Jennifer Yourdon responds to the ZDNET editorial : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

-- _ (_@_._), February 26, 1999




-- Sysman (, February 26, 1999.

Mercy!!! :) Would you guys all stop reading so I can get in and get a peek?


-- Mercy (, February 26, 1999.

Great response, Jennifer! It was just enough to burst my naive, short-lived bubble of optimism that the economy may survive after all. Oh, well, back to the doldrums of gloom and justified pessimism...

-- Hoarding Fool (, February 26, 1999.

Comment on rebuttal: "You go girl!"

-- Other Lisa (, February 26, 1999.


Well said. You points clear, you restraint remarkable, your references usefull, you did a great job.

However, I fear it will fall on deaf ears.

Your done for now. Let's see if they have any usefull response.

-- Greybear

- Got Refutations?

-- Greybear (, February 26, 1999.

My letter to ZDNet:

I dont have time to provide every argument to Mitch Ratcliffes Daily Fix articles that respond to Ed Yourdon, however it disgraces your magazine to hire such a dolt. As Y2K Project Manager for a manufacturing company in Des Moines, Iowa, Ive watched with interest the many comments of people who understand Y2K from an economics perspective (Yardeni, Greenspan, et al.). Indeed, weve spent many hours researching for ourselves this very issue. Were an international company, one that outsources our packaging materials from Asia and we have factories in the US and in Mexico. To hear the Senate report of potential oil shortages and the Coast Guard speak of maritime shipping and port problems, and having had to work with customers such as Office Depot, Wal-Mart, Target, etc, we very deeply understand the ramifications of all of this from an economics perspective. To listen to Mitch Ratcliffe write off economic stress stemming from Y2K as so much over-simplification and exaggeration does your readers a great disservice. I am floored by his statement that mounting evidence from critical dates that have already passed proves a recession/depression prediction incorrect  pardon me, but we have passed very few critical dates as of yet. Weve managed to creep through a couple of about 20 critical dates. The jurys very much out as to the effects this will have and its absolutely moronic to count chickens yet.


If companies adopt such a dangerous attitude that passing through January 1, 1999, without too many issues surfacing means were out of the woods, then your magazine should be held liable for over- simplification and knee-jerk prognostication. Frankly, including such scenarios in our contingency plans not only helps to provide for adequate handling of surprises after the rollover, but its greatly healthy for business after so many years of upswing. Lets us think outside of the boom box, if you will.

In short, ditch Mitch. Not only are half of his arguments misguided and lazy, but they tend to discourage people/companies to prepare for what I believe will be one of the most serious and potentially devastating events this nation has ever encountered. Oh excuse me  I was quoting that group of simpletons, the Senate committee on Year 2000.

Brett Rogers SteelWorks, Inc. Des Moines, Iowa

-- Brett (, February 26, 1999.

Brett, Jennifer et al,

Great responses - how do these maroons get jobs in journalsim???



-- Andy (, February 26, 1999.

As noted in another thread, you can tune in and see Mitch Ratcliffe and some "Y2K experts" in the "ZDY2K Debate" at ZDY2K debate

The first ten minutes are classic, as Mitch and co. fumble around with the sound system and try to get their act together. None too impressive, this.

-- Mac (, February 26, 1999.

e-memo to J. Yourdon:

Very nicely, calmly, and professionally done. I'm not sure I would have been able to maintain that level of detachment given the tone and thrust of the article. Excellent work!! Chuck Rienzo

-- Chuck, night driver (, February 27, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ