Mitch Ratcliffe has "addressed" (not answered) Y2KNewswire's 39 Questions.

See: Mike Adams' last gasp for the fun.

It's way to long for me to reproduce here. Not surprisingly, it's not all that different in tone from the reponse on the Y2Knewswire 39 Q. ANSWERED by The Y2k Weatherman thread below.

(For the record, I think that Adams' questions were pretty dumb and obviously loaded for effect, still it would be nice if these other guys would try to respond to the questions, even if they reframe them, rather than simply resort to "the premises are mistaken.")

-- (pshannon@inch.com), December 10, 1999

Answers

Just a couple of comments on The Rat's rant:

No Boy Scout planning a three-day trip into the woods would pack along two-weeks worth of supplies. Adams has no sense of scale.

Rat just dosen't seem to get the concept of contingency planning. The Boy Scout will be traveling a well-trod trail with many fellow scouts and an experienced guide with police, fire, and other rescue folks ready to focus full time on saving this one troop if there are any problems. Under such circumstances the odds of needing extra supplies are one in a billion or so. Most people would not take extra supplies in such a situation. Are the odds of a given town's electric, telephone, water utilites failing one in a billion under Y2K? Basically that is the Rat's position.

Different meaning's of "politically correct"

Yeah,right. Is Gary North Y2K position politically correct? Is The Rat's? Which position do 99.99% of politicians endorse? Is that a clue? Duh.

After the rollover we can just refer to ZDNet as Pollynet. :-(

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), December 11, 1999.

pshannon:

Unfortunately, loaded questions must be reframed somehow. Questions like "Have you stopped beating your wife?" or "Are you stupid because your parents were stupid?" or "Why did you flunk out of school?", and so on cannot be answered directly, if they assume false premises. You can't address the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin without buying into the whole superstructure of Catholic dogma to one degree or another. And how would that Catholic, in another culture, deal with a debate as to whether the Water Spirits are more powerful than the Fire Spirits?

A loaded question is by definition based on a set of premises which may be contrary to fact. Answering such a question *on its own terms* REQUIRES that you accept this set of premises. Adams and North know this, and they're very good at it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 11, 1999.

Suppose The Rat will be running for office someplace? Sure looks like he's sharpening his spin skills. Klintoon's own staff couldn't have done better! How pathetic!

I especially that the reason for not stocking prescriptions was amusing: It might go bad. Now, if you're life depends on meds, what's most important: That you have it and it goes bad, or that you don't have it -- and can't get it when you need it?

This guy should post in www.duh- 2000.com !

-- TA (sea_spur@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

www.duh-2000.com

...once more, shall we

-- TA (sea_spur@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

Mitch is full of shit and I doubt even HE believes everything he wrote. Clinton should have given him the job instead of Kosky...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), December 11, 1999.

I skimmed most of the answers and read a few in depth. I saved the page and will read the rest later.

However, based on what I've seen so far, I think Mr. Ratcliffe's answers are very weak. I also think that he misses the point that some of the answers he gives are the point that the question is trying to make!

For example, question #1 asks why no Fortune 1000 firm has said that it is fully Y2K compliant?

Of course the answer is that for legal reasons that they can't say that. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

THAT'S THE WHOLE *&%$%^# POINT!!!!! ugh!!!

Yet, for the last two years, all we've heard is "Everything will be fine, don't worry, trust us. Buy things, invest, eat, drink and be merry!!" Go to the web sites and see the happy, smiley faces telling us "We're 100% Y2K Compliant" see: http://www.faay2k.com/html/middle.html

But when they are forced to put their money where their mouth is by TRUTHFULLY REPORTING THEIR STATUS all of a sudden it's, well, uh, "of course we can't guarantee there won't be problems."

If you took a few minutes to read a few of the disclosures in the 10- Q reports, you would have to be a moron to even consider investing in those companies right now.

I could go on and on. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that the answers Mitch gave to all the questions are the obvious (and often truthful) answers. But that's the point.

Can't you see the disconnect?

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), December 11, 1999.

clyde:

Nobody can guarantee no problems. This has always been true, and always will be. When I release code, I can guarantee it passed well- documented tests. I can guarantee to fix anything that might still be wrong with it. But neither I nor anyone else can guarantee there are no bugs.

It's rather foolish of you to demand the impossible, and fear the worst simply because the impossible can't be done.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 11, 1999.

Flint, I hear what you're saying, but I think this is a unique situation.

First of all, there haven't been any well documented tests. Why hasn't there been any IV&V? Simple - because if a company did poorly in the testing, they would have too much legal liability (see my answer above). This is obvious.

Another point to consider is that the problem is systemic and there is an immovable deadline. Under these circumstances, the potential consequences for failing to meet the deadline are much greater than normal conditions. Previously, you could revert back to the old system and run it until you got the bugs worked out of the new one. But after January 1, 2000, a lot of programmers won't have that luxury. Finally, from the perspective of someone who has a stake in any public company (whether as an end user of their product or shareholder), when someone says "Trust me", I'd start getting nervous. That's what they're saying now - "We can't promise, but trust us."

Again, I will say it: Take a few minutes to look up the most recent SEC 10-Q reports of some of the top holdings in YOUR mutual funds portfolio. Here's the address: http://www.sec.gov/edaux/searches.htm.

Once you find a company's 10-Q, just do a quick search on "Year 2000" and read their disclosure. I'll paraphrase what it says: "We've tried real hard to fix as much as we can, but things look pretty bad, and there are no promises that we will continue to operate profitably for the forseeable future - if ever again, and if you invest in our stock right now, you are a moron."

Essentially, the company is passing all of the Y2K risk to the investor in their (apparently rarely read) 10-Q reports. Yet at that same time they loudly proclaim in public (unofficially, of course) "Everything is fine!"

You say it is foolish to demand the impossible. You are right!! No company can promise Y2K compliance. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, it would be foolish of me to depend on any company during this crisis for anything that is important to me such as food, water, dividend payments, etc.

Think about that one for a minute, would it be unreasonable for residents of a city to ask for a guarantee that their city water department is compliant? We all know the city can't guarantee it, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant and that it couldn't happen.

So hey, Flint, if you feel comfortable with your money in the stock market and in the bank, go for it. I'd rather sit on the sidelines for a while. I'm sure you won't mind if I withdraw your $2,500 allotment of cash out of the bank for a month, any more than I'll mind losing out on the $8.33 in interest.

I love capitalism!

-- Clyde (clydeblalock@hotmail.com), December 11, 1999.