* answers within the next 130 days.....

I don't expect we will know the full story in our lifetime. I expect any/all of problems to be spun into terrorism, "operator error", "malicious bugs", viruses, you name it.

I *know*, deep inside, that this is "The big one". The balloon is going to go up, the other shoe is going to drop, the smelly stuff is going to hit the fan...........

As you said, thank goodness for all of those companies which have spent so much on remediating this. And double thanks to the programmers who are working "death march" schedules trying to finish up late projects.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog>>>On target...all eight are keenly perceptive questions...thank you

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), August 24, 1999.

DAMMIT BIG DOG!!

Just when I was about to relax and go fishing again. (I wonder if Sam's is open now?

Good job. Maybe this will take some peoples' minds off the distractions of late (mine included) and help them focus on the issues of the next four months.

I believe the general populace is beginning to become increasingly concerned, but how many have had the opportunity to assess the facts we have learned here over two years? As I said once before, concern without information is a prime breeding ground for panic.

I assume you wouldn't mind if I copied your posting to send to friends lagging in thier preps?

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), August 24, 1999.

Well said BD!

-- a (a@a.a), August 24, 1999.

Excellent set of questions. This is a keeper.

Bob, Ph.D. Nuc. Eng.

-- Bob Watson (janebob99@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Most excellent and I believe these questions should be forwarded to Koskinen via Scott Johnson, Steve Davis, et al.

JK and his master need to understand and acknowledge that their smoke is useless in some circles.

-- lisa (lisa@impressed.always), August 24, 1999.

Lon--Maybe where you live people are getting more concerned. I was visiting with a neighbor yesterday who is recuperating from open heart surgery. Her nephew was there from Omaha visiting and be brought up the subject of Y2K. I sat there and listened to him ramble on how Y2K was nothing to worry about, that everything has been fixed. He is a Sysop with a telecommunications company and swears every business both government and private are ready and compliant. Then, my neighbors who I thought had a handle on Y2K and whom I thought were preparing, sat there and said it was nothing to worry about and nothing was going to happen. Now you know why I gave up 1-1/2 years ago trying to warn people about Y2K and know you know why I have to tell them I can't help them out when it hits.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), August 24, 1999.

Oh my god, I've got to buy more free range turkey sticks.

-- Yuppie (Yuppie@yuppie.com), August 24, 1999.

Thank you for your well thought out approach to Y2K. Every time I start to slow down and be "lulled" into compliancy. Something or someone comes along and "wakes" me up. It was you this time!!!

-- Jude LeBlanc (jude@aginet.com), August 24, 1999.

Well done. Thanks, BD.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 24, 1999.

Yay, Dawg, can't help remembering Al Capp's character, Joe Btspflk (sp.?).

Well put, all the same. But it's something like trying to paddle a canoe up the Chattooga river...

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 24, 1999.

BTW Big Dog--This thread is a keeper. Most all of your threads are thought provoking, they make me think.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), August 24, 1999.

BigDog...I only have one question?

Can you run for president?

Thanks BD.

Mike

===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Let me add my praise, Russ. Excellent, thought-provoking, concise and simple presentation regarding a very complex problem. I, too, will copy and send this--one last time--to some DGIs and DWGIs.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), August 24, 1999.

Hey, guys, stop eulogizing me! I had a rare moment of lucidity, that's all. If only there were trustworthy answers ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

BD, sit, good boy, here's two biscuits....here, have the whole box for this one.

A great post.

"yes teacher, I found the questions were easy. It's the answers I had trouble with". "My fellow Americans, I did not remediate with that woman." "Of course the Navy assumes that a non-response should fall into the failed category, the rest of the government assumes that non-response means they are just fine, making good progress, too busy fixing things to answer." "good question, I will have an answer as soon as my lawyer comes back from vacation."

-- Bill (tinfoil@desert.hat.com), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog (Top Dog now? ;-)) Please accept those praises and thanks gracefully, in your moment of lucidity you've managed to put clearly in words our collective GI percieved y2k disconnects, our source of frustration and axiety. It feels good to see it so well laid out. I too must say thank you :-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 24, 1999.

bardou.

I wish to continue our discussion about public awareness, but will start a new thread devoted to such. I really wish to neither distract nor detract from Big Dog's excellent thread. It seems such clear thinking and eloquent posting is at a premium these days.

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), August 24, 1999.

What, no pollies to refute Big Dog?

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 24, 1999.

Aw, c'mon. And ruin the party?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

Excellent outside the box perceptions, BigDog!

I might add a question...

What about water?

Unlike other government regulated industries, it is the most haphazard, locally controlled and operated, least technology-glitch understood arena, AND, at the same time, one of the TOP life- threatening supply chain impactors we have. Dare I say it, but it surpasses other critical infrastructure utilities in importance! (A close second is electricity). People die in a matter of days without it. The food chain rapidly spirals downward without it: crops wither and animals die. We have plenty of current global lessons on that one.

Any Y2K impact discussion and national awareness questions, needs to include water.

Especially in light of recent DoD statements that... The Defense Department, expected to be the federal agency to respond to potential crises brought about by the Year 2000 problem, this month said it does not plan to react to all requests for help from state and local civilian authorities. See thread... DOD: Face Y2K On Your Own (Federal Computer Week--Other Navy Comments Too)

Besides, according to Presidential Executive Order #13010 on Critical Infrastructure Protection...

Certain national infrastructures are so vital that their incapacity or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the defense or economic security of the United States. These critical infrastructures include telecommunications, electrical power systems, gas and oil storage and transportation, banking and finance, transportation, water supply systems, emergency services (including medical, police, fire, and rescue), and continuity of government. Threats to these critical infrastructures fall into two categories: physical threats to tangible property ("physical threats"), and threats of electronic, radio-frequency, or computer- based attacks on the information or communications components that control critical infrastructures ("cyber threats"). Because many of these critical infrastructures are owned and operated by the private sector, it is essential that the government and private sector work together to develop a strategy for protecting them and assuring their continued operation.

[snip]

See also... Executive Order #12919 National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness

Sec. 201. Delegations of Priorities and Allocations.

(a) ...to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

[snip]

(5) The Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources;

[snip]

PART IX - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 901. Definitions.

(m) "Water resources" means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, which can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements.

[snip--to end]

One could spend hours on the White House web-site researching the Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders trying to determine whos responsible for water-related issues in times of national crisis, but, when push come to shove... its all local according to Koskinen, the Navy, et. al.

Diane

(BTW, BigDog... just happen to have Koskinens e-mail address... if you want it).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

yeah, y2k's not gonna be a problem!

If the yutes (utilities) do go out, FEMA will bring us flashlights and "Johnny Spots" and nice box lunches.

It's gonna be the world's biggest block party ever!

The only problem is if they will not have enuf Turkey sandwiches and too many PBJ ones.

And don't forget 50% of the country will be covered in snow; another y2k treat awaiting us! Just mix snow with grape kool-aid and enjoy a slushy!

-- serio (survive@y2k.com), August 24, 1999.

Hey Big Dawg, if I congratulate you again you feel "bad"

If I don't congratulate you again, I feel real bad.

So I'll just clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, calp, clap, clap, clap. clap, clap, clap, clap, clap , braaavo, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, braaaaaavo, clap, clap, clap, clap, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, BRAAAAAAVO, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, CLAP, BRAAAAVO

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 24, 1999.

I concur-- Exellent post. this list is a keeper....

man, the pollies are so quiet..... shhhhhhhhh

i can picture then sitting there, thinking, then typing, then hitting backspace when they realize their arguments don't hold water....then thinking some more....then saying Forget It, and going on to another thread.....

Big Dog made a Polly Proof list

-- Super (Slfsl@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Hoff -- You're always welcome at the party. My basic concern (I am still rummaging through the two debates and hope to get to debating if I can be coherent) is that Russia, China, etc., ain't got hardly none of them function points spread out over two years. And I'm not too sure about the IRS, Medicare et al, either. There are certain global supply chain chokepoints (oil is another) that must work, or it won't matter how well the Fortune 1000 did their thing (if they did). Government and industry are in a bizarre dance with one another across many different countries and in many different ways. We shall soon see how it all shakes out.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog, what you mentioned above is exactly my position in both "Debate: Round 1" and "Y2K Debate: Round 2" of the Heller-Hoffmeister debates.

But Hoff hasn't yet answered me, not even with the help of Flint (imagine!).

I invite everyone to click on the above two mentioned posts and to verify what I say and to add input, criticism, whatever. Hoff can't handle it alone apparently.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 24, 1999.

Ayn Rand (author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged") said a couple of things, something like "most people are only 'range of the moment' (meaning, no forethought), and that they are "concrete bound" (meaning they have no ability to conceptualize).

BTW, "Atlas Shrugged" is a (long) scenario about what happens when "the motor of the world stops." Two little (missing) digits could (likely) do that.

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 24, 1999.

BD

Good read. (my highest compliment :o)

Diane should add a category for the outstanding commentary such as this one, a shame to see it flow into the digital quagmire that is the archives on this forum. Diamonds in the mud.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 24, 1999.

George, won't waste time with your, umm, "version" of events. If anyone wants, they can review the threads:

Debate Round 1

Debate Round 2

Also, this thread where George continued:

Gartner Group Final Published y2k Report

---------

BigDog, my main problem is your overall generalizations.

For example, you take the SSA, and because they started in 1989, assume it should take everyone that long. Without any statements as to how much work was performed, by how many people, in what time frame, etc. It is about as valid as saying it takes 30 years to complete, since the banks had to start dealing with Y2k problems. Or that because the FAA went from virtual complete non-compliance to full compliance in about 18 months, the same can be applied across the board.

Virtually every bulk electric provider has announced, publicly, they are ready for Y2k. I think the NERC report also reported upwards of 90% of coops and distributors were as well. Testing to date has shown no problems in remediated systems. Telecomms are in the upper portion of the 90% range, as well.

Don't know much about advanced weapon systems. But exactly what do they have to do with addressing terrorist activity? Doesn't seem to me that a cruise missile has much of a deterrent on bombing buildings.

The statement that oil-producers have said it isn't cost-effective to check for embedded systems needs some backup, at least for me. Last I looked, every oil company was addressing embedded systems.

Entire coountries entirely non-compliant? Look, I have no problem with the idea some countries are in bad shape. But come on. You seriously make this statement?

Like the SSA example, your point on others being a year behind the US again is comparing lengths of time, and not actual effort required. And again, no doubt other areas will be in much worse shape than the US. But I don't expect complete cutoffs, especially for any extended period of time.

This thread, though, is very informative. Actually, I was working on a parody, and then was going to compare the number of cries for backup of information I got, to this thread.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

You see Big Dog, Hoff's problem is your "overall generalizations".

Because Hoff can't understand (DWGI?) that Y2K is an "overall generalized (systemic?)" global problem.

Hoff also believes that almost everybody, worldwide now, is currently engaging in live, on-line testing, just about ready to declare compliance. Nothing farther from reality.

The State Dept., the CIA, the World Bank, and the Senate Y2K reports don't mean anything to Hoff. Everything will be O.Kay. Just relax Big Dog !.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 24, 1999.

I vote Big Dog gets his own category - Canis Major.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

Hoff, I said these were questions and that I'm a slow learner. But just to make sure that even my questions aren't spun, you said,

"For example, you take the SSA, and because they started in 1989, assume it should take everyone that long. Without any statements as to how much work was performed, by how many people, in what time frame, etc. It is about as valid as saying it takes 30 years to complete, since the banks had to start dealing with Y2k problems. Or that because the FAA went from virtual complete non-compliance to full compliance in about 18 months, the same can be applied across the board."

Shucks, I gave the IRS and Medicare the benefit of the doubt by cutting back three years, figuring all them folks at SSA were no doubt helping them out. 2002 instead of 2005. Sorry that no one gave me access to all the down-and-dirty data about work scope, etc. I just had to take a "citizen's guess" based on statements I've read from folks who should know about the complexity of their systems. Hope this helps explain my question. Then you said,

"Virtually every bulk electric provider has announced, publicly, they are ready for Y2k. I think the NERC report also reported upwards of 90% of coops and distributors were as well. Testing to date has shown no problems in remediated systems. Telecomms are in the upper portion of the 90% range, as well."

Gosh, Hoff, hope their self-reported progress is real. Could be. Might not be. You know, I was thinking globally, of course, silly me, not just the U.S. And I also mentioned water and sewage. Can you help me there? It's just a question, you see. Then you said,

"Don't know much about advanced weapon systems. But exactly what do they have to do with addressing terrorist activity? Doesn't seem to me that a cruise missile has much of a deterrent on bombing buildings."

Gee, to my addled brain, general confusion about the reliable status of world weapon systems might (I don't say, "will", what do I know?) encourage terrorists and especially state terrorists to take actions against nations they might not otherwise consider. I'll still count my wonderment about the DOD and their counterparts around the world as an open question, okay? Then you said,

"The statement that oil-producers have said it isn't cost-effective to check for embedded systems needs some backup, at least for me. Last I looked, every oil company was addressing embedded systems."

That's a relief, I mean, that they're addressing embedded systems. If it bothers you that I can't produce backup RIGHT NOW about how much fiddling with actual systems is going on, just let that one go. Since the CIA and others have wondered publicly about the real possibility of oil supply breakdowns, I'll cloak my question as theirs, if ya don't mind.

"Entire coountries entirely non-compliant? Look, I have no problem with the idea some countries are in bad shape. But come on. You seriously make this statement?"

Oh. Um. I said, "almost entirely non-compliant." Does the "almost" help? I'll even take "bad shape", Hoff. There, that's better. They're in BAD shape. Agreed. Then you said,

"Like the SSA example, your point on others being a year behind the US again is comparing lengths of time, and not actual effort required. And again, no doubt other areas will be in much worse shape than the US. But I don't expect complete cutoffs, especially for any extended period of time."

Well, there you go again, Hoff. "In much worse shape than the US," you pessimist, you. Guess we don't know whether it will take more RELATIVE effort for them than U.S. or less, do we? Either is possible for a GIVEN country. But I'm glad you don't expect complete cutoffs. I'll tall my wife and kids.

As I said, this and the others were a set of questions -- with five children and others depending on me, the absence of credible answers has led me to prepare against a reasonable worst case of a depression that is aggravated by supply chain breakdowns (ie, the possibility of items important to my family's welfare being unavailable for periods of time). Prepare in a state of cold fury at those who have forced this prudence on me, I might add. Finally, you said,

"This thread, though, is very informative. Actually, I was working on a parody, and then was going to compare the number of cries for backup of information I got, to this thread."

That sounded like a put-down but maybe I'm just overly sensitive these days? Pity that people like me, with more than two decades of IT experience, are so silly about this little ol Y2K thingie.

It's also a pity that the Gartner Group whores of the world (I've been there in that world and I know -- Monica is Mother Teresa compared to them) can't think beyond the intellectually perverted incest relationships they conduct with their clients.

They missed the call on personal computers. Incest. They missed the call on the Net. Incest. And they've missed the call on Y2K. Incest again.

I'm looking forward to the answers to my Y2K questions, Hoff. If mocking turns you on, go for it. In any case, it won't be too long now.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Naw, BigDog, I realize you're playing to your audience.

If your "citizen's guess", based on "two decades of IT experience", is to assume that because the SSA began in 1989, and that in any way applying this length of time as a guide to Y2k efforts, the go for it. My guess is that you know better.

I didn't really expect you to provide any backup, BigDog. Which is why I didn't want to "crash the party", as it were.

Anyway, didn't you know parody is a form of flattery? Maybe parody was the wrong word. I was planning on posting sweeping comments with exactly the opposite view, and seeing how many times enraged people demanded backup for the comments.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

Oh yeah, forgot:

In response to the utilities, you state:

You know, I was thinking globally, of course, silly me, not just the U.S

Must be the glasses (lack of), 'cause it sure looks to me that you said:

2. If the U.S. power, water, sewage and telecom industries will be ready, why do so few even self-report their readiness? Why is there minimal-to-no IV&V? Why are testing results in some industries semi-rigged for PR purposes or unpublicized?

Sorry, I'll stop. The group congratulations can now resume.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

I'm not sure what you mean by self-congratulations, Hoff? Is it the outrage I feel that my questions are as pertinent today as a year ago? And the fact that these questions so obviously resonate with others than just myself?

If you were (are? maybe I am misjudging you) a man of integrity, you would have acknowledged the legitimacy of the questions, whether or not you thought they had ready answers.

Y2K isn't some sort of game, Hoff, where people score intellectual points. Nor is it, for that matter, a debate though debate has its place.

The lives of my parents' in the San Diego area depends on many, many organizations and people having been RIGOROUSLY honest when they don't have the track record for it over the past two years. The lives of my wife and children depend on this as well.

I have a right to credible answers to my questions from my government and from many other institutions that claim to have my interests in view and I haven't received them. So far am I from wishing the end of the world that I look forward in a very little time to playing with my grandchildren.

Your responses make you look very petty and patronizing. If that was your intention on this thread, you certainly succeeded. You may return now to gazing fondly at your function points.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

You're right, BigDog.

Y2k is serious.

And add to your list the fact that IT professionals have no business exaggerating the problem, or misleading those that may have less technical computer knowledge.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

So we all finally agree in that y2k IS serious. Now that's some healthy headway gained thanks to this thread I might say !

Hoff, have you ever thought of the possibility that (1) it's YOU who is "misleading those that may have less technical computer knowledge"? and (2) it's YOU who "has no business exaggerating the non-existence of the Y2K problem?"

Hoff, do you realize how many KEY questions that Big Dog has just asked in this thread remain un-favorably answered or simply un- answered?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 24, 1999.

Being a little slow also, can I add one small question?

Just how stupid are we?

You have to admit, y2k is a world-class "dumb and dumber' blunder.

And 'dumb' customers and 'dumb' taxpayers are going to pay for stupid companies and stupid governments to repair their 'dumb' systems designed and programmed by 'dumber' people.

-- PNG (Peter Gauthier) (png@gol.com), August 24, 1999.

This really is such an excellent set of questions going directly to the source of some very fundamental concerns. I would think that all camps want the answers. Perhaps we could break it up into separate threads and really go at it as a team. Since BD came up with such a thoughtful list, the least we can do is work on it and really try to find the answers for him and ourselves. Sorry, I'm hopelessly committed to collaberation and believe in collecting all VALID information -- I don't know any other way to the truth.

-- grngrl (jhandt@gte.net), August 24, 1999.

Hoff, although BD has elegantly presented you with your head in your hands, you do get credit for being the only polly on the Internet to even attempt to answer these simple questions. In fact, I hereby nominate you for full-time Flint replacement. Do I hear a second?

-- a (a@a.a), August 24, 1999.

Thank you Big Dog for a great post!!! This is concise and hard-hitting. I will use it to convince my mother to let me store water barrels in her basement...she has tons of food, but refuses to let me put a couple 55 gallon plastic drums in her basement because "they are too big". I plan on having 6+ people sleep in the basement with ALL our supplies down their- I know that there is enough room. anyways...

Hoff- !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? IMHO what you did with your reply was "SPIN". You answered very little of what was asked. I feel sorry for you. Have you done any preparations??

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), August 24, 1999.

BigDog,

As I said, this and the others were a set of questions -- with five children and others depending on me, the absence of credible answers has led me to prepare against a reasonable worst case of a depression that is aggravated by supply chain breakdowns (ie, the possibility of items important to my family's welfare being unavailable for periods of time).

If you were actually given credible answers to your questions, how would you have prepared differently?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

In the end, this is not a thread about Hoff and his views but about the questions I still have about Y2K. These questions have clearly, and a bit to my surprise, resonated and mapped powerfully as questions that many of us still have.

As for misleading folks? I WISH. In the end, neither me, Yourdon, Hamasaki, a or Hoff, Maria et al know enough about the "elephant" (the inter-related social and technical systems that make up the "world") to make final pronouncements.

But the questions?

After spending almost two years searching eagerly for POSITIVE answers to those questions, I don't have to feel the slightest bit embarassed about them. Furious (as I have pointed out), yes. Embarassed? Get out of town.

The questions stand on their own like accusing blocks of granite that the spin cycle cannot erase.

They'll be answered soon.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

After spending almost two years searching eagerly for POSITIVE answers to those questions, I don't have to feel the slightest bit embarassed about them. Furious (as I have pointed out), yes. Embarassed? Get out of town.

Certainly you should not feel embarassed about asking such pointed questions. But the issue remains, how would you have prepared differently if you were given those POSITIVE answers that you sought so eagerly?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

Hello hmmm -- I was confused the first time I read your question to Big Dog, and I'm still confused the second time. Wouldn't he need to know the answers in order to say how he would prepare differently? Am I misunderstanding you?

-- grngrl (jhandt@gte.net), August 24, 1999.

BigDog:

You're not "a very slow learner".

The political, banking and industrial spinmeisters are lousy, deceitful, irresponsible, obtuse, spineless myopic teachers.

How can a brilliant mind learn from such dunces?

We'll all get the answers shortly.

Class dismissed.

No wait, you, Scoffmeister, go sit in the corner and cube inverse multiples.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), August 24, 1999.

Hello hmmm -- I was confused the first time I read your question to Big Dog, and I'm still confused the second time. Wouldn't he need to know the answers in order to say how he would prepare differently? Am I misunderstanding you?

Perhaps. He indicated that his preparations were based on the fact that the questions weren't given positive answers. In fact, he doesn't feel they were given any answer at all. I'm simply asking, if each of those questions were given positive answers, how this would have affected his preparations. Would he have prepared less, for example, if he were given believable answers by the "experts in the field" that indicated that there was "no big problem"?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

Hey, hmmmm. I'm a bit confused too. I can say there are lots of preps I wouldn't have done if I had perceived Koskinen and others as honest and direct --- but which specifically would have depended on what was communicated and when.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Hey, hmmmm. I'm a bit confused too. I can say there are lots of preps I wouldn't have done if I had perceived Koskinen and others as honest and direct --- but which specifically would have depended on what was communicated and when.

Understood. In general terms, if you had perceived Koskinen and his cronies as honest and direct, as opposed to being "spin artists", when they advised preparations for a "3-day storm" scenario, would you have prepared for such a scenario as opposed to the depression-type scenario with supply chain breakdowns as you are doing now?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

'a':

It was my opinion when I originally read BigDog's questions that they were presented as rhetorical musings. In observing the progression of the thread, my opinion hasn't changed.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 24, 1999.

hmmmm --- the interesting thing about your last question is that most Americans (I assume) do find Koskinen credible and are therefore preparing just that way.

I suppose that "if" I had, it would have been because I felt the evidence was honestly presented AND supported that conclusion (I would still have analyzed the evidence myself, of course). So, "yes".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Anita -- what do you mean by "rhetorical"? That suggests they were not posed with answers in view? It is true I don't expect answers but I certainly do desire them!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

hmmmm --- the interesting thing about your last question is that most Americans (I assume) do find Koskinen credible and are therefore preparing just that way.

Yes, exactly.

I suppose that "if" I had, it would have been because I felt the evidence was honestly presented AND supported that conclusion (I would still have analyzed the evidence myself, of course). So, "yes".

And yet, the "evidence" could not be anything more than reports of remediation and testing efforts. Even if you had reams and piles of reports to look through, detailing independent investigations of every company in every industry with precise details of their progress, that would still be all you have. How would you know to trust it? How would you even know what it means, in some cases? If you chose to prepare only for a 3 day storm based on that evidence, it would still seem like a big risk for you and your family.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

BigDog:

Yes...rhetorical by definition includes "requiring no answer."

My response was to indicate to 'a' why I, personally, didn't feel inclined to respond (as one of the few on this forum who see Y2k unfolding more optimistically.) Of course I could dig out supporting documentation for MY optimism, and the other forum posters could dig out supporting documentation for their pessimism. The documentation for optimism would be met with "spin" and the documentation for pessimism would be met with "clap, clap." Ultimately, I would be asked if I'm receiving renumeration to post here, perhaps asked if I'm SURE I don't like to mudwrestle, and in all likelihood asked why I don't go to debunkers where I belong.

That's a time-consuming task to answer the questions of one who has already stated:

"The questions stand on their own like accusing blocks of granite that the spin cycle cannot erase. They'll be answered soon."

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 24, 1999.

'a' I second your motion.

Flint, thank you for your outstanding services far, beyond, and away the call of Y2K duty. Your patience, stamina, and wordsmithing capabilities are attributes that will hardly be equaled by any other live poster of this forum. You will be remembered with honors as a most loyal counterpart in Y2K debate. We wish you an enjoyable retirement.

Hoff, your new responsibilities as Polly-In-Chief hereinafter shall mean the undescribable privilege of being compared to Flint. We wish you the best of luck in this daunting task. Just keep up your current attitude and don't forget to do your homework. Take care.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 24, 1999.

hmmm --- It's not that hard. To use an analogy, was Churchill believable about WWII? With a few clever exceptions for top-secret security reasons, yes. Why? Because he self-evidently told the truth and his character was known after 40 years in the public eye. And what was that truth? That the Brits would have a trail of blood, sweat and tears overcoming terrible obstacles but they would prevail.

Y2K has certainly exposed the vast gap between an earlier world where a man's word was, by and large, trustworthy and people were treated like grownups and today's world, where everything, including data, is spun for political reasons (using the word "political" broadly).

So, it seems you're beginning to lay a trap for me, but I'm not going to hop into it. IF Koskinen were trustworthy and IF independent verification was available, sure.

And if I had a million dollars, I'd buy a complete solar system for Y2K.

So, what's your point?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Anita -- THIS thread isn't about rehashing positions, you are correct. So? That doesn't make my questions rhetorical in the slightest. It's just that YOU don't have the answers to them. Why does this matter?

With about 120 days to go, we WILL all find out very soon.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

hmmm --- It's not that hard. To use an analogy, was Churchill believable about WWII? With a few clever exceptions for top-secret security reasons, yes. Why? Because he self-evidently told the truth and his character was known after 40 years in the public eye. And what was that truth? That the Brits would have a trail of blood, sweat and tears overcoming terrible obstacles but they would prevail.

Actually, that truth sounds like some very good theatrics making up some good "spin". Churchill just made it sound better. Must have been the voice.

So, it seems you're beginning to lay a trap for me, but I'm not going to hop into it. IF Koskinen were trustworthy and IF independent verification was available, sure.

I'm not laying a "trap" but if you want to see my conclusions as some sort of sinister motive, then feel free, I guess. I was just trying to make a very simple point.

So, what's your point?

My point is that reducing your preparation based on the answers to the questions that you posed above entails risk to yourself and your family. If all the numbers had "checked out" and Kosky was someone like, say, Jim Lord, you're still endangering yourself and your family by not preparing for a worst-case scenario. That's all I'm saying.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

BigDog:

I may very well HAVE the answers, but would they be answers that you would accept, or answers that you would consider "spin"? It seems clear to me that you've accepted your questions as facts that cannot be disputed. You've already responded to another poster that you wouldn't "fall for the bait." We've already discussed via E-mail how I don't do this either. I'll be curious to see if the other poster responds with something similar to "You just CAN'T answer the question." [grin]

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 24, 1999.

And if I had a million dollars, I'd buy a complete solar system for Y2K.

Just make sure the one you get doesn't have a planet called "Uranus".

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 24, 1999.

Well, thought I'd provide a more formal reply to BigDog's Questions, and see if it generates some actual discussion. I didn't started the "mocking" type responses on this thread, BigDog.

1. If it took SSA nine years and enormous sums of money to reach compliance, barely, why will the IRS be ready so easily? Medicare/Medicaid? After all, I thought their computing situations were at least as complex as SSA? Yet they started in late-1997, so won't they be ready in 2005 or, say, 2002 based on lessons learned from SSA?

Underlying Assumption: That the timespan of a project is a valid measurement of the effort required.

This is a false assumption, as BigDog, or anyone involved in any way with IT projects, well knows. A given project may take 5 years with 3 people, or 1 year with 15. This is not a linear projection, and in fact I have a plaque I put on the wall at the start of every project, with my favorite quote that "It does NOT take 9 women 1 month to have a baby". There are limitations, based on work involved, dependancies, overall size of the team and communications. But to make any form of estimate on other projects based on the fact SSA began some work in 1989 is patently false.

So the answer to your question is the length of time it took the SSA to reach compliance has no relevance to the length of time it takes other agencies.

And yes, BigDog, this is misleading. As an IT professional, you know the above is true. Yet you phrase your question in such a way as to lead others to believe the stated underlying assumption is somehow true.

2. If the U.S. power, water, sewage and telecom industries will be ready, why do so few even self-report their readiness? Why is there minimal-to-no IV&V? Why are testing results in some industries semi-rigged for PR purposes or unpublicized?

Underlying Assumption: Few U.S. industries are self-reporting their readiness.

The fact is, virtually every electric company has reported their readiness. Also, 84% have been audited by independant firms, external auditors or internal auditors.

Virtually every telecommunications company has provided detailed reports of their readiness. NRIC and ATIS have provided detailed results of testing. The last numbers I saw were 99% of local switches, 100% of major long distance carrier switches, 98% of nonswitched components in long distance network and 97% of network and information systems applications were Y2K ready

As for water, the latest industry survey results that as of June, 92% of the systems were tested fully compliant.

3. How can the DOD and related agencies be ready, given their stated rates of progress as recently as a year ago and the complexity of their software/hardware environment? For extra credit, won't there be chaos and confusion within advanced weapons systems all around the world? What is the likely impact of this on terrorism and the threat of local-regional wars breaking out in 2000?

Underlying Assumption: That they started out accurately reporting their status, then started falsifying it. That advanced weapons systems will fail.

Again, you ask how; read their websites. An awful lot of information there on just how they are attacking Y2k. Granted, some information will be classified.

Honestly know very little on weapons systems. Haven't researched them.

4. Since oil producers have said it isn't cost-effective to check for embedded systems because doing so would break the production chain itself and they will fix FOF, doesn't this mean that show-stoppers at rollover could drive the price of fuel through the roof for a long period of time?

Underlying Assumption: That oil producers aren't checking embedded systems, and are relying on FOF.

I've yet to see a status report from any oil-producer that said they were not checking and fixing embedded systems. The industry surveys show increases percentage of work complete.

So again I'll ask what backup you have for this statement?

5. Since entire countries (China, Russia, Italy, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, others) will be almost entirely noncompliant, won't there be major destabilizing impacts upon the international geopolitical situation and serious disruption in the global supply chain for a variety of critical commodities over a period of many months?

6. Since many other countries, including advanced ones, are a year behind the U.S. in compliance efforts, doesn't this suggest they will face the level of breakdown at rollover we would have faced in December, 1998? Since even Koskinen/Bennett say that the level of U.S. breakdown would have been severe at that point, isn't it logical to state that the level of breakdown in these countries will be severe?

Underlying Assumption: Many. One being that other countries are as technolgically dependant as the US.

The international implications deserve a complete, separate discussion. The statement that these countries "will be almost entirely noncompliant" is somewhat misleading. But I have some questions of my own.

How much do they depend on technology? Isn't it true that the more technologically dependant countries are correspondingly further along?

How old, for example, is the infrastructure in some of these countries? How dependant are they on digital systems?

At the very least, aren't major global companies that have international locations being addressed?

I've seen quotes thrown around here that only 25% of the code is in the US. Fine, but that means that the other 75% is spread around the world, across how many countries? Doesn't it make sense that a country with 1% of this code would take a shorter time to work on the problem than the US?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 24, 1999.

Big Dog, Here is another question: why did banking modify the branch closing requirement to let branch managers close a branch if they feel a need? This goes along with Dianes comment about Executive Orders regarding Y2k. If there were no problems why build this infrastructure? Oh, I guess the CIA assessment by Lawrence Gerstein was some sort of extraneous exercise.

-- Ruth the Moab (aapm@aapainmanage.org), August 24, 1999.

Hoff -- I'm not going around the barn with you on this stuff on this thread. I posted a series of questions. They stand on their own. When you tried to recast my questions, I reframed them. Period.

OBVIOUSLY, you believe you have answers to all the questions, since you believe Y2K impacts are as bad now as they will ever be. And you have had ample opportunity on this forum to present those ideas. I may take up part of that debate with you, or I may not: not sure if it is a valuable use of time better spent prepping for Y2K impacts.

Anyone who has seen my posts knows I am well able to joust with you or anyone. THIS ISN'T THAT THREAD, Hoff.

I will say this: apparently, you ARE charging me with intentionally misleading people. I sincerely thought better of you. Doing so only evidences your own lack of integrity and hypocrisy.

Have I stopped beating my wife? Well, Hoff, I've posted 1,200 times or so here. Most of the regulars can judge my character for themselves, for good or ill. As for those reading this thread who have had it sent to them by regulars here, those who send it WILL vouch for my character.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

Hmmm --- Hey, that was good, if lame! I really set myself up with the solar system remark and you walked right through the door.

Anita --- I know this is hard to grasp, but this thread centered on real QUESTIONS I have. Authentic, personal questions. I have read your posts many times. Some of them are quite good. They haven't answered my questions. Take that however you like, I really don't care one bit.

Best of luck to both you and Hoff on Y2K impacts!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 24, 1999.

BigDog:

I've never taken anything you've said to me personally as an insult. We've agreed to disagree on the unfolding of Y2k all along.

I wish you the best in the Year 2000 also.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 24, 1999.

All I can say is, the more time that goes on, and the more Koskinen (et. al.) speaks, the more I feel a need to prepare for beyond what I intuitively felt I had to... before "observing" them in action. (Or is that "inaction?")

He (and the Navy) "ups" the prep ante with all the spinning obsfucation.

(Who IS behind that curtain anyway?)

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Scoffy Hoffy likes to give the impression from time to time that he has a brain. This thread emphasises the fact that he hasn't.

Interconnectednes - this is what he cannot grasp. Or probably he subconciously can, but to aknowledge the fact would be the end of the world as HE knows it...

Bluntly, he can't handle the truth.

One more thing - Scoffy is allegedly a SAP expert...

As he reminded me yesterday, SAP does not need to be remediated. It does not have a y2k problem.

Hmmmmmm, strange that Scoffy should confuse y2k as being just another SAP system...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.

hey, at least this debate is civil.

when y2k comes, either you and your family are prepared for problems that will come, or you're not.

-- Super (Slfsl@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.

Hoff, let's assume that US water, sewage, power, telecomms and banking are already Y2K ready/compliant as you claim. This means that basic infrastructure is O.Kay in the US, right? I could argue against that very easily but let's take it for granted for the sake of the following question:

Then why is it that so few other businesses and industry sectors have claimed readiness at this late stage of the Y2K game? Because water, sewage, banks, etc., can't be the excuse, right?. Apparently we are told that all of them SHALL work properly. Then why isn't everybody else ready? What stops them from being ready/compliant? Because they need to be in order to carry out massive, integral, supply chain testing, which no one claims to even have started.

The reason is that everybody is not ready, and possibly won't ever be, including water, sewage, banking, etc. The latter have been 'officially' declared Y2K ready simply because it's the way to convince (for how long?) John Q. Public that what he perceives as "most important" for himself and his family is already 'fixed'. That's the only reason. I liked Diane Squire's comments above on the reality about water. Most valid indeed.

Hoff, concerning questions 5 and 6, foreign countries, supply chains, global interconnectedness, you are simply clueless. I suggest you re- read the postings included in the hot links you kindly set up above for all of us:

"Debate: Round 1" and "Y2K Debate: Round 2" and "Gartner Group Final Y2K Report".

Big Dog,

your postings and attitude transpire honesty, knowledgeability, consistency and integrity. Anyone and everyone can attest to that end.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 25, 1999.

Just trying to understand here, BigDog.

You start a thread, post questions, then say the thread is NOT about discussing the questions?

It's a mutual feeling of disappointment, BigDog.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 25, 1999.

ITAA Year 2000 Success Stroies

-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.

Hoff -- As much as I can be said to "enjoy" debating Y2K (which isn't much since I HATE the entire subject), I enjoy considering your arguments, which I always read thoughtfully. True, I don't see this thread as that place, correct. I am SURE we will meet soon on other threads and I continue to noodle over your function point stuff, comparing it to some other dimensions of the entire problem.

I honestly don't view anybody on this forum as an enemy, to say the least, not even those with whom I've had vitriolic exchanges at times. YOU aren't the problem, nor am I -- Y2K is the problem.

Whatever happens, by the way, understanding in retrospect how and why it was analyzed differently as it was by sincere people (whether an Ed Yourdon or yourself, to take two) will be extremely illuminating for thinking about technology over the coming decade and will hopefully help us all avoid the same trap again.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 25, 1999.

Hoff:

You simply DGI. The questions were NOT rhetorical in nature, and the answers had to be provided before the questions were asked. YOUR experience in IT and MY experience in IT, combined with the research we've done on this issue are MEANINGLESS. Do you GI now?

I don't know how long you've posted to this forum, Hoff, but in the short time I've been here, I've realized that I'm a VERY unwelcome guest. As a guest, I feel it inappropriate to question the "logic" of the "family." If we feel the "logic" of the "family" is committed to a belief system that we don't share, it's best to graciously say "thank you for the dinner" and depart.

a:

Cute link. Perhaps I should present them with information on all the places I've seen completely remediated that haven't themselves come forth stating same? LOL. Nah...that would just be more spin, right? Cory would retort with "But DeeCee isn't done! THAT trumps any other companies or towns being remediated." BTW, 'a', have you seen the csy2k thread in which Cory states that Y2k remediation failed at T- 500? Have you seen the response inquiring whether he's still accepting a paycheck for the work that will never get done? Yep...if I took a contract and did nothing but eat donuts, I'd have a Y2k bugout plan also.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 25, 1999.

"You simply DGI. The questions were NOT rhetorical in nature, and the answers had to be provided before the questions were asked. YOUR experience in IT and MY experience in IT, combined with the research we've done on this issue are MEANINGLESS. Do you GI now?"

Anita, my dear, you're not reading again. I just said that I appreciate Hoff's postings. Yours too. OK? Does that help make you feel better? Your research is MEANINGFUL. Kay? I take it into account as evidence that some folks, like yourself, have done a bang-up job with remediation. How's that? (I'm teasing slightly, but I am quite serious).

By all means, go ahead, start another thread and answer my questions if you'd like. I simply didn't want to get into a, pardon my french, pissing match on this thread, since most of us have tossed these questions around between us, in different forms, without resolution, for months.

THIS thread (forgive me for repeating it, but you're being very stubborn) focused on a series of questions. As the author of this thread, I wasn't seeking the answers on THIS thread, though (duh), of course I am wanting to continue to seek them out in general, or I wouldn't spend time, wasted time, answering this stupid post.

I respect your research (I've even told you this by private email, I think), but this particular set of complaining posts is not up to your usual level.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 25, 1999.

After reading these responses I get the feeling that you enjoyed the praises early on, especially the one from Ed. I think you don't want to "get into it" in this thread because that might ruin that euphoria. So even though you assured Hoff (in the beginning) that he could join in the party, you politely told him to stop bringing up the answers.

Anita, yes we don't agree with our dinner hosts, so maybe it's time to leave the party.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 25, 1999.

OK, curious again.

This thread is apparently not about discussing the questions.

This thread is apparently not about answering the questions.

Yet BigDog says this thread is about "focussing" on the questions.

Instead of playing guessing games here, maybe it would be better to just ask.

BigDog, precisely what do you see as an appropriate response on this thread?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), August 25, 1999.

Praise and adulation.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 25, 1999.

Anita: uh, the last time I checked, when a football team is losing 42-0 in the fourth quarter, the referees, fans, coachs and sponsors say you still have to finish the game.

-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.

BigDog:

Thanks for the response to my E-mail. It appears I have a good chance at the systems' programmer job I mentioned here locally. I've had too much time on my hands for much too long.

a:

I'm glad to hear that they'll keep Cory until he gets the systems working. You're absolutely right. You can't leave the game when you're losing. [grin] I'd recommend a nutritious breakfast and total donut abstinence.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 25, 1999.

This is really amazing. I honestly believe Bigdog does desire only praise and adulation.

I have to wonder out loud what sort of "verbal assault" (couched in the most pleasant and soothing of oily words) would come from Mr. Lipton, if someone showed how his assumptions where in error to begin with?

Little things like the fact that it took SSA 9 years to do a complete systems overhaul NOT just y2k work.

"ahhh, but Mr. Dice Sector, you are "spinning" my question", answers Russ.

Mr. Hoffmeister and Anita, along with "hmmm" have shown that "bigdog" really isn't after answers; he wants statements that will concur with his pre-conceptions.

Oh, and none of this will affect one tiny bit the amount of preparation that Russ continues with. And I am satisfied it will also not affect his "proselytizing" in regards to his GI religion and y2k.

At the least there is one small comfort. All this WILL end in a few months. It will be interesting if Mr. Lipton will show his self appointed "integrity" (which he so strenuously stated for all to see) and come back to this forum and apologize for all his backhanded "compliments" to others. Shall we say, January 10th? Is that enough time to prove your "questions" were invalid in one form or another? Maybe February is better for you (then again it is all systemic. the Asian CIH virus "proved" that. Hmmm, maybe it could take a few years for problems to "crop up", so maybe 2004?)

You are consistant Bigdog, I will give you that.

-- Dice Sector (stunned@amazed.com?!?), August 26, 1999.

Dear Mr. Dice Sector:

If you believe that Y2K could remotely be OVER by Jan.10, then you sir are absolutely clueless about the nature of this beast, be it a 1 a 5 or a 9.9999.

Also sir, you try to sound pretty much like Uncle Flint. We love him you know, simply because he is OUR Flint, and no one can even come close to his style, wordsmithing and wit, at least not with the garden variety imitation which seems to be your only distinguishable input to this forum.

Big Dog, don't even waste your valuable time barking at this specimen. Just keep thinking and posting for all of us, will ya?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), August 26, 1999.

Big Dog, don't even waste your valuable time barking at this specimen. Just keep thinking and posting for all of us, will ya?

I concur. Please keep thinking for all of us. I don't want to think for myself any more than George does.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 26, 1999.

George (jvilches), please e-mail me if you don't mind.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Conversation is an art.

Never underestimate the power of a question.

Questions can stand alone, without conversation.

8 questions asked.

Spin the questions to socratic intentions.

Answer the questions with the same intended spin.

State I have the answers you just don't want to hear.

Ask diversionary socratic questions.

Hug and kiss.

8 questions ask.

Standing alone, unanswered.

Powerful words Russ.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Conversation is a science.

Never underestimate the power of rambling incoherence.

Questions can stand alone, without conversation,

if you're really afraid of having to actually hear answers to them.

8 questions asked. Yes, I can count.

Spin the questions to rhetoric intentions.

Refuse to listen to answers.

State that the answers aren't important, just the questions.

Act evasive and confused. Why isn't everyone praising me anymore?

Hug and kiss. Maybe cop a feel or two.

8 questions ask. Yes, I can count again.

Standing alone, unanswered. Except for those pesky answers.

I create poetry from nothing.

But it's really just bullshit with a pretty bow.

It looks nice.

But it still smells bad.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 27, 1999.

More dumb questions./ If Y2K pans out as a 1,2,3 or 4 on our scenarios scale, we wouldn't need this thread. Ed Yourdon doesn't need to write this book. And all these words were a waste of our lifeforce. And Big Dog is going to make a big donation to his foodbank in April/ On the other hand, if Y2K slams the world economy and infrastructure with a 5,6,7,8 or 9 - then questions about oil companies having the will to dig out embedded chips, or whether banks and power companies should take themselves off the system/grid to protect their systems, become nothing more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic./

My dumb questions. / If toilets don't flush, how long before cholera breaks out?/ If water doesn't flow, how long before people die?/ If electricity doesn't spark, how many businesses can open their doors for business as usual?/ If banks can't meet demands for cash, how many days (hours?) before they close their doors? If oil doesn't get shipped or refined, how long before trucks, planes, trains and automobiles start rusting in place?/ If the stock market crashes, how many people will lose their retirement and investment accounts - their life savings?/ If all this shit happens, and, as we know, shit happens, how will the angry, hungry, thirsty, broke, jobless, dirty, freezing people of your community react?/ I want to know who's working on plans to help remediate THESE THINGS? The Red Cross? FEMA? DOD? None of them can handle these problems on the scale a 7,8.9 or 10 will present. It reaks of martial law, water and food lines, and overflowing porta-potties on every corner in America./ Sorry, I'm beyond how bad might it be. I want to know how in hell we have any chance of making it better before too many people check out. Now, that's what I think Ed's

-- Greg Walsh (walshbros1@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

...that's what I think Ed Yourdon's proposed POST Y2K book is all about. (need to finish my sentences) - G

-- Greg Walsh (walshbros1@aol.com), August 28, 1999.