The following statement was recently posted by Paul Davis. John Howard is also convinced that all is well...

"Actually, I would say that it has fallen into the unproven assumption that TEOTW is nigh. I'm seeing a ton of FACTS that don't support that assumption. But, posting something that shows anything but D&G is now an almost certain guarentee of flames." Hey Paul,

What "ton of facts" are you seeing *worldwide* on this problem that makes you sleep at night better. My contention Paul and John is that is you are focussing on your own town, followed by your state, followed by your region, then your country.

You are totally blinkered my friends.

I challenge you.

Give me the good news on the following countries.

Russia.

France.

Germany.

Then tell me how the the USA, even if it get's it's act together (!), will survive economically and digitally with the rest of our trading partners in meltdown.

I'm expecting a reasoned, supported, well thought out essay chaps.

Bet you can't do it.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 04, 1999

Answers

Thought this might help prove that there is NO PROBLEM?

Nations at UN conference suggest SWAT teams to handle Y2K crises > > By Leslie J. Nicholson > Knight Ridder Newspapers > > >NEW YORK -- In a stark demonstration of the global scale of the Year >2000 computer problem, representatives of 130 nations gathered at the United Nations Friday to hammer out plans for dealing with Y2K. > >The ideas included setting up national and international "SWAT teams" to handle crises caused by the computer glitch. > >The U.N. conference marked the first such gathering of Y2K >coordinators from several nations, including many developing >countries that lag far behind the United States in remediation >efforts. > >Y2K refers to a programming glitch that will cause some computers, >software programs and microprocessors to interpret the abbreviated >date 00 as 1900 rather than 2000. The result could be incorrect data >processing and equipment malfunctions. > >"We all know that we are competing in a race against time," said >Pakistani ambassador Ahmad Kamal, who hosted the conference. "Despite all the efforts and committed work of individuals and institutions, we are far from the objective of ensuring Y2K compliance by the inflexible deadline of Dec. 31, 1999." > >Fixing Y2K problems is a daunting task that involves rewriting >computer codes and potentially replacing billions of microchips. > >U.N. Undersecretary-general Joseph E. Connor called Y2K the largest >computer project in the 50-year history of the information- technology industry, but said predicting its effects accurately was impossible. He said the global cost of fixing Y2K problems could reach as high as $600 billion with an additional $1.4 trillion going for litigation. > >"There's no way to draw on past experience and predict what is going >to fail and what consequences these failures will have," Connor said. "All we know for sure is the timing." > >He said nations should attack Y2K on two fronts: by deciding which >systems are critical and fixing them first, and by developing >contingency plans for coping with computer failures. > >"We have to get used to the fact that some systems and facilities >will not be addressed," Connor said. > >Delegates spent most of the day in closed-door sessions to discuss >Y2K problems affecting specific industries and regions and released >few details of those meetings. One goal was to organize on a regional basis, including implementing the SWAT-team idea. Kamal told >reporters that such teams would help nations deal with problems that >cross borders, such as regional power grid failures. > >"You cannot stop at the political border of a country," he said. > >Distributed by The Associated Press (AP) > >) 1998 Star-Telegram >

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 04, 1999.

Cross-border SWAT teams??? I guess this is as close as we get to TPTB admitting that Y2K has them truly worried! (BTW, my daughter said TPTB must stand for 'Toilet Paper That Bounces' - as good a definition as it gets LOL)

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), January 04, 1999.

I hear the CBSTs (Cross-border SWAT teams) are going to be armed with COBOL manuals...

-- a (a@a.a), January 04, 1999.

Hey a.a.a. COBOL *automatics* would be mo better!!!

BWWWAAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAhahaha

I crack myself up sometimes...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 04, 1999.

Ladeeez and Gentlemen!

In the red corner, we have 10,000 press releases assuring us that we're on schedule, no problems expected, everything's under control, don't worry, be happy.

In the blue corner, we have 10,000 predictions of dire calamity. backed up by a few trivial problems so far, combined with dubious extrapolations based on mostly guesswork and hearsay.

The records both of these contestants bring into the ring is frankly awful. These contestants have fought many times before, each time to a draw, with both sides claiming partial victory. Will this time be different?

Our referee for this contest is Father Time himself. The rules are that the contest will continue without a break so long as at least one of the contestants is still standing.

The opponents have one thing in common besides a terrible track record -- each considers himself totally correct, and considers his opponent to be utterly addlebrained. Each feels that if his predictions cannot be proven wrong, he must therefore be correct!

Let the battle begin, and good luck to da bot' a yez.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 04, 1999.

Flint,

And what might be the 'stakes' each combatant will be putting on the line. Could affect which winner(?) takes all, no?

c

-- c (c@c.c), January 04, 1999.

I found a web site a little bit ago called "State of the Onion Survey". There was a survey taken in the two weeks leading up to Christmas of experts on Peter de Jager's discussion group. Participants were asked if they were more or less optimistic about averting a year 2000 date change disaster than they were a year ago.

76% were less optimistic, 11% were more optimistic, and 14% felt just the same. This site is apparently not accessible by linking, but can be reached by typing this address into the window at the top of your browser:

http://www.cybermetrix.co.uk/onion.html

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 1999.

Flint:

Ditto.

Thanks.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

"The opponents have one thing in common besides a terrible track record -- each considers himself totally correct, and considers his opponent to be utterly addlebrained. Each feels that if his predictions cannot be proven wrong, he must therefore be correct! "

Uh Flint...who ARE the opponents on each side?

From my own observations, the ones on the blue team have more combined total weight in brain power than on the red team. It's not an even match.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 06, 1999.

The reason I haven't posted much lately anywhere is because of sheer lack of time - the place where I work upgraded all email clients (500+?), all electronic signature applications (a couple of hundred at least), a bunch of office applications, added an Exchange server and also had me chasing Y2K compliance on machines up to 200 miles away. This has all happened since Thanksgiving. Have a little mercy, I am totally beat here. (Yes Virginia, a fair chunk of this was to get some things into Y2K compliance. Most probably don't know what the govt. standard on Y2K compliance is. Real simple - no adjustment whatsoever of any kind has to be made at 1/1/2000. Anything else, no matter how trivial, is not compliant. Tough act to live up to.)

Really, the last two things I have had time for were the criticism of Infomagic, and the search for real PLC's that fail totally at 2000 rollover. The search is ongoing - and will extend as long as I have patience for it. But right now I have to get some rest.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 06, 1999.

Paul Davis;

You once mentioned seeing the Ohio river frozen over.

Would that photo have been taken at the bridge crossing on I275 West, there by the big power plant?

Just a little curious. I was born and raised (up to age 16) in the area around there. I last crossed that bridge in October of 1998.

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 06, 1999.

Sorry to get on your case Paul - forgot that some of us have real jobs to do :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 06, 1999.

The picture was taken at Henderson Ky, just south of Evansville In. Does 275 cross over at Tell City / Hawesville? Am trying to remember, but am not sure. If so, that would be about 50 miles to the northwest.

The river was frozen pretty solidly that year - barge traffic came to a complete stop for a couple of weeks. They did not send icebreakers up the river that year as they did in 76 when it froze for such a long time that there was real worry about shortages of food and fuel in some places. Believe it or not - some idiots that liked walking across the river from Louisville to the bars and cathouses in Shively, joined hands in front of the icebreaker and did not want it to continue! Oh my.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 07, 1999.

My answer is.....DUH

DUH, and furthermore, DUH

maybe someone isn't communicating to someone here, but unless I failed to learn remedial English and Math in 1963, the point is that there are many millions of points of difference between a scenario of 10 and a scenario of zero. (as I have stated on this forum at least 60 zillion times previously)

the term "willful ignorance" is taking on new meaning

What many of the doomers on this forum seem unable to grasp is that refusal to embrace the philosophy that Y2K will bring Armageddon or something close does not necessarily mean that those of us who do not agree have lost our freaking minds.

In fact, if you'll take a poll around most Y2K circles (outside of sanitariums or militia compounds), you'll find that most people who even give a farkle about the event do NOT think that TEOTWAWKI is anywhere close to a viable scenario.

Somehow, somewhere, Common Sense is coming into play. Amazing, ain't it. There will be problems. But they will be manageable.

Of course, no one on this forum will give any credence to anyone who doesn't think as they do. All this talk about diversity of opinion: it's basically BS on this forum. You gotta think doom and gloom, or you just aren't part of the club.

There's a word for that style of thinking: CULT

Think about it.

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

This was the question John - nothing about teotwawki - I presume you're ducking the issue.

"Give me the good news on the following countries.

Russia.

France.

Germany.

Then tell me how the the USA, even if it get's it's act together (!), will survive economically and digitally with the rest of our trading partners in meltdown."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Well, Mr. Howard,

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. It just doesn't look that way to me. It appears to me that the Pollyanna's, here and elsewhere, just have so little in the way of verifiable evidence to bring to the discussion. Not NO evidence, just not much by comparison.

Interpreting and extrapolating from evidence is a function of intelligence and rationality, plus one's preconceptions, prejudices and agenda. That's why we encourage newbies to assess the so-called facts for themselves. Anything else is opinion, and I see no one here preventing you or anyone from expressing one.

You said, "Of course, no one on this forum will give any credence to anyone who doesn't think as they do." I find this statement churlish, puerile and ill-considered. I don't like to think that our way of life is going to be endangered. Therefore I pay particularly close attention to optimists who bring something to the table besides just a tankard of smoke. That's why I read very closely the contributions of Bradley Sherman, Robert Egan and Paul Davis while ignoring the vapid maunderings of Theroux, Chittum, BaggaDonuts and Howard.

Hallyx

"Hu-mons are nice friendly people - as long as their bellies are full and their holodecks are working" - Quark

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), January 08, 1999.

And bear in mind, any nutheads who might think about extreme reactions to what I just posted (you know not!)

I'm not the one who is wise enough to make a judgment about what is, or is not, a cult. But the U.S. Gov't is, in its own humble estimation.

And for those who think by using anonymous e-mail addresses that they avoid detection, guess again. Every time you (or I) post to any-dang-where on the net, you leave a specific individual signature that is traceable. Anonymity is a pure myth unless you use a service such as the Anonymizer. And the feds can still go to the Anonymizer folks and trace whatever they want. A lot of 'reformed' hackers work for the government now. Probation, parole, etc.

I guess what I'm doing is saying, those who have been talking about gov't martial law, etc. etc. etc. have been contributing to another self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who are worried about the gov't branding Y2K extremists as a cult have pretty much been painting the target on their own backs, without knowing it, if they've been posting here or anywhere else, under whatever name, unless they're some pretty savvy webnuts.

Think what you will. That's the skinny. Hush up will serve two purposes: keeping us 'Pollyanna types' (yeah right) from having to hear your drivel, and keeping the Feds off your backs if TSHTF

LMAO

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Mr. Howard,

Let me ask you a simple question. Why do you call this forum if you're convinced Y2K will not cause moderate to severe disruption to society?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

Holly,

Congratulations for being aware of the terms "churlish, puerile and ill-considered", as well as "vapid maunderings". But I cannot congratulate you on your ability to apply these terms in a coherent, sensible way, given your inability to do so.

I have directed upwards of three dozen intelligent, otherwise unprejudiced human beings from planet Earth toward this website in an endeavor to enrich their understanding of the Y2K problem.

With one exception, they have come back to me with the opinion that this website is radically prejudiced towards those who choose to look at Y2K in a worst-case view.

If you can't see that, or choose not to, I'll just have to use your own device, that being using big words instead of plain terms, and refer to you as being "subject to acute typhlosis".

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

I'll try one last time John.

Give me the good news on the following countries.

Russia.

France.

Germany.

Then tell me how the the USA, even if it get's it's act together (!), will survive economically and digitally with the rest of our trading partners in meltdown.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Kevin --

simple answer to a simple question.

I do think Y2K will cause moderate disruptions. I'll have a few weeks of food and water laid by. Etc. Urge others to do the same.

Your question points to my main gripe with the doomers. With the G. North-type people, it's either, subscribe to "the end of the world as we know it", or you think there's "no problem at all". That's a common-sense gap big enough to drive Jupiter through. And don't even try to tell me it doesn't exist. I've had that stuff thrown in my face too many dozens of times for anyone to say it ain't there.

There is a vast amount of scenario in between; and it is that vast area where most intelligent people who know anything at all about Y2K find themselves these days. Doomers are becoming more and more isolated as time goes on. Because that scenario just doesn't make real-world sense.

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

"Bet you can't do it."

I rest my case.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Mr. Howard,

I appreciate your quick answer to my question. Now, do me a favor and answer Andy's question about Russia, France, Germany and our trading partners.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

Okay Andy --

There isn't any good news about those countries, far as I can see.

But how can the U.S. survive if they have big problems?

Boy you guys ask such simple questions with such simple answers. And think they're such toughies.

Remember hearing about a thing called World War II? Which devastated much of the world's economy? Remember hearing about a thing called the Great Depression? Which did the same thing, but in a worse fashion?

Remember how the U.S. just couldn't pull though either event, and fell off the face of the earth as a result?

My only question is, where do we live now? Since America couldn't make it through those two past events which were both much worse than Y2K could ever hope to be?

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

As I said John, I rest my case.

Your history lesson does not cut it at all.

"My only question is, where do we live now? Since America couldn't make it through those two past events which were both much worse than Y2K could ever hope to be?" Oh really.....

You seem to be unable to grasp that y2k is unique, totally unprecedented, worldwide and systemic in nature. Sure, short of nuclear war or poisonfire, the USA *will* survive - but logic dictates that with the rest of the world belly-up, the USA we know now will not exist in 2001 - i.e. TEOTWAWKI - stressing "as we *know* it."

""The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."

Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 1999.

Mr. Howard,

Again thanks for a quick answer, this time to Andy's question, and without attacking anyone. I agree that a majority of people will, somehow, muddle their way through Y2K.

I believe you are overlooking at least a few points, though.

1. The United States currently imports 53% of its oil.

2. Most people, compared with 60 years ago, do not know how to plant a garden, snap green beans, change their car's oil, etc.

3. We live in a society based on short attention spans and instant gratification. People aren't nearly as patient as they once were.

4. Most people alive now have never experienced an unemployment rate of more than 10% in their entire lifetime.

5. The world is much more interconnected now than it ever was, and is only as strong as its soon to be weakest links (Japan, Germany).

6. Alan Greenspan has said that 99% compliance by the financial system is not good enough. France, Germany, Japan and others are part of our financial system. There were no international VISA or Mastercards that involved instant, electronic and international transfers of money.

I don't know how bad Y2K will turn out to be. A 5 or a 7? I call here to listen to a variety of viewpoints and maybe get a feel for what may happen in 2000. If you know that Y2K will last just two or three weeks and then quickly fade away, I'm sure you've already made the preparations you feel you need to.

Why do you still call here when you KNOW Y2K will be a "bump in the road"?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 1999.

I think John has a problem with the acronym TEOTWAWKI. He seems to equate it with Apocalyps, or the End of The World. I've noticed that with many people. Much of the arguements come from misunderstandings in communication, that is, what is WANTED to be expressed, and what is actually being perceived (perhaps Maria the linguist could explain that problem better for me.)

From my observations, people using TEOTWAWKI mean it litteraly: The End of The World As We Know It. As in, the end of technological culture as we know it; the end of our cozy life as we know it; the end of the boom market as we know it; the end of worry free life as we know it.

They (we) DON'T mean: the end of the world; Apocalyps; Armagedon; anihilation of the human race; the USA falling off the planet.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 08, 1999.

John, although I can only speak for myself, my own doom-and-gloom position is an ever evolving one. It is basically time driven, in the sense that the closer we get to well recognized Y2K impact dates, even if nothing else changes for neither better nor worse, things actually are worse, due to the lost time.

I'm just curious, more than anything else: Is your optimism independent from the time factor? In other words, if things stay static in terms of Y2K progress for another month, would you still feel so optimistic?? Again, I'm just curious....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 08, 1999.

"They (we) DON'T mean: the end of the world; Apocalyps; Armagedon; anihilation of the human race; the USA falling off the planet. "

Chris, some do, some don't. Most here think TEOTWAWKI means we all will fall back 100 years in technology.

-- nobody (no@not.now), January 08, 1999.

<< Give me the good news on the following countries.

Russia.

France.

Germany.

Then tell me how the the USA, even if it get's it's act together (!), will survive economically and digitally with the rest of our trading partners in meltdown. >>

I'll take a stab at one of these: Russia.

The bad news is, there is only one piece of good news, and it is really bad news that just happens to be good in this case. That one piece of good news is that Russia is so screwed up right now that Y2K problems are unlikely to make it much worse. They can't pay people, they can't ship goods (but that's okay since they can't manufacture them either), they can't control their military effectively in the event of deployment (remember Chechnyia?), etc. They have widespread fuel, food and power shortages and their currency is nearly worthless. The banking system is in ruins. The rule of law is almost completely gone and nobody seems able to do the first damn thing about any of it. What else could go wrong, at least that might not go wrong anyway?

I would scratch Russia from the list of Y2K problems. They are such a mess now that they can't get much worse.

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 08, 1999.

>> There will be problems. But they will be manageable.

What is the basis for this optimism? How I wish, how I've tried, to believe it! I want to remain open to correction. And yet what I'm finding is a lot of corroborating detail from the doombrood, and a lot of wishful thinking from the optimists. "We've licked adversity before, so we'll do it again" - with the greater part of Y2K budgets not yet spent, and only months left in which to test and fix the unexpected results of the testing!?

>> ...those two past events [WWII and the Great Depression] which were both much worse than Y2K could ever hope to be?

Will somebody please point me toward some objective, statistical, present-day proof that the power/telecomm/finance triangle is not headed for a systemic breakdown? The kind of here-and-now numbers and facts the doombrood is able to cite so prodigiously?

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), January 08, 1999.