In an article posted here yesterday, a United spokesperson "outed" de Jager. To all those out there having defended this toad, read the article a little closer, you'll see that he's not beyond making a buck on both sides of the fence. He's as bad as *any* of the doomer profit seekers . . . perhaps the most loathsome of all the Y2K "experts." Words cannot begin to express my contempt for the man.

Go ahead, Bad Company (de Jager?), explain it away.

Lyle

-- Lyle Gill (lyle@oracle.com), December 26, 1999

Answers

Being an ill informed dolt. I will not try to defend de Jager because I don't know who he is... however Lyle; It seems to me that anyone has a right to make a living in whatever manner he sees fit. So long as his motivation is from the heart, and he does not harm others. I am not sure if you realize Lyle but Zondervan Press actually charges people for the Bibles it prints... duh?

-- (...@.......), December 26, 1999.

Lyle, de Jager sold out if you will, very early on, and I can't say that I am surprised by his actions or with those he is now dealing with. So, this current article comes as no great revelation, as far as I am concerned.

deJager went to the highest bidder.

For quiet some time, whenever I've seen his name included in or attached to an article, that's the time for me to hit the "page down" or, "page up" button. Propaganda is propaganda, no validity.

And no, I don't mind anyone making money, but when it's at the expense of others then I do draw a line.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), December 26, 1999.

De Jager makes money at what his skills are and so does everyone, including you. It is called "Capitalism" or "Free Enterprise"

If you don't like it, MOVE TO RUSSIA!!!!

-- ... (...@...com), December 26, 1999.

Uh, Lyle, thanks very much for mentioning me in your thread, but I am at a loss here. What is your point? Let's kick this up a notch, shall we? Do you know of any prognosticator who isn't making a buck or two off of this situation? And please, do not utter the words 'Ed Yourdon'.

As stated previously, I liked deJager from the moment I read him. In the beginning, I shared his doom approach to this. After reading various IT articles and such, and then returning to HIS site, I began to notice that he was seeing remediation effort progress, as well.

Scoffers will always find some fault with voices they don't adhere to. I am guilty of this as well. Having just read Mr.Yourdon's latest article, it seems apparent to me that perception really IS reality, no matter the business one is in. In the latest writing, Yourdon talks about 'things he knows he knows', but makes faulty correlations between absolute knowledge/assumption (i.e., like the sun rising) to incidents in computer technology.

Knowing what I know about profits, I see his latest article as a bit naive.

And Lyle, that's just my take.

No defense of Mr.dejager is forthcoming. I have no doubts that he has made money from the y2k situation. I think most in the public eye have made money, as well. I just find him to be balanced and reasonable. I find him to be open-minded in the area of remediation and chips.

Thanks, anyway.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

deJager is an intellectual member of the oldest profession: he's a whore. I guess that's where his skills lie. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I believe that this whore is damaging others by his whoring. I have no intention of moving to Russia.

-- Me (me@me.me), December 26, 1999.

deJager used to make sense, and I had a lot of respect for him. Then he became a stupid worthless polly and started spewing mindless drivel. He should be ignored. . . .

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 26, 1999.

@..com

You call it capitalism, or free enterprise. Perhaps you should re read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" for a description of the two, and then compare it to the currently accepted version.

When you have a situation in the US where 1% of the people hold 95% of the wealth, it becomes a situation very unlike where you were 200 years ago, as described by Smith. A small cabal of immensely wealthy, with the rest a bunch of capitalist voyeurs hoping to win a lottery.

And please do not bring out the "socialist" tag. I have been successful in business all my adult life, and have seen first hand of what I talk about. It is not the free enterprise of our myths, but a evolved reality with the majority systemically marginalized by that minority who make the rules and acceptable thoughts to suit them

30 years ago the CEO for an American corporation made an average 30 times as much as the mean wage for the people working for him. That factor of 30 has increased to 400 times in 30 years.

We have created a new royalty, the super rich. No envy on my part, just the facts.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 26, 1999.

Sorry. It seems to me that you are just providing a lot of political rhetoric here. 'Exposed'? Hardly. It is an all-too-human stategy to shoot the messenger when one doesn't appreciate the message. deJager? A whore? That's not just laughable, it's ludicrous. As stated previously, it all comes down to perceptions. How many here could state they are their own drummer, that they travel to news sites and draw their own conclusions?

And I'd say that if your hand is raised, your probably lying.

Let's face it, the name calling is irrelevant now. Yourdon. deJager. Hyatt. Adams. All have their fans and detractors. And all probably have made a nice living off of y2k.

Lyle, you want a little cheese with that whine?

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

I have an insurance agent who makes money from the fact people have car accidents. I do not call him opportunistic, he provides a service that is required, based on the realities of the day.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 26, 1999.

Gary, I get your analogy. But this is a little off kilter. The reality you speak of is mired in concrete---an accident of some kind. The prognositcators essentially have no concretes---no absolutes, but rather, a lot of speculation. This where the idea of 'opportunist' comes in. I'd assert your insurance agent is not on a parallel with the carpetbaggers of the old south, and yet, these prognosticators certainly are in line with that way of thinking.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

Bad Company,

No offense was intended by referring to your moniker. You just happen to be the most articulate defender of The Great Toad. Have an uneventful New Year.

Lyle

-- Lyle Gill (lyle@oracle.com), December 26, 1999.

Of course it is off kilter. Use your imagination. What is going to happen in any situation is going to happen. No one can predict the future. All we can do is look at the evidence around us and make an educated guess,based on our experiences and abilities to deal with our fears.

Fear is an interesting thing. We all react to it differently. Some by sweeping the evidence under the rug, others by logically exploring the cause of the fear.

The defence of the status quo can be a powerful demotivator.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 26, 1999.

It is really unfortunate that so-called polly's get slamed/censored/booted from this forum on a daily basis. Defending soemone that speaks the truth is a tough job. de Jager speaks the truth. There is a reason why he gets 250,000 visits to year2000.com homepage per month. Most of the people that visit this forum do so purely for the entertainment value. Soon you will see that life goes on after Y2K. Most of you will go back to your boring, mundane lives until the next doomer scenario takes over the populace.We all made money on Y2K, let's spend and enjoy it.

Berbard (not a whore) Llama

-- Bernard (Llama man@cool.net), December 26, 1999.

I'll try it again,

We "know what we know" or the formation of our knowledge, is based on the information we acquire, synthesize and configure. I "know what I know" from spending 10 hours a day, every day, for the last year studying Y2K. I sometimes shudder in awe when I realize that I have access to sources that most do not. I honestly wish I could download everything I have learned into every brain here.

I have witnessed the remediation efforts in Phoenixfirst hand. I have seen government and private enterprise replace computers and software, and test old systems successfully. I have seen it! I stood in their offices, and watched them (the computers) work for the last three weeks. The only problems we are going to have in our governmental offices are going to be in the judicial system, and those will be minimal.

My family owns oil wells, and can produce product without computers. (You can read the "Oil thread for confirmation of this. I think the posters name is Leann? [or something similar] My post was, of course, deleted).

I read 6 to 10 articles a day, both pro and con. I am objective about my research (unlike most forum members who are simply trying to justify their preconceived beliefs). I can be objective in my research because my emphasis was in Empirical Research, and I can differentiate fact from opinion, juried articles from essays.

Before he retired, my father was the Director of Engineering at a multi-national aerospace company. He not only understands programming, he built this computer. Hes a hundred times smarter than Ed Yourdon, and he predicts a 1 =.

Now, I know some of you are going to ask, "If you are so confident Y2K is going to be a "bump" why are you still here?" Allow me to answer that for youthere are people who come to this forum that I honestly care about. They are people I have met in real-life, and I worry that they have been poisoned by the thought-contagion here. Unfortunately, the percentage of pollys that are not deleted, or willing to stay here and post (like Bad Company) are infinitesimal, so I stay in an effort to balance the forum.

I am only one voice, but my music is beautiful.

---/--@

-- (LL@...................), December 26, 1999.

We "know what we know" or the formation of our knowledge, is based on the information we acquire, synthesize and configure. I "know what I know" from spending 10 hours a day, every day, for the last year studying Y2K. I sometimes shudder in awe when I realize that I have access to sources that most do not. I honestly wish I could download everything I have learned into every brain here.

What a pack of absolute lies, Lady"logic."

I have witnessed the remediation efforts in Phoenixfirst hand. I have seen government and private enterprise replace computers and software, and test old systems successfully. I have seen it! I stood in their offices, and watched them (the computers) work for the last three weeks. The only problems we are going to have in our governmental offices are going to be in the judicial system, and those will be minimal.

You haven't seen anything. More lies.

My family owns oil wells, and can produce product without computers. (You can read the "Oil thread for confirmation of this. I think the posters name is Leann? [or something similar] My post was, of course, deleted).

It was deleted because you're a worthless polly troll. Nobody wants you here.

I read 6 to 10 articles a day, both pro and con. I am objective about my research (unlike most forum members who are simply trying to justify their preconceived beliefs). I can be objective in my research because my emphasis was in Empirical Research, and I can differentiate fact from opinion, juried articles from essays.

You couldn't differentiate fact from a tree stump.

Before he retired, my father was the Director of Engineering at a multi-national aerospace company. He not only understands programming, he built this computer. Hes a hundred times smarter than Ed Yourdon, and he predicts a 1 =.

Oh to see the look of terror on your father's face when he finds out how wrong he was.

Now, I know some of you are going to ask, "If you are so confident Y2K is going to be a "bump" why are you still here?" Allow me to answer that for youthere are people who come to this forum that I honestly care about. They are people I have met in real-life, and I worry that they have been poisoned by the thought-contagion here. Unfortunately, the percentage of pollys that are not deleted, or willing to stay here and post (like Bad Company) are infinitesimal, so I stay in an effort to balance the forum.

Wrong, you're here to disrupt and nothing more. That's all you've ever wan

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 26, 1999.

It is really unfortunate that so-called polly's get slamed/censored/booted from this forum on a daily basis.

No, Llama, it's not unfortunate at all. But if it bothers you, take the hint and LEAVE. . . .

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 26, 1999.

Sorry for being so rude, but is it possible for us to arrange for LL to get laid? Just wondering, might solve hers and our problem...

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 26, 1999.

I doubt you could find anyone drunk enough who's not already in a coma.. . . .

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 26, 1999.

She probably couldn't get lucky in a men's death row with a handful of pardons.

-- gary elliott (gelliott@real.on.ca), December 26, 1999.

Lyle, no offense taken and the same wishes for an uneventful new year go out to you and yours. Llama man, I understand your thoughts about deJager, and I also understand the nature of the beast. I have no regard for Gary North and believe Ed Yourdon is wrong, to boot. But when it gets down to it, two ideas come to mind: 1. the issue has proven to be a political football 2. even at this late date, one can enter this board, among others, and not really attain a feel for what is going to transpire.

In this regard, I am happy the date rollover is almost here---and the hype and the issues of who's right and who's wrong--are almost over.

LL, I posted my feelings about flaming message boards under 'what happened here last night'. I consider my reason for being here to be twofold: one, to hear literally all sides of the issue and two, to debate the apocalyptic, end of the world mindset that occasionally pops in. And yet, I try to stay consistent in my approach. I would hate to see posters jump in at Debunking with a sole purpose to flame the public there. And I see no use for it here, either, no matter my viewpoint as to many of the individuals on this site.

Even at this point, I do not know that I am a polly, even though I am not a doomer. I am very optimistic about the date change, especially on these shores, and rightly so. After reading all I could over the past few years, I believe that the assessment was carefully made, and that care was taken in filtering out garbage.

My bottom line is this. I will be surprised if anything more than inconveniences take place here----but I won't be unprepared. I don't know that such a stance can be pigeonholed, either.

Lastly, LL, what has irked me about the doomcamp in particular is their penchant to disavow both positive news stories and positive news sources with great regularity as we near the date change. In some cases, I understand the quick trigger finger (govt types, etc), but the net allows us all to quickly forget about the sole rationale behind solid remediation efforts---large profit margins.

Aside from all the notes about human nature, past IT projects, conspiracies, white trucks, black helicopters and chemtrails in the sky, the country--and our society--is anchored by money and bottom lines. Mr.Yourdon's latest article seems to forget this fact in disturbing fashion.

Knowing what 'I' know, the charge of business is to maintain the status quo during a boom economy. Granted, interconnectedness is the wild card, but to gloss over the myriad news stories which have been generated as of late smacks of partisanship, first and foremost. This late in the game, one must wonder why the effort is exerted.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

"Lastly, LL, what has irked me about the doomcamp in particular is their penchant to disavow both positive news stories and positive news sources with great regularity as we near the date change"

Well, first we'll look at the messengers...

Friday, October 15, 1999

NEWSPAPERS PREPARE FOR Y2K COVERAGE A Report From the APME Convention

by Joe Strupp

MEMPHIS, Tenn.  For newspapers planning to cover Y2K on New Year's Eve without experiencing its bad side effects firsthand, the key is early and wide-ranging planning, according to editors gathered here at the Associated Press Managing Editors national convention.

Editors representing both large and small newspapers agreed that every newsroom must have a detailed contingency plan to allow for adequate coverage in the event of lost power, computer foul-ups, and even looting.

"Make sure your worse-case scenario is bad enough," said Jeff Beach of the Grand Forks (N.D.) Herald, which survived simultaneous fires and floods in the recent past. "You must be able to prepare for everything."

Holding up a thick, red binder that contained his newspaper's New Year's Eve assignments, Beach said all areas must be considered so that panic does not ensue. He said he has already made arrangements for groceries from a local food store, emergency printing by neighboring newspapers, alternate wire feeds if satellites fail, and emergency generator links from the local power company if lights go out.

Jane Amari of The (Wilmington, Del.) News Journal and Earl Maucker of the Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., Sun-Sentinel, agreed. Each said plans were being created to account for every problem that could occur....

[SNIP]

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 26, 1999.

...and then perhaps we'll compare that with their messages.

Monday, October 18, 1999

Y2K COVERAGE: PREPARATION WITHOUT PANIC
A Report From the APME Convention

By Joe Strupp

MEMPHIS, Tenn.  In coverage of Y2K issues, newspapers should stress the need for preparation without inducing panic among the populace, advised the leaders of various industries to attendees of the Associated Press Managing Editors national convention here late last week.

Led by moderator Jack Cox of the Foundation for American Communications, a seven-member panel stressed that most of the world's industries, including telecommunications, utilities, business, city services, and health care, are in good shape to handle the coming Y2K computer changes, and warned editors not to raise undue concerns with the public.

"There is a risk of overreaction by the public, and corporations," said John Koskinen, chair of the President's Council on Y2K Conversion. "The answer is to get as much information out as possible and we look to you to get it out in a fast-moving way."

Dick Escue, vice president of Memorial Health Corp. in Memphis, said newspapers need to provide the assurances that services will be there so that residents don't empty bank accounts, stock up too much on food or drugs, or worry that the local hospital won't be operating as usual. "A little research and a little digging will show that," Escue said.

A majority of the panel agreed that one of the key problems is to distinguish between correct, useful information and rumors. "The challenge is to find out when someone said something and what the basis for it is," Koskinen said.

"Take the time and effort to check with someone who is reliable and competent," added Ron Quiggins, director of the American Petroleum Institute. "Checking sources is more important than ever."

Jon Arnold, chief information officer for Edison Electric Institute, agreed. "There is a lot of false information floating around," he said, citing the Internet as a source for much of it.

But at least one panelist, Dennis Grabow, a veteran investment banker and head of Millennium Investment Corp. in Chicago, said the press has not raised enough concern about the impact on financial institutions. He said computer glitches could hurt the world economy if manufacturing is affected or shipping routes are cut off, especially in Asia.

"People underestimate that dependency on foreign markets," Grabow said. "(Y2K) is going to teach us our dependency on technology, especially in business."

Grabow believes the stock market will take a major hit in the first quarter of 2000 because of economic problems related to Y2K, predicting a likely 40% drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. "Wall Street has been very remiss in telling that story," he said. "The corporate community does not want to talk about it."

Whether or not that happens, editors were urged to focus on the local community, especially with basic information for readers on daily services such as water, gas, electricity, phones, and emergency services. "My advice is to find out who in your community are the providers and find out how they are doing, what their plan is, and publicize it," Koskinen said.

The session ended with tips for newspapers' Y2K coverage:

* publish preparation stories with solid, how-to information that avoids panic

* pressure government and utilities to explain exact plans and show proof of compliance

* use reliable sources and explain to readers who they are, and what their expertise is

* explain how Y2K testing works and what is being done to test plans layout which Y2K issues will have long-term impact and which will be immediate

* update stories that my have provided a problematic scenario in the past, but were changed with recent solutions

* alert readers to Y2K con men who may be playing on fears to rip off the public

* find anecdotal and true people stories about how individuals are preparing

[ENDS[

[Both of these reports are from 'Editor and Publisher']

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 26, 1999.

I'm a Newbie here. How many of you have seen positive experiences with remediation, etc. (like LL), and how many have seen negative experiences: testing that had negative results, unable to be resolved away?

-- dotti (WineTopper@aol.com), December 26, 1999.

dotti:

If there is one constant with Y2K, it is that the news is always mixed, even when not conflicting. You have to remember that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. The news from one sector that we depend on may be good (say, the electric industry), the news from another sector may be bad (say, water/sewer plants), but the bottom line is that the good news clearly does not NEGATE the bad news. Cities NEED electricity, cities NEED clean water and to be able to flush their toilets. It is the BAD NEWS that is where the focus is, because if it is true, it meand that things will be BAD!! Make sense???

By the way, do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 26, 1999.

Uh, John? Having worked in the media for a number of years, we were subject to such 'advisories' all the time. What do you think radio and TV news directors do with such advisories, John? If you don't know, then allow me to politely say, they 'file' them.

The major market broadcast newsrooms and the print newsrooms, as well, attach a certain amount of ego to their reporting. To state otherwise smacks of wet-behind-the-ears reactionism.

John, I appreciate your rendering, but if the media has a fault it is that it is too last-minute. To be succinct, the media genrally will not report on a situation that has two very contrary stories, instead, it will wait until actual snafus occur, etc. Most soid broadcast and print outlets will shy away from rumor-mongering and the like, which basically IS the story of y2k over the past few years. Yes, they've identified sources to ascertain what they think will happen, but I can just see my old boss trying to make heads or tails of the whole situation and then getting your advisory.

Well, his words would not be fit to broadcast.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.

At last BC you've outed yourself as a media whore hack.

We all knew anyway who's side you were on - and it's not the people's...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 26, 1999.

Bad Company:

[You should change your name, by the way - I've never found it to fit you :)] I'm aware that these things go out constantly. The significant thing about this one, however, was that AP issued it to all their subscribing newspapers [for many of whom, as you knowm AP is the only source of national and international news given modern newsroom shrinkage] and promptly followed it with story after story fitting this template, which many of them then ran.

I posted a month or so ago an AP account and a Reuters account of exactly the same speech by Koskinen. AP headlined as a 'three day winter storm' sory and gave little in the copy that conflicted with that; Reuters accurately reported Koskinen as warning that Y2K would be 'chronic', with long-term implications as yet unforeaseeable.

At about the same time I posted another set of guidelines, from NAPA or some such body, instructing editors and reporters - in essense - not to run stories predicting any "outcomes" without first checking them exhaustively. In the time allowed, given deadlines etc., that's typically impossible, which explains the recurring popularity of the dream-like "three day winter storm" official government 'outcome.'

By nature I'm an optimist. But oil and distillate problems, in the near term, and global supply chain disruption, in the mid-to-long term, together with their inevitable social, political, and economic consequences, persuade me that this is no BITR.

Next winter [the winter of 2000, that is] will be a terrible killing season if this is so. Like you, I hope it isn't, but I'm very much persuaded by the facts that I've seen that it will be.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), December 26, 1999.

Ummm, Andy, I've been out of the media for 15 years now. Many friends are still in the war rooms. I'll pass along your sentiments, along with the stirring speech you just posted on the deJager thread.

That should get some laughs, at the very least.

Been a while since anyone called me a whore, but I thank you all the same.

John, you hit a number of key targets in this reply.

One, at this point in time I wonder about the same thing you do: oil. I am an optimist too, and at the same time, two thoughts come to mind: first, oil proiduction problems caused by faulkty chips embedded deep into oil platofrms that just can't be accessed. This is only ONE scenario. I also remember quite vividly this nation's reliance upon oil imports and the embargo of the early 70's. It isn't rocket science to realize that shrewd businessmen could make a literal killing from this.

And perhaps it is old broadcast days suspicions, but my earlier points about government types showing up on ABC with two distinctly different messages is applicable: one, we're sure everything is fine. Two, prepare for a 3-day winter storm anyway. At the very least, one must wonder why, if everything is fine, we are preparing for a storm.

I don't think that question has been asked of a talking head yet.

Thanks again. I share the optimism and hope upon hope that this is merely a BITR.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 26, 1999.