000313: Time for the Y2K post-mortem?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
It is truly heartening to see all the "shoot on sight" and "barbeque the pollies" doomers claiming that they are glad they wasted their time, money, and reputations on Y2k - really, it is. Regardless of my assessment of their integrity, surely some must be sharing how they truly feel.
However, I have yet to hear or read a clear enunciation of the facts sans pathetic excuses and redirected blame. All of the "retractions" contain a common thread of antipathy for those who, in hindsight and as a matter of history, were absolutely correct.
From 1997 to 1999, I was constantly reminded that I was and others were commenting prematurely - that the only people who truly understood the implications and ramifications of Y2k demonstrated their grasp of the subject by proclaiming (or preferring) enough doom to warrant at least some preparation (which they misleadingly termed "insurance"). I was further told I could not possibly know computers would not massively fail on 000101; and was assured as each "mini-doomer" date came and passed (uneventfully) that the big day was 000101. Lastly, I was firmly promised that, should they prove to be wrong, each and every leader of the doomers would step up and admit it.
Well, the time is past, the jig is up. I have read one honorable admission of error - from survivalist Will Richards. The rest have been riddled with as much vitriol and gibberish as anything they posted before the non-event. And there remains (apparently) lots of anger directed at those who proved correct. Along with a lot of misunderstanding and apparently what can best be described as an "unwillingness to get it." (Perhaps we who were correct might start using the acronym UTGI to describe these people)
Personally, I entered the debate in the Hysterium to offer an alternative to the prevalent meme. I wanted to prevent some of the very feelings of isolation and ostracision many are currently feeling. I know people who have dissociated themselves from civil and religious groups out of shame at their error, and this is precisely what I hoped to prevent.
I offered throughout the debate (against the assault on free expression by fascists): I have examined the facts, and they do not add up to catastrophy. I further offered that, ex post facto, no one would be able to tell me it was impossible to know, because I would be demonstrably correct at that time. As I am. Is this gloating? I think not - it is a recognition of the facts. As it was from the beginning.
And my certainty of and trust in the scientific method offended some who disagreed. So? Get over it. The healthy thing to do at this juncture is to find as many people as you offended and apologise. It will make you and them feel better about your relationship. Don't expect them to ever believe you if you tell (or anyone else tells) them the sky is falling again - that's unrealistic - but you can rebuild some.
If you fell for the meme, now is the time to walk away. You can grow as an individual and take these lessons with you into the rest of your life. You can share with others, if you so choose, how you were duped and learned from your mistake - all of these are normal and healthy responses to error, and everyone makes errors. There is little need to propitiate the idiocy that Y2k had any effect on society as we know it, for it clearly did not.
Is now the time for the Y2k post-mortem? I believe so. Dissect the ugliness of the lies, catastrophic hopes, and disillusionment yet remaining; face the demented who claim there is yet reason to fear; reject the meme - for it was all, in the end, wrong.
-- Andy Ray (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000
Pshaw, Andy Ray! Nanny nanny boo boo to you, too.
-- Ma Kettle (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
I love it. Notice that the title of this thread, and the dates contained in the text, are not Y2K compliant. Andy Ray never did, and never will, understand Y2K.
So how are your stocks doing, Andy? And what's your gasoline bill, and your heating oil bill these days? But none of this is Y2K related, is it? Just couldn't be, could it? After all, the lawyers would tell us the truth, wouldn't they, Andy? I sure hope so...
No, the world didn't end Andy. The power stayed on, and that was the big one. And I for one am happier than a pig in shit about it. But it's still a little early to call the game over. Just my humble opinion. <:)=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000.
I suspect you're on the wrong forum, Andy. SOME of us have been discussing Y2k post-mortem now for several WEEKS....beginning with Bill's 11.5 Doomer thread on the old forum. Did you READ the forum before you posted? Do you realize that this is a forum where Y2k pessimists and Y2k optimists come TOGETHER to discuss things?
-- Anita (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
Give me a break already! Yeah, we've all bought gas recently and it cost a couple of extra bucks to fill up. So what! Even if the entire price increase is totally y2k related (which I don't believe) that might get us up to a 0.01 on the scale-o-doom. As for the stocks, mine are doing just fine. The NASDAQ looks like it may give back a little of the 20% gain for the year, oh well. The DOW is suffering as nuch from lack of "sexiness" as additional cost of raw goods (read petroleum products). So this is what you've been "tick- tocking" over for the last couple of years?
-- Michael (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000.
As a last thought, I'd like to remind everyone that tomorrow is NATIONAL PI DAY. [If I have to explain that one, I'm on the wrong forum.]
-- Anita (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
And I for one am happier than a pig in shit about it.
Now there is a vision that I want to put on a poster and hang on my wall.
-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2000.
So we were right -- so what.
"I know people who have dissociated themselves from civil and religious groups out of shame at their error,."
So do I, and I think that's one of the biggest tragedies of Y2k. Hell, I fall into that category. There's a grocery store here I can never shop in again because I harped on the manager for so long to stock up, he thinks I'm insane. (I probably didn't say that right, but today I don't give a shit. I'm not even going to reread this post to see if I've spelled everything correctly.)
Andy, I'm glad to see you here. Isn't it wonderful we have a place where everyone can speak their mind? This is the only place in the world we can do that with people we've shared similar experiences with. Hell, I think I can even get comfortable with Sysman and old git eventually. Maybe by then, I can get the hell outta here.
I'm glad to see you back, Andy, really I am, but let's think about toning down the sermons a little bit (you and I both) Ok?
See ya around,
-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.
It's hard to suggest your post offers a reasonable starting point for analysis of Y2K. With the Y2K pessimists, I pointed out that it was much more than being "wrong." It was HOW they were wrong... militant, dogmatic and exclusionary. You may have been "right" about Y2K, but you are well advised to consider "how." The scientific method demands an objective approach... yet your post drips with hostility towards the Y2K pessimists. Is not the characterization of the old TB 2000 forum as the "Hysterium" rather subjective? Do you think any Y2K pessimist will read your posts and say, "Gosh, Andy Ray, now I see the light!" If you simply want to gloat (or rub the pessimists' noses in their error), I suggest you are simply engaging in the same kind of behavior that made the earlier Y2K problematic.
Your post is full of thinking errors. The style of dates in a text file do not provide any sort of base for evaluating a person Y2K knowledge. In general terms, one might argue those who were right about Y2K had a better understanding of the problem.
Let's move on to portfolio performance and resource costs. If you want to suggest there are Y2K linkages to equity prices or petroluem costs... I suggest you provide evidence. Without evidence, your assertion is no different than speculating that oil-sucking aliens are depleting our reserves. Oh, and I'm sure there's someone out there who stands ready to blame the aliens.
If you want to be taken seriously, "Sysman," than present a serious argument.
-- Ken Decker (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000.
fuck off decker
-- laura ((Ladylogic@...),), March 13, 2000.
Do you really have to use Laura's names. And do you really have to curse-ALL the time.
Grow up and try speaking like a man instead of a punk.
-- Sybil (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
In real life, people ignore you, don't they?,br>
I bet that is frustrating.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 13, 2000.
Notice that the title of this thread, and the dates contained in the text, are not Y2K compliant.
Wow, and I thought you knew what you were talking about, Sysman. Here is the BSI definition for Y2K Compliance:
Year 2000 compliance shall mean that neither performance nor functionality is affected by dates prior to, during, and after the year 2000.
In particular: Rule 1. No value for current date will cause any interruption in operation.
Rule 2. Date-based functionality must behave consistently for dates prior to, during and after year 2000.
Rule 3. In all interfaces and data storage, the century in any date must be specified either explicitly or by unambiguous algorithms or inferencing rules.
Rule 4. Year 2000 must be recognised as a leap year.
Now, let's see...Since we can read the post without any problems, rule 1 is satisfied. Since he consistently uses YYMMDD format to express dates, then rule 2 is satisfied. Since the date is only used in a text string to be read by humans and has no other purpose or intent, and since (most) humans can determine the century unambiguously from the context, then rule 3 is satisfied. And, rule 4 is not applicable here.
So, in your best engineerese, please point out the non-Y2K compliance inherent here.
-- My Full Name (My@email.address), March 13, 2000.
Nice to correspond with you again - always a pleasure.
I do not expect that some ten weeks into the non-event I am offering a reasonable (or unreasonable) starting point to anything. My characterisation of the Hysterium is accurate and subjective. Soon after discovering the nature of memetic zealots at the Hysterium, my personal focus wavered from pure scientific evidence (as logic had little effect on doomers, unless it was or could be twisted to support their conclusions) towards a more emotional approach. In the end, even this was rejected for "not toe- ing the memetic line," and my name was defamed, libeled, and victimised by the fascists (well, for a while, anyway...). As for being hostile, I must disagree - I do not think you appreciate dry humour (although it may, like sarcasm, be difficult for me to convey in print). I do not expect a doomer (or former doomer) to read anything I write (or wrote) and suddenly grasp some truth about their error. The doomers that are going to move on have done so, I believe. Only the disenfranchised remain - hoping for yet more and more bad news. What a sad existence. Which brings me to...
You were wrong and you need to find a method of dealing with it that doesn't shift the blame for your personal error away from yourself. This is the first step in any healing process - admitting your part. How any stocks are doing is really irrelevant in a volatile market (though mine have performed quite well to date); thank you for asking.
Bad things have happened in the past, and will happen in the future. Y2k has had and will have zero effect on society. Please deal with this fact.
I realise I'm not the first to bring the subject up, and apologise if I trespassed on some exclusive intellectual property...
-- Andy Ray (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 13, 2000.
Andy Ray, mon cher!
I read your words. It seems to me that you are suffering from the well-known problem of "bad hair", and you may not even be aware of it. It has been known to strike without warning!
The remedy is simple. First you must go soak your head. This may cleanse it of much of the irritating grit and nonsense that seemed to show up in your thoughts like dandruff on a collar. For example, the unwarranted assumption that every one you are addressing meets some set of criteria you assign to them. This only works when you are making speeches in your head.
>> I have yet to hear or read a clear enunciation of the facts sans pathetic excuses and redirected blame. <<
Happy to oblige. Here you go:
The fact is that January 1, 2000 passed without a sufficient number of Y2K-related computer problems to affect more than (at most) 0.1% of the population who do not work in IT. No disasters occured. No catastrophe was triggered. Life went on in its desired course, as it had before. I accept complete blame for my role in this outcome. I make no excuse for myself.
If you like, you may prepare a confession for me to sign. But the show trial had better be catered if you want me to show up.
There. Feel better?
If not, we can play this little game as many times as you like until you feel "vindicated" right down to your cute little (teal-colored?) toes. Far be it from me to demand satisfaction in the field of honor.
If this does not satisfy you, for the appropriate rate of pay, I can put on a Paul Milne mask and dance about with a pitchfork. I can pretend I am Ed Yourdon and wash your feet. For a little extra, I can squeal "meme!" repeatedly like a stuck pig. But touch my "generator" and you are dead meat, bucko!
Sorry if the humor isn't quite as "dry" as you might like, but this is the Internet, and you got to play to the balcony. Otherwise, if you underplay the curled lip business, they might mistake it for a sneer instead of an ironic commentary on the meme-struck.
-- Brian McLaughlin (email@example.com), March 13, 2000.
BWAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA hahahah HAHA hahah hahhaa HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAH ha
Brian, that was too funny!!!!
(Admit it, Andy. That was GOOD!!!)
-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.