ACT I

[Lane has just quoted a bunch of assertions from an IEEE open letter to Congress touting limitations on legal responsibility for Y2K problems. He then asks, in a very insulting manner, that someone refute each assertion with "clearly verifiable fact". RC (among others) attempts to provide such facts with varying degrees of success, then gives in to his ire, calling Lane "a boob".]

Lane: Lots of good points, RC. [which will, sadly, go unremarked upon]

But our society is inundated, saturated and overwhelmed with "good news" about Y2K. Most of it opinion and assertion, most of that coming from people with an incalculably tremendous vested interest in saying "everything is AOK" whether it is or not.

---

RC: The point I'm trying to make is that virtually ALL "news" about Y2K, good or bad, is opinion and assertion. ALL OF IT! Unlike you (and nameless others), I am not going to stand here and say I KNOW what's going to happen. I won't be the one presenting opinions/assertions as facts.

---

Lane: But me, oh, I'm just a wicked evil nefarious "spinner" of doom because I draw attention to what everybody wants to ignore -- the bad news in all the good news.

---

RC: Spin is spin, pal. Regarding the Cap Gemini/Rubin report I alluded to, the correct response to it would have been "this is the most worthless report in the history of Y2K". It basically said "most of us wont be completely done, but most of us think it'll be OK". Slam it for that. But you pulled out the meaningless numbers that supported YOUR cause, and presented them as FACT. And nobody called you on it.

---

Lane: So, I reject your intellectual hypocrisy with all the scorn it deserves. You are a very good teacher, though, of the techniques of smear and diversion. So, you do have some use. :-)

---

RC: Smear? I smeared you with FACTS. You like facts, don't you? Diversion? I believe I attempted to answer your offensively toned questions before I "smeared" you.

---

Lane: You guys are a trip.

---

RC: "You guys are a trip"?? You can do better than that. I'm hurt. It's all over between us.

Of course, the first notice I took of Mr. Core was his posting of info from the recent Cap Gemini/Rubin report, spinning out all the negative numbers while ignoring the bit stating that 90% of the companies polled felt that their degree of compliance was not a significant business risk. That is certainly a debatable point, but to pretend it wasn't in the report was dishonest. [RC brandishes the Howard Rubin discussion of the Cap Gemini survey results, quoting] "The good news is that the vast majority don't see their level of compliance as posing any major business risk."

---

Lane: I have addressed this issue at length in the context of another survey.

[Lane brandishes a large webpage called "More Observations on the June Y2K Experts Poll"]

Go read it, RC, and work yourself up real good. :-)

RC: Well, you could've attempted to SUM UP a little bit, but I think what you're saying is that the Cap Gemini survey results are pretty much useless, which is exactly what I've said repeatedly.

What gets me "worked up" is when I see this in a Paul Milne post on c.s.y2k:

"Here is what Lane Core has to say on the Yourdon forum today.... Re: the "Pollyanna Progression", it is noteworthy that the latest Cap Gemini - Rubin Systems survey showed that 48% of the companies will not finish their critical systems remediation. -- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 19, 1999."

So on the one hand you dismiss the survey results as bogus, and on the other hand you quote stats from the survey as facts to back your beliefs. And I'm "intellectually hypocritical"?

---

[Lane departs]

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), October 07, 1999