I gave you a quick answer to your question. I'm a little busy now, but I will answer some other questions in that thread later, like Flint asking how I could have been so wrong.

I want to know why you feel the need to pick on me. I'm not the only one that misjudged Y2K.

You know Andy, I didn't have a problem with you when you first came to TB2000. If you remember, I took the time to answer many of your "stupid" survey questions.

My problem with you started when you were caught discussing how to "disrupt" TB2000 on another forum. You went too far with that crap. You are no better than the schmuck that wrote the ILOVEYOU virus.

Isn't that your real piont here, Andy? Aren't you just trying to get even, after you were embaressed?

Curious regards...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000

Answers

Sorry, someday I'll learn how to spell point and embarrassed. Just goes to show how mistakes are made when one is in a hurry...

Oh well, good excuse for "to the top"... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 08, 2000.

Sysman, if you saw a bunch of Klansmen gathering to burn a cross at someone's house...would you think it wrong to "disrupt" them? The only way society will ever become more humane is through the actions of the people who are willing to risk their lives (cyberlife, in Andy's case) to stop insanity from happening.

IMHO, you should be (ALL of you should be) e-mailing Andy twice a month to thank him for all of the aggravation and work he went to before the CDC.

You are the most ungrateful bunch of people I've ever met in my life.

-- (Th@nk you .Andy Ray), May 08, 2000.

Jesus loves you and so does Andy Ray. Oh thank you Andy Ray for shedding your cyberlove on your cybercross.

gagging regards,

Nemesis

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 09, 2000.

Well let's see here. (Incoherent ramblings from a former NC Doomer.)

Sysman's calling someone who was absolutely correct about Y2k "embarrassed". Um....that might just be a matter of the brontosaurus calling the flea "large".

I started out as a Doomer. A Gary North Doomer, to start with; then an Ed Yourdon Doomer. Dyed in the Wool. Sending e-mails to all my e-friends, many of whom were IRL friends; some of whom still look at me in a leery way because they're still not sure I've gotten over this "Y2k cultism" I tried to expose them to.

They never realized what an anti-Doomer I became.

Point is, Y2k was NEVER that big a threat. North knew it. Hyatt knew it. Yourdon knew it. Kappgun knew it. The profiteering idiots at Y2kNewsWire/Supply/Ripoff knew it. Elenburg, the Y2k Weatherman, woke up early and begged off.

Pseudo-intellectual pride became the thing. (see: Hamasaki's posts on CSY2k, and even lately)

The Doomers were too heavily invested, emotionally and intellectually, to admit they were wrong. All the facts were against them. Sysman, one of the poster boys ("tick-tock") made an absolute dolt of himself in direct discussions with *lil ol me* on at least two occasions, concerning Hurricane Floyd.

Yet none of the the Doomers would budge. Too heavily invested.

I'm not looking for a pound of flesh. I'm looking for a bit of honesty. Many "lesser" former Doomers have said, "OK, we were wrong". Flat out. As a "lesser" Polly, I'll say, "OK, I was wrong too", in cases where I was too mean, too vociferous, too angry. Not too proud to admit that. But I'll say it, right up front.

But what pisses me off is folks who were Doomers, who, 4+ months later, still try to make excuses for the way they talked, and tried to persuade others to think, when it has been PROVEN BEYOND ANY SCINTILLA OF ANY DOUBT THAT THEY WERE AS WRONG AS WRONG HAS EVER BEEN -- yet they still want to try and justify this way of thinking.

Pseudo-intellectual pride; misguided out the wazoo.

Period. Paragraph.

Sometimes swallowing down your pride isn't a bad thing. I did it, when I realized the Doomer Way was not "where it's at".

It's called Being a Man, and Realizing Your Mistakes.

Real Men will do this. Little Boys will flame.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 09, 2000.

Sound pretty straight up to me CL,as a former lesser doomer I appreciate your non-intellectual candidness and point of view,makes sense.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 09, 2000.

Andy Ray = Stephen Poole

-- (Jesus@is.watching), May 09, 2000.

Well said, CL. I understand your anger & that of Flint & Ken & others who were repeatedly abused by the power brokers of TB2000. And thank you for your apology. You were over-the-top at times!

I too was a bit of a doomer. I studied the subject via North, Yourdon, Senate Reports, etc. I saw a risk & prepped as I saw fit. I spread the word on this potential problem, though I was never so full of myself that I would trash talk those who put me off with a wave & a chuckle. I simply suggested people take a look at this thing. Do some research. Make your own decision. Weigh the stakes & prep accordingly.

By the time Ken Decker came on board the board, I was well on the way to doubting the credibility of more than a few of the regular posters. The body count began to pile up. The verbal carnage was taking its toll. Nonetheless, fresh blood continued to filter in. Seemingly new perspectives were added to the mix. Anecdotal stories by the dozen were related.

Get togethers took place across the country. I met some good people. Unfortunately, it became clear to me there was an agenda. Scare people, lie to people, do whatever was necessary to bring them to the awareness that they simply had to prep. Even worse, dissenters were attacked with blitzkrieg-like intensity. Horrendous character assassinations took place daily. It wasnt just Decker & Flint being mauled. Rabid personality disorder was a badge of honor to these people.

Then Ed resigned. He handed over the keys to a few unbalanced individuals. The carnage intensified. Selective censorship began. It became crystal clear to me the cabal in charge were not, shall we say, impartial. Thats when I bolted the board.

I take complete responsibility for my decisions  in all things. Im glad to this day I prepped. Im proud of the fact that I remained civil throughout my time on TB2000. Im also proud that I stood up for those who were shit upon day after day.

My only regret is that I invested too much time & emotion in people who, it turned out, were not what they appeared to be.

Best,

P.S. Bruce, I respected you as a contributor to TB2000 during the 'crisis days'. You were as cool-headed a poster as anyone there. If you haven't yet written a piece on why you believe things went down as they did, it would be nice.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

Why even respond? Life is short and there's much to do. Leave the polly/trolls to themselves, here at the New DeBunkie's House o' Trolls. By responding, you're just feeding their meme.

Let 'em talk to themselves. After all, they're their own biggest fans.

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), May 09, 2000.

Bingo,

You serve as an excellent example of the "thoughtful pessimist." Unlike some of your compatriots, you demonstrated graciousness and intelligence during the Y2K debate.

I never felt "abused" by the TB 2000 sysops... just annoyed. In particular, I thought Chuck Rienzo was a decent sort. On the other hand, I thought Diane Squire, Russ Lipton and others deliberately triedy to discredit the more articulate "pollies." They also worked hard to keep any pessimist (including you) from "breaking ranks."

Personally, I think Yourdon's "resignation" was a calculated move. In my opinion, he saw a limited upside to staying in the fray and he must have had a pretty good idea what would happen with the new kids in charge. In 1999, I tried to give Yourdon the benefit of the doubt. The "Rodney Dangerfield" essay and the move to EZB leave little room eliminated my doubts.

Still, last year I thought Yourdon at least deserved a listen. I disagreed with his metrics, but at least he had a reputation in the field. (Yikes! So did Steve Heller.) I think it was possible for an intelligent person to reach a pessimistic conclusion about Y2K, particularly if the person had holistic concerns about modern society. (The "doomer" predisposition.)

"Preps" are nothing more than an exercise of your economic rights. You earned the money, Bingo, and its none of my damn business how you spend it. And if you wander by, I'll save you the cost of a steak and whatever you're drinking. And bring Stan Faryna, if you can find him!

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 09, 2000.

Bingo1,

You said:

"Get togethers took place across the country. I met some good people. Unfortunately, it became clear to me there was an agenda. Scare people, lie to people, do whatever was necessary to bring them to the awareness that they simply had to prep. Even worse, dissenters were attacked with blitzkrieg-like intensity. Horrendous character assassinations took place daily. It wasnt just Decker & Flint being mauled. Rabid personality disorder was a badge of honor to these people"

Mind if I ask you how it became clear to you of the agenda from the others?

I agree, to some extent, but do believe that there were many more "normal" people than the few controlling ones mentioned above. One thing that I enjoyed most in the experience, was the different blend of people that were discussing the topic.

-- (Sheeple@Grener.Pastures), May 09, 2000.

Well said Bingo

Sheeple:

Mind if I ask you how it became clear to you of the agenda from the others?

I would think that if you followed the forum with any regularity at all, you would have seen the agenda.

"It was as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up!" (Red Dwarf strikes again!)

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Sheeple,

Allow me to bore you with my take. First my motivation. My intuition, which is usually quite strong, failed me miserably. You see Sheeple, as Ken mentioned above, I had/have the doomer predisposition. Im not a fan of our species. I made this quite clear in many posts back in late 1998 & early 1999. I dont hate people, I just have a hard time respecting most of us, most of our decisions. This crisis called the Y2K computer problem led me to connect, via TB2000, with people I thought were decent, honest, caring individuals. As I was never a joiner of groups, and frequently (silently) overly critical of others, I vowed to give this new group a long leash.

As time wore on, say late winter 1998/1999, a handful of regular forum participants who routinely displayed bad behavior became untouchables. That is, these boors could wage war on optimistic posters at any time, but were not held up to any standards of civility by the majority on the board. Anything they wrote, any slimy personal attack was accepted by the regular posters without question. It became de rigueur to attack those with a more optimistic view.

As more & more newbies came along, it became obvious who the power brokers were. They quickly captured the newbies attention with good- natured advice. This in itself was not sinister. Id like to think I helped my share of people looking for links & so forth. Some of the new blood fell right into line behind TPTB at TB2000. The bad behavior by a few turned into gang warfare. I liken them to piranhas. For example, check any old thread Ken started. One piranha after another took their bite.

Sheeple, I don't know what your definition of normal people. How many of these normal people stood up when the nuts took control of the asylum? How many packed up their keyboards & left?

I enjoyed the board through the end of March, 1999. It was truly a stimulating environment populated by people of many backgrounds. Isnt it amazing how we humans can spoil a good thing by devolving to our most base motivations!

I hope this answers your question.

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

Bingo1,

Thank you for sharing. I hung it out to the bitter end, and now find myself here. Heck, ask Ken, I even spoke up on his behalf a few times. That action, among others, made sure that I didn't win any popularity contests.

I think that most of those you mentioned were actually feeding off one anothers fears. I became more silent as time went on, and changed my "name" from what it used to be. Power is corrupt, and I guess that you could say that the old forum verified that point.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 09, 2000.

Some of you people are so full of shit, I can't believe it.

First of all, Sheeple aka Donna, you stood up for Ken -- not because of his optimism -- but because you were flirting with him in live chat.

MOST doomer's have selective memories.

-- (NForcer@ with a .memory), May 09, 2000.

Second of all, you, and everyone else who just silent about the treatment of pollies tacitly endorsed the censorship.

-- (Nforcer@ with a .memory), May 09, 2000.

Thirdly, it's amazing to watch how most people allow snakes like Diane Squire and Chuck Reinzoo slither into their holes without so much as an apology.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

-- (Nforcer @ with a .memory), May 09, 2000.

BTW, welcome back Bingo1

I always felt you were one of the most resonable posters, and I was sorry when you took off.

-- (Nforcer @ with a .memory), May 09, 2000.

Ken,

Thanks for the kind words. Chuck was the guy I could never peg. I know he mustve bit his tongue a couple hundred times over last half year or so. I can imagine the battles that went on behind the scenes! I was fortunate in that the top-level people didnt come after me. I did experience numerous attacks from the foot soldiers. Ill give Stan your best.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

Donna {sheeple]:

The Yourdon forum was renown on the internet for intolerance. There were other fora that "allowed" folks to express opinions without attack. I wouldn't include BFI or Debunkers in these other fora. Those two had posters just as rabid in their beliefs. Once the fora that had once been occupied by folks from each side in fairly equal numbers became slanted toward TEOTWAWKI, I thought, "How much worse than this could Yourdon's forum be?", and after a 2-3 month break from Y2k on the internet, I explored TB2000.

This was in June of 1999. Bingo was still there, fiercely defending the thick skin of the likes of Flint, et al. In fact, Bingo E-mailed me not long after my first post. Remember that, Bingo? You warned me that I needed thick skin to post at TB2000 and that I shouldn't take anything too personally and be driven away. Doc Paulie actually told me the same thing after I first posted at Debunkers. I entered Debunkers with both guns drawn, telling the posters that they had NO business condemning the folks at TB2000 because they were doing the very same thing from the other side of the coin. My skin's pretty thick, I guess. I continued to post at both TB2000 and Debunkers until Debunkers closed, TB2000 moved, and I'm still here today to go down memory lane. I'd guess you have thick skin as well, Donna.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Sysman:

"I want to know why you feel the need to pick on me. I'm not the only one that misjudged Y2K."

Andy Ray hasn't answered this question of yours, so I thought I might take a stab. It was YOUR 3x years of experience that folks looked to on TB2000. It was YOU that said that all the positive test results weren't worth a thing because the REAL year was still 1999 when these tests were done. It didn't matter to you that folks had tested on time machines where the date had been SET to the year 2000. You were CONVINCED that no test results were valid until the year 2000 had arrived.

*I* knew that what you were saying wasn't accurate. King of Spain didn't know, however. He parroted your words on every thread that discussed testing results. There were others that believed you on this one as well. How could Sysman be incorrect when he's told us time and time again how many years he's spent in IT?

I never had a problem with you personally, Sysman, and I think you know that. You were never rabid in your accusations. From MY perspective, your only sin was convincing some non-technical folks that CURRENT-DATE had to be real to be honored.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Sheeple, I do love your handle!

Thanks for the greeting Nforcer. I dont know that Chuck was a snake. As I stated earlier, I cant figure out what his motivation was for not speaking out except in rare moments. Or why he would associate with those people. You may recall his attempt at getting everyone to agree to a cease-fire. It was a classic thread.

Anita, I do remember that e-mail. I did that with several folks who posted a few times & were then pounced upon by Andy & his ilk. I remember thinking, This woman posts using her FULL name. She hasnt written anything earth-shaking, just given a few opinions. And out come the foot soldiers spewing venom.

In hindsight I realize you didnt require my support. You are one tough Kevlar-skinned woman!

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

Anita, it's great that you took the time to explain that to him. Some people like Sysman, Chuck, Diane, Old Git, Sheeple, etc. just don't "GI" (in the venacular of the day) unless it is s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to them.

You have a gift for that. You obviously have the patience of a saint.

-- (Nforcer @ with a .memory), May 09, 2000.

Saint Anita?

Or perhaps it's just the proper medication. Care to share?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

As time wore on, say late winter 1998/1999, a handful of regular forum participants who routinely displayed bad behavior became untouchables. That is, these boors could wage war on optimistic posters at any time, but were not held up to any standards of civility by the majority on the board. Anything they wrote, any slimy personal attack was accepted by the regular posters without question. It became de rigueur to attack those with a more optimistic view.

The first full-time optimist, Tom Chittum/William Casey Jr./Jimmy Bagga Donuts, made his first appearance on the forum in Nov. 1998. Then a large group of 'optimists' arrived in Jan. 1999. Their sudden appearance was VERY noticeable and did not seem coincidental.

Given the then existing focus of the forum (concern about Y2K, contingency planning), it would have helped if the newly-arrived 'optimists' had been more patient with those who were already on the forum. Since the good news about electricity was still in the future, however, the optimists had to resort to tactics such as questioning whether Ed Yourdon and others were Y2K 'experts.'

I don't think anyone was a Y2K expert -- nothing quite like this had ever happened before. We didn't know much about how systems were tied together or what would happen if a country like Brazil couldn't make its ball bearings that the rest of the world depends on.

The last major government analysis of Y2K before the optimists arrived in January was Rep. Horn's Oct. 1998 report. The Feb/March 1999 report by the Senate Y2K committee was still in the future. What did these optimists know that the rest of us didn't know?

TB2000 was a thoughtful and often witty (thanks, Uncle Deedah!) forum until Tom Chittum and then the other optimists showed up. Then, a handful of extremists on both sides of this issue began to raise the noise level considerably by going after each other. Paul Milne was a doomer that grated on my nerves considerably. Mutha Nachu was an equally annoying 'polly.' It all slowly devolved into a Hatfield & McCoy, Arab vs. Israeli type of ongoing disagreement from that point on.

I really would have liked to have seen more hard info about the status of Y2K projects in Jan. 1999. Little hard info was available then, though. The sudden appearance of optimists at that time almost made them appear to be paid propagandists for business interests that might be negatively impacted by public Y2K fears.

By the time Ken Decker arrived on the forum in March, name calling and flame wars had already reached mind-numbing levels. It might have helped if the Jan. optimists had stayed on their own forums (GNIABFI, Debunkers) and posted hard info, but mostly what optimists talked about on their forums and on TB2000 were Ed Yourdon and those that called his forum.

How did that Hatfield and McCoy thing start anyway?

-- (TB@2000.retrospective), May 09, 2000.

Bingo:

It's probably not a good idea to discuss Kevlar skin on my birthday. LOL. I'm resisting the temptation to look in a mirror.

Saints? Drugs? Nah...I raided three kids through the teen years. If ANYONE was going to hurt me psychologically, it would be these beautiful people struggling through hormonal changes. If I HAD buttons to push before those years, they either fell off or were moved to a back burner.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Anita,

HAPPY BIRTHDAY! (Did I yell it loud enough?)

Here's hoping that today is one of your best.

-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), May 09, 2000.

So when are these, the truly guilty, going to explain their CRAP? Start with this Yahoo, shall we? Link

I think it time now to cease the petty bickering amongst the polly/doomer camps and start to ask the head-FUDsters to explain why they felt it necessary to spew what even a MORON like myself concluded was utter NONSENSE. These are the goons who hung around the watercooler and had a good belly laugh at all the "concerns". The same bunch of scumbags who likewise had little trouble taking the cash of the taxpayer and now consumer who has to now PAY for all the BULLSH$T they claimed was coming.

Where is the beef Leon? Capers? Peter de? Senators? EDS? Gartner? Giga? fill-in-the-blank?.

Tried with little success a bunch of times on Debunker to raise this issue, maybe now? Face it, the bickering helped these maggots. North- Yourdon happened because they helped their cause, end of story basically. Garee and Eddie are old fools who were as much pawns as most of us common folk were.

I understand how one was wrong on Y2k listening to the likes of a Senator Bennett and co. I also understand a little about the medium, memetics, and extremism. But the bottom-line is a bunch of IT insiders just got finished pulling off one of their best moneymaking ruses of recent memory.

Be nice to hear from Sysman, but it don't really matter as he knows, as we all know, we were the peasants in all this.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 09, 2000.

Let me ask you point blank, Doc Paulie...are you saying, like Andy Ray, that Y2k did not need to be fixed ahead of time? I don't see what it is that's so evil in that Kappelman link you provided.

-- (Seeking@more.info), May 09, 2000.

The first full-time optimist, Tom Chittum/William Casey Jr./Jimmy Bagga Donuts, made his first appearance on the forum in Nov. 1998. Then a large group of 'optimists' arrived in Jan. 1999. Their sudden appearance was VERY noticeable and did not seem coincidental.

Hmmm...not sure this is true. I was at TB2000 prior to Nov. 1998. Also, I didn't even know GNIABFI existed until after I posted at TB2000 and CPR e-mailed me. In addition, the first Debunking Y2K board wasn't created until GNIABFI had to be taken off of SMU's server, if I recall correctly.

At any rate, this little essay by anonymous "TB@2000.retrospective" sounds like another conspiracy theory! Is this the same poster who said that doomers have gotten on with their lives? I assure you that I have always been an independent and I believe most of the other "pollys" were as well. It's funny though. Y2K is over, the doomers were wrong, but some still think the "pollys" were propagandists and shills.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 09, 2000.

"Some people like Sysman, Chuck, Diane, Old Git, Sheeple, etc. just don't "GI" (in the venacular of the day) unless it is s-p-e-l-l-e-d out to them".

NForcer, I don't think I'd put Sysman in the same category as Diane, Old Git, and Sheeple. He never flamed me even though we disagreed about Y2K testing and progress.

TB retrospect, I saw things just a little differently. I came to the forum in Oct 98. JBD, funny guy, was constantly horribly flamed and had been around for a while. The attack dogs were always there to jump on JBD and any other polly. Invar, Hardliner, Bob Mangus, Andy, Diane, (*sigh* another interesting piece of the puzzle), Chris (Catsy? pond) all attacked me for only asking a simple question, How does one conclude the end? Around spring 99, a large group of optimists came on the scene. But I didn't see any increase or decrease in the flames, just from a different group of flamers. It seems at that time also there were the old standbys but some change in the guard. Taco Ray, a, the Gordo twins, and a few others. In any event, the flames never let up; they were always there. If you're not on the receiving end of the flames you tend to think it's not happening. I can assure you it was, long before in influx of pollies.

Ed's return, in late summer of 99, seemed to fuel that attacks. The chants grew louder and more emotional with Ed's confirmation of the ten year depression. A few die hards, Flint, Ken, Hoff continued to reason with the unreasonable. I (and I'm sure many other pollys) just gave up to let the doomers play in their little pig sty.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 09, 2000.

Kappelmann's the guy who questioned the accuracy and truth of the NERC reports, yet didn't even know the status of the electricity provider for his own house. He found a niche early on and wrote a book about what to do about Y2K, but never worked on an actual project himself as far as I could ever tell.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 09, 2000.

Buddy you beat me to the punch on "retrospect", whose hind sight is poor.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 09, 2000.

Buddy:

Wasn't that true of MOST of the IT pessimists? Leon TAUGHT. Ed consulted. BigDog did the golf website thing. Sysman did the systems thing. In contrast, Y2kPro was the guy in the Y2k trenches, willing to share his experiences with everyone and he was FLAMED. Did Cory ever mention his OWN experiences with remediation? Did Heller? I mentioned MY experiences, but they weren't good enough.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

Ladies and gentlemen! In this corner, John Koskinen and Peter de Jager. In the other, Doc Paulie and Andy Ray.

-- May (the@truth.prevail!), May 09, 2000.

Anita, and let's not forget Paula. Paula who (asked tongue in cheek)? She didn't even know how to spell Y2K.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 09, 2000.

LOL Anita & Happy Bday!

Retro, I agree with you regarding the government analysis of Y2K. By Jan. 1999 my head was spinning due to the LACK of decent information that I, a non-techie, could digest. I bought into the theory that the majority of corporations would have announced readiness by that time, (thanks Mr. North). When the press releases failed to materialize, my outlook hit the skids.

I see you have a soft spot for certain folks from the old TB2000 & thats OK with me. We have to call it as we saw it. I disagree with your assessment regarding the Hatfield/McCoy feud. I disagree that the optimists should have stayed on their own forums. And always remember the ungodly horror posted by Invar, directed at JBD. Invar was applauded by the forum regulars, except Deedah that I remember. That was a major turning point.

Maria, what can I say. Youre a real pistol! You pissed me off like no one else on that board, Invar notwithstanding. You also made me ROTFLMAO more times than I can count. TB2000 would not have been the same without you. You kicked Nikolais butt up & down the street time after time. And I remember you did lighten up a time or two.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 09, 2000.

(TB@2000.retrospective) - [my guess is this is Kevin. Why not use your "real" handle, whoever you are?]

You said: The first full-time optimist, Tom Chittum/William Casey Jr./Jimmy Bagga Donuts, made his first appearance on the forum in Nov. 1998.

WRONG. First full time optimist was Paul Neurhdart(sp?) YOU are obviously not up to speed on how to read archives!

Then a large group of 'optimists' arrived in Jan. 1999. Their sudden appearance was VERY noticeable and did not seem coincidental.

CORRECTION - the first group of optimists that STAYED even after being flamed by the idiots. Again, look in the archives. Many names that appear only a few times pre- 11/98; then they MOVED ON because they could see that it was pointless to try and talk to an extremist group and educate them.

Given the then existing focus of the forum (concern about Y2K, contingency planning), it would have helped if the newly-arrived 'optimists' had been more patient with those who were already on the forum. Since the good news about electricity was still in the future, however, the optimists had to resort to tactics such as questioning whether Ed Yourdon and others were Y2K 'experts.'

WRONG. BAD ASSUMPTION. THAT was/is the main problem with y2k pessimism. WHO SAYS the electricity "good news" was in the future? Did you even bother to talk to someone in the field, or was it all just "fear factoids" from the yourdonfor forum?

Paul Milne was a doomer that grated on my nerves considerably. Mutha Nachu was an equally annoying 'polly.'

Isn't it interesting that Paul Milne was welcomed with open arms and "cheered on" by MANY regulars? And I can see why Mutha would bug the hell out of people who thought they were EXPERTS. With her questions on this thread, "what is a y2k expert"?

If you like I can prove who "started it" by posting a page from BIFFY....from day ONE the retards of pessimism tried to shout down that forum. Too bad they lost, eh?

MORE PROOF- Do a search for the word "polly" in the uncat. thread or misc; you will be AMAZED at how much "polly bashing" was going on.

I really would have liked to have seen more hard info about the status of Y2K projects in Jan. 1999.

WHY? What possible reason could ANY company have to tell YOU....an ANONYMOUS person on an extremist forum, what they were up to? Do you own part of the company? Business owed the general public NOTHING as far as y2k disclosures go!

Little hard info was available then, though.

WRONG. DOUBLE WRONG. You just weren't looking in the right places! Hard info was EVERYWHERE, YOU CHOSE NOT TO LOOK!

The sudden appearance of optimists at that time almost made them appear to be paid propagandists for business interests that might be negatively impacted by public Y2K fears.

YOU PARANOIA was in full swing, THAT is why it appeared that way. The TRUTH is, the "pollys" new things weren't going to be bad and tried to tell the extremists that....and were shouted down by the vendors and their shills, along with the meme heads who were sucked into the black hole of y2k gloom and doom.

It might have helped if the Jan. optimists had stayed on their own forums (GNIABFI, Debunkers) and posted hard info, but mostly what optimists talked about on their forums and on TB2000 were Ed Yourdon and those that called his forum.

Too funny! Did you see the quote from Chuck on E-groups? the one where he asked why nobody tried to tell him that things weren't going to be too bad? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! If the "pollys" had left the stinkbombers alone, you would ALL be whining now that we should have "done more to educate us!" The reason for discussing what was going on on other forums? SIMPLE - Exposure!!!! Prove that those spreading FUD had an agenda---and EXPOSE IT!

How did that Hatfield and McCoy thing start anyway?

Simple--this is the internet. People tend to forget their manners. And, it is VERY easy to respond "in kind" to those who are verbally abusive!

TIME has proven the "polly" perspective to be a true one. YOU should ask yourself how YOU could think that like in the future.

-- Former Regular (at@the.forum), May 09, 2000.

Bingo,

If I'm not mistaken, Maria was the first one to be asked about her mudwrestling proclivities.

-- flora (***@__._), May 09, 2000.

Hi gang. Sorry for being MIA for alomst a day. Finally figured out "my" problem, and have a few minutes to address some of the issues here. I'll post a link to here in Andy's thread, so let's keep it all in one place.

Speaking of Andy Ray, where is he ... ???

First, let's get the major point out of the way:

I WAS WRONG ABOUT Y2K

I still want to know why Andy Ray wants to call me out on this. CL just doesn't understand. Listen CL, I'm not saying that AR was embarrassed about being right about Y2K. Flint was right. Hoff was right. All of the pollys were right. We all know that you guys aren't embarrassed about that. What I am saying is that Andy Ray was a jerk- off, that didn't have the intelligence to present his point of view, like Flint or Hoff, and he had to resort to looking into how to "disrupt" the forum. See the difference, CL?

And CL, please post the links where I

"made an absolute dolt of himself in direct discussions with *lil ol me* on at least two occasions, concerning Hurricane Floyd"

The way I remember it, this was one of the few times that you and I did see eye-to-eye. We have (had?) this little town here in NJ called Bound Brook that was just as bad off as you were in NC. We had quite a few other places that were hit pretty hard. So, what's up CL? Are you just looking for brownie points here, or what?

Let's get back on topic. Anita said:

"It was YOUR 3x years of experience that folks looked to on TB2000"

Well, I'm hardly alone, am I? Remember my "man-year" threads on the old forum:

36 - No_Spam

36 - Dean

35 - Ray

30 - Mike Cumbie

30 - The Rimmers

30 - Jean

30 - Steve Heller

All of these folks with 30+ years in the business. And what about the guys in the 20 year range, like MVI, Wildweasel, Mr. Kennedy, Hardliner, vbprog, hamster, and dozens of others? We had almost 1,000 man-years of doomer programmer experience. So what impact did my 32 years have?

I've had enough of this for now. It's a beautiful day here in NJ, and I'm going to my favorite restaurant, with my favorite girlfriend. Maybe I'll address some other points later, like Flint asking how I could be so wrong. If not later, tomorrow. But for now, I'm otta here...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 09, 2000.

I gave you a quick answer to your question. I'm a little busy now, but I will answer some other questions in that thread later, like Flint asking how I could have been so wrong. I want to know why you feel the need to pick on me. I'm not the only one that misjudged Y2K.

You know Andy, I didn't have a problem with you when you first came to TB2000. If you remember, I took the time to answer many of your "stupid" survey questions.

My problem with you started when you were caught discussing how to "disrupt" TB2000 on another forum. You went too far with that crap. You are no better than the schmuck that wrote the ILOVEYOU virus.

Isn't that your real piont here, Andy? Aren't you just trying to get even, after you were embaressed?

Dear Sysman,

First, I am not just picking on you. I am rehashing the words of all the doomers who stood by while the less educated in the computer sciences and arts were needlessly frightened and misled for months; while they were incessantly told that they had better prepare "or else;" while those with legitmate (aka "stupid", if you ask a doomer) questions were subjected to derision and disrespect.

I purposely waited patiently past nearly everyone's "you'll see" date (except Mr. Yourdon, who will claim that any bad thing that happens on Earth prior to 2010 was due to Y2k). And now, all I am doing is addressing the few meme-heads remaining - those most likely to spread fear, uncertainty, and dread in the future at their earliest possible convenience - and reminding them of their own ludicrous claims.

I attempted to warn people prior to the non-event - even people at the Hysterium. I asked repeatedly, out of genuine concern, "What if you're wrong?" What was I told? Do you remember? I do. I was told "Then we will gladly admit we were wrong and you were right and move on." Has this happened? No.

What has happened? A continued rhetorical and circular conversation alternately revolving around one of four justifications, illustrated here:

• "Pollies were just lucky - they guessed correctly;"
• "The real problems/effects with Y2k won't be apparent until _________ (fill in date of your choice...);"
• "We fixed everything as it failed, but aren't allowed to talk about it because it would panic the public to know how close we came to the end of the world as we know it (even though this was impossible);"
• "Our preps were really a good idea because even though we were totally inaacurate in our predictions about Y2k, the power blinked out for a couple of hours the other day...and weren't the neighbors jealous when they saw our lights!"

First, I was not "lucky:" I examined the evidence, conducted numerous tests, applied the scientific method, checked and rechecked the results, and concluded logically that you and your doomer friends were wrong - before the non-event. If I could do it, so could you - if you had wanted. Second, it's over - done: Nothing happened, nothing will happen - and the simple truth is nothing would have happened. Third, the only constant in the universe is that conspiracy theorists will always use the lack of any substantive evidence as evidence of a cover-up. And fourth, preparations for a non-event can never be logically justified.

Hindsight is 20/20, Sysman. Any functional individual can stand up after it's over and admit they were wrong, and some doomers have managed this as well. It takes exceptional cowardice to hide behind excuses for a meme proven wrong - a kind of moral ineptitude.

Am I calling for doomers to be hanged for crimes against humanity (like some of your doomer friends called for "polly trials")?

Am I seeking to barbeque their doomer flesh and serve it to pollies at a celebration of our victory (as some of those you defended did)?

Am I even calling for their words to be altered or deleted in a supposedly open discussion forum (as your comrades did)?

Am I defending anyone who participated in, espoused, actively defended, or passively defended (with their inaction) anything like what was mentioned in the previous three questions?

The simple truth was and remains: there was no reason to prepare - nothing was going to happen. The insurance allusion was illusion. It was not going to happen, and it did not happen.

Regarding my "disruption" attempts, I have already addressed that issue, and will not redress it. But even if what you stated of me were true, it is mild when compared to the fear you and your cohorts attempted (with some success) to instill into the hearts of less-suspecting individuals the world around. You touted your expertise, threw your years of experience into trusting faces and demanded "can I be wrong?" And yet you were. Think, Sysman. Think about the single mothers who spent money they did not have to "prepare." Think of the marriages that were ruined and the surviving adolescent's lives that are now permanently marred because you couldn't be wrong with all your experience. Think of the jobs lost and the savings sacrificed upon the altar of your pride and mistaken-ness.

Am I embarrassed? Yes. I am embarrassed to be in the same profession with idiots such as yourself and Ed Yourdon. Am I trying to get even? What would be the point? Without a time machine, the consequences of your lunacy are not correctable.

You state that I am no better than the "schmuck who wrote the ILOVEYOU virus." That would be insulting, were it coming from someone with any credibility left. As far as insults go, you should remain in your league - for you, Sysman, are no better than Ed Yourdon.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 09, 2000.

You state that I am no better than the "schmuck who wrote the ILOVEYOU virus." That would be insulting, were it coming from someone with any credibility left. As far as insults go, you should remain in your league - for you, Sysman, are no better than Ed Yourdon.

Dear Andy Ray,

you sir, with your teal colored ego, have less credibility than I do. At least Sysman and Ed Yourdon have a sexy charisma. You on the other hand have the sexyness of a gum stuck to a shoe.

Condescending regards,
Andy Rayette

-- Andy Rayette (Andywomyn@hottermail.com), May 09, 2000.

Three Cheers For The Victors!

More Saint Leon if you have the stomach.

Hint for the person confused above. Leon uses the same modus operandi as most self-appointed nobody's use. They create a problem out of thin air, pitch the solution, and toddle off to the bank( or in Leon's case, promotions) as the masses kiss their butt in gratitude. Course all the while painting himself as a teamplayer. Clearly the lack of even ONE SINGLE SOLITARY WORTHY GLITCH OF MERIT indicates success over the BUG of the Century, yesiree. Never would this indicate a problem overblown, oh never. How could it, Leon has explained it all to the minions.

As to the link at comlinks,,,simply understanding he(Leon) is addressing what he calls Professionals in one breath, and then proceeds to reduce these professionals to bumbling idiots should be clue one to what is wrong with that dribble. Might also help to realize Leon is not actually IN the real world and lives from a cushy faculty position at some non-descript college in Texas.

Thanks to Leon we alls pulled off the impossible, we licked the "Problem of Staggering Preportions" (Kappleman's Y2k description). Even the govmint-nimrods who seemingly are unable to run a one question Census optimally did the 2 step successfully. If you believe all this, you also tend to believe in chemtrails and fairies.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

More Saint Leon....

in this episode, we have Leon concluding these folks are mysteriously silent. All a conspiracy right Leon? All these idiots are just plain coveringup, and thus blindly contributing to the crisis which you have concluded is Y2k? "Sadly, the leadership of the IT industry has been mostly silent when it comes to the year 2000. Oh sure, companies are selling products and services to help their customers deal with the problem. But to the best of my knowledge, not one leader of a top-tier IT company has said anything publically about the importance of global year 2000 efforts. It's no wonder that at least 25% of their top management peers in other industries aren't taking the problem seriously when Bill Gates, Lou Gerstner, Steve Jobs, Andy Grove, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, and all the rest are tight-lipped about it."

Next we have Leon and his pal James Cappel reading the morality act to the laggards and malcontents which comprise the IT world...The Year 2000 Problem: An Ethical View This one deserves Darwin Award recognition. Here Leon and James have used the power of the Ouija and concluded many around are risking their own necks, their families, and those they depend on for living basically. They concluded as much since these same folks have been putting off fixing their broke NUKE PLANTS cause they are too dam lazy and all. All that is needed is a little good old Yankee knowhow and saintly fellowship to lick this "Problem of Staggering Proportions". Laughs abound and this one is a definite read. Like Dr. "history I never follow my own" North, someone needs to check who it is exactly handing out these PhD's my recommendation. These guys are hillarious.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

Regarding my "disruption" attempts, I have already addressed that issue, and will not redress it. But even if what you stated of me were true, it is mild when compared to the fear you and your cohorts attempted (with some success) to instill into the hearts of less-suspecting individuals the world around.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012Td

Andy Ray is Famous!

:)

'Tis true, I have posted on other message boards, and under different aliases. Some of the aliases are on your side. ;) Sometimes, one alias argues vehemently with another - that adds credibility to the "doomer" alias, and gets him or her "in."

As I have stated before, 'tis all in the interests of securing information for a post-Y2K book with the working title "ShowDown @ the Y2K Corral: a study in 'cybernoia'." I have also entertained donating proceeds from the profits to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Microsoft or Apple. Any preferences?

You have been such wonderful participants in my information mining!

:) Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019fd

TBY2K SYSOP(s) ATTENTION PLEASE!!

Do not use this trick to disrupt the Hysterium - it is unfair... Wednesday, 28-Jul-1999 14:12:19 12.79.198.90 writes:

I have been wrongly accused recently of attempting to disrupt the Hysterium. Lately, someone (maybe more than one) has been posting using my name and email address - but I cannot make out whether the posts are meant to insult me or to further my cause of educating neutrals about the character of doomers - perhaps both, in which case I can live with the (attempted) insults.

In any case, were I trying to disrupt the forum, I would advise their opponents to utilise the following piece of code, which reroutes those pesky DELETE requests to your favorite thread.

Let's say, for the point of argument, that you wished to have a recent post from a@a.a receive all the DELETE requests your post is sure to generate. You could add the following code to the end of your message to redirect responses to that message:

You could aim this at any existing message for which you disagree by viewing the shortcut to that message and substituting the last part of it for the 'value' tag in the above.

But, do not do this, as this would be truly disruptive, and really beyond the pale in a civilised debate.

Regards,

Andy Ray

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019i0

Andy Ray ain't heavy, he's my...

You folk more than likely have no idea how bad his can get. You can screw with the main board on Greenspuns forum. All that is needed is to have someone drop black background gifs on there and we are [the f- word in past tense]. And yes I believe this is JUST ONE WAY to majorly disrupt the forum. There are others.

Did you know that you can post gifs on the main board. I have even figured out a mini Prep form that can be posted on the Main Board. If someone is really creative they can do REALLY BIG DAMAGE.

======================================================================

And I strongly urge whoever inserted vbscript code at the end of these three threads the other day to make them unreadable not to do so again....

-- (Quotably@Quoted.#1), May 10, 2000.

Y2k in the mid-1990s

http://www.wild2k.com/database/vanityfair.html

. . . .IBM, however, was taking Y2K quite seriously, and as far back as October 1995 had announced a series of steps to "assist customers in timely Year 2000 transitions." That IBM had played a leading role in creating the need for those transitions-and faced the prospect of whopping lawsuits wasn't mentioned. But the company left no doubt that big trouble was coming. "The problem is large; it's complex," IBM's press release quoted de Jager as saying. "IBM is right ... to address this issue today."

Internet publisher John Westergaard needed no convincing. His friend New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a different story: he still wrote on a typewriter. But that had not kept the two men from being close, nor had it prevented Westergaard from being Moynihan's campaign treasurer. And so, over lunch one day in early 1996, Moynihan listened intently as Westergaard spun a bloodcurdling tale of a phenomenon he'd never heard of. "I had' a fascinating lunch in New York," the senator told reporters when he got back to Washington. "A friend was talking about madcow disease for the computers of the world." He wasn't kidding, Moynihan said. "There is a bug in every computer that will cause it to go haywire January' 1, 2000, and the federal government better get its act together. If they can't pay their bills and issue checks in a normal fashion it is going to domino to all other things."

When the warning went virtually unnoticed. Moynihan asked the Congressional Research Service to prepare a report on possible Y2K consequences. What came back in June 1996 was chilling: hospital systems failing, airplanes not taking off or landing, records being scrambled-one cataclysm after another. Moynihan passed the news to Bill Clinton in a July 31, 1996, letter, along with a recommendation that the president appoint someone who would ensure that all federal agencies-and the companies that did business with them-be Y2K- compliant by January 1, 1999. "The computer has been a blessing," Moynihan closed. "If we don't act quickly, however; it could become the curse of the age."

Moynihan was not telling Clinton anything he didn't already know; eight months earlier; Howard Rubin, chairman of the computer-science department at Hunter College, had briefed the president in detail. "Clinton understood that technology is more than the Internet and pulling wires through high schools," says Rubin. "He really understood how everything was tied together [and Y2K's] potential for broad reaching consequences. He was very interested and very concerned." Al Gore was slower on the uptake. "How could this be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" he exclaimed when Rubin finished; Rubin shot back, "No way are you going to be able to run for office in 2000 if government systems are failing around you." Gore had no reply. "He was educatable," says Rubin, "but with effort."

Moynihan, meanwhile, was getting only silence. Finally, three months after sending his letter, he received a reply from the Office of Management and Budget (O.M.B.). It thanked' him for' the. heads-up and pledged to keep an eye on the problem.

Far from reassured, Moynihan introduced bills calling for the designation of a Y2K czar, the establishment of compliance deadlines, and a bipartisan national commission to address what was called "a devastating computer problem which will have extreme negative economic and national security consequences unless dealt with."

The legislation went nowhere, even as reports of Y2K incidents piled up. In Pennsylvania, a computer network that scheduled patient appointments at three hospitals and 75 Clinics shut down after someone punched in a visit for January 2000. In Michigan, a produce store's brand-new cash registers crashed more than 100 times when customers tried to pay with credit cards expiring in 2000. In Minnesota in 1993, officials instructed 104-year-old Mary Bandar to report to kindergarten after a computer took her 1888 birth date to mean that she was 4 years old. During a Y2K test-run at a Maryland jail, computers decided that inmates who still had time to serve were ready to be released. Industry was getting hit as well. At Amway, a mixing system for a cleaning product rejected a batch of chemicals when a computer read a 2000 expiration date as 1900. At a Chrysler plant, a Y2K dry run locked every entryway and exit and wouldn't let anyone in or out. At a Fortune 500 financial-services company, computers sent out bills for 96 years' interest. . . .

-- Y2k in (the@mid.1990s), May 10, 2000.

Doc:

Thanks for the laughs.

Sysman:

The difference between you and the other folks with IT experience was that you [and you alone] supported the premise that Y2k testing proved NOTHING because it wasn't the year 2000 yet. I pointed this out previously, but you must have overlooked it.

I'd like to hear if your firm had any problems getting that book out in time, or about any other problems related to Y2k at your firm.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Very sad.

The programmers on this board worked their asses off to solve the Y2K problem, then they are repeatedly castigated after their success, just for warning others that their efforts may have been too little to late (even after apologizing for being overly pessimistic in predicting the outcome!)

I would suggest that Andy, Stephen, Maria, Anita, Ken, et al, go to hell.

-- Programmer (@ .), May 10, 2000.

Hmmm...programmers? on this board? This ain't TB2000 in case you haven't noticed. Also, I don't recall too many people at TB2000 claiming that they were working their asses off trying to fix Y2K. As I said before, people involved in Y2K projects were few and far between on the TB2000 forum, and most of them were the "pollies" that you just told to go to hell.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 10, 2000.

I do appreciate all of the reflections of pre-Y2K forum discussions, especially since I can do it now without the "emotional" aspects of our frequently heated "doomer" / "poly" arguments.

I don't think I arrived at TB2000 until around Jan 99 or perhaps Dec 98, but it sure was interesting. In hindsight, some of the "doomerism" was amusing, but like Andy I have no need to hang anyone for being wrong, even programmers, at this point in time.

So my question is this - what the heck are all those nooses doing out for Sysman if we aren't going to hang anyone? ;) Good grief, if we're going to do a proper lynching, lets get the real culprits who spread nothing but doom to the media for PROFIT. Get the Gartner Group. Get Century. Get the IEEE doomsday team, lol.

It surely isn't Sysman that needs hanging. Although he could get in a heated argument as well as the rest of us, he usually didn't - IMHO, he was one of the more tolerant and even at times friendly to the "pollies" posting at TB2000. (Anita, surely you must agree with this? Did I miss something he did???)

I am quite convinced that if not for Sysman, and I suspect Chuck, I would have been banned from TB2000 somewhere around November of 1999, since my "poly" posts pointing out the follies of Paula Gordon, RC, you name it, were getting me a good bit of heat from Diane et.al.

Sysman made it clear that he respected my input if not always agreeing with me, and he carried lots of weight in that forum. Sysman was one of the few who tried to help out those who had problems with their PC's/software. And as my final defense of Sysman, I always thought his Tick Tocks were funny as hell!

Go after someone else, please, or you hafta shoot my horse out from under me too...:)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), May 10, 2000.

P.S.

In case anyone didn't notice, Sysman clearly admits he was wrong about y2k. Suprise, suprise. Sysman, ok this time, but don't ever be wrong again. lol. Lets move on.

Tick, Tock. ;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), May 10, 2000.

Well, after Sysman's brief visit to the Yahoo Y2K board where I regularly posted (and a brief, heated exchange between us), I for one am pleased to see his mea culpa. That raises his stock a couple of points in my eyes.

Sysman, you're right, you're not the only one who misjudged Y2K. But then again, my issue with you late last year was that you (at least on Yahoo) tried to defend Y2K Pro's list of doomer hate speech by ignoring or dismissing it. I recognize your contention that such speech may not have been typical of postings on TB2000, but if that were true, then you shouldn't have had much of a problem repudiating it. Curiously, you never *did* (as far as I can see) repudiate the hate speech or the hate posters. Neither did most other "doomer" posters. That's really the only beef I still have with most doomers.

I could pretty much discuss Y2K-related matters with anyone, but not if they treat that sort of posting as acceptable. Perhaps that's some strange medieval code of behavior I have, but there you have it.

Hope you're healing well, Sysman.

-- Lurkinator (Lurky.formerly@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

FF:

"(Anita, surely you must agree with this? Did I miss something he did???)"

Of course I agree with it. Sysman and I always got along on TB2000. We had quite a bit in common, actually. I'm trying to encourage discourse from Sysman here. He was the only person on TB2000 that insisted that testing done in 1999 [even on a time machine] could NOT reflect what would happen when 2000 arrived. He said CURRENT-DATE had to be actual. Was this the greatest blooper posted to TB2000? Of course not. However, the non-tech folks fell for it and dismissed ANY 1999 test results because "It's NOT the Year 2000!"

I'd like to hear about the experiences with his OWN firm. Somewhere on the old forum Sysman suggested that he would give his appraisal of Y2k, but I never saw it. In addition, [to be honest], I found the "everybody else did it" excuse childish.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Sysman never bothered me too much. But the anonymous doomer who keeps posting to these types of threads does set me off.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 11, 2000.

OOooo, Buddy, what a manly name! *pant* Has anyone ever told you how attractive you are when you're "set off"? That little vein in your forehead positively throbs! *swooon*

Interested Regards,
Andy Boy

-- Andy Boy (andyboy666@hotmale.com), May 11, 2000.

Hey, Andy Boy, I bet you were one of the worst whiners about "polly-trolls". Now, the shoe is on the other foot isn't it?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 11, 2000.

Lurkinator,

I'm surprised to see you here! Just to fill people in, our debate on Yahoo wasn't about Y2K, it was about the censorship issue on the old TB2000 forum. At the time, I did believe that the sysops were doing the correct thing. But when the forum moved, and a bunch of the old regulars were banned, just because they were in the polly camp, that turned me around. So once again, I'll have to say that I was wrong, and you were right. Let's put that behind us, and start over.

FactFinder,

Thanks for the support. I never had a problem with someone just because they were a polly. In fact, I consider many, like you and Flint for example, to be on-line friends. It was the clowns that would come in and start calling doomers all sorts of names that would "tick" me off.

Anita (and everyone),

How could I have been so wrong about Y2K? Several factors, including personal experience, statements from people like IBM and IEEE, and the actions of our government; things like their "command center". Plus things like Microsoft and their last 4 service packs for Win/NT, all of which were supposed to be the "final word" on Y2K compliance. If they couldn't get it right, for just one OS, what chance did "everything" else have?

I spent countless nights and weekends on the time-machine, testing the small percentage of our systems would still be on the mainframe after CDC. Same for the PC side, we ran a mini-network where the server and workstations all ran in the year 2000. This is where our new "replacement" systems were being developed. Time-machine testing wasn't the problem. It was the amount of it that needed to be done.

I thought that there just wasn't enough time to get it all done. Companies started late. Combined with story after story of original estimates being way too low. I just didn't think we would be able to pull it off. Glad I was wrong!

Gotta run for a while. More later... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

Buddy,

I understand that one could be frustrated with the childish antics of a doomer-proven-wrong. But let's remember that this particular doomer couldn't even make a sensible argument prior to the non- event.

It doesn't bother me personally, and I am often surprised at just how much time this individual must spend at the keyboard - anxiously awaiting another post or response by me. You must consider the source - this person is obviously a doomer after all. They probably prepared, anyway. They told others how stupid they would be if they didn't prepare. They likely invested themselves totally in the meme. Perhaps this goes a long way toward explaining why they have as much time to sit by the keyboard awaiting a post - no one wants to have anything to do with them in real life - and who can blame them?

I never had a problem with someone just because they were a polly. In fact, I consider many, like you and Flint for example, to be on-line friends. It was the clowns that would come in and start calling doomers all sorts of names that would "tick" me off.

Sysman,

And yet you championed the "clowns" who attacked people for merely having differing opinions or asking legitimate questions - those same "clowns" who eventually won the internal debate in the "leadership" at the Hysterium and began selectively applying the "rules."

I thought that there just wasn't enough time to get it all done. Companies started late. Combined with story after story of original estimates being way too low. I just didn't think we would be able to pull it off.

Not good enough, Sysman. This is an attempted excuse, not a line of objective reasoning. If you based all your rhetoric and catastrophic insistance upon no more than this, I have to wonder about your intellectual balance. There is no science represented in your words. What is represented is a statistical illiteracy combined with an egotistical self-image.

The people hurt by your words deserve an apology.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Well, I'm satisfied with this, mostly because Sysman made the same sort of mistake I did -- overestimating how close we'd need to be for us to be "close enough". The main difference is, Sysman expected "not close enough" to be endemic, whereas I expected it to be spotty.

Also, it appears quite clear that Sysman's outfit was really cutting things close, perhaps too close, and he extrapolated that situation to everyone else, making those who cried wolf all too credible to him, and causing him to read CYA boilerplate as admission of failure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 11, 2000.

I'm not quite as satisfied as you, Flint [and I'm NOT trying to single out Sysman here except for this ONE thing.....CURRENT-DATE!].

I looked at the list of names presented for the folks with IT experience and I don't remember ANY of them stating that they'd worked on Y2k remediation. In fact, a few of them haven't worked AT ALL in several years. Then again, I don't remember Sysman stating that HE'D worked on Y2k remediation EITHER, but now I learn that he was testing on a time-machine. How could one not notice that CURRENT- DATE worked if one tested on a time machine?

I might also add that MOST folks who DID work on Y2k...Deano, Maria, Y2kPro, Buddy, and myself were optimistic regarding the outcome. There were a few others who worked on Y2k that were pessimistic. I remember Larry the Programmer and the Programmer who posted above.

I don't care about the rest of the pessimists. They said what they said and it's over. I LIKE SYSMAN, and as an old Korean guy once told me, "I wouldn't pick on you if I didn't like you." I'll ask once again, "How could one not notice that CURRENT-DATE worked if one tested on a time machine?" That's ALL I want to know.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Andy,

I was wrong about Y2K, but I am not going to apologize to you, or anyone else, for saying what I beleived to be the truth at the time.

I never attacked anyone, just because they were a polly. I traded hundreds of posts with some of the "best" pollys, people like Flint, Hoff, and Stephen Poole, just discussing our differing views. "Championed those who attacked..." ??? Get real Andy. We're all big boys and girls here. I'm not responsible for what other people post on a public forum. And I sure didn't have the time to read EVERYTHING on the old forum, let alone reply to it. If you didn't see an answer from me in a gun thread, for example, it's because I wasn't interested.

Flint,

Yes, the CYA mode was another reason. But it goes well beyond my current job. I've worked on many systems in the past that were loaded with date processing. In fairness, I've also worked on systems that couldn't care less about the date. But in those that did, the date logic was a very critical part. At my last job, I was senior programmer on a "degree day forcasting" system. With a name like that, you can imagine how much date processing is going on. The degree day calculations were just part of that system. The back end was an billing system, with the usual date problems that go with it, like applying credits to the oldest items first, computing interest on past due amounts, and so on.

Anita,

It's not a matter of CURRENT-DATE working or not on a time machine. To do it right, one needs a "history" of dates to test with. One needs to do "end to end" testing, including things like month-end and quarter-end processing with that history. One needs data with "intentional errors" to test exception processing. What I questioned, was how good the test data was, and how much "real world" testing was being done.

It's time for me to get out of here. I'll fill you in on the status of my current project when I get home later this evening.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 2000.

Here's my thoughts on the Y2K wrapup:

As a "polly" who was "outed" by Old Git, (gee, where has *she* been? Couldn't take the heat after the rollover?) we spent a lot of time before the rollover talking to terrified friends and neighbors about the Y2K non-event. The abuse against pollies on TB2000 was extreme, carefully coordinated, and sanctioned by the forum's leaders, Ed Yourdon and Diane Squire. (Speaking of Ed Yourdon, has HE apologized for being wrong yet? I know we won't get an apology out of Diane *Sigh* Squire.) The doomers who refuse *to this day* to make amends for their behavior are a waste of skin.

My friend's eleven-year-old daughter was so upset over Y2K this past November that she and her parents ended up in a counselor's office. It seems that her grandmother was a doomer who told Alyce that she and her family would *die* because Alyce's parents hadn't gotten "preps" for their family. Since my husband has been in the IT industry for twenty years, (and works for a company that did Y2K remediation for nationally-known companies,) we talked with Alyce about the fact that Grandma was wrong. Nobody was going to die, and she and her family would be fine. My friend told me that she would find her little girl digging through the garbage for two-liter pop bottles to fill with water, etcetera, for several weeks afterwards. It makes me sick that one minute of an eleven year old girl's life was spent worrying about the crap spewed by the utterly clueless like Lord, North, Yourdon, Hyatt, and Karen Anderson, and swallowed whole by people who should know better.

Our neighbor came to our front door in tears the morning of December 30th. She had just been to our local grocery store, which was packed with people who were panic buying. Those who weren't busy stuffing their carts were standing in line, talking loudly enough to be overheard by other shoppers about how there wouldn't be enough food in the next few weeks to go around and other shoppers had better stock up. Why did my neighbor cry? These same idiot doomers were asking other shoppers if they had bought "a gun or two for protection".

If the doomers think that they can wait out the flap and emerge later with another moneymaking MEME, we'll be waiting for them.

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Thanks, Sysman. I'm satisfied now.

In general, I'm beginning to wonder what's wrong with me that the internet words didn't have an effect. I got more whipped up over my son giving me a birthday card in which he guessed my age a year higher than reality. Of course I informed him that he can now forget about any inheritance.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 11, 2000.

Julie,

FYI, Old Git is a sysop at the new TB2000 on Ezboard, but I haven't seen her post anything in the past week or so. I hope she's OK...

Now, I'll get flamed for this, but I think Y2K did teach us a valuable lesson. Namely, it's a good idea to be "preped" for anything that may come down the pike. We all know that North was a 50 on the 10 scale, and there were quite a few regulars on TB2000 that were in the 10+ range, no question. But the majority of "doomers" there were in the 5 range. Most of us expected some problems, but not the end of the world.

Andy Ray tell us that Y2K never had the potential to be a real problem. Even if I put aside the other problems that I have with Andy, I can not accept this. What if there were extended power outages? What if we did have major problems with refineries?

People today have become too complacent. They go to the local 7-11, and the local Burger King, day after day, expecting it to be there tomorrow. They don't plan ahead. But, what if it's not open tomorrow? What if it's not open for a week? Then what do they do?

Chicken Little mentioned Hurricane Floyd in this thread. Look at what people do in a situation like this. The same thing that your neighbor did on Dec. 30, panic buy. There's not much you can do, if your whole house is blown away, but short of that, wouldn't it be better if at least some people had stocked up on the basics, like food and water? Wouldn't it be better if you could offer your unperpared neighbor a can of Dinty Moore?

Anita,

No problem, as far as "words didn't have an effect". I think it happens to all of us, as we get older.

My damned phone just rang, at 12:30 AM, and once again, I've got to go log on to work. I promise, I'll give you that update on "my book" later, if not tonight, tomorrow (?). Life in the fast lane...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Kool, looks like an operations problem for a change. So, the OPs manager is going to take the ride to work tonight, instead of me! There is a God!

Anyway, I was just looking at the early parts of this thread. Since this started out as a reply to Andy Ray, please allow me to address this point, from Andy Ray:

"First, I was not "lucky:" I examined the evidence, conducted numerous tests, applied the scientific method, checked and rechecked the results, and concluded logically that you and your doomer friends were wrong - before the non-event. If I could do it, so could you - if you had wanted"

Speaking of Gods, Andy, you must be one. You have the nerve to call me an "egotistical self-image" yet you can make statements like the above? Let me get this right. The world spent billions trying to figure out, and fix, Y2K, yet you "applied the scientific method" and you knew that it wouldn't be a problem? Why didn't you tell the .gov not to build that command center? Why didn't we see your testimony in the Senate reports? Why didn't you tell IBM not to worry? And I guess you applied this scientific method to every model of computer that is now in production today? You must have a big basement...

OK Andy, I am picking on you. We all had access to the same information, thanks to the 'net. Some of us, like North, were a 50. Some of us, like you, were a minus 0. But most of us "doomers" looked at the info, and figured that this could be a problem! Let me say this again:

COULD BE A PROBLEM!!!!!

Please Andy, continue telling me why I should apologize for "being wrong" ...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Buddy, you are right. I am nothing but sniveling, whining doomer scum. I deserve to be severely punished. Would you like to see your shoe on my foot? My feet are very sensual. Oooo, Buddy, I just loove it when you get that throbbing thing going with your temporal artery!

Sysman, Mr. Tickety Tockety, please allow me to personally convey your apologies to all and sundry. I do make house visits.

Appropriately Contrite Regards,
Andy Boy

-- Andy Boy (andyboy666@hotmale.com), May 12, 2000.

The world spent billions trying to figure out, and fix, Y2K, yet you "applied the scientific method" and you knew that it wouldn't be a problem? Why didn't you tell the .gov not to build that command center? Why didn't we see your testimony in the Senate reports? Why didn't you tell IBM not to worry? And I guess you applied this scientific method to every model of computer that is now in production today? You must have a big basement...

Good point, Sysman. When I saw that quote of Andy Ray's, I asked myself why he didn't put up a Web site with this information on it before the rollover. It could have saved beaucoup bucks at a many an organization.

Only a minority of posters on the old TB2000 believed in a Gary North type of '10' TEOTWAWKI outcome for Y2k in the fall of 1999. Ken Decker inadvertently admitted that with this thread he started in Oct. 1999.

It's also worth repeating again (especially to Julie) that Ed Yourdon never did predict that Y2k would be a '10' -- even back in 1998 -- and specifically said in a March 1999 essay that he was expecting significant problems but not TEOTWAWKI. And even John Koskinen in the summer of 1999 said that he anticipated scattered failures over the first days, weeks and even months of 2000. Scroll down to the CNN story on Koskinen's comments posted by Brian.

-- No one's basement (is@THAT.big), May 12, 2000.

Sysyman,

First, I am not demanding anyone apologise to me. Personally, it doesn't matter.

I am not demanding anything, in fact.

I have simply re-posted words and re-explained the obvious to you. You have to live with your actions and the results of those actions.

The argument that you could have been right about your theories is simply mental masturbation, in the sense that while making you feel better about spreading and endorsing fear, uncertainty, dread, and (ultimately) the fascism of radicals who wished to see society destroyed - your attempts at logical reponse do not produce. So, again, your excuses do not wash.

People today have become too complacent. They go to the local 7- 11, and the local Burger King, day after day, expecting it to be there tomorrow. They don't plan ahead. But, what if it's not open tomorrow? What if it's not open for a week? Then what do they do?

This is an excellent example of defending the meme. This "reasoning", Sysyman, is likely why you fell for the doomer scenarios in the first place.

You accuse me of being egotistical? I say those who are wrong can always accuse those who are right of being egostistical - but that will not make it true. I call you egotistical because, even though you have been proven wrong, you still defend your flawed logic. This is a statement of fact. But, who expects a doomer to realise a fact when they see one?

The truth is people are free to do whatever they wish. They can plan ahead or not plan ahead. They do not need you telling them what they should prepare for or not - with all your years of programming experience - and your fears of what could happen. And, by the way, it's nice to see you have chosen to follow Ed Yourdon down the path of moral and intellectual cowardice, and now claim you were never "sure," you were only telling people what "could" happen. Please.

Your "basement" argument is as flawed as your "insurance" premise and will lead to your demonstrated accuracy in reaching a logical conclusion when presented with objective facts. It is not possible to prove a negative, as I argued on the embeddeds issue. And arguing statistics with someone who is statistically illiterate is a wasted effort.

The plain and simple truth is: it didn't take a "God" to figure this out - a mere human could do it, if they examined the evidence (or lack thereof) objectively and applied critical thinking. I know, because I did. But the fact that you believe it would take a "God" speaks volumes about your ego. After all, if you got it wrong, then only a "God" could get it right - right? Is that because you're the smartest and most experienced programmer in existence? Only "God" knows more than you? I've got some news for you, Bruce - brace yourself: you were wrong. You couldn't have been right, and all your excuses and diversionary tacts will never change this fact one iota.

You must live with what you did.

And as for my personal efforts to share my knowledge of the outcome of Y2k with institutions, governments, and individuals; I did. Did I have any effect? The anonimty of this alias allows me to defer the question.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Andy,

Man, you really are dense. You're the one that started this. I'm not trying to defend anything here. Do you have a promlem comprehending, Andy? How many times do I have to say it? I was wrong about Y2K. Do you understand this, Andy? I can't make it any clearer, yet you keep bringing it up, over and over again. Get a grip.

So if you want to continue to get your kicks by "analyzing" my defective logic, and inferior mind, go for it pal. Get your rocks off. I could care less.

The fact of the matter is that this business has been pretty good to me over the years. I live in a beautiful house. I've got money in the bank. I like my job, and people tell me that I'm good at it. How about you, Andy? How happy are you with your life?

This is a waste of time, If you want to continue your mental masturbation, and show us your superior intellict, go for it. I've got better things to do.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

The fact of the matter is that this business has been pretty good to me over the years. I live in a beautiful house. I've got money in the bank. I like my job, and people tell me that I'm good at it. How about you, Andy? How happy are you with your life?

Well, Sysyman, as long as you're happy, I suppose that's all that matters.

You blather on for months about how bad Y2k is going to be. People waste money and time - people, by the way, who do not have money in the bank, who are perhaps less fortunate or less intelligent than you or maybe less content than you personally - after reading your advice and repeatedly having your years of experience thrown in their faces, and it's okay now because you're happy. It's okay now because you still believe there could have been a problem (when it's obvious there could not have been).

Regarding dense-ness: How dense were you and all the doomers? You couldn't see the evidence in front your experienced faces. This simply amounts to more moral cowardice and, actually, was expected. So far as superior intellect is concerned, on this issue, I would humbly submit that I did demonstrate enough intelligence to correctly discern the facts and their impact, and you did not. Another fact (likely wasted on a doomer...).

Doomers are as doomers do.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Sysman, evidently, I didn't word my response as carefully as I may have liked. My neighbor was at the store the morning of December 30th, buying groceries. She wasn't "panic buying". Those who were attempted to start some kind of disturbance by spreading rumors and fear to other shoppers.

We live in an earthquake zone. Our area has also featured mudslides, windstorms, and some very large snowstorms. We have an earthquake kit, and a good stock of canned food on hand. Does this make me a doomer? Hell, NO. We keep extra on hand so we won't have to constantly run to the store. Most women who keep house KNOW to keep food on hand, in case they can't go to the store every day. It's also a household economics measure.

Did we run from house to house in our neighborhood, prior to the rollover, telling the neighbors that they would DIE unless they "prepped"? Did we encourage our friends to buy several thousand dollars of freeze-dried foods so they'd be "ready for Y2K"? Most households have enough foodstuffs to have *something* to eat in the case of a natural disaster or other problem, even if it's P,B and J. I don't buy the "now I've learned how to put a little aside" argument as an excuse by doomers to explain away their truly unbelievable behavior. Were there not several doomers patronizing TB2000's board who were hawking their "preps" businesses, and spinning hysteria as a way to increase their revenues?

Julie

-- Julie (helltoupee2000@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/09year .html?AltaVistaRefId=LmY_WEFnnnnuntly_W

January 8, 2000

Experts Puzzled by Scarcity of Y2K Failures

By BARNABY J. FEDER

Whether it is with scorn, anger or resignation, most computer experts and Year 2000 program managers brush off suggestions that they overreacted to the Y2K threat, taken in by computer companies and consultants positioned to profit from fear.

Still, like the skeptics, many wonder: How did countries that started so late -- and appeared to do so little -- manage to enter 2000 as smoothly as nations like the United States and Britain that got an early jump?

"That question is plaguing all of us, although some people won't admit it," said Maggie Parent, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's representative to Global 2000, an international banking group formed to coordinate and stimulate Year 2000 work. "We expected there to be some significant blowouts."

A World Bank survey published last January concluded that just 54 of 139 developing countries had national Year 2000 programs outlined and only 21 were actually taking concrete steps to prepare.

Japan, China, Italy and Venezuela showed up as high-profile question marks in various studies. Paraguay's Year 2000 coordinator was quoted last summer saying the country would experience so many disruptions its government would have to impose martial law. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova were seen as so risky that the State Department issued travel advisories in November and called nonessential personnel home over New Year's.

So what accounts for the surprisingly quiet rollover? Computer experts cite several factors. Even they may have underestimated how hard many countries worked in the last few months, when the problems were better understood, and how much help came from others that started early. And in many cases, assessments of overseas readiness were based on scarce or vague data.

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. Most countries had much less to do to prepare because they are far less computerized than the United States. The computers they do have are much less likely to be tied together in complex systems and are often so old that they run much simpler software, according to Louis Marcoccio, Year 2000 research director for the Gartner Group, a technology consulting firm.

At a briefing last week on why Pentagon analysts overestimated the risks in many countries, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre said, "If we had a failing, it may be that we extrapolated to the rest of the world the kind of business practices that we have developed here."

more

-- (NY@Times.article), May 12, 2000.

Andy,

You keep telling us that Y2K never could have been a problem. Just answer this one question. It has been asked in a few of your threads over the past couple of days, yet you have avoided it.

Why did our .gov "waste" $50 million on a command center? Why Andy?

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

I am uncertain how much money was wasted by various governments around the globe. Private companies, as well as individuals, collectively wasted several billion, I would estimate. They did it, in part, because they believed the lies of "experts" such as Ed Yourdon, Jim Lord, and Paula Gordon - at least that is my best guess.

Other nations simply did not have the problems shared by most western nations - they didn't have idiots running about shouting the sky was falling. Idiots that have since been proven wrong, but remain indignant about their wrongness - claiming they were right in being wrong...in short: meme-driven dolts.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Andy,

Just one thing....

STFU

-- (justme@csu.csu), May 12, 2000.

"Go after someone else, please, or you hafta shoot my horse out from under me too...:) "

Fact Finder, you should be next soon. The Teal Super Man is now on Flint's case in Quoted Quotes #6. I predict you'll be around #15, and Y2K Pro around #20.

#1 is our Teal Super Hero, ofcourse. He's going to squash all the lesser people's egoes with his terrifying Super Teal Font, and take over the world...one little people at a time. He's working his way up.

-- In awe (of@the.teal.man), May 12, 2000.

Sysman,

Why did our .gov "waste" $50 million on a command center?

I never would have thought this possible before, but it seems that the GOVERNMENT ITSELF was infected by a meme.

My interpretation of the government's actions, when I too was meme-infected, was, "If even the government is taking this seriously, they probably aren't telling us the half of it - Oh Lord, hold onto your hats, it's going to be a wild ride!"

I came of age in the Watergate era. When Senator Bennett said, "Y2k will not be TEOTWAWKI!" this to me was like President Nixon saying "I am not a crook!"

I think the government was just trying to do its best to understand and respond to a situation it didn't understand very well, with the best information it had, which was a ton of misinformation - just as we all were. After all, it's the government's job to rise to the occasion and do the right thing. Although we are usually accustomed to the more cynical view of government, this is in fact what they did.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 12, 2000.

What a fascinating thread.

I have a few comments to add if I may . .

Firstly to set a perspective to my comments here, for anyone who wasn't around ( or has simply forgotten), I was one of the posters who spent many months on TB2000, arguing the case against the prejudice and extremism which was running rife.

I hope during that time I conducted myself with decorum and civility, and if on occasion I strayed towards anything less, I suggest that a claim of extreme provocation would be upheld by any unbiased authority youd care to consult, but I apologise anyway.

My points are these . .

Sysman, I confess that I cannot recall you personally participating in the attack-dog routines that I and many others consistently suffered in that place. However (and you brush this detail aside at your peril) . . . I dont either remember you once standing up and saying a damned thing in support of any of us, nor (more importantly) against the constant tirade we suffered. Therefore, you remain (with many many others), tainted by complicity.

Some eloquent words have been said regarding the characters of those who stand by and do nothing while others are persecuted, despite having an ability to intervene even in some minor way. And as a respected and accepted member of the regular posting community, it is right to say that you had a certain power of influence at that time. You just chose not to use it.

I also concur with Andy Ray that you make some interesting justifications for your actions during that time. Its one thing to say sorry unreservedly, and another to say . . "Im sorry . . BUT".

You wrote . .

[snip] "I was wrong about Y2K, but I am not going to apologize to you, or anyone else, for saying what I beleived to be the truth at the time." [end snip]

Please explain the difference between that, and the following . .

"I mistook the ushers torchlight for a naked flame and yelled fire in a crowded theatre. 25 people were killed in the stampede, but I see no reason to apologise for saying what I thought was the truth at the time. It COULD have been a fire."

An apology for past irresponsibility cannot be accompanied by a justification. Thats just how it is. Explain your justification to all the children of all the marriages that fell apart because one or the other partner fell into the meme you helped to grow.

Finally (for now), you did drop one humorous line in here (by mistake I guess) and I cant resist catching it . . after all, I was always intrigued by the intellectual position you took on Y2k, as someone who traded on their great experience "in the biz". I too am "in the biz", and I figure anyone else who ever was would join me in a smirk at this one . . .

[snip] "How could I have been so wrong about Y2K? Several factors, including . . Microsoft and their last 4 service packs for Win/NT . . If they couldn't get it right, for just one OS, what chance did "everything" else have?"

Judging an issue like Y2K on Microsoft's ability to get an OS right ???

Priceless.

Kind Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Ummmm, Ed didn't predict a 10, but he did think programmers should be hung.

-- (Ed @nd his bloody sysops .were BAD people.), May 12, 2000.

During the debate pre-rollover I thought that Andy Ray was just a polly troll, but now in retrospect I see that he is really more of a wounded-child jerk-off.

The people hurt by your words deserve an apology...

I think little Andy must have had his feelings hurt very badly, poor boy. He reminds me of the errant child who is going to hold his breath until he gets his way. Here Andy, everyone who hurt your feelings is very sorry, very very.

You must live with what you did.

Oh god sysman, how DO you go on? Such a burden that you must bear! Being wrong! Oh God, God, God, how can you live with yourself? You were wrong! Unlike the wunderkind Andy Ray, who is qualified to cast the first stone.

Hey Andy, I've admitted that I was wrong about Y2K, can you admit that you are an asshole?

Do you find that people avoid you at parties?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

During the debate pre-rollover I thought that Andy Ray was just a polly troll, but now in retrospect I see that he is really more of a wounded-child.

The people hurt by your words deserve an apology...

I think little Andy must have had his feelings hurt very badly, poor boy. He reminds me of the errant child who is going to hold his breath until he gets his way. Here Andy, everyone who hurt your feelings is very sorry, very, very sorry.

You must live with what you did.

Oh god sysman, how DO you go on? Such a burden that you must bear! Being wrong! Oh God, God, God, how can you live with yourself? You were wrong! Unlike the wunderkind Andy Ray, who is qualified to cast the first stone.

Hey Andy, I've admitted that I was wrong about Y2K, can you admit that you are an asshole?

PS, Do you find that people avoid you at parties? Or have they perfected the art to the degree that you do not notice?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

OH GOD!!! A DOUBLE POST!! OH Andy, Andy, I'm sooooooo sorry.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Oh no, having read my double post I feel terrible! It seems that I have made a MISTAKE!!!! I hang my head in shame, and I shall not visit this thread again, as punishment.

Good bye cruel world.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Unc

I sincerely respect your humorous (but ineffective) attempt to draw fire for your friend. You are another one who always struck me as someone who might have spoken up, but rarely (if ever) did.

Why the two of you (neither real culprits, in the grand scheme of things) continue to place yourselves into the front line to defend the attitudes of the kinds of people who REALLY should be taking the heat for last year defeats me.

Kudos that you do though, because you must have your reasons.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Wolfie,

I wish I could answer you, but I have banished myself from this thread as punishment for making a mistake. I would answer you if I would have read your post, which I have not done, by virtue of me not being here. Sorry, any more than this would be an admission of lurking here, which I do not do.

You didn't see me, it was a dream, go back to sleep.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

W,

(The following rant isn't just directed at you, nonetheless...here goes)

Perhaps you may remember me. We battled side-by-side several times, fought the censorship, the smearing, the piranha-like verbal attacks set upon optimists who visited TB2000.

I wasn't an optimist, nor a doomer. I offered help to those looking to prep. I insisted each individual do their own research. Do I blame Ed for MY DECISION TO PREP? SYSMAN? RUSS? DIANE? ETC.? FUCK NO!!!! I'd take myself out behind the woodshed & put a bullet in my head before I'd grasp for a spineless excuse such as that.

Do you take responsibility for your actions, W? I assume your answer is yes. Why then are you different from EVERY OTHER adult in this world (except for Mrs. Teal)who are apparently unable to decide which pot to piss in without Sysman's advice? Why must you tear others down in defense of those poor, weak souls who couldn't break away from the magnetism which oozed from Sysman's every pore?

And most obvious, what does all this berating accomplish? Does it repair a family torn apart? Does it feed a hungry child?

I can hear the response now - "The meme-infected must be made to see their disease so this never happens again." L-O-FUCKIN"-L

You come on this board & place blame on one person for the decisions of another? Are you THAT FUCKING IGNORANT? Do you truly believe Sysman is responsible for Harry over there getting a divorce? Or Sally leaving her husband & kids to join a Y2K community?

No, I don't believe you do. You're not that ignorant.

Then again I've been wrong before...

And how many freakin' times did Unk blast KOS & Ray, to name a few. Damn, man! Re-write history while you're at it.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 12, 2000.

My apologies for the unnecessary use of foul language.

Wait, Sysman e-mailed me privately with the suggestion I get more aggressive. Wasn't my fault. Someone please call Sysman on the carpet for influencing my behavior to the point where it has negatively effected myself, my family & the guy next door with the blue hair & diagonal zippers on his clothes.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 12, 2000.

Yes, please do! This Bingo character has made my life a living hell since that sysman character told him to get more assertive. I can hardly leave the house now, what with all of the foul language, and the Mrs is very upset too.

Please cease and desist, I thank you.

Good day sir!

signed,

That guy with

-- Blue hair and (diagon@lzippers.com), May 12, 2000.

ROFL! Thanks, I needed that!

Now, to replace the gasket I just blew...

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 12, 2000.

Bingo:

I'd have to agree with you, even if your argument were stated without the attending language. Similar discussions were held either on various fora or via E-mail. I, personally, disapprove, and have ALWAYS disapproved of using a scape-goat in matters of personal responsibility. Then again, I'm a cold-hearted bitch, and think everyone should hold their own accountability. Others think people should be protected from their own ignorance. We disagree.

I've discussed Y2k with optimists and pessimists alike, and rarely have I found anyone that BLAMES others for their OWN stupidity. Pessimists may JUSTIFY their stupidity, but I don't see them BLAMING others for their decisions. Most folks who blindly accepted the words of others learn a lesson and move on. SOME folks, as in the Jim Jones' experience, learn a FINAL lesson.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Bingo

Your post deserves a response. Of course I remember you. You're right, we argued against the censorship long and hard. You a prepper and me a polly. And why could we stand there and do that ? Because we were both essentially moderate people.

But the censorship was the root and branch support of what ? Of the old TB2000, the forum where Y2K DIS-information and the free reign of FUD held its last stand. You were there for the worst of it, so you know what I mean.

I can only speculate on exactly why you fought the censorship. Maybe you just detest censorship per-se. From what I've seen of your postings, I'd say thats pretty likely. But that wasn't the end of the story for me.

To me, the censorship was the weakest crack in the many-bricked wall of defence that the hardcore doomers (I'm not referring to the ordinary preppers . . but the attack dogs and their masters) mounted around their den of fear. It was visible and exposed. It was an embarrassing wart on the otherwise pristine mask they erected around their snake oil sales pitches and their fearmongering.

So I picked at it, as did you, and we made it bigger (I Hope). And in doing that, I also hope that some saw the mask for what it was. After all, a peaceful little forum with no dispute and no counter argument was exactly what they wanted. Witness EZ nowadays. With that kind of setup, those disposed to believe the doom would be fed only the one side of the story. Most times, the arguments arent strong enough to withstand logical counterplay and peer review.

And I was always of the belief that the main risk from Y2K came from the chance of a badly informed public rushing into a panic. I stand by the position I took. And TB was running the panic show in the little part of the net I hung out in.

So I'm not especially blaming Sysman personally for anything, except for his conditional apology. And the fact that like many others, he stood by in silence. So if I sounded a bit high and mighty, then probably I submitted to a little instinctive bitterness for all the venom that was aimed at me and others last year, for daring to state a different view. I apologise sincerely for that weakness on my part.

And Sysman is here after all, posting and discussing this Y2K post- mortem in an open forum, and I respect him for that. I'd probably raise a few comments to OldGit and Diane and a few others given the chance, but they dont come around here much for some reason.

To my recollection, Unc raised his head a time or two to criticise certain of the extremists, but I never considered him a hardcore complainer. Maybe I just didnt see all his posts, in which case, I apologise UNRESERVEDLY for the insinuation.

Im sorry my comments got your heckles up Bingo, but the argument you dismiss about "those who forget are doomed to repeat" holds true for me. Like many other ordinary folk, I just happened to get pulled into the Y2K thing by chance.

But in my humble opinion, it's just a matter of the specific details about the time and the subject matter, before the next fear drive gets underway. There are already a few new memes in the pipeline. Whatever it is though, it probably wont have the media boost that Y2K got. That was a special event wasn't it ? And especially dangerous for that.

But when the new meme comes, for sure others will try to balance the arguments too. I hope that Sysman will be one of them next time.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Wolfie,

I think that Unk complained a lot about censoring others, he was and is a freedom of expression kind of guy.

Although I cannot put words into his mouth, I think that he would say that he rose up against the attack dogs more than any other confirmed doomster, but, what with being infected by the meme, and seeing the futility of arguing with rabid dogs, he perhaps said less than he should have in defense of polly types. Not that polly types were free from bitter words or insult. It was a divided battlefield, and the most heinously wounded were those in the middle.

I don't think he is sorry though, as he told that blue haired guy in diagonal zippered pants, he did his best, with what he understood, at the time. And he told me that he stood up for sysman cause sys is a good Joe, as are many who were wrong.

And the beat goes on.

-- Somebody else (notunk@notyahoo.notcom), May 12, 2000.

Don't forget the good Janes like me. I spoke up against censorship, but was outgunned. I was convinced there couldn't be much harm in prepping in case pollies were wrong, so I didn't see the point in becoming an "attack dog" against censorship and risk being censored myself.

I remember many preppers who spoke up against censorship, none were rabid about anything either. Just decent Joes and Janes like Unk.

-- (jane@was.good.too), May 12, 2000.

As nice as it is to have reinforcements in defense of logic, is it required? Why would anyone want to tangle with a rabid dog? Why would one be required to TELL others that the dog is rabid if the dog is as visible in the symptoms to others as it is to you? Are we to assume that we're the ONLY people familiar with the symptoms? Are we to assume that everyone else is in a trance induced by the rabid dog?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

W,

Thank you for your calm reply.

It appears your venting was the straw that busted the camels hump for me. Sorry I directed it at you.

Weak person's reason for my outburst: I'm starting day 17 without nicotine flowing through my system. Cold turkey. No patch. Am I still experiencing withdrawal? You betcha. Am I gonna smoke today? No way! Do I blame the above tirade on being without this potent drug? No, I do not. Nor do I blame...wait for it...Sysman. Or you or Mrs. Teal.

I don't blame anyone who was routinely abused on TB2000 for wanting to put it in the faces of those who drastically misbehaved. I mentioned this when I first found this board - quite accidently. Flint was calling out Russ for his long-anticipated analysis. Vehemently calling for him to give us his take as promised.

IMO, Flint, earned the right to badger those who so mercilessly berated him for the better part of a year. Flint contributed mightily to the debate, paid the price & kept on plowing. But in my mind Flint's victory is that, for the most part, he communicated his thoughts peaceably. Lord knows butting heads with Milne and 'a' day after day would have been too much for me to handle.

I say the same about Ken Decker, though no one short of Asimov or Clancy could match Flint's word production!

Bottom line for me is this: Sysman has the guts to face us, tail between his legs a might, contrite, but looking to move on. And I grant him that wish. You want to go after TB2000's PTB, all the best, W. They're not here. Same to Mrs. Teal. Go find them, drag them into the town square & place them in stocks. Have fun.

On a lighter note, as I awakened to no water for the 2nd time in six months, I have to go dip into my preps for water to flush, brush, & cook morning mush. Looks like the submersible needs to be pulled. It sits 250' down. That's a back-breaker. Anybody wanna lend a hand?

Best,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 13, 2000.

You buyin?

-- Not Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

Not Unk,

What I'm not buying is another pump. I threw the circuit breaker off, then on again. Lo & behold we have water! I can face the rest of the day with big smiles now. Not much worse than having to pull a sub pump by hand. Especially with a back like mine.

And I wouldn't have to buy, Not Unk. I stashed various bevs, just in case. They remain untouched, as I no longer imbibe. Help yourself anytime your in northern Virginia.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 13, 2000.

While I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread, I'd like to write a few words on Sysman's behalf:
I was a "polly" -- and an occasionally abusive (though not to the degree that I became unusually disruptive) one at that. I enjoyed discussing technical issues with Sysman and I found that many of his conclusions regarding Y2K were very reasonable. I found Sysman to be decent and even handed, and I believe his intention was to provide good information, based on his own experience and knowledge, to everyone. Incidentally, I can also remember a couple sysops who seemed to lurk only to silence and ridicule any opposition, though I won't mention names (Diane).

Anyway, I'm rambling. Here's to Sysman! It takes a big man to admit some of his conclusions were erroneous.

Mori-Nu, a.k.a. millennium

-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), May 13, 2000.

Andy,

"They did it, in part, because they believed the lies of "experts" such as Ed Yourdon, Jim Lord, and Paula Gordon - at least that is my best guess."

LOL Andy. Yes, Yourdon and Gordon did testify, but how many others did also? With all of the resources that the .govs of the world have, not to mention those of private industry, you continue to blame it all on Yourdon, and the "poor" doomers like myself.

Look at what Unc said, and what I mentioned before. We're all adults here. People are free to make up their own mind. The pollys made up a very large part of TB2000. For example, Flint and I were virtually tied in the number of posts that we made. Hoff had his say. Ken had his say. You had yours. FactFinder, Chicken little, Y2K Pro, countless others presented their side of the story. But according to you, it was the land of doomers, where the other side was silenced.

Get on with your life Andy. I have.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 13, 2000.

Sysman,

You asked for links about our Floyd conversations. I don't have time to look for them now; have busy taking care of my mother, who's been ill. That's a fact.

But will say this much: during the Floyd conversations, I talked about how the local utility made it through with power delivery, excepting for one 24-hour period, though it took us totally by surprise. The local substation got flooded completely out, which fact I posted. It's no secret that substations contain computers which control the delivery of power.

You asked, "So what does that have to do with computers?" DUH then, and DUH now. Two dozen computers that control power distribution here got flooded out along with that substation, which I posted then. Guess your memory's getting a bit short.

Yet the local electrical PTB made it through. The point I was making the whole time, was that if we could make it through something as TOTALLY unexpected as Floyd, we could SURE make it through something like Y2k, which was pre-known for years. A point which was lost on Doomers at the time.

But a point which has been proven to be true, huh.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 14, 2000.

There is a similarity between Floyd and Y2K that's usually overlooked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/national/longterm/hurricane/stories/scene16.htm

But it appears that, at least in coastal Florida and Georgia, the hurricane will be remembered not for its destruction, but for the unprecedented and problematic evacuation.

So many people left their homes that Interstate 10 was backed up nearly from one side of the state to the other. Motorists stranded in their cars, barely moving, continuously called radio stations with nightmare stories of overheating engines and increasingly insane children. The typical two-hour drive on any east-west interstate became a 10-hour ordeal. Many motorists gave up their dream of finding a distant motel room and slept in their cars on the sides of the roads.

Should someone have been called on the carpet for warning Florida that Floyd might hit them?

-- (just@in.case), May 14, 2000.

big difference between a hurricane [REAL danger provable by past experience] and y2k [IMAGINED danger, HYPED to the MAX, as date got closer more and more info proved it couldn't be very bad AT ALL]

When the idiot doomers learn the difference between the two, they will understand why their brains quit working for roll-over!

-- IDIOT DOOMERS (get@life.geez), May 15, 2000.