This question from a thread about Doomsters who have vanished from the scene gets to the heart of the *Real* Y2k problem:

HOW does the average person handle complex technical issues, who does one listen to and most importantly, "How does a Society rule itself in an increasingly technologically complicated world? "

===================================================== http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003GaP

Does anyone else wonder who to listen to if there really is a looming disaster? What if the "wolf" really does come? Who should we listen to? -- Jeanne (jcd51@webtv.net), June 03, 2000. =====================================================

The simple answer to this is to say that "if it sounds crazy" it is. That is simplistic. Another way would be to look and see if the "scenario" is a series of "if...thens,,then..then...then...then...and then KABOOM..." all piled into some sort of "chain reaction" (ie: the domino theory of marble heads). For the real "weakness" in the reasoning chain is the breakdown of just one of the "links".

LOGIC is not done by "majority rule". If there is an "exception" it disproves the rule and the "theory" or scenario needs to be either discarded or re-worked. (We can show how that happened over the time line of Y2k as one by one all of the "ideas" about what would happen were disproven ((TB I not withstanding)) ).

One is still left with the question of "what to do" and what the "threshold for action" needs to be. Y2k *was* the ultimate game of "Who do you trust?" and on TB I the answer was clear: trust us, we know more than anyone else and you better prepare. Outside in the real world, 99.99% of the people from Survivalists to Libertarians to the John Birch Soc. to the assorted Centrists rejected the absurdity of "TEOTW". "Time Bomb Y2k" was not a Nuke weapon and it sputtered out with all the power of a Wet Noodle.

The first level answer to this is of course, that like Red Riding Hood, you call in The Hunter Service who takes care of the Wolf.

The problem though is :

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH "HUNTER SERVICE" TO CALL UPON? HOW...do you even know which phone book to look up the number of the assorted Hunter Services?

This is no laughing matter because it is now clear that many who fell for the Doom or even moderate disaster theories of Y2k essentially believed and acted upon bad information by simply "Listening to the Wrong (very) People."

That was **NOT** the fault of those mislead...(and still mislead though the charletans still around Yourdon would have you believe that "it weren't us"). Such things happen but for every doom scene there are few who "buy into" all of them. Few believe "comtrails" or "death camps" or "TPTB" or even any of non-Y2k crap passed off as "documented facts" whether on the net or in a bar room/coffee shop.

WHY? How can "informed people" be "mislead"?

In brief, it is the fault of two things, a lack of a device known in the venacular as "a BS Detector" and also, a lack of even the standards by which to "judge" (evaluate) both the information and the people spreading it.

Because Y2k was such a simple problem to understand (you could learn it in 15 minutes and derive the "impacts" of failure in an hour), people came to conclusions rapidly.

We know this because the peak of Y2k Fear/Panic was from Nov. - March 1998-9 before the Senate report was released. We also know that was the peak of the "prepare Stockpiling" because vendors reported sales started crashing in Spring, 1999.

One can then ask, "Why did people "react" and spend hard earned money, join "community organizations (well outside the normal ones like Red Cross or local civil ones) and in general, "panic" LONG BEFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS IN?

Such fear of "the unknown" suggests that forces were at work and unless we understand what "did" happen, there will be more "False Alarms" like Y2k. Spread by *more* of the same "AFABs" (anything for a buck).

The fact that Y2k Doom was found only in the USA (with a scattering of Zombies in the UK, Canada and other places) indicates mostly that it was in fact the product of a concentrated effort on the part of "vested interests" coupled with the Free Press and aided greatly by the rise (and speed) of the "influence" of the Net.

However, aside from some efforts by the usually inept Politicians both in Congress and the White House, the Y2k Doom Scenario did not infect the vast majority of the USA population except for becoming the butt of year end jokes.

So, *THIS TIME*, the forces of Know Little were repulsed by the System of "Checks and Balances" that enables the political structures of the USA to "FLEX" as needed no matter how loud the screeching of the Vested Interests and splinter pressure groups.

Why is Y2k important then?

Consider:

"NEXT TIME WE MIGHT NOT BE SO LUCKY".

The USA system has always depended as (Thomas Jefferson really wanted it to) upon "the informed citizenry" of the then mostly Agrarian polulation living in "small town America" (no long gone). When Paul Revere set out to warn of danger, he did not use a SUV and ride around Boston but rather used horses and went out to the small towns.

We know now that it is not possible for anyone to be an "expert in all fields" as were many of the ForeFathers / Founders. It is becoming very difficult to be even an "informed citizen" who keeps up with both domestic and international affairs.

Worse, if the Politicians and *non-well* meaning Vested interests will it, they can distort and manipulate "the System" by "Seizing an Issue" and literally "making a Federal Case out of it".

We know it is not going to get any "easier" any longer. The shortages of trained people for High Technology is bad enough.

The shortage of "trained" CITIZENS, informed and educated in Technology is far greater.

CPR xxxxxxx

-- Charles Reuben (buytexas@swbell.net), June 04, 2000

Answers

Great points, Charles. Like back in Germany in the '30s, when Jews started getting nervous about what Hitler might end up doing to them. Some of the more extreme "doomers" even feared that he might want to EXTERMINATE them, and fled Germany while they thought they could still do so, before they thought it might be too late.

Can you imagine anything more ludicrous? Obviously, an early manifestation of the doomer meme.

Folks, listen to Charles, he clearly knows what he is talking about. History proves that big bad extreme things never happen to good people. Anyone who thinks otherwise is under the control of a doomer meme.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

Excellent summary.

This must not have been up for very long, because there aren't any scathing rebuttals as of yet; though they won't be long in coming, certainly.

I for one have learned from Y2k that the nickname of the state of Missouri makes for a good philosophy, when dealing with anything read on the internet. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Like Paul Davis has said, "I demand evidence".

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 04, 2000.

Heh -- spoke too soon. WD-40 posted while I was typing mine.

One thing you evidently fail to realize, WD:

The Hitler threat materialized.

The Y2k threat did NOT. And WILL NOT.

Your comparisons are, therefore, totally and absolutely meaningless.

Try again. Better luck next time.

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 04, 2000.

Right, CL. And it was OBVIOUS that the Hitler threat was real, and Y2K was not ...

... in HINDSIGHT.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

...and your point is?????

-- Chicken Little (panic@isover.now), June 04, 2000.

HOW,S ABOUT, when the real crap hit,s the fan?will everyone be cynical [set-up] by then??

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 04, 2000.

OK, Birdbrain, let me try to put is as simply as I can. If you strip out all the fluff, what Charles is saying is, "If some doomsday scenario sounds wacky, it is wacky". If, in 1933, you had claimed that, with the whole world watching, a world leader was going to deliberately attempt to exterminate an entire race, that would be considered wacky.

Please don't ask me to make this any simpler, CL.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

With Hitler you were dealing with the potential of a human mind. With Y2K you were dealing with verifiable laws of physics. Hitler could convince people to behave in a certain manner, no-one can talk a nuclear power plant into failing. Apples and oranges.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 04, 2000.

WD-40:

So what you're saying is that if y2k had been the brainchild of a single individual, we'd have needed to take it very seriously no matter how preposterous or wacky it might sound. After all, crazy people do crazy things.

I agree completely. People with great power deserve great scrutiny, lest they misuse that power. But I'm not quite sure how this relates to what was obviously millions of different people addressing a common (and soon to expire) coding assumption. Each case must be considered on its merits, rather than equated to other cases with which they have NOTHING in common, for self-serving reasons.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Stupid, stupid pollies. Try to follow:

1) Both Hitler's "Final Solution" scenario and the "Y2K" scenario came across as highly unlikely when initially considered in advance by a reasonable person.

2) In both cases, there was no concrete, hard evidence to support such scenarios, just a lot of doomsaying based on suggestive, soft evidence. (You know, Flint, like the IEEE letter to Congress of 6/9/99....)

3) In both cases, the probabilites were low, but the stakes were high.

Are we learning yet? Or still hiding behind B.S. memes?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

This is truely interesting. Flint again doing what he does like no other and he admits he was infected by some wacky mind entity? and WD40 calls me a frothing wacko? Sorry, all the thinking, experts, debating in this universe will not teflon coat one from the likes of a mind virus as strong or as historical as the Millennium Contagion. The issue is hostability.

Never been about anything but Memes. How is it possible, even the most expert of experts, had doubts(pick your timeframe to when they had questions)? Was Y2k that much different than a zillion other computing issues these experts deal with every bloody day? What caused many to waver as to potential impact? If Y2k was generally not all that unusual a computing issue with rather simple corrections, why the widespread doubt? Nobody knew certain potential risk? Back in say 1996, before all the wonderful hallow fluff to calm the masses, nobody had ever seen something similar to a digit issue and remediation impacts? To believe this is to ignore REALITY. Ignore the FUDsters, why was it so easy for a Peter De Jager to sell the story? I contend because he was spreading a Meme that only this time used the most simplistic of computing issues as the skid. So simple, yet supposed experts bought the package. The issue today is technology, thus Y2k as the route.

How is it possible a NUT like Gary North went as long as he did, as far as he did? how on this earth is this possible? How is it possible Gary is linked on just about EVERY website in the known universe? even AFTER most knew his background? something is at work here and it ain't logic. Forget using that as Flint has so graciously proved for any wondering all these months.

Hostability, why are so many at risk these days, as they were in 1933 Germany? this be the issue.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

WD-40

You were never the brightest bulb in class - were you?

You are trying to compare a definable technical problem, that occurred on a definable date with the complex issue of hate, religion, race and blame  all conceived in the mind of a madman.

Your analogy is ill- conceived and poorly thought out.

Choose another and try again...

Oh, and by the way, what handle did you use BEFORE Y2K fizzled into nothingness? Stupid, stupid pollies. Try to follow: 1) Both Hitler's "Final Solution" scenario and the "Y2K" scenario came across as highly unlikely when initially considered in advance by a reasonable person. 2) In both cases, there was no concrete, hard evidence to support such scenarios, just a lot of doomsaying based on suggestive, soft evidence. (You know, Flint, like the IEEE letter to Congress of 6/9/99....) 3) In both cases, the probabilites were low, but the stakes were high. Are we learning yet? Or still hiding behind B.S. memes? -- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Way retro, dude. Still chanting about "stupid pollies" despite reality's unanimous verdict to the contrary, that it was "stupid doomies". Still answering careful analysis with false slogans, and expecting the "me too" crowd to join in.

So tell us, WD-40. What handle did you use before rollover, that you don't dare use anymore? Are you afraid that if you tell us, someone will actually post some of your past insights? Afraid that might undermine your calling others stupid?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Sorry WD, Cherri and Flint have nailed it, and I'll add one more thing: Even IF (*BIG* IF) (1) spectacular computer breakdowns occurred in a (2) uniform enough manner to have a uniform enough, (3) visible enough effect on life as we know it, it's a far stretch to think that (4) masses of people everywhere would turn against each other and create chaos, instead of trying to help each other.

The more I talk about this, the more I am amazed that I ever bought into these scenarios. My best explanation (in my case) is that the emotion of doom compounds itself over time, making perceptions worse. Dirty filters don't work too well.

The scenario of Hitler coming to power has to do with the will of an individual multiplied x times the people doing his bidding, x need for a leader. Very complex, psychologically and historically. "Sleepwalkers" by Hermann Broch is one among many good reads about the forces converging on this period. By comparison, computer breakdowns are trivial, trivial, trivial. Even writ large x the millions of breakdown scenarios that there supposedly would be, they are still trivial, by comparison.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

Well, guys, I think we have beat this one to smithereens. Let's just say that the Holocaust was a "win" for the doomies, whereas Y2K was a "win" for the pollies. Feel better now? (Didn't think so.)

And yes, Doc, memes are bullcrap and you are a nutcase. Also, you post funny.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

Tripe from WD-40 put into the universal translator:

"I am too cowardly to admit my Nazi/Y2K analogy is poorly thought out nonsense, and I do not have the testicles (ovaries?) to admit my pre- rollover handle.

In short, I am a Tinfoil..."

-- Y2K Pro (Y2Kpro1@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Nick Z vs who? Go rest awhile WD40 you're hallucinating now.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

Y2K Pro: That still makes more sense that anything Doc Paulie says. Run that through the tranlator. (Chortle.)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

WD-40,

The analogy is flawed, plain and simple.

In the first case (the Nazis), you were dealing with acts of WILL committed by people. In the second case, you were dealing with possible acts of chaos caused by malfunctioning computers. The former is difficult to quantify; the latter is not.

People like me, Cherri, Paul Davis and a host of others argued all through 1999 that most of the scenarios postulated for Y2K COULD NOT happen. Not, "probably won't;" not, "maybe won't," but COULD NOT.

PERIOD.

And even if we grant that your analogy is valid (which it isn't), you still shoot yourself in the foot. There was plenty of evidence of what Hitler was going to mistreat the jews (starting with Mein Kampf and continuing with the hundreds of speeches he made while the National Socialist Party was still struggling for power).

On the other hand, Y2K doom was NEVER the majority viewpoint. Never. At no time during the entire debate did a majority of computer professionals EVER believe that Y2K could lead to even the bad recession/depression scenarios, much less the "breakdown of the infrastructure" nonsense.

Even in government, there was a large split of opinion. A MINORITY believed that it could cause problems; most did not. You doomers tended to focus on testimony from those who believed it WOULD be bad, and completely discounted the arguments of those who -- correctly, in retrospect -- said it was mostly mountains out of molehills.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 04, 2000.

Has the Lubricant left?

Stephen, Many may have thought Y2k a nobrainer but before Biffy, who was even questioning North or Yourdon? Why weren't they as North himself so proudly boasted, making websites refuting his factoids? And if North not even worthy of answering, why did many sitting in organizations who had websites linking to the Garee remain unfazed? Sorry it don't wash.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

Stephen:

First, let me say that it is a pleasure to read a comprehensive opposing point of view that actually makes sense. Between Doc "Mad Dog" Paulie's frothing, Flint's hysteria, and Cherri's bimbo sputtering, it's a wonder that even you can still post here.

Your point is well taken: Any historian carefully comparing the evidence that accumulated before and during the Holocaust, versus the evidence prior to the non-event of Y2K, would surely conclude that the former was real and certain, whereas the latter was ultimately based on incorrect assumptions fanned by worry.

MY point, however, is that in the early, formative stages of a possible doomsday scenario, all that the average person can do is cope with a good deal of conflicting claims and evidence. Assuming with absolute certainty that everything is going to go just fine is NOT justified. As was the case in Germany, often one needs to act fast prior to all the evidence being in, if one has a chance of surviving.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

CL, Cherri, Flint, Doc Paulie, Y2K Pro and WD-40,

Would one of you please start a thread to let Ken Decker know that this analogy is flawed?

The life and times of TB 2000 are interesting as dynamics of fringe group. I doubt the "majority" of TB 2000 participants engaged in personal attacks... but the "majority" tolerated these attacks. The majority of Germans did not participate in atrocities... but they tolerated them.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 2000.

-- (Thanks@Ever so.much), June 04, 2000.

WD-40:

I agree completely. If in the nearly complete absence of information you have some reason to suspect serious problems, acting quickly and decisively is reasonable. Not so reasonable is to continue claiming things will be as bad as you thought they originally might have been, despite growing evidence to the contrary. By the time of the IEEE letter, the case being made for doom had almost entirely collapsed, and was propped up with blatant dishonesty (your Holocaust analogy being yet another case in point).

Almost nobody on TB2K mitigated their position even a smidgeon during this entire period, and many of them followed down Infomagic's rathole, convincing themselves things would be even *worse* than they originally thought. Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Flint:

That in itself would be an excellent topic for discussion -- why, as we got closer to the rollover, and the view SHOULD have been clearer, did the doomer/polly camps seemingly become even more divided. (Hint: It was NOT due to any fictitious meme bullcrap.) That would make a good thread.

Meanwhile: So are you now in agreement with MY point on THIS thread, that you can't just dismiss a doomsday scenario because it "sounds" farfetched?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

First its interesting that BS artists llke WD-Zero mentions Hitler when in reality the PROPAGANDA was flowing from NORTH, HYATT AND YOURDON ENDLESSLY TO THE END keeping the Cult brainwashed. Someday, Diane Squires and the somewhat "slow" FM /MM will recant and discuss the fact that they were "taken in" and "under the influence".

AARON LYNCH discussed that far beyond the surface treatement of "meme" that people on Y2k boards discuss.

As for WHY?? Why did it keep goind after "everyone" in,,,the REAL WORLD "KNEW" Y2k woul not be a disaster (and forget that BS about "nobody knew").

Flint asked:

Almost nobody on TB2K mitigated their position even a smidgeon during this entire period, and many of them followed down Infomagic's rathole, convincing themselves things would be even *worse* than they originally thought. Why? Flint -----------------

WHY? Aside from being trapped in the "meme"? And the effort of a few former "consultants" like Yourdon and Bruce Webster to save their reputations?

MONEY and GREED.

THERE WAS **INVENTORY** TO LIQUIDATE. And as anyone knows that in a crashing market, "anything" you get is better than nothing. There is little value for hurricane lamps beyond normal Retail after the storm blows out to sea.

Doesn't anyone remember the "sales" that the vendors had?

How about that Saint of Y2k, Mike Adams with his liquidations of others inventory? He claimed Y2kNewswire made "nothing" on that. (He never mention what his Y2k supply site might be making as a referral fee ((nor did Gary North or Hyatt for that matter)).

Hyatt: BOOKS (and he was still taking orders for storage food to the ned).;

Yourdon: BOOKS

Lord Dumbo, McElvaney, North, et. al: NEWSLETTERS, tapes, pamphlets etc.

Y2ktoday and other sites had "sales" in the fall but many other sites had blown out their inventory long before that.

At the end, some of the "real players" in the survivalist and Far Left came out. (www.gasmasks posted almost daily under an alias to TB I).

Everything sold out of inventory went to their pockets because it was "cash" even if they only got ten cents on the dollar. There was a comment on the Y2k News Radio network once that "someone" had been buying up all the left over inventory from the failing "survivalist vendors".

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 04, 2000.

I'd like to interrupt this thread to point out that some of the **finest** minds I know are actually arguing with an entity who refers to him/herself as a lubricant.

That said, I would like to address a couple of points to WD. First, just because **YOU** don't understand something doesn't make it unintelligible. Instead of resorting to personal attacks (i.e., "Mad dog...frothing", "hysteria", "nutcase", "birdbrain", "bimbo sputtering") perhaps you should sit back and at least attempt to understand what these people are trying to say to you, because frankly, they are making a hell of a lot more sense than you are.

Second, why do you have to "make a deal" to enlighten us as to your "TB2K Identity"? Somehow, I doubt that would shed any light on whatever it is you are trying to convey.

Third, as to "memes", have you actually read the article in question? Try this link. After you've read that link, try this one.

If you still doubt the power or even the existence of "memes", please explain how the "doomsayers" on TB2K and elsewhere simply refused to accept any report that indicated "good news" in relation to Y2K; instead, clinging to their belief (hope?) that "it's all going away".

Barring that, please explain the overwhelming and everlasting success of Madison Avenue and the entire advertising industry.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 04, 2000.

WD-40 = Mr. CEO

-- Savage (blah@blah.com), June 04, 2000.

Patricia:

Since, unlike CPR and Paulie, you appear to still be capable of posting coherent posts (and, unlike Cherri, appear to have some intelligence), let me at least try to state the following as simply and directly as I can. Quite frankly, in view of the deterioration of people that seem to get themselves caught up in The Cult of The Meme, you may not have that much time left. (I mean, just LOOK at Doc Paulie's posts. Do they ever strike you as odd? Like the sort of thing one might write while farting in the bathtub, for example? No? How about CPR? Does he come across to you as a happy person? Hmmm? Got you thinking, don't I? Good.)

To attribute someone's belief that differs from yours to a fictitious entity such as this meme garbage is to completely duck the issue at hand. It's the equivalent of saying, "What I believe is what God says I am to believe, and if you think differently, then it is of the Devil, and I will not even CONSIDER it." It means that you have already made up your mind that someone who used their thinking abilities, but came to a different conclusion than you did, is not merely in disagreement with you, but is because they are in some way "defective". That, well, OF COURSE they think that way, because of THE MEME. This ludicrious crap is far more "cult" like then anything was on TB2000. (Well, OK, maybe excepting chemtrails....)

Nobody knew what was going to happen with Y2K; some people chose to take precautions, some people chose not to; most people ignored the whole thing entirely. Personally, I still have a lot of questions. But I guarantee you two things: 1) There was no government conspiracy to dupe people into NOT preparing; 2) There was no "meme" that duped people INTO preparing.

It's called free-will. Get some.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

savage=cpr=MPD

-- (Laughter@is.healthy), June 04, 2000.

Patricia,

It had to do with not knowing. As Charles finally points out the big question was "Who to 'listen to.'"

WD-40,

My parents fled Germany in '37. Not Jewish but not dumb enough to not cover the bet.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 04, 2000.

To attribute someone's belief that differs from yours to a fictitious entity such as this meme garbage is to completely duck the issue at hand. It's the equivalent of saying, "What I believe is what God says I am to believe, and if you think differently, then it is of the Devil, and I will not even CONSIDER it." It means that you have already made up your mind that someone who used their thinking abilities, but came to a different conclusion than you did, is not merely in disagreement with you, but is because they are in some way "defective". That, well, OF COURSE they think that way, because of THE MEME. This ludicrious crap is far more "cult" like then anything was on TB2000. (Well, OK, maybe excepting chemtrails....)

I was wrong about you WD, you are just a village variety idiot. Take your eyeballs up aways and reread the part about Flint. Sit and ponder, run it thru your meat grinder of analysis and intellect. See.... even responding to you is pointless as you have not the ability, even if meme free, to get past your fat ego hang-up with the "pollies". Ya them dummies who using THEIR noodles(following your logic)who unlike you the mastermind, did not fall for the stupidity even GRANNY next door with the purple hair said was nonsense. So much for the power of critical thinking. In your case, your thinking deal preformed much WORSE than completely ignoring Y2k from day one,,,opps.

Now if you are comfortable living with your brain, which cannot even figure out Y2k a pile of dogcrap, fine, have a good one. And don't bother thanking any of us on this thread for trying to add value to your petty life, our mistake.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

BTW,,,,whatever happened to Peter Errington? Now he could never have been meme-infected, Oh no never.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

Warning, WD:

Doc is humping Patricia in real life so you will never make any headway with her. (Only Doc makes "head" way with her!)

-- (Lost c@use. don't bother), June 04, 2000.

WD-40,

Where did you flee to for the alignment of the planets in Early May of this year? This was a situation that could have had extreme consequences if what some of the doomers said was possible became true.

Should I leave the Midwest because of the New Madrid fault?

Just wondering?

CJS

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), June 04, 2000.

lostc@use:

Considering Doc's fascination with "fannybubbles", and Patricia's fascination with lubricant, ...

Nahhh, I won't make any "cracks".

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

CJS:

Amazingly enough, when contrasted with the others on this thread, your post actually looks sensible, rather than bizarre.

Always remember: Timing is everything.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

MY point, however, is that in the early, formative stages of a possible doomsday scenario, all that the average person can do is cope with a good deal of conflicting claims and evidence. Assuming with absolute certainty that everything is going to go just fine is NOT justified. As was the case in Germany, often one needs to act fast prior to all the evidence being in, if one has a chance of surviving.

Leaving out the analogy and the namecalling (from both sides), this is a legitimate topic worthy of discussion.

I think this gets back to having a good "BS detector". When we start seeing extraordinary claims, we should expect extraordinary evidence. When most of industry and insiders stated that Y2K wouldn't be a disaster, those few who cried doom should have had some good evidence. They did not, they had only BS, and MOST of that was on the Internet. In the future, when someone claims "doom", "killer virus", etc., I would suggest: 1. Consider the source, investigate the source 2. Research for opposing views from credible knowledgable sources 3. Turn BS Detector to "maximum intensity".

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 04, 2000.

I won't make any "cracks".

Good one!

I don't think there are any other people on this board that are more "anal" retentative.

-- (Peeuueeey@they.stink), June 04, 2000.

Some of you are really beneath contempt. You can't hold up your end of a debate, so you resort to attacking someone and their personal life. It seems as if "lostc@se" is a PERFECT name for you.

Get it all out of your system and if you find the time, perhaps you'd like to address the actual ISSUES, which, BTW, have absolutely nothing to do with my personal life.

Juveniles.

BTW, "WD", I HAVE free-will. You, OTOH, by joining in with the other oh-so-BRAVE anonymous poster, have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that you do NOT possess anything even remotely resembling "free- will".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 05, 2000.

lostc@se=LL

-- (duh@duh.duh), June 05, 2000.

Doc,

Stephen, Many may have thought Y2k a nobrainer but before Biffy, who was even questioning North or Yourdon? Why weren't they as North himself so proudly boasted, making websites refuting his factoids? And if North not even worthy of answering, why did many sitting in organizations who had websites linking to the Garee remain unfazed?

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I've never let that stop me in the past. :)

As I've said elsewhere, the real problem is that most of us simply didn't take Y2K Doomers seriously. I know I certainly didn't; I (no offense to former Doomers here, I'm just being honest!) placed them in the same category as the UFO conspiracy nuts. The only REAL danger was that they could panic enough of the population over nothing to cause problems; that's why I got involved.

Once that (small, but real) threat became obvious, people like me got involved. By that time, we were fighting a losing battle among that small, fractional percentage called "doomer" -- because the invalid groundrules had already been set. You had to play the (utterly meaningless) Compliance Game; you had to make pious noises about how critical computers were to the "infrastructure;" and you had to believe, really believe, that if at least 95-99% of all Y2K bugs didn't get smished in time, we were hosed.

I never believed this, and still don't. And as time marches on, and one virus attack, computer blowup and system crash after another occurs and civilization somehow muddles through, I will continue to not believe it.

Take tax protestors, the study of which, for some insane reason, has recently become a hobby of mine. Many of the same signs are there: these people start with flawed premises. They DON'T understand what they're reading, but think they do (in Y2K, Diane Squire was a SUPREME example of that).

The reason why you don't see dozens of anti-tax-protestor sites is because THEY'RE NOT WORTH THE BOTHER. People laugh at their silly $50,000 challenges because most of these people wouldn't have the assets to satisfy a claim if someone DID bother to prove them wrong. Plus, it would be an almost guaranteed court case, because the tax protestor would maneuver it into another quixotic fooforaw in which some judge somewhere would shake his head and declare the tax protestor a martian. Then the tax protestor cries "justification! See? The courts are corrupt, I told you so!"

... and the all the faithful TP memes go "murmee, murmee, murmee" into the night.

I don't have time. I still question myself sometimes; why in the HECK did I get so deeply involved in this y2k thing? It was ALWAYS a fringe argument. Most Americans didn't CARE.

Given that, I decided to perform a useful public service for those whom I might be able to help a little bit, and have a little fun besides. That's why I set up MY website. But I never deluded myself into believing that it would reaching tens of millions of people and single-handedly cancelling out the Meme amongst the general population, because MOST of that population *DIDN'T CARE.*

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 05, 2000.

Doc,

After re-reading the question, a couple of other thoughts. This doesn't mean that efforts like Biffy and Debunkers and my Web site didn't perform a useful service; they did. But we never meant anything to the vast majority of the population.

As for why there were no websites specifically addressing Yourdon and North, I think I've answered that. There was no real need, at least, not until late 1998 or early 1999 when there was a small, but real, danger of public panic. Most of even that potential dissipated after the April 1st non-event, though.

There weren't that many anti-North websites for the same reason that there aren't that many anti-tax protestor websites: they're a fringe, and not worth the bother.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 05, 2000.

Stephen,

No argument I think you hit the nail on the head about why "finally" there was answers to the maniacs. The de Jager flip-flop is the best example of a guy who was TOLD to quit-it that exists(MNSHO). My focus however is on pre-supposed threat of panic. I think I made an valid point about the links to the nuts, and it sits unanswered. I think the contention that most in the IT world were placing y2k into a proper perspective is thin at best. Sitting here 6months+ the rollover with not even an anthill, let alone bump-in-the-road the reality, the comments even if found that indicate little real worry, are overblown in hindsight. Dig and what one finds is not even moderation but a trail from PDJ, Garree, Yourdon and pals. This indicates to me a mind virus at work, The fact the "vector", path lead thru computing is minor, MHO.

Now a few excerpts from Senator Bennett's opening remarks regards his Committee and Y2k....(my comments are underlined). A telling document remaining which sadly for Bennett he is unable to delete as it is a Record. The first one, of course, is the software concern that I have already mentioned. The software is programmed with two digits for the date instead of four. If you do not change the software program, the computer runs into problems and starts to do very strange things when it hits the year 2000. That is the first area, the area we have been focused on. This is based on what information? what sources? Fact is a Y2k bug (not even defined of course here cept the layman version) can do anything from nothing, to create bogus calculations, or even hang a process. This Bennett statement is pure meme, most likely gleaned 13th or 14th generation North or Yourdon. You will notice the slant toward worst case.

Since I have been involved in this issue--and it has been almost a year since I began to focus on it--I have discovered there were two other areas. So in addition to software, you have a hardware problem symbolized in the phrase `embedded chips.' These little tiny chips that drive the computers, the miracles of the modern technological age, very often have a date function built into them. And, again, in order to save space on the chip, the date function is built in with two digits.

Where are the embedded chips? They are embedded everywhere. Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, the largest producer of chips in the United States, was here in Washington a week or so ago. He was asked, `How serious is the Y2K problem?' He said, `It is very serious. And the reason is'--he is focusing on the chip side--`you don't know where the embedded chips are embedded.' `For example,' he said, `the thermostat in your home may not work after New Year's Eve, 1999.' Now, it will not do you any good to call the manufacturer of the thermostat and ask him, because the manufacturer himself does not know. The chips were purchased, put into the thermostat, without concern as to whether or not they had a date function. And if the manufacturer got some chips that had date functions in them and put those chips into your thermostat, you are going to be very chilly on New Year's Day in the year 2000. And there is no way of knowing in advance whether that is going to happen. Now this paragraph holds some real nuggets...Embedded chips, how special, not systems, chips. Here is a guy who supposedly has studied the Y2k issue for at least a year and has the bought the chip-crap 100%. I will assume this is based on a consensus opinions from professionals who should know and be able to advise the good Senator. The comments from Andy Grove says it all. Now Stephen, how is it possible this former CEO of Intel could spew that crap here? Granted, not having control of the exact use of their chips is one thing, and some obscure tinker could have wired some chip in some wacky way, but does his comments sound like he is addressing that? And who at Intel allowed their CEO to make a public jackass of himself in front of Congress with some stupid thermostat story? This indicates mindset at the time. Indicates even the head of Intel had little clue. If this ain't the work of a mind virus, then what is it?

Anyhow I will save further examples and only say the address ends with the Tower of Babel dump. The date of this document was May 11, 1998.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 05, 2000.

WD=Andy Ray

-- (Double duh@duh.duh), June 05, 2000.

wd is confusing historical fact with historical fiction - again.

Hitler was real, Y2k never was.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 05, 2000.