Hello again. It's been a while since I actually posted, though I have read several attempts at imitation that, while flattering, failed to do much aside from revealing the mindset of the post-er and deter sensible individuals from "falling for the fear." Thanks. :)

I am certain you have heard or read the latest from the doomer leadership. They have moved from "You will see when things fail on 99____" to "It's all a big cover-up" and (my personal favourite) "We brought attention the problem - that is why it has been addressed and will not be as bad as we said."

I thought this last refrain sounded a touch familiar, so I searched the database here to see where it had appeared previously. I found it in an early Andy Ray post (What is the "exit strategy?").

" I imagine people making the claim "If we had not caused such fear, the problem would not have been properly addressed" or some similar nonsense. It is reminiscent of the tactics of political regimes that history now frowns upon with utter disdain. I fear the same history awaits the doomsday claimants. The people who advocate doomsday scenarios thinly veil their predictions with phrases that suggest that they do not actually *wish* these events to occur, but that they merely *believe* they will occur. Their adamant arguments betray their Neo-Luddite motives. The snide arrogance displayed in responses to challenges wherewith they look down upon those who disagree - offering no arguments against the ever-clear facts of the matter, resorting instead to name-calling - speaks volumes. "

Nice to see someone's predictions coming to pass. :)

Evidence counts. The failure of predictions to come to pass counts. Proof counts viz. one chip, one system. All else has several qualities; usefulness is not among them.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 06, 1999

Answers

http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

Emergency Food and Water Supplies

If an earthquake, hurricane, winter storm or other disaster ever strikes your community, you might not have access to food, water and electricity for days, or even weeks. By taking a little time now to store emergency food and water supplies, you can provide for your entire family.

This brochure was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Community and Family Preparedness Programs which provides information to help families prepare for all types of disasters.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 06, 1999.

I checked out your other posts and it sure looks like you lost your challenge. You asked for lists of parts and we're provided with thousands. Maybe you are overlooking one minor consideration, that the chips are not at risk of failing in 1999, it is the YEAR 2000 that is the problem! Of course, why should we expect you to be any different than other Pollys and Pollyticians. When information is presented to you, you refuse to acknowledge it because you are as BLIND AS A BAT!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.

snipped from an earlier post by Uncle Bob:

Source: Cap Gemini America Inc.

A chilling new survey reveals that not only are systems at most of the nation's largest corporations already failing due to Y2K glitches, but that few companies are optimistic they'll be ready in time for the century rollover.

The survey, conducted by Cap Gemini America Inc. (New York), finds that 75 percent of the largest U.S. companies have already experienced a Year 2000-related date failure in their systems. Only about half of these companies (48 percent) expect to have all their critical systems ready when the Year 2000 hits, so they're preparing for the worst....

-- matt (downunda@somewhere.nz), October 06, 1999.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/reports/y2k/dos.html

[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9.19.99]

Be prepared: A list of do's

By Marilyn Geewax

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer

Washington -- Don't panic, but get prepared. While the nation's basic infrastructure will function after Jan. 1, authorities say the Y2K computer bug is sure to cause some problems. The power could go out in one community, while the water system falters in another and traffic lights malfunction in still another. Because no one can say with certainty which systems might fail, "the basic message we are giving people is ... be prepared for an emergency," said Red Cross spokeswoman Leslie Credit. Start your preparations by figuring out who is going to be in your household between Dec. 31 and mid-January, and what each person's special needs will be. Then lay out a strategy for making sure everyone can stay hydrated, healthy and warm for up to two weeks. These are among the recommendations being made by mainstream agencies:

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 06, 1999.

"If the US stock market crashes before the rest of the world has recovered economically, we will have another depression like the 30's" - George Soros, top financier

"The fate of the world economy is tied to the US stock market which is dependent on 50 stocks, half of which have never posted a profit" - Paul Volcker, ex FED chairman

"99% is not god enough. It has to be 100%" - Alan Greenspan, FED chairman

"We will probably see another Great Depression in 2000" - Japan's "Dr. Yen", leading economist

"The most likely scenario is a year of serious disruptions followed by a 10 year depression" - Ed Yourdon, software expert

"We have seen Y2K reports so alarming they have to be classified" - Sen. Fred Thompson, Tennessee

"Things will fail in ways in which we can barely understand" - Central Intelligence Agency

Need more Andy?

-- a (a@a.a), October 06, 1999.

"The number one problem we face is denial"

-Senator Bennett

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

Thank you, Andy Ray!!!!

-- blast (from@the.past), October 06, 1999.

I see hard times as a distinct possibility, which is more likely to be manifest in 2000 than in other years. Y2K (computer failure, alone) is one of many factors that could cause these hard times and will likely be the main precipitaing factor.

I have no crystal ball, let alone a crystal ball which tells me that we will sail through the next few years with continued growth, prosperity, and progress--UNLIKE YOU.

IF you read a recent (Jan 99?) issue of _the Economist_, you would see that end-of-the century anxiety has lead to financial panics for the past 4 centuries or so. 4 to zero is not statistically significant (not quite being p < .05), but it is close.

Based on this trend alone--IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING DRAMATIC like the fear of y2k failures or ACTUAL y2k failures--we have (i estimate) better than an 80% chance that the economy will seriously contract next year. This means high unemployment, higher crime, more poverty, and more soup kitchens. This could mean you.

The economy in the West, today, has been made more efficient by "just in time practices" which eliminate inventory, and are dependent on computers to make sure goods and services exactly where they are needed at exactly the right time. What happens when a fraction of these computers fail at the same time? Do you not expect more friction? How much friction is required to seriously disrupt these economic networks? I cannot say that I hold the answers. I can, however, say that CERTAIN RISKS EXIST for things to change for the worse.

What do you do with these risks? Tell people that they are stupid or "on the fringes" for being concerned?! This is a great tactic if you want to keep your money in the market longer while you, yourself, secretly prepare. That is because the markets are driven by confidence alone, these days. Any and all attempts to distribute "rose colored" glasses to investors--especially amateur investors--are greatly rewarded.

I think some of us here ARE Luddites. But not all. Those who self- effacingly call themselves "doomers" realize that life doles out some hard punches from time to time. What's so wrong about making extensive preparation for hard times? Once upon a time this was known as intelligence and it is credited for the rise of Homo sapiens (and his greater forebrain) and the fall of the Neanderthals.

If you are poor--living from paycheck to paycheck--you are being criticised by some for stockpiling non-perishable foods, water, and cash. Why? You are harming the efforts of peope "smarter" and "richer" than you to grab more of those effervescent bucks. Plain and simple. You are foiling the market forces who want to see you living less self-sufficiently and more dependent on debt and cheap, crappy, imported plastic goods.

I don't mind your opinions, Andy Ray. In fact, I welcome all constructive criticism of all viewpoints, "doomer" and "polly." I don't, however, appreciate when people are personally belittled for seeing things a little differently than the conventional wisdom, as is the common practice among many so-called "pollies" here.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 06, 1999.

Best of luck Andy Ray, really.

Mike

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 06, 1999.

Here is a different take on this. I would guess that most of yall would classify me as a 'doomer', my position on the possibilities being somewhere to the right of Paul Milne. As far as being a Luddite, I work in the high tech industry. Primarily embedded design and analysis (based on Yourdon/DeMarco/Constantine methodologies). The absolute LAST thing in the world that I would have predicted or been desirious of would be to go back to being a farmer at age 50. Particularly on a low tech (stoop labor) farm. Believe me, I grew up on a farm, and while I remember summers baling hay with fondness, it was because of the people and times, NOT the work!! The work was miserable, hot, tiring, and dirty, and that was with big tractors, balers, etc.

On the embedded front, maybe this will inject a little sanity into a subject where it appears to me that a whole lot of people who haven't a clue about this area are shooting off their mouths. (Won't listen to Ed Yourdon, who was a pioneer in this field, albeit in a theoretical capacity, so I don't know why I expect anyone to hear reality, but anyway). I have spent about 20 years working embedded systems, from both the hardware and software sides. Before that, I was an operator, maintainance man, and sometime system programmer on Univac and IBM mainframe systems. The problem with embedded systems is twofold. The first, and far and away the least important, is the hardware failure aspect. This can stem from having date-sensitive functionality on the chip. There are a few of these, but they tend to be older chips. These are micro-controllers mostly, which pick up date/time stuff from an external clock chip. Most, do in fact, have mere free-running clocks, but not all. And in some cases, the chip gets date from an external clock chip, and I know of at least one case where the clock chip has been upgraded, which is good, and the controller is an older model which has a hardware register, NOT a memory location which could be reprogrammed to handle whatever was required in the way of size, simply by reallocating memory, which register is 6 digits wide. Which means that whatever they pump into it, is by definition, 6 digits wide on the other side. (In the case I know of, the programmers stuffed the date in such that the first two digits of the year are what get dropped, which means that the tests of the modified code still work, because it is still 1999, which means that the arithmetic is still valid, which is not the case come January.) How many of these are still out there is an unknown, but I suspect that there are a lot more than people think. The company I work for is commonly thought of as a cutting edge technology company, but they have the problem, because a complete redesign of the at risk product would have cost a whole lot of money and they didn't want to spend it.

The second problem is a lot more common, and a lot more devastating. These are the software programs which reside in the chips. Particularly in the case of the embedded controllers, which have the program burned into ROM onboard the chip, the manufacturer typically hasn't a clue what is in that chip. They simply burned a binary pattern into chips ordered by some company that had generated a program to perform some control function. That company, in turn, may not have documentation (this is a whole lot more prevalent than anybody in the industry would like to admit, which is one reason why I got hired a lot of times, because I knew something about configuration management, which is what provides most of this.) In any event, the company would have to write a new program, with correction for the errors, then go out and physically pull out the old chip and replace it with a new one. One problem with this is that the chip which was originally used may no longer be available, in which case a new processor chip will be required. This chip may well have a different supporting chip set, with differing capabilities, it may have a different command set, different pin-out, different control capabilities, etc. Compounding this, the compilers, assemblers, linkers, and loaders may not be available, necessitating that the programs be rewritten simply because the new programs can no longer be compiled, etc.

Now all of these problems are not going to exist in each and every case. Some shops will have one problem with remediation, some will have another, some will have none. Some will have all. And all of this supposes that they have adequately tested the embedded stuff, which I believe is a stretch. ( I have seen two, which isn't by any means a comprehensive sampling, but so far, industry is 0 for 2 in the samples I have seen.)

All you pollies out there can take this for what you think it is worth. And it is late, preparing now will be more expensive, in terms of time if nothing else, as there is so much to do. But I have looked high and low for evidence that I am wrong. And what I have found is: - almost every line of code I have ever written excepting only my intro to computing courses in college, is still in use. - most of it is non-compliant. - most of it is going to fail. (And it is in HVAC, Telecomm, Weapons systems, Medical devices, manufacturing process controllers, industrial terminal systems, etc, that is all over the place as far as system type). - systems that noone would have ever imagined would be around 5 years later are still mainstream equipment, in some cases with the exact chips that had 5 year lifespans to begin with. - even stuff that was never intended to be commercial, or even available is out there in some standard math packages.

And almost all of it is history, with the exception of the stuff I have written in the last 7 years.

Now that scares the hell out of me. If you can live with it, more power to you, but as for me, I'm stocked up, and have contingencies for everything I can think of.

Good luck.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 06, 1999.

I need a drink.

Just another engineer..... you are scaring the (*&(*^% out of me.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 06, 1999.

Engineer:

Your comments echo many I have heard in private exchanges. I HAVE talked to an engineer who was able to trace back programming at his company and fix the bugs, but he had to go back to the single microprocessor level to do it. And how many companies can afford to put an $80,000 a year engineer on "bench work" like this for any length of time?

Andy:

Your reappearance is as welcome as your "science" is bad. Go play in your own sandbox.

Prepare for change. The world ain't gonna be what we thought it was, next year.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

"We will have succeeded if afterward they blame us for making too much of this." Old Finnish expression.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), October 07, 1999.

almost every line of code I have ever written excepting only my intro to computing courses in college, is still in use. - most of it is non-compliant. - most of it is going to fail. (And it is in HVAC, Telecomm, Weapons systems, Medical devices, manufacturing process controllers, industrial terminal systems, etc, that is all over the place as far as system type).

Bullshit, you have just copied what is written elsewhere, pretending you have experienced it. Most of which has been proven incorrect.

- systems that noone would have ever imagined would be around 5 years later are still mainstream equipment, in some cases with the exact chips that had 5 year lifespans to begin with.

Where are you getting this crap? 5 year lifespan? How did you come up with such a moronic concept?

Chips have absolutly no moving parts to "wear out". They They aren't stamped with a "do not use after" date like a medication.

- even stuff that was never intended to be commercial, or even available is out there in some standard math packages.

Then what exactly was this STUFF intended for then? What is STUFF anyway?

And almost all of it is history, with the exception of the stuff I have written in the last 7 years.

If all you did was STUFF, perhaps you should have been history, a long time ago.

Now that scares the hell out of me. If you can live with it, more power to you, but as for me, I'm stocked up, and have contingencies for everything I can think of.

Good luck.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 06, 1999.

Gotta wonder what type of engineer you are, you do not sound qualified to even be a domestic engineer

I need a drink.

Just another engineer..... you are scaring the (*&(*^% out of me.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 06, 1999.

Lisa,

Keep on drinking, if you believe that "story", you will believe anything.

Engineer:

Your comments echo many I have heard in private exchanges. I HAVE talked to an engineer who was able to trace back programming at his company and fix the bugs, but he had to go back to the single microprocessor level to do it. And how many companies can afford to put an $80,000 a year engineer on "bench work" like this for any length of time?

Oh WOW! Goodie, an engineer was actually able to trace down some programming to a single microprocessor!!! That is a hell of a lot to ask of am $80,000 per year engineer to do!

Guess they didn't have any peopns who get paid 1/4 that amount to do it for them in a fraction of the time. Or perhaps they did not think about getting a 15 year old geek to do it for them.

Andy:

Your reappearance is as welcome as your "science" is bad. Go play in your own sandbox.

Prepare for change. The world ain't gonna be what we thought it was, next year.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

Yep, mushroom, you eat this shit and are incapable of coming out od the dark so you can see the light.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 07, 1999.

Thanks to most for informative responses - especially Engineer. I have similar experience, though not as much of it; and I agree with the unexpected longevity of code authored in the past, having experienced the same shock of peeking into ROM and finding what I did in the early 80's.

As I have stated previously, my objection lies not with those who wish to prepare for what they perceive may be a problem, but with those who insist that there will be devastation (or may be devastation) without any evidence to support their claims - save hear-say.

I lost a great deal of respect for Mr. Yourdon and others whom, I believe, stepped out of their field of expertise and into a rather large pile of dung by hanging their professional reputations upon a catastrophic new year, previewed by mini-catastrophes throughout 1999. It seems amazingly short-sighted - especially for some who are peddling books about an alleged problem stemming from short-sightedness.

I claim no expertise, though I may be an expert (at least in the eyes of some, though none here - for which I'm thankful). I do know, for a fact, that the issue was overstated from the beginning; and when I attempted to point that fact out, I was ridiculed. The criticism I now direct towards doomers was fostered by their mockery of simple and straight-forward questions - questions, I might add, asked (at the time) by someone convinced interruption was inevitable, and attempting to verify the extent of the damage. It was then I discovered the flaw in the thinking: all doomers have some reason apart from their technological (or lack thereof) explanations of the problem - some reason for wanting to see disaster strike. For some, it is money (I fear Mr. Yourdon falls into this catagory); for others, they wish to be God's People In Charge of the sinful and judged planet; for still others, it is personal - they lost a job, they hate government, their husband/wife left them, they suffer from some disability or other - and feel unjustly treated in comparison to others. Without exception, each doomer has another reason to hope for the destruction of society as we know it.

So, it is not a technological problem at all. It is a problem of deluded individualists, who feel "wronged" by it all. Attempts to reach these people have failed, largely due to my inexperience in psychology and poor communication skills. For that, I am truly sorry. Disillusionment is not a positive experience, and I would honestly like to spare as many deluded doomers that experience as possible.

I have authored a book due to be released during the holidays. It is not complimentary, and, since it was written during the summer of 1999, it will prove that the truth of the matter could have been ascertained by any free-thinking individual who took time to objectively examine the evidence - free from hopes of disaster for some selfish reason.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 07, 1999.

Cheri:

A bad PMS flareup today? Does that "P" stand for "pre" or "permanent"?

And I *still* hope you are right.

Andy Ray:

You are generalizing. Just as I would be if I said that all "pollies" are really scared to death of what *will* happen next year and are engaged in heavy duty denial. I don't pretend to know how people come to the various conclusions they do about any of life's decisions. None of my business, anyway.

I LIKE my life, just the way it is. New house, new wife, kids doing well, good job in a nice company. I HATED the idea of prepping for this mess. I wasted a whole summer I could have been fishing. But I felt the stakes were high enough to make the effort necessary.

Please take me out of the group of "failures" wanting the world to end as compensation for their problems.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Andy Honey,

"So, it is not a technological problem at all."

Really? Tell that to the utilities, banks, governments and companies that have spent billions trying to fix it. You sure could have saved everyone a lot of trouble Andy. If only they had listened to you. (sigh)

"It is a problem of deluded individualists, who feel "wronged" by it all. Attempts to reach these people have failed, largely due to my inexperience in psychology and poor communication skills. For that, I am truly sorry."

You gotta "God Complex" or what? Give you a clue......you can get rid of that load of BS guilt real easy.....NEWS ALERT FOR ANDY!! ...no one was counting on you to fix 'em, Andy.

Btw, who are you trying to impress with your false modesty concerning your poor psychology and communication skills? As I see it,there's no need to apologize. If you have a problem with your conscious, see a priest.

"Disillusionment is not a positive experience, and I would honestly like to spare as many deluded doomers that experience as possible."

There goes that "God Complex" again. You really should do something about that. (g)

You know Andy, I have no problem with the conclusions you've drawn regarding the outcome of Y2k and possible fallout. Everyone's reasoning skills and life experiences will determine that. But layoff the bu*ls**t. Its really irritating and just has a tendency to show your *ss.

Oh....some free advice....be sure and get a good editor (deleter) to polish your tome....Oh yeah, and don't admit to any perspective publisher that you have "poor communication skills", it could really kill a deal for you.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 07, 1999.

For the record, I doubt that there are any Y2K Pollies who would disagree with the advice given in the posts made by Linkmeister above.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 07, 1999.

"...It was then I discovered the flaw in the thinking: all doomers have some reason apart from their technological (or lack thereof) explanations of the problem - some reason for wanting to see disaster strike. For some, it is money (I fear Mr. Yourdon falls into this catagory);

And why, prey tell, are you yourself releasing this "book?" For sheer edification on the part of society's common good? Could it be that you too want to capitalize on the "positive" spin in the same way some capitalize on the negative? In all honesty, I hope you will be laughing your condescending bum off at us losers when (or if) you expose us for being the brain-dead, rabble rousers that we are. At least we will be comfortable fuzzyheads rather than hungry ones, if all works out for the better.

for others, they wish to be God's People In Charge of the sinful and judged planet; for still others, it is personal - they lost a job, they hate government, their husband/wife left them, they suffer from some disability or other - and feel unjustly treated in comparison to others.

Like all fluffy psychology, there is SOME truth to this. It makes for fleetingly good conversation around the coffee cafes. I can almost see someone pulling their enlightened goatee listening to this sort of prattle. However this is far from a universal truth. There are many intelligent, clearly thinking people who are simply here because they are concerned. But even if your statement WAS true, SO WHAT! Why does it matter? Our glimmering civilization of today fails in many ways to provide for some basic human needs for many. What's wrong with being grumbly and disaffected? The only things ultimately being hurt are those outragous P/E ratios in the stock market.

Without exception, each doomer has another reason to hope for the destruction of society as we know it.

This is an all-inclusive, massive overgeneralization. Talk about unclear, fuzzy thinking. JEEZ LOUISE! "Destruction of society..." Hmmm. What do mean by destroy? Does that mean dead people? I don't think people here want to see dead people. Destroy society's insitutions? I don't know...what about _reinvigorate_. Society? What do you mean by society? Do you mean the financial elite? Do you mean the "evil" in society? "As we know it...?" Does that mean that "doomers" want society as they DON'T KNOW it? Is "Society as we DON'T know it" all that different from "society as we know it?"

So, it is not a technological problem at all. It is a problem of deluded individualists, who feel "wronged" by it all. Attempts to reach these people have failed, largely due to my inexperience in psychology and poor communication skills. For that, I am truly sorry. Disillusionment is not a positive experience, and I would honestly like to spare as many deluded doomers that experience as possible.

Oh don't give yourself a hard time. There are more than enough people who will gladly do it for you. As for coming here to spread a little happiness with your light of reason, I cannot honestly say that you've succeeded either. But no worry. All this mess will be over soon, and it will be apparent by mid-00 which of the seventeen facets of y2k prognostication will accurately reflect the reality.

I have authored a book due to be released during the holidays. It is not complimentary, and, since it was written during the summer of 1999, it will prove that the truth of the matter could have been ascertained by any free-thinking individual who took time to objectively examine the evidence - free from hopes of disaster for some selfish reason.

Good luck!! I'm happy to see that you can capitalize on all of our anxiety and prove your superiority!! BRAVO!! Congradulations!! Again, I honestly wish you the best of luck because the alternative (that some of the doomers will be correct) is FAR WORSE. "...the truth of the matter could have been ascertained by any free-thinking individual who took time to objectively look at the evidence..." I think it's possible that you might want to change the phrase "free-thinking" to "thinking (thought) - free."

As I see it, the evidence is as follows:

(1) Y2K is a genuine problem, with potentially severe economic and social ramificiations.

(2) Y2K (the technical problem) can be solved.

(3) Y2K (the technical problem) is being worked on and solved, but some of the work is found to be faulty and still full of problems. Bug-free software does not usually arrive on the deadline.

(4) Y2K was discovered too late to be solved perfectly.

(5) Some Y2K problems can be worked around.

(6) Some Y2K problems cannot be easily worked around, especially those of a systemic nature. It is not unreasonable to think that y2k problems will have impact beyond the tiny, insulated and contained bell jars of their conception. There is no reason to believe that y2k impacts will not affect the outcomes of OTHER y2k impacts.

(7) There have been and will continue to be y2k problems. In order to preserve the Bottom Line (the price of the companies stock), there is incentive to obscure the full nature of the severity of some of these problems.

(8) In order to preserve the national security of countries--especially in an age of terrorism--there is strong incentive to obscure the scope of y2k systemic/infrastructure problems so as to foil the plans of evil-doers who might get the impression that the rollover is a time of vulnerability.

(9) The financial state of the world rests solely on psychology, since it is so vastly inflated beyond tangible, conventional measures of its worth. y2k problems or even mere end-of-the-century introversion can burst the bubble. When a bubble bursts, historically it contracts the value of wealth to BELOW the tangible estimates of its value.

(10) In times of economic stress, social, political, and evironmental stress is more severe. War, crime, poverty, decay, and decline in standard of living are all more likely.

(11) Are hard times ultimately followed by prosperity? Most certainly yes. But the prosperity is of a different sort and reflected on with different prevailing attitudes.

This brings me to my final point. (12) The "facts" are far from obvious. They are obscured for many reasons. You see clear facts about y2k. I do not. I see a morass of conflicting information and spin. Therefore, where there is uncertainty, there is often fear. How do you deal with that fear? Some us come here. And some of us come here to laugh at those afraid. Where I come from, this is known as cruelty.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 07, 1999.

"Without exception, each doomer has another reason to hope for the destruction of society as we know it."

Say what? You find a handful of people that may think this way, and you say this about the hundreds of people on this forum? I think @ is correct, you are blind.

I've got some news for you Mr. Ray. I like my life now, just the way it is. I like my job, especially on payday. There is a real possibility that I may lose my job, a DIRECT RESULT of Y2K. I like being able to come home, turn up the heat, and flick on the TV or computer. I may not be able to do this. I like being able to call for a pizza, or run to Burger King. I may not be able to. Believe me, I don't look forward to any of this.

I just don't understand you Andy. This problem is very real. Look at the news. Many states are in big trouble. Many big companies are in trouble, not to mention small and medium ones. Most of the world is far behind, and it will have a direct impact on this country.

Sorry Andy, but I think you are wrong. I think that the few here that really do hope for massive failure are the exception.

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.