I was on my way to the post office to pick up my case of free M&M's, (sent to me because I forwarded their e-mail to five other people, celebrating the fact that the year 2000 is "MM" in Roman numerals), when I ran into a friend whose neighbor, a young man, was home recovering from having been served a rat in his bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken - which is predictable, since as everyone knows, there's no actual chicken in Kentucky Fried Chicken, which is why the government made them change their name to KFC. Anyway, one day this guy went to sleep and when he awoke he was in his bathtub and it was full of ice and he was sore all over and when he got out of the tub he realized that HIS KIDNEYS HAD BEEN STOLEN. He saw a note on his mirror that said "Call 911!" but he was afraid to use his phone because it was connected to his computer, and there was a virus on his computer that would destroy his hard drive if he opened e-mail entitled "Join the crew!" He knew it wasn't a hoax because he himself was a computer programmer who was working on software to prevent a global disaster in which all the computers get together and distribute the $250.00 Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe under the leadership of Bill Gates. (It's true - I read it all last week in a mass e-mail from BILL GATES HIMSELF, who was also promising me a free Disney World vacation and $5,000 if I would forward the e-mail to everyone I know.) The poor man then tried to call 911 from a pay phone to report his missing kidneys, but a voice on the line first asked him to press #90, which unwittingly gave the bandit full access to the phone line at the guy's expense. Realizing his error he started to get a horrible migrane, luckily he was only a few blocks from the hospital - the one where that little boy who is dying of cancer is, the one whose last wish is for everyone in the world to send him an e-mail and the American Cancer Society has agreed to pay him a nickel for every e-mail he receives. I sent him two e-mails and one of them was a bunch of x's and o's in the shape of an angel (if you get it and forward it to more than 10 people, you will have good luck but for 10 people you will only have OK luck and if you send it to fewer than 10 people you will have BAD LUCK FOR SEVEN YEARS). So anyway the poor guy tried to drive himself to the hospital, but on the way he noticed another car driving without its lights on. To be helpful, he flashed his lights at him and was promptly shot as part of a gang initiation. Send THIS to all the friends who send you their junk mail and you will receive 4 green m&ms, but if you don't the owner of Proctor and Gamble will report you to his Satanist friends and you will have more bad luck: you will get cancer from the Sodium Laureth Sulfate in your shampoo, your wife will develop breast cancer from using the antiperspirant which clogs the pores under your arms, and the government will put a tax on your e-mails forever.

I know this is all true 'cause I read it on the Internet.

(Author unknown)

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 23, 2000

Answers

Thanks, Buddy. I hope your friend has enough money to pay for the hospital bill. If not, I happen to know that a guy named Dave Rhodes can let you in on the secret of how to MAKE MONEY FAST.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 23, 2000.

After reading the first four lines, I was laughing so hard I couldn't see. Are you sure you didn't find this on EZ Board? Sounds like their style.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 23, 2000.

These examples are all cute, of course, but if this post is supposed to have something to do with Y2k, then it raises some hard questions that few would be willing to answer. Did Y2k actually need to be fixed, or was it a hoax?

When should the average citizen have been able to know with certainty that Y2k would turn out to be something less than TEOTWAWKI? Next, when should the average citizen have been able to know with certainty that not only would Y2k not mean TEOTWAWKI, but that it would not even be something in between a bump in the road and TEOTWAWKI?

I think the many of the original concerns about Y2k were reasonable because of how little was known early on. This is about more than just 'a rumor.' It's also about why, for example, governments and businesses could not make clear statements that they were Y2k compliant -- and about whether it was silly for families to imitate governments and businesses and have their own Y2k contingency plans.

-- Y2k was too complex to simply call (it@a.rumor), March 23, 2000.

Hmmmmm...I detect some animosity coming from some anonymous poster. Is there something in my past posts that is setting you off? Maybe I can answer some of the points you've brought up.

Did Y2k actually need to be fixed, or was it a hoax? Y2K needed to be fixed, but many of the Y2K-related rumors were either hoaxes and/or speculation.

When should the average citizen have been able to know with certainty that Y2k would turn out to be something less than TEOTWAWKI?

The "average citizen" wasn't concerned that Y2K might be TEOTWAWKI, nor should they have been. The "average citizen" received many assurances from utilities, banks, and the govt. that things would work out, and it seems that the "average citizen" believed those assurances.

Next, when should the average citizen have been able to know with certainty that not only would Y2k not mean TEOTWAWKI, but that it would not even be something in between a bump in the road and TEOTWAWKI?

Again, it seems that the "average citizen" was not too concerned about it being even as much as a bump in the road. Should they have been? No, not according to the experts that most people listened too. And being a Y2K advocate doesn't make one a Y2K expert.

I think the many of the original concerns about Y2k were reasonable because of how little was known early on. This is about more than just 'a rumor.' It's also about why, for example, governments and businesses could not make clear statements that they were Y2k compliant -- and about whether it was silly for families to imitate governments and businesses and have their own Y2k contingency plans.

I can't argue with you there, except to say that Y2K became more than just "a rumor". Y2K ended up being many rumors, and many of those were not based on facts.

As far as families having contingency plans, I've always advocated emergency preparation based on FEMA/Red Cross guidelines. Of course, many people don't follow those even though they live where natural disaster threats are real and occur fairly frequently.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 23, 2000.

BTW, no it was not really supposed to be about Y2K per se, although many of the rumors associated with Y2K were similar to these and are worth poking fun at. I received this in an e-mail. It was just supposed to be funny. I thought it was.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 23, 2000.

You missed the point, Buddy, about 'the average person.' True, your average citizen was not concerned about Y2k. A lot of vague but reassuring comments were made during 1999 about Y2k.

What I was talking about were those average citizens who decided they needed to learn more about Y2k and decided to do some research on it. Those people found a disturbing lack of hard evidence about Y2k compliance and instead saw many press releases about 'readiness' or about new, projected finish dates when previous finish dates for Y2k projects were missed.

It did become clear sometime during the first half of 1999 that Y2k wouldn't be TEOTWAWKI, at least for the U.S. But even in the U.S., the good news about electricity in the middle of 1999 was tempered by other reports that showed there was still a lot of unfinished Y2k work ahead. If it was like in the U.S., it was logical to ask what the year 2000 would mean for countries like China and Russia who play a major role in world events.

The point is, it wasn't just mere rumors that led to Y2k concerns. If it was true that there was plenty of evidence out there in late 1999 indicating that Y2k would only be a bump in the road and not something in between bump in the road and TEOTWAWKI, the government and the business community did a poor job of providing the hard evidence that demonstrated that. Press releases, yes. Statements of Y2k compliance, no.

-- Y2k was too complex to simply call (it@a.rumor), March 24, 2000.

Experts Puzzled by Scarcity of Y2K Failures

-- (y2k@history.buff), March 24, 2000.

Interesting article.

"But the simplest if most embarrassing explanation is that the some public and private analysts who testified before Congress and were widely quoted overestimated the world's dependence on computer technology."

Many of the most vocal alarmists really had no hands-on Y2K experience. They were simply observers who tried to extrapolate from data that was incomplete. A large part of the reason they couldn't get complete data was that they weren't privy to inside information. I'd say that all of the folks who focused on possible effects on the "average citizen" and advocated extensive preparation (beyond emergency preparation and contingency plans) fall into that category.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 24, 2000.

A large part of the reason they couldn't get complete data was that they weren't privy to inside information.

Exactly! If this inside info was truly that optimistic, then what should have been done is to make this 'inside information' public. It's unfortunate that feel-good press releases were far more common in 1999 than reports of Y2k compliance.

-- Y2k was too complex to simply call (it@a.rumor), March 25, 2000.