I've been described by Flint as either mentally unbalanced (or not quite mentally unbalanced, depending on the exact message) or too stupid to know what I'm wrong. I think it's time for anyone here who wants to make up his or her own mind on this to take a little time to examine some evidence.

No, it has nothing to do with Y2K. What it has to do with is my ability to explain complex concepts simply. It seems obvious to me that anyone who can do that must be both reasonably sane and quite intelligent. Of course, I'm sure that the diehards here won't agree, but it's possible that some of the lurkers here, and maybe even some of the posters, are willing to look at the evidence.

What evidence am I referring to? My free online book on C++ for beginners in programming. After you've read a couple of chapters of it, if you still think I'm either stupid or insane, fine. I think anyone who has an open mind will be able to figure out the truth.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 24, 2000

Answers

Helter,

I just think you were wrong about Y2k.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.

Andy Ray:

What do you know? We agree on something! Now if you could only spell my name correctly, we'd really have something going.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 24, 2000.

Steve, if I were you I wouldn't be too concerned about what other people think, especially Flint. After all, someone who gets off on "kicking ants" is not exactly playing with a full deck. Those who jump on that bandwagon have their share of problems as well. You seem to be a reasonably balanced individual, just continue to be true to yourself and don't worry about your critics.

-- cyber freud (this.one's@on.me), June 24, 2000.

What does a book on programming have to do with YOUR Y2k POSITION?

Van Gogh was not less of a genius when he cut of his ear (though you are hardly in his class and merely an "artist" as you continue to demonstrate).

Based on that sort of reasoning, one finds it hard to understand why you are not proud enough of your Y2k Stance to DECORATE YOUR RESUME with it.

But of course, one can't find one single mention of your Y2k "community service" either in your Resume' or I would suppose in any of your books.

Flint restated his case but **I** can give you better "outs" for the corner you continue to keep painting yourself into.

It is clear to me that you as well as Yourdon suffer from TWO problems: HUBRIS and GIGO. Your data was BAD and OUT DATED and your judgement was based on that BAD DATA which you then try to insist to this day is .....information. You and Yourdon both translated "snippets, factoids and data" into a Bad Construct. Of that there is NO QUESTION. The lack of Y2k CDC problems destroys any claim either of you have to claiming you had a legitimate position. In addition, neither of you "UPDATED" your "work". Yourdon demanded to the end, "I know what I know" and you insist you were mislead.

PRUDENT, REASONABLE PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR POSITION WHEN **NEW EVIDENCE** REPLACES OLD GUESS WORK.

YOU GAMBLED THAT YOU WERE CORRECT AND LOST. ........DEAL WITH THAT and don't try to bull shit anyone.

Instead of trying to prove you were "Wrong with Excuses" deal with what you did and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR **MISLEADING PEOPLE**.

You failed outside your field of expertise. Even Michael Jordon could not make it to the Big Leagues in base ball. We do not see The Michael trying to prove he was Babe Ruth Reborn.

Your act may play in the Pines of East Texas but its not ready for Prime Time anywhere else.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.

Heller, Ive never seen someone work so hard to salvage so little. Those of us that suffered you for the past couple of years have already cemented our impressions. Why do you spend so much of your so- called valuable time on us?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 24, 2000.

Of course, it would've been too much to expect that the usual suspects wouldn't weigh in with their usual nonsense. However, they just reinforce my point that, having nothing of substance to say, they have no choice but to fall back on personal attacks. Keep up the good work!

-- Steve Heller (Steve@SteveHeller.com), June 24, 2000.

"Those of us that suffered you for the past couple of years have already cemented our impressions."

What were you doing on a Y2K preparation forum if it was causing you to suffer? You could have chosen another forum where your opinions were supported by those with similar views. The obvious answer is that you were enjoying the conflict and the opportunity to attack others, just as you are doing now.

-- cyber freud (i'll.send.you@my.bill), June 24, 2000.

Heller,

How could you *possibly know* what was "nonsense" and what was not?

Your stance on Y2k is demonstratable *PROOF* that your judgement is *QUESTIONABLE*.

Therefore, it follows that you can not judge what is nonsense and what is not. By the same logic, it should be most evident that those who did not make the errors in judgement about y2k impacts that YOU DID, might be able to judge what is "nonsense" and what is NOT "nonsense".

By the Powers vested in my by BEING RIGHT about Y2k Impacts, I hereby deem YOUR views as "nonsense". http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html .

Q.E.D.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.

Steve, the problem with your "reasoning" is that it's CIRCULAR. You present "questions" for which there are NO ACCEPTABLE ANSWERS to YOU. (You should have paid greater attention to what Anita told you on another thread.....she described EXACTLY what you're doing.)

Case in point: You claim that you had no "reliable available information" that embedded systems would be "fixed in time". You further claim to be highly intelligent, based on your resume (which includes your publications), yet somehow you managed to OVERLOOK the ***FACT*** that most embedded systems had no date problems.....ever. Most embedded systems didn't even have to be CHECKED.....all thanks to HARD SCIENCE. Instead, you "listened to" the likes of E. Lane Core, Jr., with NO EMBEDDED SYSTEMS CREDENTIALS; Dr. Mark Frautschi via Dr. Paula Gordon, each of whom have NO EMBEDDED SYSTEMS CREDENTIALS; Jim Lord and his "Secret Navy Papers" (let's not even go there); a PR piece thinly disguised as a "report" by TAVA Technologies, an EMBEDDED SYSTEMS REMEDIATION FIRM; anecdotal "evidence" posted by anonymous people with no facts to back up their claims other than their mother's friend's hairdresser's psychic, who overheard Uncle Joe at the barber shop say that.....; ad nauseum. Do you see where you made your mistake here? You listened to the WRONG PEOPLE, despite your claim of "intelligence" and your demand for "credentials".

And that is the oddest thing about it: you claim to base everything on credentials (as you're always throwing yours up for review); yet you somehow overlooked the LACK OF CREDENTIALS of the people to whom you listened. (That's where you should have paid greater attention to Cherri and FactFinder and Dan the Power Man and the Engineer, each of whom provided numerous links to actual instances and facts and reports from actual industry people -- heh, they ARE "actual industry people" -- that would have set your mind at ease.)

Do you HONESTLY expect a "legion of your fans" to bombard this forum with praise and support for whatever your "cause" is supposed to be? If you do, then you should pay greater attention to what Flint has been trying to tell you.....you're delusional.

That's not a personal attack -- it's how I view the situation; more specifically, it's how you PRESENT the situation. I'd really be interested in your explanation, though I noticed you chose not to reply to me on another thread. I have to believe you'd want to rectify the obvious disconnect in your methodology (as you seem to be perpetually concerned with your "reputation"), or at the very least, offer a possible explanation as to how you could have overlooked the most basic rules of science with regards to embedded systems.

Then again, I'm ever the optimist. I'm also quite stubborn.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 24, 2000.

Helter,

Your wrongness is un-questioned, and un-questionable. The defense of your wrongness is what gets my attention. If I had been wrong, you would not be reading a bunch of lame excuses as to why or how. I would admit it, and move forward. It's your continued defense and excusing your actions that draws fire, in my never humble opinion.

If you would simply step up to the table, announce that there was never a reason to prepare; and that we who figured this out while you were wallowing in Mr. Yourdom's meme were not lucky, nor good guessers, but people who actually analysed the information and drew the correct conclusion; then I sincerely believe all would be well.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 24, 2000.

cyber freud.

The bigger question Siggy it what are you doing on this forum and who were you last year? Or are you another one of Steves imaginary friends? I was on the old TB2000 forum to debunk and deride fucking idiots like you and Heller. Unfortunately, the Yourdon thought police silenced those of us that attempted to oppose you friggin losers. Not here powder head. You freaks have to listen to how ignorant you were/are but guess what? On this forum you can talk back. Unique ay? BTW, please insert your bill where the sun dont shine.

And Heller, just what substance are you looking for? You and your brain-fried position on Y2K IS the substance.

Your answerThe Jury Has Spoken!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 24, 2000.

I rest my case.

-- cyber freud (you.must.resolve@your.anger), June 24, 2000.

My anger is harnessed as an asset.

Your ignorance is your lifetime liability.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 24, 2000.

Look, Heller, dude, this all boils down to you trying to save your reputation. It's getting boring. You're position is indefensible. You were wrong. Nobody can save their reputation by defending being wrong. You've got to be right again. You're going to have to start over.

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

Patricia:

Heller was more circular than you imply. By my reading, it wasn't that he ignored credentials and believed the wrong people as a result. Instead, he assessed the credentials based on the message. Those who said what he wanted to hear, by definition must have the proper credentials.

Remember that Paul Milne raised this to an art form, and at times used half of a sentence from Koskinen as "proof" we were hosed, and the other half of the same sentence as "proof" Koskinen was an idiot. Koskinen miraculously changed hats in midsentence -- in the first half, he was situated to hear the "real" facts and know where the bodies were buried, but in the second half he was a "non-technical government shill" paid to mislead the public! Aren't credentials amazing?

What Steve has not yet recognized (publicly) is that being "compelling" is not something inherent in an argument, but rather a function of your agreement or disagreement with the argument. If you start with your conclusions, you can *always* build a "compelling" case simply by tuning out everything that disagrees with your conclusion. And so every single one of us, to one degree or another, selected out what we wanted to hear and found the result "compelling" regardless of our position.

As cpr makes clear, this process is a *lot* easier if your conclusion is correct. I personally tried to make the strongest case for y2k failures I could based on what was *still possible*. By the end, the scope of possibility had been reduced to isolated screwups, leaving poor Steve to find his "compelling" by rejecting everything but the dire speculations of his fellow diehards. But why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 24, 2000.

Heller and CPR, both of you are quite intelligent and you also both have very big egos. Certain troll-like creatures appear to have nothing better to do than flame the fires of discontent among yourself. I say rise above the occasion, join forces and stomp on the offender (who also has a big ego, but not the intelligence to match (although I'm sure he is confident that he is the smartest one here.))

-- Just trying to help (guees@chees.mees), June 24, 2000.

"However, they just reinforce my point that, having nothing of substance to say, they have no choice but to fall back on personal attacks."

You expect me to read your book and bow down before that great head of yours. Well, congratulations bud, you just look more like a fool each time you post.

"Keep up the good work!" Back at you baby! You just make it so easy, you make me laugh.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 24, 2000.

it,s hard to be humble=nowaday,s. knowledge=PUFF,S-UP. SHO IS ALOT OF PUFFY PEOPLE NOWADAY,S. MY RESUME' is that it? what,s that got to do with =WISDOM?????

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 24, 2000.

You miss the point. Heller is as much of a troll as his sock puppet, Cyber Fraud.

The Sock Puppets can't give it up. They interject Off Topic links or minor points to support already weak arguments. Consider the Hoople who cited a bunch of reports that things "could" be bad so it was "prudent to prepare". What he overlooks is that he did not even know what he was "preparing for".

That equates to purchasing a HumVee to drive to the nearest 7-11 for toast and milk because "its possible I will be attacked by Aliens from Roswell".

A TINY fraction of the US Citizens bought into that set of Myths and that tiny fraction spent a cumulative "great deal of money" to "prepare". People who spend money on causes later shown to be SILLY go into what Pollies and Non-Doomers were accused of prior to Jan. 1, 2000: DENIAL. And they swim in a river of it. HELLER and the remaining TROLLS like "Hawk" and Lube Job are proof of that.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 24, 2000.

Maria is an example of the child-adult personality who exhibits the maturity level of a 6 year old because she suffers from a deeply repressed psychological block preventing her psyche from developing into that of a healthy adult.

-- cyber freud (some.are@beyond.help), June 24, 2000.

This has to be another one of Stevie Non-Wonder's imaginary friends. He qualifies himself by e-mail address:

-- cyber freud (some.are@beyond.help), June 24, 2000.

-- Mystery Guest (Mystery-Guest@sign-in-please.com), June 24, 2000.

Steve, Why do you keep stirring things up? Let it go! You have admitted you were wrong, along with a lot of other people, including myself. Now show some class, make a couple jokes at your own expense and get on with life! You bring it on yourself. Find another topic and let it go...

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), June 24, 2000.

just a taste

just another taste

go ahead, have some more

getting full yet?

want fries with that?

dessert anyone?

-- getreal (is@jose.blind?), June 24, 2000.

JoseMiami:

I can agree with that. But, you must realize that Steve has been a big fish in a small pond; he now is confused by being thrown into a large pond with many bigger fish. He will work it out.

Or so it goes.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 24, 2000.

"he now is confused by being thrown into a large pond with many bigger fish."

Cpr is a bigger fish? Lol, pond scum would be a better description!

-- (now we have the blind @ leading. the blind), June 24, 2000.

Steve, First off, I want to commend you for putting a book on C++ online for free.

I wouldn't use a C++ book to judge someones sanity though! The "Y2K Killing Pool" thread though shows some SERIOUS problems with your "BS detector" though ;) As a matter of fact, you yourself went beyond falling for the Y2K doom BS, you contributed quite a "mound" of it yourself.... Skilled machinists are likely to be the most critical resource after the crash; we will have to keep them alive at all costs. We also need blueprints for relatively simple devices, including steam boilers and engines, that can be made with relatively simple tools. A steam engine can run on unrefined fuels, so its supply chain is very short. This will be invaluable in trying to reboot the economy.

Steve Heller, WA0CPP

It's good to see you admit you were wrong, but I would expand that to say "seriously, dreadfully, horribly wrong...", lol. I have no desire or need to see ya burn at the stake for being SO wrong about y2k though, and wish you the best. I DO suggest you purchase a new BS Detector, yours obviously is broken beyond repair...

-- FactFinder@bzn.com (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 24, 2000.

Is it just me or does it seams CPR has gone over the edge. His business must be very slow judging on his time spent here.

Poor bugger. Go get yourself layed that way you don't have to write your crap here and get off on other peoples reactions.

I wonder how the carpet looks under your desk..... yeikes.

-- Justin Me (Justme@me.not), June 25, 2000.

Translation: Oops, I was ludicrously wrong. Guess I better attack CPR under yet another fake name and address. *That's* the answer!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

Wrong Flint. I am me and me only. I have used only one other name with a real e-mail address. I also have nothing to do with Heller. I am just feed up with CPR rantings and attempt to destroy yet another forum. That man has made it HIS agenta (sp) to destroy any forum that does not conform to his point of view.

In that he is more destructive to free speech and democratic values then Yordon and North combined.

-- Justin Me (justme@me.not), June 25, 2000.

I have used only one other name with a real e-mail address.

Curious, "Justin Me"... Considering the fact that in the past you have used a name with a real email address, why do you now choose to chime in anonymously to make personal attacks? Do you realize how cowardly that appears? What are you afraid of?

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.

Steve:

If this is a voting thread, put me in the "I don't give a damn category." I never knew who you were BEFORE Y2k, don't know who you are NOW, and care not whether you're stupid or insane.

You DOseem to have an overwhelming desire to have folks BELIEVE that you're worthy....even folks you don't KNOW. *I* don't care if folks on an internet fora think I'm stupid, insane, or both. Why do YOU?

I follow your posts only because they're so predictable: "I think anyone who has an open mind will be able to figure out the truth."

HEH!

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 25, 2000.

I am just feed up with CPR rantings and attempt to destroy yet another forum.

In what way is he "attempting to destroy" this forum? By posting to it? What other forums has he "destroyed?"

That man has made it HIS agenta (sp) to destroy any forum that does not conform to his point of view.

Do you have evidence of this agenda?

In that he is more destructive to free speech and democratic values then Yordon and North combined.

So, by posting to this forum, he is somehow destructive to free speech? How so?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 25, 2000.

Hmm:

Kind of interesting, isn't it? We all post our opinions to this forum, yet some opinions are "destructive" of both the forum and of free speech! Now, what is there about cpr's opinions that might make them seem this way? They're no longer than Kevin's bandwidth-hogging regurgitations. And cpr is by no means the most frequent poster here.

It seems obvious what's happening is is that "justin's" opinion differs. What killed the old forum (to which cpr didn't post) was agreement among the majority that "freedom of speech" only applies to *approved* opinions, all others being destructive. Disapproved opinions are actually "agendas", see? Can't have that.

I suspect "justin's" anonymity owes largely to the fact that this forum doesn't suffer from enforced one-sidedness. Now, you must *support* your opinion. Those who can't, attack while hiding. There may be some bigger fish in this pond, but we still have our minnows.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

DEAR STEVE, your focus is blurred. care what GOD think,s of steve,not mere-mortal,s!!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 25, 2000.

Look Steve, you have a new friend!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 25, 2000.

Steve,

Have never read anything you've written, just some kudos and critiques.

Having that clarity I suggest you give up on the debating society around here. The lines are drawn, the minds set and there has to be something better for better men to do.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 25, 2000.

Thats good advise youve given Carlos, take it!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 25, 2000.

Why does anyone believe that it's over?

-- (Hellerisright@wrong.time), June 25, 2000.

Naw Ra. Never been nothing but a nonphilisophicial hipshooter around here since rollover. Targets always the same for both sides though you must admit. Ask AR.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 25, 2000.

What evidence am I referring to? My free online book on C++ for beginners in programming. After you've read a couple of chapters of it, if you still think I'm either stupid or insane, fine. I think anyone who has an open mind will be able to figure out the truth.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 24, 2000

Amazing.....You actually seel that book to people? Where did you learn what you wrote? Were you taught in a real computer school or did you just start learning on your own from scratch?

I'm serious, where did you learn what you wrote in your on line book?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 25, 2000.

Cherri:

Yes, my publisher has sold about 15,000 copies of that book. Here's what the editors at Amazon.com had to say about it:

"This is an extraordinary book on C++ written as a dialogue between a world-class expert and a complete novice. Probably the very best book for programming novices first tackling C++, and arguably one of the best technical books ever written."

I am a self-taught programmer, who has learned by reading and writing programs. I've never taken a college course in programming, but I have taught several such courses at the university level.

I hope this answers your question.

-- Steve Heller (Steve@steveheller.com), June 25, 2000.

Steve, you realize of course that Cherri is way smarter than you and knows a lot more about C++, she just hasn't had time to write a better book.

-- (miss@know-it.-all), June 25, 2000.

I'd like to learn C++ and Steve's book sounds like an excellent place to start. What discourages me is the price of the development systems. Maybe Steve can suggest some introductory package that's affordable?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

Flint:

I'm not sure what you mean by "development systems": hardware or software? If the former, you should be able to buy a perfectly good PC, probably faster than my development machine, for considerably less than $1000. If the latter, then you could always buy a copy of the printed version of my book, which comes with all the software you need to get started. In fact, I've used another version of that same compiler in commercial software development (under Linux). If even that's too expensive, you can download the compiler, etc., from www.djdelorie.com, without charge. However, getting it set up isn't that easy; a few people have told me that my book was worth buying just to get an already setup copy. If you have any other questions, please let me know.

-- Steve Heller (Steve@steveheller.com), June 25, 2000.

Steve:

Thanks. I believe I'll buy your book. Those $800+ prices for, like, Visual C++ are beyond my means. I believe I have sufficient hardware (200MHz K6, 32M RAM, that is, what was state of the art 3 years ago). I hope your book can penetrate to someone whose work is primarily with microcontrollers (you know, 64 bytes of RAM, 32 instructions). I've never known any high level language. Should be an adventure.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

Flint:

That should be plenty of machine to run the software in the book. I should mention that a one-volume version of the two books in the "Who's Afraid of C++?" series should be out this fall; it will have an easier-to-use compiler and will cost about the same as either of the current books, so it will be a much better bargain, if you can wait a few months.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 25, 2000.

Steve Heller, "the Doom Zombie" and Flint, "the Ant Hill Kicker" accually talking "tech" ?... tradeing ideas?... without flames? !!!!!!!...

STOP The Press !!!!!!!!... can It be?... Naaa...... creeper will show up eventually.

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), June 25, 2000.

Netghost:

I respect expertise and the ability to teach, both difficult to develop. If Steve has these, I'm more than willing to take advantage of them and learn. Try plowing through a poorly written programming text for a while, and you'll know what I'm saying.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 25, 2000.

Flint,

I know exacty what you're saying, believe me.... you wouldn't know what I have to go thru working in 2 States with the engineers, and 10 different counties

I have a small understanding of 'puter lingo, and speak 2.

Thats why I jumped in here... You and Steve seem to be going beyound Flames and recriminations... the Pollt/Doomer shit...

So, what is the best lauguage to learn next?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), June 25, 2000.

English idiot!!!!!

-- (English@teacher.disgusted at you all.), June 26, 2000.

Good grief, I come to see the latest in the flamefest and what do I find? A stinkin' GROUP HUG. I bet NetGhost or Poole or cpr or Cherri started this....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 26, 2000.

Van Gogh was not less of a genius when he cut of his ear (though you are hardly in his class and merely an "artist" as you continue to demonstrate).

no-one recognised his supposed genius until after his death, I suspect that most people cannot make up their own minds about art and just go along with establishment views, i.e. that VG was a genius which I don't happen to agree with he was an appalling painter and a failure in life, if you met a present day VG, i.e. a nobody who couldn't sell paintings, you wouldn't give him any credence either there are plenty such people about and not all are genii

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), June 26, 2000.