Attention please, we need to maintain credibilitygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
Paula Gordon does not think the Y2K issue is dead yet. She has raised the stakes to 5 by the end of March if certain scenerios play out. She has a web site where she lists other web sites to refer and watch because of the expertise posted by the people "in the trenches", and the combined referenced news stories of "glitches". Line them all up on one page, and it isn't a pretty sight. What will they see if they visit here or over at the "camp"?. Sure, we have some interesting information, but what opinion would you form if you saw several "nany nany, boo, boo" posts? I haven't seen her selling one dang thing. I personally believe (based on nothing but gut), there are enemies who pretend to be friends, they were there in WWII and Viet Nam. Before someone stands up and yells "LL from Hell!!!!". Let me assure you I am NOT! (don't I wish I were so computer literate?) I don't think most of the LL handles on the flaming posts were the real LL, (I've been around a loooog time, mostly remaining silent). Let us retain our credibility. If someone acts realllllly ugly, ignore the posts. Thanks SYSOPS er, SYSOP. P.S. Gas prices are going through the roof in my area, yet other areas are remaining stable, go figure. http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/
-- R-E-S-P-E-C-T (email@example.com), March 05, 2000
Thanks for linking to this invaluable update.
-- Squirrel Hunter (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 2000.
-- new slate (email@example.com), March 05, 2000.
-- a human being (firstname.lastname@example.org_that), March 05, 2000.
The stakes are always high if "certain scenerious play out." But, they won't. Don't worry about it.
The post Y2K-crash scenario is based on pasting together a large number of random events. It you believe that everyone in the world (except those on Y2K forums) is lying to you, then worry.
-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), March 05, 2000.
Yes, siree, you'd better worry.
-- Saint (Peter@the.Gate), March 05, 2000.
Where to now, St. Peter?
-- (email@example.com), March 05, 2000.
Nothing is ever for sure, look at how many people died in 1918 from the flu, 20 to 40 million. Weird it started at military bases, weird it spread, weird the war ended. weird they got people keeping ya going on Y2K
-- Flu by U (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 2000.
First, you can take all the known glitches from ANY 2-month period of time and line them all up, and it has always been ugly. Given the intensity with which such glitches are being examined, you'd expect a reporting bias to make the current list even worse -- as such a bias would do at any time. In the Big Picture, nobody is particularly inconvenienced and nothing whatever is systemic.
Second, as E.H.Porter has already said, one can postulate ANY arbitrary sequence of events. Determining the probability of such a sequence (as opposed to *implying* it will happen simply because it is articulated and other sequences are not) lies at the heart of the issue. Porter said it shorter and better.
Third, your statement that "I haven't seen her selling one dang thing" requires some examination. Not understanding embedded systems, Dr. Gordon made a Career Decision to hook her wagon to this issue. I believe she really expected a great deal to go wrong because in her educated opinion the issue was not receiving sufficient attention, and in her UNeducated opinion, it *deserved* that attention.
She may have been right about the former (she is a political person and knows the currents of power), but ran aground because the embedded systems experts were correct and the politicians were wrong. How was she to know that? She lacks the knowledge to judge expertise, and she was playing a gamble. However, do you know the proverb that if you have a tiger by the tail, you CANNOT let go?
Dr. Gordon knows that in politics (where she plays), one does NOT admit error. Ever. She really has no choice but to say "Oops, I was wrong", thus killing any possible future in her field, OR to keep beating this dead horse for all she's worth in the hopes of gulling someone equally ignorant into keeping her career funded for as long as possible.
In essence, she's a political job applicant. And just because a job applicant isn't selling a *product* doesn't mean that applicant isn't selling a "dang thing".
-- Flint (email@example.com), March 05, 2000.
Damn Flint, how poetic your voice of calm and reason places a balm on my raveged soul. I am still watching the gas prices. They are alarming. I, once upon a time, made minimum wage. Mercy, times were hard then. My heart feels , and is concerned with the waitress, the candle stick maker. Some of you Big Boys maybe should listen to a 70"s song, about the "Dark End of the Street".
-- R-E-S-P-E-C-T (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 05, 2000.
WE DONT NEED RPSCT!@ WE HV CPR!!! WGHT ELSE culd we need?!@ HE'S THE EXRPT ON EVRTHYNG!!!!! Gas percis a'rtnt going up CPR SAD THEYRE GoNG DWN! whooo culd dout it mwhn HE SYd IT!@!@!
-- RGHT ON!! (email@example.com), March 06, 2000.
I didn't see any update to any of Paula Gordon's previous papers on the linked web site. Has she written something new that I didn't see?
Assuming you have a few spare hours, it's instructive to wade through all of her white papers. She was probably the most consistently incorrect on the effects of embedded systems and Y2K of all the Y2K commentators. She seems like a nice person but she doesn't have the technical expertise to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff on embedds so she had to rely on others. She had a tendency to rely on people who weren't actually working in the field and so many of here conculsions were wrong. It's difficult for me to give much credibility to someone who has demonstated her lack of understanding for such a long period of time.
-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 06, 2000.