Here is a report that constitutes evidence. I say that there are big problems. Problems that go way beyong mere inconveniences. All along, the party line has been that big business is getting it done. That, of course was never based on anything other than rhetoric and assurances. The facts and the evidence have ALWAYS been otherwise, but are ignored by the pollyannas.

==================== http://www.itn.co.uk/Business/bus19990119/011902bu.htm

Even big business is not well prepared for the Millennium bug With just 346 days to go, many large companies are still unprepared for the affects of the so-called Millennium Bug, a new survey has shown.

The survey, by Year 2000 legal specialists Dibb Lupton Alsop with Taskforce 2000, which was set up to help companies "beat the bug", showed that many firms had not even reached the half-way point of recommended preparations for their systems.

Other results showed that one in 10 companies only started working on the problem last year.

By the end of 1998, fewer than half the companies surveyed (44%) had spent more than 60% of their budgets, while many appeared unsure of their legal requirements on issues such as health and safety.

But on Tuesday - seven months later - Robin Guenier of Taskforce 2000 said British companies were not doing, or spending, enough.

"The Government has been saying for over a year that big business is on course," he said.

"This survey shows that this is not so. Therefore, as most observers agree that small business and the public sector are in trouble, the British economy is facing an emergency.

================

Look. This is EVIDENCE. The 'party line' has been that the big companies are getting the job done. This is simply not so. The single biggest cause of IT failures is late starts. It is universally recognized that remediation, overall, was begun too late. It was always hoped that enough could be done to catch up. This is not so. Take Italy, for example. They have not even begun. Russia, no Y2K budget at all. The list goes on and on. Germany and Japan, 18 to 24 months behind us with less than 11 months to go.

The last part of the job is the hardest, and most of them have not even gotten to that part yet. Over 71% have already admitted that they will not be able to do the proper testing or that they simply would not do the testing. This is recognized by everyone as IT suicide. But, the pollyannas ignore it.

This report refers to large companies. Over 40% of small to medium sized companies have not even yet BEGUN repairs.

It is easy to call those who point out that the remediation has failed, 'scaremongers'. And that is because you do not 'like' the conclusions. The conclusions are supported by evidence like the above. Those who rail against it are the 'sleepmongers'. They put you to sleep with their rhetoric. "Oh, there will be 'some' problem, but they will only be inconveniences." They offer NO evidence or FACTS whatsoever to contradict reports like above.

The small to medium sized companies in large part have not even started. The big ones are not anywhere close to where they ought to be. These are the facts. This is the evidence.

If you have a respose to this, do not bother, unless you have EVIDENCE or FACTS which contradict the above. If you can contradict the above, I will be glad to listen. NO rhetoric. I have posted Facts and I expect facts in return.

Of course , much more could be said on this, that is, the failure of big companies to be where they ought to be. But, this is sufficient for now. They are NOT getting it done.

http://www.itn.co.uk/Business/bus19990119/011902bu.htm

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 19, 1999

Answers

A fact? It is a fact that the above only refers to Britain. Has nothing to do with the state of Y2K preparations or lack thereof in the US. And if you try to make conclusions about the US from data that applies only to Britain - then you are dealing in speculation and not fact. Just as well try to apply British census data to the US population.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 19, 1999.

I never really thought all that much about people's reactions to Paul Davis. Now I understand. He really doesn't get it, does he. He really doesn't understand the idea of interconnectedness. Oh, well. I'm sure he'll get flamed plenty for this post...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 19, 1999.

No, pshannon, he doesn't. Every time I see his name I think: Spin City.

-- Vic (68roadrunneris@compliant.com), January 19, 1999.

"British economy is facing an emergency"

The world is facing an emergency, not just the British. The U.S. and the U.K are widely regarded, survey after survey, as the Y2K leaders in a race against the clock. This is a race that will have no "winners."

"They offer NO evidence or FACTS whatsoever to contradict reports like above."

A fact is still a fact, and no matter how much they want to pretend it isn't won't change it. All they will offer is opinion based on hope, in the interest of preventing any realistic mass awareness which may result in panic. A panic that nobody wants and nobody is ready for. Keep the happy face media stories rolling. Keep the masses entertained and asleep. We have continued to see this, as well as any "successes" that do happen blown out of proportion. Social Security Spin is one example of this BS.

Even if there were facts and evidence for a particular company, do you think that the lawyers would allow a press conference saying "we are ready, or we are 100% compliant?" They may believe they are only to find out later that they really were not. So, you want facts that argue against the preponderance of the evidence that we already know exists, and that cannot in reality be dismissed or pollyanna'd away despite their inept and pathetic attempts? Good luck. I for one would love to see it. I really would, and I believe that you would too.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 19, 1999.

Instead of discussing Paul Milne and Paul Davis, why don't we look at the hard evidence about business compliance in the U.S.?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000NxZ

"How to assess Fortune 500 compliance + Some Hard Info"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 19, 1999.

In answer to poor Mr. Davis who thinks in a box:

A fact? It is a fact that the above only refers to Britain. Has nothing to do with the state of Y2K preparations or lack thereof in the US. And if you try to make conclusions about the US from data that applies only to Britain - then you are dealing in speculation and not fact. Just as well try to apply British census data to the US population.

Britain is alleged to be one of the furthest advanced in the world. I know how terribly hard it is for you to extrapolate. If they are one of the best, this report shows us how bad off most of the world is. Secondly, the economic well being of the United States is utterly dependent upon the rest of the world. Yes, I know this is something else you do not understand.

I said absolutely NOTHING about the united states in my post. YOU inferred it and you INFERRED wrong again. It is the hallmark of the Pollyanna.

I said that the party line is that big businesses are succeeding when MANIFESTLY they are not. Care to offer 'evidence' that there are Mr. Davis?

However, big business in the US is most assuredly NOT getting it done. Read the SEC filings, Mr. Davis.

At 24 months to go: No significant poportion of any industry done AT 18 months to go: No significant poportion of any industry done AT 12 months to go: No significant poportion of any industry done

And now at 11 months the story is the same. At six months to go, the story will be the same.

But all the Pollyannas insist that it is with NO evidence of ANY significant portion of ANY industry on the FACE OF THE EARTH DONE.

No major airport, airline, bank, auto manufacture, multi-national Mfr, Oil Co., Gas Co, etc etc ad infinitum.

No one on the radar anywhere. Yet it will all get done. In complete contradiction of the SEC filings. In contradiction to EVERY survey. In complete contradiction to even a naive understanding of IT metrics.

Post some EVIDENCE Mr. Davis. I have. Post evidence that contrdicts what I have posted. All you have provided is rhetoric based upon your faulty inferrences.

A pollyanna posts NO evidence EVER. They are born and bred ONLY to argue about the evidence other people post. You are true to your feather.

What color is the sky in your world, Mr. Davis?

-- (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 19, 1999.

"Assess" by Westergaard 2000's Howard Belasco...

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Computech/Issues/hbela9902.htm

This is about remediation progress (or lack thereof) at U.S. companies.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 19, 1999.

Hey Paul, just thought I'd let you know - I just talked to a friend that works for the power generation company that supplies our city. They said the word around the shop is that we will all be in the dark come January. Everytime they test, they lose power. They can't figure out why (haven't finished assessment).

This is what their web page says:

Our goal is to have completed all implementation and conversion of mission critical systems by December 1998. Supplier and vendor compliance certifications are part of this goal. Our testing, user acceptance and interoperability goal for mission critical systems is second quarter 1999. Other non-critical peripheral and supporting systems will be either upgraded or replaced after all critical systems issues have been addressed.

Please note that this is intended for informational purposes only and is not legally binding. Santee Cooper does not accept liability for any consequential loss or damage arising from the use or interpretation of this information.

And BTW, this is SE US, not UK we're talking about.

-- a (a@a.a), January 19, 1999.

Well, a.

Hmmph. Thanks. I knew I shouldn't be paying attn. to that NERC report.

-- Lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 19, 1999.

[As an illustration, let's subject this 'evidence' to exactly the same standards the doomists always apply to any good news. Turnabout is fair play. Just doing another Milne here, without the bad language.]

Even big business is not well prepared for the Millennium bug With just 346 days to go, many large companies are still unprepared for the affects of the so-called Millennium Bug, a new survey has shown.

[Paul always mocks pollyannas who use the word 'many'. What does 'many' mean, he asks. Am I permitted to ask the same question back?]

The survey, by Year 2000 legal specialists Dibb Lupton Alsop

[OK, some lawyers conducted a survey. Who did they survey? Doesn't say. What did they ask? Doesn't say. How were the data analyzed? Doesn't say. Trust them, I guess]

with Taskforce 2000

[Oh ho, This is the agency set up by Robin Guenier after he was fired by the government for being a Chicken Little. And the survey corroborated his views? Amazing.

(As an aside, for several years I was in the business of constructing and conducting surveys. Believe it or not, all of these surveys found exactly what whoever commissioned the survey *paid* me to find. After a while I got tired of that business, and did a survey to determine what was *actually true*. Needless to say, the results of that survey were never published, and I was never offered another survey job. Do you think pollsters don't understand this?)]

which was set up to help companies "beat the bug", showed that many

[There's that 'many' again. How many is that?]

firms had not even reached the half-way point of recommended preparations for their systems.

[And just whose recommendations are these? What are they? Believe me, any halfway competent surveyor can set it up to find whatever he wants. And if he doesn't find it, he can create 'criteria' after the fact to match his findings, once again concluding whatever he was paid to conclude.]

Other results showed that one in 10 companies only started working on the problem last year.

[Can this mean that 90% got an earlier start? Golly. How much earlier? Did the big guys start earlier on the whole? Doesn't say. Were any big companies surveyed at all? Doesn't say. Were some respondents who didn't match the desired results discarded from the survey for 'technical' reasons? You'd be a fool to bet against it, happens every single time.]

By the end of 1998, fewer than half the companies surveyed (44%) had spent more than 60% of their budgets, while many appeared unsure of their legal requirements on issues such as health and safety.

[Well, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. What meaning can we distill from these numbers? Is that 44% 44 of 100? 22 of 50? 11 of 25? How large were these budgets, and what is their distribution of size versus completion percentage? I can select 11 large, complete companies and 14 small businesses each at 59% of their budget and get these same results. What did those lawyers do?]

But on Tuesday - seven months later - Robin Guenier of Taskforce 2000 said British companies were not doing, or spending, enough.

[On the other hand, if Guenier said they *were* doing enough, he'd be lumped in with de Jager as a liar and waffler. Just who's funding Taskforce 2000 anyway, and who paid for this survey? Believe me, this is the single most important datum there is if you want to understand the results of any survey.]

"The Government has been saying for over a year that big business is on course," he said.

"This survey shows that this is not so. Therefore, as most observers agree that small business and the public sector are in trouble, the British economy is facing an emergency.

[Same song he's been singing since day one. Now he's had his own pet survey done to 'prove' it. What else is new? ]

----

Now before y'all haul out your flamethrowers, I am NOT taking the position that Britain has no problems. They're probably in worse shape than the US, itself in bad shape.

I'm only trying to show how weak support somehow becomes solid evidence when it agrees with your opinion, and how it falls apart as expected when it disagrees. But I do insist that surveys are NOT conducted to seek the 'real' truth, they are conducted to ratify the 'official' truth. I've definitely been there and done that. Just tell me what you're willing to pay me to 'prove objectively', and I'll guarantee a survey that does just that. I know hundreds of ways to bias a survey, from prelimary design to final report formatting, and every step of the way in between.

'a', thanks for the heads-up on the power. A little more firewood, a little more lamp oil, beans 'n rice...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 19, 1999.

I think Paul Davis needs to stay over on CPR's forum. Their like a bunch of dogs sniffing each others asses over there.

-- Economan (economy@aol.com), January 19, 1999.

Economan,

Without Paul Davis, this forum would be *exactly the same*

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 19, 1999.

Would ANY of you care to discuss the evidence of the compliance/non- compliance of U.S. companies?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 19, 1999.

Can we keep the flame wars to csy2k, please?

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), January 19, 1999.

"A fact? It is a fact that the above only refers to Britain. Has nothing to do with the state of Y2K preparations or lack thereof in the US. And if you try to make conclusions about the US from data that applies only to Britain - then you are dealing in speculation and not fact. Just as well try to apply British census data to the US population."

Hey Paul!

Dear oh dear Paul!

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my challenge to you on the status of Russia, France and Germany.

That was ages ago, 4th january to be precise - you said you'd get back to me but never did.

Paul Milne's post is extremely pertinent to the challenge I gave you.

I think you owe all of us an explanation.

Andy (who thinks Paul is an IT-Ostrich)

This is my post on January the 4th to Paul Davis:-

A Challenge - anyone care to take it up? John Howard, Paul Davis, anyone?

"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"

Andy

Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.

"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)

"We're doomed I tell ye, doomed!"

Private Frazer, Dad's Army, Walmington-On-Sea Home Guard, 1939 (Undertaker)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 19, 1999.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel a blast of hot air whenever Flint posts?

-- a (a@a.a), January 19, 1999.

Folks, Paul may not have the numbers, and I may not have actual numbers to quote, but I CAN tell you that a number of Anderson, and Booz partners have all, at one time or another commented that the vast majority of small and medium sized businesses have not started looking at their exposure.

Chuck, who drives these guys a lot.

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 19, 1999.

Of COURSE there is NO WAY that statement could reflect the corporate position of either company!!

chuck

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 19, 1999.

A person representing the US Small Business Association was on public TV tonight and stated that 87% of small businesses will be impacted by Y2K and that 50% of them have not started to address the problem.

-- a (apint@fishnet.com), January 19, 1999.

And Paul Milne comes out on top again! I really love your posts Paul, I am with you 100%! Thanks for all you wonderful posts. Paul is hereforth called "the voice of reason."

-- MilneFan (MilneFan@yes.com), January 19, 1999.

In response to Flint who blows steam out his ass no matter what I post. Anytime I post, no matter what, it is his signal to be a detractor:

[As an illustration, let's subject this 'evidence' to exactly the same standards the doomists always apply to any good news. Turnabout is fair play. Just doing another Milne here, without the bad language.] Even big business is not well prepared for the Millennium bug With just 346 days to go, many large companies are still unprepared for the affects of the so-called Millennium Bug, a new survey has shown.

[Paul always mocks pollyannas who use the word 'many'. What does 'many' mean, he asks. Am I permitted to ask the same question back?]

(categorically untue. However, the report says that MANY are not prepared. Does Flint take issue with the FACTS? NO He adresses what 'I" do. This is a logical fallacy. It is known as :

(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/attack.htm

Flint is full of them. He still fails to adress the issue, which is the only relevant thing.)

The survey, by Year 2000 legal specialists Dibb Lupton Alsop

[OK, some lawyers conducted a survey. Who did they survey? Doesn't say. What did they ask? Doesn't say. How were the data analyzed? Doesn't say. Trust them, I guess]

(unpleasantness Flint just blows off with a wave of the hand, Still does not adress the issues.)

with Taskforce 2000

[Oh ho, This is the agency set up by Robin Guenier after he was fired by the government for being a Chicken Little. And the survey corroborated his views? Amazing.

( "He was fired.... another ad hominem attack.

(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.

http://www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/attack.htm Flint is still not addressing the issues)

(As an aside, for several years I was in the business of constructing and conducting surveys. Believe it or not, all of these surveys found exactly what whoever commissioned the survey *paid* me to find. After a while I got tired of that business, and did a survey to determine what was *actually true*. Needless to say, the results of that survey were never published, and I was never offered another survey job. Do you think pollsters don't understand this?)]

(Flint says that the surveys 8HE* worked on always found what they wanted. This means to Flint that all surveys do this. This is another fallacy. It exrapolates from limited experience. This is the fallacy of the hasty generalization:

Definition: The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.

Examples: (i) Fred, the Australian, stole my wallet. Thus, all Australians are thieves. (Of course, we shouldn't judge all Australians on the basis of one example. It is also part of the unrepresentative sample fallacy; (ii) The apples on the top of the box look good. The entire box of apples must be good. (Of course, the rotten apples are hidden beneath the surface.))

which was set up to help companies "beat the bug", showed that many

[There's that 'many' again. How many is that?]

(and there is Flint's fallacy again.)

firms had not even reached the half-way point of recommended preparations for their systems.

[And just whose recommendations are these? What are they? Believe me, any halfway competent surveyor can set it up to find whatever he wants. And if he doesn't find it, he can create 'criteria' after the fact to match his findings, once again concluding whatever he was paid to conclude.]

( Believe you? Why. You commit identifiable fallacy after fallacy. There is no reason to believe someone who can not think straight. Now Flint aseerts that the criteris are no good because someone **MIGHT* do this or that. Again, this is yet another fallacy. Because someone CAN set it up such a way, does not mean that he did. Flint does not LIKE the conclusions , so he commits another error. this time it does not even rise to the level of a falacy. It is just an accusation. They 'could' have fooled with the data , so they did. Flint is laughably childish) )

Other results showed that one in 10 companies only started working on the problem last year.

[Can this mean that 90% got an earlier start? Golly. How much earlier? Did the big guys start earlier on the whole? Doesn't say. Were any big companies surveyed at all? Doesn't say. Were some respondents who didn't match the desired results discarded from the survey for 'technical' reasons? You'd be a fool to bet against it, happens every single time.]

By the end of 1998, fewer than half the companies surveyed (44%) had spent more than 60% of their budgets, while many appeared unsure of their legal requirements on issues such as health and safety.

[Well, there's lies, damned lies, and statistics. What meaning can we distill from these numbers? Is that 44% 44 of 100? 22 of 50? 11 of 25? How large were these budgets, and what is their distribution of size versus completion percentage? I can select 11 large, complete companies and 14 small businesses each at 59% of their budget and get these same results. What did those lawyers do?]

(Again, flint fails to address the facts. he only makes groundless acusations on possible problems.)

But on Tuesday - seven months later - Robin Guenier of Taskforce 2000 said British companies were not doing, or spending, enough.

[On the other hand, if Guenier said they *were* doing enough, he'd be lumped in with de Jager as a liar and waffler. Just who's funding Taskforce 2000 anyway, and who paid for this survey? Believe me, this is the single most important datum there is if you want to understand the results of any survey.]

(Again, flint is so laughbaly childish, I can barely see with the tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks. He consistently fails to address the issues and always comes back to ascribed motives)

"The Government has been saying for over a year that big business is on course," he said.

"This survey shows that this is not so. Therefore, as most observers agree that small business and the public sector are in trouble, the British economy is facing an emergency.

[Same song he's been singing since day one. Now he's had his own pet survey done to 'prove' it. What else is new? ]

( Another Ad hominem, failing to address the isssues. It is not discreditted because I agree with it. )

----

Now before y'all haul out your flamethrowers, I am NOT taking the position that Britain has no problems. They're probably in worse shape than the US, itself in bad shape.

(Notice that all the pollyannas always pull out their excuses at the end. They tell you what they ARE NOT saying. Not necessary. Just say what you mean in the first place.)

I'm only trying to show how weak support somehow becomes solid evidence when it agrees with your opinion, and how it falls apart as expected when it disagrees.

(No what you have shown is that you are the master of fallacious reasoning.)

But I do insist that surveys are NOT conducted to seek the 'real' truth, they are conducted to ratify the 'official' truth.

(another fallacy)

I've definitely been there and done that.

(another fallacy extrapolating fromlimited experience to all other surveys)

Just tell me what you're willing to pay me to 'prove objectively', and I'll guarantee a survey that does just that.

(This only confirms that you are dishonest)

I know hundreds of ways to bias a survey, from prelimary design to final report formatting, and every step of the way in between.

'a', thanks for the heads-up on the power. A little more firewood, a little more lamp oil, beans 'n rice...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 19, 1999

Once again, flint falls on his ass. His omly aim is to be a detractor even when he has to commit fallacy after fallacy after fallacy.

ROTFLAMO

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 19, 1999.

Well, lets see now. I could quote the latest NERC report. OH DEAR, THEY GOT OVER A 90% RESPONSE AND SOME ARE NOT READY YET - WE ARE DOOMED. Yeah, right (BRAAKKK). Two months ago we were doomed because they did not get a 90% response rate. Or I could point out that De Jager came around after he examined the real evidence and quit relying on second hand stories and predetermined polls for 'proof'. BUT OH GEE, HE IS A POLLYANNA NOW! (Another Raspberry for you D&G's). Last week I showed you that 7 TVA power plants are now listed as compliant - OH WOW - that is nothing! This from the guy who ranted for months about NOT ONE SINGLE POWER PLANT IS COMPLIANT! (BRAAKKK) I am just curious here - just what would you accept as a non DOOM fact? You pan every compliance statement ever issued - I really don't think an angel is going to float by just to assure you that everything is fine.

How about the FACT - plain as the nose on your face - that the 1/1/99 rollover went pretty damned well. Worst actual confirmed problem I have heard of was Hong Kong harbor - shut down for 2.5 hours. If that is as bad as it is going to get,Y2K will be much less troublesome that this 'pollyanna' expects. It is a fact that a great many D&G types were expecting everything to stop after 1/1/99 - do you really want me to go over to c.s.y2k and fetch back some of the posts?

And you still have not addressed my first post - just why are you trying to confuse the US issues with foreign issues. Sure, we will have economic problems if the rest of the world heads south while we scrape by. Economic problems? Milne, you must think I have a memory about 3 days long. You have predicted wholesale death and destruction here in the US. Economic problems are going to cause this? (BRAAAKKKK - another raspberry for you) My father survived the Great Depression - I lived through the Carter Recession in a county with over 30% unemployment - waay over since they did not count anyone who had run out of time on unemployment. That did not kill me or my father - are you really such a weak sister? As for the OIL issue you are in love with - oh really, Milne, haven't you ever heard of rationing? Or 'A' cards? While you are at it, check out how much oil the US CAN produce - if the price of a barrel of oil was $50 rather than $20 - or stop by in KY - I will show you dozens of wells that can produce as soon as you stick a pump on them - but the cost of production is too high. The US production of food is over twice what the country consumes - way over if we went to rationing. How about telling me just how many break downs it would take to cut US food production by 70% or so - we could get that just from broadcasting the seed by hand and harvesting whatever came up for crying out loud.

In case you haven't guessed, I am tired of you Milne. Go chase your tail or something.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 20, 1999.

Well its easy to see that Paul Davis doesnt know zip about oil prouduction or farming .It would be great if it was that easy .

First oil doesnt come out of the ground as unlead or 10-40 grade it has to be REFINED.

ive worked in the oilfields for 30 years.

My experience with broadcasting seed (hobby farming for years) is that if the seed is planted at the correct time & the weather co- operates the weeds are the first to appear +pests , then the work really starts :o)

As to rationing; it hard to ration something that does not exist.

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), January 21, 1999.

Bait and Switch - I am not going to take it easy on you D&G types any more so be warned!!! I said nothing whatsoever about OIL REFINING you ninny so just back off. And the statement that oil must be refined to be useful is a damn LIE. THAT IS RIGHT FOLKS, PD HAS HAD IT!!! IF OIL HAS TO BE REFINED TO BURN IN A DIESEL ENGINE THEN TELL ME WHY MY FRIEND IN OHIO COUNTY KENTUCKY HAD TO PAY A FINE FOR BURNING CRUDE OIL IN HIS TRACTOR!!! THE FEDS CAME DOWN ON HIM BIGGER THAN HELL FOR NOT PAYING THE PROPER TAXES FOR EXTRACTING CRUDE OIL! He was pumping from an old well that had been capped - he noticed the cap leaking oil one day - there was enough pressure underground to push the oil up - it would fill up and he would pump it into a tank nearby. Then use it instead of buying refined diesel. Diesel engines will burn soybean oil, peanut oil, cottonseed oil, crude oil - oh crap - damn near anything. AND BEFORE YOU DARE TRY TO CALL ME A LIAR - GIVE IT A TRY AND FIND OUT WHO IS RIGHT!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 21, 1999.

Paul D., since this thread is very evidence oriented, I would appreciate it if you would either cite evidence that there was ever a big, credible fear about the 1/1/1999>/b> rollover, or just drop the issue entirely. Other than the "Jo Anne Effect", which virtually everyone agrees is well contained to a specific accounting software and in any case might take a while to even get noticed, I have never been aware of any big worries about the 1/1/1999 rollover. Yet, I keep seeing statements of the form, "Well, see, the 1/1/1999 rollover went smoothly, with only the most minor of problems, so you should think twice before thinking that Y2K will be any big deal either".

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 21, 1999.

bold off.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 21, 1999.

Sure Paul,

Now tell us that your friend was using the crude as the lubricating oil in his tractor too. And that he substituted crude for hydraulic fluid. Yeah, right.

Paul I like your enthusiasm on this forum a lot and I'm glad you're here. But your tendency to oversimplify (see also my reply to your posting on RTC chips in the embedded systems thread) just blows you out of the water again and again. You do it to yourself.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 21, 1999.

PAUL DAVIS IS CORRECT !

I stand corrected.

Although I saw no mention of a DIESEL engine in his post,

A DIESEL engine will burn crude oil . NOTE : it will also severely shorten engine life due to IMPURITIES .

Can't have it both ways Paul . :o)

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), January 22, 1999.

Sorry Mike - I just got flamed elsewhere, and some ornery email and you happened to turn up. I was seeing everything as a flame by then. Yes, it will mess up the engine something fierce over a few months - though filtering out some of the crap will help - but my friend had nothing to do all winter but tear everything down anyhow. Beans and corn - all he grew - so winter was easy time for him. My point is that fuel can be found to run things through almost any kind of short term hard times. Shucks, I have a cousin up in Wisconsin who fixed up an old vehicle to run on wood gas fumes. And there are several sites about that on the net - search on 'wood gasification'.

(Now if you want some fun - ask a 'nuclear Navy' sailor what happens when your Navy reactor scrams and you fail to get restarted by the third try)

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), January 22, 1999.

Paul ,

Apology accepeted. :o)

True any fuel is better than no fuel .

-- Mike (mickle2@aol.com), January 22, 1999.

"Sorry Mike - I just got flamed elsewhere, and some ornery email and you happened to turn up"

Hey Paul - how about tell us where, and post the email - I need a good laugh.

-- a (a@a.a), January 22, 1999.