AN 11.5 DOOMER'S LOOK AT Y2K -- ROUND TWO

INTRODUCTION

[Attention: Newbies, you will not understand what's going on in this thread until you've read the previous one, entitled, "An '11.5' Doomer looks at Y2K as of 2-1-2000." Go to: link. When you get there read the entire thread, not just my lead post. Especially the posts near the end by "Anita" and "Randy Christopher." It will be an education. It was for me.]

[CAVEAT, to all: Once again I write in broad strokes. That is a euphemism for a chronically addicted globalizer, unable to resist sweeping generalizations at any time. And when I globalize I inflict great injury on the truth about humans: each is an individual, with a unique mix of traits, many of which can be completely paradoxical, seemingly mutually exclusive if you will. And because of that when I construct my categories of the personalities involved in the Doomer/Polly Civil War, I'm prone to gross errors in drawing the borders between them. There is great overlap. It's nowhere near as clearcut and arbitrary as I describe. .......... So why do I persist? Hey, "I can quit anytime -- I just don't want to."]

It's been several weeks since Round One. In the meantime my Social Security check for February came in on time. This completed a cycle that started last summer. My new wife who had worked for SSA in Birmingham, AL, for 6 years back in the '90s took me down to the office to meet some of her old friends. While there she introduced me to the Ass't Module Manager, over about 40 clerks -- lowest level of management. Nice fellow. So I figured what the hey I'll ask him. "What have the higher ups told you about the Y2K remediation -- is it coming along on schedule?" His answer, "Yep, just fine. They've told us everything done so far has tested out AOK, and they're almost finished with the whole project." I thanked him, and thought "He's either lying through his teeth or much more likely simply telling us what he's been told to say --- they can't be anywhere near being done, 'cause Cory Hamasaki and others have been giving us those VERY pessimistic reports."

So when my January 2000 ck came in on schedule I reasoned "That's because they mailed it out in DECEMBER. I'll have to wait till Feb to know the real truth about SSA." Right now the SSA looks pretty good, from my vantage point at least. Pardon me while I use this toothpick to clean out the crow between my incisors.

So is it all over? It certainly is no longer 'an item' for the national media. The industry leadership (I'm not talking about the remediator codeheads -- the majority were seemingly NOT surprised.) are still in a state of euphoric shock about the lack of apparent major crises surfacing. If I didn't keep up with TB2K posts I would have said there aren't even MINOR events going on. One last tidbit before I summarize my answer. I've got a private story that says one industry in particular is headed for TU status by this summer. Can't mention the industry for now. Is this reliable info? It's 4th hand so it's a 'shelf item' for now -- I'm trying to avoid another crow dinner.

Where do I go from here? Well I don't think it matters, for the present anyway, whether it's over or not. There are issues more important on my mind. I need to examine in deeper detail The Amazing Doomer/Polly Divergence of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

THERE WERE/ARE SIX KINDS OF POLLIES (I will use the male gender to mean both genders.)

Type I. This guy doesn't own a computer. If he did he'd give it to his kid to play games on. Not interested. Most of what he knows about Life is what the TV anchor tells him every evening. He finally heard about Y2K 3 weeks before the rollover. Sat up and watched it on the tube ('cause his neighbors were over and they wanted to watch it.) After the clock struck 12 he hit the sack dreaming of the bowl games he'd watch the next day. His contributions to the Doomer/Polly eruptions? A great big Zero!

Type II. More upscale, he's got a computer, has a job where he runs into the technology fairly routinely but only as a non-techie end-user. He'd heard about Y2k somewhere in 1999. Thought the whole thing was much ado about little or nothing, and got that confirmed by the few others he came in contact with during that period, including most of the media, and his kid who is a mid-level (and non-Y2K) geek at some niche company. His contributions? Another big fat Nada!

Type III. A geekhead deeply involved with Y2K remediation during '98 and maybe into '99. On the basis of his own experience, confirmed by the overwhelming majority of those in his large network of fellow remediator codeheads across the country (An active geek is always into networking -- that's how they get their next better paying job or contract.) he found out that yes, the remediation required some focus and some sweat, but it wasn't that hard to do, it got done, and then he went on to some other work. He then became a confirmed polly. Did he post his findings on some Y2K website? Nah. --- For what reason? He knew the real deal, and he'd much rather spend his free time with family, friends or his favorite avocation. (Well maybe he posted once on some forum, but when he saw what kind of dust it kicked up, being no masochist he simply walked silently away.) His share in the fireworks? Bubkas!

Type IV. This is the category I have the most difficulty describing. It's a real psycho-/socio-logical challenge. (I'm going to take a stab at it, but don't quote me on it --- I'm treading in real soft hypothetical goop now.) This type was thick in the middle of Y2K remediation, and knew it was not going to be TEOTWAWKI. So did he do a Type III? -- and just go on "minding his own business?" Nope. Well then what was his raison d'jtre? I've got two answers off the top of my head, and I don't really know if either of them hits the target, but here goes anyway.

The first and easiest explanation is that they don't like to take things lying down, they're scrappers, and if someone takes a swing at them they swing back. To a point I like that kind of attitude. It reminds of a significant part of my own personality. Where does it come from? Mostly 'cause we're males, and we have a significantly higher testosterone titer than (most) of the fairer sex.

The other explanation I offer is much 'softer' -- really hard to parse this one out, especially if I haven't spent a lot of time in a real life friendship with that person. (Remember those kinds of friendships? You know: the ones where you live around the block from the guy, or at most crosstown -- and have common interests, likes sports, hobbies, profession, politics, philosophy -- which you used to share over hamburgers and such things. Yes they actually used to be fairly common. What? You don't know anyone like that? Oh, sorry, I'm talking about that era in America before the birth of BBSs and later their 87-ton monster offspring, The Internet.)

This additional personality feature as far as I can figure out stems from a characteristically American character trait: the need to evangelize for a cause. It most often focuses on a religion or a political creed. But in the present instance the cause appears to be the need to 'save' the Doomer from his self-generated illness: an admixture of paranoia, panic, pessimism, immaturity, and ignorance. And what kind of success has the typical polly met out in the 'mission field?' Well, it appears he meets with the same kind of response that other evangelists encounter: a diffidence which, if exposed to enough of the evangelist's energies can quickly evolve into something quite unpleasant.

In any event -- whatever the motivation -- in this category we're talking about some of the forum's Heavy Hitters. But before we take that one on, let me cover the last two categories.

Pseudo Type IV. This guy's area of expertise is peripherally technical, i.e., he uses a PC in his work, which typically is white collar, even professional. If his profession is in the computer industry it probably leans more towards hardware than software. He's been lightly into programming (maybe a course in BASIC in college,) or a professional in the early days --- like an early COBOL guy. But he was NOT INTO CURRENT Y2K REMEDIATION WORK. He's quite articulate, quite persuasive, quite opinionated, and comes in all ages. What's his motivation for posting? Probably a mixture of evangelism, never-walk-away-from-an-insult, a need to confirm that Y2K was not going to be a big upset in his life, and other factors which I hope to cover further down. Another Heavy Hitter.

Type V. This category is really a no brainer (Pun intended? You bet.) This fellow is typically young (anywhere from newly adolescent to late teens, and in extreme cases even into the twenties.) He typically can't spell, punctuate, or construct an English sentence. He has a limited vocabulary. That includes ordinary language, but even his monotonous obscenities usually show considerably less imagination than my buddies and I could dream up at their age. They are indiscriminately rebellious at a Universe around them which has thoroughly devastated the self-confidence they once possessed in pre-adolescence. They are traveling the Road of Life locked into a rigid all-inclusive mindset that we know from other spheres as 'road rage.' One other characteristic: in private life they are quiet and overly submissive. And, oh yes, they live at home with Mom and Dad, who masochistically continue to provide their economic subsistence. ........... But on the Internet, behind an anonymous email address, They Find Their True Warrior Spirit, Become Energized, Slay The Dragon And Win The Fair Maid.

Their contribution to the fracas? Absolutely nothing ever in the least bit constructive -- but very productive in the heat and noise generating departments. Their record is spotless, never ever having made one positive statement about anything. The subject matter or the theme of the forum they're posting on is completely irrelevant -- they would post in the same manner if we were a forum centered on The Significance of Seventh Century Eastern European Woodcarving. But boy are they ever Heavy Hitters!

THE GREAT DEVOLUTION: COOL COMMENTS INTO ROILING RECRIMINATIONS

I now want to move on to discussing an amazing phenomenon in our Y2K forums. It involves, intrinsically BOTH pollies and their counterpart doomers. First a look at pollies again.

To open this section let me excerpt some email answers in response to my private request for feedback from two of our very well-known pollies. (There is another set of answers from two other well-known pollies, but those responses are of an entirely different order and deserve a section all their own, probably in a 'Round Three' thread later.) As you read them I'd like you to keep four points in mind, the first one mainly for the Newbies here:

1) These posters typically were quite caustic in their writings to the forum, and were right in the thick of many a dog/cat fight over the last couple years. Y2KPRO has even gotten himself bounced from the forum.

2) In my requests I scrupulously maintained politeness, courtesy, and respect as I asked them for their time and effort.

3) Notice especially how, in contrast to their typical latter-day forum responses, they responded to me in the same spirit. Also notice their ability to think -- particularly 'outside the box' of narrow techno-knowledge. Also their respect for the issues involved. Also their desire to dig into deeper issues. Also the way they described the tenor of their posts when they first started posting on the forum. And, if you can catch it, how they would like to see Truth win out.

4) Notice their concern for me, that I too may be exposed to the flaming they've experienced, merely by writing of them in a positive manner.

******************************************

From Y2KPRO:

Bill,

Interesting and thoughtful essay. Let me back up a bit so that my comments will be seen in the proper context. I work for a large consulting company that specializes in Y2K remediation (among other project management functions) I began working on Y2K projects in 1997, mostly in the aviation arena (FAA, NAV CANADA, etc)

It was correctly felt from the beginning, that tackling a problem like Y2K required more project management skills than programming ones - for it was determined long ago that the act of actually fixing the code was simple.

We, like everyone else developed a comprehensive action plan to assess the systems and make them "Y2K ready"(a stupid euphemism) well in advance of the millennium. Our plan outlined four key steps leading to full implementation: assessment, renovation, validation and certification.

Towards the end of 98 I happened upon Timebomb, and under my own name (silly me) started participating in the dialogue. It soon became clear that the facts (as I understood them) were not welcome on the forum. I was called a fraud, a guvmint shill, a liar, and a stooge for Clinton. (Kinda ironic given my own personal politics)

I felt that I could stand on my head and defecate nickels, it wouldn't make any difference. People on Timebomb WANTED (and still want) to believe that Y2K was going to be a life-changing event. A programmer that works for me also briefly participated on the forum, but was chased away by the rhetoric. He often asked me later "why I bothered?". I had no good reason aside from not allowing the "Tinfoils" to set the agenda. Every person I worked with, every person I met in the industry, felt that Y2K was going to be the biggest non-event of the decade, yet people on the forum refused to listen. That's because (according to them) the "experts" were all part of the conspiracy, a point of view that outraged me more than anything else. People on Timebomb actually believed that thousands of their fellow human beings were keeping silent about a deadly event  we knew that it would be bad, we were "covering up". As if any right-minded person could keep silent if they new lives were at risk  this was the ultimate outrage.

It was about this time that I took on the Y2K Pro persona and decided to match nasty with nasty on the forum. I have found the participants to have some common characteristics: distrustful of government, the media, TPTB and virtually all authority. In the hothouse environment of the Forum, their "unique" personalities inspired each other to higher and higher levels of paranoia and fear. No one was to be believed unless they started out a post by saying "I heard from a friend of a friend that" Characters like Mr. CEO and other fictitious insiders were raised to deity levels. Official reports were all trashed as "spin" Half-baked theories by Lord, North, Heller and others were embraced with a religious fervor. And then came the rollover. Nothing happened. Zero. Nada. The disappointment on the forum was palpable. Where was it? Where was the life-changing event?

Many left immediately, shaken and embarrassed. Since then however, the forum has recovered and re-invented itself. We are told "just wait you stupid polly, Y2K isn't over yet". No timeframe is too outrageous. Six months, a year, ten years  it doesn't matter as long as there is hope. Hope that they will be vindicated in some fashion.

This forum has been and continues to be an interesting social experiment. What happens when you put a hundred likeminded people in a room and give them a new religion? It continues to fascinate and amuse

And the second one:

Bill,

Use my name if you like, but I suspect that you will be met with an astonishing blanket of hostility that may,in the end, be self-defeating. My name tends to make some endomorphs sputter in indignation and you may be deleted or edited by the SYSOPS. You are on untested ground here, go slow and be careful.

Best regards,

***********************************************

And from FACTFINDER:

Ok Doc,

I read the whole thread. It was the one I had seen before and quickly read, meaning to go back and read it more thoroughly when I had time. I did so tonight.

In short, your post was one of the most interesting I have read in the forum, one of those gems that you occasionally find there (and one of the reasons I drop by on occassion). Such self (and by the responses, an entire group) reflection to the depth you have engaged in is quite astounding. This post doesn't just deserve a response, it deserves serious study, which I wish to do, but I am quite unworthy of the task.

The entire issue of how we (pollys and doomers) had such divergent views of y2k, often based on reading the same information, in my mind could contribute some significance to the field of psychology, and perhaps sociology. I fear that those more qualified than I will miss a great opportunity to see further into the nature of humans, but if they were to do so, I would point them to your post as the best place to start, you have wonderfully made some points I had never even thought of.

Too bad that some of the other pollys don't appreciate the opportunity to learn something from with such open and candid posts, especially one as intellectually put forth as yours (I thought that Cherri would appreciate it and so was not suprised that she replied).

Please allow me time to absorb the ideas you have presented before replying. I will post to the board publically since this is acceptable to you and is a subject so worthy.

Best Wishes, David ("FactFinder")

And the second one:

Bill,

If you can give me through Sunday, I should be able to post my thoughts about your article by then. How's that? I warn you though, I fear that the name "FF" will invite a lot of flack not related to the topic of discussion, for reasons you know....and I am afraid that this will detract from the whole thing. But still, your post was too important to let go by, and I think it would be good to get input from the 'pollies' as well...

And I have no problem with you using my email replies in any post you wish to make.

David

**************************************

What do I make of all this?

First of all a quiet sadness. It's something like I used to feel when I lost a young and vibrant patient. You've felt the same thing if you're a parent and have lost a previously healthy child to a fatal accident or illness. But is my sadness (and your parental version) all in vain? ...... Not if you can learn something from it.

Here's what I've uncovered so far.

By the time a typical American had grown to adulthood in the second half of the 20th century he/she had been exposed to duplicity, scamming, treachery, lying, cheating, hypocrisy in personal relationships repetitively enough to have evolved an appropriate defense against those onslaughts: a tough hide accompanied by a well-jaundiced eye. Scepticism has become something you don't leave home without. And that armor has been buttressed by the perpetual din of crime movies, crime TV shows, crime TV news reports, and crime newspaper articles. Summary?---- "Don't trust anyone over the age of 12."

Add to that the 'adversary' psychology that has flourished in our culture these last 50 odd years. Witness the plethora of courtroom TV shows, movies, and live newscast dramas. Witness the popularity of lawsuits. Witness the popularity of divorce as a way of settling disputes.

Add further to that the comfort that obtains with seeing things black-and-white, well-demarcated, neatly packaged. Eliminates a lot of energy lost in dithering ambivalence.

What appears to have developed is a psycho-neurology that is darn near Pavlovian: hear someone come at you with a divergent opinion and SNAP to alertness with several autopilot responses ----

1) Strike out at the enemy.

2) Respond immediately and in kind to the (almost) inevitable strikeback.

3) But if perchance the strikeback is missing, and instead there is a semi-reasoned, semi-civil response, don't just stand there --- strike back even harder! ---- less the game we've learned to play with our opposition, MUTUAL STRAWMEN, should morph into both partners looking inward instead of outward for at least some of the answers. The motto is: Never look inward --- while doing so, someone may sneak up and knock your block off.

OK, I hope I have your attention. Are you ready for the other shoe? -----

As I've developed this first half of my post I have become increasingly aware of a gradual groundswell of background noise: my doomer buddies are chuckling and chortling in a chorus of contemptuous self-satisfaction. "Here is ole Doc vindicating our long suffering, wearisome burden, putting up with such polly trash lo these last couple years. We certainly appreciate he knows who's wearing those tall white hats and who's wearing them black headrags."

Got news for ya', folks; in case after case -- I can't hardly tell no difference nohow. Unless you give me a scorecard I find it often impossible to tell whose side is up at bat. Yep, sad as I feel for a polly who degrades himself and loses the opportunity to maintain his half of a civil discourse --- the emotion I feel when my fellow doomer traces the same path is maybe more uncomfortable: I feel embarrassed.

(Now as long as I'm trying to print 'the whole truth and nothing but the truth' I'll have to admit that I myself have stooped on occasion to striking back: got good and sarcastic, somewhat bombastic, and even a little hyperbolic. EmBARRassing! But most of the time I walked my talk, which is to say, I just returned to the Preparation Forum, where most of us were just seriously trying to help each other prepare for what we considered a great danger to our health and that of our families.)

OK, what I've covered now has been covered before. Nothing new. Everybody's heard those rare complaints, much like blowing in the wind, "Please, let's be more civil. It's unbecoming. It's impolite. It's not very grown up." Usually comes from one of the fairer sex. And it's true -- all of it. But digging down a little deeper I'm shocked to discover something considerably more insidious, more damaging to the human condition. As I close this post that's what I will want to take a close look at. I'll segue into it following a quick take on two more of my pet peeves concerning my fellow doomers.

The first was pretty well confined to the pre-Y2K days. So many of the doomer 'regulars' would get entangled in long, vituperous, time-consuming threads with their polly opponents, blasting each other with their flamethrower weapons. I found it quite logical to see the pollies doing that kind of thing. After all, 'Y2K is no big deal' so what else is there to do but yank their opponent's chain? But I couldn't understand how a doomer, if he really believed in his position, could find the time to indulge in such activity -- and neglect his personal preps. I always judged a doomer more by the extent of his preps -- than the power of his arguments.

The other flaw has arisen mostly post-Y2K. The typical pattern is a thread that starts out quoting a news item with the suggestion that it could be very well Y2K-related, and supporting it with a plausible hypothesis. However, after a negative polly response or two the polly's argument stiffens, and after one or two more flames pretty soon the theory transmutes into rock hard 'fact,' -- without any apparent increase in hard data to backup that transition. Which brings me to the home stretch of this post.

I understand better now what several years of polly AND doomer flaming do to a very fragile commodity, The Truth. It's hard enough for humans (especially us males who feel our egos are so often under test) -- creatures who feel quite uncomfortable with ambiguity and thus spend a lot of time in The Search For Certainty -- to accept Unvarnished Reality as it stands. More often than we care to admit, to bolster our confidence and dispel our doubts we, shall we say, bend the truth 'ever so slightly?' Sure, if we do it subtly, not too often, and not in the light of day -- it can pass by unnoticed for the most part. And it seems not to do too much damage when practiced in routine matters.

But the TB2K forum threads over the past three years have been anything but about routine matters. What the forum's host, sysops, and we doomer participants believed was on the table -- was the health, welfare, lives, and very fabric of modern civilization. And now in the post-rollover period, we want to make sure things are going as well as they appear to, that nothing significant is being swept under the rug. What we're about here on the forum is still not in the category of 'smalltalk,' 'tabletalk,' 'cocktail party talk' -- at least not to serious doomers (or ex-doomers --- yak, yak.)

In addition, those of us who have been wrong, at least as to the apparent-to-date degree of damage that was done by Y2K -- have a great opportunity to learn a crucial lesson, regarding how well our brains work in 'prediction mode,' how effective our 'judgment mechanisms' work, how 'sane' or 'insane' we really are. This could be the opportunity of a lifetime, to look inward and learn more of our strengths and weaknesses -- by listening to sober (as distinct from 'mad dog') critiques of our written words' track records. (And on the other side of the ledger, is there anything from the vantage point of our strengths, that could shed light on some of the obscurities in the pollies' view of the Universe? [THAT '$64,000 question' is formidable enough to require a thread all by itself. If I can screw up enough courage I might give it a try in a later Round.])

Can it happen? Yes, if one goes about it the way porcupines make love: very carefully. Will it happen? I'm not giving my hopes much hope (What did you expect from someone who lifelong has seen all glasses as half empty rather than half full?) Will I give it a try? I never give up trying. In that spirit I would like ya'll to hear what FactFinder has to say about the first '11.5 doomer' thread and then this one.

[Factfinder emailed me -- has a delay in his sched -- has to work overtime -- so I'll post this and hope he gets his response out later this weekend.]

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 26, 2000

Answers

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I couldn't understand how a doomer, if he really believed in his position, could find the time to indulge in such activity -- and neglect his personal preps.

Ahaha, yes! Every time I saw some doomer saying "If Y2K is so meaningless to you what are you doing here?" I thought "If Y2K is so meaninful to you what are you doing here?" I myself told a few pollies to get a life. Then, I'd feel guilty, because I was sitting there, typing that.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 26, 2000.

Bill. This is an excellent and thought provoking thread. I wonder if some of the same thought processes could be applies to the Contrarian philsophy about an upcoming stock market crash, gold prices going skyhigh, the decline of the dollar, stagflation etc. I had several economics courses in college and I and numerous others have thought for several years that the market is getting too high and each year it went higher yet. We rationalize it as a Mania that is worse than 1929. Much of it is hype but if people believe the hype, the market goes up. The laws of economics have not been repealed. It may take longer but eventually it will collapse. Will that happen this year? What will be the trigger? I would venture a guess. It will happen this year and the proximate causes will be higher oil prices, overproduction of goods, inadequate purchasing power to buy the goods, cut throat competition to sell the goods, margin calls when the market declines, excessive leverage for stock purchases, unemployment and a severe recession or depression caused by all of these factors that will all come together this year.

Look at Japan. They had a market peak in 1989 and have not yet recovered. They went after market share will a low profit per unit and built severe overcapacity. They were acclaimed at the time. Now it looks like they were stupid. Where are the experts that can recognize and predict these future impacts? We do not hear from them until it is obvious. What is the true state of the economy now? Who knows? Perhaps you were overly pessimistic as was I. Am I too pessismistic now about the economy? The people who are skeptical did not make the profits that the idiot investors made who believed the propaganda. Perhaps their day will come. We live in interesting times.

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), February 26, 2000.

Bill:

Most thoughtful essays.

I didn't quite make it to an "11.5", I was about 8.5++++++......

I knew in my heart that we were selecting evidence. I posted some comments about companies I had inside info about that were finished. They never seemed to be enough. My techie contacts were, by and large, pessimistic. HOWEVER, I was never able to decide whether they were humoring a bias I was projecting, even though I tried to talk very neutrally to them on the subject.

I did feel that the risks or stakes, if you prefer, were high. I, for as long as I can remember, have not expected to end my life living in the same technological society I started out in. I've always expected a collapse, sooner or later. A born doomer, I guess.

Now, well, although I have publically stated I want until July 1, 2000 to declare a total "all clear", UNLESS the current oil problems are, indeed, Y2K related, we are pretty much out of the woods. Lots of little problems, lots of headaches, some techs working long hours. Even if the oil patch is in deep trouble, Y2K speaking, we will probably never know for sure. Total ambiguity. Deal with it, folks.

NO CASCADING CROSS DEFAULTS!!!!! Let us quietly thank our own private dieties, whoever they may be, for that fact.

I am pretty thankful that I kept a decent record of civility. The flame wars were and are crap.

Bill, hope to catch your next essay, I don't visit too much any more.

-- mushroom (mushroom_at_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

CORRECTION OF MY BLOOPER (Why is it I always see those errors after I post, not catching them in spite of several proofreads?):

The following ---

However, after a negative polly response or two the polly's argument stiffens, and after one or two more flames pretty soon the theory transmutes into rock hard 'fact,' -- without any apparent increase in hard data to backup that transition.

should read ---

However, after a negative polly response or two the doomer's argument stiffens, and after one or two more flames pretty soon the theory transmutes into rock hard 'fact,' -- without any apparent increase in hard data to backup that transition.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 26, 2000.

Bill, great posts. I was down for the count with a Cory Hamasaki level of flu and asthma and missed your first post. Some thoughts that occurred to me:

1. One of God's probable little jokes is to pair off doomers and pollys together in marriage (at least the first time...). It is sort of akin to the pairing of a person who needs precise directions versus someone who heads in the general direction (Can you tell my ex was/is a polly?)

2. In the spirit of research on handedness, I would be curious to see how many doomers are left handed? I am a lefty

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.

wow.

Will have to digest before I can comment. Very thought provoking.

-- LZach (lisa@texasnetworks.com), February 26, 2000.

Bill,

Terrific analysis! Probably THE best "post-mortem" on Y2K thoughts and feelings I've read.

I was a 6.5 - 7.5 "Doomer". As many may know, I spent a large amount of $'s on our Y2K preps. Most, if not all, of these items will be used on a regular basis, so I do NOT consider the money wasted (well, perhaps $500 was...)

Anyway, *I* won't be sounding my personal "all clear" until July 1st. Having said that, however, I realize that the chance of TEOTWAWKI is essentially ZERO (at least with Y2K as a trigger!) I didn't participate very much in the "Flame Wars" (where's Obiwan Kenobe?) on this forum, focusing instead on serious preparation, as much as my budget would allow. (There WERE times when I'd sling some mud, but thankfully those times were few.)

I read all posts here with a grain of salt or two, but regardless of the positive or negative nature of the information, I continued to prepare as rapidly and completely as possible. (Does this make me a "true" doomer?) No one was more relieved than I, when "the date" passed without incident. *I* was certainly happy to step up to that crow dinner, because the ALTERNATIVE was simply too horrible to contemplate.

By the grace of God, we got through largely intact. Again, by the grace of God, the economy may keep going strong. BUT, I know that should bad things happen, my family has a "full backup" for ANY infrastructure or supply chain failures, now and in the future. And for THAT, I am quite happy.

As for the "Doomer/Polly Wars", those are over IMHO, and I pay no attention to such trivial little hissy fits. Time to get on with our lives. If preparation is now your lifestyle, good for you! If not, that's fine too. We all must live our lives as we see fit.

I have already deleted 75% of my Y2K bookmarks. On July 1st, 2000, the rest will go, and I'll not spend a SINGLE additional moment of my life on it. And good riddance.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), February 26, 2000.

Well-written, Bill. I would say my own Doomer convictions were based on three things: 1. An enormous mistrust of the authorities which I feel is justified, to put it mildly. These are the folks who performed nuclear experiments on the vulnerable in the 1950s, or who sold dry baby formula to women who had no access to clean water (or babies who then died)-to cite two small examples. I should trust these people?

2. Information from behind the scenes, which included a real panic and tension on the part of these same folks who were building monitoring bunkers and warning of effects on every area of the economy and every area of the world. The reports were out there from the World Bank and the State Department. Not to mention the Naval War College, expected outages from the Navy itself, and early warnings from the two Senators in change of the investigatory committee.

3. The intuition of a friend of mine who knows everything. Here I was misled and wrong. But hey, with backup from one and two, especially two, how could I doubt it?

Well, life goes on and I've learned one thing--you never know. But I still don't trust the government or corporations. Why? That much is obvious--they are motivated by greed; they use deception to meet their ends. They manipulate the media.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Nancy, Right handed 11.5 doomer here. Bill, enjoyed reading both posts. Thanks for taking the time.

-- canthappen (n@ysayer.com), February 26, 2000.

Bill

Another excellent essay! Thank you for your thoughtful and unbiased analysis.

I can't really catagorize myself as a Y2K doomer but more as a long time skeptic of society and government in general. I fled the big city (for the boonies) 20 years ago and slowly became more independent and more reclusive. (Just never been the activist type or of the "save the world" ilk.) I do enjoy the friendship and comaraderie of a small group of friends and family.

I found this forum in December l998. I mostly lurked as I felt I had nothing to contribute as far as computer technology. I became immediately addicted and read as much as time would permit on a daily basis. I loved the debates, personalities, points of view, variety of lifestyles, the true compassion, heartfelt concern, and yes, even the flame wars. It was like a good book that you can't put down.

To me this forum put me back in touch with the world outside of my small space of security. It is like a window open to all of society's fears, insecurities, likes, dislikes, preferences, etc.

As far as the flame wars I tend to be a tough old bird with a thick skin and the name calling never really bothered me. In fact I found it quite humorous most of the time. But then I tend to have a sarcastic sense of humor. I'm not of the touchy, feely, my needs aren't being met, feel sorry for me kind of group. More of the when life gives you lemons, make lemonade kind of group.

I like to think I am open to anybodys point of view and welcome diversity. I think that is one of the assets of this forum is it's wide range of diversity. There are definately some close minded , set in stone, type of posters here but those types offer in themselves a catagory in diversity.

The only thing I have found disturbing in this forum is an ease and willingness towards Christian bashing. I am not a particularily religious person but I do find this as offensive as Jew bashing and racism. I guess this is an acceptable trend in todays society but I still personally find it offensive.

Anyway, I hope you can find something useful in my blatherings for your further analsis.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 26, 2000.

Bill- Wonderful post and quite deserving of thoughtful responses. The difficulty in self-analysis is realization. The realization that one may very well have flaws in his or her character. An admission to ones self that he or she is incorrect in their assessment and/or conclusion of a particular situation or subject matter. An inherent ability to honestly evaluate ones decision making capabilities. As far back as I can recall, I have consistently analyzed and perhaps researched subject matter. I believe this to be an inherent yet integral part of who I am. I do not easily draw a conclusion. I believe this is one of the obvious frustrations for many doomers including myself. I began researching Y2K in the spring of `97. I reached a conclusion in the early fall of `98 and thus began my prepping. I concluded after approximately a year and a half of extensive research. My frustrations exist, and I do not deny this truth. My view, like many on this forum, is how could there not be any major disruptions anywhere? I am trying in this post rollover era to re-evaluate my disposition. Am I truly radical in my thinking? Could I possibly be wrong after all of that research? Are things truly the way they appear? Being the true to heart doomer that I am, the answer is a resounding NO! I don`t believe there are not significant problems globally. I did not believe it on Jan. 1 and do not believe it today. Bill, hold fast to your belief system, because this time your thoughts are correct. They are just merely being revealed gradually. "Seek and ye shall find." Learning the true meaning of Seek has been and will continue to be my personal struggle.

-- NoJo (RSKeiper@aol.com), February 26, 2000.

Bill, Good post... one of the things about y2k was prioritizing... after all the prep work was done to some satisfaction...then I came to TB2000 and took some rest and well because of the pollies I have to say I never left TB2000 relaxed. But I do have time late at and sometimes during the day when I just want to drop in and drop out... still prepin though...learning to rely on instinct...things aren't what they seem and that means trouble is ahead.

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 26, 2000.

Bill...almost forgot why I came here to make a comment...on the phrase you mentioned about people coming here and embracing a new religion... badly paraphrased...but I haven't come to a new insight about religion at all... this forum has encouraged me to rely on my GOD to keep peace in my life no matter what trolls or pollies or other can display against my personal beliefs.

-- SB Ryan G III (sbrg3@juno.com), February 26, 2000.

I enjoyed this posting immensely. Perhaps the common thread that binds us together is Y2K as process rather than event. I came late to the Forum but found an openess of expression here that has been sadly lacking in general public life. One of the most appealing factors is the extraordinary range and diversity of knowledge of the participants, and this includes questions as well as comments and observations. Leaving the first millenium was a form of loss, and I believe that all the stages of grieving have been played out here (and are still ongoing). But the diversity,discord and differences in opinions and personality provide the foundation for all of us to be enriched by each other as we grow into our future. I bless the day I stumbled into this site. I've introduced family, friends and collegues to it. Everyone I know who visits has a reaction to the postings-laughing, fuming or thoughtful. Some continue to lurk, a few have joined in the fray with relish. So whatever's going on, it's apparently healthy and is meeting the needs of a significant number people of varying personality constructs.

-- mike in houston (mmorris67@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000.

Bill, thankyou very much for your thought provoking post. I was a Y2k 8.5 doomer. The uneventful-roll over and quiet of the past 2months has left me scratching my head and wondering what really is going on.

As one who cut their teeth on JFK, Vietnam and Watergate, I don't trust the government. I am thankful that y2k provided me with the impetus to make preparations for uncertain times. This is now a part of my lifestyle. Along with all the y2k "hype" I also watched what the government did---not what the government said. I understand the US Government started stockpiling antibiotics and KI in late '98 and '99. The US Gov. built a $40 million bunker in which to observe the CDC turnover. FEMA was put on high alert in 50 states.... have they been called down? Wasn't the national gaurd called out to LA to stand-by?

With all due respect to the polly's, things just aren't right! It may not be computer problems ahead, but gut instinct tells me something's up.

I don't know if it makes any difference, but I am left handed.

Thankyou, nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), February 26, 2000.

Dear Doctor,

Thank you so much for another brilliant post. Your depth of wisdom and experience is rare to find and rarer to appreciate.

I was amazed at the comments by Y2K Pro. I had been angry at him for his posted attacks on me and others, but now I understand his position better. However, I regret he feels the constant need to belittle those who were *caught up* in the moment of dreaded anticipation. He's stomping on a dead rat... a useless waste of energy and talent...

Also, I've NEVER posted under a false E-mail address. I know it was tempting, but I had to be open and honest. Certainly I've posted MANY stupid things for which I retain remorseful regrets, but, hey, that's part of my sinful nature. I remain ashamed...

For the most part, about Spring of 1999 I realized I was preparing for much more than Y2K problems; I was getting stressed out over the coming depression and judgments that shall hammer America. This is not a popular view, and I can number on my left hand the few people I personally know who truly believe America will be severely judged by our Holy Creator.

Today I received from Pastor David Meyer of Beaver Dam, Wisconsin, his latest newsletter. Here are some words he wrote regarding the aftermath of Y2K:

"Only a remnant of Christians, who remember how to think and pray, are still serving the Almighty and reaching out to the lost. The urgency that so many true Christians felt for the past year was a valid urgency and prompting of the Almighty regarding the closeness of eternity. We took the potential of a Y2K problem seriously, because we felt the urgency of the Lord's coming and did not know when it would be. It is never a shame to prepare and provide for your family in the face of any danger, and nothing is wasted. The urgency is still among the people of the Almighty and is stronger than ever, because the day is drawing ever closer. One thing that the Y2K threat did is to reveal who the mockers and skeptics are. I believe that if you truly examine these mockers and skeptics with their condescending attitudes, you will find that they also doubt that the coming of the Lord will be any time soon." --- Pastor David Meyer

As Y2K approached, I discovered many intimate facets of family and coworkers that I had never known before. Not only did they shrug off the possible potential disaster scenarios regarding Y2K, but the ominous warning signs of the Final World War with depression, famine, disease and death were discarded as not possible any time soon. Maybe years from now, but certainly not in the year 2000. And so they went about their schedules of frivolous entertainments and social activities, happy that nothing negative occurred during the Y2K rollover. As far as they are concerned, nothing bad will happen to America. Their stock market portfolios will increase, and they will retire with wealth and live their remaining days in comfort and ease from the fruits of their 401k and IRA retirement plans on this planet. Things are going so swell in the United States of America. Who would DARE QUESTION the END of this magnificent prosperity?

Do you feel as I do that these mockers are setting themselves up for a GREAT FALL?

But then they encounter me, a diehard doomer since 1987, a fanatic who warns continuously about the coming collapse of Wall Street and the inevitable judgments to come upon America. I remind them whenever possible of the coming financial disasters. They consider me crazy and are somewhat amused but MOSTLY ANNOYED. When will I ever shut up??? Once in a while they express their *true* concerns, but they dwell on them only momentarily because I'll most assuredly provide more fuel to their fears. They are becoming quick studies in changing the subject. I must learn to restrain myself, I know, I know...

I read Pastor Meyer's comments and recalled the many times certain mockers evinced total optimistic confidence in the American economy. I wondered why they didn't perceive the many warning signs. I HAVE learned that these mockers and scoffers are NOT prepared for the coming hardships. When die Scheisse hits that whirling mechanism, they will panic and do stupid things. They have NOT deeply contemplated as you and others have about what immediate remediation must be accomplished to soften the blows. It will be VERY UGLY in the ranges of personal fears. I perceive potential total disaster in some of their frantic attempts to secure provisions. However, others have faith in God and will pray earnestly for help. Have faith that they will survive when others will not. There are many hard lessons to be learned in the future.

To prove to you that I am a crazy doomer prepper, I have more than 200,000 matches. I never posted the full extent of my preps. Most posters and lurkers here would not believe the stats anyway. Some days I find myself wondering how I ever managed to do so much while others were nonchalantly *smelling the roses*.

Presently I'm waiting to receive my orders for more Mylar bags and storage buckets. Personally only my mother and sister know this little bit. I've been quite silent for weeks among my coworkers and acquaintances because I've been observing and waiting. Americans as a whole will NOT be ready when Wall Street crashes. They will be totally surprised. Our government will make stupid decisions, which will result in heinous mistakes affecting millions!

I know that my warnings are falling upon deaf ears. People will look back upon this time and experience biting remorse that they did not do what they could have done in the time available.

It's so sad, so sad...

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), February 26, 2000.

Mr S.B. Ryan, it has been a journey for me also, when human dollars fled out for one car repair after another when time upon time, the elusive human dollar lit briefly in my bank account, only to fastly disappear because of one expense after another. I had nothing other than Faith and the Internet. A vast hoard of information of folks giving away (vice charge) information of all multitude of information. And some kind folks, trying to help each other out. I found my Faith, because the "dollar" left me. I am a newbie on Faith, I see it, live it, only after I give up myself, first. It is so hard. I still fight "self". And if this gets posted, it is only because, these words are not from my dinky brains.

-- Instant (bre@kfast.com), February 27, 2000.

It seems you haven't heard much from the polly side, so I thought I'd throw in my $.02.

While I appreciate your efforts to categorize folks, the end result is ALWAYS too simplistic to be valid . What IS Bubkas?

Why would you be embarrassed by what anyone else said? You were expecting pessimistics to be courteous because you are pessimistic and YOU are courteous? Regardless of anyone's position on a singular issue, Bill, the human race consists of folks with a wide range of opinions on the importance of courtesy. In addition, internet users vary in the degree to which their internet personality agrees with their IRL personality. Some of us believe there's actually another human at the other end of this box and use the keyboard to communicate just as we would use our voice to communicate in person. Others feel free to say things they would NEVER say in person.

Another thought I might add to the paragraph above is that Y2k [a technical problem] turned into Y2k the emotional issue. It wasn't difficult to spot the posts that combined Y2k with politics and/or religion. It still isn't. Politics and religion are VERY emotional issues. If one feels that Y2k is linked with either one, it is fruitless for another to try and separate the two without engaging the inherent emotionalism.

One question I will attempt to answer regards why the polly nerds [were these class III?] weren't more effective or forceful in their arguments. In fact I've even seen someone say that their arguments were less than convincing. You already read that Randy and I saw the work get done and learned from others in our network that the work had gotten done. For this, we had reason for optimism. On the other hand, Cory knew of a few places where things didn't look like they'd ever get done. Cory extrapolated on those places to imply that NONE of the work would get done. I don't know about Randy, but I, personally, felt this extrapolation was illogical. No matter how large the subset of completion or non-completion that was encountered personally, there was no logic in using this data to "evangelize." It was much more logical for the polly nerds to debate the glaring errors in the technical data Cory presented that could be backed up by links to IBM's information. This was done, but didn't include funny stories about tuna and donuts and flew straight over the head of the non-technicals.

Since you seem to be able to separate Y2k [the technical problem] from the other problems folks see forthcoming, Bill, I'd like to ask YOU a few questions [polly to doomer]:

Would I be correct in assuming that the accusations of paid shill whenever positive news was presented or negative news dissected was due to the combination of Y2k with politics by the accuser? I'm using politics to indicate both government and the corporate world in this definition. I always wondered why folks asked me who paid me to post.

Why was it that presentation of positive news or dissection of negative news regarding Y2k resulted in accusations of discouraging folks to prepare? It's obvious that many folks see a need to prepare for countless possibilities, and I've seen only one or two folks who ever took it upon themselves to decide/debate what other people should do with their time or their money.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 27, 2000.

Dinosaur.....I'm in your corner. I just ordered some extra grain, in case of crop shortages due to disastrous weather conditions, or if gas shortages adversely affect farmers. The grain will keep many years, in buckets. If it "outlive" me, my kids can use it. As in the days of Noah, Dinosaur.

-- Jo Ann (MaJo@Michiana.com), February 27, 2000.

RESPONDING TO 'HANDEDNESS' POLL: I am righthanded. But Bill, Jr., is left-handed, AND ambidextrous -- does that count?

ANITA:

It seems you haven't heard much from the polly side, so I thought I'd throw in my $.02.

Yes, thanks, I really want the balance -- and I need more pollies to respond. Still hoping.

While I appreciate your efforts to categorize folks, the end result is ALWAYS too simplistic to be valid .

Yes, the dangers of oversimplification are why I spent the entire 2nd paragraph describing those pitfalls of globalization (one of my nasty habits.) Those dangers include your globalization using 'ALWAYS.' One of the important things I learned in medical school was, "NEVER use the word 'always.'" And I've NEVER forgotten that (alternate version: "I ALWAYS remember that.")

Seriously tho, categorization is one of the primary tools we humans use to parse out the everything-is-connected-to-everything-else Universe. (And of course that is one BIG reason our parsing intrinsically gets into trouble as we try to stretch the category to its ridiculous extreme. We do it anyway, Anita. Every day. With everyone we know. If we didn't then our cerebral neuronal circuits would dither into gridlock after a couple of hours trying. That would cause a BIG headache.)

What IS Bubkas?

A quaint Yiddish expression meaning: zilch, nada, zero.

Why would you be embarrassed by what anyone else said? You were expecting pessimistics to be courteous because you are pessimistic and YOU are courteous?

ExACTLY!

Regardless of anyone's position on a singular issue, Bill, the human race consists of folks with a wide range of opinions on the importance of courtesy.

Yes, and that's the issue I addressed when I brought up "The Great Devolution." You know Anita, before your time, there actually was an America where MOST people MOST of the time were very careful to be courteous to MOST others. There actually was a consensus that grownups AND children should be courteous at all times. Thanks for validating the shift from those values -- with your correct description of the present state of manners.

In addition, internet users vary in the degree to which their internet personality agrees with their IRL personality. Some of us believe there's actually another human at the other end of this box and use the keyboard to communicate just as we would use our voice to communicate in person.

Others feel free to say things they would NEVER say in person.

I would modify your statement to say: "MANY others feel free to say, etc., etc." On that basis thanks once again for your validation of this current sad, and dangerous, social ethic. ( I believe unless the Internet can somehow get past the hurdle and thoroughly lick this problem -- it will eventually cause great difficulties for the ultimate integration of "The New Era" into everyday human affairs.)

Another thought I might add to the paragraph above is that Y2k [a technical problem] turned into Y2k the emotional issue. It wasn't difficult to spot the posts that combined Y2k with politics and/or religion. It still isn't. Politics and religion are VERY emotional issues. If one feels that Y2k is linked with either one, it is fruitless for another to try and separate the two without engaging the inherent emotionalism.

100 % ON THE MONEY on this one, Anita. Thank you. It's one of the main reasons I started the '11.5 Doomer' threads.

One question I will attempt to answer regards why the polly nerds [were these class III?] weren't more effective or forceful in their arguments. In fact I've even seen someone say that their arguments were less than convincing.

You already read that Randy and I saw the work get done and learned from others in our network that the work had gotten done. For this, we had reason for optimism.

Another BIG winner, Anita. I have increasingly come to believe that the SOLE valid reason for Y2K optimism was the basis you and Randy operated from.

On the other hand, Cory knew of a few places where things didn't look like they'd ever get done. Cory extrapolated on those places to imply that NONE of the work would get done.

You and I possess a distinctly different recollection of history on this one. My recall of what Cory said (on multiple occasions) was that NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH of the enterprise work would get done. That's not the same as your attribution of his words, "NONE." You made a globalization mistake, Anita.

I don't know about Randy, but I, personally, felt this extrapolation was illogical. No matter how large the subset of completion or non-completion that was encountered personally, there was no logic in using this data to "evangelize."

I think we're getting down to nitty gritty here, Anita. And it's very necessary.

****** ********

[Hey, but first I have to do a quick 'sidebar' -- very important. Computer-naive readers won't be able to make a judgment call on this issue we're looking at here. That by the way, in my book, is one of the great looming dangers of the coming knowledge revolution: unless you're a 'nerd' you can't follow 'the drift of the conversation.' Not just on issues such as "Should we do bypass surgery on your spouse or not?", which can be a life-and-death issue -- but for one person only. But also on such questions as "Is our entire global technical infrastructure at risk here because of some cybernetic mis-design?" The risk repercussions of this latter question is no way in the same category as the bypass one. If we make a mistake on this one it's BigTime. Could the Koskys, Norths, Bennetts, or a whole string of corporate CEO's, state governors, and national and international leadership -- 'follow the drift' on that one?

Hey, Anita, I'm way past Y2K on this one -- let's assume -- at least for this sidebar -- that we're through that one safely. My concern is for other technical issues that may loom down the road a piece. As cybertechnology expands its ugly (beautiful?) grip on 'growing the infrastructure' such things as 'what to do about Internet security and Internet privacy,' 'cyber warfare,' 'piracy of proprietary industrial knowledge' -- all these come to mind just off the top of my head. Will non-technical political and industry leaders 'follow the drift' enough to make sufficiently knowledge-based decisions? I'm holding my breath on that one.]

****** ********

OK, back to Cory. ...I, personally, felt this extrapolation was illogical...

If in fact Cory had extrapolated to "NONE of the work would get done" I would have to agree 100% -- it was 'illogical.' We disagree on history here. Let's move on to next sentence: No matter how large the subset of completion or non-completion that was encountered personally, there was no logic in using this data to "evangelize." I have to agree with you here; the operative word here is: "personally." In general, the wider one's collection base for one's data the more confidence one can place in it. Elementary statistics.

Did Cory not jawbone with the right or enough colleagues here? I wasn't at 'the scene of the crime' so I can't vouch for the details. I do remember him talking about lots of his buddies, lots of meetings, lots of emails. So probably the 'enough' requirement was satisfied. Did he talk to the 'right' geeks? Based on the to-date goverment and industry information published in the media it seems he did NOT. If with the passing of sufficient (without broaching here what constitutes 'sufficient') time, nothing big shows up in the way of delayed major catastrophes then my 'it seems' will have to be zapped. Stay tuned.

It was much more logical for the polly nerds to debate the glaring errors in the technical data Cory presented that could be backed up by links to IBM's information. This was done,

Whoa, BAby ... now this is something to sink one's teeth into. I followed the csy2000 threads' tech talk for relatively short periods back in '97, but since my production background was only Z80 assembly a decade ago, I won't be able to confidently evaluate your analysis of Cory's 'glaring errors.'

But if you want my continued respect (and the respect of those lurking here) you will of necessity have to come back with a response to this thread, detailing at least a couple of such programming lapses on the part of The DC Donut King. After you do so, I will point a few of our resident doomer geeks to your examples so they can give their reading. I will also ask Randy Christopher and Y2KPRO, and would hope FactFinder, to do the same. If you are right this will be BIG NEWS. If you find it impractical to come up with the examples I will be disappointed. (Furthermore it would further fuel doomers to say, "See, Doc, you can't trust those pollies." Hoping you will.)

Since you seem to be able to separate Y2k [the technical problem] from the other problems folks see forthcoming, Bill, I'd like to ask YOU a few questions [polly to doomer]:

Would I be correct in assuming that the accusations of paid shill whenever positive news was presented or negative news dissected was due to the combination of Y2k with politics by the accuser? I'm using politics to indicate both government and the corporate world in this definition. I always wondered why folks asked me who paid me to post.

Whenever I read those kinds of doomer accusations I would automatically ask myself, "But how do these folks know what's inside the heart of their 'accusee' -- unless they know that person, not only face-to-face, but intimately and on a long-term basis?" I always felt those actions obscured the truth of whatever issue lay on the table at that point. It's one of the main reasons I started this series of threads, Anita. (BTW, could a gov't or industry shill have been behind some/many of the posts? Perfectly plausible. But I don't recollect seeing, during my intermittent lurking periods, any reasonable evidence to support it.)

Why was it that presentation of positive news or dissection of negative news regarding Y2k resulted in accusations of discouraging folks to prepare?

That one's easy. Metaphor: someone is about to fasten his seatbelt before driving off on a 2-hour trip, and you tell him, "Hey Fred, I've done a lot of research, and I've compared it with the research of a lot of my peers, and we've come to the conclusion that you're in no danger of a catastrophic accident in the next 2 hours. Just thought I'd mention it. Happy driving."

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 27, 2000.

Hi Bill!

I'd like to make a brief (for me) comment about this one:

[Did Cory not jawbone with the right or enough colleagues here? I wasn't at 'the scene of the crime' so I can't vouch for the details. I do remember him talking about lots of his buddies, lots of meetings, lots of emails. So probably the 'enough' requirement was satisfied. Did he talk to the 'right' geeks? Based on the to-date goverment and industry information published in the media it seems he did NOT. If with the passing of sufficient (without broaching here what constitutes 'sufficient') time, nothing big shows up in the way of delayed major catastrophes then my 'it seems' will have to be zapped. Stay tuned.]

As "bemused" (I think) has pointed out on another thread, the process of *determining* one's exposure to date bugs was a massive task all by itself. It was necessary to set up separate hardware or independent partitions, create complex text harnesses, build clock- ahead environments (and get license approval, since turning the clock ahead seemed to produce "your license has expired" errors pretty often), "age" the data in complex ways, generate test scenarios of a descriptive variety, etc.

In other words, even if you had NO date bugs, testing was a major expense in terms of both time and money. And there was a LOT to test. You could, therefore, know you were WAY behind schedule in the testing, without knowing if you actually had any serious problem to begin with.

So the question of whether date bugs posed a big problem was quite separate from the question of whether you had reached the point where you *knew* if they posed a problem. It's clear by now that such "don't know" cases were in the minority, but also clear that Cory's orientation was such as to solicit testimony from this same minority. From which he naturally generalized.

And while I hate to keep harping on this, there was never any market for newsletters saying everyting was normal and under control. Cory asked me to write an essay on how vulnerable manufacturing was, and never showed any interest in successful manufacturing tests. He explicitly rejected testimony on the lack of vulnerability known (and demonstrated) in the embedded world. He published ALL of Infomagic, and NONE of Stephen Poole. Cory's sources (and their employers) were anonymous without exception.

And after the fact, what happened to all these "inside" sources Cory alluded to? Well, Cory "got sick" right after rollover, and been amazingly unresponsive to any questions since. You could not possibly find a more flagrant example of "Doomer Selective Amnesia Syndrome" than Cory has demonstrated.

So I'll be blunt -- as far as I'm concerned, Cory viewed y2k as a source of easy income from the gullible suckers, plain and simple. I've seen *no indication* that Cory bought into the doom hype for a minute. Bill, there really are people out there who will fleece the sheep, and Cory's behavior (before and after) fits that model and no other. Caveat emptor.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

HI FLINT (Fellow Alabamian):

[Important bio data point: Flint did a lot of legwork pre-Y2K to satisfy by first-hand interviews, traveling to various parts of the nation, his need-to-know whether Y2K was going to be a biggie or not. The Sunday he visited here last Spring and spent nearly 6 hours swapping info and viewpoints, was sandwiched between a visit I think to someone in GA, and then the following week to NYC to talk to someone else. I may have some details wrong here, but that's the general picture. Most people who read Flint's posts (and probably all who continuously insulted him with invectives rather than data or logic) didn't know this about him.

I have a fundamental disagreement with Flintstone in that it appears Logic is the ONLY arrow in his quiver when analyzing a subject. And so what's to complain about that?! Logic is massively effective in most of life's situations. And truth be said, during those rare times when I am operating at high efficiency, I have found that logic is an overwhelmingly important weapon in my armamentarium. (Are there any other arrows? That will be for Round Three in this series.) So I welcome Flint to this thread. I expect he will shed more light than noise.]

Flint's response centers on the question of Cory Hamasaki's performance in the Y2K show, which issue was focussed on by Anita above. What we're all looking at here (assuming Y2K is really 'over') is 'Where did Cory go wrong?'

So the question of whether date bugs posed a big problem was quite separate from the question of whether you had reached the point where you *knew* if they posed a problem. It's clear by now that such "don't know" cases were in the minority, but also clear that Cory's orientation was such as to solicit testimony from this same minority. From which he naturally generalized.

I do remember Cory putting out a call for polly responses for his newsletter. But I also remember his rather stringent requirements for acceptance of The Opposition's viewpoint. A lot of it seemed reasonable but one: his requirement for formal degreed graduate training seemed to place the bar awfully high. Particularly in light of the many talented programmers I had met in the SF Bay Area during the '70s, who 'dropped out' before getting their degrees. At the time I brushed this concern aside. I was convinced that Cory was our Shining Knight. Where do I stand now? I'm moving towards Flint's conclusion about the narrow base of Cory's testimony solicitation. Will I eventually arrive at Flint's position? If the oil industry or the banking industry does not go belly up, in a suspicious manner, by summertime I will declare Flint the clear winner on this issue.

And while I hate to keep harping on this, there was never any market for newsletters saying everyting was normal and under control.

Yep, if you were optimistic about Y2K why would you be interested in reading a newsletter of all things, confirming that the good life would continue being good? Not that the market of Doomers was large by any means. But we were spirited. AND worried. A narrow but a lively market as I recollect.

Cory asked me to write an essay on how vulnerable manufacturing was, and never showed any interest in successful manufacturing tests.

This is a crucial piece of information. (I assume Flint's reporting accurately here. My take on him, based on meeting him for 6 hours, and reading many of his posts, is that whatever he is, he's honest.) Cory should have without question responded to Flint's willingness to report on the manufacturing scene regardless of on which side his results fell. (I interrogated Flint quite a bit that Sunday afternoon on his work in hardware, firmware -- process control in general. Impressed me as a talented and inventive mind when it came to designing and troubleshooting in that province. [A good part of my 7 years in the PC field was involved in the same kind of work; not nearly as intensive as Flint's but enough to recognize his competence.]

He explicitly rejected testimony on the lack of vulnerability known (and demonstrated) in the embedded world.

That was not wisdom on Cory's part, especially in light of his repeated public statements that he was ignorant of embeddeds and was focussing on enterprise problems only.

He published ALL of Infomagic, and NONE of Stephen Poole.

Ah, Infomagic -- he was my Y2K Tragic Hero, my MacBeth (except he was not quite doomer enough for me -- see the first 'll.5 Doomer' thread.) You've got to admit, Info wrote exCITING prose!

Now re Stephen Poole I wish I had a better recall of a lot of what he wrote -- that was about the time I had just come back on line (after a year of being buried in feverish Y2K preps) and plopped right into the embeddeds brouhaha with Bruce Beach. So I don't want to make a strong judgment call on Poole's contributions in general. However there was one mini episode that I can report on confidently.

Poole had made a sweeping generalization on a railroad thread. He said there was no problem for the industry to shut down the computerized, electronic control of the 'turnouts' (rail switches) in railroad classification yards and reverting back to manual control. I responded to his post saying as I was typing I had spread out in front of me the detailed Engineering Dep't blueprints of the turnout control rods leading to and from the main switching tower in the New Haven RR Cedar Hill Yards (their main mid-system classification yard.) How did I happen to have them? Railroading had been one of my intense hobbies since the age of 7 ( in 1933.) I had walked the Cedar Hill Yards on a number of occasions, shooting fotos of all the equipment (and dodging the railroad cops.) I had conversations with retired RR yard workers --- listened to their tales spellbound. I knew all the manual systems had been long ago torn up. I knew the manufacturers of these systems were out of business or tooled up for other industries. I knew that all the towers were gone. I knew that all the tower operators were long retired (and mostly dead.) In short I knew that Poole had fallen into a pool over his head. Told him so. To his credit he acknowledged his info was secondhand. A gentlemen. But one who's data I could trust? Maybe you would, Flint. On that one count me out.

Cory's sources (and their employers) were anonymous without exception.

Yeah, I never liked that deal either, Flint. On the other hand I have been in low and mid-level management of two large organizations (one, the largest HMO on this planet, for 15 years) -- where whistleblowing got you a long howl and a short career. However, in retrospect (again assuming Y2K delayed effects never materialize), it appears there was little or nothing to blow the whistle for.

And after the fact, what happened to all these "inside" sources Cory alluded to? Well, Cory "got sick" right after rollover, and been amazingly unresponsive to any questions since. You could not possibly find a more flagrant example of "Doomer Selective Amnesia Syndrome" than Cory has demonstrated.

I too have been trying to get through to Cory, altho not intensively, because of his medical condition. I too would like to hear his inside sources named, now that the heat is off.

One more point, partly off-topic. Flint, you're treading on ground you would be better not doing, by putting quotes around the 'got sick' phrase. I don't think you have a good handle on severe viral URI's, especially in chronic asthmatics and bronchitis cases, compounded by pneumonias whether viral or bacterial. You don't have a good handle on what they can do to middle aged out-of-shape sedentary workers living in smog-laden metropoli. Sure, because of 'The Great Disappointment' there could definitely be a 'somatizing' component in this case. But to quantify it to the extent you are confidently inferring with your 'got sick' phrase speaks to a lack of judgment in dealing with the human condition, both somatically and psychically. Summation: humans are more complex than logic gates and Boolean algebra.

So I'll be blunt -- as far as I'm concerned, Cory viewed y2k as a source of easy income from the gullible suckers, plain and simple. I've seen *no indication* that Cory bought into the doom hype for a minute. Bill, there really are people out there who will fleece the sheep, and Cory's behavior (before and after) fits that model and no other. Caveat emptor.

Well we're down to the last issue, and one definitely worth examinating. What's Cory's motivation in all this? Let me cut/paste my response to part of Anita's post, where she complains about unjust accusations of financial gain as her motivation for publishing:

Whenever I read those kinds of doomer accusations I would automatically ask myself, "But how do these folks know what's inside the heart of their 'accusee' -- unless they know that person, not only face-to-face, but intimately and on a long-term basis?" I always felt those actions obscured the truth of whatever issue lay on the table at that point. It's one of the main reasons I started this series of threads, Anita.

Flint, don't you believe, as I do, that Anita was unjustly accused? So tell me, do you know Cory better than you know Anita? I'll admit I don't. Furthermore, there are motivations lying between honesty and thievery -- such as vanity, and unconscious bias 're-writing' reality. I know these are possible because I have seen it in myself throughout my life. I sincerely believe that you are NOT plagued by these kinds of weaknesses; you appear to possess the personality type that is immune to most of that. That would be a good reason why it never enters your head as a possibility in this case. (However, I don't know you that well. Maybe better I should ask your wife the lowdown about The Real Flint. :-} )

Now in closing I'll have to give one more point for your side, Flintstone. I personally am one of the MOST GULLIBLE people I know, as my wife will attest to. She doesn't let me have any money to speak of -- she knows I'm a sucker for snakeoil salesmen. Furthermore I know of plenty of documented cases of Y2K scam operations.

Thanks for spending the time and focus on this thread,

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 28, 2000.

bill

thanx for this and the other thread, very good, clear thinking. thanx also on a personal level, for some specific help you've afforded through your postings.

i too fall into the category of sometimes being embarassed by someone else's words - you'd like to agree with a writer's particular thoughts, but you run the risk of being lumped into a completely different camp if you associate yourself with him/her. i agree with your thinking that the human mind must do a lot of binary decision- making or it would be overwhelmed, but sometimes that's awfully inconvenient.

as for why i stuck with this forum, pre- and post-y2k, i just happened to be discussing with my wife last night. we were watching springsteen's music video 'glory days.' i don't know if you know it or not, but it relates the tendency to live in the past, to believe our best days are behind us, our 'glory days.' fortunately, neither my wife nor i believe that about ourselves. we still look forward every day to what we might accomplish before we die. my point, and i do have one, is that i said to her last night this was what made the 'net and the forums attractive to me.

on the net people are always looking outside themselves, and almost always toward the future. you don't find the people who don't expect anything more to happen in their lives. agree or disagree with their interpretation of the world, i still find these people more interesting, educational and life-supporting than those who can't get past their past.

btw, i'm a left-hander, nancy, and i was hoping for a 2-3, because i was afraid that if it reached 4-5 it would slide right to 11.5.

thanx again, doc.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), February 28, 2000.

Bill,

Again, excellent work, and again, you've caught me at a point where I don't have time to adequately respond. But I'll try.

Re: the Cory issue - You have to keep in mind that there are (broadly) two kinds of computer geeks. 1) The systems geeks (Cory et. al.), who know (or think they do) the deep dark secrets of the OS/database world, and 2) the applications geeks (like me) who have to talk to users who don't know what they want, and then design/code software that does what they wanted all along but never told you.

Cory likes to sling jargon at you, just like a lot of the systems folks I've worked with do. Even with my background, at times I had difficulty following what he was saying.

So how did I judge Cory's words? By checking the techie newsgroups and bb's that he quoted from, and finding that only a very few people were talking about Y2K related issues. I guarantee that had the majority of systems programmers shared Cory's concerns, the geekwires would have been buzzing with news (protected by the anonymity of the internet). This convinced me that Cory was out of step with his peers. It's that silent majority (or preponderence, if you will) again.

Again, the big CLUE for the non-tech people here is that the oft-predicted "exodus of the codeheads" never happened. And believe me, we would have been the first ones out the door, since we're large, slow-moving doughnut-eating folks who would have needed the headstart.

As far as motivations go, I'll repeat what I think the difference between the few pollies who posted here and the rest of the pollies in the world is: We were concerned not with Y2K the computer problem, but with Y2K the fear problem. Look at it this way - both groups who were debating here, doomer and polly, were worried about events that were incredibly unlikely, either A) the downfall of society or B) that enough people would read TB2000/CSY2K etc. to start a panic that would lead to the downfall of society.

My opinion - we're a lot alike.

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 28, 2000.

Regarding my globalizations, Bill, I'll stick with the ALWAYS on the categorization [otherwise known as stereotyping] as well as the NEVER regarding what folks would say IRL versus on the internet. We can discuss the reasons via E-mail if you'd like.

--You and I possess a distinctly different recollection of history on this one. My recall of what Cory said (on multiple occasions) was that NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH of the enterprise work would get done. That's not the same as your attribution of his words, "NONE." You made a globalization mistake, Anita.--

On this one, Bill, I WILL correct my globalization error. I trust you are correct.

I don't know about Randy, but I, personally, felt this extrapolation was illogical. No matter how large the subset of completion or non- completion that was encountered personally, there was no logic in using this data to "evangelize."

OK, back to Cory. ...I, personally, felt this extrapolation was illogical...

--If in fact Cory had extrapolated to "NONE of the work would get done" I would have to agree 100% -- it was 'illogical.' We disagree on history here.--

I hold to the illogic of the extrapolation even using your "not enough" will get done. I think Flint did a good job explaining a bit regarding whether "enough" consisted of the "right" folks from which to make an extrapolation.

-- Let's move on to next sentence: No matter how large the subset of completion or non-completion that was encountered personally, there was no logic in using this data to "evangelize." I have to agree with you here; the operative word here is: "personally." In general, the wider one's collection base for one's data the more confidence one can place in it. Elementary statistics.--

I may have 100 people in my "network" and Cory may have 200. Statistically, one could say that Cory's group has a better picture overall. However, MY network may consist of strictly independent contractors who don't get their next contract without having raving references on the first. Cory's network may consist of folks he's met at meetings where folks gathered to discuss how angry they are at having been downsized. [Note: I'm not saying that this is TRUE....I'm simply saying that without an understanding of the human factors involved, one cannot use sheer numbers to extrapolate on success/failure.]

It was much more logical for the polly nerds to debate the glaring errors in the technical data Cory presented that could be backed up by links to IBM's information. This was done,

--Whoa, BAby ... now this is something to sink one's teeth into. I followed the csy2000 threads' tech talk for relatively short periods back in '97, but since my production background was only Z80 assembly a decade ago, I won't be able to confidently evaluate your analysis of Cory's 'glaring errors.' But if you want my continued respect (and the respect of those lurking here) you will of necessity have to come back with a response to this thread, detailing at least a couple of such programming lapses on the part of The DC Donut King. After you do so, I will point a few of our resident doomer geeks to your examples so they can give their reading. I will also ask Randy Christopher and Y2KPRO, and would hope FactFinder, to do the same. If you are right this will be BIG NEWS. If you find it impractical to come up with the examples I will be disappointed. (Furthermore it would further fuel doomers to say, "See, Doc, you can't trust those pollies." Hoping you will.)--

I will be happy to search the archives when I have time, Bill. I did a cursory glance this morning, but didn't find my favorites. I will E-mail you the links I find. This forum isn't pleased when items are dredged from archives and presented by Y2k optimists. The choice will then be yours to post what you choose.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 28, 2000.

Bill:

You make a couple of good points, and I didn't express myself as well as I should have in some cases. Maybe it's just frustration, but I should do better, I agree.

About Poole, you're right that he didn't always get his facts straight. But he DID deal in facts, and was willing to recognize when he was in factual error and drop false claims. In contrast, Infomagic dealt in woolly historical speculations not subject to empirical investigation. Poole came in for a lot of heat because he was, at least in part, trying to illustrate and *expose* the Doomer mindset, which he visualized as being willing to accept just about any bad news, however fraudulent. I'm not a fan of Poole's techniques, but I couldn't help notice that the Doomers rejected Poole rather than their highly selective willingness to accept bad news.

As for Cory getting sick, I didn't write that very well, for which I apologize. I don't doubt he got sick. But when I wrote that he became "amazingly unresponsive to any questions", I don't mean that he vanished and stopped posting. He continued posting regularly (if not quite as frequently) to csy2k during his illness. He simply didn't respond to any questions about his anonymous and inaccurate sources.

What's important to me is that Cory had built an image of himself as an old-time mainframer. He knew the internal workings of these beasts, knew the history of the code, was plugged into network of those struggling hopelessly with the terrible situation inside the technology that did "the heavy lifting in the computer world". Cory made it very clear that HE knew where the bodies were buried.

So when the time came to dig up those bodies and they weren't there, Cory surely should have been answerable for this. If he was too sick to respond to such questions, why wasn't he too sick to talk about other things? He has subsequently put out one or two of his Weather Reports, and he STILL hasn't addressed these hopeless situations that led him to conclude we were all facing Hard Times.

I suppose it's possible that Cory was fooled completely, and simply doesn't care to face up to it. So call me cynical or suspicious, but when being "fooled" is remunerative and getting it right is not, I can't help wondering. In my reading of his posts and conversations with him in chat rooms, Cory never struck me as a True Believer type at all. He was very much a politically savvy person, who knew exactly where the power and money were all the time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 28, 2000.

FLINT:

Tnx for the comeback. I believe once again you and I tend to meet somewhere in the middle of that great chasm in the sky: The Doomer/Polly Polarity.

Yes, it sounds reasonable that at least part of Poole's efforts was in response to (what has in considerable measure) turned out to be wrong predictions. I'll further agree with you that a significant component of that error judgment in many instances was a biased filter on Reality. Certainly on the part of my thinking at any rate. That's why I started these threads: to put the searchlight on the CAUSE for those errors, for the benefit of me and my fellow doomers. (There is another side to this story, a possible benefit for Pollies, but that I save for Round Three.)

Re Cory's public statements during his illness, I was unaware that he was making fairly regular posts on csy2k. That's an important piece of info. And yes, I am disappointed that he's not addressing the issue of incorrect appraisals in his newsletter.

I suppose it's possible that Cory was fooled completely, and simply doesn't care to face up to it. So call me cynical or suspicious, but when being "fooled" is remunerative and getting it right is not, I can't help wondering. In my reading of his posts and conversations with him in chat rooms, Cory never struck me as a True Believer type at all. He was very much a politically savvy person, who knew exactly where the power and money were all the time.

OK, I don't think Cory "...'was fooled completely..." I think I was considerably closer to the 'completely' category. That's because I always called myself an '11.5'er, and Cory 'A Polly,' only partly in jest. He didn't do near the degree of preps that qualified in my book for one of us card-carrying doomers, and I noted that publically multiple times. And he used many qualifiers in all the newsletters I read. And he was way too expectant of an eventual recovery after Y2K for my mindset.

I never had chatroom conversations with him. Cues can be picked up that way that are missed in more 'simplex' comm loops like public forum postings. You may have detected stuff there that is relevant in determining Cory's inner motivations. And, yes, I'd say he's a politically savvy person with a good take on the locus of power and money. People who live in and around DC tend to have that proclivity. Wasted on people like me.

But yes I continue to call you 'cynical or suspicious.' How could we find out if your cynicism or my gullibility is in error here? The only way would be for Flint, Bill, and Cory to share a college dorm room together for a couple weeks. We'd sure know then by golly. However, in this case I'm willing to sacrifice The Search For Truth -- in need of personal sanity I would turn down such a 'social experiment.'

Cheers,

Bill, the hi-tech redneck from Hanceville.

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 28, 2000.

First I want to answer 'the other RC'-- Randy Christopher; then I'll respond to Y2KPro.

RANDY:

Tnx for checking in. Your set of opinions is one of the four I've been especially looking for (The others were/are those of Anita, Y2KPRO, and FactFinder.)

Re: the Cory issue - You have to keep in mind that there are (broadly) two kinds of computer geeks. 1) The systems geeks (Cory et. al.), who know (or think they do) the deep dark secrets of the OS/database world, and 2) the applications geeks (like me) who have to talk to users who don't know what they want, and then design/code software that does what they wanted all along but never told you.

Yes, my (now somewhat foggy) recollection is that the systems guys were considered the 'waterwalkers' -- the ones who fearlessly walked where no humans could -- into the dark, dank recesses of assembly macros that drove the operating systems and database management code. Then there were the plebes like me who's main interest in code was to get a real world app going that would help people in that world get their work done more quickly and reliably. Enduser ignorance as to their own goals? --- hey try physicians if you want a real challenge.

Cory likes to sling jargon at you, just like a lot of the systems folks I've worked with do. Even with my background, at times I had difficulty following what he was saying.

Hey, Randy, tnx for bringing that up. It's a subtle, but important point that I missed. That behaviour is a flag that there's a fragile ego there, that needs bolstering. (The 'fragile ego' thing has led me to many an error in my own life down through the years.) And it's a clue to a more reasonable explanation for where Cory was coming from than Flint's 'he was looking for the $$$.'

So how did I judge Cory's words? By checking the techie newsgroups and bb's that he quoted from, and finding that only a very few people were talking about Y2K related issues.

Another cigar for you, Randy. I read the same words, but ASSUMED (That dynamic has usually caused me SO much grief in my own life!) that Cory was accurately reporting the general tenor of the ng's and bb's he was quoting from. This is the first news to me that it was otherwise.

I guarantee that had the majority of systems programmers shared Cory's concerns, the geekwires would have been buzzing with news (protected by the anonymity of the internet). This convinced me that Cory was out of step with his peers. It's that silent majority (or preponderence, if you will) again.

In my brief lurkings (plus the one week marathon) on the geek ng's in Fall '97, I came away with a different impression: that the majority were on Cory's side. What do I think now? That 1) I didn't stay long enough, and 2) I used 'selective vision' -- I found what I wanted to see. What I did not see -- but felt sure I had -- was the 'buzzing with news.' (And for my fellow doomers who would say here, "Well, of course the geeks couldn't speak the truth -- would have caused them too much trouble with their employers." -- Randy reminds us of the protection of internet anonymity.)

Again, the big CLUE for the non-tech people here is that the oft-predicted "exodus of the codeheads" never happened. And believe me, we would have been the first ones out the door, since we're large, slow-moving doughnut-eating folks who would have needed the headstart.

Great point. I was looking for that exodus throughout '97, '98, and '99. I never could find the kind of broad-based statistics I was looking for -- so I settled for the sparsely appearing anecdotes of a few dramatic 'flights to the hills.' Anecdotal data (which I dearly love) led me down the primrose path here (It happened to be just the path I wanted to travel, mind you.)

As far as motivations go, I'll repeat what I think the difference between the few pollies who posted here and the rest of the pollies in the world is: We were concerned not with Y2K the computer problem, but with Y2K the fear problem. Look at it this way - both groups who were debating here, doomer and polly, were worried about events that were incredibly unlikely, either A) the downfall of society or B) that enough people would read TB2000/CSY2K etc. to start a panic that would lead to the downfall of society. My opinion - we're a lot alike.

This last point of yours, Randy, finally focussed for me a motivation that I had just about completely missed: that the regularly posting pollies were really and sincerely worried that our doomer fears, all by themselves, would start a world-wide panic sufficient to bring down all of society. Sure I read the words of the pollies over and over (probably the quickest metaphor for them being FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself.") But it never occurred to me that in their minds there was even a credible risk, let alone a serious one, that the Y2K fora panics could propagate to the population at large. Why? Because I KNEW (as sure as you were that the Y2K technical problem was way overblown) that such propagation was almost a non possibility. Why? -- because everywhere I went from January 1997 to the Rollover, I met nothing but DENIAL (albeit almost never technically informed, almost always in deep technical ignorance.) Now sometimes this denial was cool and unperturbed, sometimes it was wild-eyed. But everywhere I measured the width of that Stonewall I always came up with the same number: 7,902+/- miles. (For you trivia phreaks it is just incidentally the diameter of the Earth.)

So I thank you again, Randy, for bringing much-needed light to why our doomer fears (at least to date) have not surfaced.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 29, 2000.

Italics OFF, d*mn it! (May I cuss out this forum software for the nth time for having no 'preview' feature?!!)

Here's the way the last section should read:

Another cigar for you, Randy. I read the same words, but ASSUMED (That dynamic has usually caused me SO much grief in my own life!) that Cory was accurately reporting the general tenor of the ng's and bb's he was quoting from. This is the first news to me that it was otherwise.

I guarantee that had the majority of systems programmers shared Cory's concerns, the geekwires would have been buzzing with news (protected by the anonymity of the internet). This convinced me that Cory was out of step with his peers. It's that silent majority (or preponderence, if you will) again.

In my brief lurkings (plus the one week marathon) on the geek ng's in Fall '97, I came away with a different impression: that the majority were on Cory's side. What do I think now? That 1) I didn't stay long enough, and 2) I used 'selective vision' -- I found what I wanted to see. What I did not see -- but felt sure I had -- was the 'buzzing with news.' (And for my fellow doomers who would say here, "Well, of course the geeks couldn't speak the truth -- would have caused them too much trouble with their employers." -- Randy reminds us of the protection of internet anonymity.)

Again, the big CLUE for the non-tech people here is that the oft-predicted "exodus of the codeheads" never happened. And believe me, we would have been the first ones out the door, since we're large, slow-moving doughnut-eating folks who would have needed the headstart.

Great point. I was looking for that exodus throughout '97, '98, and '99. I never could find the kind of broad-based statistics I was looking for -- so I settled for the sparsely appearing anecdotes of a few dramatic 'flights to the hills.' Anecdotal data (which I dearly love) led me down the primrose path here (It happened to be just the path I wanted to travel, mind you.)

As far as motivations go, I'll repeat what I think the difference between the few pollies who posted here and the rest of the pollies in the world is: We were concerned not with Y2K the computer problem, but with Y2K the fear problem. Look at it this way - both groups who were debating here, doomer and polly, were worried about events that were incredibly unlikely, either A) the downfall of society or B) that enough people would read TB2000/CSY2K etc. to start a panic that would lead to the downfall of society. My opinion - we're a lot alike.

This last point of yours, Randy, finally focussed for me a motivation that I had just about completely missed: that the regularly posting pollies were really and sincerely worried that our doomer fears, all by themselves, would start a world-wide panic sufficient to bring down all of society. Sure I read the words of the pollies over and over (probably the quickest metaphor for them being FDR's "We have nothing to fear but fear itself.") But it never occurred to me that in their minds there was even a credible risk, let alone a serious one, that the Y2K fora panics could propagate to the population at large. Why? Because I KNEW (as sure as you were that the Y2K technical problem was way overblown) that such propagation was almost a non possibility. Why? -- because everywhere I went from January 1997 to the Rollover, I met nothing but DENIAL (albeit almost never technically informed, almost always in deep technical ignorance.) Now sometimes this denial was cool and unperturbed, sometimes it was wild-eyed. But everywhere I measured the width of that Stonewall I always came up with the same number: 7,902+/- miles. (For you trivia phreaks it is just incidentally the diameter of the Earth.)

So I thank you again, Randy, for bringing much-needed light to why our doomer fears (at least to date) have not surfaced.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 29, 2000.

Bill said:

"This last point of yours, Randy, finally focussed for me a motivation that I had just about completely missed: that the regularly posting pollies were really and sincerely worried that our doomer fears, all by themselves, would start a world-wide panic sufficient to bring down all of society."

RC sez:

Well, OK, I probably overstated the case a little bit there. I never felt like I was fighting for the survival of the world (I'll leave those kinds of delusions to CPR). But if even one person were to panic because of what we felt was misinformation posted here, there was a potential for damage.

Honestly, what finally prompted me to post here myself (and again, I was never a "regular" here, just an occasional pain in the butt) was good old fashioned anger. Two of the most celebrated doomers, Milne and North, were on record saying they WANTED the corrupt stock market/banking system/government to fall. Their advice was to get your money out of the markets and the banks. Had they convinced enough people to take this advice, the stock market, banking system, and very possibly the government could have failed absent any effect from Y2K bugs. That more doomers didn't see any problem with this bothers me to this day.

Bill sez:

"But it never occurred to me that in their minds there was even a credible risk, let alone a serious one, that the Y2K fora panics could propagate to the population at large. Why? Because I KNEW (as sure as you were that the Y2K technical problem was way overblown) that such propagation was almost a non possibility."

Randy sez:

"Almost" a non possibility?! Then you can't assure me that it COULDN'T have happened, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), February 29, 2000.

Flint wrote: "But when I wrote that he became "amazingly unresponsive to any questions", I don't mean that he vanished and stopped posting. He continued posting regularly (if not quite as frequently) to csy2k during his illness. He simply didn't respond to any questions about his anonymous and inaccurate sources."

If I had been Cory, and had truly believed what I said I believed:

1. I'd still be recovering from and trying to deal with the emotional trauma of having been so completely wrong, yet so convinced I was right, and from the realization of the magnitude of my error (where was it???) in thinking/reason that had made me think that my view was the only choice based on the evidence.

2. I would not reveal my sources, ever, realizing the pain of being publicly known for a blunder of this magnitude. I would keep all the damage-to-reputation and criticism for myself, especially since I couldn't avoid it anyway--that pain is not something I would share with friends.

3. I would realize what it looked like--that I'd been in it for the money, etc.--to critics. Would I nevertheless explain myself at some point, once I could un-seize the engine of my brain, and rethink my thoughts to find the errors? (Though my confidence in my ability to analyze my own thoughts would be very shaken...) I think so.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 29, 2000.

"RC" (RANDY:)

Honestly, what finally prompted me to post here myself (and again, I was never a "regular" here, just an occasional pain in the butt) was good old fashioned anger. Two of the most celebrated doomers, Milne and North, were on record saying they WANTED the corrupt stock market/banking system/government to fall. Their advice was to get your money out of the markets and the banks. Had they convinced enough people to take this advice, the stock market, banking system, and very possibly the government could have failed absent any effect from Y2K bugs. That more doomers didn't see any problem with this bothers me to this day.

You're looking at an important issue here, Randy. (But 1st I need to remind everyone reading this that I TOO WANTED the whole shebang to fall apart. I'm an '1l.5'er, remember!) The part of that issue that I was quite sure would unfold was that WITH OR WITHOUT a Y2K debacle, the panic-driven bank runs in December '99 would cause a giant problem for our infrastructure.

Bill sez:

"But it never occurred to me that in their minds there was even a credible risk, let alone a serious one, that the Y2K fora panics could propagate to the population at large. Why? Because I KNEW (as sure as you were that the Y2K technical problem was way overblown) that such propagation was almost a non possibility."

Randy sez:

"Almost" a non possibility?! Then you can't assure me that it COULDN'T have happened, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Randy, I only put that 'almost' in there to give you an opportunity to make your point.(g) Actually I really believe there was NO possibility. (What? -- you want I should turn in my Doomer card and deny my own legacy?!!)

Tnx again, Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 29, 2000.

S. KOHL:

Thanks for painting a picture of Cory Hamasaki that is at once believable, and inclusive of the humanity of the Donut King.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 29, 2000.

Y2KPRO:

Bill,

Once again an excellent, thought provoking thread. It strikes me that if this was standard discourse on Timebomb prior to rollover, then we all may have had a chance to actually learn something from each other.

Attention, my fellow doomers. Do you realize who just said this? Is this not incredible? Y2KPro is the same person 1) at whom we've thrown almost unimaginable insults for lo these many months, and 2) who has thrown the same back at us. And did you read that last line: "... a chance to actually learn something from each other."? Is this the ogre, and are we the ogres, who were the combatants in this war?

What word would best describe what all reading this may be experiencing at this moment? Are we in anger? Scorn? Condescension? .... How about sadness?

I am not sure where I fall in the "polly categorization scheme"  I do know that I probably don't WANT to know. There is nothing worse than staring your own inadequacy in the face. And since I am still in full gloat mode, I shall defer that distinct pleasure until another time.

No, take it from me, Pro, ya don't wanna know. (BTW, in the upcoming Round Three I plan to categorize we Doomers. It will prompt the identical "ya don't wanna know.")

The next section of Pro's post will include some 'underlines,' and 'bolds' -- they will be mine, making my emphases.

One of the hidden stories about Y2K was the way that the projects themselves were all "managed". In my experience and regardless of the company, Y2K remediation jobs all fit a certain pattern. Once management caught Y2K in their crosshairs, things began to unfold in very similar ways. Consultants were hired  A Y2K team was put into place and remediation began. What many don't know was that the actual programming functions were not the majority of the remediation teams.

PR folks, Lawyers, Project Managers, Lawyers, Support staff, Lawyers, Speech writers, Lawyers... It was clear to everyone from the beginning that the job of the programmers, while essential, was not central to "managing" the issue. Normally, the PR folks would have set the agenda on a project like this, however, since senior management saw Y2K as a liability issue  lawyers became the paramount voice.

It was the lawyers who would not allow the "all clear" shouts to be heard  and the Y2K project managers and the programmers wanted to shout  as early as the fall of 1998. They were the ones that insisted on the bunkers and the months of endless and pointless testing. The lawyers invented the "Y2K Ready" phrase that irked so many on this forum.

Here is the clearest, most reasonable explanation that I have heard for why our Doomer predictions missed their mark. I heard occasional similar explanations prior to the Rollover. My reaction back then? Cynical (and scornful) disbelief.

As for the sad current state of this forum, it no longer astonishes me that so many are still holding out hope for Y2K societal malfunctions. The individuals left are the died-in-the-wool Doomers - the glass half empty folks. They see mayhem, death, destruction and TEOTWAWKI around every corner. They believe they have some privileged insight into the workings of the world  that only they and this group are getting the "real" information. Y2K, stock market crash, gold at $5000 an ounce, chemtrails, naughty UN troops  the litany of reasons for a societal meltdown are as endless as their imaginations. Ya just gotta laugh

Although Pro has switched into 'scorn mode' here, and that tends to inhibit a reasoned response -- please not let that be our excuse to blind ourselves to a rather accurate description of our underlying feelings about 'The World As We See It.' This is a pivotal observation, and a pivotal issue. It deserves a thread all of its own. I expect it will be a large slice of my upcoming 'Round Three' thread. Keep tuned.

And lastly Cory and his "big iron" minions. It should be no secret that chaps like Cory, with their blind adherence to ancient technology, should want us to shuffle off to the dark side. IBM mainframes and the programmers who love them are, in a word, redundant. The swapping out of these museum pieces for newer technology though the roll-over caused no end of cursing amongst the greasy-haired older folks. For them, Y2K was their last salvation  a chance to stand on a chair and rail against "those damn pee cees". Kinda sad I guess

Wow, this observation of Pro is for me especially, a mindblower! Why? I was in on the leading edge of the PC revolution in Silicon Valley in the mid-'70s. I headed up a venture that would have brought an already engineered, prototyped, debugged, and in limited production PC of military spec quality to market in 1975 (two years before 'the first PC' -- Apple.) It was the gift of Lawrence Livermore Lab's TTP to the commercial market, without any strings whatsoever. (It died stillborn because the engineering team I was working with kept repeating their mantra, "Who would ever want a computer in their HOME?!")

It was a personal mindblower because I had organized the first industry-wide S-100 (early PC) Standards Symposium in 1997 at Diablo Valley JC in the East Bay. (The goal of standardizing the S-100 bus never was achieved -- everyone was defending their own turf.) Organized one of the first PC Users Groups the year before. Was ridiculed along with a few other PC pioneers for our belief in a personal computer by Ken Olsen (Digital Equipment Corp head honcho.) Later ridiculed by IBM engineers for suggesting PC arrays could replace their Series/1 mini-frame cripple in our HMO. Invited to a Delphi study at USC in '78 predicting the revolutionary future of PCs. Throughout this period when I delivered my papers at computer conferences the mainframers virtually denied our existence.

Thank you, Pro, for making the link for me between Cory's repeated derogatory references to "Pee Cees" -- and a reasonable partial explanation for why his predictions have been to date, so far off the mark.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), February 29, 2000.

Bill:

Your response to Y2K Pro is a gold mine, music to my ears. You've addressed some critical points directly, that I approach indirectly on the "boring" thread in my discussions with eve. I'd like to comment on some of this.

[Here is the clearest, most reasonable explanation that I have heard for why our Doomer predictions missed their mark. I heard occasional similar explanations prior to the Rollover. My reaction back then? Cynical (and scornful) disbelief.]

You make two points here, both very important:

1) The lawyers played a key role in creating the shortage of "positive" information. They permitted quite a few Expressions of Confidence, which were general statements to the effect that XYZ didn't anticipate any notable difficulties, and expected to sail into the new year enjoying business as usual. But lawyers strongly inhibited the release of essential supporting particulars. And without these particulars, the credibility an outside observer chose to give these statements became arbitrary -- it couldn't be based on any analysis of what lay *behind* the statement, so it needed to rest on one's trust in the reliability of corporate press releases.

On the other thread, I said (several times in different words) that negative information was AT LEAST as important as positive information to the formation of my own opinion. I recognized that if problems were anywhere near as pervasive AND serious as the Doomer scenarios required, there would absolutely have to be a very large number of unambiguous signs of desperation. It simply wouldn't have been possible for the millions of remediators and testers to remain unaware that their systems would soon become nonfunctional, and they couldn't avoid knowing this -- and taking personal steps in numbers that would have at the very least caused a media feeding frenzy.

2) The Doomer reaction, as you say, was twofold. The press releases were rejected and the claims of legal supression of data discounted; and the importance of the LACK of real-world signs of problems (as opposed to imaginative speculation) was simply ignored.

Consider. We were aware of the Gartner Group/Capers Jones studies showing that anywhere from 25% to 40% of date bugs would strike before rollover *if left unremediated*. We were aware that a fortune was being spent on remediation. We were aware of spike dates passing uneventfully (despite serious concerns from Yourdon and others who WROTE those spikes). We were aware that remediation was stirring a long-stable code base and introducing new errors that would crop up immediately, and seeing none. We were aware that switching to whole new systems (like SAP and PeopleSoft) *always* caused big headaches, and an estimated 25% of businesses were doing exactly that, and ALL of them were (of course) doing this *before* rollover. We were aware that embedded systems that had knowledge of the date were undergoing clock-ahead tests everywhere, and we weren't finding functional problems. We knew the worry level was WAY low among nearly everyone except those selling remdiation services, survival supplies, or books.

And despite all this, we just kept saying "It's not 2000 yet!" This was Sysman's mantra. From my perspective, we had a veritable cornucopia of "y2k weather radar" showing blank screens. Ignoring all of this wasn't just cynical, it was *required* to keep the Doomer Faith.

Now, I could understand the reasoning use by those who (before rollover) said they wouldn't sound their own all-clear for some months. At least I *thought* I understood it. Had there been a great many visible date bug problems, and had it therefore taken some period of time to get around to them all, it was always within the realm of possibility that known (but postponed) problems could propagate, causing "downstream" headaches for those who didn't "own" these bugs themselves. But what's crucial is that these problems would be self-evident and obvious, and we (and the media) could track them. Yourdon's "year of disruptions" described very real disruptions, and his "decade of depression" described an economic situation where, by the time these bugs had been reduced to manageable levels, there would be too many bankruptcies, too much unemployment, too much lost production, to recover from quickly.

But in practice, date bugs never got anywhere near *close* to unmanageable. NO "disruption trend" was set in motion. And you *still* have a hard core of Doomers who refuse to recognize this, and are still waiting. So what I'm pointing out is that refusal to look at (and consider the implications of) these blank screens was a matter of FAITH.

[They believe they have some privileged insight into the workings of the world  that only they and this group are getting the "real" information. Y2K, stock market crash, gold at $5000 an ounce, chemtrails, naughty UN troops  the litany of reasons for a societal meltdown are as endless as their imaginations.]

OK, you call this "scorn mode", but any useful analysis (IMO) must end up here. I've tried to sidestep this mode by focusing on the proximate details -- like an autopsy that determines exactly which cells misbehaved, and how that misbehavior led to death. I'm even willing to back up one level of abstraction and say "we call this Lung Cancer". Y2K Pro is willing to move yet one step further, and say "Hey, this person was a lifelong smoker." And of course you hear the chorus saying "the relationship hasn't been proved" and "many smokers live long lives and die of other causes" and all the rest. We have moved to a level of abstraction where we're dealing with what people perfer to believe, the level where we're addressing the *cause*, rather than the symptoms, of their disaffection with life. The Heart of Denial.

As I never seem to tire of saying, the *process* of defending a "faith conclusion" consists of tuning out everything that can't be made to fit, forcing the rest to fit, and reflexively attacking disagreement. Most of Y2K Pro's "contribution" consisted of heaping scorn, as you say, on such an approach, perhaps as understandable reaction to the reflexive attacks.

I've been pointing out for a long time that this approach rules out any useful understanding of where such conclusions came from, effectively prevents modification of such conclusions in light of (deliberately rejected) conflicting evidence, and therefore largely guarantees that such conclusions are not only incorrect, but *stay* incorrect.

What I admit I have been VERY slow to learn is that my own personal goal of maximizing my understanding and getting things as nearly correct as I can, is a LOW PRIORITY to the Faithful. Maybe a better word is "irrelevant"? It took me a while to figure out that when these people spoke of how they "Get It", they were NOT talking about the tedious process of gathering data, weighing and measuring, adjusting and correcting, evaluating and rejecting as many different hypotheses as they could dream up, in an effort to find a scenario that was the "best fit" to all available information, and improving that "fit" as data became available or as events showed the reliability of various sources to be better or worse.

Instead, I've come to realize that you "Get It" in a burst of Divine Inspiration. This isn't an act of slogging effort, it's an act of *Conversion* to the Faith. What seems to characterize the "Get Its" is a *will to believe*, the very opposite of a willingness to doubt. These people have Seen the Light and have the Truth, and the concept of developing a reasonable approximation, hopefully good enough to be useful, is foreign.

(As an illustration, look at the discussions of the fractional reserve system. The argument goes: [pro]: We've had this system for 86 years and it has worked well. [con]: The fractional reserve system is WRONG. [pro]: Well, it has strengths and weaknesses, but the strengths in practice have exceeded the weaknesses. [con]: the fractional reserve system is WRONG. [pro]: We've been making incremental efforts to improve the system, augmenting the strengths and addressing the weaknesses. [con]: the fractional reserve system is WRONG. Just how much communication is happening here, do you suppose?)

This is why I and others have called the "Get It" mentality essentially religious in nature. This mentality does not seem to deal in degrees, nor think in terms of graphs and trends, nor handle concepts of "acceptable" or "manageable" or "close". Instead, it views the world in terms of Right and Wrong. You can probably find a thousand cases in the TB2K archives of people rejecting compliance declarations as being "lies" or equivalent. But I defy you to find any single example of a "Get It" wondering just *how* compliant such an organization might be, and whether it might be good enough.

Tellingly, you describe your own reaction to such statements as "disbelief". This is a term of outright rejection, very different from a reaction of "doubt, to be investigated and integrated into the whole picture". The "Get It" mentality never derived the Big Picture from all of the disparate indications. They *started* with their Divinely Inspired Big Picture, and derived the "credible" facts to match, interpreted as necessary as opposed to as most reasonable or likely.

I think Y2K Pro decided on the futility of "discourse" with such people, and chose to mock rather than examine. Since examination never seemed to have much effect, maybe he was right -- except that eventually only Doomers were allowed to mock, and Polly mockers were censored away. Which was of course yet another example of the refusal to credit disagreement so characteristic of the "Get It" viewpoint.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

Bill:

I don't mind confessing that I'm feeling a bit frustrated at the moment. I've been searching the TB2000 archives for the specific post wherein Cory stated that 50,000 mainframes would be affected by a particular APAR released by IBM late last year. *I* engaged in the thread on the topic, Flint engaged in the thread, Cory chimed in, and even sent in a poster from csy2k to put in his $0.02. I've explored the TB2000 archives using Computers, Technogeeks, Technology, and even spent 45 minutes yesterday reviewing the Awareness/General topics. I didn't find it.

I'm not really frustrated because I didn't find it. I'm frustrated that I made the accusation and now struggle to back it up. You said that you followed csy2k for a time in 1997. Where were you in 1998 and 1999?

I suspect what I'm "feeling" is the same sortof feeling that Flint has encountered in another thread with Eve. YOU were an "old" [not chronologically, but time-wise] follower, and Eve is a "new" [not chronologically, but time-wise] follower, and yet Flint and I [who followed Y2k on csy2k as well as TB2000 since perhaps 1997] are NOW asked to back up statements made, and by golly, we do our best to comply.

As I saw this forum moving along without one lick of interest in the aftermath of Y2k this morning, I had to ask myself why I would continue in this pursuit for the benefit of one person. Cory is freely posting to TB2000 as much as he's freely posting to csy2k. HE's not concerned that he was wrong about his Y2k predictions.

If YOU were truly concerned about what *I* said, or Eve were truly concerned about what FLINT said, I would think both of YOU would be searching the archives of both TB2000 and csy2k. Flint and I were there at the time. We already DID our time on Y2k.....from here to there and back again.

The bottom line, Bill, is that I'm going to drop the effort. Whoever started the threads could have categorized them as ANYTHING and I'm unwilling to spend more time searching. I've given you enough clues to do a search on csy2k if you care to spend YOUR time. IBM...APARS...Cory. They won't contain the responses from IBM's site that were included on TB2000, but the search engine is certainly more forgiving.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

Flint said, "Instead, I've come to realize that you "Get It" in a burst of Divine Inspiration. This isn't an act of slogging effort, it's an act of *Conversion* to the Faith. What seems to characterize the "Get Its" is a *will to believe*, the very opposite of a willingness to doubt. These people have Seen the Light and have the Truth, and the concept of developing a reasonable approximation, hopefully good enough to be useful, is foreign."

Flint, I believe that at least in my case this is a mis- characterization. I believe that the "Get Its" were willing to accept the possibility that things could go bad, and were willing to doubt the usefullness of statements like, "We feel real sure that everything is going to be just hunky-dory," regardless of who made them. In short, there seem to have been four types:

the doomer that was given no credible (to him) information that things would not be bad,

the doomer that was given credible (to him) information that converted him to a polly,

the polly that was given no credible (to him) information that things would be bad, and

the polly that was given credible (to him) information that things could be bad.

The first and fourth of these probably prepared. the second might have prepared. The third not only didn't prepare, but couldn't understand why anyone else would prepare.

I think I belong in the first group. From what I've read of your posts, I'd put you in the second group. Most of the "pollys" seem to fall into the third group.

I will grant you that some of the posters seemed to cling to thier positions with a religous zeal, but I don't believe that applied to most of the doomers except when they were engaging in hyperbole to try to dislodge those in the third group from their complacence.

George

-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), March 01, 2000.

Anita,

Is this the thread you were looking for:

Uncategorized:

IBM Patches and Bank Compliance

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

System down, a little time to kill, tryin' to be hepful...

-- RC (randyxpher@aol.com), March 01, 2000.

Hi Bill,

I haven't yet read much of this thread (it does look interesting upon skimming), but I did notice that my name came up vis-a-vis Flint's.

Because of this, to the extent anyone's interested, I invite y'all to read Flint's recent "Response to BB..." thread, in which he and I have a very long conversation. I thought it was interesting, as it examined in some depth many of the differences in our positions.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

Randy:

I can't thank you enough. Permit me to attempt a hot-link here for Bill:

The link I'd been talking about, provided by Randy

In addition, there was the nonsense about parallel-testing being REQUIRED. I believe Cory's sensationalist remarks included "having their balls to the walls." On Parallel Testing

Thanks again, Randy. I REALLY felt frustrated in my search of TB2000 threads. If Bill chooses to search further on csy2k, he might see how Cory posted approximately 10 times to the IBM newsgroups. Cory's concentration was on the csy2k newsgroup, where he KNEW there were few folks who could contradict him.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

FLINT:

We're making more progress, Flintstone -- agreeing quite a bit. So I'll focus more on stuff which, if things go right, will be good 'jump-off' points.

.....The Heart of Denial. ...... As I never seem to tire of saying, the *process* of defending a "faith conclusion" consists of tuning out everything that can't be made to fit, forcing the rest to fit, and reflexively attacking disagreement. .......I've been pointing out for a long time that this approach rules out any useful understanding of where such conclusions came from, effectively prevents modification of such conclusions in light of (deliberately rejected) conflicting evidence, and therefore largely guarantees that such conclusions are not only incorrect, but *stay* incorrect.

Or as my old friend Jonathan Swift said, "You can't reason someone OUT OF something he was never reasoned INTO."

......It took me a while to figure out that when these people spoke of how they "Get It", they were NOT talking about the tedious process of gathering data, weighing and measuring, adjusting and correcting, evaluating and rejecting as many different hypotheses as they could dream up, in an effort to find a scenario that was the "best fit" to all available information, and improving that "fit" as data became available or as events showed the reliability of various sources to be better or worse.

Accurate assessment in the majority of cases I believe. Added to that barrier to the Truth was that for most forum members the time and energy necessary for such an effort was out of the question. Further added to that was the skewing of the public reports, the "legalese skewing" of the data that Pro detailed above. But on to a restatement by you of the "faith factor," valid in many cases:

Instead, I've come to realize that you "Get It" in a burst of Divine Inspiration. This isn't an act of slogging effort, it's an act of *Conversion* to the Faith. What seems to characterize the "Get Its" is a *will to believe*, the very opposite of a willingness to doubt. These people have Seen the Light and have the Truth, and the concept of developing a reasonable approximation, hopefully good enough to be useful, is foreign.

I believe you've got hold of an important part of the reality of our forum. It doesn't hold for all the participants -- and that's a result of your generalization. There is a need to set up categories of doomers, just like I did with the pollies. That's coming in Round Three.

.......This is why I and others have called the "Get It" mentality essentially religious in nature. This mentality does not seem to deal in degrees, nor think in terms of graphs and trends, nor handle concepts of "acceptable" or "manageable" or "close". Instead, it views the world in terms of Right and Wrong. You can probably find a thousand cases in the TB2K archives of people rejecting compliance declarations as being "lies" or equivalent. But I defy you to find any single example of a "Get It" wondering just *how* compliant such an organization might be, and whether it might be good enough.

Again you describe a large cohort of the forum doomer population, in the inability to switch from 'qualitative' to 'quantitative' mode (from 'black vs white' to 'shades of gray.') But again some of your argument loses force because your generalization is too sweeping. We need categories that will differentiate the degrees of denial/faith that was operative. While waiting for Round Three a poster further down the thread, George Valentine, does a good job on that score.

ANITA:

I appreciate very much your effort to document, even tho you couldn't come up with the data. TB2K is SO FRUSTRATING in not having a search engine -- I too have spent much more time looking for old posts than I should have. But relax, I've already had a change of heart about whether/where Cory 'went wrong' as a result of Flint's and especially Y2KPro's posts. I don't think I any longer need the detailed documentation you were referring to. I do remember some of the brouhaha surrounding the APAR release in late '99, but I didn't keep tracking it to read IBM's answers ---- too busy with my preps feverishly preparing for major calamity. (What a GREAT excuse!)

(Just as a final note, and almost an aside, I think I misread your original post. I thought you were saying that Cory had put up some code in a post that was actually flawed, in error. It was that that threw me for a loop --- he couldn't have gotten away with it, & it would have been plastered all over the ng's and bb's. So chalk up an inter-human miscommunication on my part. It's the first one I've ever made.)

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), March 01, 2000.

Aargh!

LOL. Randy found it and *I* spent two days SEARCHING for it, and all along Bill REMEMBERED it, but "didn't take the time". Okay! Priorities ARE priorieties!

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

Bill:

First, I apologize for the extra 'e' in priorities. Second: Have you EVER read anything that would lead you to conclude that Cory was actually working on Y2k FIRST-HAND? [code-wise or otherwise?] Just a question there...not an accusation. Selling lights or the Crouch- Echlin "solution" doesn't count.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

RANDY:

First of all a great big acknowledgement that you too are on that short list of reporters that have set me straight on Cory's role in the Affaire Y2Ke. Second, tnx much for the pointer to Anita to get that hotlink to me.

ANITA:

Tnx for the hot links. Examined the entire thread of that first link. Do remember reading a good bit of it originally. But at the time 'my eyes were glazed over' -- I'm sure it was a viral infection of some kind.

Yep, picked up on the differential between IBM's 500+ to 1000+ and Cory's 50,000; that would be two orders of magnitude difference in the first case. You convinced me.

THAT LADY IN THE GARDEN:

Tnx Eve for the pointer to the BB thread. Am weary of 'discussions' right now but may be able to catch it later.

Bill

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), March 01, 2000.

ANITA:

In answer to your question, my first statement is that I'm old enough to always be able to pull the excuse of Alzheimer's. Second, I I remember Cory referring to various 'jobs' he was on. I assumed they were remediation jobs. And I'm the first human in captivity who has "never in his life made a mistake as a result of ANY of his assumptions."

100 Per Cent Perfect Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), March 01, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

In various posts on this thread, Flint said: eventually only Doomers allowed to mock, and Polly mockers were censored away. My impression is that the only people who have been banned are ones who persisted in posting the same material multiple times, after being asked to stop.

Flint: Yet if you go back and read the TB2K reactions, you'll find that these were NOT satisfactory. After all, they were performed by government agencies, and everyone knows the government lies all the time about everything.EXCEPT, of course, all negative statements from the GAO. Then, suddenly, a government agency miraculously became both independent and certified, and therefore satisfactory. Isn't that amazing?  The *nature and quality* of the independence or certification ONLY became an issue when problems were NOT found.

Flip Flops on Trustworthiness

Flint: Good Grief! *Because* nothing happened, indications that nothing (or very little) *would* happen HAD to be both abundant and solid.

There were plenty of indications that things probably wouldn't be too bad, but little evidence that it was impossible for things to go very wrong, for whatever reason. There was some evidence that things COULD go south. What DID happen says little about what COULD have happened, except for those people who claimed that there was a 100% chance of immediate TEOTWAWKI.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), March 01, 2000.

Dancr:

I hate to muck up Bill's wonderful thread. But briefly:

[My impression is that the only people who have been banned are ones who persisted in posting the same material multiple times, after being asked to stop.]

Yes, we have a policy difference. I condemn attempts to deny service or to spam. But I believe single, thoughtful and topical posts made by *anybody* should be allowed in, and I don't give a damn *what* that poster had done in the past. Just because someone has a criminal record doesn't make LEGAL behavior criminal. I regard the censoring of LEGAL and proper posts to be petty vindictiveness.

[There were plenty of indications that things probably wouldn't be too bad, but little evidence that it was impossible for things to go very wrong, for whatever reason.]

Quite so! Logically, there can NEVER be evidence that something is impossible. Just very highly unlikely.

[There was some evidence that things COULD go south. What DID happen says little about what COULD have happened, except for those people who claimed that there was a 100% chance of immediate TEOTWAWKI.]

This formulation relies again on logical singularities -- on 100% chances, and impossibilities. But what DID happen, by definition HAD to match the evidence for what WOULD happen, properly interpreted. I agree entirely that *some* problem or another couldn't be ruled out. Given the level of uncertainty, it seemed likely to me that more would go wrong than actually did. I'm trying to address exaggeration and inflated expectations, not some choice between all-or-nothing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

ATTENTION:

Since this forum will close down shortly, please go to the new TimeBomb2000 forum to follow this thread, and (eventually) 'Round Three' and maybe 'Round Four.'

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), March 02, 2000.

ATTENTION #2:

I will not be tracking this thread at the above hotlink, but rather at the one below:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=TB2K%20 spinoff%20uncensored.

Bill

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), March 04, 2000.