...is how close I am to password protecting this bboard.

If you have nothing better to do other than jerk around users of online bboards who take the Y2k issue in the electric industry seriously, find another forum in which to do it.

Unlike most other online Y2k forums, the moderator does participate here.

Legitimate discourse of opposing views is absolutely essential, welcomed, and encouraged. Jerking chains for laughs is not.

Enough said.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 1999

Answers

Rick,

I don't know for sure what you are talking about, but I may have an idea. Here's a well know quote from a very famous presentation (no, it wasn't to NERC) "Blessed are the peacemakers, for ...."

Remember my 1st entrance here? You blew up at my attitude, my "nom de guerre", and generally gave me a dressing down for anonymous "hit and run". After an expanation and apology from me, you modified your position and expressed an understanding for at least the necessity that I remain anonymous.

Perhaps this is another occasion where you should let some time settle the emotions and then take another look at the post you found offensive (if indeed we are referencing the same one).

The post I recall had some very rational arguements that represented a real intellectual challange to any who would oppose it (isn't that what this is all about if the goal is to cut through irrational fear, rhetoric, propoganda, and get to the truth?). At the close of the letter, a tongue-in-cheeck comment was made that this was good humored "baiting" of intellectual opponents.

Look again and read carefully, the bulk of the article was reasoned and posed good questions - good basis for further discussion. IF one was to skim to the "baiting" comment, it would be possible to misread bad will into the entire post. I do not think this was the case. I also believe that if you carefully review this post that you will, in Charity, come to the same conclusion.

If I am correctly identifying the "errant" post, it is by the one person whom I see as the most intelligent, reasoned of all those who oppose a "gloom and doom" scenario. The posts by this person are always well measured and presented with a clarity of message in an unoffensive manner. This person is the best to be had (to date) in the way of opposing viewpoints on this page. To lose the participation and input of this person would be most regrettable. Remember, they take the same risks I do in posting opinions and info here.

If I may be so bold, I would also like to opine that the "elevator" thread was removed prematurely. It is at least as germaine as any of the posts regarding oil, gas or portable generators. It directly challanged the accuracy and credibility of THE paper most sited here (and elsewhere) regarding embedded chips. Certainly it was the start of an interesting discussion that I would have benefitted from.

My opinion - to remove his/her posts, and ever-so-subtly threaten to ban from this board the BEST voice for the utility insider viewpoint is to risk the supremecy of your own arguements. Others will see that I am lacking in comparision to the one in question - out debating me is no grand accomplishment. You ban the best and others may feel that you have lost the opportunity to show your stuff against the greatest opponent.

SUMMARY: The post in question did not jerk chains, a single comment at the very end that was inserted to show good humour, and was (to me) plainly "tongue-in-cheek". I do not consider my "chain" to have been jerked, and your concern and protection are misplaced. Please reconsider and contemplate the wisdom of restoring the post in question AND the "elevator" post. (Or don't, after all this is your site and we are only guests here).

Respectfully yours,

CL

DISCLAIMER: If I have assumed the WRONG post, or the wrong identity of the person who prompted this thread, then please consider (as always): "Hey, its just my opinion - I could be wrong".

-- Anonymous, February 21, 1999

NEVERMIND!!!

motto: shoot first, ask questions later.

-- Anonymous, February 21, 1999

Rick --

Not sure what you're referring to -- when was this post and what did it say?

In any case, I believe it's getting increasingly difficult to decipher the truth from all the hype and anti-hype -- but we still need to try. So far, yours has been a clear voice of moderation on the 'Net and, when you issue "negative" statements, they are well warranted. Every time I've heard you (e.g.,on CBN interviews), you weigh your remarks carefully and don't jump to conclusions.

Would like to know what ticked you off here...

God bless you...

John Calhoun

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

Hmmm...

Is it possible that I am the cause of this thread? Moi'?? I believe it is possible (and from CL's post he believed it as well), so please allow me to explain.

If I were a guessing man, and I am, I would think it highly possible that my "Q7 Transistor and 555 Timer Threat" was the cause of all of this.

If that is the case, then allow me to apologize. I posted a link to the hoax document merely as humor that I thought many here would get a good laugh out of. I thought that with the serious debate we often engage in here, a little laughter might be good for the soul. Many many years ago while still in school I built a few circuits using 555 timers, as well as transistors. Knowing the devices very well, I found the hoax post on the Embedded Chips Manufacturers Forum extremly funny, as a matter of fact, being the geek circuit type that I am, I engaged in quasi-hysterical laughter at the claim that a y2k bug could exist in a 555 timer or transistor. Immediately after making my post to this forum, I realized that, hey, many people would get it, but all might not, so I posted a link to my reply in the Embedded Chips forum (stating that the post was hilarious) to ensure that no one hear fell victim to the hoax. My only intent was to share a little humor, lighten things up just for a moment.

This is an excellent forum where those involved in Y2K within the utility industry and those interested in EUY2k can discuss, debate, compare notes, and all come away having learned something. I surely wouldn't want to see it password protected and keep out the general public.

By the way, let me say a few more things. I have thought that the overall tone of this forum was a bit pessimistic, so most of my posts have dealt with the myriad of what I consider misinformation. Unfortunately, what that hasn't allowed me to do was adequately discuss the areas of concern that I actually do have in regards to EUY2k, and believe it or not, I do. To wit:

1. Tardiness of Industry in getting started, and will all utilities do an adequate job - Bonnie often addresses this, and I share some of these concerns, although not always to the same degree or for the same reasons.

2. Y2K bug threats to nuclear operations due to regulatory related matters (as opposed to direct threat to plant operation by bugs in control systems). If there are minor Y2k bugs in equipment or software with regulatory consequencies that are not found and remediated, this can call the whole y2k effort into question, and may lead to regulatory mandated shutdowns due to "unanalyzed conditions" in the year 2000. So in my mind, some of the minor y2k bugs may have a potential to affect operation. If my memory serves me right (ususually its about 50-50), Rick has posted somewhere information mentioning the possibilities of regulatory required shutdowns.

3. I go into any Y2K effort assuming that there is a serious Y2K bug somewhere, and that it's our job to find it. Just because I haven't found a serious bug that can directly cause a plant shutdown, doesn't mean that in some plant there is not one. As a matter of fact, I would predict that there are some in some generating plants, although maybe not in nukes. I have read about some, but do not have conclusive evidence to say that they are factual (ie, like I always say, give me a manufacturer, model number, and engineering/technical contact).

I of course will no longer post if asked. However if my most excellent posts and discourse are still welcome here, I require that the following conditions be met:

1. Rick must make a least one post is totally positive on the what the industry is finding regarding Y2K bugs in embedded systems.

2. Bonnie must demonstrate the use of humor in a post. To make this extremely hard, if not imposible, Bonnie cannot refer to an SEC report anywhere in said post.

3. CL must stop trying to defend me, hey, I am grateful to no ends, but totally indefensible ;) The way I see it, CL is the calm voice of reason and calmly makes his case, and I am the one who sometimes has a good point but tends to rile everyone up with it. (Thanks CL, and I do believe that "blessed are the peacemakers..for they shall inherit the earth." My goal is to be one...but admit I have just a "little" way to go and probably in-line to inherit an acre in Idaho at best....)

If the above conditions are met, I promise to make at least one post that make my usually Pollyanic claims such as "the lights won't even flicker on Jan 1 2000".

Regards, FactFinder

P.S. If I am not the cause of this thread, please disregard post.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

Rick, If the problem continues do it... Many of us come to this newsgroup because it is one of the few places we can go to without the childish games. We all come here because the people who ask questions and present information do it in an effort to help others try to come to grips with this issue, and until recently it has been wonderful listening to intelligent persons present information dealing with the issues. I took quite a bit of offense on a recent post that said that what Bonnie wrote was a bunch of _____. That person was new to the group, had just arrived and solely wanted to present information that they have "seen" in the industry. In my book their information is worthless because they don't say who they are or what their background is and there is no way I can personally verify what they say. They have just as much credibility as the government. They say everything is rosy but cannot show any facts to back up their position. They seem to be just a group of people who came here to cause arguments and inhibit meaningful discourse. You might know who they are but their information is worthless, they seem to be here solely to attack people rather than attack the information that people are presenting. I have no problem with meaningful debate about facts and information but when you personally attack someone who has only presented information found in the public domain, that shows me that the person has no information to offer but wants to cause arguments. If the problems continue please, please put the password protect on so we can get the important information that is being presented. Thanks again for setting up this site I have found it enormously helpful in understanding the problems... And Bonnie I also appreciate all your efforts, they haven't fallen on deaf ears.. God Bless...Mark

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

Factfinder, it may be a good idea of you stopped posting for awhile. Your "humor" came at others' expense. Others like myself who are in other professions don't know these little nuances. I forwarded your post and now I have to explain it. Can you spell credibility?

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

> factfinder, this is not an attempt to initiate world war III but > a fearful response to the nukes running without 100% assurance of > *NO* problems. > > i am a single female, and not exactly the type who relishes the > thought of no heat, light, water, and other amentities to which > i have grown accustomed. while there are those who may promote > a 'back to the earth ' movement i feel they romanticize both > serfdom and peasantry, both of which entail an inordinate amount > of hard, grueling, tedious, and back breaking work.

> i am much more comfortable and capable when using my mind as > opposed to my back...i fear i would suffer greatly if the > division of labor were not available and i was forced to sustain > my existence at every level. > > having said that, i still prefer the nukes go down as opposed to > stay up and take the chance of a catastrophe of monumental > proportion. why do i say this? i live ten miles away from TMI...

> yes, *THAT* TMI, and i remember well the last debacle and the > results of same. > > do you remember what caused the 'problem' that occurred there? > > why do you feel that it will be safe to allow them to function? > > > 2. Y2K bug threats to nuclear operations due to regulatory related > > matters (as opposed to direct threat to plant operation by bugs in > > control systems). If there are minor Y2k bugs in equipment or > > software with regulatory consequencies that are not found and > > remediated, this can call the whole y2k effort into question, and may > > lead to regulatory mandated shutdowns due to "unanalyzed conditions" > > in the year 2000. So in my mind, some of the minor y2k bugs may have > > a potential to affect operation. If my memory serves me right > > (ususually its about 50-50), Rick has posted somewhere information > > mentioning the possibilities of regulatory required shutdowns. > > > >>

-- Anonymous, February 22, 1999

len, Sorry, I intended to share humor on the Q7 post, not mislead. In fact, If you had read the link I posted to my reply on the Embedded Chips Manufacturing forum as I strongly suggested in my followup post, you would have seen that it was just humor...

Don't feel bad though, it appears that some of the notable industry experts fell for this one....see the Q7 topic post....

FactFinder

-- Anonymous, February 23, 1999

Rick - I don't know whether I am typical of a small or a large number of lurkers on this board, but even the mere suggestion that FactFinder's should be locked out or her/his posts deleted worries me. The quality of informed discussion and debate has increased dramatically since cl and FactFinder started contributing. I've been lurking here for 9 months now, and thanks to your moderation, it's one of the few Y2K discussion fora that hasn't degenerated into a TEOTWAWKI fortress. Still, I have to say it has been getting a little too cosy lately - the converted talking to the converted - and far too much deference paid to your own words of wisdom. I'm sure even you have been embarassed by the 'Where is Rick?' chorus that goes up each time we hear something that challenges the skeptical/pessimist zeitgeist of the forum. Many who have been fearful and skeptical for so long might find it uncomfortable to witness some of our cherished heroes and arguments challenged by more optimistic insiders, but not me. FatFinder and cl and others like them are part of the picture that helps us bring the monster into focus and perspective. If FactFinder can prove that Frautschi's paper is not the work of technical scholarship that it purports to be, then let him do it. This problem isn't going to go away. As more organisations go through the various stages leading to remediation, more information about the scale or the problem will become available. This forum still needs to do what it is best at, i.e. subjecting this information to informed critical scrutiny. We may still divide over whether the cup is half full or half empty, but does that really matter? There are a lot of people around the world dependent on this forum - probably also a lot of journalists lurking for the zeitgeist of informed opinion as they mediate the story to Joe Public. It's credibility is too important to throw away over such trivial matters of etiquette or sense of humour.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

I totally agree with cbyrne98@hotmail.com. Since these guys (CL, FactFinder et al) joined the forum the level of discussion has raised quite a bit and I have been able to get a clearer picture of what to expect from the Y2K forecasts, especially when it comes to the embedded chip side; in my particular project I held some meetings with the engineers at the power plants and they were always very critical with some of the points that I would present, paritcularly with the embedded chip issue and other issues like validity of type testing. I have been quite amazed after reading messages posted by regular people questioning the validity of Y2K test plans adopted by utilities in the US since this is the approach that we also follow here in Spain, also issues like questioning contingency planning for nuclear plants or even fuel industry preparations; to me it4s like when you get folks at the bar talking about how to cure cancer using clam chowder or something like that, you don4t tell your doctor what he/she should do in order to cure you, do you? It might be reasonable to establish two different forums, one for those ones who already made the decission of making all the preps and food piling and those who are still willing to discuss in a reasonable, calm manner not questioning everything beforehand, and who also are willing to take advice from the people who are down there testing and working on those projects, maybe it4s a question of being more humble and less impressionable by the sensationalistic news that are published out there without any verification and any responsibility for the consequences that they may have. In my previous posts I have stressed the need of this forum to become a little more centered on some technical aspects of the Y2K projects (I know there is a private forum for the industry and Y2K but nobody seems to use it) and also to get rid of that pessimistic-apocalyptic view; maybe there are a lot of guys out there dreaming of becoming the new Bruce Willis saving the planet for everybody, but I think those guys will have to wait till next time or when the world runs out of slurpies. I want to thank especally FactFinder for his posts, so far it4s been the best member of this forum on the side of the calm-headed people. I kindly ask Rick Cowles not to remove him from this list, it would be a great loss, at least for me.

Sincerely

Carlos Fernandez Y2K Project Coordinator at Hidroelectrica del Cantabrico, Spain. EDS Spain

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999

To all who have responded to this thread: Thanks!

This forum works because of the wonderful cross section of experience and opinions that are expressed here. It also works because I do my level best, as forum moderator, to maintain a low signal-to-noise ratio and keep the forum focused "on topic".

My frustration with the offending post(s) (and I will neither confirm or deny which posting it was) is that, as presented, it added another dimension to the noise level. There's plenty of room for humor in the forum, and the post(s)in question certainly could have been framed in a humorous light without crossing the line from humor to what I interpreted as unnecessary "chain jerking". By the way, my definition of chain jerking is wasting 5 minutes of my life unnecessarily chasing my tail, which is exactly what I did (actually, much more, considering the time it took to write the original This Close message, follow the followups, and write this post).

The person who wrote the post in question has established a certain measure of credibility with me, personally, and many other denizens of the forum. I honest-to-God don't want to seem like I'm preaching, but to me, establishing credibility also brings with it an admittedly burdensome requirement of responsiblity for what one posts within a public forum such as this.

Everyone's contribution to this forum is important. I have no intention (and never did) of locking out anyone, or controlling the discussions to fit a certain agenda. The only messages that ever get removed are advertising and waaaaaayyyy off-topic messages.

"Password protecting" the forum would not exclude anyone, but it clearly would eliminate a measure of anonymity, which is essential to the continuing free flow of information. That would be an absolute last resort, because I have no desire, and quite honestly, no way (given the limits of the forum software), to killfile any one person from posting in the forum.

Can we put this one to rest, now? ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 24, 1999