"Awareness" vs "Alarmism"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Recently, I ran across this post from 1997 by Dick Mills, which contains a very good definition of the difference between "Awareness" and "Alarmism":

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 18:29:55 -0400
To: year2000-discuss@year2000.com
From: Dick Mills
Subject: Awareness: Where to draw the line on alarmism.

I believe I may have found a practical definition for where to draw the line between awareness and alarmism. Here it is. I'm posting it here for everyone to shoot barbs at. Is this a definition we can use, or not?

Let's use a simple analogy familiar to everyone; airline safety. There are two standards by which we should view technical questions of safety; the planning view and the operational view. The great engineer, Edward A. Murphy formulated his famous law, with airplane safety in mind. "If anything can fail, it will." When designers are designing airplanes, or when software types are enumerating what Y2K problems must be checked, this is the proper standard to apply. Assume the worst, check everything. Think about it; no other standard is defensible for planning purposes.

When we're about to board an airplane, we use the operational standard. Sure the wings could fall off, there could be a bomb on board, the pilots might be drunk, but the proper standard to apply is to ignore all these possibilities and be optimistic. Think about it; no sane person should board any airplane ever if he does not expect the outcome to be favorable. For that matter, the person would not dare use any other transportation or dare to stay on the ground. Panophobia is the word for that; fear of everything.

In other words, planning and design should be based on worst case possible outcomes, but daily operations should be based on expected real life outcomes.

What would be irresponsible? Well, to go to the airport ticket office and loudly discuss the wing falling off, bombs on board, drunken pilots, then to jump to describing the broken body parts and anguished relatives that might be the consequence would be irresponsible. The psychological trick being played is to jump directly from a discussion of what can happen, directly to the fearfully graphics views of the consequences. It is a trick because the planning standard is misapplied to the operational context. Indeed, in airports this kind of talk is actually criminal. It is so bad that it is one of the very few legal exceptions to freedom of speech.

Now, lets translate this back to the Y2K context. Many articles, public statements, books, and web sites discussing the Y2K problem commit exactly this sin. They first make the point that Y2K vulnerability is ubiquitous. Nearly everything and anything can fail because of Y2K. They then jump directly to point out how awful the consequences could be if all these critical things did fail. To the uninitiated, the message is that what can fail will fail; the wrong expectation.

The sin may not even be deliberate. We software practitioners are busy avoiding and rectifying the problem. We are immersed in the planning standard all day every work day. It is understandable that we may forget to use a different standard when making public statements. Understandable at least, until you read this post and have been informed.

So what's so bad about this? We loose credibility and risk being ignored because we use alarmist tactics. If we really believe that the public awareness and action is critical to achieve, then we must protect our credibility.

This was written as a plea to "protect credibility".

I thought about this in relation to the current state of affairs. In particular, the upcoming date of 9/9/99 reminded me of the past, failed predictions of the Y2k illuminati regarding previous dates.

What I am coming to realize is most aren't concerned about their credibility. The past predictions are perfect examples of "Alarmism"; jumping from the potential for problems to over-exaggeration of the effects.

The point behind these dates is not that nothing happened; I'm sure some things did fail. The point is the over-exaggeration of the effects. Jumping to the awful consequences IF all these things failed.

Y2k is littered with these IFs. Very few, if any, actual examples. Paula Gordon on the CSPAN show perpetuated this. Her statements were littered with these; "IF a water system valve failed...IF a oil valve failed..." No examples of valves that would, or even could fail. Just IFs.

Is the point "Awareness"? I am beginning to doubt this idea.

Take Y2kNewsWire, for example. The "journalism" gets more outlandish as time goes on. The point doesn't seem to be "Awareness"; through the eyes of an average person looking for information, most would certainly dismiss Y2kNewsWire as the 'Net version of the Enquirer.

No, I think the point is to attract those predisposed to the conclusions. That everone is lying. This is the niche market that Adams has tapped, selling his "hundreds of thousands of dollars" worth of subscriptions.

More importantly, I watched the reaction of some friends the other night to this forum. I have been involved for so long, the posts here no longer faze me. But their reactions were enlightening. Amazed looks, that anyone actually believes this stuff.

By default or design, this forum has become immersed in "Alarmism". Yes, some threads contain good information and thoughts. But the average person will be turned away by the "Alarmism". And the ostensible purpose of raising "Awareness" is lost. Those that stay, seem to be those predisposed to believing everyone is "lying".

Why does this matter?

Maybe it doesn't to most here. It does to me.

I don't post to try to convince "GI"s. I learned long ago that was a futile endeavor.

I do post to try and offset the massive amount of misinformation being spewed. So that people can form their own opinions on Y2k. But the "Alarmism" thwarts this; posts are buried under the volume of "Alarmism". Those that are looking for information move along; those predisposed to the conclusions already formed here, stay.

Ask yourselves, just what you are involved with here.

Are you truly attempting to raise "Awareness"?

Or are you involved in "Alarmism"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 08, 1999

Answers

I think you have raised some very good points, but I come back to one over-riding point. I don't want my kids to starve! How much does it cost to stockpile a couple months worth of rice, beans, and a few other necessities? Really only a few hundred dollars. I am not talking about generators and bomb shelters, just the basic necessities. One of my friends and I were chatting at a kids birthday party the other day. He said he could not afford to spend a few hundred dollars on what "might" happen. He was talking video with a brand new video camera. So the fact is, he choose not to spend the money on basic staples.

If everyone had been listening to these warnings over the last several months and simply bought a little more, there would be no chance of food shortages and everyone would be ready. I admit, it is getting pretty late to start stocking up. There may no longer be any point of saying, "things might be really bad." because it is almost too late to do anything.

Just remember, the hardest words you can ever hear are "DADDY, I AM HUNGRY!"

-- Porphyry (paladin456999@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.


"What would be irresponsible? Well, to go to the airport ticket office and loudly discuss the wing falling off, bombs on board, drunken pilots, then to jump to describing the broken body parts and anguished relatives that might be the consequence would be irresponsible."

What is even MORE irresponsible is for the airlines to tell their passengers that there is NO WAY, when they board a plane, that a bomb will go off, a pilot may be drunk, or the plane may possibly crash, because it's just not possible.

That's what our leaders are trying to convey, and THAT is irresponsible.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), September 08, 1999.


"Floatation devices??? We don't need no stinkin' floatation devices!!!"

-- landlubber (flythe@friendlyskies.com), September 08, 1999.

Good post. Thanks, Hoff.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

Hoffmeister:

You are certainly an intelligent guy. I read all of your posts. I too am not so stupid. I've got four advanced degrees in the physical sciences (none in computer science). I've read everything I could get my hands on for upwards of two years now. I am a reasonable individual. I was not born on Ruby Ridge nor do I believe in UFOs.

With that said, I have concluded that the risk is very real. Am I another Paul Milne? No chance. Am I alarmed? You bet!

THE ALARMISM IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE LACK OF AWARENESS.

(You may notice that I'm now shouting. My pulse has picked up a little here writing this response.)

To tell people to prepare for a three day storm when you know full well that it could be a 14 day storm (or longer) is irresponsible and reckless. Let me put this bluntly: IF it turns out that Koskinen and those around him have been lying to us and there is a death toll that could have been avoided, I hold them all responsible. In the event, I would like to be on the hypothetical jury that convicts them of homicide. Thinking about how much these guys could be covering up makes me grit my teeth. As I say to my colleagues, the experiment will soon be done.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 08, 1999.



Hoffmeister:

A thoughtful posting. I have a couple of questions and comments.

None of the airline possibilities you mention are exaggerations of effects. All can happen. All of the effects would be real *if* they happened.

Is it possible that what you mean to say is an exaggeration of likelyhood?

I am greatly upset myself about the degredation of the Y2KNewswire site. I used to find it useful.

I have discussed the Y2K issue with others. If they express interest, I will continue. I have made several people "aware", as you put it, of the potentials for problems. They have chosen to prepare. If they do not, I drop it. None of my business. I am NOT going to scare people into action. Period. Won't try, it doesn't work.

I don't peddle starving hordes, looting mobs, chaos, death, and desolation. It doesn't play well in Paducah. Do I worry about it? Sometimes, a little, in/on my darker moods/days.

On the other hand, I've found, like so many others concerned/worried about this issue, that most people will choose not to consider any possibility of problems. Of any sort, be they hurricanes, stock market crashes, or the need for life insurance

Will we have a massive human species die off because of Y2K? "Possible", but I rather doubt it.

Will we see societal and governmental ineptitude and failures? No doubt, on a much greater scale than we do now, in my opinion.

May I have to defend my family with deadly force from hungry, desperate people? Possibly, even living in a rural environment. However, I may have to do the same with a criminal at any time. Life offers no guarantees.

Do I expect serious economic consequences to result from Y2K related computer problems, along with viruses and cyber-terrorism/warfare? Yes, I do. I am planning as best I can to deal with a depression level event.

Might I end up looking like a major goof because of all this? Oh, yes. Oh, well. Worse things have happened.

But, for good or bad, right or wrong, I have made the choices I feel I needed to in order to protect my family.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 08, 1999.


"Panicked and Shocked" vs. "Prepared and Fascinated".

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 08, 1999.

You are right Hoff,

It is important to keep a cool head.

It's also important to seek accurate information and be aware of the nature of circumstances, on which we can individually act.

If subtle patterns emerge, some level of trigger may be reached. But, that is, of course, a distinctly individual threshold.

Whether or not the threshold to action is of physiological or psychological nature; the result will probably be the same. Some individuals respond to perceived or real triggers more quickly than others.

Or, some individuals may be more ready or willing to calculate the outcome of a set of perceived or real triggers than others.

In other words, some choose to confront issues.

Others, choose to ignore issues.

But in the end:

If we (I and you), are prepared for potential loses, we will be less likely to become alarmed.

Finding peace of mind in this and other areas of life is a motivator to action for many.

Peace of mind.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 08, 1999.


Well, I had to ask myself several questions after reading this post.

First, of course, was why Hoffmeister felt a need to lecture the adults on this forum (via Dick Mills from 1997) about the "proper" way to behave regarding y2k. What possible personal need could this kind of lecture fulfill for Hoffmeister? Is he trying to teach forum participants about social niceties? If so, that's rather arrogant.

Is he attempting to show his own superior approach to y2k ("aware" vs. "alarmed") over his interpretation of forum participant's? If so, he is showing both his failure to understand the bulk of this forum, as well as showing his inflated ego.

Is he trying to demonstrate how silly it is to imagine the worst that could happen (airplane crash scenario) because the worst doesn't happen all that often? If so, he fails to understand that the worst *does* happen, and deserves serious consideration.

What IS the best way to convey information about an apparently trival computer problem that could potentially disrupt our society to its very interconnected foundation? If we all took the polite and calm and rational Dick Mills (and, by inference, Hoffmeister) approach -- why, we would simply provide a detailed list of possible computer errors to all our friends, relatives, and loved ones....and then expect them to take that arcane information and makes sense of it in their lives.

Hmmm. I don't know about your loved ones, but mine are pretty lame on the computer stuff. So am I. When I first read the NEWSWEEK report in June '97, I thought a trival computer date problem would have no effect whatsoever on me...geez, I didn't use my computer for anything except wordprocessing. So it stops, so what?

It's pretty easy for me to understand the risks of airline flight -- I understand gravity, the basics of jet engine function (must keep running to keep jet in air), and the reality of human bodies colliding with solid objects at hundreds of miles per hour. I understand this so well, in fact, that I believe the risks (death) outweigh the benefits of airline flight (getting there faster), and don't fly anymore. BTW, I once took flight school and have flown gliders, so I'm not afraid of flying -- it's the falling and burning that I don't like.

But I didn't understand the wide-reaching, impossibly complex, intricately detailed and profoundly deep influence computers have in our day-to-day lives. It took three y2k "alarmists" to wake me up to the problem -- a computer professor, a concerned nurse, and a computer software designer with an internet site. All three expected that things could "go bad" -- and they didn't say something tame and calm about the problem, either.

They told me about how MY electricity might not work -- and then, I thought about what that would mean in MY home. They talked about how banks might have problems -- and, then I was forced to think about how MY bank and financial system and debts and bills and taxes might be affected in MY life. They wondered about communications systems -- and I looked at MY telephone and MY computer, and suddenly understood how MY existence depended on EVERYTHING working adequately.....

And then -- then, after a handful of "alarmists" compelled me to actually THINK about this society, this civilization, this computerized spaghetti mess that we have created -- then, and only then, could I actually see how y2k might affect me...and my family...and my job....and my neighbors...and my friends...and the rest of my town...and the world.

Maybe I'm just especially dense. Maybe the vast majority of people can be reasoned into accepting the possibilities of y2k. But I couldn't. Reason and calmness and "awareness" wasn't enough. It took someone describing "drunk pilots", "body parts", and general mayhem -- stuff I could understand -- before y2k made sense.

I am extremely grateful for the "alarmists", the people who were willing to look extreme, to appear foolish, to risk their own reputations and egos, to provide the information that I was unwilling to consider. The people who were afraid to tell me how bad things could get -- the "awarenessmeisters", the Koskinens, the DeJagers, those who prefer to preserve institutions instead of individuals -- these people are to be pitied. And, perhaps, despised.

Anita Evangelista

PS: Although Paula Gordon didn't have valve part numbers on the tip of her tongue for C-Span (who does?), she DID refer interested parties to her web site for more details -- which Hoffmeister failed to mention. And if she did have a part number, would that have convinced any more people about the reality of y2k problems ("part xq4z27-e-10f has failed")? I seriously doubt it.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 08, 1999.


Hoff,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts, and your endurance. I have read several, but by no means all of them.

As to the alarmist vs. awareness issue, and the analogy with flying, are we not in the planning stage now? Is not the operational stage next year, when all the software has been up and "flying"? Isn't Y2K a good deal like a major "airworthiness directive" which forces all of the Boeings out there to go BACK to the planning stage? The trouble is, we have to make a decision on preparation now too. We can't wait to find out how it will turn out. Don't we have to use "planning stage" conservatism?

-- Larry Davis (ldavis@psi-controls.com), September 08, 1999.



Hoffy,

Seems to me that you are still living in September of 1997, the same as that Mills article you pulled out. Aren't you one of those people who is always harping about "old" data and reports. Anyway, I thought this new approach of yours to get us to slow down, back off, and relax about this whole mess was rather ingenious and cute. Wonder how you were able to resist starting it off with one of your "hey you tinfoil dummies!" opening lines?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 08, 1999.


Oh Yea Hoff,

I forgot to mention one thing...

At this point in time...

It is for all intents and purposes, for most people...

......TOO LATE TO PREPARE FOR Y2K......

Have a nice day.

000 is coming your way.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 08, 1999.


Anyone who doesn't find the possible/probably consequences of Y2K alarming is an utter fool. What's the applicable quote? "There is none so blind as he who will not see."

Personally, Hoff, I don't give half a hoot what your friends think about what is said on this board. Most of them will probably be dead by this time next year anyway.

-- cody varian (cody@y2ksurvive.com), September 08, 1999.


Suggesting an analogy betweeen airline safety and Y2K computer problems seems more than a little far fetched.

Airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and other participants in air travel, have almost unanimously spent decades improving air traffic safety. Meanwhile, computer programmers have almost unanimously spent decades adding code destined to break on or "near" 1-1-2000.

Recent airline safety track records are a results on continual improvements made over many decades. Y2K track records, whatever they turn out to be in future months, will be results of of several decades of widespread unsafe practices followed, in some cases, by a few years of hurried repairs, in some other cases, a few months of hurried repairs, and in yet other cases, wishful thinking.

That's about as good an analogy as comparing yelling FIRE in a crowded movie theater, and yelling MOVIE in a crowded fire house. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 08, 1999.


Yeah Hoff...I hear there was a lot of "awareness" before the ValueJet crash about the dangers of shipping oxygen cannisters in the luggage compartment...Gee, do you think some "alarmism" may have saved a couple hundred lives?

You're grasping at straws here, bud.

-- a (a@a.a), September 08, 1999.



I'm alarmed and I don't mind telling whomever will listen. I don't have any reputation to protect, although I'm a journalist. I'll go with what I feel to be true--that things are a lot worse than the government is letting on. Run for the hills and take some food with you. (Your premises is some intellectual nicety, it seems.)

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 08, 1999.

To restate in short what Anita said, Hoffmiester is mistaking this site's purpose. We here DISSIMINATE Y2K information, news and spin from other websites and books. That's why we have the "doomers" and the "pollies", the "alarmists" and the "ostriches" and everyone in between.

Dick Mills was right, but it doesn't apply to TB2K forum, it's not populated exclusively by experts and programmers or news reporters presenting information. It's a forum, as in gathering, of these people trying to make sense of all this info.

So Hoff, maybe you should write Y2kNewsWire and send them your post, they do present a biased alarmist opinion in their reporting, without conterpoint articles. You can't acuse this forum of that.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 08, 1999.


You've just boarded a plane and taken your window seat by the wing. While the other passengers are boarding, you look out and notice a large crack by the engine, and a thin stream of fuel is dripping onto the ground.

You get up and announce to your fellow passengers what you see and tell them you think that this plane might not be safe to fly on. Nobody else believes you, but you're concerned enough that you decide to disembark the plane while you still have a chance.

As you are leaving, you hear the captain's voice over the loudspeaker announcing to the other passengers that they have just completed all of their pre-flight checks, everything is "A-OK", and we will be taxiing to the runway in just a few minutes, "right on schedule".

Was my comment alarmism or awareness? (I think both - and it was appropriate).

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.


P.S.

A couple of other passengers looked out and saw what you saw, but they *really* wanted to go on this vacation they've been planning for so long, and besides, the captain just said everything was A-OK, didn't he?

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.


As a purported Pollyanna on this forum, watching the responses to Hoff's statements, I must say a few things.

Alerting folks is ONE thing. ALARMING folks is quite another.

I have a pantry FULL of non-perishable food, a garage FULL of water, a source of cooking, etc. This is NOT about whether one chooses to prepare or not. This is about taking EVERY POSSIBLE FEAR and throwing it in the faces of those who YOU believe don't take the alert seriously, and magnifying those fears. THIS is alarmism!

I'll go on (despite the fact that it will result in flames from those involved.) Anita Evangelista has written books on how to survive in times of crises, so she has NO interest in hearing possibilities regarding how those needs may not be required. Minnesota Smith has a website devoted to Y2k goods, and cites authors such as Joel Skousen, Howard Ruff, Robert Ringer, Cresson Kearny, Bruce Clayton, and Pitirim A. Sorikin for additional sources on WHY folks may need his goods. He ALSO throws in the "It takes 4 months to cool down a nuclear plant" for good measure. Cody Varian ALSO has a website on which to sell his Y2k wares. Lacking the eloquence or reading of Minnesota Smith, he chooses to state anecdotal evidence as the NEED to purchase his goods.

Ray...you were looking for SHILLS on this forum? I wouldn't call these people shills, as they're not paid to provide money for anyone other than themselves, but I certainly would call them PROFITEERS.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 08, 1999.


Jerry wrote:

"Recent airline safety track records are a results on continual improvements made over many decades. Y2K track records, whatever they turn out to be in future months, will be results of of several decades of widespread unsafe practices followed, in some cases, by a few years of hurried repairs, in some other cases, a few months of hurried repairs, and in yet other cases, wishful thinking."

I thought it was worth repeating.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 08, 1999.


Perhaps Gary North has expressed it as best as anyone can (paraphrasing):

To believe that broken computer code is going to be fixed is irrational. To believe that broken computer code will have no impact is rational, but is without evidence.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 08, 1999.

Thanks Stan. Perhaps I had better clean up the typos:

Recent airline safety track records are results of continual improvements made over many decades. Y2K track records, whatever they turn out to be in future months, will be results of several decades of widespread unsafe practices followed in some cases by a few years of hurried repairs, in some other cases by a few months of hurried repairs, and in yet other cases by wishful thinking.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 08, 1999.


Anita,

Silly shrew, you won't budge an inch! Is it that you can't? No matter, my juicy friend, put on your happy talk. I need a date to the high school dance. And don't forget your combat boots! We'll be doing the tarantula all night long. We'll spin and spin until we can spin no more.

-- poeticus (male@poeticus.nu), September 08, 1999.


Seems like a lot of our resident pollies are starting to experience guilt pangs for poo-poohing Y2K to the extent they have.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 08, 1999.

I made a mistake in my post. It's Pitirim A. Sorokin...not Sorikin. He's a Russian who developed a blueprint for social reconstruction.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 08, 1999.

Poeticus:

I did the MONSTER MASH many years ago and have no interest in repeating same.

Lisa:

It becomes clear to me now why you feel like such an outcast, whether here or the other fora you frequent. I'd feel sorry for you, but if you'd do an ounce of research into the players involved you'd actually be informed. I understand that RESEARCH is a concept foreign to you, but it certainly sits better with those to whom you reply than the gibberish you currently offer.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 08, 1999.


spoonera@msn.com,

Yes, my shrew! Our spin and splutter will last out a night in Russia, when nights are longest there. Will you be my date? That's measure for measure, ubiquitously.

Bring your own boot polish.

-- poeticus (male@poeticus.nu), September 08, 1999.


Anita: please please go back to diBunki.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 08, 1999.

My Anita, I would never admit to doing the "monster mash" to ANYONE.

You pretty much dated yourself, now didn't ya?

I do appreciate your posts though...

sniffin' for the damn cat...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 08, 1999.


Is our government's new $40 million Information Coordination Center for a "three-day winter storm" awareness or alarmism?

http://year2000.dallasnews.com/0907mil1warroom.htm

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 08, 1999.


Well Hoff, your a "Day Late and a Dollar Short" as they would say.

The Federal government had a RESPONSIBILITY long ago to bring about public awareness to y2k and to take a LEADERSHIP role. They opted to take the GUTLESS way out and shovel it under the rug. Now you want folks to promote awarenes, unfortunately Hoff it's "To Late", you government hacks took the yellow bellied way out and now the Piper is demanding to be paid, and paid he will be.

The consequences of the Federal governments actions over the past few years with regard to y2k is about to come home to roost.

It ain't gonna be pretty!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 08, 1999.


I realize that the airplane analogy is actually quite good. The remediations are like a great, big, shiny new airplane that I'm gonna fly. I look forward to it.

Sincerely, Chuck Yager

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 08, 1999.


Probably should apologize for posting this, and then being offline.

Anyway, this post has nothing to do with what I think you should be doing. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do, either in preparation or in how they post. It was an observation.

Ray truly amazes me. The one person on this forum that show more mistrust and paranoia towards "government" than anyone, yet he thinks government should have stepped in and taken over Y2k. Truly amazing.

Anita E. basically sums it up best. People can't be trusted to make the right decisions on their own. They must be scared into making the decisions they should.

She talks of arrogance and ego. Right. The whole "GI" concept is based on arrogance; that they "Get It" because "they" have the capacity to see the "Big Picture", where others cannot. The arrogance is again shown by the idea people must be "scared" into making the right decisions.

Chris, this forum is about disseminating information; that is, as long as it "fits" with the dire perspective. Whatever; this forum was started by Ed Yourdon, after all. But don't try to make this forum out to be "balanced", in any way, shape or form.

Jerry calls the history of IT "decades of unsafe practices". Sure seems to me things have been advancing and working. Isn't the fact that so many consider TEOTWAWKI a possibility a function of the fact things actually do work quite well now?

Lisa surprises me. If the scenarios y'all believe in do happen next year, I find it hard to believe anyone would be "fascinated". Anyone sane.

PS: Anita E, yes, Paula did point people to her website. Did you actually find there any examples of "water valves" and "oil valves" that would fail?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 08, 1999.


Yeah, buddy, Hoff: considering I'll be completely prepared both physically and financially when the fireworks commence, there won't be any fear at the Bucher house. Remorse, sadness, pity, anger - but no fear.

And wide-eyed fascination. I have 12 years of MRP/ERP big-iron experience and have brought burnt-up production systems back together more times than I want to remember. Watching them fail by the thousands is gonna be some show.

You, on the other hand, are probably going to be pretty antsy.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 08, 1999.


Naw, lisa.

Plan on being in the hottub. Got a couple bottles of Dom put away.

Unless, of course, Andy antes up the resort/airfare.

Sit back and watch if need be. Some of us will actually still be bringing those "burnt up production systems" back up.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 08, 1999.


Hoff commented:

"Ray truly amazes me. The one person on this forum that show more mistrust and paranoia towards "government" than anyone, yet he thinks government should have stepped in and taken over Y2k. Truly amazing. "

Hoff, you may be surprised to know that I haven't always MISTRUSTED government. I have been given GOOD REASON to mistrust the Federal government during the Clinton years. Is it WRONG to believe that government should have acted long ago on y2k. No paranoia here Hoff, just a real good gut feeling that were ALL in for one hell of a ride because of the GUTLESS lack of LEADERSHIP from this Administration and it's CRONIES.

Guess I must of struck a nerve!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 08, 1999.


Hoffmeister,

a's right, you're reaching. To carry out the Mills analogy you brought to us, we're not talking about just any plane. We're talking about a model that aviation experts have said has a flaw that is difficult to find and in many cases will not be found, till it fails and causes the plane to spin wildly out of control. Call me any kind of phobic you want. I wouldn't get on that plane, and I would not be shy about warning others, either.

Mills' analogy would be correct, if this were about people who feared that any garden variety glitch would bring disaster. It could happen, but the world could crack in two, as well: You can't live your whole life in fear. But this is not about an isolated, random kind of problem. It's about a common glitch, difficult to find, that has a date sensitive trigger.

Go back into search mode, and try again.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), September 08, 1999.


Hoff, don't get me wrong: I'll be putting out fires, as well.

This time with insurance (medical).

Last contingency plan to make is carpooling....... or buying a motorcycle.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), September 08, 1999.


Hoff,

Your comment regarding my post suggests either that you do not regard "adding code destined to break on or "near" 1-1-2000" as an unsafe practice, or that you have difficulty following a train of thought from one paragraph to the next. Hmmmm.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 08, 1999.


Sorry, Jer, only read the second post.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 08, 1999.

"By default or design, this forum has become immersed in "Alarmism". Yes, some threads contain good information and thoughts. But the average person will be turned away by the "Alarmism". And the ostensible purpose of raising "Awareness" is lost. Those that stay, seem to be those predisposed to believing everyone is "lying"."

Awareness is meaningless. Everyone is "aware" of Y2K. So what? The average person isn't preparing for Y2K nor do they spend time on this forum. Again, so what? Counter to the assumptions of most pollies, this forum isn't, IMpersonalO, dedicated to "awakening the world" and it never was.

Those that stay don't stay for the reason you propose, but because they find a level of thinking and analysis here that invites them to return. For instance, I have found numerous posts from (I'm naming only a few) Rimmer, Jarvis, Welling, Gecko, Sysman, Hardliner, Chuck, Diane, Puddintame, Milne, etc., to be very thought-provoking about Y2K from a wide range of angles.

As for "everyone is lying," that's a tired canard. Would that it were so! It would make Y2K analysis easy. The problem is that some are, some aren't.

"Why does this matter?

Maybe it doesn't to most here. It does to me.

I don't post to try to convince "GI"s. I learned long ago that was a futile endeavor.

I do post to try and offset the massive amount of misinformation being spewed. So that people can form their own opinions on Y2k. But the "Alarmism" thwarts this; posts are buried under the volume of "Alarmism". Those that are looking for information move along; those predisposed to the conclusions already formed here, stay."

Spewed misinformation. OK. Your opinion. But don't infantilize the forum. People here are WELL ABLE to form their own opinions about Y2K and have been doing so on-and-off this forum. It happens that most of the people here have an opinion that Y2K IS ALARMING and that anyone who isn't alarmed has fallen asleep. Like you, for instance. You're sawing logs, Hoff.

I must say, without apology, I am not here looking for something called "information" or "awareness", ESPECIALLY on September 8, 1999. All the needed information and awareness to make basic judgments about Y2K was available at least six months ago.

I am looking for insights and advice I can use to gauge my further need for preparation and for response as we hit rollover and beyond.

In that sense, the fewer pollies here the better (that's a personal opinion, I don't have any problem with thousands of pollies posting here, though it's beyond me why any would waste their time --- except for those like you who are on a "mission"). There are about 230 million pollies in this country alone, last I looked. Fine. Hope they're all right in the end.

Here, I can find a few reasonably like-minded people who have come to roughly similar conclusions as myself. I didn't realize that was a crime? I want to benefit from their insights over the coming months, as I have over the past months. And I will.

The idea that this is some sort of ersatz publication or that there is some burden on some entity called "the forum" to be "balanced" (whatever that means) or that people should feel bad (baaaaad boy) for believing Y2K is still a disaster-in-the-making is ludicrous on its face.

As for your "friends" -- you're not so dumb as to think that wasn't a setup on your part, are you? AS IF you thought they would say, "wow, what a cool forum, Hoff." ROFLMAO.

Stick to the function points.

-- BigDog (BigDog@Duffer.com), September 08, 1999.


Gee, thanks Hoffmeister for badly distorting what I wrote. You said:

"Anita E. basically sums it up best. People can't be trusted to make the right decisions on their own. They must be scared into making the decisions they should. She talks of arrogance and ego. Right. The whole "GI" concept is based on arrogance; that they "Get It" because "they" have the capacity to see the "Big Picture", where others cannot. The arrogance is again shown by the idea people must be "scared" into making the right decisions."

I talked exclusively about myself, Hoffmeister, and what it took to get me (see the many references to "I" and "MY") motiviated -- yet, even with those words in front of you, you chose to falsely generalize and extrapolate from that. Very intellectually dishonest, Hoffmeister. Shame on you. BTW, regarding arrogance and ego, the reference was to YOU. Too bad you missed that. Self-awareness is a real benefit, if you want people to listen to you.

Anita Spooner said,

"I'll go on (despite the fact that it will result in flames from those involved.) Anita Evangelista has written books on how to survive in times of crises, so she has NO interest in hearing possibilities regarding how those needs may not be required."

I suppose I should thank my namesake for doing something I have NEVER done: publicise my books on this website. Unfortunately, she is wrong, too. The books I have written have nothing to do with "how to survive in times of crises" as she falsely wrote -- they are books written for homesteaders, for back-to-the-landers, for people desiring self-sufficiency, and for small farmers....go ahead, check the titles. Check the publication dates -- the first was written in 1995; the latest, on raising "backyard livestock", in 1997. I became convinced about the reality of y2k in March, 1998 -- as I've said many times on this forum -- quite a bit after the books were published.

Am I profiteering from y2k -- pushing a doomist agenda to make money off of this situation? Get real. I make more in a month as a nurse than I have ever made from my books. My royalty check is due to arrive in the Spring of 2000 -- the only true reward I will see from those "profiteering" books is knowing that someone out there may be helped during the rollover.

If I wanted to profiteer from doom, I would tell people to smoke more, drink more, drive faster, and do more drugs -- then I could REALLY rack up some bucks working overtime at the hospital.

Meanwhile, one must wonder what perverse satisfaction people like Hoffmeister and Anita Spooner get from trotting out their two year old reports and distortions, as well as empty old rhetoric.

I think they're getting desperate.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 08, 1999.


Hoffmeister, I have always enjoyed your posts, and have always in fact looked upon them as perhaps the very best arguments that could ever have been offered for the Pollyanna Point Of View. They always do a great job of pointing out that we can never be completely sure that Y2K is going to be the disaster that many of us believe.

You have logically pointed out to us that just because the FAA has been caught, multiple times, lying about their Y2K compliance in the past does not prove that they are lying about their Y2K compliance in the present. Or just because deadlines have been missed, multiple times, for Y2K compliance does not prove that the current deadline will not be met. Certainly nobody has been able to prove that IBM mainframes with uninstalled Y2K fixes that encounter the year 2000 will have significant adverse consequences. Nor has anyone been able to prove that a non-Y2K compliant system will produce data that will cause Y2K compliant systems to exhibit significant adverse consequences. Etc., etc.

However, there comes a time when one must move beyond the debate and look at what is reasonable to infer rather than what can be necessarily proven beyond a doubt. Is it reasonable to assume that agencies caught lying will continue to lie? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that an agencies with a history of missed deadlines will miss future deadlines? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that a system that has not had Y2K fixes applied will fail or become unreliable as of 1/1/2000? Yes. Is it reasonable to assume that a non-compliant system can pass data to a compliant system that now puts the latter system's reliability in a questionable state? Yes. Etc., etc.

This is simple common sense. When one looks at the tradeoffs between being prepared for a disaster that will not happen versus not being prepared for a disaster that will happen, it becomes a no-brainer.

Less that four months to go. Good luck to you, Hoffmeister.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 08, 1999.

Jack:

I think I should point out that what Hoffmeister has said is that, technically speaking, the FAA has NOT YET been caught in a SINGLE lie about their remediation status. Their statements have been deliberately misinterpreted (and one could argue that the FAA shot themselves in the foot by setting up a complex reporting schedule, but that's another story). But no matter how many times you chant that the FAA has been caught lying, the TRUTH is that this has not yet happened even once.

Perhaps you've read some of the discussions between Hoff and Robert Cook, and then ignored everything but Cook's mistakes? Perhaps you are so determined to convince yourself that the FAA is lying that nothing else can penetrate to you? You sound like someone who memorized a catechism as a child and got it wrong. It's too hard- wired by now for real thought to get through.

This is NOT to say the FAA has been entirely honest, you understand. Only that they haven't yet been caught directly. Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 08, 1999.


Flint said, "Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading."

Oh. I guess "deliberately misleading" isn't anything like "lying". Good thing to know. I feel so much more confident now.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 08, 1999.


Flint,

I don't really want to get in the middle of anything here, but isn't "deliberately misleading" the same as "lying"?

*Supposedly*, President Clinton was technically correct when he said: "I didn't have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky", while shaking his finger at us.

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), September 08, 1999.


Sir Hoff,

I was going to comment on your original point, but I think that Anita E. said it best.

I'm more interested in why you feel the need to bring balance to this forum, and you too Flint. You guys know the environment here. If it's worth talking about, we rip it to shreads. That's the nice thing about the doomer attitude. WE QUESTION EVERYTHING. Why shouldn't we?

You know, we have a flood of "great news" lately. Things like the FAA being 100% done with everything. But then why is Primeon still there? We have 99% of the banks done, unless you look at Wiess (Jim, you did see the part about "(GAO) as well as national consumer organizations" didn't you). But hey, what's a few hundred banks, more or less? Ya know, I'll even bet that the second great "test" of the power-grid on 9/9 will show up in the headlines. Any takers? I'll give ya 100 to 1! We have a flood of good news, and you guys are standing on the bow of the Titanic. Good luck.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.


Anita and Clyde:

OK, I guess we need to cover this one more time, until we get it right. The FAA broke their remediation/testing program up into 5 phases. They reported their progress on the *current* phase with each of their reports. By contrast, other agencies were reporting their progress with respect to either the completion of remediation (and start of full testing), or the completion of everything including testing.

FAA was always very careful to explain that they were NN% complete with the current phase. Which the media totally ignored, just as the media continue to call the NERC drills "tests" despite NERC press releases emphasizing that they are drills and NOT tests. So when the FAA announded that they were 99% complete *with phase TWO*, the media reported that FAA was "99% complete" and left off the phase two part. And of course, quite a few frequent posters to this forum picked up on what the media misreported. So two months later, when the FAA said they were 31% complete with phase FOUR or some such, the yahoos here started jumping up and down about how FAA was *going backwards*, and therefore MUST have been lying.

And to hear some (like our pal Ray) tell it, they've been lying ever since. And this phase-related reporting has been explained to Ray about a dozen times, patiently and with lots of links to detailed explanations at the FAA web site, and in press reports that got it right. Which of course Ray has totally ignored and never responded to, so that he can continue to call the FAA liars and maintain "plausible deniability" ("Gee, I never saw any explanation. Who me? Gee")

I personally suspect the FAA chose to break down their project reporting this way in order to create the impression they were further ahead than they really were last summer. And shot themselves in the foot, because it required actual attention to detail later on to follow their actual progress even if you wanted to know what progress the FAA was really making (as opposed to just trying to call them liars to make yourself feel good). Few people follow these things closely enough to ferret out such a detail, EXCEPT those who are trying to build a "government=liars" case no matter what.

But it's entirely possible that the FAA wasn't being deliberately misleading at all. Once the media get it wrong, it's very hard to correct both because the false impression has been created, and because it's easier for reporters to quote one another than to go back to original sources. And once the anti-government faction in this forum gets it wrong, it's impossible to correct. Even when they *know* they're wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 08, 1999.


Flint, the short answer is once again to consider what is reasonable regarding the FAA's trail. Has the agency been open and above-board regarding their Y2K status? If they have not, then inferring that they are being deceptive for a reason just makes good sense.

Yes, Hoffmeister and you probably could act in the capacity of defense lawyers for the FAA, and probably get an acquital from a jury that must make its decision based on a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I again state: when one moves beyond the debate game and into the common sense world, one would be a fool to bet one's life that the FAA is Y2K compliant.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 08, 1999.

Flint:

You wrote: " So when the FAA announded that they were 99% complete *with phase TWO*, the media reported that FAA was "99% complete" and left off the phase two part. And of course, quite a few frequent posters to this forum picked up on what the media misreported. So two months later, when the FAA said they were 31% complete with phase FOUR or some such, the yahoos here started jumping up and down about how FAA was *going backwards*, and therefore MUST have been lying."

You know, it would be much easier to believe the FAA has been forthcoming if they made an effort to correct the "mistaken" media reports -- do you have URLs showing their reps saying, 'no, no, no, we're only 99% done with a little piece of our work'? Absent that, we are left with the strong conclusion that they were WILLING participants in misleading the public. Honest agencies with nothing to gain by lies, don't have to do this kind of thing, and will make serious efforts to "correct the record".

We know that you are trying to maintain your role as forum Devil's Advocate, but really, Flint -- even you must be able to see what a weak case you're dealing with here.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 08, 1999.


Flint said

I think I should point out that what Hoffmeister has said is that, technically speaking, the FAA has NOT YET been caught in a SINGLE lie about their remediation status.

BWHAHAHAHAH

Flint, just what are you smoking these days, crack or some good Hawaiian? I guess Jane Garvey thinks it depends on what 'is' is.

BWHAHAHAHA

I guess the FBI 'deliberately mislead' Congress about using those naughty fireworks at Waco, huh Flint?

BWHAHAHAHHAHA

You crack me up guy - keep up the good work!

-- a (a@a.a), September 08, 1999.


"People here are WELL ABLE to form their own opinions about Y2K"

I can't resist this one BigDog.

I IPLed my first mainframe on 03/01/68 (appx). This was a "small" 360/30, would fit in a living room. I remember, trying to show off to my new boss, saying something like "That'll be fun in about 30 years."

Yea, but this stuff will never last that long. It changes all the time. IBM is going to have the 370 soon. They'll have it fixed by then, I'll bet."

The boss knows best. I didn't think about it again for a few years. Then, in the early 70's, Exxon built their new data center in Florham Park, NJ. The guy that tought me Fortran was a programmer there, and I went to visit. My first "big" computer room. Like a football field. 3 giant 360/65's a couple RCA mainframes, banks of disk drives...

I remember doing some date programming then. Wondering why the stupid OS didn't return YYMMDD so it sorts nice. I remembered the giant data center, saying something like "with all the stuff they have, they'll be real busy in 25 years with this stupid YY."

Well, the 370 OS didn't address YY for years. We all went on, using "ACCEPT CURRENT-DATE" to get that old MM/DD/YY from the OS. Cranking out programs. Creating files.

But, it'll never last that long.

Awareness?

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.


Flint:

I've not yet worked at a firm wherein Y2k remediation was NOT phased. Of course I've not worked at the FAA, who may have felt compelled to counteract the "planes falling from the sky" fears.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 09, 1999.


Sysman --- My father-in-law was the first program manager for DOS (the very first) when it was under development. As you say, awareness?

Flint --- Just like your "Y2K will have no significant impact statement," your attempt to distinguish between "deliberately misleading" and "lying" is one of those watersheds that sheds light on the way you REALLY think and approach things.

Deliberately misleading: "I didn't have sex with that woman."

Lying: "I didn't have sex with that woman."

That is, in any real world, except for the world of words manipulated as empty tokens that seems to give you such delight. At least I no longer wonder why you favor and give credence to the PR side of Y2K. Thanks for making it so clear.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.


Anita E:

Excuse me. Didn't realize your justification of Alarmism was based solely on the fact that you needed it, without extending to others. My bad.

BTW, find any failed oil and water valves on Paula Gordon's site yet?

BigDog:

Awareness is meaningless. Everyone is "aware" of Y2K. So what? The average person isn't preparing for Y2K nor do they spend time on this forum. Again, so what? Counter to the assumptions of most pollies, this forum isn't, IMpersonalO, dedicated to "awakening the world" and it never was.

Those that stay don't stay for the reason you propose, but because they find a level of thinking and analysis here that invites them to return. For instance, I have found numerous posts from (I'm naming only a few) Rimmer, Jarvis, Welling, Gecko, Sysman, Hardliner, Chuck, Diane, Puddintame, Milne, etc., to be very thought-provoking about Y2K from a wide range of angles.

Won't comment on some of the names. You have your opinions, I have mine.

Others seem to have other "opinions" on the purpose of this forum.

As for "everyone is lying," that's a tired canard. Would that it were so! It would make Y2K analysis easy. The problem is that some are, some aren't.

Uh huh. You did notice Jack's post a couple down from yours?

Or even Ed Yourdon's subtle insinuations that NERC is not to be believed?

Should I go through the current threads and count the number of times this "lying" concept comes up?

No, I guess "everyone" isn't lying. Just those that don't fit with the default forum view.

Spewed misinformation. OK. Your opinion. But don't infantilize the forum. People here are WELL ABLE to form their own opinions about Y2K and have been doing so on-and-off this forum. It happens that most of the people here have an opinion that Y2K IS ALARMING and that anyone who isn't alarmed has fallen asleep. Like you, for instance. You're sawing logs, Hoff.

Yes, the "GI" concept in full bloom. You either "Get It", or are "asleep". Nope, no arrogance there.

I must say, without apology, I am not here looking for something called "information" or "awareness", ESPECIALLY on September 8, 1999. All the needed information and awareness to make basic judgments about Y2K was available at least six months ago.

I am looking for insights and advice I can use to gauge my further need for preparation and for response as we hit rollover and beyond.

Truly spoken by one who has made his conclusions long ago. Can't have actual information messing with those conclusions, can we?

In that sense, the fewer pollies here the better (that's a personal opinion, I don't have any problem with thousands of pollies posting here, though it's beyond me why any would waste their time --- except for those like you who are on a "mission"). There are about 230 million pollies in this country alone, last I looked. Fine. Hope they're all right in the end.

Here, I can find a few reasonably like-minded people who have come to roughly similar conclusions as myself. I didn't realize that was a crime? I want to benefit from their insights over the coming months, as I have over the past months. And I will.

Thank you for confirming one of the main points of my post.

The idea that this is some sort of ersatz publication or that there is some burden on some entity called "the forum" to be "balanced" (whatever that means) or that people should feel bad (baaaaad boy) for believing Y2K is still a disaster-in-the-making is ludicrous on its face.

No, there is no "forum" entity.

At least, I don't think so.

Just observing the current state. Like I said, this is the result I see, whether by default or design.

As for your "friends" -- you're not so dumb as to think that wasn't a setup on your part, are you? AS IF you thought they would say, "wow, what a cool forum, Hoff." ROFLMAO.

Wasn't a "planned" setup, if that's what you mean.

Had some friends over for dinner. We ended up trying to remember the original MLB teams, and went to the 'Net. This forum was up.

While not really surprising, their reactions were enlightening.

Stick to the function points.

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it all the consideration it deserves.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Hoff -- Original MLB teams? Original 19th century or 20th century? St. Louis, Cinn, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Boston ... hmmm.

Anyway, what I SAID was,

"All the needed information and awareness to make basic judgments about Y2K was available at least six months ago." BASIC judgments, Hoff. Scarcely profound. Since then, we have a fog of PR surrounding us. Also scarcely profound.

As for the rest, I do indeed plead guilty as charged. Bad boy, bad boy!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.


Hoffmeister said: "BTW, find any failed oil and water valves on Paula Gordon's site yet?"

Gee, Hoffmeister. The only water valves I come in contact with are the ones on my kitchen sink faucet. I can't find any numbers on them. I don't know where to find oil valves -- maybe on my car?

Would you please post a list of the appropriate numbers for these valves, so that I will know what to look for? You must know them all by heart, since you have searched the entire gwu site and all the related documents and failed to find any of them. Golleee, you're good.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


Nope, Anita, I couldn't find them either.

But then, I wasn't the one who said they were there in the first place.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Hoffmeister:

I'm afraid you have, once again, "spun" what I said. I'd like to be really charitable about this and believe that you have a learning disability, and this kind of distortion is something genetic that is quite out of your control. But, really.

You are right, though, on your second sentence: you didn't say the information was there....Paula Gordon referred the C-Span caller to her site for more information on the issue of valve failures. She certainly didn't have any parts numbers on the tip of her tongue....

By the baffling reasoning you are trying to use on this thread, that means that she couldn't prove her case that failures happen. This ploy, of course, is patent nonsense. It would be the same as if you were asked: "Can you provide engine numbers of passenger jets that have crashed?" Well, if you can't, then how can we believe jets actually crash?

You said, "I couldn't find them either". But, let's try a little direct honesty here:

(1)Have you a actually fully searched the gwu site? (Simple yes or no will do.)

(2)If so, with so many supporting documents and so many pages of information, did you give every piece a fair reading? "Fair reading" means: you looked at each and every page of every supporting document (please tell us how many supporting documents there are, too), and you determined that not one of them includes ANY information about valves or valve numbers.

(3)*What numbers, specifically, were you looking for?* This is really the most important answer here. If we all knew the part numbers for oil and water valves, we could help you find this oh-so-critical information.

Without honest, direct, and non-distortive answers to these three items, it only looks like you're trying to further confuse the issue.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


I'm afraid you have, once again, "spun" what I said. I'd like to be really charitable about this and believe that you have a learning disability, and this kind of distortion is something genetic that is quite out of your control. But, really.

Just reading your posts, Anita.

You are right, though, on your second sentence: you didn't say the information was there....Paula Gordon referred the C-Span caller to her site for more information on the issue of valve failures. She certainly didn't have any parts numbers on the tip of her tongue....

By the baffling reasoning you are trying to use on this thread, that means that she couldn't prove her case that failures happen. This ploy, of course, is patent nonsense. It would be the same as if you were asked: "Can you provide engine numbers of passenger jets that have crashed?" Well, if you can't, then how can we believe jets actually crash?

Sorry. Wasn't necessarily looking for "part numbers". Just examples of "oil valves" and "water valves" that would or even could fail due to Y2k.

You can point to many air crashes, as examples.

Before someone gets on a televised show and proposes these types of failures, it would be reasonable to assume they are basing those statements on some form of facts or examples.

Must be my "learning disability" again.

You said, "I couldn't find them either". But, let's try a little direct honesty here:

(1)Have you a actually fully searched the gwu site? (Simple yes or no will do.)

Yes.

(2)If so, with so many supporting documents and so many pages of information, did you give every piece a fair reading? "Fair reading" means: you looked at each and every page of every supporting document (please tell us how many supporting documents there are, too), and you determined that not one of them includes ANY information about valves or valve numbers.

She specifically pointed to a section related to "Failures".

That section contains 3 links. No other documentation.

I reviewed the links. No mention of "water valves" or "oil valves" failing.

(3)*What numbers, specifically, were you looking for?* This is really the most important answer here. If we all knew the part numbers for oil and water valves, we could help you find this oh-so-critical information.

Again, no "numbers". Just looking for "oil valves" and "water valves".

Without honest, direct, and non-distortive answers to these three items, it only looks like you're trying to further confuse the issue.

Actually, Anita, trying to clarify the issue.

Paula Gordon goes on C-SPAN and talks of "Water Valves" and "Oil Valves" failing.

When questioned, she said examples were at her website.

You defend her in your post by pointing out she said examples were there.

Fine.

Are they, or aren't they?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


I see. You said, "When questioned, she said examples were at her website."

But you also said you only searched in one small, three document portion. Not the entire site.

You haven't looked at her entire website.

Maybe, to be honest, you should.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


She specifically said the examples were in the "Failures" section.

Which is what I stated in the preceding paragraph. Sorry for not including the whole phrase everytime I mention her website.

To borrow from above, was she "deliberately misleading"?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Howling laughter! *Technically*, Paula Gordon didn't lie. When someone asked about valves, she referred the person to her website. She didn't *actually* say there *was* any information about valves on her website, she simply let her questioner draw an obvious inference. Gordon was deliberately misleading, but didn't *quite, actually* lie.

And since Paula Gordon is a Good Guy, being deliberately misleading is a Good Thing, and people like Anita E will twist reality to fit the party line. But if the FAA is misleading, that makes them liars (although the FAA was even *less* misleading than Paula Gordon). Boo, hiss, Bad FAA!

Indeed, I am amused to note that Big Dog has started an entire thread solely for the purpose of hanging a "crybaby" sign around his neck! In that thread, he illustrates that when someone catches you in a falsehood, the ethical response is to attack whoever caught you! Whereas in this thread, he's upfront enough to make the bald statement that he simply cannot distinguish between a lie, and any truth he doesn't choose to accept.

But as Hoff makes so hilariously clear, Big Dog now admits he visits this forum for the purpose of hobnobbing with those who fawn over him. He's under no pressure here to be accurate, consistent, honest or fair. Why bother, when doing so will cost him his applause without any apparent boost to self-image? For some, a stolen lunch tastes as good (or better) than one you paid for.

And Anita E, you should read more carefully before posting, perhaps. You blamed FAA because you didn't understand their reports, and now you blame Hoffmeister because Paula Gordon was deliberately misleading (but didn't lie, oh no!). How can you repent your sins if someone else committed them all?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.


Gee Hoffmeister, maybe your computer isn't working right.

I went to Paula Gordon's "gwu/keypeople" site -- you'll notice that the prominent University thinks she is one of their "keypeople".

There I went to "Resources".

From there, to "Tracking of Y2K Related Failures".

There, I found the same three other sites you found.

I picked one, the IEE-UK site. At the "Casebook" portion of that site, I used the search engine and input "valves+oil OR water".

BINGO! -- and from May!

Now, perhaps you could insist that this "doesn't fit the definition of a valve failure", or that "she said 'failureS' not 'failure'", or that "it wasn't actually on HER site", or that "it's old news" -- or better yet, that "it must have been added since you did your search".

AND I ONLY LOOKED AT ONE SITE, Hoffmeister -- apparently, in spite of what you said, YOU DIDN'T.

If you *seriously* wanted facts, you could go to any of the over 100 sites listed (such as the California State Water Board site), and do a similar search.

Oh, my. How embarrassing for you.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


Hoff -- Stop messing with Anita, she'll beat the you-know-what out of you.

This might amaze and delight you, but I have problems with Paula Gordon myself. Your nemesis, Cory, has also expressed doubts at times.

The LEVEL of Gordon's concern does not seem matched by the QUALITY of the data and examples she does cite or refer to. I also don't find the quality of her thinking to be terribly profound or deeply technical (which I would expect considering what she claims). I wouldn't say this was necessarily deliberately misleading (she may just be profoundly alarmed, personally, by the risks), but it does trouble me.

I don't know enough about embedded systems to weigh the actual risks, which I keep separate from my comment above.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.


Yepper, Anita.

Here's the link:

http://www.ie e.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/eg-20.htm

Equipment Type Logging / Monitoring
Industry Sector
ALL

PC or Computer based
No


Application
Water leak detection.
Description of the Problem
Non reporting of leaks / fire alarms. Potential false alarms. Critical date 01/01/2000.
How was it Identified
Manufacturer supplied information.
What was the Solution
Upgrade microprocessor.
Consequences for the SYSTEM Erroneous Result
Consequences of failure to the BUSINESS
Non reporting of leaks could cause major damage with long down times. False alarms would cause systems (e.g.. air conditioning) to be closed down- potentially catastrophic if supporting Comms room.

Not an engineer, but sure doesn't sound like a "Water Valve" to me. Sounds like (actually, says) Logging and Monitoring.

Well, it did at least mention "water".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Oh. So your computer works after all. Maybe you can try some of the hundred other sites now, too.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.

Yep. Computer works just fine.

Found that one before.

Just haven't found any "Water Valves" or "Oil Valves".

Nice try, though. Kinda transparent, not providing the link or any info. But nice try, all the same.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Flint -- You're starting to suffer from an advanced case of hysteria. Calm down. What does this mean?

"Whereas in this thread, he's upfront enough to make the bald statement that he simply cannot distinguish between a lie, and any truth he doesn't choose to accept."

Go out and have a smoke, take some deep breaths and try again.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.


Unbelievable, Hoffmeister.

This time, you said: "Found that one before."

But you also previously said you didn't find anything. Which story is the lie?

You also said:"Just haven't found any "Water Valves" or "Oil Valves".

But you only looked at ONE SITE, USING ONLY ONE PHRASE (i.e., "valves+oil OR water"). Duh. You're supposed to be the computer guy -- maybe you could try some of the hundred or so other sites AND some other combinations of phrases, huh?

In final desperation, you said: "Nice try, though. Kinda transparent, not providing the link or any info. But nice try, all the same."

I only told you PRECISELY how to get there -- something you clearly hadn't done on your own until I gave you directions. It was so easy, even I -- a total non-geek -- could figure it out.

Please get a grip, Hoffmeister. It's obvious you didn't do what you said you did -- and that you aren't really willing to look at Gordon's site references for more information. You waited until I did the research for you, and then tried to back out by saying it didn't count because I didn't include a link!!!

This is frail. Do your homework, next time, and perhaps your embarrassment won't be so obvious.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


Unbelievable, Hoffmeister.

This time, you said: "Found that one before."

But you also previously said you didn't find anything. Which story is the lie?

Oh, there are lots of "things" at those sites. What I said was I hadn't found any "water valves" or "oil valves" that would/could fail.

Really starting to stretch here, Anita.

You also said:"Just haven't found any "Water Valves" or "Oil Valves".

Well gee, maybe you can read.

But you only looked at ONE SITE, USING ONLY ONE PHRASE (i.e., "valves+oil OR water"). Duh. You're supposed to be the computer guy -- maybe you could try some of the hundred or so other sites AND some other combinations of phrases, huh?

No, looked at the other sites in her "Failure" section, as well.

Went throught the index at IEE; didn't use the "search".

In final desperation, you said: "Nice try, though. Kinda transparent, not providing the link or any info. But nice try, all the same."

I only told you PRECISELY how to get there -- something you clearly hadn't done on your own until I gave you directions. It was so easy, even I -- a total non-geek -- could figure it out.

No, the point was what you "found" was obviously not a "water valve" or "oil valve", yet that was the impression you wished to present. My guess is that's why you didn't present the actual information, or a link to the information. Just a guess, though.

Please get a grip, Hoffmeister. It's obvious you didn't do what you said you did -- and that you aren't really willing to look at Gordon's site references for more information. You waited until I did the research for you, and then tried to back out by saying it didn't count because I didn't include a link!!!

Sorry, Anita, wrong answer.

Hey, e-mail Paula. Maybe she can help you find them.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Hoffmeister:

Once again, obfuscation.

You said, "No, the point was what you "found" was obviously not a "water valve" or "oil valve", yet that was the impression you wished to present. My guess is that's why you didn't present the actual information, or a link to the information. Just a guess, though."

Hoffmeister, your guess -- like your attempt at honesty -- is wrong.

As I said before, I don't know anything about valves. I used THEIR search engine (the IEE's), with "valve+oil OR water" and THEY gave me that link. Since they know the subject, and I don't, I can only believe that their association is meaningful. To the IEE, there's a valve involved.

You choose not to believe the IEE site. You must know much more about the subject than the IEE. I suggest you take your concerns about what constitutes a proper "valve" to them.

Finally, you said, "Hey, e-mail Paula. Maybe she can help you find them."

Hoffmeister, I've already found an example for you. If you want more, you'll have to look on your own. But, frankly, you DON'T want more examples -- and that's obvious because, even with the information in your hand, you won't look at it....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


Anita, sorry, don't blame me just because you don't know how to use a search engine.

IEE does not think it has anything to do with valves.

Put just "Valve" or "valves" in the search engine. Nothing shows up.

The OR in your search meant OR ANYTHING that contains WATER.

Keep trying, though. This gets better all the time.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


Here, Hoffmeister. Let me just help this along a little:

Anita E.: You've got the info, now use it!

Hoffmeister: It's not a valve.

Anita E. (wasting an entire day hunting up part numbers): Here's one, the qpx994-az229 [entirely bogus, BTW], found on valves for oil pipelines.

H: No link? Must be a lie.

A: Find it yourself, you big loser.

H: Found it. That's only one valve out of thousands. So what? One valve can fail. Have they tested all of this type?

A: Heck if I know.

H: Well, then, maybe this is a one-time event with ONLY this particular dumb valve. See, nothing is going to happen.

A: And, what if it applies to ALL of these particular valves?

H: You have no proof of that.

A: I JUST GAVE YOU PROOF!!!

H: No, you only gave me a part number. How many part numbers are there, anyway? A million? A billion? To truly prove that failures will be widespread, you have to show a significant percentage will fail.

A: Geez, all you asked for was a part number. Now I have to prove that the whole world will fail, or you won't buy any of it.

H: Guess so.

A: Well, tough. Do your own homework.

And that's where I'm willing to leave it.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


Ah well.

Fabricated accounts of "proof" are better than nothing.

I guess.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.


To those Hardy Souls who have Braved this Pointless Thread Thus Far:

After spending the afternoon away from my computer (real life intrudes), I have belatedly and reluctantly given the issue more thought.

Hoffmeister is right about one thing: the link I made ("valve+oil OR water") is wrong, wrong, wrong. The fact that I did not realize that wouldn't lead exclusively to either 'oil valves' or 'water valves' is a statement of my dismal computer skills. I said I was a non-geek, and this pretty well shows it. My 17-year-old son explained the mistake to me in terms I could understand. Mea Culpa.

Of course, Hoffmeister said he had been to that item before, even though he only searched the site index under 'valves' -- which shouldn't have brought him to this entry. Remarkable.

But all this silly hunting for valve references essentially comes from a single line Paula Gordon said on the C-Span program. Hoffmeister asked if by not giving specific valve data was she being "deliberatly misleading."

Flint opined, "Howling laughter! *Technically*, Paula Gordon didn't lie. When someone asked about valves, she referred the person to her website. She didn't *actually* say there *was* any information about valves on her website, she simply let her questioner draw an obvious inference."

This is somewhat more accurate than what Hoffmeister suggested, but still not really correct. The questioner was given a specific response to his rather confused question. Here is the conversation, which I have transcribed off of my copy of the program (C-Span has a transcript available, also, for which Hoffmeister will have to find his own link). This followed Dr. Gordon's ongoing discussion of her concerns about embedded systems:

Caller: My question for Paula Gordon, you talked of failures in pipeline valves, of water valves. Do you have examples of the types of systems, uh, types of valves that are going to fail? If, right now, after all the work that has been done, it should be more...I mean we should have some examples of these systems that are going to fail. You also mentioned NERC....

Host: Okay caller, let's let Paula respond to that. Are there examples of water systems, he was asking?

Gordon: There are examples of failures of embedded systems which are on the web. If you go to my web site, you will find a list of references and resources....(snip directions to her site).

So, Flint is correct: she never mentioned valves of any kind -- but not to let her "questioner draw an obvious inference". She quite clearly stated what could be found: "examples of failures of embedded systems".

Why didn't she discuss valves specifically? To answer this, please note the question the host asked her -- "Are there examples of water systems?" We can all think of water system examples -- Van Nuys comes immediately to mind. The host didn't ask her: 'are there examples of valves?'.

Was Dr. Gordon being "deliberately misleading" by her answer? No. She stated quite specifically what she was referring to "examples of failures of embedded systems" -- in perfect response to the question the host asked her in context with the ongoing discussion.

We are the ones who leapt to the wrong conclusions.

What have we learned from this? Well, I, for one, have learned something new about computer searches. I've also learned to go directly to an original source instead of relying on reports from obviously biased observers.

Finally, I've confirmed something else: People who won't do their own research, while demanding that information be provided to answer their questions, don't really want any answers.

I resolve, henceforth, to send them looking.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.


If I could only move this tree, I'm sure there's a forest back there...

A valve is the same as a switch, it turns on and off, or redirects.

"False alarms would cause systems (e.g.. air conditioning) to be closed down- potentially catastrophic if supporting Comms room."

Close enough for me. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ