http://www.cairns.net.au/~sharefin/Markets/Y2k/Toms_Take.html

Probably more truth in this that most of us care to accept. Worth the bandwidth and a useful tool to snap people awake.

-- K Golden (kgolden@solar.stanford.edu), September 02, 1998

Answers

Actually I did gain something valuable from that. I had been wondering why our fearless leaders would lie to us. Tom says because telling the truth would be admitting that they screwed up on a grand scale. Now that makes sense. People had been saying "because they don't want to start a panic" as if there was some humanitarian reason. I get it now.

-- Amy Leone (aleone@amp.com), September 03, 1998.

Another doomsday scenario that contributes nothing to the situation. The writer even admits in the second paragraph, "I know almost nothing about the nuts and bolts of a modern railroad,..." but then goes on to predict the downfall of a system he knows nothing about.

I just don't get it do I?

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 03, 1998.

You don't want to "get it," Buddy. That's understandable. It's uncomfortable and a little humiliating to realize that our faith in technology, the market, government, has been misplaced. If you ever humble out and decide that you want to, or need to, "get it," RE transport, particularly the vulnerability of the rail system, you can get it right here, so can anyone else with a will to know: http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/results_.cfm/Shipping_and_Transportation But I rather suspect you won't "get it" until the aftermath. Even then, you might be one of those people wandering around talking to yourself, in the "...this can't be happening..."-mode. In that case, you won't have got it. It will have gotten you.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), September 03, 1998.

>>Another doomsday scenario that contributes nothing to the situation. >>The writer even admits in the second paragraph, "I know almost >>nothing about the nuts and bolts of a modern railroad,..." but then >>goes on to predict the downfall of a system he knowsnothing about. >>I just don't get it do I?

Well, no, you don't it seems.

Look, if you see a fire in a crowded theater you don't need to know anything about a fires progession. You don't need to know anything about theater construction practices. You don't even need to know about the towns fire codes. You see a fire, you recognize danger.

I run a car repair shop. We do a LOT of diagnostics. Every day I have cars brought to me and hear the words " It just stopped and won't run". I ask for previous symptoms, and almost always hear the words "I don't know anything about cars". As I ask specific questions it soon dawns on them that they had numerous warnings that their car was about to fail catastrophically. Many warnings, all ignored. Sure, they are not technicians, but they didn't need to be. They just needed to be aware.

Have you ever gone to the doctor because you were sick? I have. I am not a medical professional, but I didn't need to be in order to realize I was ill.

There are many examples to offer, but the point should be clear. One does NOT have to be an expert on a technical subject to realize a serious problem exists.

As far as predicting about a system he knows nothing about, I dissagree. "Tom" lives in that system everyday, just as you and I do. In fact, we have a lifetime's experience with it. The only question is do we pay attention to what goes on around us? You can't spend your whole life in a society without learning something about it, UNLESS you didn't bother to try.

-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), September 03, 1998.

Buddy, did you read the entire article? I doubt it very much, or you wouldn't call it 'doomsday.' I think you're as dishonest in your assessment of this article as you are in your assessment of the impact of Y2K. It's called DENIAL.

Let's take the first part, which was written in response to 'Railroad Bob.' Bob had stated in earlier posts that if the railroad computers went down the railroad workers would perform heroic tasks to keep SOME stock running manually. Being an old RR worker, he painted a glowing picture of the dedication and selflessness of these workers.

Re-read Tom Benjamin's post again. He states, very plainly, that railroads, like every other business, computerised for efficiency. That is exactly what that second paragraph says. He doesn't need to be CEO of UP to come to that conclusion. With a little more thought, you might even be able to come to the same conclusion.

Do you disagree with that, Buddy? Do you really believe that railroads went to computerised switching just so that someone would have bigger toys to play with? Could it actually be that the process is exactly what Tom states, that they can put more trains on the same track and can haul more more freight for less cost by using computers? If this is so, why would't they have to reduce operations if the computers aren't working? What do you disagree with? That's not surprising, is it?

Or maybe you feel that the effect of curtailed railroad shipping won't be felt. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference, you think, as long as coal gets to the utes and grain to food manufacturers .....scratch the rest. But, the rest includes goods that are made by people, and sold to other people. Real people lose their jobs if they can not make AND SHIP their goods, Buddy. The economy comes to a slown down. That's what Benjamin said in paragraphs 3 and 4. What part of this do you disagree with, Buddy? What part of this requires 95 years of experience in railroad operations?

BTW, if you'll take the time to re-read Benjamin's article, you'll find that it's not doomsday (as you stated), but that after the shock waves subside the 'squirrels' ----- those who have squirreled away preparations ----- crawl out of their holes to start over.

Doomsday? I'd call it a solid reason for preparing.

Or do you consider preparation a 'doomsday' reaction, Buddy. You seem to toss the term around pretty carelessly ..... anything that you don't agree with is 'doomsday' or D&G. You scoff at people like Tom Benjamin, but, what's 'Buddy's Take?' Where does Buddy stand? And, more importantly, why?

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), September 03, 1998.

Not a doomsday scenario, Rocky? I read almost the whole thing, until I realized that there was no information there, only a story about a survival scenario. Also, if that was a post in a discussion thread, the rest of the thread was not available at that URL.

My take? Well, I am trying to piece together my take. It takes me awhile to put something together in writing. I can only spend some of my time researching Y2K, and hardly have any time for writing about it. But I do have part of my take ready. So, here goes.

Most of the "experts" warning people about the total collapse of society are not computer scientists or engineers. I don't trust Gary North's message, so don't point me in that direction. If you really want to convince people, don't show them his stuff.

This all started when some computer/engineer types started warning of the possibilities if nothing were done about this problem. People like Gary North picked up on the worst possible outcomes and declared them inevitable without even a passing thought to the possibility that there might be a way to mobilize and lick this problem.

There is a lot of misinformation and speculation coming from people who can't program a VCR, let alone tell you how a computer works. The inter-relationship between many systems has been overstated. We are not as dependent on computers as many think. Most of the embedded systems used as controllers do not even contain a date function, let alone communicate with other systems about the date. And what was that estimate of "bad" embedded systems--25 million?, 250 million? And you think that all of the "bad" ones are in critical infrastructure locations? I'll bet half of them are in casino slot machines!

People see chips everywhere and think "Ohmygod, my coffee maker has a chip in it, it won't work on 1/1/00." The lights will be on and the coffee brewing at my house on New Year's Day. My car will start. If yours doesn't (which I doubt), just disconnect the battery for a few minutes and the computer's codes will reset.

I'm not saying there won't be problems. We still don't know exactly where problems will occur, but that doesn't mean they are going to show up everywhere. And I think by next year we will have a pretty good idea about what can't be fixed in time and we will have work-arounds.

You are right, maybe six months down the road I will "see the light" but as of yet I am not convinced.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 03, 1998.

You don't see the light because you are blinded by the light, Buddy. Stop trying to mislead others in that debilitated condition.

The following is a little paste from yesterday's North material, regarding your '25 million' embedded chip estimate. All you have to do to "get it" is to make the least effort to inform yourself. ("mostly in slot machines" - you imbicile! You have no idea what's at stake here; many, many infants and seniors are certain to DIE because of interruptions in transport of food and pharmaceuticals alone - best case, and that's just one tiny slice of the hell that we're going to experience for at least a decade after. I apologize to others for my unbecoming lack of patience with Buddy, but this argument is NOT academic. When all the technocrat wannbes who said it was "no problem" and food storage was "paranoia" are being rounded up and dismembered, I'm not going to lift a finger to stop it):

DATAMATION (Sept.) ran an article on embedded systems. In it, we learn of a new estimate: 70 billion chips since 1972, 5 billion noncompliant.

This means that the percentage is up to 7%.

This makes it impossible to fix. Of course, it was impossible to fix when we thought it was 25 billion chips with a 3% failure rate. This provides the Polyannas another statistic for them to ignore, which they will. If you can ignore 3% of 25 billion, you can just as easily ignore 7% of 70 billion. Their responses are still the same:

1. There's always enough time.

2. The failures will be minimal.

3. I don't care.

4. It doesn't matter.

5. Good, old-fashioned American ingenuity will solve it.

6. Stop talking about it and let's fix it!

It gets worse. Some companies involved in the actual repairs say 20% of all devices containing chips will fail. This leads us to another response:

7. They can always run their systems manually.

Back in the mid-1950's, there was a Los Angeles rock & roller named Johnny Otis. He had a hit record, "Willie and the Hand Jive," but known as "Hand Jive." Every time I hear the "they can run it manually" solution, I think of that song.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), September 03, 1998.

Dave said the main thing we have to worry about is simultaneous, multiple failures. Right now the failures are very few as some forward-looking business systems begin running into the double zero wall. We have already spent many millions fixing the mainframes that host many banking and insurance programs. Dave says we will spend much more, and not just on the mainframes. In computer classes they teach the 80-20 rule. What it means is that it usually takes only 20% of the time to write 80% of the program but 80% of the time to do the last 20%. There are many places where the 80-20 rule works such as planning time and resource allocation. Dave said that as far as costs go, the mainframe problem is the 20% and the embedded systems is the 80%. He indicated that most of the money will be spent to prove that you don't have a problem. In addition he said that you have to remember to use the same remediation techniques for all seven layers of protocol! Oh, and your software needs to be treated in the same way. If you use different techniques for different programs, they either won't talk to each other or will pass bad information back and forth. And for Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software, don't forget that education of the user is a necessity. Even if you are using brand new computers and Microsoft Excel, the users can corrupt the system unless they all are taught to enter dates in the same format.

Dave's closing remarks stressed testing everything to prove it will work. He also told the group to make their involvement dynamic, because the environment is always changing. As an illustration, he asked the group how many had received e-mail that had been garbled. Everyone raised their hands. Then he told the audience that there are six different ways to make software year 2000 compliant or ready and none of these six methods are compatible. This means that unless you do it right and your vendor does it right and his vendor does it right and the government agencies do it right and all the other people you communicate with do it right, all your files could end up looking like your bad e-mails.

Hall related some really interesting problems with client-server applications. He said that client-server systems are like mainframes where there are a bunch of utilities talking to each other. One system ran fine during a test where the dates were changed but crashed three days later. They found that the error module thought it was 1975 for some reason. Since all error messages were dropped after 60 days, the network Administrator had no idea anything was going wrong with the system. It took three weeks to get it back up. Another problem he noted with COTS is if you have Excel version 5 and upgrade to Excel for Office 97 and import a file from 5 to 97 it will change all your macros. Excel for Office 97 uses a different language. 97 uses SQL and 5 uses Visual Basic. Hall pointed out that we should expect this from a company whose flagship product has a two-digit date for its name. There are lots of standards for dates and the use of dates, but none of them are standard with each other. He also said that they had found a Y2K problem in Java where there are three ways to set the date and two of them are not compliant. They also found an error in Oracle even though the Oracle database has always had a 4-digit year. Hall said they have found a few 911 systems that crashed and a court computer that told the parole board that an inmate was eligible for parole when he wasn't. A murderer, he had received a life sentence in 1997. He was actually eligible for parole in 2097.

He spent about fifteen minutes explaining all the things that can go wrong in power plants, water treatment plants, chemical plants and several others places. Hall's main intent was to scare the hell out of the audience so they would go home and start fixing their own towns and counties year 2000 problems with an enlightened sense of urgency.

From one who DOES know.

-- No Name (no@one.com), September 03, 1998.

"DATAMATION (Sept.) ran an article on embedded systems. In it, we learn of a new estimate: 70 billion chips since 1972, 5 billion noncompliant.

This means that the percentage is up to 7%.

This makes it impossible to fix. Of course, it was impossible to fix when we thought it was 25 billion chips with a 3% failure rate. This provides the Polyannas another statistic for them to ignore, which they will. If you can ignore 3% of 25 billion, you can just as easily ignore 7% of 70 billion. Their responses are still the same: "

Humor me here.

Define "chip" in the above quote.

Thanks, buddy

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 03, 1998.

Buddy

So you dont believe the chance of catastrophe is very large, OK maybe you are right and the chance for disaster is small, perhaps very small, maybe even very, very small. So what!

Do you wear your seatbelt when you run to the corner store? Or do you sit really close to the wheel and go very fast? Do you insure your house against fire, or do you let your kids play with matches? If you have kids and a mortgage, do you insure your life, or do you play with a loaded gun while youre drunk?

Why would you bother with the expense of being insured for a low probability scenario? Hell man, the odds are in your favor, use the money for a nice dinner out here and there.

I wonder about you no big problem types. Are you that much smarter than those of us who are concerned about the VERY REAL (though perhaps small) possibility of widespread infrastructure failures? Or is the admission that your current cushy lifestyle might change for the worse a horror too difficult to seriously contemplate?

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), September 03, 1998.

<< You have no idea what's at stake here; many, many infants and seniors are certain to DIE because of interruptions in transport of food and pharmaceuticals alone - best case, and that's just one tiny slice of the hell that we're going to experience for at least a decade after. >>

Certain? How? Show me how you are CERTAIN, and I'll believe. Certainty requires hard (and I mean HARD) factual evidence. "Proof" would also be an excellent word to describe that which certainty is based on. Do you have that hard, irrefutable proof? If so, you are the only one. Gary North sure as hell doesn't have it, and neither did the guy who wrote the messages this thread is based on.

"Best case." Please.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 03, 1998.

No Name,

The difference between plagerism and research is the citation of sources. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't see the line that said

"This coverage is Copyright 1998 Year2000.com Partnership"

at the end of the mail message you lifted and posted part of here. In the interest of keeping things helpful here, please cite references and attribute quotes. It will help us all learn more about the information being presented. There are some good tidbits in the pieces you left out! As it is, nobody will be able to read the rest of that message unless they happen to both be on the same mailing list as we are and recognize that your post is a section of the message distributed last night.

For those who are not on the list, year2000.com has a Y2K mailing list that sends out information on a regular basis. No Name's post is a fragment of a message sent out to members of that list last evening. Sign up is free and can be completed by going to www.year2000.com and following the links set up on that page. I recommend it for those intent on following Y2K info on a regular basis.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), September 03, 1998.

Folks, as exactly pointed out in the "TOM'S TAKE" article, you are trying to prove to Buddy that Y2K is a world stopping problem beyond-a-reasonable-doubt. Forget it; you cannot satisfy such a burden of proof. Everyone -- even Gary North -- admits that they don't know for sure what will happen, thus this stringent burden of proof can never be met. But the reality is that, based on a reasonable standard of evidence, it is obvious our entire infrastructure is severely threatened, and Y2K denial at this point is nothing more than courtroom theatrics.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 04, 1998.

I have no problem with the idea that our entire infrastructure is severely threatened. I also have no problem with people making reasonable preparations, like stocking up on food and other essential provisions.

What I do have a problem with is that I am seeing more and more posts from people who don't have a clue what is going on, who are scared out of their wits about this from listening to people like Gary North and the "Tom's Take" scenario and taking it for the gospel truth that world-wide disaster is inevitable.

Yes, disaster would take place if noone addressed the problem, but the problem is being worked on. No, not everything can be fixed in time. Make reasonable preparations. Help your communities prepare. Keep the pressure on governments and corporations. But don't run around telling people that disaster is inevitable and that TEOTWAWKI is coming. There are trying times ahead, but not Armageddon. Keep your facts straight and a cool head.

By the way, I don't appreciate being called an imbecile, whether deserved or not, for expressing an opinion. That sounds like Paul Milne calling people "buttheads." What an infantile jerk.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1998.

Buddy, I would agree with your most recent post, except for one problem: Its 1998, not 1990. Its too late. No time to fix all of it; no time to figure out what "mission critical" parts need fixing then fix; no way to control all the intertwined dependencies. Too late.

-- Joe (shar@pei.com), September 04, 1998.

Actually Armagedon is still to come.

Vic

-- Vic (Light_Servant@yahoo.com), September 04, 1998.

Buddy, this response to you is made primarily for others who may be reading this forum, because you project all that is called denial. It wont reach through to you, but others may read it and prepare.

Your first error is to assume that Y2K is a computer problem.

Lets begin with 3 statements -- nearly identical -- that you made in your response to me.

Most of the "experts" warning people about the total collapse of society are not computer scientists or engineers.

This all started when some computer/engineer types started warning of the possibilities if nothing were done about this problem. People like Gary North picked up on the worst possible outcomes and declared them inevitable without even a passing thought to the possibility that there might be a way to mobilize and lick this problem.

There is a lot of misinformation and speculation coming from people who can't program a VCR, let alone tell you how a computer works.

Take a good look at those 3 statements and then tell me you havent built a technocracy in your mind. If a person isnt an engineer or computer scientist, they have no creditability with you ----- yet it was these same computer programmers, engineers, and IT managers who allowed the problem to occur in the first place. You are a bundle of contradictions......on one hand you deify computer scientists and engineers, and yet on the other you deny the impact of computers on daily activity.

Actually, the Y2K problem delves into all sorts of areas that require common sense, rather than expertise in computer science or engineering. Isnt it a bit narrow minded to claim all the knowledge of the universe exists only in those two fields?

You dismiss the message because you dont agree with the theology of the messenger (Gary North) and, because of that, with his projected outcome? Please dont try to tell me this isnt narrow minded. You claim that he dismissed consideration of any way to mobilize and lick this problem. Buddy, please tell us what those ways are.......were all listening for some way to avoid what we see coming. Enlighten us with your computer science and engineering wisdom; tell us how to mobilize and lick this problem. The world awaits.

Oh, work-arounds! I see; well all just work-around any residual computer problems, because we dont really rely on computers, Actually, your exact words were:

The inter-relationship between many systems has been overstated. We are not as dependent on computers as many think. And, ..... I think by next year we will have a pretty good idea about what can't be fixed in time and we will have work-arounds.

Individually or collectively those two statements have no validity. Zero. Every business that has a computer achieves some measure of efficiency through the use of that computer. Any time two or more are linked together -- internally or externally -- this networking is done to achieve even greater efficiency. And, boy are they linked.......in banking systems, in manufacturing, between supplier and user, in power generation and distribution, in oil wells and refineries, in railroads, in the air traffic control system, and in nearly every supply chain in the world. Have you ever heard of just in time inventory? Does it use linked computers? And, for the past decade the operative word in manufacturing, worldwide, was outsourcing. The biggest boost in a company's bottom line comes from buying a bunch of pieces from someone else and assembling them.......and thats true whether youre selling electric power or cars to the public. The inter-relationship between many systems has been overstated. Youre kidding, right?

Work-arounds? Yes, that might be a solution. I particularly like the concept of working around the failure of computers in the 60 contractors that provide Medicare processing. Work-around? Paper and pencil for hundreds of thousands of claims to be processed daily? Millions of filing cabinets, a work force that fills Madison Square Garden several times over? Yep, makes sense to me. Lets do it!

Can you imagine the added cost and the confusion to GM to go back to paper and pencil ordering, inventory -- no longer just in time inventory but months in advance inventory, with all the problems of storing those parts -- billing, accounts payable, payroll, and keeping track of special orders? (No wonder Henry Ford insisted a customer could have a car in any color he wanted as long as it was black.)

And, lets go back to that railroad post, and my previous question -- that you never answered. Do you really believe that a railroad can operate as efficiently..........deliver the same amount of goods, at the same cost........with and without working operational computers? Never mind that Peter de Jager has a crew of people out with lanterns, walking the track in order to throw switches. Whats the impact on the bottom line of the RR and of their customers? (BTW, Buddy, thats not a question that requires a PhD in Computer Science or Engineering to answer. Why do you insist on such?)

Work-arounds? As in Train a workforce to do all of this manual stuff our computers do now? As in, If our customers find out about this were out of business because theyll order from someone else? As in, This is grounds for a negligence suit? Those are not computer science problems, nor are they engineering problems, Buddy.

Or maybe you mean work-arounds like that publicized in no less than 4 Canadian papers over this past week.......Canadian military intervention to provide shelters, food, power, and to aid police efforts. In this country we call it martial law. Is that your work-around solution?

Buddy, since youve come on this forum youve been so obsessed with Gary North that you use his theology and his predictions as a reason to negate the message. Now, I agree with neither Norths theology nor with his predicted outcome. I dont come close to agreement. But, he does see the tangled web that weve woven. So far, youve denied that this web exists, just as you deny that there are shades of grey between white (not a problem) and black (doomsday.) That word again -- deny.

Youve confined your thinking to a box. Gee, if this computer doesnt work there must be something we can do to work around it. Thats not the Y2K problem, though, Buddy.

The Y2K problem? Is it a mainframe computer problem.....is it embedded systems..... is it PCs.....is it corruption of data by non-compliant computers.....is it failure of federal agencies to provide the services they have been providing, including entitlement payments that people have come to rely on, defense, control of airspace.....is it the breakdown of infrastructure......is it the break down of business if telecommunications or computers, or electric power dont support currency transfer, both nationally and internationally......is it the bankruptcy of businesses that end up with failed code, along with the drastic increae in unemployment that results from these closures......or is it all of the above, coupled to the possibility of civil unrest and the addition of Y2K as something for an already nervous stock market to consider?

I believe its the last, and I believe common sense takes priority over formal training in engineering or computer science in determining the magnitude of the problem. I opt for a common sense individual solution as well-----if the train is coming at me, get off the tracks. So what if it turns out that its really one track over? I moved before its too late, so that no matter which track its on it misses me. [Always the possibility that it could derail and topple over on me, just as there always the risk that no amount of preparation will be enough, but I like the odds better my way.]

Oh, by the way, for the little its worth, I spent 38 years as an engineer, designing radar systems, with the last 20 years designing computer controlled radars, including doing a little of everything from systems analysis to testing of the overall computer/radar system. So, when I say its not a computer science/engineering problem, I understand what those problems are. I also understand the fragility of the systems, the degree to which things must be fixed and tested, and the immense amount of time and effort needed to do just that. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, and spilled coffee at ohh-dark hundred with the best of em. Had my phone calls from corporate VPs telling me to catch a plane at 3 am for places that were a hell of a lot more exotic in travel folders than in real life. Done my studying, and Im preparing. Dont have any more time for someone who insists on shooting messengers and establishing a technocracy to debate whether or not there will be a problem in a year. Theres a problem now, and if I dont finish getting off the track soon it wont matter. Stick around, Buddy. If you do decide in a year that it might really be a problem after all ----- its too late! Sorry.

-- rocky knolls (rknolls@hotmail.com), September 04, 1998.

Rocky,

Thank you for challenging my assumptions without once resorting to name-calling.

You may not have noticed, but my views have moved more towards the "Oh shit!" side of the spectrum in the last few days.

The one thing I can disagree with you on here is that I do see many "shades of gray" between "no problem" and "doomsday."

I seem to have more faith in humanity, and some would say technology, than exhibited in many posts on this forum. Maybe that is why my position appears to be one of "denial" to so many.

I have never held a "no problem" position. I just believe that running away is not the answer. Self-preservation is the strongest instinct, so I do understand it.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), September 05, 1998.

I look for tells(gambling term) for the Y2K problem. A tell being some info fact that tells what the people in charge, and who supposedly understand the problem, are contemplating doing. For instance, the Federal Reserve recently announced(and not publicized) they were going to store $2 BILLION dollars in CASH in banks rather than the $180 million that is normal. I asked an local banker that claims to have fixed his Y2K problem to comment on the FED action. "No comment". This is a tell. The FED is getting ready for the POSSIBLE BANK RUN for cash that will ensue if Y2K gets bad. I have now started to accumulate cash as I would rather lose 5-8% interest on my money next year than have NO money at all. Start looking for these tells, there all around.

-- Harold Koelling (hakoelli@netdoor.com), September 05, 1998.

What strikes me is that those most alarmed almost invariably either work in the computer field, or are related to people inside the computer field.

In your words: Tell = The real people who are seriously preparing themselves for failure, (real people - NOT "kooks" or hippies or militia or fanatics already ranting out in the wilderness) are also the ones trying to fix it and prevent it. Thus: those of us with the most knowledge have found more of problem, more interfaces between systems and infrastructures, than we believe can be fixed.

Tell = the politicians in DC aren't talking, aren't promising, aren't visibily preparing. The local politicians (who can't hide/shield/protect themselves) are beginning to work on the problem.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 05, 1998.

Buddy,

I HAVE read changes in your position. My own fluctuates nearly every day, depending on what news there is that day. A couple of weeks ago I was breathing easier because Mickey had posted good news on the electric power scene......this week the news is a bummer.

No sense in name calling. Makes more sense to put forward a position that is honestly held (as opposed to being a troll).

rocky

-- rocky (rknolls@hotmail.com), September 06, 1998.