More and more, I see posts such as this from Ken Seger:

Norm, I must admire you for your persistance, but nothing else. Your constant barrage of happy face articles containing half truths about Y2K indicates either a neo-apostolic desire to convert GIs into DGIs or you're just a trouble making troll that has either never clicked on the "About" or have ignored it. I can't tell the difference, hence the qualified compliment.

<...Snip...>

While posting inane articles like the above give people like me a great backstop to bounce ideas off of, this forum and the public would be better served by everbody acting in a polite manner and acceding to the wishes of our host, Mr. Yourdon.

Link

The above is just an example. The same sentiment has been expressed many times elsewhere. In essence, "if you don't believe as we do, don't post".

Now, I've looked at the "About" link:

About

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.

Now, obviously, anyone spending time posting to this or other forums is "concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem". However, the extent of the impact is what is being debated. To my mind at least, that includes reviewing news, information and opinions, both good and bad.

If only the sencond half of the statement applies, then wouldn't all news postings be off-topic?

Finally, as was pointed out by another, the following appears on Mr Yourdon's home page with the link to this forum:

To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 75,000 messages through mid-March, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions!

This statement does not seem to preclude optimistic opinions and information regarding Y2k issues.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 30, 1999

Answers

Hoff --- Post away. Be optimistic. Who cares? I don't mean that patronizingly, but encouragingly. I personally don't understand why folks shrivel when someone says "boo" one way or the other against an argument. You and I have tangled mightily at times (you're still wrong about the banks): so what? Doing so isn't TEOTW ;-)

There are regulars who feel 95% of optimistic posts have little/no evidence behind them, just as you seem to feel the same about those who are considered pessimistic. Those quarrels won't go away. Some folks will be arguing Y2K ten years after ("it was really Y2K! No, it wasn't! Yes, it was! Jane, you ignorant slut .....")

People should read how the founding fathers "quarreled" with each other sometime. Gee! Gosh! Shocking!

I can only speak for myself, but it is the relentless drumbeat against preparation that gets most people here torqued. For almost 200 years, Americans considered self-reliance and self-sufficiency a corporate virtue that was inherently to the benefit of all ("if I can take care of myself, you don't need to and we can focus on those who are TRULY unable to do so ....").

This forum is an ongoing display of the weird attempt by a few to trash that civic virtue. Sorry, I'm not going to lie down on that because it matters to me as an American.

Maybe Mr. Ed Y can enlighten us about his ideas on this subject?

(BTW, Hoff, email me if you're still interested in discussing Meta).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 30, 1999.

Hoffmeister - You know full well the problem has been the tone, not the content of certain participants. It is not at all clear that the posters in question are "concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem". And it is also not a question of categorically dismissing those with an optimistic viewpoint. As an example, Robert Cook has done yeoman's work explaining why the nuclear industry is in relatively good shape, and his posts have been an exceedingly welcome contribution to this forum.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), March 30, 1999.

BigDog, I enjoy the "fight", if you will. IMHO, there is no better way to test your own views than to have to defend them in the face of someone who believes the opposite.

But, you yourself just recently posted the following:

Finally, with all due respect, this is not a forum about debating Y2K but about preparation. As you say, the network is broken. What's the point of the endless argumentation with people who equate preparation with panic?

Now, there is no real argument against that, if it is true. Which was the point of my question.

About META, I decided to "test-drive" with them. I'm going to contract with them on one of ther 3-week analysis studies, to get a feel for it. The problem is finding the time. Starting a new SAP project in two weeks, which will take up more than 100% of my time.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 30, 1999.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is that of wasted time. Most of us are not using this forum as a place to get pro and con arguments. We spend hours here learning how to prepare, and getting the latest Y2K-related news. Trolls and Pollyannas waste our time, and that problem promises to get worse. I'm glad people like Norm-nwo uses the same name regularly, so I can bypass his messages. I wish all time- wasters were so easy to avoid.

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (storestuff@home.now), March 30, 1999.

I agree with you P.S. We are all going to get nuked in a few months and they just want to waste our time.

-- Polly Hater (Ihate@pollys.comm), March 30, 1999.

I'd like to just say that this reminds me that "Freedom of Speech" is a great thing we have here in America. It is certainly evident here and other places on the internet. MANY other countries don't enjoy this priviledge.

Possibly something we will need to worry about in the future if Y2K pans out in a dismal manner, is the government attempting to curb our feedom of speech. Arguments, debates, disagreements, etc., are great things. I hope we can continue to enjoy them in the next few years.

Sincerely, Apple ( a believer that Y2K will be a 10, but that it will take all of the year 2000 to eventually degrade into a 10 condition.)

-- Apple (villarta@itsnet.com), March 30, 1999.

Hey Hoff -- want some cheese to go with that whine?

-- a (a@a.a), March 30, 1999.

a:

No whine here. Was just trying to clarify what the purported "purpose" of this forum truly is.

Personally, when in a discussion on the net, I like to see the other side resort to emotional rants and personal attacks. Usually means they can't argue the actual facts, and is pretty similiar to raising a "surrender" flag.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 30, 1999.

a@a.a: All I saw was a clearly worded reminder. Which is something we all can use. I didn't see either Poconos, or the Shore mentioned once.

Hoff:

Thanks for the reminder. My only problem is with the attacks, both upon the denizens here and by them. We seem to be devolving to a place of heat, with much less light.

In ref the debate (and I use the term under advisement) on the extent of impacts, maybe we ALL need to consider that this is not a binary solution set. We ALL need to remember that the possibilities are a rainbow continuum. I have serious problems with folks who show up, toss a post in that effectively says "It's ALL going to be fixed and there will be NO problems because....." Fill in the blank with your choice of reasons from the free market will not let them fail, to the Gov't won't let it happen, to they're almost done because they've spent so much money to it's the charlatans out to get bucks causing this anyway, etc. I'm sure you have heard even more.

I am equally distressed with the folks who say it simply can't be fixed because it's broken, there is too much to do and that's why it's going to be a 15 on the 1 - 10 scale.

I am sure that if one did an exhaustive search one would find me espousing the latter view, at least, oh, a few dozen times. Last time I checked, I qualified as a human and the X chromozone allows me to change my mind. (the Y however won't let me cry about it. [LOL]) I have come down to the place that simly asks for the same level of evidence on the potential success of the efforts as I have on the potential failure. I KNOW how status reports are spun, having spun a few myself. I understand how projects can be "on time" right up to the scheduled cut-over and the cut-over doesn't happen for 3 months. BT, DT, got the T-shirt. It covers most of the scars. In EACH of the cases that led to the above, the AIG troops, the coders and the detail level analysts and designers KNEW that the projects were NOT on track, but were not allowed to say so (this is part of the reason I'm a driver, and Paramedic, and NOT an analyst anymore. Something about a meeting at a picnic with an Exec-VP and a statement ref status reports. Without having them in hand, my tenure there was measured in weeks, in single digits).

In this case, we are told by the apologists that the corporations, or agencies CAN NOT SAY where they are. the entities are held back by fears of litigation from shareholders, fears of loss of value, fears of litigation from clients if the assertions should somehow come up short, due to something unforseen. ALL OF WHICH IS, bluntly, CODSWALLOP!! These are arguments made by the legal department, to justify their existence. The enabling legislation has been passed. Lets see somone stand up and tell us, in simple, non-legalese English where the coumpany or agency stands. Not in terms of "We're diong OK, we'll make it" but in terms of "X number of systems with Y number of programs have been checked, and Z number are done, with Q number to go, with end to end testing starting on.." At no time in this whole charade have we seen ANYONE stand up and tell us the unvarnished truth on where they stand.

Thus, since our greatest experience is that projects typically come in late, we need to go with our experience, and try to estimate, where we will be if this is true. Landing on either end of the continuum, becaue we seem to be polarizing this issue into an either/or which it is not, becomes an exercise of identifying where we are in reference to the skinny little wiggly line runninig through the twilight zone, dividing the camps.

Chuck, who used to say "First, we kill the lawyers" until his brother became one.

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), March 30, 1999.

Chuck:

I agree, we'd all like more information. Though to be honest, the information being provided by companies about an essentially internal project dwarfs anything previously seen, and is really unprecedented.

Not a lawyer, but my impression from some discussions I've had is that none really want to be the first to test the Y2k Disclosure Act in court. People need to make a living, even lawyers.

In essence, my optimism around Y2k is not based on any unrealistic view of how well IT projects are run, but just the opposite. I've seen some projects "go-live" that were a complete mess. But I've also seen the ability of organizations to cope with these failures, with little or no impact to the corporation. Sure, for those involved, you could call it TEOTWAWKI, if the definition includes extended periods of 14-hour days, no home life, etc. (Always have the OT as compensation, though)

BTW, love the snips from Cleve-burgh. Spent many years in Ack-ron. My wife watches "Drew Carey" just to catch the opening of the show.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 30, 1999.

If someone snidely implies that self-reliance is "panic," and equates me with a religious fanatic, they are outside the realm of "argument." Where do you get off telling me I need to tolerate insults like this? I'm really glad that assholes like these are already tagged and are going to be dealt with harshly in the aftermath. You can bank on it.

Besides that, your analysis of the mission statement of this forum is flawed. Here it is again (irrelevant sentence omitted):

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, AND who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people."

You analyze this as an "either-or" statement, when it is in fact a "both-and" statement. Posters must fall into BOTH categories: 1) concerned about the impact of Y2k, AND 2) wanting to discuss various fallback contingency plans. "Norm/Y2kPro" has consistently ridiculed 2); his posts clearly show that he doesn't qualify for 1). There are a lot of evil little shits prowling here, solely for the purpose of ridiculing those who DO qualify under the above statement of purpose. I don't care what is written elsewhere; the purpose-statement is the purpose statement.

So my objection to these types of polys is two-fold: 1) they should be masturbating on "G.N. is a big fat idiot," not here with real people, and 2) They are insulting! When someone insults me, that's it - no more discussion. Fill your hand, you son of a bitch, or hit the trail! My solace is that these lying filth will not last two minutes post-Y2k. Don't tell me I need more loving-kindness and understanding with these PR thugs.

Prepared.

-- Prepared (hammering@whiners.now), March 30, 1999.

Polly-hater - you have made the most curious post I have seen in a long time. Apparently you do not consider 'good' news about Y2K problems to be 'legitimate'. Care to enlighten this poor old fellow as to why? Or do you just flat out deny that any remediation effort can succede?

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 30, 1999.

If someone snidely implies that self-reliance is "panic," and equates me with a religious fanatic, they are outside the realm of "argument." Where do you get off telling me I need to tolerate insults like this? I'm really glad that assholes like these are already tagged and are going to be dealt with harshly in the aftermath. You can bank on it.

Yes, you do seem preoccupied with this "vengeance" thing. Speaking of being beyond the realm of argument..

Besides that, your analysis of the mission statement of this forum is flawed. Here it is again (irrelevant sentence omitted):

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, AND who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people."

You analyze this as an "either-or" statement, when it is in fact a "both-and" statement. Posters must fall into BOTH categories: 1) concerned about the impact of Y2k, AND 2) wanting to discuss various fallback contingency plans. "Norm/Y2kPro" has consistently ridiculed 2); his posts clearly show that he doesn't qualify for 1). There are a lot of evil little shits prowling here, solely for the purpose of ridiculing those who DO qualify under the above statement of purpose. I don't care what is written elsewhere; the purpose-statement is the purpose statement.

You may not care what is written elsewhere, but since it is written by the host of this forum, as the introduction to the forum from his website, my "guess" is it has some relevance.

So my objection to these types of polys is two-fold: 1) they should be masturbating on "G.N. is a big fat idiot," not here with real people, and 2) They are insulting! When someone insults me, that's it - no more discussion. Fill your hand, you son of a bitch, or hit the trail! My solace is that these lying filth will not last two minutes post-Y2k. Don't tell me I need more loving-kindness and understanding with these PR thugs.

By the way, thanks for the perfect example of the point I tried to make earlier.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 30, 1999.

you're the biggest whiner here "prepared" and maybe you need to be insulted since you keep insinuating that come 1/1/2000 so many are going to die.

-- doomslayer (knowledge@is.preparation), March 30, 1999.

doomslayer: we doomies here are assuming 1/2 of the lurkience are Russians, which, as we all know, will be largely popsicles come Jan 15.

What? You think Russians will be able to adapt to no power? Really?

Idiot.

-- Lisa (lisa@bourbon.yes!), March 30, 1999.

lurkience?

-- huh? (gone@tocheck.websters), March 30, 1999.

"prepared" gets spanked by mutha

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000f3A

-- Lurky lurker (NOYB@this.time), March 30, 1999.

Hoffmeister, and "Doomslayer" (?!):

You clearly have no idea of what's at stake. You'll be saying "prove it" right up until the big freeze. Maybe after. It's your brand of cluelessness that will enable Them to blame it on "cyberterrorism." Read Lisa's post. Think about it.

The mommy of every murderer or con-man thinks it's "vengance" and not "justice" when her little boy goes to the gallows. I'm giving Y2k liars a warning: that telling people to stay in their seats in a crowded, burning theater (so that elites have time to for profit-taking and honing contingency plans) may very well be judged a crime, post-Y2k. In some locales, anyway. And something tells me that we won't be rewarding criminals with lifetime room and board, in the near future.

The people who now equate preparation with panic are the same finks who will be fingering "hoarders" (anyone with food or fuel) and "blackmarketeers" (anyone who trades or sells same), post-Y2k. Conventional forms of justice will be the least of your worries if you choose that path, finks.

DoomSLAYER accuses me of being bloodthirsty. Did school just let out? Is it Spring break already? I'm supposed to engage someone rationally and politely who wants to SLAY me? What horseshit! I'm keeping my powder dry for you unprepared future finks (parasites on the prepared) and chicken-thieves.

Prepared

-- Prepared (hammering@yourBS.now), March 30, 1999.

It says doomslayer, not doomerslayer. I'm fighting doom, not people.

You guys are the ones that talk about guns and shooting people. And you "Prepared" are still hanging on to the doomer fantasy of the breakdown of civilization.

It's prudent to be prepared for emergencies. It's panic to be preparing a fortress.

-- doomslayer (1@2.3), March 30, 1999.

Doomslayer:

Not all.. hell, maybe even only a minority of us here advocate dropping DGIs for asking to borrow a cup of sugar - if you live within 5 miles of bardou, don't, BTW - in fact, many of us take the hard route and try to rustle up community awareness re Y2K.

Quit painting us all with the same pre-meditated-murder brush, and we'll stop glaring at you. Fair enough?

-- Lisa (no@not.really), March 30, 1999.

Lisa,

If what you say is true, then this is a new development.

-- doomslayer (1@2.3), March 30, 1999.

Doomslayer:

No, the recent development is that the "moderates" here have been insulted by the research-less attacks that attempt to throw everybody into the same looney bin.

Maybe, if I can find the time, I can re-assemble the participants (by compiling their classic posts) that comprise(d) the true complexion of this forum. Many have gone awol or don't have the energy to subject themselves to debating/commenting on the recent polly vs. doomer dogfights...and Y2K news has been somewhat slow, lately.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), March 30, 1999.

Folks, we have all seen, in our lives, the ability of different people to look at the same set of "facts" and arrive at two diametrically opposed opinions based on those facts.

I've corresponded privately with a couple of individuals who have been labeled as "trolls". One, "Jimmie Bagga Donuts", turned out to have been an engineer who is simply an incurable optimist. Why he got a kick out of butting heads with those who tend toward the more pessimistic (myself, and I believe most of us here) I have no idea.

I have recently been exchanging messages with "Mr. Decker". In my opinion, his posting about "preying on your local survivalist" was quite accurate, and I said so in my response. Maybe he just wanted to "stir the pot", maybe he wanted to throw a little cold water on the self defense and home fortification ideas tossed around here. However, he was a most polite gentleman on our forum and in no way deserved some of the nasty remarks tossed in his direction.

For what it's worth, I've been hanging out here only a few months, I post occasionally, I'm worried that Ed Yourdon is too optimistic, and am moving my family out of town.

The "pollyannas" or "happy faces" are no more a threat to our way of thinking than John Koskinen. Why the polarization?

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), March 30, 1999.

Why the polarization?

Not hard to tell. Some (not all!) of the "possibilities" awaiting us a few months down the road are truly frightening. However anyone has evaluated the upcoming situation, there's enough emotional charge on it to make it scary to think "Whoa -- I might be wrong!"So getting defensive about one's position is understandable. And we see this in all degrees of intensity. For some the preferred mode of defense is offense. We see a lot of this too.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 30, 1999.

I'll try to make this as concise as possible.

I think most people call here to find out in what ways they will and won't be impacted by Y2K. It's to make sure limited preparation budgets are properly targeted.

If someone thinks Y2K doesn't need to be prepared for, or only requires small preparation that takes no thought, why would they bother calling here? I could try to find a Web site for people who think the earth is flat to argue that it's really round, but then I would be the nutty one.

I'm sure the "noble" purpose of those trying to neutralize this site is to prevent public panic. If the news about Y2K is as good as they say it is right now, and if the news is only going to get better as the year goes on, then panic later this year is impossible.

One of you optimistic people needs to explain why there could be general panic when, as you claim, the news about Y2K gets better everyday. Otherwise, I can only conclude the optimistic crowd has its own hidden agendas. You're either being paid to call here and be disruptive, or it's politcal and (for example), you don't think people should have the right to bear arms.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

Close tag.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 30, 1999.

Maybe if we stick to the purpose of this forum as stated in the "About" text, and maybe if we stop debating the fine points, we wouldn't get the "Server Busy" signal so damned often. Talk about style over substance!

-- Grumpy Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 30, 1999.

Concerning the "Purpose" of this fourm...

Is that one more than a three-m?????

I crack myself up!!

-- none (none@none.none), March 30, 1999.

Kevin:

As to panic, you're right, I think the risk of some mass panic happening is dwindling. But the reason for that is information. Both good and bad, so informed decisions can be made. I still don't rule out an aborted bank run, but my guess is it will be dealt with.

My agenda, if that's what you want to call it, was basically fuelled by the BS I've seen propogated on the intenet regarding IT, an area where I have some knowledge. The risks regarding Y2k have led me to researching areas I have no real experience with, such as electrical power, telecommunications, etc.

Personally, I think questions such as yours speak volumes about your position. I was wondering, when did the desire to see a balanced discussion, and a desire to find the actual truth of a matter, require some form of secret "agenda"?

Many here rail against the Government and Big-Business "spinmeisters" as only presenting happy-face news. But how is the desire expressed by many here to limit discussions and information to the "bad" news and opinions any different?

To Prepared:

Just can't wait to start the "witch-hunts", can you? Trigger finger getting itchy? Don't worry, another "crisis" will come up in time; you may even get your chance someday.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 31, 1999.

"Panic later this year is impossible" Hoo Boy. And people have the unabashed nerve to call ME a pollyanna.

The panic mentality does NOT require a logical reason to be set off. All that is required is enough people picking up the same idea at the same time for the idea to become contagious and the panic will spread. A rather extreme example came from a college professor I studied under back in the 70's. A more calm, rational, mildmannered man you would never want to meet. He worked his way through college as a door to door salesman. While on his rounds in the late 50's, he told me that a mob came around the corner just in front of him, and he was swept up in the mob. While he would not give any details of what happened to him while he was in the mob, he said that it was like watching yourself do things for no reason at all, as if some other person was acting and you were watching them fight and destroy property. It was such an awful experience that he would not again enter a large city.

Panics are very similar to such mob actions. People take irrational actions for illogical reasons. Panics have occured due to comets, radio programs, rumor - the list is endless. Currently, I give Y2K the status of a fad. I am a GI and you are a DGI - etc, etc - this is faddish behaviour. A nationwide panic could be caused by the Y2K fad at any time - and the damage such a panic might do would be awful. I am going to be very glad when New Years gets here - assuming we are all in one piece when it does.

And you might make a note of this - I have not said anything here about Y2K as a technical problem. I am talking only about Y2K as a psychological problem. Technical problems are bad enough without destructive panic making them worse.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

Well Hoffmeister I suppose I should reply as you graced the first sentence with my name. Unfortunately I think the most important part of my post was the part you snipped, different points of view and all that.

If Norm's news clipping service had in depth informative articles that that realy had useful info in them, I would enjoy reading them. But that is the problem, they are mostly shallow PR handouts. The fact that he (or she) doesn't follow them up with anything of substance, makes them even more in high relief for what they are.

I am positively delighted when substanial good news on Y2K comes down the pike. Why? I really don't want to see an end to my cushy lifestyle. Also if Y2K is really bad, no matter how much I stockpile, no matter what I learn from here to 12/31/99, it is most likely that I will be burying my parents. Their health is fragile, a pile of stockpiled pills will help them but only so much. They need a fully working US medical system to keep them going. My hope is that my preparations will keep them alive until things get close enough to normal that they can continue to live their life with quality. One of the reasons that I look for Y2K news is for hope. There are some areas like banking where I see no useful good news, which prompted my reply to Norm in the first place.

As for "purpose" I try to contribute to this forum some of the things I've learned over the last 15 years attending survivalist meetings, seminars, training camps, as a participant and as a teacher, reading dozens of boring books, hundred of articles, etc. The more people I can keep alive the faster the recovery. Greedy ol' me. If recovery is so slow that both of my parents will die, well at least I've made enough preparations so that my children will grow up and healthy at that. So while many here are prostelizing their faith of BITR or TEOTWAWKI I'll just keep plugging away trying to help people survive and learning new ideas in the process.

In Summary? Norm's stuff is chaff, I come here for wheat. I assume by the about and the index page that our host would like to see wheat here also.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), March 31, 1999.

Ken:

I'm all for seperating the wheat from the chaff. But it tends to be one-sided here.

A perfect example is a recent posting by Sysman:

Year 2000 Projects May Be Overlooking Millions of Lines of Missing Computer Code

A company press release, stating companies may be overlooking millions of lines of "lost" code, by a company whose business, as it happens, is recovering lines of "lost" code.

Now personally, I don't have a problem with these types of postings, either Sysman or Norm. In fact, Sysman's defense was simply that he provided the link, judge for yourself. No problems. But I don't see the regulars here, jumping to "separate the wheat from the chaff". In fact, some are jumping to defend it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 31, 1999.

Paul,

No thanks for taking my quote out of context. I said...

. If the news about Y2K is as good as they say it is right now, and if the news is only going to get better as the year goes on, then panic later this year is impossible.

I know you've said on this forum that a lot of companies are about to announce they've finished their Y2K work.

It sounds to me as if you are as much of a doomsayer about public panic as those on this forum you accuse of being doomsayers about Y2K.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.

I do think the "news will get better as the year goes on." But I don't necessarily think that the good news will be true. The problem has been around too long, and the work started too late.

But I don't see any point in bashing everyone that disagrees with the doom point of view. I tend to be rather pessimistic, but I think a good dose of optimism is fine. I read Yourdon's book, and after reading it decided for myself that it would be wise to prepare.

Life didn't change that much. We worked rather steadily for a couple of months. We never got into the doom mode, just the be prepared mode. We're not hand wringing, praying, worrying, bawling types. I don't believe listening to optimists is a waste of time either. Life is an interesting process, and it may get more interesting before it's over. But the unexamined life isn't worth living.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), March 31, 1999.