When "Y2K debunking" changes it's meaning: "2nd Order" Doomers?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
I always assumed -- naively as it turns out -- that the Y2K de-bunker crowd, since they called Y2K correctly in terms of it's (non-)impact, presumably got off lightly in terms of expenses, family conflicts, etc. I mean, clearly these folks -- unlike the vast majority of people, who just plain did not even pay any attention to all the doom and gloom predictions -- made a very serious commitment to study and understand the upcoming Y2K phenomenon, and reached the conclusions that:1) The Y2K computer problem per se was a non-problem.
2) The REACTION of people to the doom and gloom predictions that surrounded the Y2K computer non-problem was a huge threat that potentially could have caused global chaos and disorder.
As we have recently learned in the case of poor CPR, the cost to those who decided to needlessly work to ensure that 2) did not occur could be quite high, both financially as well as in terms of quality of life. [See the thread "Gawd! It only gets funnier: CPR's latest lame explanation as to how he lost $400K due to his Y2K concerns..." (King of Spain, madrid@aol.cum, 2000-09-09), http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003mY2. NOTE: The actual loss to CPR for his de-bunkery efforts was "only" $200K.]
For example, a typical doomer would have to explain to his or her spouse: "Well, there is this computer glitch that will occur on January 1, 2000 that the government says is not going to be a problem, but may REALLY be a problem and they are just not telling us, in which case the world will go to hell in a handbasket, so we need to PREPARE!" Needless to say, initial spousal reactions were not always friendly.
However, if you think about it, a typical de-bunker would be in the SIMILAR position of saying: "Well, there is this computer glitch that will occur on January 1, 2000 that the government says is not going to be a problem, and DEFINITELY WILL NOT be a problem, BUT we need to worry about WHAT IF a lot of people THINK that it will be a problem, in which case the world will go to hell in a handbasket, so we need to make sure people know NOT to PREPARE!"
In fact, in a sense, one might classify the de-bunkers as "2nd order" doomers -- people who were NOT worried about the Y2K (non-)event per se, but WERE worried about the PEOPLE who might be worried about the Y2K (non-)event. As in the case of poor CPR, the extremes that the debunker crowd might feel inclined to take certainly rivaled if not EXCEEDED the preparations of any doomer.
Questions for the class:
1) De-bunkers & de-bunkerettes: What did your Y2K de-bunkering cost YOU? Lots of money? A job? A marriage? Credibility?
2) Doomers: If you had definitely believed that the Y2K computer problem was a non-problem, do you think you would have likely FEARED that other people WOULD think it a problem, and gone into DE-BUNKING yourself? (It is interesting to note that many notable de-bunkers claim to be former Y2K doomers.)
3) All: Generalizing, can one show Nth order doomerism? I.e., that "3rd order" doomers worry about how "2nd order" doomers will react in response to worries about "1st order" doomers, etc.
4) CPR: Special assignment -- how does Question 3) relate to DERIVATIVES?
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 09, 2000
2) Doomers: If you had definitely believed that the Y2K computer problem was a non-problem, do you think you would have likely FEARED that other people WOULD think it a problem, and gone into DE-BUNKING yourself? (It is interesting to note that many notable de-bunkers claim to be former Y2K doomers.)Kind of like the reformed smoker, isn't it?
-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), September 09, 2000.
KoS, perhaps you should go to therapy with Chas Reuben. That rant barely made sense.
-- Cyber Freud's Assistant (trying@to.help), September 09, 2000.
I think it took imagination, beyond the brandy new SUV in the driveway. To those, who had enjoyed and road on the back labors of their parents who were determined their children would not ever suffer the same skin hardship, they had endured. Maybe those same folks, who made the climb, or envisioned a re-play of said climb, sought to cushion the same climb for their family. It was an experience. Meanwhile, I moved to BFE. Thank God!, I didn't have to cook up a whole pot of food each night, for the lot of them. While they squawled about no electricity. Much less, with them being offended they had to use the toilet, behind a tree. Mercy Sakes.
-- Fox Fire (101for@us.com), September 09, 2000.
OK, this "Debunker-ette" will step up to the plate. First, the questions:
1) De-bunkers & de-bunkerettes: What did your Y2K de-bunkering cost YOU? Lots of money? A job? A marriage? Credibility?
(e) None of the above. It *was* my job (Y2K; not "de-bunkering"). Didn't have a marriage. Didn't lose or make any money. Still have a ton of credibility (with those who matter). People came to me for advice and information (in the office, in my personal life, in cyber-space). In fact, I probably have more credibility than pre-rollover.
2) SNIP -- (It is interesting to note that many notable de-bunkers claim to be former Y2K doomers.)
Trying to figure out why there seems to be a tone of "disbelief" in that statement. I WAS a "doomer"; I was around an "8" for most of 1996 and perhaps a few months into 1997. My SO WAS a "doomer"; used to frequent the Gary North forums. Most of the people I know (IRL and in cyber-space) WERE "doomers". Of course, our positions changed as the information changed.
3) All: Generalizing, can one show Nth order doomerism? I.e., that "3rd order" doomers worry about how "2nd order" doomers will react in response to worries about "1st order" doomers, etc.
Yes, I suppose one could show "degrees of doomerism" (as it were). For example, many on TB2K I claimed to be hovering around "5", yet they called themselves "doomers" (well, actually, they called themselves "GIs"). Hell, there were even some "4s" as I recall who called themselves "GIs". Then, of course, you had the Milnes and the Infomagics, but they are Special Cases. As to your illustration, there was a part of me that worried about the Special Cases; face it, King, there were some people on TB2K I who WANTED all hell to break loose. To me, it wasn't inconceivable that people like that would DO something to force the issue.
That's what I worried about; but it didn't consume me.
Aside from two people, I don't know anyone who thought the rollover was going to be as seamless as it was, myself included (I was probably around a 2-3 at the time of the rollover). I was living in NYC at the time, and I was stunned at how well everything went. It was amazing to watch the celebrations around the world, and not one problem at all. It was beautiful.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 09, 2000.
I was never a doomer, KOS. I got into Y2k on the internet through a technology forum where someone decided to expand the issue into a Y2k forum. For many months we just provided remediators with information on various systems and what might need to be done to them. Soon enough, ordinary folks came onto the forum and started introducing thoughts about preparing [just in case things didn't get fixed.] It all sounded prudent enough to me, so I'd help folks gain information on how to read expiration dates on cans, etc. That forum folded before I meandered into TBI. I'd heard about TBI from folks who'd visited there previously, and the tales they told were NOT kind. They felt they were run off on a rail, basically.I'd grown accustomed to discussing Y2k in my spare time, and TBI was one of only two or three fora left available in June, 1999 [if we eliminate Gary North's site.] I lurked for a time and realized that Flint was up against some heavy odds. I dipped my toe into the water [so to speak], and found some nice people on TBI, both posters and lurkers. I received many nice E-mails from lurkers grateful that someone was providing a rational approach to Y2k on TBI. I even ventured into Bok's chat and chatted about IT with someone who I found months later was the old Hardliner. Did you know I attended a picnic in June at his place? I got to meet HIM, and the poster "Lilly". Lilly was a real sweetheart. She'd E-mailed me a few times stating that if anyone tried to hurt me because I was a "polly", she'd do something about THAT.
It never bothered me that some folks went overboard on preparations. Why should it? It's certainly THEIR cross to bear if they're unhappy that they did it.
As a debunkerette, my goal was to correct false information being spread about on the internet. I simply stated the true information. I'm no evangelist. If folks didn't believe the stuff I posted, I didn't care. The folks discussing Y2k were such a small subset of the population that I had no fears of people panic. What was the biggest complaint on TBI last year? "Nobody believes me. They just don't GI."
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.
ADDENDUM. See also Ken Decker's thread:"A helping hand for the King of Spain" (Ken Decker, kcdecker@att.net, 2000-09-10) http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=003moJ
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 10, 2000.
HERE BULL MUD ARTIST: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003maKMemory Lane for "spain" and his fans V The random wisdom of KOS
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 09, 2000
If only "mission critical" systems were remidiated, then all non- critical systems must be shut down. Or why the best outcome to y2k is a 7...
greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
If only the mision critical systems are fixed, then all non comliant systems MUST be shut down, as they will cause failures in whatever they opperate. In this case, as 90% of the computers are not compliant in most places, all of these systems must be shut down. This will cause all buisnesses that depend on the non critical systems to run out of whatever they depended on the first buisness for... Thus they will be forced into bankruptcy. And so on... And all of this without ANY MISSION CRITICAL FAILURES! Does anyone agree with me?
-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), December 08, 1999Answers
Pretty good logic. Why doesnt the rest of the world get it?.If a secretarys computer isnt y2k compliant she/he cannot do functions that are date dependant like scheduling, look aheads, amortizing, etc.. I am sure there is alot more stuff they wont be able to do but alot of it is buried in the process, that is people dont think about it until it fails.
I am actually looking forward to see who is lying and who is telling the truth, not because I want TEOTWAWKI but because I see right now so many people lying about compliancy or even contingency plans and they act smug when they hear about other people spending time and money doing remediation and making preps.
-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), December 08, 1999.
Not really. Chances are, the non-critical stuff is going to be producing human readable reports, not driving production machinery. Then again, who knows? That's the root of the problem, isn't it. No one outside of each individual company knows.Also, just cause it ain't fixed doesn't necessarily mean it's going to fail. Of course, just cause it's got a "100%" fixed sticker, doesn't mean it's going to work either.
It's all so vague. But I don't think there's any "must" in there, or any guarantees of failure.
-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 08, 1999.
One would like to THINK that if a business depends on a system of another business -- i.e., it is a CUSTOMER -- that this fact alone would cause that system to be declared as "mission critical". At least, that is what one would like to think.
Personally, I think that these companies have NO IDEA what the frigging impact of Y2K is going to be on hardly ANY of their systems, with "mission" versus "non-mission" critical merely being a label that can be applied to lessen the number of systems that have to be dealt with before the time runs out (which it almost has).
In short: As with all things Y2K, "nobody knows"....
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 08, 1999.
I will provide an answer for you in 60 days.
-- Me (me@me.me), December 08, 1999.
It depends on whether the system is free standing or date dependant to maintain operability. But a shutdown of all non-compliant, non mission critical systems is too broad a brush stroke.
-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), December 08, 1999.
No.<p>I don't know where you have been for the last few years, but exceptfor a few extremest holdouts, most people have researched and seen thatthe majority of problems that would have caused chaos two years ago havebeen fixed and tested. Except for small and some medium interprises, allpossible areas have been checked out and the critical ones fixed, as wellas most of the non-critical areas. The only things that have not been fixedare all of those old websites that were put up years ago before much ofanything was done.<p>Even Ed Yordon, the creater of this website, doesnot think the situation will be as bad as he first believed.<p>As forthird world countries, they were never anywhere close to as advanced technicallyas industrialized countries so they didn't have as much to be fixed inthe first place.<p>As for chemical plants and other areas where safetyis a factor,
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ