Hoff Smears Yourdon -- Time For This Anonymous Poster To Face The Music

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

We live in a culture where no one is held accountable. Hoffmeister (whoever he is) wants to hold Ed Yourdon accountable. Fair enough. But let's hold Hoffmeister (who is he?) accountable too. I have reprinted Hoff's description of Yourdon from an earlier thread today, with my comments interspersed:

"Look, much as you'd like to pretend Ed Yourdon is somehow just another person commenting on Y2k, he is not. He has positioned himself as one of the main Y2k "Fear" Leaders."

Ed Yourdon is not just another person, indeed. He has 30 years of IT experience, a broad resume and numerous historic credits to his account in the area of methodology.

Hoff here charges THIS REAL PERSON, Ed Yourdon, with explicitly and knowingly creating fear about Y2K ("has positioned himself"). This isn't the first time Hoff has charged this, to be sure.

"It wasn't by default, and no one did this to him. He did it himself, consciously."

Indeed. Lest we should be in any doubt about Hoff's charge.

"He wrote the books, wrote the "essays", made the videos, created the "Y2k Web Malls", participated in the MLM's."

The clear implication from this, coupled to the earlier charge, is that Yourdon promoted fear in order to profit personally by taking advantage of people who wouldn't otherwise know better, not being experts themselves.

I assume, but could be wrong, that Hoffmeister (whoever this anonymous person really is) doesn't object to people making money from the $300B spent on remediation per se, including himself as a SAP consultant specializing in Y2K replacement systems. Rather, he charges Yourdon with being unprofessional and unethical as a deliberately chosen and premeditated action, indeed, a continual set of actions.

"As an IT "expert", his words carried much more weight than a Gary North's or a Michael Hyatt's. In essence, he validated the theories and scenarios for the North's."

By placing expert in "quotes", Hoff makes clear his opinion of Yourdon's IT history. We have yet to hear why or how Hoff's history matches or exceeds that of Yourdon's? I have been in IT for 20+ years and can attest that Yourdon has been held in high regard throughout that period around the world -- even by those who disagree with some of his positions. His integrity has never been questioned in the industy. Odd that, all of a sudden, he changed because of Y2K. Even as a Y2K "Fear Leader", the U.S. Senate asked him to testify as recently as this summer. Odd, isn't it? Or is there something "off" about the anonymous Hoffmeister?

Hoff also links Yourdon with North to make Yourdon somehow "responsible" for North. This simultaneously demeans North's own background (much more substantive in his field than Hoff's, whatever one thinks of him) and reinforces the picture of Yourdon as a dishonorable person.

"And, much as he apparently would like to wash his hands, his books, videos, essays, and words, have influenced people. How many? Don't know."

At least Hoff is consistent! Yourdon is "dirty" because of his activities. Hoff imagines that Yourdon is aware of this and has been wanting to back away, to "wash his hands" of his Y2K activities.

"But it would not surprise me in any way that many have at the least validated their decisions to "Bug-Out" with the thoughts "hey, look, if Ed Yourdon is bugging out, I better too".

And yes, if these statements were just "talk", and not reality, then I believe he should answer for that."

Apparently, whatever "bugging out" means to Hoff, Yourdon himself has done it? By moving to New Mexico and continuing to work as an IT consultant, just as he has for 30 years?

And, finally, Hoff posits that if Yourdon wants to disavow "bugging out" (whatever that means), he is blameworthy here too.

----------------------------------

OK, let's have accountability.

These are serious charges. If true, Ed Yourdon is a despicable snake, coward and profiteer. I challenge Hoff to validate his first charge, on which most of the rest hang, that Yourdon has deliberately and explicitly cultivated fear about Y2K so that he can profit personally.

Where, Hoff? When? How often, Hoff? Names, dates and evidence, please.

Otherwise, let's put the shoe on the other foot. The charges, if false, display Hoff (whoever he is) as a despicable person who has an agenda about Y2K that is profoundly influencing every post he makes to this forum.

Which is it? It's one or the other. This one can't be fudged.

Does it matter? In one sense, no. Ed doesn't need my defense. OTOH, this anonymous poster poses daily as someone who HIMSELF has enormous professional integrity and is just trying to set everyone straight about Y2K technically. Exposing his underlying motives is quite germane to inferring his agenda.

Also, I make no apology for having benefited personally from Ed Yourdon having blown a trumpet about Y2K. I appreciate it still. To allow honorable people to be smeared is simply not right.

Now, although I expect this to be hopeless in advance, this thread is not about ME. If you want to have a thread about how terrible I am and all the terrible things I have said or done on this forum, please start another thread. This thread is about CHARGES THAT "HOFFMEISTER" MADE TODAY.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 15, 1999

Answers

We should expect nothing less than that from Hoff, B.D.

Hoff and Flint and to an extent Decker are simply doing their jobs.

They are shill stooges for those that desperately need to control any perceived irrationality that may adversly affect their interests before the scheduled time.

Now we have moved towards placing blame on the scapegoat, in order to deflect attention from the real problems about to crop up, and thus keep the elites and TBTB in control without repurcussions for their failure to prepare the public.

If Y2K-related problems cause death, then I will hold all of them as worse than Nazi Propagandists, and GUILTY of genocide. But the public will be looking at Ed "Fearmonger" Yourdon, not the Authorities who could have had us ready to weather this thing.

THEY know. Which is why they respond the way they do, and sinister doesn't even begin to adequately describe what they've done.

Anyone notice the synchronicity of Greenspan's comment this afternoon and Hoff's assault on Mr. Yourdon?

Timing is everything.

God help us all.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


If I read every book out there on "html" does not make me an expert on it unless I can actually apply what I have learned. Comparing Ed"the hockey fighter" and Hoff"the pro wrestler", a hockey fight is real, after it is over no one is really hurt outside of a few bumps and bloody nose, pro wrestling is someone pretending to be something they are'nt, but after it is over alot of people could be hurt.

-- SgtSchultz (SgtHansSchultz@stalag13.com), October 15, 1999.

Yeah, INVAR

I guess calling Hoff, Flint and Decker "shill stooges" isn't smearing.

You guys have been eating too much of that Hypocrisy Cake.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.


Real problem that I have with Mr. Yourdon and others authoring essays and books on Y2k is how far they stray from their areas of expertise. I am quite amazed at how many of the Y2k authors write on subjects without having much background in the area of question i.e., power, telecomm, embeddeds, etc. Several statments in their books indicate a lack of knowledge within the specific field - several of my colleagues had a good chuckle when reading the section dealing with telecomm.

-- william holst (w_holst@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Nice to see INVARiably STUPId wade in from the White Wing. I thought you gave us all a teary goodbye months ago?

As far as Yourdon's accountability goes, how about defending his predictions on things that were supposed to have happened thus far? Do you not think it odd that he has been wrong with EVERY single prediction?

Voila:

On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon

"... I believe we'll start seeing [disruptions] by this summer, and I believe they'll continue for at least a year. As many people are now aware, 46 states (along with Australia and New Zealand)will begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year on July 1, 1999; New York (and Canada) will already have gone through their Y2K fiscal rollover on April 1, and the remaining three states begin their new fiscal year on August 1, September 1, and October 1. We also have the GPS rollover problem to look forward to on August 22nd, as well as the Federal government's new fiscal year on October 1st.

There is, of course, some finite probability that all of these rollover events will occur without any problems; but there's also a finite probability that pigs will learn to fly."

Ed "Flying Pig" Yourdon

Wrong again Eddie...

-- y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.



The criticisms aimed at Yourdon are *nothing* compared to the treatment many here have given, say, Koskinen or Clinton or de Jager. And where is the righteous Big Dog when de Jager is being smeared? Where does Big Dog stand up and demand that 'a' be unmasked for constant smears of everyone but Milne?

This entire thread is designed to get people together to gang up on someone Big Dog doesn't like. But it's not about Big Dog, oh no, it's about smearing. Wait, it's not about smearing in general, only about smearing those Big Dog agrees with. Except Hoff didn't smear, but who cares. Let's all hate him anyway, because Big Dog says so.

This is a joke.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


With my busy work week at Burger King, I don't have time to write any books on programming or Y2K for that matter. But by golly I have plenty of time to "cut and paste".

-- y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Then don't post here anymore Flint.

This is a Y2K Prep forum, go and re-read the charter. You don't see any of us going on over to DeBunkies and smearing the proponents of that forum do you? No. We do it here, on THIS forum. You are free to do and say as you wish on another forum if you so choose.

Why is it that you pollies and Liberals always demand "balance" and "fairness" in programs and areas dedicated to a specific ideology, but throw fits of rage and demand expulsion anyone who dareth speak against the annointed within their forums? Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe what I've witnessed on this forum for the past year- and-a-half from the polly-Lib crowd.

You pollies and Libs do exactly what you clamour against. It's fine to call us "Nutcases" and "Fearmongers" but God forbid we call one of your propagandists a "Shill Stooge".

Clinton, Koskinen et al, deserve exactly what they get on this forum. They are liars, propagandists and foster an evil agenda as far as I'm concerned.

If you want balance, go turn on CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR or any other mainstream propaganda outlet for this Administration.

We are still free to dissent in this country, and we choose to do it on this forum. If you don't like the doomer treatment...go play at DeBunkies, and stop telling us what we need to do and what to say.

I say Hoff and Deck and you Flint are nothing but shill stooges.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


This isn't a thread about me. Nor is it about Flint and Decker. It is about very specific statements that Hoffmeister made about Ed Yourdon. Period.

Deflecting the attention to me or others posting on this thread has ZERO to do with the thread, although it is SOP when the thread's topic can't be successfully addressed by those who are threatened by it in some way. Flint's vacuous post is completely typical of this as was his failure to address the topic on the other thread today.

Generally speaking, I don't think I need to feel bad about my behavior on this forum or my willingness to recognize the contributions of people I disagree with -- including Hoffmeister, which I did as recently as today and have done explicitly on probably 30 specific occasions over the past two months. I will say again that his function point analysis is quite challenging, though I believe it is too narrowly framed around his SAP background.

That (and me) have nil to do with this thread. Nor does some effort to decide who is ahead on "smearing" people. I repeat:

Hoffmeister made specific charges against Ed Yourdon as posted above.

I am waiting for Hoffmeister either to defend his statements or apologize for them. If he apologizes sincerely, I will be the first to have my respect for Hoffmeister INCREASED, not decreased.

As for william holst's comment, which is not relevant to the thread so far as I can see but is worthy of return comment -- Y2K is obviously a problem that crosses unexpected boundaries. I recall Yourdon frequently acknowledging his lack of expertise in areas outside of computing -- fair warning to anyone reading. All of us, certainly including me, have made many hilarious statements about disciplines outside of our personal knowledge. As have many posters expert in their domain who don't understand IT.

I assume that posters who are attacking me here agree with Hoffmeister about Yourdon? No other assumption is warranted.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 15, 1999.


INVAR:

You are free to be as unfair and unbalanced as you want. You have plenty of company here, and provide excellent comic relief from the real dangers y2k represents. However, Big Dog occasionally aspires to leave your sandbox and address issues as a grownup. So his recidivism needs to be addressed on a different level, with which you need not concern yourself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.



Hoffmeister is the KING of government/corporate SHILLS. He has been dedicated to supporting the LIES put out by those who have an interest in deceiving the American puublic.

He will slither away at the appropriate time never to be heard from again.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), October 15, 1999.


BigDog

If stating facts is "smearing", BigDog, then I'm guilty.

Ed Yourdon is not just another person, indeed. He has 30 years of IT experience, a broad resume and numerous historic credits to his account in the area of methodology.

Hoff here charges THIS REAL PERSON, Ed Yourdon, with explicitly and knowingly creating fear about Y2K ("has positioned himself"). This isn't the first time Hoff has charged this, to be sure.

Yes, BigDog, you're correct. Indeed, Ed Yourdon offers no apology for "creating uncertainty" regarding Y2k, and sees "fear" as an unavoidable by-product.

"It wasn't by default, and no one did this to him. He did it himself, consciously."

Indeed. Lest we should be in any doubt about Hoff's charge.

"He wrote the books, wrote the "essays", made the videos, created the "Y2k Web Malls", participated in the MLM's."

The clear implication from this, coupled to the earlier charge, is that Yourdon promoted fear in order to profit personally by taking advantage of people who wouldn't otherwise know better, not being experts themselves.

Again, just stating facts. If the "implications" are "clear" by merely stating the facts, that says something, does it not?

I assume, but could be wrong, that Hoffmeister (whoever this anonymous person really is) doesn't object to people making money from the $300B spent on remediation per se, including himself as a SAP consultant specializing in Y2K replacement systems. Rather, he charges Yourdon with being unprofessional and unethical as a deliberately chosen and premeditated action, indeed, a continual set of actions.

Again, perfectly correct, BigDog. If you can't see the difference between trying to fix a problem, and capitalizing on fear created by the problem, then this line of reasoning will probably go nowhere.

By placing expert in "quotes", Hoff makes clear his opinion of Yourdon's IT history. We have yet to hear why or how Hoff's history matches or exceeds that of Yourdon's? I have been in IT for 20+ years and can attest that Yourdon has been held in high regard throughout that period around the world -- even by those who disagree with some of his positions. His integrity has never been questioned in the industy. Odd that, all of a sudden, he changed because of Y2K. Even as a Y2K "Fear Leader", the U.S. Senate asked him to testify as recently as this summer. Odd, isn't it? Or is there something "off" about the anonymous Hoffmeister?

I've stated my experience on other threads.

As for the Senate, remember that he was not called to testify as an IT expert, or even an expert on Y2k IT problems. Rather, he was called as a "preparation" expert.

Hoff also links Yourdon with North to make Yourdon somehow "responsible" for North. This simultaneously demeans North's own background (much more substantive in his field than Hoff's, whatever one thinks of him) and reinforces the picture of Yourdon as a dishonorable person.

This is truly confusing. Linking North and Yourdon demeans them both? What does that say of them individually?

By the way, North himself links Yourdon to his ideas and scenarios. See this e-mail North sent to Charles Reuben (CPR).

At least Hoff is consistent! Yourdon is "dirty" because of his activities. Hoff imagines that Yourdon is aware of this and has been wanting to back away, to "wash his hands" of his Y2K activities.

Yes, this is the impression I've gotten from Yourdon as time goes on. Even though he acknowledges earlier that people made decisions based on his statements, he increasingly resorts to the refrain that "people need to make up their own minds". As it happens, I agree. But then, I didn't write the books, make the videos, set up the MLM's, attempting to convince people what they should do.

Apparently, whatever "bugging out" means to Hoff, Yourdon himself has done it? By moving to New Mexico and continuing to work as an IT consultant, just as he has for 30 years?

And, finally, Hoff posits that if Yourdon wants to disavow "bugging out" (whatever that means), he is blameworthy here too.

Yourdon stated he moved from New York to New Mexico because New York, in his opinion, will look like Beirut in January 2000. Yes, I would call this "Bugging Out".

He now claims he was in a "grumpy" mood then, and that his moving out of NYC is "not accurate". This I would call disavowing "Bugging Out".

OK, let's have accountability.

These are serious charges. If true, Ed Yourdon is a despicable snake, coward and profiteer. I challenge Hoff to validate his first charge, on which most of the rest hang, that Yourdon has deliberately and explicitly cultivated fear about Y2K so that he can profit personally.

Where, Hoff? When? How often, Hoff? Names, dates and evidence, please.

Seriously? Hmm. When was the book published? When was the letter sent about Beirut? When was the "Y2k WebMall" created? When was the MLM set up to "Cash in on the Y2k Craze"? How much more do you need?

Otherwise, let's put the shoe on the other foot. The charges, if false, display Hoff (whoever he is) as a despicable person who has an agenda about Y2K that is profoundly influencing every post he makes to this forum.

Which is it? It's one or the other. This one can't be fudged.

You're right, BigDog. My "agenda" is that we make it through Y2k with no major problems. The charges aren't "false"; they are merely restatements of fact.

INVAR

If you were worth the effort, I'd respond......

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.


Dinner (and the Mets, alas) beckon. Back later, hopeful that Hoffmeister will truly do the right thing.

FACTUALLY, since Hoffmeister is anonymous, it is quite possible that he is a "shill". We literally only have his own word on it and the "persona" he has chosen to develop on this forum -- a persona, I might add, that never acknowledges having learned a single thing from anyone here. Interesting, isn't it?

Is he a shill? I don't know. But guesses about that are certainly not tales told out of school.

Why is that relevant? Because a "virtual person" is charging a REAL PERSON with serious matters. If Hoffmeister is correct, Yourdon is personally responsible for ... how many? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Of REAL people spending their money foolishly. And of PROFITEERING on that wilfully, deliberately and persistently, when he knew/knows Y2K is not going to result in the outcome he claims it will.

I don't personally feel Yourdon, North OR Koskinen are "personally" responsible for what adults choose to do about Y2K. There is enough data out there for anyone with a pulse to make up their own mind. But Hoffmeister (who is he, anyway?) does hold Yourdon responsible.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 15, 1999.


My last post crossed "Hoffmeister's". Believe me, I will respond later.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 15, 1999.

I have asked Hoffmeister a number of times if he receives any remuneration for participating in any forums, to date no response.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), October 15, 1999.



It's easy: Hoffmeister=Sapmeister

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), October 15, 1999.

Hoffmeister commented:

"INVAR

If you were worth the effort, I'd respond...... "

Hoffmeister, INVAR is worthy of a response, unfortunately your DRIVEL is totally inadequate as a response.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), October 15, 1999.


Its strange that when Ed was invited to speak in the Senate hearing on Y2K, neither Hoff,Flint or Y2K Pro where there to speak too.

-- SgtSchultz (SgtHansSchultz@stalag13.com), October 15, 1999.

An observation here folkes:

First Rule of Contingency Analysis -PLAN FOR WORST, HOPE FOR THE BEST !

We've read a number of Mr. Youdon's books, even went to see him speak at GWU in March.

Mr. Youdon nailed this squarely on the head a long time ago, this problem is not about technology, it is about people and in particular management, and to be VERY SPECIFIC for Hoffmeister, Flint, et al -PROJECT MANAGEMENT. Before you even begin with a Gant Chart or Pert Chart, develop a basic timeline. Start with the end date and work your way back to when you want to begin. Now you can set-up your subprojects according to the master timeline, assign personnel, monies, and other resources to accomplish your stated mission.

Certain projects cannot be sped up -you can't impregnate 9 women and expect a baby one-month later, or two women and expect an infant in 4.5 months. In the first case it will be DOA, and in the second it probably won't survive. It doesn't matter if this Mr. Super Sperm and Ms. Wonder Egg, it doesn't matter if you had "La Mas" or not, it doesn't matter if all the right vitamins and minerals were eaten, and doesn't matter how many words or encouragement and cajoling are heaped upon the mother. It won't work. And even if you had the nine months, you're assuming that the baby is healthy.

Mr. Youdon fundamentally understands the Project Management realm of Y2K. He also understands Contingency Analysis and he is providing advice free of charge. We thank him and kindly ask his detractors to GET OFF HIS ASS.

We'd rather spend the money and be wrong, than to be caught with our britches down. We have no desire to end-up Tango Uniform on account of something that is foreseeable and preventable.

Hoffmeister, a few questions:

1. How much money have you made from Y2K? 2. Why do you have a burning desire to not only detract Mr. Yourdon, but Mr. Milne and Mr. Hamasaki? 3. Do you use an alias because you are in actuality a substandard programmer and you don't want to "blow your cover?"

Flint, a few questions:

1. Pick a side man, or were you gelded? 2. Are you a masochist?

And before we get flamed, our fearless ringleader is posting from home tonight, Ms. Squire can verify. We normally post from a .dot mil (an alias is the only way we can post,) but tonight we're irked.

-- c4i (c4ixxx@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.


SgtSchultz:

Quite so. Yourdon was called to speak because he is an *opinion leader*, which Hoff and I are not. This is exactly Hoff's point -- Yourdon expended considerable effort setting himself up as an opinion leader, as Hoff has documented and as we all know. For Yourdon NOW to start claiming he didn't influence anyone to do anything, and we should all ignore him and make up our own minds, is laughable.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


This "c4i" act is pretty good.

So tell "us", "c4i", do you hide behind an alias because you (the "inclusive" you) are really janitors?

I'm sure DJS will show up real soon to "confirm" you're post, too (honestly, I've never met this person before from the audience).

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.


Hoff indicates that because Ed wrote a book. he 'influenced' individuals into doing something they would not have done otherwise. If Hoff finds informational books that compelling, maybe he should read the one on assisted suicide methods.

Yes, Ed wrote a book. Yes, Ed profited from the book (I hope). This makes him a marketer, not a gangster. Mr. Yourdon does not indicate anywhere in his book that he is an expert on anything but IT. I bought his book (and several other authors as well) to learn different viewpoints on y2k. IT'S JUST INFORMATION, STUPID!!

Following Hoff's train of thought (derailed as it may be), one could presuppose that if you read a book on Islam, you would become a Islamic priest. Hmmm. Some interesting thoughts there. Do you suppose that if I bought and read Trump's biography, I would become as rich as the Donald?

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Hoff you should talk about "hiding" behind an alias. DOH!!

-- SgtSchultz (SgtHansSchultz@stalag13.com), October 15, 1999.

Honestly, Lobo?

It wasn't just the book, or the videos.

It truly wasn't until I saw the MLM page, with banners screaming to "Cash in on the Y2k Craze". That convinced me without a shadow of a doubt what the real motive was.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.


Hoffmeister

One of us used to be a "cleaner."

Now why don't you answer the questions we laid before you.

Or perhaps a nice act of contrition.

-- c4i (c4ixxx@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.


c4i:

I'm doing my best to understand what's coming. These "sides" are all in your head. If you're asking me to pick a foregone conclusion and support it by rejecting everything that disagrees, then I decline.

Lobo:

If people are not influenced by what they read, then we need to rethink the fundamental definition of education. The process of being influenced can be subtle (as in the Yourdon case), but you need only wander over to one of the Federal Reserve threads to see what happens when wacko authors have planted their hooks deeply.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


Flint,

We have an opening for a permanent devil's advocate on our team.

-- c4i (c4ixxx@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.


BigDog,

Did you read the thread "We've been HAD!"? In it Hoffmeister outlined and defended with civility, precision, and endurance his breakthrough argument against domestic systemic IT failure.

What is your thread here, and the thread entitled "Hoffy the Doomer," really about? I think it's really about your views having been substantially challenged. Hoffmeister's groundbreaking assertion remains sound after vigorous but unconvincing counter-arguments. For this, Hoffmeister warrants smearing by you on trumped-up charges? Perhaps we ought to be grateful instead for Hoffmeister's intellectual contribution, and consider how the facts he presented might affect our ever-altering (if we are honest) perception of Y2K impacts.

As for Mr. Yourdon, today he can still write, "Seems to me that, with only 77 days left, this is all pretty irrelevant. By now, you should have made up your own mind, rather than obsessing with the question of whether or not you should believe my memory and my motivations..." If it is better for society to avoid mass panic (and I think you would agree, BigDog, that it is), then shouldn't all of us do what we can in the next 77 days to assure others that Y2K does not warrant panicky behavior? After having published alarming, unproven speculation that Y2K could be functionally disastrous to individuals and to society at large, merely folding your arms and saying "It's late now; the debate is over" is frankly irresponsible.

If Mr. Yourdon is truly as concerned about Y2K's societal impact as he claims, he would do well to examine the factual cases that people such as Hoffmeister have put forth. Then, if he is intellectually honest, he will publicly admit that the top levels of preparation he once posited are no longer realistic. He would thereby gain through honest amendment the credibility and integrity he now loses by prematurely retiring from a public debate he helped to form.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Flint Wrote: "INVAR:

You are free to be as unfair and unbalanced as you want."

How Clintonesque of you Flint, I would have expected no less.

Because I don't buy or tow your shill line, I'm unfair and unbalanced? How typically Liberal of you. It's getting old Flint, and the magical charm of demouguogery that our Philanderer-in-chief made Standard Operating Proceedure, has lost its luster and isn't working anymore.

The recidivism comment about the inferred differing "memes' Both Big Dog and I posess was especially choice. And shall we be re-educated and de-programmed at one of your school's of Mediocrity? Or would you deem us "unsalvagable" and too dangerous to the welfare of society and have us exterminated for our own good? I imagine you'll continue with the deflection and demouguogery, as it's has worked so well for you in the past.

And Hoff.....of course you don't consider myself worth the effort. I don't rise to your perceived level of elitist intelligencia. Not to mention I don't buy your lawyeresque approach towards debunking the posters on this forum.

But I will ask you a similar question Big Dog has, but a little more directly:

If Ed Yourdon is to be held liable for despicably, and illegally profiteering from Y2K-induced fear-mongering....

Then if Y2K-related disruptions and problems result in economic or infrastructural hardship:

....Can we hold you and other shill pollyanna's personally liable for any deaths caused by despicably creating an atmosphere of complacence and inaction? Can we prosecute you for misleading the public with your persuasive pseudo-informed argumentations that may result in the suffering of many who placed faith in your assertions?

If you desire to hold Mr. Yourdon liable for creating fear and profiting from it, then surely you will be glad to submit to similar liability if you are wrong. Unwittingly or not, you have placed the lives of those whom trusted your assertions that Mr. Yourdon and others here are dangerously misled, in your hands. YOU SIR, are responsible for their welfare if you are wrong, and for this you will need to admit ownership, as much as you claim Mr. Yourdon is responsible his so-called intentions.

But I doubt you will. And I'm sure there will be some great convoluted explanations as to how Mr. Yourdon is to be held liable, but you, yourself are not.

Once again Hoff, I'm sure you will assert you are above the rest of us "simpletons".

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


Yep Flint, whatever you read and believe is correct and proper. It's normal and right. Whatever does not agree with those belief's is a "whacko author".

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), October 15, 1999.

Man, oh man, if we could only harness the genius in these postings for the betterment of humanity, then everyone would be happier.

Jedenfalls, keep on prepping, dudes!

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), October 15, 1999.


I used to post here regularly under my real name. Decided to go a little less public for several reasons.

I read Ed's book from the Web site version. Frankly, although informative, it was tapioca. Bland. If anything, it was *understated*, in my humble opinion.

Now, the MLM thing was garbage. I believe I've seen Ed post here himself that it was a bad idea and didn't make any money to boot. [G] (I wish I had a $10 bill for every one of MY "good" ideas that's blown up in my face. I'd have retired a while ago)

Now, Ed's articles are a different thing entirely. THEY were eye opening. There, he was in HIS field, talking about things he DID know about.

Now, some of those scared the sh*t out of me. Why? The calm analysis of why this was tracking down just like so many other IT SNAFUS. The detailed, logical destruction of wishful thinking, of "we're working on it", of "99%, oops, 95%, well, it's looking really good, trust us here".

That helped (HELPED)motivate me to prepare. The existance of a fixed deadline. I don't think Ed imposed that......

But anyone who could be moved into major preps mode JUST from the TB2000 book, well, I want to sell home improvements to.

Sorry if I've stepped on any toes here. I just get tired of this crap.

Dammit, I'm a free citizen. If I chose to spend my money or go into debt armpit deep on preps, on electronic toys, on a motorboat or a Mercedes, I am NOT going to blame anyone else for my decision.

Hoff, grow up and get a life. SAP is not the entire world. Nor is IT, for that matter. Nor is Homo sapiens. This planet might be better off without us.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_much@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Brent:

Beware the man who has read a single book. I could not possibly believe all I read, because I make the effort to read many conflicting opinions about everything. Yes, I can see that many here are content having learned a single viewpoint, based on the carefully selected and carefully interpreted information necessary to support it. And I freely agree that such an approach simplifies one's thoughts tremendously. However -- intelligent, informed and reasonable people can and do disagree. Understanding what underlies this disagreement requires flexibility and a willingness to try on differing viewpoints. And while this is far more difficult than clinging blindly to a comfortable fixation, in the long run it's much more rewarding. Ideally, that's the goal of education. Try some.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


How mighty white and generous of you Flint.

We bow low to your obvious and exhalted intelligence.

How foolish of us to assume we could rise to your level of educational elitism.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.


Now now, INVAR. I'm confident you could be good at *someting* if you made the effort [grin].

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.

I promise Flint I'll try real, real hard. But don't hold your breath, it may take two lifetimes for me to become as "enlightened" as you.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 15, 1999.

Hey y2K Pro, I think your fries are burning.Aren't you supposed to be working the drive-thru this evening?

-- Whopper (Have It@your way.com), October 15, 1999.

That's no reason to give up, though. The longest journey begins with a single step and all that. And that first step can be enlightening all by itself. Try it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.

So much useless talk...

So little time...

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


Now Flint, that "one book" was a low blow. [G] I'm a compulsively addicted reader, especially history and military history. With a LONG detour through primitive survival techniques, edible wild plants, and oh, yes, I LOVE edible wild mushrooms.

And Science Fiction, with my hat off to Robert Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Cliff Simak, Hal Clemens, Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, Harry Turtledove (who shows us how easily it could be different...), and many others who have slipped my overloaded mind.

Am I a "true scholar"? Nah, I'm a dilantee by nature.

We have reached a very uncomfortable point in our planet's and our species existence. There are too darn many of us. We NEED the technology to maintain a decent lifestyle, and to give the rest of the world some chance of attaining it, also.

Dammit, as a species, we are pretty darn slipshod.

As individuals, rising to challenges and working to hold back "The Long Night", we can rise to the heroic or beyond.

Eventually, entropy wins...... At least for awhile, as if gathering its energy for yet another try at sustainable complexity.

In my not particularly humble opinion, based on 35 years of serious reading, we on this planet (not the U.S., because of our "godless" ways, the planet and its people), are due for a stumble.

Dominant power blocs change. Venice, for goodness sakes, was a major world power at one time. Then it was Portugal. Then Spain, France, England, the U.S.

Will Y2K cause enough trouble to precipitate this change? I can't be sure, but it "feels" like it to me. I chose to go on my gut instinct. Who was it that said a hunch was unrecognized information trying to get your attention?

Everywhere, people will struggle bravely to put out the fires, both literally and figuratively. I hope they will succeed. I'm really to lazy to make a good peasant.

Well, enough rambling for now. I'm kinda enjoying this thread. Just remember, Flint, from one "Devil's Advocate" to another, sometimes you do have to choose a position and take a stand, based on horribly inadequate evidence.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Important point: Hyatt is a programmer, too, even if 1) he's not on Ed Yourdon's level, and 2) reacts a bit more emotionally to events than EY does.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.


It's a shame this forum has gone from debating concerns, ideas, and events to questioning each others character. I remember reading about the difference between a modern 747 and the Wright brother's plane and how this relates to Y2K. The 747 is a very complex machine; experts who designed it understand their own subsystem and how they function but no one expert completely understands all of the subsystems and how they function together. The Wright brother's airplane by contrast was really simple; basically anyone could understand how it functioned.

No one person can completely understand all the subsystems of a discipline ( power, telecom, oil , banking, etc) and how they function together, much less all the subsystems of all the disciplines.

That is why no serious person can believe government spokespeople who state that Y2K will be a bump in the road. They don't know, they can't know, the world is not that simple.

I think in the end it matters more what we have to weather a bad storm that what we believe will be the final outcome. Perhaps if you are a polly, you should state to others the need to prepare in case you are wrong.

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), October 15, 1999.


Good point, Stanley. Thanks.

What ends up happening is more important than the "points" scored on/against each other.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


People....

You need to listen to yourselves. If I were a new person coming into this forum and stumbled across this thread, I would think that you were over the deep end.

Get a grip please!

It will all be very clear in a matter of days anyway. Then if you feel that you must attack one another, go for it.

This thread has the capacity of turning off new viewers, and might I add a few older ones as well.

Enough. Grow up and act like adults. If Mr. Yourdon has a problem with anything Hoff has said about him, then Mr. Yourdon can deal with it in his own way. It is not your battle. Please let it be.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 15, 1999.


what it is it with you people... attacking Ed... What is the point I think Ed is great and, you grasshoppersers will come around or not...I Like Ed, he has helped me and my family, he still does... hoff- whatever your name is does nothing for me. Well you make me sick about America Hoff that is all you do for me. Hoff go dig out a hole for yourself, or has the government already provided it for you? U-R_sick love and peace sandy

-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), October 15, 1999.

sandy: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 15, 1999.

mushroom:

Ah, the classics! I love 'em too. But a lot of the more recent authors are pretty good as well. I enjoy Dan Simmons, David Brin, I think John Varley should write more, Walter Jon Williams is a good read. So is Neil Stephenson. Enjoy!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


Will people with better memories and files than mine please answer this question:

Don't we have a "reasonable" challenge to the integrity of this forum, its originator or a major player herein whenever news of some import breaks? (This time it's the YK readiness of foreign countries.)

If this is so, then there is possibly a deliberate attempt to make this forum unappealing to newbies who might be attracted here by such negative Y2K news. I recall this happening in the past but the pollies no longer discuss such things in the open. I expect they have found to their cost that we do know how to cut and paste even if we don't know how to hotlink. Perhaps someone has the thread where the pollies admitted to a plan to "take over" this forum.

As to whether Ed infuenced me to buy lots of groceries and cat litter--no, he didn't. I read Ed's book about six months after I understood what might be wrought by Y2K and after I already had a nice stash. The book was on sale so Ed didn't make a whole hell of a lot of money off Sweetie and me.

Yes, I think an attempt has been made to smear Ed Yourdon but I don't think you could term it a success.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 15, 1999.


will rustle in the mud if i got to... looks like i will, hey you intolelectual freaks... are you ready, OR ARE YOU READY

-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), October 16, 1999.

will rustle in the mud if i got to... looks like i will, hey you intolelectual freaks... are you ready, OR, ARE YOU READY, It is time to get serious, spelling will make no difference

-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), October 16, 1999.

Al-D alert!!

-- (@ .), October 16, 1999.

Ed Yourdon made a substantive contribution to programming. After doing some interesting and useful work, Yourdon became less influential in the IT universe.

Along the way, Yourdon developed a taste for the "meta" issues. He managed to squeeze books about both the "Decline and Fall" and the "Rise and Resurrection" of the American programmer. He's done a parent's guide to computers, time management and even dabbled in fiction.

Y2K came as an issue tailor-made for Yourdon. He had the IT background, substantial writing experience and a taste for the "big picture" issues. He enlisted the help of his daughter to flesh out a few areas and wrote a largely speculative book we all know now as Time Bomb 2000.

Yourdon must have known Time Bomb 2000 was a calculated risk. But it was also a win-win situation. If Y2K was a catastrophe, Ed becomes a prophet. If Y2K is a "bump," Ed takes credit for raising awareness and spurring companies to engage in remediation.

I imagine this has been more difficult to manage than Ed thought. He may not have anticipated becoming an icon to a rather interesting group of people. His task has been to capitalize on Y2K without completely burning his professional reputation.

He has written the original TB 2000 ($19.95), a revised and updated version of TB 2000 ($15.99), a Y2K financial survival guide ($15.99), a Y2K home preparation guide video ($16.99), etc. There's even a post-Y2K book in the works. The multi-level marketing scheme has already been discussed at length.

While Yourdon has been prolific, he has also been careful. Look closely at his Senate testimony. Standing on the precipice of this purported catastrophe, Ed schmoozes the Senators, and then basically asks for better information. OK, so the guy isn't Patrick Henry, but here we are on the precipice... and Ed colors way inside the lines.

Then, shortly afterward, Ed "retires" from Y2K. Of course, Ed could have sacrificed a virgin on the hood of Buick live on CNN... and Russ (Big Dog) would have found an excuse for him. I think Ed saw the writing on the wall with increasing clarity. While Y2K may be more than a bump in the road... it ain't looking like the Four Horseman of the Apocalypse.

Hell, I think Ed is smart... and a good businessman. He was in a good position to take advantage of the Y2K story. No one had to buy his book, or videos, or anything else. If you look at Yourdon's track record, though, you'll see he's stayed safely in the middle of the road. Other than the Beirut quote, Ed has been careful with his words. TB 2000 is written from a "what-if" perspective. His Senate comments are lukewarm... almost chilly compared to the rhetoric on this forum. He's also staked a good bit of his argument on metrics. I've already suggested a title for his next book, "Rethinking metrics: What the deadline of the century taught us." I am more than willing to help you with the preface, Ed.

On to some other minor issues... if anyone (Invar) wants to hold me "responsible" for my optimistic views, please knock before entering. As far as the "shill" charges, there is not an iota of evidence to support any of these spurious claims. It's the usual claptrap from people who cannot make a cogent argument. And why doesn't some challenge Hoff on the real issue... his theory that the changes currently happening are greater in magnitude than the rollover.

Perhaps a better use of your time, Russ.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.


C'mon Decker, Hoffmeister is a shill and you know it. How can anyone prove that he isn't, when he hides behind a fake name? But just read his posts. The guy kisses the government's ass every chance he gets. That's not being objective, that's shilling, plain and simple.

-- Ohio Bob (ohiobob@buckeyestate.com), October 16, 1999.

I know it has been said before, but I'm going to say it again. It is very simple, really.

For we who are not IT professionals, and are not really competent to discern whether Yordan, et al., or HoffDeckerFlintPro have more of the 'Truth' on their side, the decision is an easy one. If we listen to the Doomers, and prepare, and they are wrong, then perhaps we have wasted some time and effort, but we are stronger, and still ready for other contingencies. If we listen to the Pollies, and do nothing, and they are wrong, then we are DEAD. Or in the cozy little refugee camp, bread line, soup kitchen, more enslaved than ever.

The choice is up to each one of us. But if you choose the latter, and TSHTF, your ability to make future choices will be severely curtailed.

I am a geologist. As such, I have a somewhat different perspective on time than most people. I am familiar with the history of the earth on a scale of hundreds of millions of years. Time is implacable. Change occurs episodically. The top of Everest was once the bottom of the sea. If you are in the vicinity when one of these changes occurs, you would term it a catastrophy. In terms of Life, if you cannot adapt to these sudden, irreversible changes, you are an evolutionary dead-end. You are toast.

Evolution is now occuring in the nooetic realm; the realm of thought and ideas. Storm warnings are up; it matters not that this is a new type of 'cyberstorm', as Rubin termed it, in his Senate testimony this week. The storm may hit full-force, or may veer and only graze us. It may be only a flab-wound, or it may be a mortal shot. Change approaches. Be prepared to adapt or die. Time cares not which you choose. Those that die may be the lucky ones.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), October 16, 1999.


I'll take Hoffmeister's (whoever he is) statements one-by-one and shred their smarmy, completely inadequate "logic". Shred because they are a continued insult to everyone on this forum, not only Ed Yourdon.

-------------------------

"Indeed, Ed Yourdon offers no apology for "creating uncertainty" regarding Y2k, and sees "fear" as an unavoidable by-product."

Y2K is an event that some people, myself included, feel is so fundamentally UNCERTAIN in its NATURE that grasping that (its uncertainty) is prerequisite to every adult's owconsideration of their course of action. In the face of media campaigns from the beginning (when Y2K was regarded as TOTALLY hype), Yourdon and others believed that it was essential to immerse people in the authentic uncertainty of Y2K. This was correct (n.b., comments to the Senate this week that the Koskinen approach, which was the polar reverse, has been "reckless").

This is ENTIRELY different from wanting, choosing and determining to provoke fear IN ORDER TO profit from the fear that one created. THAT was what you have despicably charged this man with doing. Feeble response, whoever-you-are.

-------------------------

(BigDog) The clear implication from this, coupled to the earlier charge, is that Yourdon promoted fear in order to profit personally by taking advantage of people who wouldn't otherwise know better, not being experts themselves.

(Hoffmeister) Again, just stating facts. If the "implications" are "clear" by merely stating the facts, that says something, does it not?

This is the implication YOU sought to create from YOUR charge, not an implication based on stating the facts -- your "facts" are precisely what is in question. But you knew that because you're not that stupid. Nor am I. So far, your response is laughable.

-------------------------

"If you can't see the difference between trying to fix a problem, and capitalizing on fear created by the problem, then this line of reasoning will probably go nowhere."

Again, you simply assert as before that Yourdon is a coward, snake and profiteer without defending your libels. Yourdon has "capitalized ON fear" was/is your charge. Where is the evidence? There is none.

-------------------------

"As for the Senate, remember that he was not called to testify as an IT expert, or even an expert on Y2k IT problems. Rather, he was called as a "preparation" expert."

Right. And you weren't called to testify for the Senate because? The subject matter of the hearing was preparation. But if you think Yourdon was there because he is an expert on solar power, remind me not to give you a reference to your next SAP project. And this has NOTHING to do with the paragraph I wrote above this inane comment of yours about Yourdon's consistent reputation in IT for integrity. You're batting .000 to this point, except for continuing to illustrate your venom towards this man.

-------------------------

"This is truly confusing. Linking North and Yourdon demeans them both? What does that say of them individually?"

Still at it. I say YOU are demeaning Yourdon-North, to which your response is that LINKING them demeans them and that (extending from one smear to another) this "says" something worse about them still, taken individually. How despicable ARE you, whoever-you-are? I ask you for evidence and you take my words and use them ludicruously to further slander people.

-------------------------

"Yes, this is the impression I've gotten from Yourdon as time goes on. Even though he acknowledges earlier that people made decisions based on his statements, he increasingly resorts to the refrain that "people need to make up their own minds". As it happens, I agree. But then, I didn't write the books, make the videos, set up the MLM's, attempting to convince people what they should do."

That is, that Yourdon views his own activities as "dirty". Bzzt. Wrong again. He doesn't "increasingly" resort to a "refrain". Yourdon, as an IT CONSULTANT during the past three decades AND during Y2K, has ALWAYS urged clients and readers to weigh evidence and make up their own mind.

It's a part of his own core TEMPERAMENT, as people who know him personally and have watched this forum from the beginning fully understand. Personally, I think he does it too much and is too LITTLE inclined to try to bluntly persuade.

-------------------------

"Yourdon stated he moved from New York to New Mexico because New York, in his opinion, will look like Beirut in January 2000. Yes, I would call this "Bugging Out".

He now claims he was in a "grumpy" mood then, and that his moving out of NYC is "not accurate". This I would call disavowing "Bugging Out"."

Fine. Now we have your definition and we can evaluate it as we choose. Anyone who thinks New York will look like Beirut in Jan. 2000 (earth to Hoffmeister: "it may") is making a wise decision to be OUTTA THERE in Jan. 2000. If that is "bugging out", awesome. As for your lifting his words on the other thread where you maligned him (e.g., "grumpy"), it's out-of-context, as always, and solely intended to mock him. But others can go there to read Ed's words (gracious words, I might add), so I'll leave that distortion for now.

-------------------------

"Seriously? Hmm. When was the book published? When was the letter sent about Beirut? When was the "Y2k WebMall" created? When was the MLM set up to "Cash in on the Y2k Craze"? How much more do you need?"

This is the poseur's answer to where, when and how Yourdon has "deliberately and explicitly cultivated fear about Y2K so that he can profit personally" (my words).

The answer seems to be that publishing a book, writing a letter that offers an opinion about New York and selling Y2K prep supplies CONSTITUTES deliberate cultivation of FEAR in order to profit personally.

What a crock.

-------------------------

"My "agenda" is that we make it through Y2k with no major problems. The charges aren't "false"; they are merely restatements of fact."

I don't know what your agenda is because I don't know who you are. You might be a SAP consultant. You might not. You might be Stephen Poole, CPR, Paul Davis. You might be someone who works in Koskinen's office. You might be someone who actually IS a SAP consultant. Or not.

I know now from these answers that you are a dishonorable person (not sure if you are male or female, obviously) who is far shallower intellectually and ethically than I had suspected. That will certainly affect my "read" of your presumed "technical" comments.

The answer here is simple, and there are hundreds of thousands of Ed's words and actions to back it up:

Yourdon believed and believes that Y2K is likely to result in a depression.

He believed and still believes that NY will NOT be a safe place to be in the year 2000.

He has worked for several years to fix Y2K problems in a variety of American corporations and has written widely on the subject technically.

He provided a forum where many people could weigh the subject for themselves.

He wrote a book that detailed a variety of Y2K scenarios for various sectors and continually reminded readers that the milder as well as more severe outcomes were possible.

He moved to New Mexico for reasons never denied or withdrawn.

He sought unsuccessfully to sell Y2K prep supplies (Y2K consulting is OK, Ed, but don't try to sell anything that people might need physically!).

After taking a respite from people like you for several months, he formally REITERATED the consistency of his Y2K expectations and has recently begun commenting directly on this forum as well.

So far from trying to back away from his convictions, he has been working on material to help communities recover should Y2K prove to be as damaging as he STILL fears it will be.

You, by contrast, Hoffmeister, are an anonymous non-entity. Yet, I still hope you will act like a man. Or woman? And apologize. It's never too late.



-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


Amusing. Big Dog's arguments sound like claiming that 2+2=5 for two "excellent" reasons:

1) these are good, solid 2's, not weak and uncertain 2's. Therefore, they add up to even MORE than 4. And if we round up (a perfectly good protocol), then it's entirely reasonable that we reach 5.

2) The person who claimed 2+2=4 is anonymous and I'm not (sort of), and therefore cannot be trusted in any way.

As an example of extreme special pleading to find some way, ANY way, to get the evidence to fit the conclusions, Big Dog's arguments can hardly be beat. If Big Dog were more sophisticated, I'd suspect him of concocting this stuff to mock what he recognizes as a blindly biased audience. But in reality, I suspect he *believes* it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.


Flint -- Coming from the person who high-mindedly and sophistically demands "evidence", this gem of emptiness certainly testifies to your agreement with this person's charges against Yourdon.

Given your own lack of ethical integrity, I'm not surprised. Or are you merely "deliberately misleading" the posters on this thread for noble purposes of "debate"?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


I agree with Flint. Russ (aka Big Dog) is a religious zealot. Like many fundamentalists, Russ has reached his conclusion and will bend all data to fit the theory. I'm not sure if this is intentional or unconscious. On point is certain... Russ has no moral high ground in this debate. Of course, I am sure he feels the repugnant personal attacks he has launched are completely justified. This is the danger of the zealot. They feel their faith justifies all sorts of nasty behavior. It won't be long now, Russ.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.

Attacking me personally without being able to give a bit of reasonable response to this person's libelous attack of Ed Yourdon is patent to anyone who reads this thread with an open mind.

We can now take it that Decker also agrees with Hoffmeister's charges about Yourdon. Thanks for making that clear.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


BigDog

----------------------

Y2K is an event that some people, myself included, feel is so fundamentally UNCERTAIN in its NATURE that grasping that (its uncertainty) is prerequisite to every adult's owconsideration of their course of action. In the face of media campaigns from the beginning (when Y2K was regarded as TOTALLY hype), Yourdon and others believed that it was essential to immerse people in the authentic uncertainty of Y2K. This was correct (n.b., comments to the Senate this week that the Koskinen approach, which was the polar reverse, has been "reckless").

This is ENTIRELY different from wanting, choosing and determining to provoke fear IN ORDER TO profit from the fear that one created. THAT was what you have despicably charged this man with doing. Feeble response, whoever-you-are.

Bullshit, BigDog. Spin this as much as you want, but creating Uncertainty is not what this should be about.

No, we may not know with certainty what will happen. But the goal should be to move in that direction, not the opposite.

-----------------

(BigDog) The clear implication from this, coupled to the earlier charge, is that Yourdon promoted fear in order to profit personally by taking advantage of people who wouldn't otherwise know better, not being experts themselves.

(Hoffmeister) Again, just stating facts. If the "implications" are "clear" by merely stating the facts, that says something, does it not?

This is the implication YOU sought to create from YOUR charge, not an implication based on stating the facts -- your "facts" are precisely what is in question. But you knew that because you're not that stupid. Nor am I. So far, your response is laughable.

My "facts" are in question? The "facts" I stated were "He wrote the books, wrote the "essays", made the videos, created the "Y2k Web Malls", participated in the MLM's."

You aren't seriously questioning the above, are you? And if not, what "facts" are you questioning?

-------------------

Again, you simply assert as before that Yourdon is a coward, snake and profiteer without defending your libels. Yourdon has "capitalized ON fear" was/is your charge. Where is the evidence? There is none.

Sorry, should have said "attempted" to capitalize on fear. His statements lately have been that he didn't make much money on these ventures.

BigDog, how anyone could have gone to the MLM site and seen the banners screaming to "Cash in on the Y2k Craze", and then try to say he wasn't trying to capitalize on fear, is beyond me. It doesn't matter whether or not the profits actually panned out; the attempt was there.

--------------------------------

Right. And you weren't called to testify for the Senate because? The subject matter of the hearing was preparation. But if you think Yourdon was there because he is an expert on solar power, remind me not to give you a reference to your next SAP project. And this has NOTHING to do with the paragraph I wrote above this inane comment of yours about Yourdon's consistent reputation in IT for integrity. You're batting .000 to this point, except for continuing to illustrate your venom towards this man.

You were the one who brought up the Senate testimony as evidence of his IT reputation, not I. I just pointed out he was not there to testify on the IT impacts of Y2k. These weren't the hearings that a Gartner Group, a Cap Gemini, or even a Dr Rubin, were testifying at.

-------------------------------

Still at it. I say YOU are demeaning Yourdon-North, to which your response is that LINKING them demeans them and that (extending from one smear to another) this "says" something worse about them still, taken individually. How despicable ARE you, whoever-you-are? I ask you for evidence and you take my words and use them ludicruously to further slander people.

Yes, I linked them; North links them as well (a fact you conveniently ignore). But you were the one who stated this "simultaneously" demeans them both.

--------------------------------

Fine. Now we have your definition and we can evaluate it as we choose. Anyone who thinks New York will look like Beirut in Jan. 2000 (earth to Hoffmeister: "it may") is making a wise decision to be OUTTA THERE in Jan. 2000. If that is "bugging out", awesome. As for your lifting his words on the other thread where you maligned him (e.g., "grumpy"), it's out-of-context, as always, and solely intended to mock him. But others can go there to read Ed's words (gracious words, I might add), so I'll leave that distortion for now.

Out of context? Sure, BigDog. But I'll agree, and let anyone else who wants review the thread themselves.

It is here:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001a PZ

-------------------

This is the poseur's answer to where, when and how Yourdon has "deliberately and explicitly cultivated fear about Y2K so that he can profit personally" (my words).

The answer seems to be that publishing a book, writing a letter that offers an opinion about New York and selling Y2K prep supplies CONSTITUTES deliberate cultivation of FEAR in order to profit personally.

Yes.

You forgot the MLM, though.

------------------------------

For the rest.

Yes, I don't post my name. Neither do you.

The e-mail address is real. As well, some people know who I am.

It matters not to me whether or not a BigDog on the internet believes I am an SAP consultant; my clients do.

Yourdon has never denied attempting to profit from his Y2k enterprises, which makes it difficult to understand why you feel the need to do this. As always, have never questioned his right to do this; but that is far different from doing what is right.

And yes, I believe there is a certain line that he has crossed. For myself, that was the MLM. Whether or not he actually made any profits is immaterial; it was the attempt. In his own words, it was targetted at people on Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, single mothers with three kids.

Seeing the banner scream "Cash in on the Y2k Craze" was the last straw. It left absolutely no doubt in my mind what the intentions were, and it truly disgusted me.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 16, 1999.


Decker describes Russ (BigDog) as a religious zealot. The Hungarian and I met Russ, along with Puddintame, and we chatted across a booth table for about two hours. The Hungarian was brought up as an atheist and has seen no reason to embrace any religion; in fact, she is vociferously contemptuous of overtly religious people. I just called and asked her if she perceived Russ as a religious zealot. Well, you can imagine someone with a slightly softer accent than Zsa Zsa spluttering, "RUSS? No, not RUSS! If he is a religious zealot zen I am Hillary Clinton." And I concur.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint,
We have an opening for a permanent devil's advocate on our team.
-- c4i (c4ixxx@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999
----------------

Appropriate invitation, c4i.

Flint is a LOOSE IFFER

Lucifer ass. available, please employ

-- Ashton (allaha@earthlink.net), October 16, 1999.


Hoffmeister -- Having a real email is plenty adequate and I forthwith withdraw all of MY charages about that. Obviously, I am a fan of handles.

Otherwise, I see nothing new in your last response. There is absolutely nothing wrong in selling Y2K preps -- 95% of them useful even if Y2K is a BITR -- to anyone. In fact, it is a great shame that many of our society's poorest members will have none, thanks to the kind of Y2K spin that you favor. If this is the sum total of your "disgust", it is entirely misplaced. But it does explain from a psychological perspective why you have (and continue to) impugn Ed Yourdon.

At the end of the day, Ed's contributions to FIXING Y2K and helping other people PREPARE for Y2K will continue to draw the sincere thanks of thousands of people -- just as they already have.

Forum regulars, as they always do, being independent folk, will make their own judgment about you. You should be delighted that your charges have now been aired! Unfortunately, they are still found to be malicious.

Old Git -- So THAT'S who the Hungarian was (don't tell her I said that, she'll kill me)! Jesus of Nazareth was probably the LEAST religious person who walked the earth -- one reason the Pharisees and lawyers hated him so much. I aspire to that, fail though I do much of the time. Hope to have one more get-together before rollover.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


Old Git:

On the assumption that your misunderstanding is genuine:

In this context, we aren't talking about someone who preaches an organized religion at every opportunity. We're talking about someone who adopts a specific creed and defends it blindly and unthinkingly, against all attacks real and imagined, and in defiance of any and all facts to the contrary. A mind that fixates on a given belief and not only cannot change, but cannot even comprehend the possibility of change.

Most of these people can be quite gracious and understanding unless you press their hot buttons. At which point the blinders snap down and rationality is abandoned. This is the zealotry of a religions mentality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.


Ashton, LOL!

-- duane (duane3@acerx.net), October 16, 1999.

In response to the initial post

Look at Yourdon's essay on firetrucks and embedded systems. Read that with an open mind, then click thru to the thread on this forum. Several outright lies are posted and Yourdon thanks the posters for their "research" (LOL) When called on this BS, several forum shills try to attack the poster. Finally, we see that the aledged problems with firetrucks are nothing but smoke and mirrors. They are PROVEN to be false. Were there any apolagies made after this? Did Ed publicly admit he was WRONG (yet again).

Answer: NO. He just let it fade away.

I am almost sorry to bring it up, as it will now (no doubt) quietly disappear. If Yourdon had any integrity, he wouldn't remove the error, but publish an addendum to it, admitting his error. He won't. The bigger the fear wave stays, the more chance for profits. Very very simple equation.

This is only ONE example, Russ. ONE. I hesitate to publish the dozens of others I have stored, because I want Yourdon exposed after this is said and done. I know of quite a few "debunkers" of y2k hysteria that are going to pursue that end as well. Exposure is one thing that those who do deeds in darkness CANNOT stand. Ed is afraid of exposure and has been backpeddaling furiously ever since the senate testamony. Re-watch the realvideo presentation of that Russ, and tell me Yourdon didn't blanche at the remark of "website fear-mongers". He turned white as a sheet, as you could tell. Obviously, so could the good senator. Not wanting to embarass ED, he softened his words. A few days later EY said "Sayonora". It did impact him.

Why he returned one can only speculate. Personnally, I believe he stands to profit greatly from continued FUD marketing; but......that is only speculation, of course.

All done. Let the personal attacks of the religious zealots continue.

Sincerly,

-- BS detector (RLip@0923450982346.98234056872346), October 16, 1999.


Did you expect my opinion to change?

It hasn't, for quite some time. As for "finally" airing my opinions, didn't know they were "hidden". These threads on c.s.y2k were from February:

Have you seen this?

Have you seen this?REVEALED

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 16, 1999.


Is that you, CPR? Or is it Poole? Or Davis? Why do you feel the need to hide? Obviously, the Der Bunkie trolls are now out in force, I see to join their compatriots already here on this thread. Your ox has really been gored by ANY defense of the EVIL Ed Yourdon, hasn't it?

This thread is about Hoffmeister's charges against Ed. Those charges are false.

I hate to clue you in, but it isn't illegal to offer technical, political, cultural or preparation opinions in this country, at least not yet. It isn't even illegal to be WRONG about them. And being wrong about them (if one is) is not legally demonstrable proof of deceit, to say the very least. Including about "fire trucks". You are the guys who seem to ascribe superhuman powers to Ed Yourdon, not me!

I disagreed with Yourdon about his 1999 trigger dates. I wasn't a fan of his "Rise and Fall ..." book. And so it goes. I could give you others. Who cares?

When one places the efforts of Yourdon and others to prepare the public for an event that, EVEN TODAY, has consequences nearly as unpredictable as they did four years ago, against your spirit of revenge (?) and for what? the contrast is clear and illuminating.

It does illustrate the collaboration between Der Bunkie and Hoffmeister, Decker and Flint. I have no idea whether it is consciously planned or an unconscious result of sharing the same spirit. Again, let those who read this forum weigh this entire thread very carefully as they determine who, over the coming months, deserves sincere attention.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


Poor little vengeful pollies. Yourdon has been right all along. You will be foaming until you see the flames licking at your soiled shorts and the icicles cluttering your spittle.

-- r7y (r7y@tt.mil), October 16, 1999.

Sorry, Old Git, but I find it difficult to accept as a judge of character. And you miss the point... as Flint has so eloquently observed.

Onto to Russ... I think it's just nifty that Ed Yourdon sells Y2K preps. I simply take that into account when I read him as a "reporter" of Y2K.

As I have said many times before, he is a savvy businessperson. I think Hoff feels that Yourdon is insincere... that deep down Yourdon knows Y2K will be less than catastrophic and that he is cashing in on his IT expertise. Selling out, if you will. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to prove. Fortunately, no one has made you judge, jury and executioner. No matter how many times you condemn Hoff, it's just your opinion, Russ, not scripture.

By the way, Russ, Yourdon has been civil on this forum. You have been a rather nasty, little man. Take a lesson from you idol, and do try to behave. (If you doubt Russ has been naughty, just ask... I'll post the links.)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.


Flint, You suggest what you call my "misunderstanding" might not be genuine. I have not accepted that Y2K (or any other) preparation is a religion, therefore it did not occur to me that Decker was referring to the incentive for my motley collection of canned and packaged goods--and he did not elucidate. Perhaps because he wanted people, particularly newbies, to think he meant conventional religion? It doesn't really matter, anyway. In my opinion, BigDog does not fit the description of "zealot." I do not believe that Ed Yourdon even accidentally engendered fear in anyone, let alone deliberately. Not like the polly leader, cpr, who collects data files on the posters here. Talk about intimidation! Now if you want to see good examples of what you describe, go to the debunking forums.

You'll excuse me if I take my leave--I have to go and help Sweetie get the wherewithal to connect up two new solar panels. Y2K? Yes, certainly, would be helpful if the power goes out. But even more so if Irene drops enough rain to topple trees and power lines in the next few days.

It's not just Y2K.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 16, 1999.


"As far as the "shill" charges, there is not an iota of evidence to support any of these spurious claims." - Ken Decker

"I do not believe you can find any evidence to support any of these spurious claims of improper waivers granted to Loral Corporation" - Bill Clinton

Notice the similarities? He doesn't deny he's a shill, just claims there's no evidence.

Guess Decker went to the Clinton School of B.S.

As far as your little malicious quip about "Religious Zealots" and "Fundamentalists" being dangerous, I suggest that the only dangerous ideology that threatens our freedom is YOURS and YOUR ILK. I will not lie down peacably like the others will and allow you to slam the faithful with your insidious venom. I will rise up and fight your like with every fiber of my being.

You have followed the Stalin formula of demouguogery well, and your vicious attempts at the Clintonista demonization of those that hold sincerity of belief is a direct threat to our freedom, and I for one will not abide such malignant poison.

You sir, are a shill, and an evil demonstration of all that has sickened this nation. I spit you out as profane and evil for such comments as made above by your post.

You have shown your true colors, and those that have eyes to see know you for what you are.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 16, 1999.


BigDog,

There is some circumstantial evidence that Yourdon might be being too alarmist so he can make a profit, but the evidence is not strong enough for me to make that charge in public. I do not know whether his y2k activities in general and his MLM marketing activities in particular originated from greed or from altruism. Does Yourdon's fear of y2k propel him to do what he does or does he do what he does just to make a buck? I really don't know. It is very hard to look inside the soul of a man and determine what motivates him, especially if you have never met him in person.

Hoffmeister can't prove his point, but the evidence for it is at least as strong, or stronger than the cries that THEY ARE ALL LYING!!! DE JAGER'S A LIAR! THE GOVERNMENT'S LYING! THE BANKER'S ARE LYING!!! THEY ARE JUST WAITING TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND DECLARE NEW WORLD ORDER! THEY ARE COVERING UP NOSTRADAMUS' COMET THAT WILL CRASH INTO EARTH AND WIPE US OUT. Hoff's statements seem less outrageous than any of dozens of unfounded statements accusing officials, CEOs, the news media, and everyone else of coverups that can be found on this forum every day. I am not sure why it is only Hoff's alleged libel that has you so incensed.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 16, 1999.


Robin -- I have never declared Ed Yourdon a saint, nor has he, to my knowledge. I suspect he is neither altruistic, particularly, nor greedy, particularly. But I don't know, anymore than you do.

What is this circumstantial evidence to which you refer? The fact of writing a book about Y2K, doing Y2K consulting and selling Y2K preps is scarcely damning, except to people who have decided a priori that Y2K is either a hoax or, at worst, a minor cultural irritant.

Except for the most trivial verbalisms, such as the one you take him over the coals for on that other thread, one could easily argue that Yourdon has been wonderfully or horribly consistent. At least the Der Bunkies will give Yourdon credit for consistency! Any number of my words from this forum could be taken out of context if you or others choose -- what does that prove?

As for comparing Hoffmeister's libel of this real person to your list of ridiculous subjects (that is, you cleverly escalate their ridiculousness as the list expands) is laughable and completely irrelevant to this thread.

The only possible exception might be De Jager. I myself have speculated on his motives (ie, highly negatively) but I never assumed that his initial actions were geared to generate fear so that he could PROFIT from that fear. I did speculate that he was positioning himself for post-Y2K profit -- but again, nothing with respect to past actions about Y2K.

This is a truly terrible charge that was made about Ed Yourdon.

It is NOT just another Internet-style blast or smear. For instance, I have, in the past, accused Decker of being a troll. Hardly polite. But hardly the equivalent of saying that Decker is trying to profit by manipulating other people knowingly and using his very professional expertise (as an economist, in this case) to do so.

This is NOT equivalent to some absurd post about "Nostradamus" or even whether something called "everyone" is lying. Give me a break. If you really believe that, you are utterly unqualified to be writing anything about Y2K, let alone this forum.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


BigDog,

I think a MLM site for y2k preps is at least moderately good circumstantial evidence. If you saw that someone who is yelling fire in a crowded theater also was selling fire extinguishers, you might think that this was moderately good circumstantial evidence.

Of course, this doesn't prove that Ed is guilty of anything, and the fire extinguisher sale does not prove anything by itself either. The person who yells fire might really believe there is a fire and he might just be trying to help others out.

OK, I realize this is an imperfect analogy since no one would be selling fire extinguishers in a crowded theater. The best thing to do would be to get the people to leave the theater. But to make the analogy more fitting, imagine that the salesman somehow knew that a fire was likely due to poor construction and he knew the doors would be blocked so people couldn't leave (just like people can't leave this planet to avoid y2k) Suppose he somehow managed to have fire extinguishers available for this eventuality. Again, not a perfect analogy, but you get my point.

The key points are whether the fire extinguisher salesman really believes there is a fire and whether Ed really believes what he is saying or if he is exaggerating the threat. Well, look how he started out his Humpty Dumpty book, chapter 1:

It's November 7, 2000 and the country has been reeling from 10 solid months of Y2K disasters. Unemployment has reached 30%, and people stopped watching the Dow Jones Industrial average when it dropped below 5,000. A third of the nation's banks are closed, not because their computers failed, but because their loan portfolios turned out to be uncollectible when borrowers suffered their own Y2K problems. Power is still out in three northern U.S. cities, all of which were abandoned after the first two months of winter cold and darkness; meanwhile, rolling blackouts and power fluctuations frustrate any attempt to lead a normal life. Telephones work, and the Internet is up, but it is of little solace; nobody is in a mood to surf the Web or chat on their cell phones when they don't have jobs. Dusk-to-dawn curfews persist in a dozen other large cities, though officials continue to promise they'll be lifted in time for the Christmas shopping season.

Now, this might not have been an unreasonable scenario to raise in September 1998, but it was September 1999 when he wrote this. Three northern U.S. cities were abandoned because power was out for three months????

Now, I realize that Ed didn't say he believed this would happen. Indeed, he may even have said that this was not a likely scenario. But does anyone really think that this has any possibility of happening this late in the game? For him to even write this passage this late in the game seems a bit irrisponsible. I can easily understand why Hoffmeister has accused Ed of fear mongering.

Again, this doesn't prove that Ed has done any of this for a profit. And maybe Ed really does believe this scenario is possible. But it is very hard for me to believe that Ed thinks this scenario has even the remotest possibility of unfolding this late in the game. And that, BigDog, is circumstantial evidence.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 16, 1999.


Whew!

Halloween must be just around the corner. The DeBunker "clubbers" are out... en masse... trick or treating... again.

I greatly admire Ed and his courage to stand up for his convictions. Period.

'Nuf said.

Diane

BTW, that said... THIS key Senate testimony is What's Important to discuss... this week!

See link...

New Senate Y2K Hearings - "What in the World Will Happen?"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Zqp



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.


Invar... I guess you've been napping. I've invited folks over to check out my credentials. Please, feel free. Oh, and we simply disagree on the "danger" of people like Gary North. You see, Invar, North wants to replace the Republic with an Old Testament theocracy. Personally, I support the Constitution and have no interest in a State-mandated religion. I have no problem with religion. You practice yours and I'll practice mine. By the way, you have my vote for blowhard of the month.

Russ... let me jog your memory. You were Yourdon's apologist when he left the Y2K fight. You have defended Yourdon at every turn, and here you are again. You called me a coward, a moron, dense, stupid, dishonest... well, it's a long list. From you, I'd consider "troll" a compliment. You have waged war against anyone who disagrees with you. If not for Flint, Hoff, or other, this forum would be your little cult of personality. Yourdon reads this forum. Let him defend himself if he is so inclined. Who appointed you guardian, or dare I say, defender of the faith?

Robin... don't waste your time. Logic doesn't work on Russ.

-- Ken (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.


>>>"we simply disagree on the "danger" of people like Gary North. You see, Invar, North wants to replace the Republic with an Old Testament theocracy."<<<

So what's the difference between desiring that and Leftist Socialism FORCIBLY replacing our Constitution as we speak?

I view Socialists, Liberal Democrats and defenders of Big Government like you with the utmost caution and suspicion. I believe that Leftists like Clinton and his ideological ilk are more of a direct threat to our Constitutional Liberties than ANYTHING Gary North might desire. And I say that with the track record of the last six years as proof.

To date, I have not lost ONE liberty nor ONE iota of freedom because of what Gary North espouses. I have however lost MANY liberties and have had further restrictions on MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS because of what the whining Liberal Socialists and the Corrupt Leftists running our governments have done.

The danger, is all of us having let down our guard to freedom, to allow governmental and Status Quo Apologists like yourself lull the populace into believing Religionists like North, or the faithful are somehow the REAL threat to liberty.

YOU SIR, and your espousements of vicious ridicule and demonization, are the REAL danger to freedom. You do nothing but ridicule any who dare question our current system, government or society. That makes you a shill.

And I can care less about your accolades and "credentials". Your nasty engagements are all the fruit I need to judge your positions.

And you Decker, get the JackWipe Hyena Of the Month award from me.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 16, 1999.


Robin -- The exact point here is that I myself consider Yourdon's Humpty Dumpty scenario to be VERY possible. Not probable. But quite possible. Even now. Yes.

It is one thing to consider me an idiot for thinking this -- perfectly legitimate. But quite another to assume I am being disingenuous.

Again, Yourdon has been quite consistent from day one about his Y2K views. Indeed, there ISN'T a whole lot of difference, except semantic, between your Humpty Dumpty quote and his quote about Beirut. He may be an idiot, but it is COUNTER-evidence for him using Y2K manipulatively.

To follow out your logic and that of others, the "smart" thing would be for Yourdon to diassociate himself. Contra HOFF, these kind of scenarios leave him JUST AS OPEN to claims he was a Y2K doomer moron as ever.

Indeed, I'm sure that people like CPR, Poole, Davis, Flint, Hoffmeister and Decker are determined to "get" Yourdon coming and going next year.

I find your crowded theatre analogy simply faulty. Indeed, speaking only for myself, I believe the theatre is already smoking. I would rather that the theatre operators had PROVIDED fire extinguishers and means of escape. They didn't. I could carry the analogy further but I won't.

Decker -- this thread is not about me but about Hoffmeister's charges against Ed. If you would like to discuss my posts to and about you and my feelings towards you (surprisingly complex, actually), start another thread. Or email me. Who knows? I might yet convert you through my nefarious zealot powers to the "right side" of the "Force".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 16, 1999.


Robin,

Actually Ed's scenerio from Humpty Ch1 sounds quite livable. No nuclear power plant accidents, no chemical explosions, instead 70 % still employed, Wall Street still functioning, 2/3 of banks still up, Power for most cities, telephones work, the Internet is up !, orderly curfews in some cities - soon to be lifted, quite a pleasant outcome considering the possibilities.

Now to go find that Senate Testimony and report from that expert on International banking who said that he didn't feel comfortable reading his company's report on International banking post-rollover in such a public forum such as the U.S. Senate, it might be too alarming and cause panic, instead the Senators could read it themselves.

And why are some goverment reports on Y2K still classifie d ? Why did Senator Fred Thompsom say that he has read classified Y2K reports that made his skin crawl ?

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), October 16, 1999.


Invar,

You have the intellectual depth of house plant. Does everyone you disagree with automatically become a socialist? Can you even define the political philosophy? (laughter) If you have read my many posts, you might realize I am a supporter of capitalism and free markets. Politically, my leanings are mostly libertarian.

As for the political direction of the country, for the first time in 40 years, we have a Republican congress. This is not the 1930s when large groups of Americans flirted with Communism. The "New Deal" is over. This is not the radical 1960s. Do not confuse a President you obviously hate with the overall political climate of the country.

Perhaps you can explain some of these rights you have lost? Name a dozen "rights" that have been taken from you.... Get off your nickel soapbox and down to brass tacks.

You will find, Invar, that I am not responsible for the loss of any of "rights." I ridicule you because you are a pompous windbag. You are a paper patriot... the speechifying kind who wave flags but who will always miss the point of America.

Russ,

I wish Yourdon well. Other than a natural conflict of interest, Yourdon is just doing the entrepreneurial thing. I have no desire to "get," Ed. He is, by far, the sharpest of the Y2K pundits. I have every confidence he'll continue writing and working far after 2000. Perhaps since I don't work in IT, I just don't take him personally. I don't get angry at the infomercial people either. I'm just waiting for you to acknowledge the simple fact Yourdon has a conflict of interest.

As for you and I, it's probably not worth the time. Honestly, I don't see a shred of evidence you want to think about Y2K. The thinking, for you, was over before I ever found this forum. This is not meant as an insult, just an observation. I think you are too deeply invested in your belief system to consider alternatives. I appreciate the gracious offer, though.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.


Is there enough testosterone yet on this thread?

-- kick dirt (and more@fire.hydrant), October 16, 1999.

This sure is a fascinating thread, they don't get much hotter than this. A couple of half-time cheers:

1) The code is broken, it will not be fixed in time.

2) Nobody knows what will happen when the rubber (broken code) meets the road (Jan 1, 2000).

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 16, 1999.

Following King's half-time cheers, here are a few observations to open the third quarter.

Regarding the perceived discomfort of Ed at the phrase "website fear mongers" during the Senate hearing, I probably would not have reacted too well either. I tend to get irritated when words are used to cast dispersions without conveying any substance. "Website fear monger" is slander, no less than the term "quack" when applied to any health practitioner outside of the mainstream.

Anyone in a position of authority or with something to sell, has a vested interest, including Ed. But if his position on Y2K was calculated to use fear to stimulate sales of his books and preparedness items, I would think that could have been more effectively accomplished by predicting certain doom, which he has not done.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 16, 1999.


>>Regarding the perceived discomfort of Ed at the phrase "website fear mongers" during the Senate hearing, I probably would not have reacted too well either. I tend to get irritated when words are used to cast dispersions without conveying any substance. "Website fear monger" is slander, no less than the term "quack" when applied to any health practitioner outside of the mainstream.<<

David, you've made an astute observation, with which I agree. It is also possible that Mr. Yourdon's reaction was one of anger, or a combination of anger and fear. In the halls of power, such innuendo can easily be construed as a (barely) veiled threat.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 16, 1999.


"Website fear monger"

Within the beltway, such name-calling is always a done to send a message. The gentle-person making the statement was being insulting and demeaning for two reasons:

1) To show who was the big dog. 2) To say to everyone else present or listening, "You don't have to listen to this man. He is merely a ..."

That person was being a bully. At the same time the speaker gave us a clue as to how afraid the "Halls of Power" are of what Mr. Yourdon has been telling us all a long.

People will debate these issues till Janurary the first. Then they will stop. Many of us know who Mr. Yourdon is because we studied his design notation at University. To us, he has proven his understanding of systems design and thus the pitfalls of systems and systems complexity many times over.

Huff, is first afraid to attach a name to his opinion. That in and of itself seems significant to me. And second, he is obviously devoid of any serious systems training (or perhaps he is one of those students whom you saw digging in the trash for your last listing when semester projects were due). He can be lightly ignored as ignorant.

It is to Mr. Yourdon's credit that he troubled himself to answer Huff's charges.

Did you know that people who sniff paint call it, "HUFFing"?

-- Michael Erskine (osiris@urbanna.net), October 16, 1999.


Pop quiz:

You know Y2K will be a catastrophe. You are sitting in front of the U.S. Senate and you have five minutes to "save the world." Do you:

A) Build rapport with the Senators by pointing out members of your family live in their districts.

B) Ask for the government to improve the quality of information on the status of Y2K remediation.

C) Tell the Senators ignoring Y2K might have (gasp!) political consequences.

D) Pull no punches and tell them major cities will look like Beruit... and those are just the nice ones.

ANSWER: Ed Yourdon chose A through C, inclusively.

Hmmm... why didn't Ed drop the big one? Could it be Ed is playing both sides of the street? Tread easily where credibility could take a hit... and change to a more somber tune when playing to the public.

By the way, it's Hoff.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 16, 1999.


wrong David L!

If you set out a plate of raw stricknine(sp) in a room full of toddlers, they will be safe. Why? because raw, stricknine is so bitter and terrible tasting, nobody could stand to swallow enough to kill them.[don't get all technical or you will ruin the analogy]

*IF* however, you coat the stricknine with a bright colored candy shell, every kid in the room would be dead within the hour. Why? because if you sugar coat it, EVERYONE will swallow it.

Hhmmmm; sounds like a strategy that the FUDmasters could use...or maybe they already are!

-- Go EY (make@more.money.yeah!), October 16, 1999.


*IF* however, you coat the stricknine with a bright colored candy shell, every kid in the room would be dead within the hour. Why? because if you sugar coat it, EVERYONE will swallow it.

I think a closer analogy would be coating random patches of strychnine with random amounts of candy. In sampling this, some tastings would be horrendously bitter, some wonderfully sweet, and some a combination, leaving the taster unsure whether to eat the stuff.

Our society is conditioned to expect certainty from its authority figures. I think most people reading Ed's writings would be so confounded by the range of outcomes he presents, as to find great difficulty making the commitment to act.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 16, 1999.


Ed Yourdon wrote:

"On April 1 [1999], all speculation will end."

Michael Erskine wrote:

"People will debate these issues till Janurary the first. Then they will stop."

The similarities are eerie.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.


>>You know Y2K will be a catastrophe.<<

Why, "Ken," what's wrong with this picture? You've been having a bad day. This is not even one of your good non sequiturs.

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), October 17, 1999.


>>>"You have the intellectual depth of house plant."

Ahhhh, wit. Good. Nice to see you haven't lost your arrogance you condescending sonofabitch.

>>>"Does everyone you disagree with automatically become a socialist? Can you even define the political philosophy? (laughter)"<<<

Obviously you don't possess the IQ to understand what I posted was an analagous comparison to your personal problem with Gary North's ideology, which I succinctly demonstrated was less a threat than Socialism which are both Anethema to the Constitution. Dare I suggest your intellect at grape level?

>>>"If you have read my many posts, you might realize I am a supporter of capitalism and free markets. Politically, my leanings are mostly libertarian."<<<

You'd never know it based on your continual support and reverence for this most corrupt of Administrations, and the insidious berratement you engage anyone that holds beliefs you consider "foolish" or "dangerous". Usually Conservative or Constitutionalist in nature. This holds true for anyone having done their own research and conclusion and are preparing for a worst-case-scenario since you dismiss their personal conclusions as "hoodwinked".

>>>" As for the political direction of the country, for the first time in 40 years, we have a Republican congress. This is not the 1930s when large groups of Americans flirted with Communism. The "New Deal" is over."<<<

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON????? Or are you truly THAT deluded? No, I think not, you're a propagandist...and I have to admit , you do it well. Americans flirting with Communism? Gotta tell ya pal, that is where we are heading on a DAILY BASIS. Ever heard of the Nationalized/Socialist Health Care Plan the Clintons are now implementing piecemeal? How about the other myriad Communistic and Socialist programs being fostered on us? Gun bans and restrictions, Tobacco restrictions, all the business and hiring quotas and restrictions, all the transfer-of-wealth social programs...etc., etc., etc.....where do I end? But to be correct, perhaps a better term for what we are seeing is Fascism. Regardless of how you want to define it, they are anethema to our Founding Documents...and do nothing but foster a class of Elites at the expense of the working class. You do consider yourself an elite, don't you Deck?

>>>"This is not the radical 1960s. Do not confuse a President you obviously hate with the overall political climate of the country."<<<

Why not? The climate of the people was to look the other way, and keep this criminal liar in office, because they are looking to their wallets and perceptions instead of their freedoms. The people have allowed the rights of Smokers, Gun Owners and religious demonstrators to be trampled underfoot without a fight.

The country is fast asleep Deck, only stirring when their wallets are emptier or they are incited by demouguogery to follow emotional rhetoric designed to create a climate that hates freedom but embraces the perceptions of safety and security.

>>>"Perhaps you can explain some of these rights you have lost? Name a dozen "rights" that have been taken from you.... Get off your nickel soapbox and down to brass tacks."<<<

Have already done that on another thread:http://www.greenspun.com/ bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001XGQ get off your fat arse and look it up yourself.

>>>"You will find, Invar, that I am not responsible for the loss of any of "rights." I ridicule you because you are a pompous windbag. You are a paper patriot... the speechifying kind who wave flags but who will always miss the point of America."<<<

Listen asshole, you know NOTHING of me, my political activites, experience, involvement, or otherwise. I have done far more for this country than you will ever know. I am willing to lay my life down for the freedom you have to spew your bullshit venom . I am prepared to die to remain a free man, and not shrink back from the increasing pressures placed on Constitutionalists in this country. I have DONE MORE and been INVOLVED in more party and community activities and sponsorships than you assume you know, you arrogant and pompous jackal. I'd like to see your try and be a Republican Precinct Captain in Chicago.

And what point of America am I missing? Is it I am missing your modern bastardization of what it means to be an "enlightened" American? Because I do not see the virtues of our current disaster- for-a-society as you do, I miss your grand and marvelous point?

I understand America better than you think I do. I took the risk few take to own my own business, and I see our corrupt government and tax system only those that file Quarterly's see, so cram your pseudo- intellectual claptrap. It is self-proclaimed intellectual elites like yourself that have no understanding of our Birthright and our history. And those that do, are in the business of re-writing it to fit their own ideological agendas.

You are nothing but a coniving, scumy leach on my testicles, and I cast you off as profane.

But I will say, you are certainly MASTER of the insult, but your arrogant condescension labels you for what you are.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 17, 1999.


Damn. If I had only known!

I wish Hoffmeister, Decker et al. would persuade those gullible people who testified at the Senate hearings on October 13th that this whole hullaballoo is baseless, instigated by one man for crass personal gain. Then all that disturbing testimony would be retracted and we could all return to our former comfortable expectations for the future.

After they've done that, they may as well go on to reassure the folks at the Naval War College on this matter, so they can stop wasting the time of a flock of highly paid people. Probably the first person to speak to there would be Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett.

"Your mission, should you decide to accept it..."

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.


Thanks, Invar. Your shallow post confirmed entry into the pompous windbag hall of fame. With someone of intelligence, I could have a decent debate over who poses the greater threat to the Republic... the extreme left or the extreme right. Personally, Invar, I don't trust either end of the political spectrum. You and your ilk have a nasty habit of talking about "family values" then walking over my rights.

Now, blowhard, find one post where I have supported the Clinton administration. Just one. You won't... because my comments on this forum have generally been focused on Y2K. In short, I think the serious pessimists are wrong about Y2K. Furthermore, there are a few pessimists who confuse Y2K with a boatload of conspiracy theories about the New World Order, international banking cabals, etc.

Invar, did you sleep through the Reagan years? The top tax rates are much lower now than they were decades ago. Welfare reform passed in 1996 and the welfare rolls have been reduced by half. Even with the shady accounting, the federal budget is in far better shape. I'm sorry, as a religious, smoking gun owner, if you feel your rights have been diminished.

If you read history, Invar, you'll find this country was far more enamoured of communism in the 1930s. Of course, you won't learn that sitting on a bar stool in the American Legion. Try a library.

America is not just for angry white male business owners who think "Leave it to Beaver" was a documentary. It's not just for Archie Bunker knock-offs who still tell racial jokes to the boys in the bar. It's not just for tin-plated Republican hacks who whine like puppies about their rights.

The freedom of America belongs to everyone. How do you feel about women having those rights, Invar? African-Americans? Gays? Liberals? Flag burners? Unions? Or is America meant for only God fearing white Christian men (with preference to gun owners and chain smokers)? (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 17, 1999.


I think Invar's nailed it about double decker..

You are nothing but a conniving, scummy leach on my testicles, and I cast you off as profane.

Amen to that [laughter]

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), October 17, 1999.


Andy,

Why don't you go play with your gol then rub it on your crotch for good luck.

-- (laughing@you.com), October 17, 1999.


Tom, I wasn't going to bring Major Barnett into this, but since you insist on bringing him up then you might want to check out what he has said here. Admittedly, it is a bit old. If you have a more recent opinion of his then feel free to post it.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qFj

Same message as in other thread. The pages on geocities are real. I built them there first because Naval War College so slow in setting them up for me. Later, NWC liked them and wanted duplicate set on own server. Delay in posting to NWC site is usual bureaucratic crap. Meanwhile, I post away at geocities from my own PC!

Don't be spooked by anything we post. We're what-iffing for the military and USG. We're struggling with the same issues you are. We're not out to dupe anyone. I brief the material to anyone from CIA to 8th-graders from local school.

The future is transparency, love it or leave it.

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), May 20, 1999.

I may disappoint with this answer, but here it goes:

Our project solely about non-US global unfolding of Y2K, so our dark thoughts (i.e., what we get paid to do on purpose so military can pre- think possible responses and if that disturbs you, I ask would you prefer they had their thumbs up their asses when it hits?) shouldn't be taken as revealing any official thought on what's likely to happen in US.

Based on everything I've read and seen, and understanding that I get to see a lot of extra stuff given my position, I pull no punches when I say that I don't expect anything serious in this country come next January. There will be problems, but nothing that requires serious stockpiling.

I and my wife have two small kids. We always have a week's supply of food and bottled water, plus plenty of batteries and candles (we buy at Sam's Club, so go figure), so the only thing we'll change this New Year's Eve is probably having more than the usual $10 in cash in our pockets. We live on an island subject to hurricanes and big snowstorms and icestorms that time of year. In fact, we lost power last New Year's for two hours due to high winds. My colleague on the study had to use his word-burning stove for several days around the same time.

Will we take extra precautions in terms of hard copy records of finances? You bet. But finance companies will be deluging us with that stuff by year's end, so I expect no great effort there.

But overall, I don't expect any serious and lengthy problems. Y2K to me is increasingly just a test of how well firms and economies as a whole have adapted to the paradigm of the New Economy. We live in the New Economy's most advanced state-- we are therefore already the best prepared.

I know some will write that all off as Polly stuff, but this is the same skeptical attitude I bring to issues of Information Warfare, where too many in military believe US "so incredibly vulnerable." Go to our December workshop stuff, where we explored what makes a country robust--it is a laundry list of what defines America. We are the most distributed everything--economy, polity, social system, network system, you name it. Where else on earth would you rather experience a natural disaster? Check out the history on that subject and I dare you not to come to the same conclusion that I always do: there is no place like home. The same will hold true on Y2K.

To me, then, real danger is how America looks after rest of world. Truly bad outcome of Y2K is rest of world angry at us for creating problem, swimming through it ourselves with ease, and somehow condemning them all to falling behind in the global economic race. In the end, then, my view is that Y2K is THE deadline for joining the globalized New Economy. Some will meet this deadline (states, firms, you name it). Others will not. But much will be learned in the process.

Continued good luck on your quest for understanding. I respect the effort immensely.

Tom Barnett

-- Thomas Barnett (barnettt@nwc.navy.mil), May 20, 1999.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 17, 1999.


BigDog,

All I can do is shake my head in amazement if you think it is even remotely possible that three Northern cities could be abandoned for nearly a year because they can't get the power back on. This is so beyond the realm of possibility that it belongs in a science fiction novel (and even in a sci fi novel it might strain the reader's credulity.)

Even IF I were to grant you the thesis that everyone in government and NERC were liars and that we would have massive blackouts, it seems hard to believe it will be more than a few days before the power is up. You might want to read all of Dick Mills' columns to understand why I say this:

http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/PP/RC/index.htm

I think even Rick Cowles would be uncomfortable with predicting that there was a chance that three U.S. cities would have to be abandoned because they couldn't get the power up in two months, much less a year.

Maybe you don't know better, but Ed certainly should.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 17, 1999.


Your post proves that your knowledge of our Foundational History, its intents and purposes, are woefully inadequate and selfishly sophmoric.

By your very words, you would consider the Founding Fathers a bunch of extreme Right religionists that want to deprive you of your selfish sensibilities.

Go and suck an egg Deck, and get thee off my testicles.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 17, 1999.


Invar,

Do you think a woman should have the right to have an abortion? Or should the government be able to intervene and prevent abortions?

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 17, 1999.


INVAR,

Maybe Decker would suck that egg if you put them on your testicles.

-- (Laughing@you.com), October 17, 1999.


Robin -- I think there is a 5% chance of a BITR and a 5% chance of Infomagic. The scenario described is < Infomagic. Probable? No. Possible? Yes. Sorry to disappoint you. And you might be surprised by how much I know -- maybe even more than Ed. That's all besides the point. The POINT is that Ed Yourdon has been highly, though not omnisciently and perfectly consistent throughout.

As for your question about abortion, why not start another thread? It is a nice way to provoke ridicule on ALL SIDES (a little game of "uproar", perhaps?)

INVAR -- my recommendation to you is to NOT answer this question here. It's a complete setup and will end up distracting thread readers from THE SUBJECT, which is that HOFFMEISTER HAS FALSELY AND REPEATEDLY charged Yourdon with despicable actions.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 17, 1999.


Amen Russ.

Start a new OT thread with your question as it relates to "Rights" and the current direction this nation and the world are heading pre-Y2K, and I'll gladly answer your question Robin and engage in debate on that most important issue to you.

This thread is not about my testicles either, is about Hoffmeister and his charges against Mr. Yourdon.

Thanks for putting us back on track Russ.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 17, 1999.


....... THE END .......

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

You're REALLY taking a god-like approach in this one and I simply don't see where you're in any position to do so. How is it exactly that you know more than any other person? How is it that you can't see that Ed was wrong in ALL his predictions to this point? How is it that you see him consistent? Would that be consistently wrong?

"And you might be surprised by how much I know -- maybe even more than Ed. That's all besides the point. The POINT is that Ed Yourdon has been highly, though not omnisciently and perfectly consistent throughout."

I know you're going to flail me for this. It doesn't matter. You've flailed me even when I've treated you with total respect. You flail ANYONE who doesn't believe that the world revolves around the opinions of one Big Dog. What's it like to be so egocentric? [That was a rhetorical question.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 17, 1999.


ah, friend Russ, you weild the rules of dis-information as a true expert.

I know that everyone with a non-washed brain will see this thread clearly. You are very transparent.

I am not even a "debunker" as you claim, but I do read there sites. Far more real information there than the cloak and dagger "evil DOTgov" garbage that infests your brains on TB. As for hiding, you need to open your eyes and see what has been going on with the moderators on this forum. For months now they have been tracking and threatening posters that they disagree with. YOUR failure to denounce that does not say much about you, or perhaps it does.

The same way that you continue to defend Yourdon's iresponsible behavior in regards to y2k, which Hoff mearly pointed out.

Yes Russ, people will indeed see clearly...all to clearly.

All done. let the personal attacks of the exremists continue.

Sincerly,

-- BS detector (RLIP@092345.098234507), October 17, 1999.


....... GUESS NOT (boy this thread is getting long) .....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 17, 1999.

Ah, well, it was mildly entertaining while it lasted. On the Yourdon- Hoff debate, there is no definitive answer. Hoff is questioning Yourdon's motives. Russ (Big Dog) has no ability to peer into Yourdon's soul and speak to his motives. The inconsistency pointed out by Robin Messing is provably true. While it is possible Ed was muddled about why he left New York, it is also possible he was taking a different "spin" on the subject... depending on his audience. Again, only Ed Yourdon has the real answer.

Oh, lest I forget Invar, you might want to talk with Andy about the homophobia. He has the same nasty tendency to make personal attacks with homosexual overtones. Perhaps you can find a good support group.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 18, 1999.


That's not even worthy of a reply Deck. Nothing remotely homosexual in my post, go back and re-read it.

Nice attempt at the Liberal Demouguogery though.

Again, you have shown us what you truly are.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 18, 1999.


Sorry, Invar, but you have this fixation with your testicles. The whole thing about genital insults suggests you might have some deep- seated issues to deal with.

It's irony you wheeze on about freedom. Your beloved Republican party does not have a great track record on liberty. The religious right agrees to freedom... as long as you meet their moral litmus test. You see, Invar, you defend your rights... how about those of the people you don't like. If you are really serious about personal freedom, try the libertarian party. And consider some counseling for you anger management problem.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 18, 1999.


Decker claims to be an economist. Says his new job is connected with Y2K management. Now he gives the impression he's a psychologist. What next, diplomacy? (Laughter)

-- not (who@you.think), October 18, 1999.

From personal attacks to testicles, this thread has about covered all topics. What I'm wondering, is how are y'all going to tie in the thread about the cross dressers using the womens restrooms?

You ALL give me a chuckle at times...

Sorry... I'll be silent now.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 18, 1999.


This thread still revolves around one simple question: is there evidence to support Hoffmeister's charge? I don't find a shred of serious evidence. But I will say this: unlike those who salute Yourdon unthinkingly or backhandedly praise him as a "shrewd businessman", I started this thread because I agree with Hoffmeister that charges like this MATTER. If I thought (or came to think) the evidence justified a charge that Yourdon DELIBERATELY misled people and profited from promoting fear, I would stand with Hoffmeister 100%.

My comment about "knowing more than Yourdon" was meant in fun as a way of making the point that I scarcely view him as someone on a pedestal. It is ironic but typical of polly attacks to ignore the many dozens of occasions on this forum where I have agreed with them about 'x' or 'y' -- odd that it never happens the reverse way! Yet, the problem is that I am too dogmatic!

The attacks on me are not relevant to this thread. Hoff's charges mattered. I still believe, based on his responses here, that they are scurrilous.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 18, 1999.


Robin Messing cites Tom Barnett:
Our project solely about non-US global unfolding of Y2K, so our dark thoughts (i.e., what we get paid to do on purpose so military can pre- think possible responses and if that disturbs you, I ask would you prefer they had their thumbs up their asses when it hits?) shouldn't be taken as revealing any official thought on what's likely to happen in US.

Based on everything I've read and seen, and understanding that I get to see a lot of extra stuff given my position, I pull no punches when I say that I don't expect anything serious in this country come next January. There will be problems, but nothing that requires serious stockpiling.

The depth and extent of the resources that the NWC has brought to bear on the "non-US global unfolding of Y2K" (look at the participant listings) indicates to me that many in high places here see a real possibility that other countries may experience serious problems. If any substantial subset of those possible problems should materialize, it seems likely to me that the U.S. can't avoid being severely affected, given the present connectivity of economic activity worldwide, no matter how successful our own remediation efforts prove to be.

The usual suspects are well known -- imported oil, foreign port facilities, electronic parts, international banking, and U.S. exports, for example, would have impacts downstream on business activity and employment figures here.

How much preparation for contingencies, should be undertaken, if any, has to be a personal decision. Dr. Barnett speaks for himself on this issue.

There's a time-worn principle in military planning -- Prepare for the enemy's capabilities, not for his intentions.

No one can say yet what will happen, only what may.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), October 21, 1999.


Your refusal to look at the data presented is no one's fault but your own, Russ. You are hoping to get everyone to "side against" Hoffmeister so that he will not "stop others from preparing" and you KNOW it. You failed, Russ....face it. Be a man and admit....JUST ONCE....that your famous thought police technices are tattered and thread-bare....hardly opaque anymore.

If you want to believe that publishing several books with factual inaccuracies on y2k is not deliberatly misleading people....fine! go ahead. Just don't expect others to chime in with you.

If you want to believe that being involved in an MLM which revolves around y2k is not "profiting from y2k" you go right ahead!

If you want to believe that starting an internet forum and allowing disguised vendors and their shills to constantly post FUD....and NOT de-bunk technical inaccuracies, even though you have "30+ years of IT experience..." is O.K.....go ahead! It is still a free country!

Just don't expect everyone else to follow your blind alliegence to a lost cause, Russ.

-- BSDetector (is@screaming.again), October 21, 1999.


"Yet, the problem is that I am too dogmatic!"

Oh yes BigDog, that you are! BigDog + charismatic = DodMatic!

*ruffles DogMatic's hair*

-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 21, 1999.


Hey Hoff - my insurance company sold me life insurance after convincing me that I could die before my time. I haven't died yet. Should I hold them responsible for this fear-mongering?

God you people are cracking me up.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), October 21, 1999.


"You are hoping to get everyone to "side against" Hoffmeister so that he will not "stop others from preparing" and you KNOW it. You failed, Russ....face it."

BSdetector, for someone who claims to detect BS, you're missing the sewers for a turd. Or missing all the farmers' manure hills for a cowdung.

-- (flakygirl@home.now), October 21, 1999.


Is that you Decker? Poole? CPR?

It should warm the cockles of what passes for your heart(s) that encouraging people to prep is by and large a dead game (not literally, I hope) and has been for many months. If you think that is a game you "won", go right ahead.

For good or bad, with me it's pretty much what you see is what you get. If I thought (come to think) Yourdon was (is) a snake, I would stand with Hoff 100%. Unfortunately, still looks to me like it's Hoff that's the snake on this one.

And you guys.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 21, 1999.


Amazingly enough, I didn't see Hoff call Yourdon a snake even once. It was Russ who played that little game....slip in the word "snake" with your accusation against Hoff, then continue to play off it, hoping no one will notice. And you still refuse to see the data (don't they call that "willfully ignorant" in your circles, Mr. Lipton?) for what it is...

Also, another good attempt to cast disparagment on "pollys" (nice touch trying to make any "debunkers" look like they are "hiding") No, I am not a debunker or Hoff, or anyone else that you know. I have however, taken the precaution of sheilding myself from needless harrassment (either at home or work) from those behind the scenes that may decide to contact my employer or my ISP and attempt to stir up trouble (It has already happened to others, and I don't need any unneccessary hardships brought on by extremist y2k zealots)

You might consider changing your handle to "Cellophane Wrap" tho'....everyone can see right through you, Russ.

I'm all done on this thread, so you go ahead and have the last word, I'm sure that will inflate your ego more.

(interesting that Ed didn't pop up on this entire thread...makes one ponder why you, Mr. Lipton, feel the need to protest so strongly....Don't you think Yourdon can take care of himself?)

-- EGO detector (isst@rting.to sound now as well!), October 21, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ