Minimum Y2K $$$ : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Do this, if you're a fence sitter: Add up the total cost of your homeowner's, fire, auto, disability, and health insurance. Are you surprised? Now, ask yourself--what if suddenly you WEREN'T SURE that you were going to have a serious house fire, or car accident, or health problem on Jan. 1, 2000? Would that worry you? Would you just maybe want to upgrade your policies? This $ amount should be the minimum you spend on Y2K prep. Because NO ONE can credibly tell you it won't be serious. If you are not willing to spend this money, then why carry the other insurance? Peace of mind? Be prepared. Spend the money. Even if the improbable happens and there are no serious glitches, you can use/donate everything you've bought--unlike your other insurance expenditures, which are totally lost year after year. Also, deepen your prayer life. It can't hurt, either.

-- jim (, January 27, 1999


Jim: There's an article in our local newspaper today (California) "County Speeds Up to Get Y2K Bug Handled." Here's just a few quotes: "County supervisor said that Y2K is giving rise to feeloings of panic and it is essential to get as much factual information out to the public as possible." Who in the hell knows what's factual and what's a lie? "County Emergency Services director said he learned at a meeting last week that ALL of PG&E's power generating facilities in California will be Y2K compliant, and that the entire Western Grid will be "essentially OK." Is this a fact or is this a lie? "The telephone companies WILL be absolutely compliant; water companies will be able to provide water for a considerable length of time." Is this a fact or is this a lie? "There are going to be a series of problems we can't even fathom that are going to take place," says Countu Information Services Director. "We believe them to be of a minor nature, but NO ONE REALLY WHAT Y2K is going to be." Sounds like a bunch of double talk to me. Is this a fact or is this a lie? There are two critical areas that the county has identified as being critical in preparing for the "Y2K event." The first focuses on evaluating, modifying and correcting computers and their operating systems at the county departmental levels to make them 21st century compatible. This has been underway since last August. Well the good news is they are aware of the problems and most have already identified and started corrective actions to update or replace current systems. Wow, isn't that a relief! Now comes the letter writing business: "Departments are seeking Y2K compliance letters from vendors and suppliers who provide critical support for their operations." "Much more troublesome are the embedded chips situation." Well I think that is the truth. If I didn't know anything about Y2K, I would say this whole article was double talk, lies, and trying to tell people that everything is in control. Is what so troubling, people are going to believe the government and not take any action whatsoever to be prepared. They won't have peace of mind, they will be angry that they were lied to.

-- bardou (, January 27, 1999.

Bardou: The issues you raise are extremely troubling. I seriously doubt there are many deliberate lies. Is wishful thinking in the absence of hard data a lie? If you believe (and speculations about future unknowns must be considered beliefs) that you will be able to handle bugs that crop up with minimal inconvenience to your customers, but you don't know for sure (and who does), what is the most honest thing to say? That you don't know? What does that communicate, really? Should you say that you don't expect big problems? You don't, but what if you're wrong? Should you say that your ability to continue is in doubt? Sure, but how much doubt? Wouldn't that be interpreted as an admission that you are sure to fail, only expressed euphemistically?

Should you detail exactly what you've done, what you've found, what you plan to do, what your budget and schedule is, and let the readers form their own conclusions? Many organizations do just that, and what do we see? We see every possible conclusion drawn from these details, from no problem to no hope. Every reader filters this information through their own convictions, and ends up reading exactly what they wanted to see in the first place.

So OK, you're on schedule to finish all you know about in plenty of time. You're well aware that you don't know what you don't know and surprises always happen. How do you present this status in such a way that those who need to be concerned are informed responsibly, rather than put back to sleep or goaded into panic, depending on which spin doctor grabs the public ear?

Don't ask me. I'm Mr. 'Just don't know', remember.

-- Flint (, January 27, 1999.

Flint: What was so troubling to me about the article, was that they were stating that everything was under control, PG&E, telephone, and utilities such as water and sewer will be compliant. To me, this gives a false sense of security, and many people may not take any of this seriously. It would have been better for them to say that they are working on it, but just in case some critical systems do malfunction, to keep extra supplies on hand. PG&E does not know for sure that they will be ready, and they have even stated publicly to expect trouble. But the article to me was a false hope and double talk.

-- bardou (, January 27, 1999.

Flint why does the government have to have secret meetings? Corporate America won't tell the truth, if the press and public can hear how bad things may be? The rest of the world thinks we are nuts to hold meetings. The rest of the world will "let the chips fall where they may" (how ironic of a saying). When you and your family's future is at stake, you want as much truthful information as you can gather. The information helps you plan.

This "no one knows" shit is a weak excuse for doing nothing. It is almost is bad as "they have to fix it or they will go out of business". I am tired of these on the fence "maybe it will, maybe it won't", DGI/GI fools. Pity the ones who don't prepare, shoot the ones who expect to be taken care of.

-- Bill (, January 27, 1999.

Bill, "we don't know" is the god-honest Truth! Why is the truth a weak excuse -- because that's not what *you* want to hear?

Bardou has as good an answer as I've ever seen, though I've seen it a few times (not enough). They can say, OK, we're working on it, we don't expect serious problems but we can't guarantee this, a little preparation, buy stuff you'd use anyway, it can't hurt.

Every company is at the mercy of its vendors and customers every which way. We're heading into terra incognita, no denying it. This means We Don't Know what's going to happen. We can read between the lines, we can prepare to the best of our ability, we can guess, we can speculate, we can post that all good news is BS and feel smug, right? Don't you get a little tired of that after a while?

What do you want -- for the government to come out in the NY Times headlines and say We were lying, we're screwed, you're all gonna die, don't call us, better buy more guns? Would that make you happy? Do you have any constructive suggestions? Do you want panic, do you think that would improve the situation?

We see the storm coming. Lightning will strike, we don't know where. There will be wind damage, we don't know how much. Some people will die, we don't know who or how.

NOW Bill, if you were in charge, what would you advise the public? You can't pass the buck, you can't sit back and snipe at others, you have to decide. Let's hear it.

-- Flint (, January 27, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ