Lets challenge Paul Milne to a y2k debate the topic being:

"This house believes that y2k will not be the end of the world as we know it."

Speaking for - all the Yourdon posters (regardless of your own beliefs). Speaking against - Paul Milne (on his own).

NO PROFANITY.

The first one to break this rule has lost.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998

Answers

Tee hee we should wipe the floor with him!

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998.

Oh I meant all the Yourdon posters except Deedah.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998.

"NO PROFANITY.

The first one to break this rule has lost. "

ROFLMAO...So Milne will last...oh...30 seconds tops?

Rick

-- Rick Tansun (ricktansun@hotmail.com), October 29, 1998.

Yep, the loser has to pay a large forfeit.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998.

Who really knows what will happen? Paul may be right, Paul may be wrong. If he is right, we have forwarning to help deal with the problem. If he is wrong, amen. It is silly to challange an individuals views on a problem with so many possible outcomes.

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), October 29, 1998.

I just want a fun debate.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998.

Oh ok Deedah can join in (another scene from Blazing Saddles).

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), October 29, 1998.

You are all IDIOTS! There is NOTHING to debate! Civilization WILL collapse and you WILL ALL DIE! THIS IS A FACT!!

--Book of Milne, Chapter 1, verses 1-4

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 1998.

The very definition of TEOTWAWKI isn't even established and I'm sure it varies from one person to the next.

Personally, I see "the end of the world as we know it" as being far less severe than "the end of the world". You might agree. But, when you add "as we know it", your world might be very today as opposed to yesterday for many reasons even without y2k.

There are so many possible outcomes and any outcome would include a post y2k world that isn't the same world as pre y2k so any outcome other than 'business as usual' would be 'TEOTWAWKI'. So, isn't the real debate in the degree in which the world will be different? And, isn't that what the ongoing debate has been about any way? -------------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 29, 1998.

Michael Taylor,

EXACTLY!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), October 29, 1998.

I see the debates I have engaged in and ones I have only read as good exercises for my thought processes. Debating, or arguing if you want to call it that, with people who don't see things the same way helps to make you see things you missed, form your thoughts better, refine your ideas, and sometimes be convinced to believe the opposite of what you originally thought.

It could be good to have a debate such as Richard suggests. Actually when Paul Milne has posted here he has refrained from profanity although not from insults.

-- Buddy Y.(DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 29, 1998.

Hardliner,

THANKS my friend! Sometimes I get lucky : )

I think Buddy said it best. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean the forum or the debate is a waste of time. I think it's really quite the opposite.

I love to argue, uh, I mean debate! ------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 29, 1998.

You fellas are precisely missing Milne's (and North's) point. Its not about debating the outcome of y2k. Its about preparing for the worst. Get it? PREPARING FOR THE WORST. There is ample, repeat AMPLE, evidence, provided to you at no cost by these gentlemen, that this is a prudent and necessary thing to do.

You guys continue to have fun shooting the messengers. I'm building more lifeboats...

-- a (a@a.a), October 30, 1998.

I prefer to use the phrase "the end of our civilization as it is currently configured." It feels less loaded. "The end of the world as we know it is like a bad Science Fiction movie. "On the Beach" or something. There are enough other factors besides Y2K, that make it clear to me that we are about to experience a major reconfiguration. Paul Milne is on the "toast" side. Others think "Y2K" will be a "non- event." Whatever...

I think it's kind of a shame that we've got this "Y2K" brand generic disaster. "Millennium" is sort of the generic disaster of the religious whackos. (most religious people are NOT whackos, that's not my implication) I think that rather than waste Mr. Milne's valuable time debating whatever, let's come up with a "Brand Name" for what we think will happen. It must take into account all the relevant factors besides computer and religious things. It must be catchy, and easy to explain...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), October 30, 1998.

You said it best, "a". The amount of North-bashing and Milne-bashing seems to be at an all-time high for some reason. (Of course, it has been a pretty strange week on this forum....) Quite frankly, as we move into November 1998, with still not a single Y2K compliant bank, electric utility, etc., etc., even the most happy-face optimists must -- at least privately -- be getting scared. Shooting the messengers is certainly a time-honored tradition when one feels helpless and powerless.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), October 30, 1998.

It's funny that people decry "shooting the messenger" in the case of North and Milne. Neither one of them was a messenger for me. I knew plenty about this problem before they came along, and so did many others. I doubt North or Milne had anything to do with De Jager, Cowles, or many of the other leading experts. North and Milne are only pundits like the rest of us here.

-- Buddy Y. (buddy@bellatlantic.net), October 30, 1998.

I've never heard of anyone accusing any of those other guys of being the anti-Christ. Or taking what, for all anyone knows, was an honest publishing error, and building a big case around it. No, to some, these people are special. Like those other guys, North and Milne give hard evidence that is hard to refute. But then they go one step futher than the others: They say that it is too late, that Y2K cannot be fixed. That is the difference, and that is why they get personally attacked.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), October 30, 1998.

Well I'll tell you right now, it's gonna be The End of the World as I Know It for me when/if I lose access to the internet in 2000. I haven't had any meaningful discussion without it for the past 7 years.

I'm leaving tomorrow morning for quebec where we bought our survival..uh...vacation home to settle with the seller. I'm gonna be without internet access for a week. I hope I can manage that long. I'll miss you all virtual friends.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), October 30, 1998.