Bruce Webster: The "***DOOMZIE MIS-LEADER***" the de-bunker crowd ignored ? : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Lets see now, just who are the "***DOOMZIE MIS-LEADERS***" that CPR et al are always smearing? The names are quite recognizable: Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Michael Hyatt, Paula Gordon, and maybe a few other minor characters. North was portrayed as a religious nut, as was Hyatt; Yourdon as a washed up software professional who grabbed at Y2K as a last attempt to get rich; Paul Gordon as someone who knew nothing about the embedded systems areas that she claimed to have done research in. "Gary Ducktape", "Ed Yourdonefor", "The Paula", etc., are affectionate names that the de-bunker crowd came up with as part of the on-going smear campaign. (Not that yours truly doesnt come up with a few affectionate names now and them himself for some people....)

And then there is that guy with a solid background in Information Technology. Who was very active in promoting Y2K awareness of the calamities that could happen. Who wrote a 1999 book entitled "The Y2K Survival Guide", with back-of-the-cover promotions such as "Y2K: the potential catastrophe thats just months away". Who testified before congress numerous times regarding the seriousness of Y2K. Hint: It is not Ed Yourdon.

The dudes name is Bruce Webster, who was "co-founder and co-chair of the Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group, the largest (over 1600 members) and most active Y2K group in the world", according to the back of his book. In the section entitled "About the Author", it states that he has promoted Y2K awareness by speaking to U.S. intelligence agencies, the World Bank, Middle East Year 2000 Conference, as well as being mentioned in many national magazines such as Newsweek and Barrons. Apparently, sometime in late 1998 or early 1999, he re-located his family from the Washington D.C. area to Irving, Texas.

In Websters "The Y2K Survival Guide" book, he lists the following as "MYTHS" among others:

o MYTH: "The Y2K problem has been greatly exaggerated by consultants in order to make money"

o MYTH: "Y2K alarmists have no basis for their predictions"

He offers the following "FACTS" among others:

o FACT: "Y2K is real"

o FACT: "Y2K problems will have consequences we do not expect"

o FACT: "Y2K events will be distributed, overlapping and interacting"

And, he offers the following "OPINIONS" among others:

o OPINION: "At least one (non-U.S.) government, probably in a developing country, will collapse or be overthrown because of Y2K"

o OPINION: "Y2K -- or some direct consequences thereof -- will be a (or possibly the) major factor in the 2000 U.S. Presidential and Congressional races"

The bulk of the book closely follows the usual stuff found in Hyatts or Yourdons "surviving Y2K" type books -- stocking up on food and water, personal protection issues, etc. Even ... gasp ... warning that the financial payments system that we depend on may suffer disruptions due to Y2K!

Gee, sure looks ***DOOMZIE*** to me. And testifying before Congress, writing a book ... doesnt that earn one the title of "***DOOMZIE MIS-LEADER***"? Yet it is very rare to see any mention of Webster by the de-bunker crowd.

My conjecture is that Bruce Websters background was so technically solid, and so professional, that the de-bunkers usual smear campaign of personal attacks simply would have backfired -- so he was ignored. But I would be interested to hear from our de-bunkers and de-bunkerettes as to why they skirted around Bruce Websters dire Y2K warnings. Or where they did not.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 27, 2000


KOS, where the Hell were you! when that one maid was down in the dumps and questioned her sanity? You used to be everywhere, whatsa matter, you slowing down? I remember Bruce, I also read TB2000, Yourdon, Y@K, Crying Wolf, James Gauss, Millennium Meltdown, Grant Jeffery, and Spritual Survival, Steve Farrar. Along with the multitude of congressional testimony presented from each industry. They appeared that they could not find their way out of a paper bag, even if a spot light shown over their heads. I also read and remember those few who said, it would be a slow and grinding effort. To which do I heed? I must make preparations for both situations. Not because I am paranoid (well maybe a little). Which scenerio will play out? Will the economy fall to Hell on Jan 2000, as most predict. Crisis and havoc in the streets? Or will the slow effect be cascading, one business after another? Interesting, I have sit on the sidelines and see one small business after another, fold. One more strip mall fold. More humans standing in the darkness at the daily Labor Pool. More help wanted signs than I have ever seen,(or noticed) my whole life. It seems I cannot escape this meme. I happen chance to spend some time at a national chain business today. Seems their computer problems have pretty much shut down their supply/demand realities, and bogus computer info. keeps spewing. Also to note, same business sits in a strip mall, almost vacant now. Can anyone with an ear, fill the pinch? Saw same, in another State. Times are hard, for someone who is invisible to you, please give all you can, for those....

-- TiredandIwanna (, September 27, 2000.

"feel" the pinch!

-- tiredandiwanna (, September 27, 2000.


ho hum

-- cin (cin@=0.)), September 28, 2000.

I've always thought Creeper was the biggest retard in the world. Now I'm not sure anymore.

-- (worthless@threads.again), September 28, 2000.

Don't hold back, cin, tell us how you really feel :-)

-- Patricia (, September 28, 2000.

WHAT A CROCK. WE DISMISSED WEBSTER AS A NON-ENTITY. Promoting him now to Y2k FUD Sainthood is just.........more RE-WRITING BULL SHIT FROM KOSpit+Spin who seems to want an appointment as Head of the Re-Write Team.

FACT: WEBSTER WAS A "PREPARER" LONG BEFORE (and probably will be long after y2k). HE ADMITTED SUCH IN FRONT OF A MEETING IN DALLAS. He stated that as a consultant his income varied and he found it prudent to have stockpiles of goods for such times. AND that probably comes from his personal faith as a Mormon which he noted.


Bruce is a moderate pessimist who came out of the early 1990s when many people in middle management had been "outsourced" and "downsized" and more crudely: FIRED/LAYED OFF /EXCESSED/REDUNDANT.

Like a KOSpit+Spin ......Webster was too minor a figure to bother with. He also EXITED Y2k by Summer of 1999. As a CYA, he issued statements that he "was concerned about the economic impacts" thus mirroriing the same thoughts as Yardeni. NO MYSTERY THERE. Yardeni relied on Webster's Networking group in D.C. "DC Y2k" for his "survey of I.T. Professionals". (another SCAM SURVEY packed by the Doom Squad. Doubt it? Check the monthly results vs. THE ACTUALS 1/1/2000).

FACT: BRUCE WEBSTER WAS AN ALSO-RAN IN WANNABEE Y2k FUD LEADERS. HE FAILED. HE EVEN ***LEFT THE BUSINESS AND went to Price Waterhouse as a "consultant" by Summer 0f 1999 and was SILENT mostly on the FUD MEISTERS he played with.

BRUCE tried to "parlay" his skills in Object Design and Programming for Mid to Large I.T. companies into a big Y2k Practice. HE FAILED to do that because Y2k was OVER when his BS CUT AND PASTE BOOK came out. (It was almost a CARBON of Yore-Sure-Toast-ED's itself from GARY DUCT TAPE's OUTLINE.)


FACT: BRUCE countered INFOMAGIC's BS but his arguments were weak. Everyone yawned. Bruce held on position he leveraged : Chair of the DC Y2k group which had over 700 members ranging from the most important I.T. directors to NON-PeeeCee WEENIES like Weenie Cory. HadtooMuchBS. DC Y2k was a "NETWORKING GROUP". It must have done FACT: Webster's book came out about the same time as the Spring Senate Report. IT WAS A CUT AND PASTE JOB FROM THE DCY2k "SURVEYS". The "scenarios" were the same and he relied heavily on FACT: I reported on Webster's appearance at DFW DAMA's Oct. 1999 meeting to the De-bunkers and assorted list serves. Bruce essentially stated he was no longer concrened about any "doomsday scenes" but greatly concerned about the economic implications of Y2k.THIS WAS RIOT BECAUSE WEBSTER HAD ***ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENTIALS AS AN ECONOMIST** and the "audience" knew it. I think there was one question from the floor and the meeting was over. IT WAS **PATHETIC**.

Attendence of the I.T. members at the meetings had fallen since a peak of almost 100 at the 1998 meetings to Bruce's "show". There were a grand total of 11.

-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.


And just so you don't miss the point of the above. IT WAS THE "CLIMATE OF FUD/FEAR" generated by EY/NORTH/Hyatt/Missler/CBN/LoserWire/Y2kchaos/rest that would lead a middle age man NON-techie to QUIT A GOOD JOB AND GO TO S. Utah and probably try to make some money on the "coming crisis".

Did Webster encourage that? I don'tknow and there is no evidence that suggests he was involved with that effort. Based on what I know, I DOUBT Bruce would encourage such a thing. smacks of the typical "Mid Life Crisis" of the middle aged American Male who may think a "radical change" is "good for everyone" at that stage in life. WHO CARES?

How much did Bruce Webster have to do with that? ASK HIM. But from the outside one can only guess that having a Brother in Law simply *confirm* there was a technical problem set that was very large might have been enough to "push him into action".

Of course, unless WEBSTER would LIKE TO CLARIFY HIS CONNECTION WITH HIS BROTHER IN LAW's BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS.........we really would not know.

-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.

LISTEN to the mighty oracle CPR and OBEY!! Do not DARE to go against his great wisdom, or you shall be DAMNED TO HELL forever!!!

... NOT ...

-- no one here (-@-.-), September 28, 2000.

C'mon, Spain, this is pretty weak, even by my relaxed standards for you. You still completely ignore the fact that calm, articulate counter-arguments were made last year. Hoffman, Flint and others presented reasonable analyzes. The simple fact is that Webster was not representative of the IT community. The vast majority of people writing about Y2K in the IT trade press and other venues were sanguine about the work. Even those who were skeptical (like Bill Ulrich of ComputerWorld) did not anticipate anything worse than an economic impact.

There was no "smear" campaign against North, Yourdon, Gordon, etc. I hardly think the obscure ranting of Charles Reuben and a few others constitutes a "campaign." North had a 20-year history of failed apocalyptic predictions and advocacy of religious theocracy. This is a simple matter of record, Spain, not a "smear." Gordon had no discernable expertise in embedded systems, no professional or academic IT expertise, and she was cranking out white papers. Yourdon had some IT experience. With Y2K, however, he wrote a speculative book and then engaged in selling Y2K preparations. As a "reporter" of Y2K, Yourdon presented a clear conflict of interest.

Webster makes the same mistake as Yourdon and others. As an "expert" in IT what did he know about the social, economic or political impacts of Y2K-related computer problems? As a supposed "expert" in IT, did he identify any specific software or hardware that was certain to fail? No. He engaged in the same beer-and-pretzel speculation that Ed Yourdon tried.

What you using, Spain, is the classic "appeal to authority." According to you, we should have believed Webster because he was a credible expert. And we have ignored him since because he was a pillar of credibility.

Here are the problems with your logic. Webster was not an expert on social, economic or political upheaval or on how to survive such events. Webster clearly failed to make a conclusive case that preparation was warranted. His writing was long on speculation and very short on fact... as conclusively proven this year. You expect the reader to ignore the mass of IT experts (with equal or greater) qualifications than Webster who contended we would survive Y2K without extensive "preps." Your logic expects us to believe the handful of "experts" who supported your position rather than the virtual army that supported ours.

Occasionally, the minority view is correct... but don't expect anyone to buy it without a solid foundation of factual data and sound analysis. Webster provided neither the data nor the analysis... just another "informed" opinion.

What I don't understand is this... Last year you spent most of your time serving as the duty smart-ass for the Y2K pessimists. You rarely made a meaningful attempt at serious discourse and you routinely ignored (or ridiculed) the thoughtful arguments provided by the optimists. In this post, I see the same shallow depth of thought. Is it just a game to bait Reuben and other people you don't like? Or do you really not "get it" about how people can discuss a subject rationally?

-- Ken Decker (, September 28, 2000.


Bruce WAS a resident of TEXAS and the company name he was using on his business cards while playing Y2k Expert in DC was based HERE. Bruce took up temporary residence in DC which should have just thrilled the Cory Tunas of the world. Except for one little thing. Cory would go to the DC Y2k meetings then spin the meetings into his post meet coffee and doughnuts with the Doomers where they all agreed the speakers were: "lying", "spinning", "PR Suits" etc. Even Webster couldn't deny the FLOOD OF GOOD NEWS THAT THOSE DC MEETINGS PRESENTED. AND.........IN THE END.......DCY2k CANCELLED THEIR LAST "AREA MEETINGS" for........"LACK OF INTEREST". YEAH.......the VENDORS GOT TIRED OF PAYING FOR THE FREE MEALS FOR THE Y2k DOOM SPONGERS LIKE CORY AND THE LOST TRIBE OF OBSOLETED MAIN FRAMERs like him.

-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.


-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.

-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.

You would THINK that with ALL the posts you do, you'd have it down pat by now there creep...LOL

-- consumer (, September 28, 2000.


-- no one here (-@-.-), September 28, 2000.


You provided the answer that I was seeking. Thanks.


You missed my point. I was not trying to claim that somehow everyone should have listened to Bruce Webster more than other pessimists who were not perhaps as well qualified; that is a completely separate issue. I was trying to figure out why CPR & Co. did not seemingly give Webster the same degree of negative publicity (let's call it) that other "doom leaders" received. I think that CPR answered that question quite well.

"What I don't understand is this... Last year you spent most of your time serving as the duty smart-ass for the Y2K pessimists. You rarely made a meaningful attempt at serious discourse and you routinely ignored (or ridiculed) the thoughtful arguments provided by the optimists. In this post, I see the same shallow depth of thought. Is it just a game to bait Reuben and other people you don't like? Or do you really not 'get it' about how people can discuss a subject rationally?"

No, I was looking for a serious, rational answer to the question that I asked. Which CPR generously supplied. (In the sense of relaxing my standards for CPR, of course.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 28, 2000.

"no one here":

Like it or not, CPR is an "oracle" of sorts when it comes to Y2K. As evidenced above, he did not leave his realtor job and spend two years twiddling his thumbs. He devoted himself full-time to his cause, and does possess a lot of worthwhile information (though extracting it into an intelligible form does get tricky). What he did was crazy, but it was his choice to do.

As I have stated before, this period of late 2000 is the optimum time to bring up Y2K related questions like the one on this thread. Even a few months ago, things would have been too emotionally charged to get worthwile answers. In a few more months, chances are nobody is going to care (not that many care now), and memories will start fading.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 28, 2000.

I'm curious about exactly WHAT 'IT" rags were publishing information about Y2k having failures, Charlie. I don't read them much, but SO does, and he never saw ANY cause for concern.

-- Anita (, September 28, 2000.


Actually, you suggested that Reuben and others had avoided attacking Webster because he had a greater degree of credibility than North, Yourdon, Gordon, etc. You answered your own question before Reuben had a chance. It would have been a bit more intellectually honest to allow Reuben to answer straight questions, i.e., "Did the Debunkers avoid criticizing Bruce Webster? If so, why?"

If you want serious, rational answers... ask serious, rational questions. Try to avoid the editorializing, the emotionally charged rhetoric and the obvious needling. This may not generate better answers from Reuben, but it will raise the general level of discourse.

-- Ken Decker (, September 28, 2000.


Nope. You are wrong. Credibility, per se, is not the issue so much as dirt to be dug up, which is a large part of what the de-bunkers liked to do.

For example, I always considered -- and still consider -- Gary North's pre-rollover writings concerning Y2K to be quite CREDIBLE. They were always backed up by well documented evidence. In hindsight, I might now re-examine how much weight I should have given to the evidence -- and North's resultant commentary -- but, in terms of the best Y2K documentation available, North and his web site were always credible.

But North had a background that could easily be manipulated and smeared. He had strange religious views. He had a history of believing the end of the world was at hand, and turning out to be completely and totally wrong. This was used again and again by the de-bunkers to try to discredit his Y2K web site. Emotionally appealing, perhaps, but logically invalid.

As far as how to get rational responses from CPR, I am open to any suggestions. There is a wealth of Y2K knowledge there, and while CPR is still unemployed and available, I hope it can continued to be tapped.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 28, 2000.

KOSpit-SPIN.......I am NOT "unemployed".

I OWN the company

Whatever income comes in or does not come in is up to me. I also own 2 other ventures. OWN as in MINE. CLEAR????

FYI: I HAVE NOT COLLECTED A "paycheck" for over 20 years. I AM A BOSS. ..........


NEXT, I was under the impress that Decker had left, was leaving, had posted for his last time, WHATEVER. Now *HE* will "raise the level of discourse". GIVE HIM A HAMMER to call the Podium to order. BS ARTIST.

HERE DECKER: you will "enjoy" the "discourse" here (ON YOUR EMPLOYER'S TIME NO DOUBT) :


-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.

DO NOT TAUNT the great and powerful Wizard of Y2K, the great oracle CPR! To do so is to risk eternal hellfire and damnation!

(...ignore that man behind the curtain...)

-- no one here (-@-.-), September 28, 2000.


-- cpr (, September 28, 2000.


Boss Hogg, that is.... Gotta get those Duke boys, eh asshole?

-- no one here (-@-.-), September 28, 2000.


I gues you never read your own posts then, right dickhead?


YOU are the highest power in YOUR MIND. In your own words, you have NO PEERS in debunking.

You are such a prick that you must be gay. It's certain that NO WOMAN would ever have anything to do with you. Yup. Either gay or a chicken- choker... (or maybe you don't even HAVE a dick, which would explain why you ARE one)

-- no one here (-@-.-), September 28, 2000.


Please. First, no one was really listening to the "Debunkers." Second, factually recounting events like Gary North's 20 years of failed predictions was not "digging dirt." Pointing out the fact that North was still selling two-year subscriptions to Remnant Review in mid-1999 was not "digging dirt." North made sense to you, partly because you chose to IGNORE the carefully crafted counter-arguments provided by reasonable individuals. The documented evidence you saw was most often a carefully selected data element selected out of context... the Y2Knewswire approach. By the way, if North's arguments were so compelling, how do you explain the simple fact that he was completely wrong?

For the ten or so months I posted on TB 2000, you managed the intellectual equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and singing "I'm a Lumberjack." I did not see you once make an honest attempt to consider the alternative view. The interest in objective analysis is laudable, but about a 18 months late.

-- Ken Decker (, September 28, 2000.

For the ten or so months I posted on TB 2000, you managed the intellectual equivalent of holding your hands over your ears and singing "I'm a Lumberjack."

LOL, good one Decker. Yeah KOS, and you were doing this while cpr, Cherri, Anita, Patricia, Poole, Davis, and a lot of others including yours truly were busy posting factual information dismissing the y2k rumors and myths. Its only NOW that we are holding hands and singing "I'm a little teapot"....

-- FactFinder (, September 28, 2000.

I'm curious about exactly WHAT 'IT" rags were publishing information about Y2k having failures, Charlie. I don't read them much, but SO does, and he never saw ANY cause for concern.

Anita, which trades did your SO read?

I saw a lot of to-do over Y2k in ComputerWorld and in (especially) InfoWorld which I read weekly as a subscriber.

InfoWorld had a weekly section on Y2k usually called out on the front page with their ominous Y2k Countdown Clock symbol. To my mind at the time, there was no doubt InfoWorld was presenting Y2k as a serious threat, not of the magnitude of a Gary North, but a serious threat to business. I found it hard to dismiss that. This along with other factors like the involvement of the Federal Government (which confirmed for me "this is real," rightly or not) helped keep my doom-o-meter on High for quite some time.

I recall your saying that you saw little FUD anywhere except for that on internet doom boards from extremists/survivalists selling snake oil, and everything else seemed to you business as usual. Were we looking at the same material? (I don't know) Was it selective attention on my part (riveted on this stuff), because of my fear? Of course, and I was lazy in not looking for counterbalance, but these things were out there to be seen IMO.

-- Debbie (, September 28, 2000.

Jesus Christ! Can we stop the mud-slinging to hear another side? The truth as I have breath: I am ho-humming with the possibility of neighborhood havoc (happened in Kosovo, didn't it), I am looking for a travel trailer. Saw one I thought for sale. Dialed the phone number, most kind and elderly gentleman told me he was a retired Admiral. His travel trailer was not for sale it was on "hold" in case of Y2K problems. Said his Son had asked him to buy such a thing and reserved a parking place in a secure spot. He said his Son was a Computer Programmer. Ye Gats! No wonder some of us, don't believe some of you, when we have traveled a different road. True Story, or Strike me dead.

-- Papa was a (, September 28, 2000.

Ken & Factfinder:

I think that I have apologized enough times, so I am not going to do so yet again. What I AM going to do is continue to post what I believe to be worthwhile Y2K post-mortem type threads, and invite your thoughtful contributions. There is a lot that can be learned, especially when free of a pressing deadline. (Well, at least us doomers believed that there was one....)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 28, 2000.


You're being Clintonesque. I'm not asking you to apologize. I'm suggesting you dial down the attitude if you really want a serious discussion. You might want to try taking a moment to read what you have written before you hit the "submit" button. And you still haven't answered the $64,000 question. Why did you blow off any serious analysis of Y2K until nine months after it was over? Why did you spend 10 months on TB 2000 as the doomsayers court jester?

-- Ken Decker (, September 28, 2000.

"I'm curious about exactly WHAT 'IT' rags were publishing information about Y2k having failures..." Let's not forget the APRIL 1999 issue of "Wired", respected by computer geeks everywhere. As I type these words I am looking at the hardcopy, because you could not get the same chilling effect by simply looking up the Y2K articles on-line.

The cover is completely black. From a distance of maybe 3 feet away, you cannot even make out the "WIRED" banner, much less anything else. Looking close, you can see that it's lead cover headline is:

learning to love Y2K

Here are the features, with their descriptions from the table of contents:

p.118: "Powerless"
"What happens at 00:00:01 on January 1? Try deadly, black, and very, very cold. By Jacques Leslie. Plus: Survival stories from Auckland, New Zealand."

p.126: "The Myth of Order"
"The real lesson of Y2K is that software operates just like any natural system: out of control." By Ellen Ullman

p.130: "This Is Not a Test"
"For Texaco's millennium commandos, the war against Y2K is being fought one RTU at a time." By Ellen Ullman.

(There is also an Absolut liquor ad on the back cover. It shows a simple, crude drawing of a liquor bottle, which upon close inspection turns out to be 1s and 0s. The ad itself reads: "ABSOLUT Y2K".)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 29, 2000.

Most computer geeks I know think "Wired" magazine is a joke. It's a rag for geek-wannabes.

-- Buddy (, September 29, 2000.

Could the SHTF?

Ive pitched most of the printouts that I had in my Y2k file. I do keep a file on water, since we live in earthquake prone CA & have gone without water for quite a spell, know how precious it can be, and have seen the effect on the populace when they cant turn on the tap or flush the toilet.

Heres a quote form the CA State Water Resources Control Board Year 2000 - Information for Water Dischargers - updated 3/12/99 - { it is no longer a viable webpage:}.

Finding non-compliant devices is no easy task. Identifying and testing embedded microchips with date functions is very difficult. Although engineers recommend contacting the manufacturer of the devices with embedded chips regarding Y2k compliance, they admit that many manufacturers dont know or they may believe the chips to be compliant when theyre not. Consequently, they strongly recommend that all chips be tested { especially those residing in critical systems}. Testing individual chips { when possible } does not always prove a system or process Y2k compliant. Devices must be tested in combination with other devices in order to ensure a particular piece of equipment will work properly. Testing must be done carefully. There are examples of situations where dates after 1/1/2000 have been simulated causing the device to fail and requiring extensive downtime while the chip or device is replaced. Once a non- compliant chip has been located, fixing it can be problematic. Often, a piece of equipment must be taken offline for extended periods while the chip is either repaired or replaced, or in some cases, the entire device must be replaced.

I will not bore you with the next paragraph, it explains the documents included on the site addressing embedded microchips.

At the bottom in bold red italics shout Time is running out. January 1, 2000 is a deadline that cant be slipped.

Now, I do realize that to some extent I was born to doom & have many relatives in dry LA were born to wear blinders { & whom I have no control over}. I want to thank those of you who did stick it out on the Timebomb enough to explain things to us non - techs. Late in the game I recall a sewage snafu in Van Nuys { outside LA }. Theyd run a Y2k test, & ended up flooding a nearby park with raw sewage. Some of yall had the patience to explain that it was not an indicator of what might happen, it was a stupid people problem related to the test - not really Y2k. {I think they'd forgotten a valve. There was also a huge water main blown in Orange County during one of the tests in mid '99 }. Hashing these things out on the ol' bomb actually made me less of a diehard DOOMZIE by Dec '99 than I'd been in Dec '98.

-- flora (***@__._), September 29, 2000.

Let me also add that to me - the effects of the DEBUNKER tactics of hoaxes, spoofs, threats, hostility {blatant & subtle} were extremely counter-productive.

There were sick puppies on the perceived leadership of "both sides".

-- flora (***@__._), September 29, 2000.


The Van Nuys case was quite interesting. The spill was indeed caused by a software bug. This bug lived in the emergency backup system, and would have struck any time an emergency required using the backup system. It wasn't a date bug at all. It had never been encountered because Van Nuys had never had such an emergency (requiring fallback to the backup system) since the computer had been installed. As soon as they simulated the emergency by shutting off the main system, BOOM. They hit the bug.

Writing error handling routines is problematical in general, because to test them you must introduce the specific errors these routines were designed to handle. If these are hardware failures, you need to break the hardware to test the code, and this is rarely done. In addition, to write these routines in the first place you must correctly anticipate every possible problem, and this is essentially impossible in all but the simplest systems.

So our systems everywhere are riddled with incorrect or missing error handling routines, just waiting for a type of error that hasn't happened yet. Some of these routines might actually work properly the first time -- I've actually seen this happen! But most untested code breaks. Stuff like this keeps maintenance programmers in business.

-- Flint (, September 29, 2000.

Thanks Flint.

Maybe the water main in OC was the forgotten valve/people problem. {I don't even remember anymore}.

This is a great example of what was the most valuable thing for me on the old forum. The dedication & attempt at accurate exchange of information - including your tireless commitment to search for & communicate clarity. The fact that you remained concerned about the potential in some embedded chips held meaning for me. All & all, it's been a heck of a learning experience. {As an aside, have you seen a doctor for that pesky 'either/or meme' that you were diagnosed with? - LOL! }.

-- flora (***@__._), September 29, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ