So, why is it exactly that it's the Polly burden to show that EVERY disaster and glitch in the world ISN'T Y2K related, instead of the Doomer burden to show the opposite? Or even a shared burden?

If you're a doomer, and you've got yet another posting of "Look, there have been X # of problems with(US nuke plants, ammonia leaks, sewage leaks, train accidents, refinery fires etc.) since the rollover?

Is it really THAT hard to go back and look at a long period in 1998 (or 1999, but a lot of people want to claim "Y2k testing" problems for those) and determine a weekly average for such reports in the media? Or a site with statistical summaries of such problems?

Granted, it would be easier if you were compiling glitch reports in 1998 but it's clear people were too busy reading North or whatever to do so...

I mean, heck, I've done that myself. Indian power outages, sewage leaks, nuke plant shutdowns..it's a bit of work, but it can be done. Web can be used, but if people had Lexis/Nexis, it would be better.

I've attempted refinery problems but it's much "messier" and complex than the nuke industry, not possible without Lexis/Nexis.

Kudos to Harl for noting there were more nuke plants not producing power in Jan. 98 than now...of course, he posted it and no one noticed. Sort of embarrassing to a lot of people, isn't it? :-)

And why does simply demanding some context relative to pre-rollover for glitches equate me with a Holocaust-denier? (Had to say, I've been insulted a lot on the net, but that one was a first for me :-)

-- John H Krempasky (johnk@dmv.com), January 14, 2000

Answers

Here on TB2K in 1998 + 1999 there were plenty of glitch reports of all kinds. Archived.

No burden on anybody. Just watching.

To a Polly why would it make any difference anyway?

-- bloomer (balloon@msn.csa), January 14, 2000.

I don't recall so many SCRAMs and shutdowns at the NRC website in a one month period last year, let alone in two weeks. Many people on this forum were monitoring this website also.

Maybe this current rash is just a coincidence, and maybe it's not.

I don't understand what your problem is with all this reporting John? You've made your opinion known about not jumping to conclusions on every other thread it seems. A reminder once a day in one post or thread would be plenty. But now you're starting to sound hysterical yourself.

-- (pigs@.do.fly), January 14, 2000.

If it were up to the doomers to verify that problems were attributable to a y2k problem, this forum would be extremely quiet.

-- Mr. Sane (hhh@home.com), January 14, 2000.

If it is not possible to prove, then asking for proof is asking for the impossible.

Or, when I fly to the refinery, will they give me a tour?

-- Me (me@me.me), January 14, 2000.

I am happy to see the new and friendlier John H Krempasky :-)

-- BeerMan (frbeerman@juno.com), January 14, 2000.

I got lost at the "Indian power outages." D'OH! You mean like in India. [I can understand completely now why native Americans are no longer called Indians.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), January 14, 2000.

When an incident of a failure breaks in the news, and some "expert" or "official" immediately states that it is absolutely "not Y2K related", I think the burden of proof lies on them. We haven't even been getting anything close to a plausible explanation for most of these rather unusual occurrences. Not even close.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 14, 2000.

I think it is more intelligent to look for correspondences and patterns than to make a hasty judgement about which "camp" wins the point.

This analysis of glitches has always really been about being rigorous about getting correct information and then connecting the dots. The *burden* is to connect them logically to the best of our ability.

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), January 14, 2000.

Sara: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 14, 2000.

Hawk is correct. It should be assumed that the problem is clearly Y2K related unless it is verifiably proven otherwise.

-- (marcos@trethtic.net), January 14, 2000.

Krempasky said, "So, why is it exactly that it's the Polly burden to show that EVERY disaster and glitch in the world ISN'T Y2K related, instead of the Doomer burden to show the opposite? Or even a shared burden?

So, why is it your burden to come to this forum and contest the validity of EVERY disaster & glitch in the world thats posted here?

Each and every single disaster and glitch happened - period.

Krempasky, exactly what is your purpose on this board? Krempasky, says in a squeeky, meek voice, "Well I just like to play devil's advocate because that's my hobby." "And, I don't have anything better to do."

If this board has evolved into a listing of disasters and glitches none of which can be attributed to Y2K, why should you care? If you want to make a difference in this world, John Krempasky, RECYCLE, advocate zero population growth, donate time and/or money to a zoo that breeds endangered species.

You won't make a difference here.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), January 14, 2000.

Neither the "Polly" nor "Doomer" attitude is useful. Both attempt to prove a predetermined outcome based on entirely insufficient data, rather than determining what outcomes will result, as the outcomes unfold,in the near term, midterm and farterm.

Almost none of the "incidents" have evidence available for an observer to determine "what" the actual cause is. This includes those that come with reports that attribute it to Y2K. This is an engineering task and engineering data is rarely available.

The management of organizations with failures of whatever cause has demonstrated incompetence by the failure itself. They are highly disincentized to admit to Y2K failure. Their technologists may have also demonstrated imcompetence. In any case, information from an organization with failure is not to be trusted. This has been the way things are in technology for my thirty years in this business, and Y2K has not changed the nature of the beast.

You are therefor left to pattern analysis to see how the future is unfolding. If you wish (and have the time on your hands) to compare historical pre Y2K information with Y2K information, you must go to before 1996 for your historical data IMHO. I know that from 96 on there has been lots of Y2K testing by competent and incompetent organizations which distorts the picture.

-- ng (cantprovideemail@none.com), January 14, 2000.

Hilarious doomer responses! Thanks for starting this thread, Kremp! The check's in the mail! Let's consider some of the more ludicrous doomer responses in this thread.

Hawk>> "When an incident of a failure breaks in the news, and some "expert" or "official" immediately states that it is absolutely "not Y2K related", I think the burden of proof lies on them."

Actually, I agree with that. However, you doomers are claiming that things are Y2K-related even when NOTHING is said. You are operating under a presumption that ALL glitches are Y2K-related, which is laughably simplistic.

Hawk>> "We haven't even been getting anything close to a plausible explanation for most of these rather unusual occurrences. Not even close."

Since when does any corporation owe you one? They didn't owe you compliance statements BEFORE the rollover, and they don't owe you glitch explanations now. Only an arrogant doomer would presume they they are OWED an explanation.

Marcos>> "Hawk is correct. It should be assumed that the problem is clearly Y2K related unless it is verifiably proven otherwise."

So what if no statement is made about whether or not the glitch is attributable to Y2K? You just jump right to the conclusion that is IS Y2K-related, right? Give me a break.

Guy Daley>> "Krempasky said, "So, why is it exactly that it's the Polly burden to show that EVERY disaster and glitch in the world ISN'T Y2K related, instead of the Doomer burden to show the opposite? Or even a shared burden?" So, why is it your burden to come to this forum and contest the validity of EVERY disaster & glitch in the world thats posted here?"

Doesn't look like he considers it a burden. Looks like he just asked a question. Of course, you didn't really want to answer that question, didja, Guy? Besides, posting every glitch in the world here won't magically turn them into Y2K errors, no matter how much you might want it to.

Guy Daley>> "Each and every single disaster and glitch happened - period."

So who says they didn't? No one here is ARGUING that point. The question is why are all glitches AUTOMATICALLY Y2K-related errors? Don't you people THINK before you post?

Guy Daley>> Krempasky, exactly what is your purpose on this board? Krempasky, says in a squeeky, meek voice, "Well I just like to play devil's advocate because that's my hobby." "And, I don't have anything better to do."

Guy Daley, what exactly is your purpose on this board? Daley says in a cracking, adolescent voice, "Well, all the bigger kids at school always beat me up and take my lunch money. Here on this board, nobody can see what a wimp I am, so I can be mean to other people and work out my aggression."

Guy Daley>> "If this board has evolved into a listing of disasters and glitches none of which can be attributed to Y2K, why should you care?"

Guy Daley; good at asking questions, not so good at answering them.

Guy Daley>> "If you want to make a difference in this world, John Krempasky, RECYCLE, advocate zero population growth, donate time and/or money to a zoo that breeds endangered species."

Maybe he does already. What's it to you?

Guy Daley>> "You won't make a difference here."

Obviously, he has. Several people, including you, have swallowed his hook and have posted here. BTW, did you know than Westergaard is coming down? Another casualty of your no-show bullshit Y2K problem. Just thought you should know.

-- CAPT Polly T. Roll (laughingloudly@you.org), January 14, 2000.

List of glitches thru Jan. 5 with links to the original news sources

-- (f@y.i), January 14, 2000.

http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printArticle?article=infoweek/76 8/y2k.htm&pub=iwk

Businesses Still Feeling Sting From Y2K Bug - An increasing number of glitches are surfacing, though most are termed insignificant

-- What IT professionals (are@say.ing), January 14, 2000.

CAPT Egg Roll:

Why do you torture yourself by coming into this hole and attempting to prove your obviously heaven-sent messages to us slow-witted societal rejects?

We can't understand with our Y2K bug-riddled brains what you are saying and it's truly a shameful waste of your valuable time to come in here and throw your precious nuggets of enlightenment at us.

You are clearly our intellectual superior and I do think the "other" Forum would be much more appreciative of your wisdom. It never ceases to bring a tear to my eye when someone tries so eloquently to cleanse the putrid masses with their bright and shining words of healing.

Thank you - Thank you - Thank you

(yick, i think i made myself ill)

-- Ric (ice163@worldnet.att.net), January 14, 2000.

Captain Toilet Paper Roll, you said...

"Hawk>> "We haven't even been getting anything close to a plausible explanation for most of these rather unusual occurrences. Not even close."

Since when does any corporation owe you one? They didn't owe you compliance statements BEFORE the rollover, and they don't owe you glitch explanations now. Only an arrogant doomer would presume they they are OWED an explanation."

I never said they owe us an explanation you dimwit. The whole point of this thread by your polly partner was that he expects US to prove this stuff, remember?

My point is that if the corporations and gubmint can immediately proclaim to the media that it is "not Y2K related", without offering any explanation or proof, then we have just as much right to do the opposite without any explanation or proof. At least this way the truth is being stated, instead of just clamming up and automatically believing all the lies that the media feeds us without knowing whether or not it is true. "Let the truth be known", that's my policy.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 14, 2000.

FYI: "CAPT Polly T. Roll" is cpr.

-- i can smell him (a@mile.away), January 14, 2000.

Ric>> "CAPT Egg Roll:"

That's CAPT Polly Roll to YOU, civilian.

Ric>> "Why do you torture yourself by coming into this hole and attempting to prove your obviously heaven-sent messages to us slow- witted societal rejects?"

I am sorry, Mr. Ric, but you are not cleared for that level of information. :)

Ric>> "We can't understand with our Y2K bug-riddled brains what you are saying and it's truly a shameful waste of your valuable time to come in here and throw your precious nuggets of enlightenment at us."

Hmm. There may be hope for you. You seem to display an understanding of the situation. Follow MAJ Polly into the examination room, please. :)

Ric>> "You are clearly our intellectual superior and I do think the "other" Forum would be much more appreciative of your wisdom. It never ceases to bring a tear to my eye when someone tries so eloquently to cleanse the putrid masses with their bright and shining words of healing. Thank you - Thank you - Thank you"

Yes, I think there may be hope for YOU yet.

Ric>> "(yick, i think i made myself ill)"

That's no problem at all. We have a great deal of medical technology at our disposal. You'll be right back in the pink presently. :)

Hawk>> "Captain Toilet Paper Roll, you said..."

That's CAPT Polly Roll to YOU, civilian.

Hawk>> "Hawk>> "We haven't even been getting anything close to a plausible explanation for most of these rather unusual occurrences. Not even close."

Hawk>> "CAPT>>Since when does any corporation owe you one? They didn't owe you compliance statements BEFORE the rollover, and they don't owe you glitch explanations now. Only an arrogant doomer would presume they they are OWED an explanation."

Hawk>> "I never said they owe us an explanation you dimwit. The whole point of this thread by your polly partner was that he expects US to prove this stuff, remember?"

He's not my partner. And I know what the point is -- it's to dodge responsibility for bullshit Y2K linkages. The fact of the matter is that doomers don't WANT to have to prove their statements. And that's been the issue with most pollies from day one of all this. The fact of the matter is that most doomers don't want to back up their statement -- they simply want to post glitch reports and then have everyone PRESUME that we're talking about Y2K errors. It's inaccurate, and it's intellecually dishonest.

Before you flame, you should know that I believe that automatic denials of Y2K linkage are LIKEWISE inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. So I am looking and YOU and at the officials who deny. If you're going to tell me that something IS or IS NOT Y2k related, you'd better be ready to prove it to me. Get it now, dimwit?

Hawk>> "My point is that if the corporations and gubmint can immediately proclaim to the media that it is "not Y2K related", without offering any explanation or proof, then we have just as much right to do the opposite without any explanation or proof."

I don't think EITHER of you have that right. And if you're after the moral high ground here, you'd be well advised not to point at someone else and whine "but HE did it TOOOOOOOOOOOO." That's just totally pathetic.

Hawk>> "At least this way the truth is being stated,"

HORSESHIT. You have utterly failed to prove truth. All you're doing is advocating one kind of lie, fabrication and untruth over a different kind.

Hawk>> "instead of just clamming up and automatically believing all the lies that the media feeds us without knowing whether or not it is true."

Hey, dimwit. I said I DIDN'T believe them. I want EVERYONE to prove their claims to me, REGARDLESS of whether they affirm or deny Y2K as a potential culprit.

Hawk>> "Let the truth be known", that's my policy."

How, exactly, do you accomplish that when you don't even bother to investigate something before calling it a Y2K failure? That proves truth about as well as "we don't know what it is, but we KNOW it's not Y2K." Geez, you're sad.

I can smell him>> "FYI: "CAPT Polly T. Roll" is cpr."

Nope. But thanks for playing! :)

-- CAPT Polly T. Roll (laughingloudly@you.org), January 17, 2000.