The other thread boasts of posts who say they saw testimony after testimony of industry who said "there would be no problem". Do I live in a different sphere?. or time frame? I read as many testimonies as two years and search engines could find. I read them all, as unsure. What a lot of baffons they were, to testify before Congress, and lie. I was certainly not an expert in there area, I relied on their expertise, in a distant way. I read two years worth of them saying there would be problems. Where does anyone else come up with saying the testimony they saw, said everything was peachy-keen? I never saw it! What I read was "they could not guarantee, and there could be problems". If any industry put out a "peachy keen" report, I never found it except in some form of cowardly language of a corporation seeking to distance it self from a prospective law suit. Did no one have the guts to make a declaration? Not that I ever witnessed. Most serious preparation? One wood burning stove. Funniest preparation? Five harmonicas. Conviction remaining? I may never know why I was led down this path. But it is certainly an adventure. More thought provoking than the nightly tele. Night All...

-- The other thread (was@too.long), April 12, 2000

Answers

Me too. good points.

-- Pedro (Preparadopara@elfindelmundo.com), April 12, 2000.

other:

I guess we're living in different worlds. Every bank in the city I live in sent compliance notices to all their customers saying they were ready and anticipated no serious problems. The local utility did the same, including their test results, both power and water. Even Yourdon has pointed out that this was standard practice nationwide. Whether you chose to believe all this happytalk PR was another story. But it WAS issued.

You're right that nobody could prove a negative, that there would be NO problems. You're right that date bugs were rampant and we had NO chance to eradicate them all. But the FDIC bank audits results were published in general terms (specific detailed audit results are confidential). Interbank testing was published and successful. Ditto with Wall Street testing, international settlements testing, clock- ahead testing at major generating facilities nationwide. The Federal Government kept people posted, and ended at 99% compliant. Whatever that meant wasn't quite defined, but you know many tests were conducted successfully. NERC ended up stating that they hadn't found a single date bug that would have tripped a plant. Anywhere.

When GM and Chrysler first tested, they found (in their own words) "catastrophic" problems. This report was repeated like a mantra. When they came back a year later (mid 1999) and reported that those problems had been identified, fixed and tested, the TB2K crowd refused to believe it, but they DID report it.

On the deJager site, the news clippings room was linking to an average of about 3 declarations of substantial compliance per day. But I agree most companies (like my own employer) made no press release. They did their remediation and testing and went on their way. It was just another maintenance project, not considered newsworthy since we don't sell through retail channels.

And I'd be amazed if there weren't tens of millions of date bugs that were never found or fixed wrong, that needed to be repaired on failure. Geeks in many places worked very long days for the first month of this year putting out little fires. I'd expect date bugs are still cropping up and will for years to come. But all together these didn't add up to serious impacts for a single organization, much less for the economy as a whole.

Guarantees of no problems aren't feasible in this imperfect and lawyer-ridden world. But positive results of fairly comprehensive testing were plentiful.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 12, 2000.

Flint, I appreciate your human skin, logical response.

-- The other thread (was@too.long), April 12, 2000.

Other,

If the other thread is too long, then you will probably have missed my comments to Helen on this very topic.

You are quite correct when you comment What I read was "they could not guarantee, and there could be problems". But what you have failed to consider is that they could not guarantee that there would be problems either.

I can't accurately comment on any remediation efforts outside the power industry, however within that industry we were very confident that generation would not be affected. All of our assesments and tests failed to find a single item that would cause a loss of generation. Within our own company we did find one system that could have caused a loss of generation within a single power station under a single set of circumstances, however that set of circumstances would only exist during or imediately following a generator start, and would have lasted for less than one minute. It would not affect any plant on-line and running at a steady load. The station was an old one and has since been de-commissioned.

So I, and others, (Factfinder, The Engineer, Dan the Power Man, CL, etc) did report that the power industry was OK. For our troubles we were flamed, we were told that we had tunnel vision, we were told that we couldn't connect the dots and where was our fuel comming from. We were asked where we were going to get our workers from when the banks failed and the power companies couldn't pay the wages. etc etc.

I saw reports from people in other industries saying that they were OK, but that when power went down that they couldn't continue.

Lots of reports from people saying that their industry was OK, but no-one was prepared to guarantee anything. But also, no-one was prepared to guarantee that there would be failures either.

Our power company is the second largest in New Zealand, and like all the other large companies we are connected to the national control center via a dispatch computer. If the national control center sent a signal to shut down all generators simultaneously, NZ would go black. No-one can guarantee that such a signal will not be sent at midday tomorrow. Using your logic that would mean that by 12:01 tomorrow NZ will be without power. Can you now see the flaw in that logic?

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 12, 2000.

I find something very puzzleing.... Flint, if you knew that there would be no problems, if you knew all the reports from big biz and the .gov were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.... why the hell did you prep?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

The real key here was to observe actual rollovers that occured before January 1. The airlines were able to take reservations into 2000, the federal and state governments were able to rollover to the 2000 fiscal year in July, the stock market tests were successful and the GPS system rolled over without substantial problems. That should have given you a clue as to the severity of what was likely to happen at the CDC.

Luckily, I didn't discover TB2000 until after January 1 but I've read a lot of the archived messages. As Malcolm stated, he and a lot of others tried to tell everyone who would listen that there weren't going to be big problems and they were constantly abused for their efforts. I simply would have stopped posting rather than take that kind of abuse. You all owe a debt of gratitude to those who persevered in trying to get out out a realistic message about Y2K.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Jim, as a Polly come lately, no one would expect you to understand what happened last year.... altho CPR, Decker, and Flint would like you to believe that there was all kinds of evidence that it would be a BITR... THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT !!!

All you have to do is look at what the worlds major corps, and .govs did and spent... that tells the story... the rest is just ego strokeing... and CPR, Decker, and flint are masters at it :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

Netghost:

It wasn't hard to become a Polly after January 1. At least, it wasn't hard for me....I guess it's a lot harder for you.

I actually did Y2K remediation work in the power industry for almost three years. I'm well aware of exactly what was going on, not only in our industry, but in a lot of other sectors that we impacted. There's nothing that anyone had say here to convince of something I knew was true because I lived it. I knew exactly what the probability of a major power problem was. I prepared for it by buying some extra lamp oil and one of those giant packs of flashlight batteries from Costco.

As Malcolm said, I'm not aware of anyone from our project that went out and bought a generator. Don't you think that if we new we weren't telling the public the truth and that we knew there were big problems ahead we would have been first in line at Home Depot?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Jim, I'm sure it wasn't hard to become a Polly after 1-1-2000.... congradulations :-)

However you didn't address why all those corps and .gov spent so many bucks on remediation and contingency plans... and why I should have known better... why I shouldn't have provided for MY Family.

Like I said... Polly come lately... or why you got lucky :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

Netghost:

Hold on. I'm not saying there was NEVER a problem. There would have been problems if some things weren't fixed - that's why the money was spent. I would never say that you don't have the right and obligation to protect your family. Assuming that you didn't drive the family into debt or cause a divorce, anything you did is up to you and your family.

Governments and corporations always have contingency plans. This time they were more visible than most. Since there was not 100% probability that no problem would occur, some contingency planning and command center made sense. This, however, was far different than a 100% probability of problems.

You never answered my question either:

Don't you think that if we knew we weren't telling the public the truth and that we knew there were big problems ahead we would have been first in line at Home Depot?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Don't you think that if we knew we weren't telling the public the truth and that we knew there were big problems ahead we would have been first in line at Home Depot?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

What the hell does that have to do with it?... like I'd know if you were stocking?... be real for a change... the common man/woman couldn't make an informed choise... the responcible ones prepared for the worse, and hoped for the best.... the pollys didn't have a clue, just a hope.

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

Jim... I'll try one more time... big biz spent millions.... .gov spent millions.... both made contingency plans that cost gobs.... funny that they didn't know that it would be a BITR like you did... do you conceited assholes GI Yet?... you got lucky !!!

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

Netghost,

I was and still am a polly. And despite what you say, I believe that I DID have a clue. I prepared for a possible short disruption, similar to an earthquake or a flood, but that is no more than what I would normally be prepared for anyway.

As it turned out Y2K had even less of an effect on normal life than even I could have imagined. I thought that at least one of the businesses that I deal with would have had some visible Y2K issue, but nothing.

There was more than enough information available for anyone to make an informed decision, but where the differences came was in the manner that each person chose to interpret the information given. Doomers appeared to assume that because there were no guarantees that the world wouldn't end, then it would be TEOTWAWKI. Poolies assuemed that there would be some issues, but that the effects would be minimal. It wasn't a matter of hope as you put it, it was more a matter of reading the information available and assessing the likely impact.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), April 13, 2000.

Netghost:

So, if we "conceited assholes" just got lucky does this mean that you "conceited assholes" just got unlucky?

Sorry, Netghost, but you're mad because things didn't turn out the way you thought they would. Calling me names won't change that.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Then why did big biz and gov spend so much?...... are you that much well informed that you knew what everyone else didn't?... are you that much smarter than anyone else in the world?

BULL SHIT !!!! hindsite is 20/20.. and you are playing it for all it's worth.... just an other bunch of liers...

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

NG --

they spent that much because they saw a need to. Maybe some overspent. But the same gov's and biz's that did all that spending, also said, by and large, "we've got a handle on it". Guess you missed that last part.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 13, 2000.

Intel has revenues in the neighborhood of $27 BILLION dollars. How much have they spent on this CRISIS that supposedly is Y2k? $180 MILLION, or.06% as a percentage of current operating revenues. What depth of sheer stupidity is required to think a well educated group of people would risk a company with a market capitalization of $250 billion by spending less than ONE PERCENT of current revenues on a thing the mental giants at TB2000 think is a global catastrophe coming in less than 3 months? If this is not evidence of a mind-virus, mental illness, or sheer unwillingness to do base thinking, someone please share. Maybe I am wrong about the memes, maybe most of these doom- nuts are just plain dumb. Sorry, if you are this stupid, you deserve to be stripped by the likes of Gary North, Ed Yourdon and the other goons of this Y2k circus. Is this typical, this spending pattern? YES very as I have posted on before ad nausem.

Is that what you mean by spending a wad NG? Maybe time you accepted the fact you really are not as informed or as smart as you think you are. If you were so wrong on Y2k, what else are you misinformed about?

Bottom-line is, y2k was yet another example of how some really LAME people play on common fears, hatreds, biases, and many latent misconceptions to control YOU(intentionally or not). If it wasn't Gary North, it was Bill Bennett, or CNN. They all do-it, cause many like it and need it to excuse away their lack of effort to even uncover the simplest of truths(they be the Sheeple).

One (honest)look at the ACTUAL spending in the grand scheme of things, showed Y2k was not even close to the supposed risk assumed. If you still cannot SEE what the figures in the above posting from Debunkers is pointing to, and what they mean, you will be what is called a Sheeple. A person unable to understand fully. One who will curse the very source of their information one day, and quote with glee the next. To believe Y2k was the hype, one had to believe the "other" 99.9% of the folks around were on a death-wish and wanted collapse. This alone should have been clue one as to the validity of the supposed truth about a simple dating issue in IT infrastructures spewed by the profiteers.

-- Attack-Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), April 13, 2000.

Yes, Netghost's key argument evaporates once put into perspective. She seems to be comparing corporate budgets with her own income, making those budgets look real real big. Millions of dollars! Golly!

I recall reading that not one organization on earth spent as much as 20% of their normal *IT* budget on y2k in any one year. The $8.6 billion spent by the federal government is, what, less than a single week's worth of normal federal spending. It's entirely true that in comparison to operating expenses, remediation and contingency planning expenses were a drop in the bucket. And I did point out several times last year that the doomies were always *very* careful NOT to provide this perspective, since these expenses looked very big to very small people otherwise.

Ironically, whenever I pointed out what a trivial *relative* expense this was, this observation was used as "proof" that organizations didn't "get it" and were therefore doomed. *Without* the context necessary for the amounts to be seen as very small, they looked very large, which in turn was used as "proof" that the problem was very large! Heads I win, tails you lose. Netghost is still trapped in this loop, and will remain trapped so long as she's convinced anyone NOT trapped must be lying. Which is of course part of the same loop.

Malcolm's observation applied very generally through all those 10K adn 10Q reports, wherein companies were required by SEC to provide their likely worst case. Without exception, everyone's worst case was that the *other guy* would drop the ball. Even the TB2K programmers admitted *their* shop was in good shape, but of course this meant nothing since everyone else wasn't. And how did they know everyone else wasn't? Because they couldn't guarantee they were! Circular reasoning again.

As a footnote, to one of NG's sensible questions. I started preparing early in 1997, and was essentially finished a year later. At that time, the concerns were large and the results hadn't even begun to come in yet. After Jan 1,1999 and nothing happened, I began to consume my stockpile. Yourdon said the spike dates were good barometers of what rollover would bring, and he was entirely correct. Nothing much happened either time.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 13, 2000.

I'm not sure I can add much to what Cooke, Flint and Paulie have provided. My original essay, "Y2K and Risk," suggested the free market would resolve most Y2K problems. Self interest, it seems, is still a powerful motivating force.

Last year, the doomsayers were aware of public and private sector Y2K spending. This was attacked as "not enough," "too late," and discounted due to the "Dilbert" Principle. The handful of doomers with an IT background contended that all management was inept. I believe this was part of Yourdon's negative bias. The prevailing doomer theory was no matter how much money was spent, the idiot managers could find some way to foul things up. Yourdon (and others) also contended we could not defy the "law" of remediation. As Big Dog stated so eloquently, "We started too late" and "It's still the code, stupid."

When companies did make unequivocal statements, they were attacked as "liars" because everyone "knew" they could not defy the iron laws of remediation. In hindsight, the doomers created a closed loop where it was impossible to convince them of anything but the foregone conclusion.

I should add, any attempt to break this closed loop of logic was considered the activity of government shills.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 2000.

Hiya, Doc!

Come up for air?

Casper is just repeating the same arguments made prior to rollover. They didn't hold water then, and don't now.

Corporations and governments spending money on something does not make it a potential for TEOTWAWKI.

And we setup "warrooms" every time a new implementation goes online.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), April 13, 2000.

I'm with Jim Cooke on this one; I watched very closely all of the date sensitive rollovers-the first was the airline reservations thing, and then state governments, etc-Banks were calculating mortgages way into the 21st century, and the doom did not make sense to me in light of there being virtually no problems reported.

There is an old saying: "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time..". I think it goes something like that. It is this adage that I applied in the Y2K debate. I do not trust government, I do not trust Big Business, I do not trust the press, BUT it was impossible for industry and government to be so well coordinated as to hatch a sinister plot to hide TEOTWAWKI from the people.

Some one, somewhere, would have blown whistles. Jim often talks about how technological problems are transparent to most folk. THis is fine with me. If there had been real real problems they would have reached a threshhold where they could not be hidden.

I just think a little common sense went a long way for me. I prepped for two weeks-1 month. I think a month of prudent reserves is always smart-hey your company could go out of business tomorrow.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 13, 2000.

Malcolm,

Our local power company sent out a statement in December 1999. The statement was a reminder to read the instructions carefully on our generators so that we wouldn't fry the linemen WHEN we used them. Not one word was said about y2k compliance, readiness, remediation, etc. We're used to power outs on a regular basis and felt like we were well equipped to deal with it without a generator.

About those flat tires...could the intense heat have made otherwise decent tires more likely to go flat? It was a full 113 degrees. The road itself would fry an egg. The kids and I did that just to see if it would.

The y2k scare was a good thing, really. It never hurts to learn how to make it under adverse conditions, and there are a few more folk around now who can and probably will help out in a real emergency.

We didn't go into debt to prepare. We already live in the sticks where jobs are scarce. We're used to this lifestyle, which includes raising our own food and finding our own non-electric forms of fun. We offered our place to a number of people who were living in the city. It felt really good to be able to provide them with 'insurance', a backup plan. That's why I'm happy with our choices about y2k. For us it was a good thing.

-- helen (home@the.farm), April 13, 2000.

This says it all:

you got lucky !!! -- WetNose

Luck indeed! Just shows how truly ignorant you are of the ENTIRE CDC, sucker.

Just another ignorant who got CONNED and can't admit it! Wouldn't look at the evidence THEN, won't look at the evidence NOW.

Pity the small man.

-- Pity Da Fool (NoGood@no.yr), April 13, 2000.

Even though it's been said by others on the thread, I'll put my 2 cents worth. There was plenty of evidence that things would be fine but the doomers didn't want to see it. Eddie threw out the word interconnected and everyone believed that that proved we were doomed. Yet, Ed knew nothing of interconnected, he was just guessing and obviously guessing wrong. I'd go even further now and say that Ed's knows little about the IT world. I used to call him a professional; he doesn't deserve that title now. Doomers took it as gospel not looking behind the words.

I worked on Y2K remediation and anytime I had something to say, the doomers attacked like a pack of dogs. There was plenty of evidence but even two years of searching doomers only saw negative innuendo, no proof that anything bad would happen.

A perfect example of the blind acceptance of doom, Diane kept bringing up DoD articles that had little to nothing to do with Y2K. I tried to point out her misunderstanding of her connection but she continued saying I was wrong. I had years working in the DoD and then years working as a consultant to the DoD (more than twenty years altogether) but that experience didn't count for squat in a Doomer's eyes.

Maybe it find the answer to your question, you'll need to re-read those threads without the doomer glasses on.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 13, 2000.

BTW, Netghost, businesses and gov spent millions on remediation for mostly PR and legal reasons. With all the FUD, if things did go to court, they wanted to prove that they did all they could do including contingency planning to extracate that silly little bug.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 13, 2000.

"Wouldn't look at the evidence THEN, won't look at the evidence NOW."

Pity the fool, YOU are the small man. (But then again, Doc, you always were a small man.)

Why don't you just EXPLAIN what the evidence was instead belittling people and stop hiding behind your sheet in your posts?? You are making pre-rollover pollies look bad.

-- (I hate @ss.holes), April 13, 2000.

Helen:

One of the things we were concerned with is if large numbers of people did buy generators. If you don't have a transfer switch you can energize the lines the leave your house and kill linesmen working to restore power. I hope that you've got a transfer switch and have it properly installed.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

One of the problems was that while many of the industries said they were OK they werent sure about OTHER industries. I saw this time and time again when looking at various web pages. The Rail Roads would say they were OK but werent sure about power or telecommunications. The phone companies would say they were OK but werent sure about utilities or transportation. Then the power companies would say they were OK but werent sure about communications or transportation. And so on.

Re other guarantees . The power companies wont guarantee your power five minutes from now much less weeks or months in advance. Under normal circumstances there are no guarantees. When you buy a car you get a warrantee but no guarantee that it will always run no matter what. Surely you realize that any disruption would be seen by many as due to Y2K. In a country as litigious as the US any company, no matter what industry, would be nuts to offer any kind of absolute Y2k guarantee. What they did say was: We are OK and did our due diligence, but we arent sure about the other guy.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Jim, I DON'T have a generator. Don't need one. ;)

-- helen (home@the.farm), April 13, 2000.

Sorry, Helen, I misread your message and thought you did have a generator. Our utility sent out the same message about generators for the same reason as yours did - so the poor linemen wouldn't get zapped. We also sent out several Y2K updates as well.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Another day has passed, and I remembered something to tell which places the emphasis on another area besides internet info. Not only is information gained from these fonts, but also by the seemingly, accidental interaction of humans. To the point: Last year I was in the market for a travel trailer (hardened Y2K'ers might relate). I came across one parked, had sign with phone number, I assumed it was for sale. I called the number. The Gentleman was an elderly retired Admiral. He said "No, it wasn't for sale". His son, who was was a computer programmer was concerned about Y2K, and the son had bought the trailer for his Father and his Mother in case of 31 Dec roll over problems. His Son had already made (expensive)arrangements to place the (expensive) trailer at a secure place, to protect his parents. The elderly Admiral was not not lying to me. His age was beyond lying, he didn't understand it, he only knew ( and went along with the fact), his Son was trying to protect him. Again, I must state, this trial meant different things for each person. Call it a different Sphere, a Time Warp or whatever. You didn't experience everything others did, nor they, you. I think this is why we will/can never agree. Can we for once forget the name calling and the "I was smarter than you" finger pointing, and start comparing experiences on why we each chose what we did? I've shared my honest skin experience about the retired Admiral. A Pox, on my soul if I am lying about the experience.

-- The other thread (was@too.long), April 13, 2000.

The other thread boasts of posts who say they saw testimony after testimony of industry who said "there would be no problem". Do I live in a different sphere?. or time frame? I read as many testimonies as two years and search engines could find. I read them all, as unsure.

Oh give us a break with this nonsense "The other thread", there were hundreds of posts to TB2000 giving statements by industry that y2k was not going to be that significant as first "speculated", and many true experts told you tin foil hatters WHY y2k wasn't going to be catestrophic.

I posted dozens of posts with factual findings of my own (nuclear power y2k) and from other industry sources, here's one. Try reading it in a new light, i.e., this information was RIGHT about y2k.

Embedded Systems Revisited
-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 13, 2000.

Flint, have you gained back the 30 lbs. that you lost from Y2K worry?

"Adam, this is a really, really tough situation to deal with sensibly. It could be life and death, the consequences are totally unpredictable in any detail, the information we have available is of unguessable accuracy, and opinions are all over the map. The essence of pressure -- extremely important, very little you can do about it, and no certain knowledge of what's coming.

From what I've read, almost everyone has abandoned sense in favor of certainty. The vast majority just won't think about it and refuse to admit there's much of a problem. A growing minority is resigned to the end of the world (or seems to welcome it), and refuses to admit anything positive.

And the small number still agonizing over it, hanging on every new shred of dubious evidence, are often paralyzed to the point where they can't function effectively. I know I've lost 30 pounds since I got into this, no end in sight.

Other than that, everything is OK, I guess."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 12, 1999.

-- kepper (keeper@lock&keyy.com), April 12, 2000.

-- question (?????@??????.xcom), April 13, 2000.

He's only quessing!

-- guess who (guesswhoo@guesswhoo.xcom), April 13, 2000.

FUCK! Do you know what it takes to lose 30 lbs!!!!!????? I suppose if you've got troubles on your mind, your worrying enough to lose 30 lbs. Y2K was worrying Flint.

-- no need to worry (noneedtoworry@noneedto worrry.com), April 13, 2000.

Dear Embedded (?), my gathering of information was not confined to this forum, by any measure. I tried to find opposing opinions (pro and con) anywhere and every where, and boy did I find them. The bottom line was there seemed to be a possible risk. A possible risk, like my local river flooding. That is why I pay year after year for Flood Insurance. Chew on that for a bit. I am "REQUIRED" by law to protect the mortgage company, just in case of a very remote possibility. Remote, considering we have been in a drought status for the past 6 (?) years. The law requires I pay it because of a slight possibility, and because it has happened to others, somewhere, sometime. Go with me on this one. I did not feel reassured by the conflicting information, so I developed my own meager "Insurance Y2K Plan". After all, I too knew, a failed ecomony, a Nationwide Depression had happened to others who were born before my birth. Do you want me to scan you a Rationing Card from the 1940's? Talk about denial. The investors who jumped off buildings at the Stock Market Crash of the 20's, could not believe or accept anything/everything could change, in the blink (well, a few blinks) of an eye. But they did change. I think the Doomers (honest ones) looked this possibility square in the face, while total Pollies still thought de-nial was a river. I still believe this was a life lesson for each person. Each persons experience was unique to them. A "Life Lesson". if you will.

-- the other thread (was@too.long), April 14, 2000.

A fair response "The other", of course there was some risk in certain areas for y2k to cause problems, and I wouldn't knock you for taking actions you wanted, to each his own. I may have misunderstood your message in this thread, since earlier threads had more of a "no one really told us that y2k wasn't going to be a problem" flavor to it, of which you see I strongly object to ;)

Live long and prosper, lol :)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 14, 2000.