Vinnie, paging DGI Vinnie... : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Care to answer my question here? Or did you leave us.
-- Sysman (, March 11, 1999


Looks like another DGI wimps out. Big mouth but won't discuss the facts. Eyes closed, headed for the Grand Canyon. Why do I bother. Guess I feel sorry for 'em.

Sorry about the wasted bandwidth folks. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 11, 1999.

Sysman; No need for apology. Vinnie may be off line resting up for his next attack on GIs.. Patience my friend patience. Just lie low in the trenches and await him with your eyes wide open. You do have good vision.

-- Watchful (, March 11, 1999.

Poor low level grunt Sysman... So desperate he has to respond to his own posts.

To your question, no, I do not program, I hire programmers (system owners if you like). Most of whom I like on a personal level, but I would not wish to follow the prognostications of any of them - in areas they have no experience - like Y2K. Oh, they are fine, if you want someone to look at code, but their (and your) ability ends there. This whole concept that balding COBOL programmers have some deeper understanding of the vagaries of Y2K is a knee slapper.

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

Vinnie, why do you waste your time here? Wouldn't you rather be shopping for a new BMW?

-- Helen (, March 12, 1999.

What's wrong with the one I've got?

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

Vinnie, You seemed to be one of the few to get the Flint thread on "trust" and the GI nature. Thanks for saying it. It was too weird for me to jump in.

-- Maria (, March 12, 1999.

Methinks Vinnie is "whippersnapper", a virtual virgin to the dance of life. Turn off the TV for a few nights and pick up a history book.

You remind me of my teenaged sons - I frequently enjoin them to leave and get a job "while they still know everything".

The only thing that cures your particular type of arrogance and feelings of invincibility is AGE and LIVING.

With that, I will leave you with the ancient Vulcan curse - "Live long and prosper".

Mike C.

-- Mike Cumbie (, March 12, 1999.

Gee Mike:

Thanks for the fatherly advice. I notice you did not dispute any facts, instead resorting to a typical True Believer (TB) personal attack.

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

OK Vinnie, I take it back. Since you showed up, care do discuss the facts? Forget that I'm a programmer. How can you just ignore the tons of information we have here? Have you bothered to look at the Senate report? Not the bullshit the media is feeding us to avoid panic, but the actual report. My bet is that you haven't. Maybe you don't think the problem is real. Why then is GM spending 780 million? Do you think they have any chance of making it? If you do, I've got a good deal for you on a bridge.

You're a typical fat-cat DGI. BMW, big house, what 6 or 7 figure bank account? You couldn't possibly have any problems, right? You don't have a fucking clue pal. I'm afraid you will be occupying one of the 25 million body bags that the government ordered next year.

And why don't you answer Helen's question. Why are you wasting our time here if this is no big deal?


-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Poor Sysman

The typical cube farm reject, he sees Y2K as an opportunity to change his sad little life. Most of the info on this group is culled from like minded turnips (worldnetdaily, Gary North,...) whose sole existence is to sell Y2K products to the naive. My only point in being here is to post some balance for those who are not yet TBs.

Is Y2K a problem?

Of course it is. Did we start too late? Yes. Should people prepare? Yes, just don't go doing the end of the world looney routine - if enough people do it then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Some facts Not necessarily. In 1997, we tested 16 mission critical systems of a large organization (air industry - not American) that we knew were not compliant and then rolled the date over (a test lab). What happened? Nothing. They continued to operate perfectly. Were they still renovated and made compliant? Yes. Has that company trumpeted it's compliance and extensive end-to-end testing? No. Legal departments are so worried about liability, no one will say anything beyond mushy "yes, yes were working on it and will be ready".

Guarantees of compliance? At one time that was the plan, unfortunately the world is run by lawyers, don't expect to see anything soon

Senate report?

As good a document as anything - unfortunately companies reporting to that committee had to be careful not to sound too optimistic (more concerns about liability) Is everyone going to make it in time?

I wish. The fact is that many businesses will not have their non-mission critical systems compliant by the date change. Some businesses mission critical systems will not be compliant. Are they toast? Maybe, maybe not.

Is there some reason to put your trust in programmers about the ramifications of Y2K? Would you trust someone who wore white sports socks with dress pants to work (common nerd wear)? Me either. Those who are doing the grunt work of fixing the problem have no more ability to see the big Y2K picture than anyone else. People like Sysman know enough to be dangerous, unfortunately, they just don't know enough...

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

Vinnie, you never answered Helen's question. Why do you waste your time at this forum?

-- Mike Adams (, March 12, 1999.

Balance, perspective, facts, experience. You know, the kind of things that TBs hate

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

Call me all the names you want Vinnie. Sticks and stones.

Facts Vinnie. What "large organization (air industry - not American)" BS untill you prove otherwise.

Didn't answer my question Vinnie. DID YOU READ THE SENATE REPORT?

What do you think of my answers to your load of crap article that Banks will be OK <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Still waiting for your reply, Vinnie.
-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

And by the way Vinnie, we could use all the balance we can find here. Why is it that for every good news article that we get, we get a hundred bad. Lies from DOD. Missed deadlines. Increased spending. Spin from Kman. Media told to shut up. Senator Ben saying one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced one day, a bump in the road a few days later. Why do you think this is Vinnie? <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

My two cents...

Vinnie, I read EVERYTHING about this issue. That's my job now. I find very little REAL encouraging news. Most of the hard news is bad. Most of the news about what's happening in the global economy is bad. But, you must understand how news is structured in the media. Most "news" articles say nothing new. When they do say something new about Y2K, unfortunately, it's invariably "bad news." Most "Good News" articles, like the recent one about the USA TODAY poll, if you analyze them, are not good, and usually just spin.

This is not about True believers and doom and gloom and pollyannas anymore. That was SO last year. This is about will you be ready for the disrruptions, and if they are bad, can you live with the level of preparation that you have decided is comfortable for you? It's about can the global economy survive the information disrruption that it is about to suffer, and if that disrruption is bad, are you prepared to radically change your lifestyle?

Please, Vinnie, for your own protection, get with the program.

And Sysman - What's up? I don't get it, why are you so concerned about this guy? Huh? You know what's going on, why so much energy trying to convert a rude DGI? Don't get sucked in, man...

-- pshannon (, March 12, 1999.

Thanks for your concern ps. This guy has been around a while, sticking his nose in some of my tech threads, posting on topics he obviously knows nothing about. I'm either going to convert him, or prove to all that he's clueless. We'll see. We're going to have more and more people here as the year counts down looking for help and information. We don't need idiots like this spreading misinformation. I guess I'm just in a fightin' mood! <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Jeepers Sysman, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Do you actually work somehwere?

What "large organization (air industry - not American)" BS untill you prove otherwise.

I cannot and will not jeopardize my professional career by speaking publicly about which I am not allowed. What I gave you was an example of what happens sometimes when systems run with a non-compliant date change. Nothing. I care a fig whether some low level IT guy believes me. I read the senate report, no doubt before you did. Old information reported cautiously. What did you expect?

"Lies from DOD. Missed deadlines. Increased spending. Spin from Kman. Media told to shut up. Senator Ben saying one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced one day, a bump in the road a few days later. Why do you think this is Vinnie? <:)= "

Sounds like a veddy sceddy conspiracy theory Sysman. Let me see if I can sum up:

Government = Bad

Media = Bad

Y2K Experts = Stupid or corrupted

Sysman and his team of Dilberts = Good! pshannon, I am sorry that I have come across rudely. In the real world I would not speak like that to anyone - on this forum those of us who are not TBs are personally attacked with great vitriol. Instead of taking the high road I have responded in kind - which I'm sure speaks poorly about my character. I will just leave you with this. If you go looking for the bad news, you will always find it.

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.


I also look for the good news. Not finding much. Also spend a good deal of my time searching the .gov and .mil stuff.

Maybe your little IT corner of the world is Y2K okay. Lots of corners aren't, but they surely will impact yours, in unexpected ways.

Hope you're ready, or not.


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 12, 1999.

OK Vinnie, poiny by point.

"Do you actually work somehwere?" Sure do, been here 12 years. Yahoo pager tells me I have an answer to one of my posts. Some I answer quickly, some I ignore, and some I answer when I get home.

"What I gave you was an example" Facts Vinnie. BS until proven.

"I read the senate report" Are you sure you didn't just read the headlines Vinnie? Most uf us that read it cover to cover have a very different opinion.

"Sounds like a veddy sceddy conspiracy theory" No Vinnie, FACTS. I'ld be happy to post the articles if you wish.

"I am sorry that I have come across rudely" I didn't start with the name calling. You did Vinnie.

Still no answer to my bank question Vinnie. I guess it's no big deal that 17% of the banks may fail. Only answer the questions that you can make a half baked excuse for. Typical DGI argument. I still think you're clueless.


-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Sorry Vinnie, I forgot, who are these Y2K experts you're refering to? I'ld sure like to meet one. As for as I know, none exist, unless you consider yourself one. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.


Whoa, calm down. Vinny isn't that irritating, and (I believe) his points can be usefully addressed.

Your own summary represents hard spin. You can't deny this. Consider:

"Lies from DOD."

No question. DOD can't tell the same story twice, and their 'mistakes' are always in their favor. This is DOD history about everything they do, not just y2k. As Molly Ivins wrote, there's no denial like a military denial. (In context, the military denier (is there an MOS for this?) was standing next to a sheep killed by escaped war gas, and saying "Sheep? What sheep?")

"Missed deadlines."

A bit disingenuous. We know that these deadlines were politically imposed, completely without regard for the scope of work to be performed or the level of support allocated to the projects. It's hard to get upset about missing utterly unrealistic deadlines. It's a lot easier to get upset that these deadlines *should* have been reasonable, had the work started on time.

"Increased spending."

This is far from universal. There have been increased budgets, especially among large corporations. Others have essentially finished their work on time and under budget, withholding the remainder for contingencies (and hoo boy will there be contingencies!) It can't be denied that there's a rising chorus of "we think we're done but we dare not say so".

"Spin from Kman."

Well, this is his job, of course. In any case, y2k is a charged issue. It has become effectively impossible to say *anything* about y2k without imparting some kind of spin. As an exercise, just try it. See if you can't say anything at all, then turn around and find spin. Anyway, The K guys were making predictions. I sincerely hope their predictions come true.

"Media told to shut up."

Now really, Sysman, this is unworthy of you. The media were requested to report all bad news, but provide proper context for it. Context is important, (provide it's accurate), and helps everyone. Turning this innocent request into 'told to shut up' is flat dishonest.

"Senator Ben saying one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced one day, a bump in the road a few days later"

Wasn't that 'few days' about 6 months? But summary statements are difficult. This country hasn't faced all that many big problems, when you think about it. Civil war, couple of world wars, a Great Depression. If y2k comes in 5th, it's still 'one of the biggest', and will still be much milder than this forum's composite expectations.

""What I gave you was an example" Facts Vinnie. BS until proven."

An excellent request, provided that the standard of proof is made explicit and followed consistently. A while back I posted some personal testimony from a geek involved in a disastrous y2k project. ("Enterprise systems in the real world" or something like that). He didn't give his real name or his employer, and his testimony was complete unproveable hearsay. Yet it was widely accepted here as real (I think it was real myself) and an excellent insight into how bad projects really work. The point is, nobody asked for any proof at all. You are applying a double standard if tales of calamity are accepted without proof, and tales of success are dismissed as BS if they aren't proved.

"I read the senate report" Are you sure you didn't just read the headlines Vinnie? Most uf us that read it cover to cover have a very different opinion."

You can say that again. In this forum, it was accepted as genuine corroboration of serious problems. In csy2k, many have rejected it as scare stories, lacking real checkable detail, and obsolete. At the other extreme, Gary North dismissed the Senate report as a whitewash being attacked by flaks.

My philosophy boils down to: No future problem is so serious that it can be neither ignored nor exaggerated. We can always do both.

-- Flint (, March 12, 1999.

How's it going Flint? Maybe you don't find Vinnie irritating. I'm willing to give anybody a break. As I pointed out, first he sticks his nose in tech threads, posts put-downs and nonsense on a topic that he has no knowledge of, as he admits. I can live with that, he's just ignorant. But next he's got to start with the personal name calling, which I find offensive, but I can also live with that, he's just a little more ignorant than I first thought. So when asked to comment on his position, and argue the facts, what does he do? More name calling and answers that don't say anything. I give up, he's clueless and a lost cause as far as I'm concerned. Good luck Vinnie, you'll need it.

I'll give you one on the media point, I did get carried away. But the Yahoo headline was "Caution Urged on Y2K Stories". Why should anyone tell the media what to do? Leave them alone to do their job.

As far as Senator Ben, I believe it was only a few days. I'll see if I can find the original articles.

Still no comments on the bank report from you or Vinnie on the Weiss survey. The way I read it, 17% may fail and 5% are likely to fail. Important, considering banks are leading the Y2K charge, and have been working on it for years? Important, considering the 1-2% available cash? People will put 2 and 2 together. Maybe that's why reporters were asked to "kool it".

Later. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Seems to me that your a little sensitive Sysman. Considering the nasty remarks that you make about people who disagree with your position, that seems a triffle odd. Vinnie may be an irritating A-hole, but he seems to have you down cold.

-- Y2K Pro (, March 12, 1999.

Wonderful! Another big mouth DGI. I figured you would pick up on this Mr. (or is it Ms.) Y2KPro. Seems you guys can't handle one-on-one fact debates alone, got to call in the troops. I've had a few questions for you also for a while. Why do you call yourself "Pro"? Have any programming experience? And what is your opinion of some of the things discussed here? I've tried like hell to get an answer from Vinnie - all I get is more name calling and no sense answers. Maybe you'ld like to take over for your good buddie. Oh, you can go ahead and call me all the names you want - I was a BBS sysop before the internet days. So far, you guys are don't even come close in the FU dept. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

PS - What nasty remarks? Show me one. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 12, 1999.

Well Y2KPro, I'm waiting, where are you? I gave you a headline, what else do you want? I guess you're one of those hit-and-run DGI, another classic way to avoid discussing the facts.
-- Sysman (, March 13, 1999.

Never argue with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will love it.

-- (, March 13, 1999.

Re-post from another thread. Perhaps we can sometime agree on getting more light than heat??

Vinnie: As i have said, it took a fairly specific level of information and data to convince me that we were not going to enjoy a business-as-usual garden party in the coming year. Now, if someone wishes to bring the same level of data and information indicating that the work is indeed getting done, in a timely fashion, and with the required testing, etc.; I will be more than ecstatic.

This however will mean bringing to the table verified, verifiable completions, or companies which are in the throes of completion. I have had the "pleasure" of watching a project I was on fall woefully behind, while the status reports filed by the project management said we were on and ahead of schedule. I have worked on very large projects (one phase (out of seven) = 160,000 manhours of CONSULTANT time alone).

The folks who wish me to believe that 2000 and 2001 will be a busines as usual garden party will have to provide metrics from multiple organizations which show that remediation efforts are the first major projects to fly in teh faceof the standards (see any Capers Jones discussion of the metrics in Information Technology). Alternatively, refer to above point.

Just one, or two large banks, with verified completion of installation of tested remediated code, a dozen or so of the Fortune 500 announcing that Cap Gemini or Anderson has come in and audited their code and found it compliant, or one power company which has verified (via individual unit testing) that their embeddeds will handle the rollover, as will the rest of their systems, and that they will have sufficient back-up supplies to guarantee power is all I ask.

This should not be impossible, but it would appear that it is. Not only does it apear that it is impossible for ME to get this information, even teh SEC cannot seem to get this information. They have posted rules that, if enforced, would provide us with the true and accurate state of remediation in the whole Fortune 1000. they are unable to enforce their own rules. [PLUS, the government has passed laws allowing the reportage of status without any tort liability and STILL the status reports are totally unhelpful and not useful] Am I a tad frustrated? YES! Why am I a tad frustrated?? Because I truly WANT to believe what you believe, that 2000 is going to be an enjoyable century turnover, that the work will be done in time. But I need information. I need data. And woefully, there isn't anything that qualifies as data. There may be a couple anecdotes, but the plural of anecdote is NOT data.

Bring to the table this data, and I will change my position so fast you will get whiplash watching the change. Bring me this data. PLEASE!!

Chuck, who desparately wants to become a DGI believer but just can't give up because of teh data.

-- Chuck, a night driver (, March 12, 1999.

-- Chuck, a night driver (, March 13, 1999.

Well folks, sorry I sent you here. Sure looks like Mr(s). big mouth DGI Y2KPro is a hit-and-run. Afraid he/she may learn something. Afraid to talk about the facts of Y2K. Some pro. Just wants to cause trouble, a typical TROLL, not a DGI. Here's an example of the genius we have with us.

This is from Watchful's thread What is as important as water, food and fuel?

Watchful is one most the most polite people here. Always giving compliments to people. Always trying to help people. Always trying to make sure people are prepared. And what was Y2kPro's answer in his thread?

"All you need to do is to put into perspective the load of paranoid doo-doo some of the GIs (does that stand for Gomer Idiots or Goofy Idiots?)dole out here"

Let this be a lesson to all of us, myself included. If you think someone is just a DGI, try to enlighten them. Once you know they are a TROLL, forget them. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 13, 1999.

Thank you Chuck. I noticed your comments to Vinnie in that other thread. I don't think he is a troll, just a confused DGI thas won't open his eyes. I guess we should get used to his kind, we're sure to see many more as the year counts down. It pisses me off that they won't listen. They somehow think we're all stupid EOW people here, and they can't see past that. They don't understand that we're trying to make them understand and help them in the process. How much energy can we waste doing this? Some here say none. Like I said at the start of this, I just feel sorry for them I guess. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 13, 1999.

Hey Sysman, why do you waste your time with Vinnie? Most likely Vinnie will be among the millions of Y2K victims! Death from thirst or starvation or shot by hungry marauding gangs! All Vinnie does is get your blood pressure up. Vinnie just is not worth it!!! Who needs Vinnie?????

-- Freddie the Freeloader (, March 13, 1999.

I can't believe I read to the end of this thread, but I've been away and missed a lot over the last two weeks of wrangling with a state bureaucracy's stupid clerical error in denying a contract we bid for and it got very hot and personal for awhile. Supposedly resolved today. I'm looking for light, not more heat.

Watching Sysman get irritable and personal is disturbing to me. (I wondered at times if it was really him posting.) I watched him come on-forum shortly after me and thought he always stayed "above-it- all". I hope he's not having troubles elsewhere in life that are provoking him to take after Vinnie here. I hope we can offer each other support here, but I hope we don't have to use much mental bandwidth doing it. Notice how succint Watchful is?

Seven reasons to avoid personal duking it out here:

1. Newbies (or returning posters) haven't followed your arguments from previous threads and don't know or care what you're fighting about. Newbies first impressions of our forum are worsened.

2. We don't have a moderated forum, and we'll need to go to one if the "junk" messages (this one included -- call it housekeeping?) overwhelm useful y2k prep info.

3. Becoming like csy2k with its nasty quarreling. (Haven't been there in over a month, two months here means no desire to go back.)

4. When we do go "off-topic" here it's more often humor of a Most Excellent nature, showing a healthy community, and offering some of the anxiety therapy we need as we go through a very weird and stressful year. My home away from home through a very difficult winter. Keep it up, gang!

5. The ability of trolls to fake use of our names to get into threads and disrupt communication. What better material to troll us with than fighting? What better way to isolate trolling than to stay out of interpersonal exchanges of the lower sort?

6. The DGIs you need to work on are those close to you who may "affect your personal preparations for y2k", not the ones who appear here, though their "education" may be instructive to us in ways we cannot always predict. Their ratio of presence here does not seem overwhelming to me, and their conversion not essential to the health of this forum. So far, there's room for everyone to have their say.

7. This forum is an ESSENTIAL part of many of our y2k preparations. Its health and good spirit bode well for our safe navigation through treacherous times. Please, everyone, look to the health of this forum through all issues passing daily by us.

Ed, aside from the horrendous editing burden it would present, would it be possible to have a "Yourdon lite" forum which would parallel this one -- a mirror with all the off-mission threads and posts removed? People could always come over here for "the rest of the story", and it might educate this one about staying more focused.

-- jor-el (, March 13, 1999.

Hi Jor-el. I'm not sure about myself sometimes. Vinnie seems to be a two-sided coin. On one hand he does bring out some good points once in a while. OTOH he does stupid stuff, put-downs, callind people names, posting non-sense on topics that he has no knowledge of. He takes aim the tech people here often. Yes, that really is me doing this, but I'm not so sure about Vinnie.

I guess he's just a classic DGI, and I'm trying to figure out what makes him tick. If I can figure one out, maybe I can use this knowledge to help others open their eyes.

Anyway, as a result of this "debate", I started another thread "HELP, what is the mission of this forum?" to get a feel from the regulars here if this is all worth it. I think I'm ready for next year, and have time on my hands. If I can help bring others around, we'll all be better off.

Thanks for your concern Jor-el. I think I'm "better" now (grin).


-- Sysman (, March 13, 1999.


Vinnie most likely suffers from an inferiority complex re:programming types. He needs to feel superior (indeed he probably does have a Beemer, trophy wife #3 and possibly a nasty little cocaine problem)! Every time he deals with a "low level" programmer (guess he means anyone who can code in assembly language), there is this tiny little voice saying, "Yo Vinnie, this guy is brighter than you" and so he gets mad. I have met a few like him - just like there are gynecologists who are sadistic and secretly hate women. Give it up. He won't convert and he will just waste your time. Now about those PDP-11 emulations in nuke plants...........

-- RD. ->H (, March 13, 1999.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

-- Dilbert (, March 13, 1999.

It may be a futile outreach, in Vinnie's case, but Karla Corcoran's IG report on the Postal Service surely can't be challenged as the work of someone trying to fleece a gullible market, or to proselytize the masses in the interest of a personal eschatology.

-- Tom Carey (, March 14, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ