that it will be a bump in the road. Why? Could it he has actually reassessed the downside should he have been wrong in the first place? Without taking his current position, and it does turn out to be all hype, he loses his consulting gigs.

Or, could it be that he's just hedging his bets, and he still believes it will be a disaster of monumental proportions? If it is, all he must say is that it was "they" who lied to him.

Say what you will about Yourdon, North, Milne et al, they have remained consistent in their opinions, unlike that bloated little toad, de Jager.

[defamation snipped. made the point above. # 3]
Lyle

-- Lyle Gill (jewels@oracle.com), December 14, 1999

Answers

"Bloated little toad" ROTFLMAO

-- (Polly@troll.com), December 14, 1999.

Where's the virtue in remaining consistent in the face of changing evidence and trends? Maybe deJager has the sense to go back outside when the sun comes out, while Yourdon, Milne et. al. prefer to close the blinds and insist it's still pouring rain. These people are "consistent" in the sense of providing the exact same answer to every question on the test.

For all I know, deJager has totally misunderstood what he's seeing. But at least he's making the *effort* to follow the moving target.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 14, 1999.

Yeah, you'd have been standing there with all of the other nay-sayers calling Columbus a 'fat toad' as he sailed off to the new world. After all, the world is flat, right?

No, I disagree with you vehemently on this one. deJager didn't sell out to big money like the doom schmucks would have you believe. Instead, he was one of the original whistle-blowers that understood what progress is. Unlike your 'heroes', I'd say his credibility is still intact. At the same time, it seems you philosophies have taken a few bullet holes.

I've watched deJager go from a pessimistic soul, to one on the fence, to one who has cautious optimism. Unlike so many, his mind didn't swing shut two years ago and unlike some, he doesn't seem to have an agenda behind all of this.

Get over it. Education is an on-going process.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 14, 1999.

Flint,

I agree with you on most points, but on deJager we part ways. You have remained very consistent in the past months. The pollys in this forum and on csy2k have remained steadfast in their interpretation of the evidence. And aside from the failed doomer deadlines, the evidence has changed little over the past year. de Jager's views, however, have vacillated like a teenage boy's attention in a girl's gym shower. He's a liar or unstable, and in either case, he can't be trusted.

-- Lyle Gill (jewels@oracle.com), December 14, 1999.

Ah... the toad's revenge.

(And I don't mean DeJager)

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 14, 1999.

Flint,

"Where's the virtue in remaining consistent in the face of changing evidence and trends?"

You're right, of course, ignoring evidence in any case is foolish. I have a question for you and I trust that you'll understand that I'm not being a smartass; Have *you* ignored evidence about Y2K in order to remain consistent?

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), December 14, 1999.

Lyle:

Like Bad Company, I've interpreted deJager's position as reflecting a fairly gradual, directed change. I consider your viewpoint to be an artifact of the tendency here to *force* every stated opinion to reflect one extreme or the other, whether it really does or not.

I've found, as I wrote somewhere before, that on this forum your opinion is that we face either a flat plain or a mountain. You *must* choose one or the other, and if you don't choose "mountain" you're an idiot. So someone says it's flat and I say, No, it's a hill. And people here say Look, Flint has become a doomer! He says it's a mountain after all! And I say No, it's not a mountain, it's a hill. And people say Look, Flint claims it's flat again. He can't make up his mind!

My reading is that deJager has moved slowly from a position of nearly no hope to a position of manageable problems with exceptions. But the efforts around here to take each sentence he writes, force it to one extreme or the other, and then find contradictions between these artificial extremes, is what I consider dishonest. deJager doesn't think things will be nearly as bad as he once did. To be honest, neither do I. The signs just ain't there.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 14, 1999.

Flint and Bad Company,

*My* opinion has changed over the past 18-months based on the evidence. I'm now convinced that it is, in fact, an "either/or" problem. It is either a huge problem that remains unsolved (read missed corporate and federal compliance deadlines, "a year for testing" etc.), or, it was never a problem in the first place. The latter, because, it is *not* fixed. The code has *not* been remediated.

My point is, maybe those whose contention it was that we fix on failure every day were correct. If so, de Jager, as an expert, should have known. Futhermore, I believe . . .

1) he *did* know it was a scam, and is a huckster; or 2) he has determined he was wrong from the beginning, and is covering; or 3) he carrys the same fears, but he is wanting to cover all the bases.

I do not see him as someone with opinions that have evolved because of the evidence. Again, the press releases have remained consistent, only deJager's interpretations have changed.

-- Lyle (jewels@oracle.com), December 14, 1999.

Flint;

Okay, I've read hundreds of posts over the past months, following various threads of logic and others of much less, and it occurs to me that there are two basic catagories of posts: 1) reports of percieved incidents or news, and 2) opinions on how those reports shed light on what might actually happen. Here I find an assertion by you which raises a question often begging for an answer.

You said, "the signs just aint there" referring to more than a BITR.

Question: Exactly what signs do you and Bad Company and a host of other optmistic prognosticators refer to? What signs lacking adequate explaination are missing from the picture at T minus two weeks? And please pay reasonable attention to the "adequate explaination" portion of that question.

If you say, Well we should be seeing hundreds of programmers coming forward raising red flags, also explain for us why the Doomers explaination is inadequate.

You seem a reasonable lad stuffed with common sense, and so I ask you for the simple reason that I myself find this a source of significant confusion.

Having said that, in any pondering of what might happen, reading the tea leaves of todays news is a murky business at best. In the end we all align ourselves with the man who bears the greatest level of common sense.

Thank you.

-- philosopher (critical@thinking.com), December 14, 1999.

De JAGER ON Y2K

"With these [concerted remediation] efforts, doomsday has now been averted, says Peter de Jager, a Brampton, Ont.-based programmer and consultant, whose warnings about the looming Y2K problem helped sound the alarm among government and industry leaders around the world. But Mr. de Jager says he is worried that his most recent pronouncements have been interpreted as a signal that all Y2K problems are solved and everyone can relax. "I'm frankly flabbergasted to read reports that I've said that the year 2000 thing is a dud or that it doesn't exist," he says. "We need to be very vigilant because there are still very large issues out there. No matter how diligent we are, there are going to be problems," he says. Every organization is likely to encounter glitches that have been overlooked or new errors that were introduced when the original problems were being fixed. And with these problems comes a certain degree of risk, he says. "The wild card is what if some of these problems are critical points of failure, where one failure has a far- reaching effect throughout your organization?" - 'Preparing For The Worst, What's The Best To Expect?', GLOBE AND MAIL, 20th April, 1999

"On a personal level, [Canadian Y2K guru Peter] de Jager said every household in North America ought to maintain a normal level of sufficiency for any disaster, about two to three weeks of food, supplies and a generator." - from a report in the (U.S.) Evansville Courier And Press on the "Are You Y2K Okay?" seminar sponsored by the Metropolitan Evansville Chamber of Commerce in May, 1999.

"Even Peter de Jager is astounded by the complacency that greeted his widely reported Doomsday Avoided essay, which ran first on his Internet site and was quickly disseminated with varying degrees of accuracy throughout the world's mass media. As he told us in frustration, "the media can't sing in middle C."" - From the book "KRASH! How Y2K Could Sink The Stock Market And What Canadians Can Do About It," Stephen Gadsden & Jonathan Chevreau, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited.

"In the past few years, various groups and individuals have been preaching the necessity of stockpiling food, cash, candles, camping gear and weapons. The more extreme "Y2K activists" have even recommended building underground bunkers or heading into the woods. Mr. de Jager will have none of it. "Over the next little while, when we go to the grocery, we will buy an extra couple of cans of soup," he says." - In The Houses Of The Gurus', Marjo Johne, Financial Post, 22nd October, 1999.

And this gem from PC WORLD, Sept. 22, 1999 [just imagine - all those power utilities spending hundreds of millions to try to fix a "bogus problem"!]...
"Some millennium computer bug prophets of doom are having second thoughts, but others are still insisting that the world faces chaos at midnight on December 31, 1999.
Computer industry consultant Peter de Jager has spent more than six years traveling the world warning about the potential for disaster from the millennium bug.
He was among the first experts to realize that an old method of recording dates on software could cause mayhem in computers when clocks strike midnight at the end of this year.
According to de Jager you can relax. Power generation around the world is unlikely to be affected. Telephone and data transmission will continue as usual. The banking system is rock solid.
"Nowhere (globally) has any power utility found anything related to Y2K that could have shut off or disrupted power supply. The whole notion of blackouts is bogus," he says.
He reckons that there may be some blackouts over the millennium period, but this will be due to local management problems as demand fluctuates, rather than computer systems.
De Jager believes the biggest threat will come from the public's perception of the problem rather than from Y2K itself. If consumers decide to stockpile essentials like food, water, or cash, this could severely disrupt economies."
There could be Y2K chaos without a single computer failing. . . ."

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 14, 1999.

Finally, I'll make a sensible comment to this forum.

de Jager has remained quite consistent throughout the whole Y2K remediation period, he has stated that in his opinion Y2K won't be apocolyptic as he beleived years ago when he wrote that Doomsday thing,

as far as the consulting gig shot, this guy has yet to be a posterboy for RAID, KIA, any large bank or corporation, he has never sold out, he could of long ago and retired a very, very rich man,

he is consistent, meaning his views have changed somewhat, why can't people just admit that yes, money has been thrown at this problem, and yes, most problems have been fixed,

he is my hero,

Llama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 14, 1999.

Lyle, Y2K, as you undoubtedly know, is subject to perceptions. I am in agreement with Flint in this regard. I don't see the issue as an all or nothing, total agreement or total disagreement discussion. The camp mentalities are so entrenched in their logic, and their cosntant badgering, that both look for spokespeople. To that end, it's nice to have an avowed doomsayer to consistently lead the doomers, or an avowed polly to lead the pollys. It's a comfortable feeling to know that your own mindset has been validated.

Perhaps this is the reason I enjoy deJager's commentaries. I have never read him as being a polly. Cautiously optimistic, surely. A little off kilter IMHO about his mission being accomplished via the information to the masses, but nonetheless, someone that I viewed as being a reporter that's close to the front lines in this mess.

More pointedly, about your posting:

--can anyone really be considered an expert on y2k? If so, why have so few made accurate predictions on a consistent basis?

--deJager, one of the admitted first to blow the whistle on y2k, talked about the huge remediation effort in the early days. Why is it so impossible to believe that that remediation effort couldn't have been chiseled away and why, if such could be true, is it impossible that an 'expert' could see the progress?

--what do you feel hinders deJager from viewing evidence?

--you speak of things *not* being fixed. Isn't this a little too general at this time?

Lyle, I am more amazed at the President's lines about the government being 99.9% y2k compliant today as I feel this carries some guarantee in the eyes of the law. I am more receptive to those who laugh at government statistics and government pr.

I look at the deJager issue, and see someone who did some homework, made his thoughts public, and disavowed the need to see things as being doomy/gloomy or polly. I don't know about you, but in my way of looking at things, the wheels grind slowly, and perceptions change.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 14, 1999.

John,

I'm glad you rely on the media for all your information. I'm glad you think the media is always accurate and print exactly every word de Jager say verbatem,

I personally believe de Jager sources are better then any other expert in the field, not many can boast that,

Llama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 14, 1999.

No, Mr. Llama Man, for sheer zany delight I sometimes watch the Pro at work himself, as in:

Just watched Peter de Jager on CTV in Toronto. I always find him comic relief nowadays, and I wasn't disappointed. No general need for generators, quoth the maven - just go down to your local 711, they'll take care of you! No need for 'freeze-dried food' - perhaps a few cans of Campbell's soup.

There you are, folks. Responsible, expert advice to the 97 per cent of Canadians who've done nothing to yet ready! Forget the lagging Fortune 500 companies, the huge percentages of North American small businesses who haven't bothered to remediate *anything*, the alarming SEC Y2K disclosure scenarios from the oil and energy industry - a couple of cans of Campbell's soup and the good folks at 7-11 will get you though!

Peter, would a couple of cans of Campbell's soup get you through a 'three day winter storm', or are you not even expecting *that* now?

Here's something that's always intrigued me about this. If someone publicly holds himself out as an 'expert', and you take actions directly based upon his assurances and suffer grieviously as a consequence, is there not a legal recourse - individually and by class-action - afterwards in such a situation? Legal experts to the fore, if you please!

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 14, 1999

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 14, 1999.

John's posting---echoed by llama man---is on target where the idea of public panic comes to the fore. Even today, some 17 days before rollover, this remains the biggest issue with regards to the livelihood of our culture....of our world.

deJager is not saying anything we didn't all know with those lines, but rather, he has placed utmost importance on a knowledgable public. Alas, even Peter the Great couldn't succeed in that particular battle. While I am heartened that doomer predictions about bank runs and basic pandemonium have not panned out, perhaps we should all be grounded in the knowledge that the great majority of people are asleep. Few have made preparations. Some will set aside things over the next two weeks and some will do nothing.

The sad facts of y2k, in retrospect, will read that the event (non-event) bore out that we are a nation of procrastinating souls who are largely concerned about their entertainment needs and that like rats, will run over their brother man in a panic if they feel threatened.

Just as sadly, the panic, it seems, can always be spared via information and personal back-up plans.

John's posting is still applicable. There is still time for people problems. But alas, most don't know there is any problem.

Night, all.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 14, 1999.

Canadians are more prepared than you think. We survived the ICe Storm, we'll survive this. Canadians are civil and love one another and will help one another when neccessary. We won't be effected by Y2K problems in January. I'll bet any money on that.

John, Peter has stated to be prepared for 2-3 weeks for any possible disaster. It would be completely irresponsible of him to tell people to now (Dec 14) to go out and get three weeks of supplies for Y2K, this will cause more problems than we ever bargained for.

You should be proud that he is a Canadian.

Llama

Llama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 14, 1999.

Sorry, Mr. Bad Company, Llama Man and I are not at all in agreement - least of all about Peter de Jager!

The problem still is broken code. Statements that "people are the problem", issued and repeated frequently during this year, have guaranteed an unprepared public and thus greatly increased the likelihood of panic at the end of the year.

As for de Jager's sources and expertise, which Mr. Llama Man reverences in his posting above...let's apply the 'expert test'.

de Jager says "Nowhere (globally) has any power utility found anything related to Y2K that could have shut off or disrupted power supply. The whole notion of blackouts is bogus." In consequence, a couple of cans of Campbell's soup and 7-11 are all you need.

Ontario Hydro, on the other hand, who have - one presumes - more than a passing acquaintance with the facts of the matter, say this:

OTTAWA CITIZEN,
Friday December 03, 1999

Ontario Hydro's Y2K warning

The power utility suggests customers 'be prepared' and stock up on supplies in case the lights go out on New Year's Eve. Jake Rupert reports.

Jake Rupert, with files from Christopher Lacroix

[Photo: Wayne Cuddington, The Ottawa Citizen / Mark Zavitske, 11, demonstrates some of the supplies that would come in handy in the event of a Y2K power failure: water, non-perishable food, garbage bags, candles and a sleeping bag. Ontario Hydro's list also includes blankets, extra batteries, a battery-operated radio and a cellphone.]

Ontario Hydro says it is convinced there won't be any problems when its computer clocks hit midnight on New Year's Eve, but the power utility is nonetheless suggesting that people stock up on food, water and emergency supplies just in case.

The list comes under the heading "Be Prepared" in a pamphlet accompanying a letter being sent to four million Ontario Hydro customers across the province.

Things people should have on hand include: flashlights, extra batteries, a battery-operated radio and clock, a cellphone, candles, waterproof matches, extra blankets, coats, hats and gloves, plastic garbage bags, a first-aid kit, canned and dried food, bottled water, disposable tableware and cutlery, and a can opener.

Other things include extra prescription drugs and health goods, cash, a sleeping bag, toilet paper and a loud whistle in case you need to let somebody know you need help.

These items should be kept in an area easily located in darkness, the brochure says.

The letter, written by president and CEO Eleanor Clitheroe, assures people that Ontario's largest power provider is prepared for the Y2K bug, which may cause some computer systems to malfunction by mistaking the year 2000 for the year 1900.

Ms. Clitheroe says the utility met its Nov. 30 deadline for rendering its computers Y2K-compliant. They passed a test run, and she is confident they are ready for Dec. 31.

"We do not expect any significant Y2K-related service interruptions when the New Year arrives," Ms. Clitheroe tells her customers.

The letter goes on to say that Ontario Hydro knows telling customers that while its "efforts to prepare for Y2K may be somewhat unsettling, our intention is solely to reassure you that we're are taking Y2K seriously and acting in the best interests of you, our valued customer."

To deal with any problems Dec. 31, the utility will have additional staff on call and working at offices around the province.

It has also established a special satellite communications system in case telecommunications are affected by the Y2K bug.

The letter closes by urging people to read the brochure on being prepared, suggesting what to do during any power outage.

Then comes a pledge from Ms. Clitheroe:

"I would like to personally assure you that each and every one of us will be doing our utmost to keep the lights on as we move into the next century. After all, it is our job, and we take it very seriously."

Ontario Hydro spokesman Terry Young said the letter and accompanying pamphlet are designed to ensure that customers know everything is being done to protect them against any Y2K problems, and that the suggestions on being prepared are a good rule of thumb for any time of year.

"You can't guarantee anything 100 per cent," he said. "These are steps people should be taking any time. The ice storm taught us we weren't quite ready for a major outage. We're not anticipating any problems. These are suggestions people should follow at all times."

A power generator might also be a wise investment, but the brochure urges people to exercise caution: check for approval labels, read the instruction manual, arrange an inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority. Ensure that any additional equipment required to run the machine is included -- a transfer device and proper connection cords, for example.

Should a power outage occur, turn off and disconnect major appliances and check your fuse box or circuit breaker. Leave one light switch on so you know when power is restored. And there's no need to empty your fridge or freezer unless the power is off for more than 48 hours.

"It's really just common sense," Mr. Young said. "We've given similar advice in the past. There is no need to be unprepared."

Which "expert" would you trust on this, and which "source"?

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 14, 1999.

I believe DeJager buckled to the 'party'line and is a man of little backbone himself.
True, he sounded the alarm, but was likely subsequently put under tremendous pressure by the liberal PTB.

Others who've sounded the alarm have held their justified ground, because the truth has not changed since. The PR flacks have gotten louder, but the facts remain: The code is NOT fixed. This is a fact, and Flint or anyone else cannot deny this.

Let the real men stand their ground. The rest shall drift away with the wind.

Regardless, the truth is imminent.

Cheers

-- whynot orwhy (tooKaye@hope.com), December 14, 1999.

John,

No one can guarentee anything 100%. Have you ever asked someone who works at a power facility if Y2K would effect the transmission of power? I have and the answer is an unequivocal (sp) NO!!! Go ahead try it, it's okay.

Don't beleive everything you read.

Llama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 14, 1999.

Peter de Jager has become little more than a Canadian Kosky clone. Believe him, or his friend John Koskinen, at your own risk.

-- a (a@a.a), December 14, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Llama Man! That's exactly my point. Now, if de Jager is reporting as saying something, I usually don't believe it.

Interpret that as you will :).

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 15, 1999.

You might want to use an analogy other than 'flat earth',Bad Company. Seems to me there was a time when the majority thought the earth was flat while it was the few who were laughed at for disagreeing. The few proved to be right.

We, the prepared, are the few.

-- Dian (bdp@accessunited.com), December 15, 1999.

Peter knows more than any one of us the state of Y2K in Canada and the United States. You must believe him. Please don't lose sleep on Jan 1st.

Lllama

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 15, 1999.

'Peter knows more than any one of us the state of Y2K in Canada and the United States. You must believe him.'

Sorry, Mr. Llama Man. I didn't realize that you were preparing to switch so fast to religious argument.

I have absolute faith and trust in Jesus.

Peter de Jager would be a very poor substitute...so I think I'll decline, thank you.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 15, 1999.

Yama man writes:
Peter knows more than any one of us the state of Y2K in Canada and the United States. You must believe him. Please don't lose sleep on Jan 1st

Sorry, your obvious dedication and seemingly feeble worship of this man is not enough to reassure me.

I must follow the known facts, not the pontifications of an alleged expert. Trouble awaits. Fearfully, big trouble.

God bless.

-- why to kaye (whynot@kaye.com), December 15, 1999.

please enlighten me on the so-called trouble that awaits and I will provide a reasonable response to shoot down your doomer incantations..

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 15, 1999.

Yama, read some of the facts:

ht tp://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Computech/Issues/bone9943.htm

And this is on self-reported data.
Never mind foreign countries.
Weak links make not a chain.

Blind faith,...,
well, that'll get ya somewhere.

-- why too (kaye@not.com), December 15, 1999.

"I will provide a reasonable response to shoot down your doomer incantations."

Well, that about ends this conversation :)!

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 15, 1999.

Llamaman, or Magicman, or y2k pro or whoever, said:

You must believe him

Is that so? Hmm..can't even go out and buy just ONE extra can of Campbells soup? No? Go to hell asshole.

-- Llamaman my ass (@ .), December 15, 1999.

my ass,

go to bed,

-- Llama man (llama@cool.net), December 15, 1999.

A mere 13 months ago, Peter de Jager wrote this letter to President Clinton. A little less than 45 days later he decided that things had progressed to a point that Y2k was no longer such a big problem. Please tell me what has changed to such a degree to make this letter passe.

Open Letter to President Clinton by Peter de Jager

On Sept. 9, 1998, U.S. Rep. Stephen Horn released his latest summary of your government's Y2K activity. The summary, if accurate, should raise an outcry of concern. It hasn't. This document, and its implications, has received little if any serious coverage by the media. And, to the best of my knowledge, little attention by your office.

The report focuses on the progress made towards fixing the mission- critical computer applications at risk due to the well-documented Y2K problem.

"Mission-critical" is a term used to describe those systems which, if allowed to fail, would cause an organization to lose the ability to deliver services 'critical' to their stated 'mission.'

It is important to note that Rep. Horn did not receive the raw data from consultants or other third parties who we could accuse of having a bias towards delivering bad news. There are no vested interests being served here. His summary is based upon information provided to him directly by the administrations themselves.

Here are some of the items extracted from the report, which cause others and myself some serious concern:

The Department of Defense, by its own count, has some 2,965 mission- critical systems. All of these will not be fixed until sometime in 2001. This means that during the entire year of 2000, they will be incapable of performing all the functions described in their mission statement. I am sure there are many individuals who are eagerly anticipating the failure of the DOD to perform its duties. Department of Labor, 61 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Interior, 91 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2001.

Department of Health and Human Services, 298 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of Energy, 411 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2002.

Department of State, 59 mission-critical systems, not 100% ready until 2027 (this is not a typographical error, The Department of State estimates they will not be able to provide you their full services for the next 27 years.)

Department of Justice, 207 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+ (the 'plus' sign indicates they have no idea when they will be ready.)

Department of Education, 14 systems, not 100% ready until 2030+.

Agency for International Development, 7 systems, not 100% ready until 2023.

If an agency's response to you is that the above summary is not an accurate statement, then its officials should remove from their list of mission-critical those applications which are not mission- critical, and/or they should provide more accurate delivery dates.

Agencies' predicted objections aside, these are the precise estimates they provided to Rep. Horn.

What exactly does this report mean? Nobody knows, because the mission- critical systems counted have not been identified. I think it would be useful to have some idea of which of the many services will not be available to the American people.

If this report is accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It is not acceptable to anyone that the Department of Defense, who's mission is to defend the interests of the United States at home and abroad, knowingly, and apparently willingly, fails in that endeavor.

If they are short of resources, make those resources available, or announce publicly that the DOD is not really a critical service to the United States and shut it down.

The same goes for every other department listed above. Either they are fully operational on Jan. 1, 2000, or declare their contribution to the American people non-critical and shut them down and save your taxpayers the unnecessary expense.

If this report is not accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It describes a totally unacceptable situation. As it is reported, it raises unnecessary concern, uncertainty and even fear. Three emotions no political party should be fostering as it heads into an election year.

Either way, action, real action, not soothing words and platitudes, is required at the highest levels either to correct an unacceptable situation or to correct the notion that your administrators are incapable of executing their mandated mission statements.

You might respond that you have taken action. That the Year 2000 office headed up by John Koskinen is charged with the responsibility of fixing this problem.

With respect, I suggest that more is called for, I suggest that the administrators who appear, by their own account, incapable of handling this problem be either replaced or supported by those who can get the job done.

We have about 13 months left; congressional hearings in year 2000 to figure out who dropped the ball will be too late.

We have 13 months left; the ball is in your court today, do something with it.

With respect, Peter de Jager Nov. 17, 1998

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), December 15, 1999.

Lyle, you said:

"I do not see him as someone with opinions that have evolved because of the evidence. Again, the press releases have remained consistent, only deJager's interpretations have changed."

Perhaps the press releases have changed, at least in deJager's view and it only seems to you that they are consistent. If that is the case, then deJager is simpl evolving his views based on changing evidence. Most thoughtful people do that, you know.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), December 15, 1999.

de Jager administers the payroll for the trolls. Dis him at your own risk........

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 15, 1999.

It is not very popular today to be negative about y2k. Consider the abuse Ed Yardeni gets for his mildly negative position. Almost everyone in the Senate and House now sounds optismistic because they are politicans and tend to go with the flow. The same situation exists all over the world. If we gett through the first weeks of next year without major power or banking problems, de Jager can say he was correct, even though a serious recession may develop as the year progresses.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Question: If you kiss a bloated toad, does it turn into a GI? Just wondering (where is corrine1 when ya need her?!)

:-)

-- Lilly (homesteader145@yahoo.com), December 15, 1999.