Peter de Jager responds to critics of his "Doomsday Avoided" article

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), March 18, 1999

Answers

"Here's my assertion. We've avoided Global bank failures, Global power outages and Global communications collapse. These 'Doomsday Scenarios' (what was the title of my article?) have been avoided. That's good news and needs to be stated loudly and strongly.

"So a percentage of companies is not doing enough, but we've avoided the Doomsday scenarios.

"This is not 'spin' as some have suggested. It is merely a recognition that the worst has passed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mr. De Jagger, in his rebuttal, states the above. Now, I've heard about these here Time Machines fer testin' code, but I didn't realize that they were so sophisticated that they could send _people_ into the future and bring them back.

Looks like spin to me.

The worst hasn't passed, it is still in front of us.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), March 18, 1999.

The part of this that I have trouble with is this:

"Here's my assertion. We've avoided Global bank failures, Global power outages and Global communications collapse. These 'Doomsday Scenarios' (what was the title of my article?) have been avoided. That's good news and needs to be stated loudly and strongly."

How can he state that as a given? How can anyone possibly know this is true until after the rollover? It's only an assertion, not a statement of fact...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 18, 1999.

Leaving Mr. de Jager's piece to speak for itself in all but one instance, I am compelled to agree with Mitchell Barnes and to note in as forceful terms as I am capable that his comment may well be the single most important thing to know about Y2K:

"The worst hasn't passed, it is still in front of us."

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 18, 1999.

Yet he continues to say that we have not avoided problems with Y2K; just that the infamous infrastructure will not collapse. Yes we don't know what will happen but the good news is that the triad has a chance of standing.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 18, 1999.

Has Peter deJager thrown away all of his own preparations?

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 18, 1999.

The "infamous infrastructure" may well remain standing (in this country, anyway, and others), but will it function at a level that we have become accustomed to if we can't get Saudi and Venezuelan oil? If Japanese and other east asian banks turn out to not have done enough remediation? If the USPS can't deliver XX percentage of the mail? If X number of Nuke generators are forced to shut down? If coal and food shipments are curtailed due to railroad problems? If the Stock Market drops 20 percent? If these factors cause a surge in unemployment? Maybe doomsday will be avoided, but will global depression? Won't that feel like doomsday to many individuals? How will members of a coddled society react? These are important concerns...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 18, 1999.

if you want to get a good idea of de Jager's true agenda take a look at

http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/DSA/VP/vp9911.htm

hint: truth is not de Jager's priority.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 18, 1999.

Arlin I usually find your posts well thought out but I cant find this one has any ring of cohesion. The article only mentioned deJager in that he was at the meeting in spirit. Thats the authors impression, nothing more. This doesnt point out any deJager agenda, only the authors conclusion. Know the difference between fact and opinion.

But since I read the stupid article, let me comment. The problem here is that we have no proof that the national infrastructure will, in fact, hold. Exactly and we have no proof that it will not hold. But we have seen progress on the remediation efforts (telecomm has tested industry wide). So we make our own evaluation. And in the absence of facts, we must prepare for problems, perhaps very serious ones. Opinion not fact and just as valid as this statement: perhaps there are only very minor ones.

A large number of Y2K remediators and project leaders, "know more" and are assuming something far worse than a bump-in-the-road. Opinion not fact. How does the author know this? Based on what set of statistics or questionnaires? He obviously hasnt asked me or anyone I know (and I do know many working in the Y2K business for four years now).

Pat you asked many questions which I dont have answers. Do you? Quite frankly the answers seem (to me) that they would have an impact but not on the scale of failure. I still maintain that people find a way to resolve problems.

If the Stock Market drops 20 percent? I believe that this is a strong possibility and so what? It would bring us back to the level the market was in 1997, no big deal in my mind unless you came into the market in 1998. (Ive been in since 1982)

If these factors cause a surge in unemployment? Unemployment rose to the highest level I ever saw in 1970 recession (Yardenis prediction for Y2K). Yeah, it was hard but we managed. Attitude is everything. And my parents survived the depression, seven kids in my mothers family.

How will members of a coddled society react? These are important concerns... Well how society reacts to being without is anyones guess. I suspect that many are doing without now. On a personal level, I could do without a lot before I start getting depressed. Money and luxury are nice to have but its not my world. Personally I love going to Hawaii, New Zealand, Tahiti (the armpit of mother earth), Canada, Mexico and Europe. I love going on cruises and snorkeling but my world wont end without them. Ive been thru enough bad times to just enjoy the good times when they come. So this coddled person will be just fine, thanks.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 18, 1999.

Although I don't believe that most problems have been avoided as of yet nor do I believe that I or anyone can predict the future I do believe we as a nation if not as a world have taken a big step forward. I think that what is important now is to focus on being prepaired for ourselves and our neighbors when and where possible for whatever happens. As for me, I have a family to think of and many friends who have yet to take the possibility that something might (I stress might because no one truely knows for sure) seriously. I believe as a right leaning christian that I have a responsibility to be prepaired for what ever might happen for me and my neighbors. I don't lean on this prepairedness for security for that I lean on God.

-- Ervin Kraemer (krae235@lni.wa.gov), March 18, 1999.

Maria,

Somewhere in this jungle/moras is a link to the (then) current status of the 8 largest US banks ref derivatives, those interesting Wall Street contrivances. If I remember the numbers correctly, a 20% drop in the market (at that time) would have meant that the first 4 or 5 would have to close their doors due to bankruptcy having tried to cover the margin or close out the derivative position, which ever is the case.

I think losing at least 4 of the largest banks MIGHT have an effect (and an affect) on you.

Maybe Kevin or Sysman can help with the link.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), March 18, 1999.

Peter de Jager is a BIG FAT LIAR. Note: In his "Doomsday Avoided" article dated March 1, 1999, he states: "We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months.... Yet he wrote an "Open Letter to President Clinton" dated November 17, 1998, that did not hold his doomsday avoided view as above. Peter de Jager started spouting the bump in the road scenairo towards the end of January/early February, if I'm not mistaken. Where does he get 6 months from?

Open Letter to President Clinton

-- Want (truth@nothingbutthetruth.com), March 18, 1999.

Maria,

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'm fairly well convinced that Koskinen and de Jager are singing from the same sheet of music...their reactions are too similar and too disconected from reality to reasonably be accounted for by simple synchronicity. The analysis of the meeting reported in the article is the first viable explanation (other than some general conspiracy theory sorts of things) for their actions.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 18, 1999.

Chuck hits nail on head.

-- humpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 18, 1999.

Maria, you wrote: "Personally I love going to Hawaii, New Zealand, Tahiti (the armpit of mother earth), Canada, Mexico and Europe. I love going on cruises and snorkeling but my world wont end without them. Ive been thru enough bad times to just enjoy the good times when they come. So this coddled person will be just fine, thanks."

How very selfish of you and how self-serving! What on earth made you add the non sequiteur condemnation of all of Tahiti--both islands, I presume? Or was it just the city of Papeete? How long did you spend there? Less than half a day from a cruise ship? I think I'd rather be in Tahiti than in an American city like DC when problems occur, especially if the girlfriends of the crackheads haven't received their welfare checks on time. Or when the drug dealers can't do business because their cell phones are out and their beepers don't beep. Or the teenage children of a food-stamp mother are looking for something to eat because their electronic benefit card doesn't work.

Alors, ma vielle garce, you won't be snacking on a good ripe brie and Carr's Biscuits for Cheese, and swilling all down with a decent little vin de marque from a vignoble you visited on your European tour. Quelle domage. But it's not you I'm worried about. It's those other people who don't have quite your je ne sais quoi, your accumulated sang-froid from your extensive traveling--you know, the hoi polloi. Now, THEY worry me.

Got cake, Ms. Antoinette?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 18, 1999.

Here are a few links on the evolution of Peter de Jager's thinking. Interview with the BBC:

http://www0.bbc.co.uk/the_net/4/3/peter.html

[snip]

THE NET: Is this the first time we've seen a problem of this scale come along, well obviously the Year 2000 only comes along once but have we come across a similar situation or is it going to be much worse than we're ever seen before?

PETER DE JAGER: We've never had anything like this. This is totally brand new. We've never had a system-wide failure. The closest we can come to events like that might be blackouts. In fact one of the things that got me into this and got me fired up about it was a show `Connections' by James Burke. The first instalment was an exposi of the great blackout on the Eastern Seaboard and all of that happened because of one single power switch that did what it was supposed to do but had a very unexpected consequence. Well the Year 2000 is power switching, it's calculations, day calculations, millions upon millions of them in programmes all over the world that are all set to fail on a particular time, that's the only thing that is even close to this type of problem.

[snip]

Peter de Jager's open letter to President Clinton, dated November 17, 1998:

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2kclinton.html

[snip]

If this report is not accurate, then action must be taken by you to correct it. It describes a totally unacceptable situation. As it is reported, it raises unnecessary concern, uncertainty and even fear. Three emotions no political party should be fostering as it heads into an election year.

Either way, action, real action, not soothing words and platitudes, is required at the highest levels either to correct an unacceptable situation or to correct the notion that your administrators are incapable of executing their mandated mission statements.

[snip]

Canadian newspaper paper article dated November 22, 1998 with info on de Jager's preparation plans:

http://www2.thestar.com/thestar/back_issues/ED19981122/money/981122BUS 01_FI-DEJAGER22.html

[snip]

Seated in the shadow of the towering Mormon temple near his Brampton home, de Jager smiles at the irony.

The Mormon church teaches its faithful to stockpile food - a practice that has become vogue among the growing ranks of Y2K survivalists, who are buying cabins in the woods and withdrawing their life savings from banks.

De Jager, a father of two teens, scoffs at such ``overreaction.'' He bought a cottage north of Orangeville recently, but it had nothing to do with Y2K, he insists.

Still, he does plan to stock up on groceries and supplies, keep a generator in his home and cash handy in case bank doors stay closed.

[snip]

The "Doomsday Avoided" article:

http://www.year2000.com/archive/y2ky2kdoomsday.html

[snip]

Doomsday Avoided

by Peter de Jager

"We've finally broken the back of the Y2K problem." I've been making that statement now for about 6 months. Naturally, it has generated some interest and a handful of e-mail. The comments range from polite requests for me to state, in my own words, what exactly I mean by 'broken the back of Y2K' to the outraged rants from folks intent on selling the world panic, gold coins and plots of otherwise worthless real estate. Naturally, any good news about Y2K spoils the fun and intentions of those trying to incite panic and runs on the bank.

[snip]

And here's an editorial from Michael Hyatt's Y2K site on de Jager's changing position:

http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/dejager.htm

[snip]

Y2K EDITORIAL

Paul Revere Does "About Face"

Evidently, Mr. de Jager is distorting the situation to get the maximum amount of repair work done. This is certainly a noble goal, but history has shown that whenever we play games with the truth, unexpected negative consequences often occur.

by Bill Dunn

March 8, 1999

One of the most prominent personalities in the world of Y2K is Peter de Jager (rhymes with "logger"; pronounced "yogger"). Mr. de Jager is a Canadian programming expert who has been warning about the Millennium Bug problem since the early 1990s.

Although many in the computer industry were aware of the Y2K threat going back to the 1960s, de Jager is credited with bringing the issue to many peoples attention with his ComputerWorld article in September, 1993, titled, "Doomsday 2000."

[snip]

Heres the Catch-22, according to my theory: to encourage programmers to keep working hard and achieve that 90 percent mark, de Jager has to tell them there will not be severe problems. Otherwise, theyll stop working, quit their jobs, move out of the cities, and far less repair work will get done. But de Jager knows full well that a 90- plus percent success rate will still cause serious disruptions in the economy and societyjust a heck of a lot less than 70 percent.

In his mind, I believe, he is distorting the situation to get the maximum amount of repair work done. This is certainly a noble goal, but history has shown that whenever we play games with the truth, unexpected negative consequences often occur. If de Jager is now down- playing the risks of Y2K to motivate programmers, his new public stance may be causing corporate management to relax at the very time strong leadership is needed.

If my theory is correct, de Jagers sudden about-face has been prompted by good intentions. But you would think that after all the years of learning the hard way, people would realize that mom had it right: "Honesty is the best policy."

[snip]

-- (helpful@links.com), March 18, 1999.

To Old Git, the defender of the Tahiti nation. Pat asked the question; I answered with my opinion. Tahiti is an armpit. I tell my friends if they want to experience a Tahitian vacation, buy a croissant, and drive to the city dump to eat it. They will save money and time and experience what it's like to be in Tahiti. There were manegy dogs roaming the streets, trash heaps at various stages of spontaneous combustion, and just filth everywhere. Talk about spin, the tourist center for Tahiti does a good one; no beach to be found anywhere. Not one nice thing to say about it, sorry for my opinion of (obviously) your favorite spot on earth.

Thanks for the helpful links.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 18, 1999.

maria,

unemployment in 1974 (not 1970) peaked at 9.0 percent, as i recall; in 1982, it was 10.7 or 10.8 percent.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), March 19, 1999.

Thanks for the correction Drew. And in October 1987 the stock market crashed. On a personal level, I lost 50% of my stock's value. So we've had unemployment, stock market "corrections" (and we are due for one now at 10,000), S&L failures, car manufacturers failures and strikes, and recessions around the world, and natural disasters including solar flares and invasions of killer bees. Oh my, we have survived. Oh I forgot Y2K is interconnected and systemic and one failure will cause ripple effects throughout the world and if a butterfly sings in China, a hurricane will happen in New York. ...Sorry I got carried away ;)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 19, 1999.

Yes, Maria, you do get carried away ... especially when you post as the looney Mutha.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 19, 1999.

Maria:

Do you prefer gold bullion, gold bars, or gold digging? Ive herd it's not unwise to transform cash into gold, atleast before the government initiates cash rationing procedures.

-

-- MC Davey (Apus1son@aol.com), March 24, 1999.