Doc Paulie pins the blame on the 10,000 or so doomers in the world, out of 6 billion people.

It's all the Doomer's fault

-- Lisa (none@work.thanks), April 07, 1999

Answers

who the heck is Doc Paulie and why should I care what he thinks. Thanx for the post. I am sure more and more people will start blaming us preparers as the days go on.

-- shellie (shellie01@hotmail.com), April 07, 1999.

...I thought it was a well constructed treatise, logical, factual and concise. Of course, the "Lovers Of The Apocalypse" may not agree...

"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon

"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 07, 1999.

Wow, Uncle Deedah's famous. Only DP spelled his name wrong. Not only that was wrong, it gets worse: DP took Howard Belasco's (Westergaard) quote out of context. Howard follows that first para with an essay on an individual's comfort zone of preparation and goes into detail about how people can prepare for Y2K, for instance, in a high-rise.

The spin has to be deliberate. it couldn't possibly have been an accident. In fact, it's more than spin, it's deceit.

I had to go and have another look in case I had lost a few more synapses because this is so blatant it can't be true. You HAVE to look at these two sites for yourself. But make sure your jaw has a clear run because it's going to drop abruptly.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), April 07, 1999.

"Originally posted at the GNIBFI forum"

Doc Paulie is a regular at GNIABFI. He is one of the reasons that I don't waste my time there.

I see that Y2K Pro, our aviation industry expert Y2K project manager. has made another valuable contribution here. And people wonder why we are concerned about aviation... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

You can see this "blame the victim" syndrome everwhere: in rape trials, when the raped woman's sexual history is dragged into the light, and her clothing, makeup, etc. shown as evidence that she was "asking for it." You can see it in laws that forbid the use of a gun to defend a home; when burglars who get shot "on the job" are allowed to sue their prey for fighting back. Nice try, guys. But, if you haven't noticed, people are starting to wake up to your "blame the victim" game. It's not helping your credibility, and the harder you push it, the more it will smart when it whips back in your face.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 07, 1999.

...the problem here of course is that you are not a victim. You may WANT to be a victim, but you are not.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 07, 1999.

Well, someone has to be blamed. Before its all over, it could get real ugly.

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), April 07, 1999.

If I remember correctly, WJC, on national television, within a State of the Union address, described Y2K as a big, big problem.

See? By confirming what the doomie memes have been spouting, he's caused the whole nation to prepare now, and mess up the global economy, and God knows what else.

Doc & CPR left senators Bennett & Dodd off the hit list, interestingly. Here's CPR's take:

"The amount of time, money, diverted resources spent to answer the "Memes" driven by the fear that North, YourdoneWITH, Hyatt, Missler, Cowles and the inept ones like Martin generate is ALL WASTE. All counterproductive."

-- Lisa (ok@let's.do), April 07, 1999.

"How many here are aware some send batches of code to the 3rd World for remediation? how secure is this? how many of these decisions were based in part on the hysterics the Y2k nuts continue to preach everyday? What is the tab created by the doom-wackos? " -Doc "Braindead" Paulie

So Doc Paulie thinks that the code wasn't actually broken and in need of remediation. Uh..excuse me...who is the wacko here?

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

Yup, almost $1,000,000,000,000.00 spent on fixing non-broken code. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

Sysman - Do you ALWAYS have to bring up facts???? All I see is alot of zeros there. Everything is JUST FINE, OK?!? OK? OK? OK? OK? OK? OK? OK?

-- David (C.D@I.N), April 07, 1999.

>Well, someone has to be blamed. Before its all over, it could get real ugly.

Well, Dave, judging from Y2kPros response: "...the problem here of course is that you are not a victim. You may WANT to be a victim, but you are not." -it already IS getting ugly. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Before the event, I'm accused of "wishing it into existence," or having a morbid, masochistic aspiration to victimhood. In the smoking rubble of a Y2k economic depression (contraction, correction, whatever), people like Y2kPro will be spouting off about the people who "panicked" and not the people who got us into this problem in the first place by mismanaging their information systems. Y2kPro and Co. are not wasting any time getting ugly.

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 07, 1999.

Sorry David, you're correct. I forgot the lawyers. Maybe $2,000,000,000,000.00? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 07, 1999.

Lisa, no one is arguing over whether Y2K is a big problem or not. Our only argument is whether it is a reason to panic. There is a big difference between an economic downturn and the end of civilization.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer,

Who's predicting the end of civilization? I don't think Ed Yourdon is.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Instructions for Doomslayer: Open mouth, insert foot.

The purpose of this forum is to warn people so that they will prepare. That way they won't PANIC, like you when TSHTF later this year.

-- a (a@a.a), April 07, 1999.

Doomslayer commented:

"Lisa, no one is arguing over whether Y2K is a big problem or not. Our only argument is whether it is a reason to panic. There is a big difference between an economic downturn and the end of civilization. "

Doomslayer, not one person here that is preparing THINKS y2k is a REASON for panic. We WILL NOT be in line when the panic comes.

Thankfully there will be more product available because we have increased our purchasing over an extended period of time. The folks that will be in panic mode will be those SHEEPLE who refused to take a few minutes out to educate themselves about y2k. Your inference that we are ALL forcasting the end of civilization is just that.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

ROFLMAO!

I thought that was the funniest bit of misdirection I've seen in a while...now the pollyannas will all be blaming Uncle D. while they're freezing to death next winter...

Sysman - you're absolutely right, there is no intelligent life over on that board!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 07, 1999.

One other thing, very ironic, about Y2K and potential panic that I just realized about an hour ago...

Is the United States even the country where public panic would be likely to start? It seems to me that countries much further behind in remediation than we are would be the first ones where people would form long lines at grocery stores.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.

Kevin commented:

"It seems to me that countries much further behind in remediation than we are would be the first ones where people would form long lines at grocery stores. "

Kevin, this is an excellent point and one that I have not seen posted previously. Why don't you start a new thread on this topic.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 07, 1999.

All right, suppose it's all true, and we DoombroodsurvivalistY2kwackonutcases are as all-powerful and mesmerizing as feared. We will cause tsunamis of fear and manic preparation throughout the land, and a run on the banks. If the economy is as strong and resilient as we are being told and Y2k is trivial, this will all settle down after the rollover, banks will recover, this will all pass into history and lots of folks can have the last word saying I-told-you-so. Worse things have happened.

(Dramatizing to show how silly this all is.)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), April 07, 1999.

[OK, Doc, calm down. Take a deep breath. Count to FF slowly. I'll wait.

Better now? Good, let us reason together.]

Anyone who continues to express the doom scenario are NO LONGER part of any solution. They are now direct contributors to a situation which is beginning to spiral out of control costwise.

[There is indeed a lunatic fringe predicting the whole world will turn into a pumpkin at midnight, or some such. But these people are part of neither the problem nor the solution. They aren't part of anything. And there aren't enough of them to make an economic ripple in anything more than the marginal demand for complex and usually slow-selling items like generators and wood stoves. Don't worry about them, we've always had such people.]

Just Tuesday the US Federal Courts passed the buck back to the lower courts on any Y2k litigation. Unless we see some legislation with teeth come out of DC, we are looking at a nightmare in the courts.

[I imagine this issue will prove largely self-correcting. Either some sort of no-fault legislation will neutralize the problem, or else these cases will be rendered moot by a waiting list for a hearing several generations in length. In either case, the lunatic fringe isn't composed of lawyers.]

I think it clear there exists a substantial sum being spent on Y2k that falls in part to these categories-waste, fraud, overkill, and legal standing defense making.

[These terms beg definition badly. If you spend a few days examining a program and determine that no dates were used, was the time wasted? If you found some cosmetic bugs and fixed them, was that overkill? No question that a few con men are making bucks fanning the flames of fear, but this is nothing out of the ordinary. And no doubt legal concerns are making valuable information unobtainable. But one thing about information we don't have -- we don't know what it is!]

No way to pin the figure down but I would venture a guess it is easily 20%.

[And you clearly label this a guess. But assume you're right, and that the entire issue *could* have been addressed more efficiently. Well, it's not exactly something we've had lots of practice with. Probably we've had enough trials and errors to exceed 20% inefficiency, and if we had to do it over, we'd know all the blind alleys and now go down them again. This is the very nature of a learning curve. Nobody's fault.]

Remember, to the average nutcase Y2k is systemic, it cannot be fixed no matter what is done. This is where North etal do their damage. FEAR costs enormous sums.

[Non-sequitur. Yes, there are those who choose to ignore all good news, and believe all bad news like the gospel. This leads them to predetermined conclusions. And perhaps some of them are wasting their personal time and money with excess or inappropriate preparations. But the nutcases didn't create the learning curve, or the legal system. Nor have they had any macroeconomic impact. So exactly what are you talking about anyway?]

I hope I do not have to remind you that this legal blanket is also why the Y2k information is sketchy and makes most appear to be hiding things(spin).

[Well, they *are* hiding things. The legal blanket is quite real. The lawyers' rule of thumb is when in doubt, say nothing. And you should be well aware of the deep-pockets syndrome too. Juries have a way of feeling sorry for the victim, and finding someone, anyone, who has money to compensate the victim for his suffering -- no matter *who* (if anyone) is remiss (even if it was the victim). Lawyers are gunshy for a good reason. And the nutcases have nothing to do with it.]

Again, right inline with the PLAN of the doom-wackos.

[These people don't have plans! Give me a break. Most of them are unhappy with their lives and looking for someone or something else to blame. Their reactions are largely emotional, and only occasionally are these emotional reactions gussied up with pseudo-logical ratiocination. Sure, Gary North has spent his career making a feeble attempt to bring down the system so Christians can Reconstruct it. Big deal. Even the doomists can justify their paranoia a lot better than you're justifying yours.]

Who pays for all of this?

[All of WHAT? I've tried very hard to follow what might have been an attempt at a line of reasoning, but it's damn hard. If you mean, Who pays the cost of remediation, why, we all do. Some of us more than others. If you think the 'doom-wackos' snuck around putting all those 2-digit-years into all that code while nobody was looking, you're the nutcase. If you think those errors really weren't there at all, you're equally wacky. If you think the wackos have in ANY material way affected the cost of tracking down and repairing those bugs, you certainly haven't made any case for this whatsoever.]

This is the DAMAGE of Y2k.

[What does 'this' mean here? Y2K encompasses two kinds of damage. The first is known -- costs of repair to date. It's been expensive and hasn't added functionality. That's inefficiency, but it's temporary. And of course little nagging date bugs have been surfacing everywhere. Nothing huge, no impact outside the overworked IT departments, but yes, it adds inefficiency and cost.

The other 'damage' is problematical since it's in the future, but seems highly predictable in that it will happen to some degree. For one thing, we *know* most (if not all) remediation projects will continue to spend resources for quite a while to come. The probability of date bugs continuing to surface approaches unity. The probability of real public impact from some of these bugs after rollover approaches unity. But the doomists are causing neither the bugs, nor the expense of handling those bugs, nor any potential impacts of computer failure. How could you possibly get this so backwards? We have real cost, and we have real people who worry excessively about that cost. But it's the cost causing the worry, NOT the worry causing the cost! Hello, Doc? Come in please.]

The "preparers" are not sensible, they are insane.

[To make that case, you need a much clearer definition of a preparer.]

Look, I am one of the most pollyannic here and a weeks worth of supplies is totally reasonable. If you live with threats of hurricanes-floods-earthquakes etc, a month maybe advisable.

[But Doc, these are *preparations*. You have just come flat out and said that you consider insanity to be 'advisable'! If this is the way you feel, why attack those who are reasonably and advisably insane?]

But when you encounter the soap-makers, understand the LINE of sanity has been crossed.

[Doubtless there's a line somewhere. I certainly can't see any problem with preparing up to your level of comfort and preference. And there's always serendipity. Some have headed for the hills and found peace and fulfillment as a result, y2k notwithstanding. I myself installed a wood stove just in case, and was delighted to find my power bill reduced by over $500/year. Undoubtedly there will be a tiny minority who burn bridges they subsequently regret burning. But they represent no expense or threat to anyone.]

Only you know what is appropriate. But let's not kid ourselves, most on the average Y2k webboards have lost their anchors and are drifting.

[I consider this a misperception. Most are quite thoughtful and reasonable. There is a very vocal hardcore handful of nitwits to be sure, and all too often these nitwits hijack the discussions, turning an investigative proceeding into a shouting match, and poison the well. This is regrettable, but don't conclude that the boards are drifting. The boards are under attack and are trying to defend themselves. The net's always been like this.]

These do-gooders also have a tendency to attract more governmental control. These Patriots just seem not to be able to make that connection with all their warnings and meme transferring.

[This statement absolutely requires supporting documentation. I doubt you could make more than the most wildly illogical circumstantial case for this position. But considering the logic (sic) you've shown so far, that might not matter. Still, if you want to convince anyone not *already* in agreement, you need data.]

How many companies have compromised their trade secrets to outside vendors?

[Not many, I'd say. Most software isn't a trade secret, and most devices are simply purchased off the shelf. Certainly the bulk of the remediation process hasn't involved anything particularly different from the way software development, test, and maintenance has always been done.]

How many outside geeks(or disgruntled insiders) have included backdoor entrances amongst their Y2k fixes? to be later used as entrances for personal gain? I would say this is happening.

[Based on what? Historical data should be highly indicative here, since outside consultants (and programmers) have been a thriving industry for some time now, and disgruntled insiders have existed for millennia. Y2k doesn't present much more of an opportunity for this sort of abuse than has existed all along.]

How many here are aware some send batches of code to the 3rd World for remediation?

[Almost everyone. It was broadcast on 60 Minutes, man!]

how secure is this?

[No less secure than ever. Those software houses in India and Hong Kong didn't appear overnight by magic. They've been a thriving business for a long time.]

how many of these decisions were based in part on the hysterics the Y2k nuts continue to preach everyday?

[Absolutely none of them! These decisions were based on cost, and on past experience, and on availability of specific skill and knowledge sets. Hysterical nutcases had NO influence on any of these decisions at all. What are you talking about?]

What is the tab created by the doom-wackos?

[Essentially zero, in terms of dollars. There are many issues surrounding y2k, but fortunately this is not one of them. No shred of evidence exists that any 'doom-wackos' have run up any tab at all.

On the contrary, y2k seems to have been a valuable experience for many, doomists and optimists alike. Holding an opinion is easy; defending that opinion against many intelligent and knowledgeable people is much harder. There are very few left who 'defend' their positions by sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting. This is very positive -- a real sign of education.]

Next time you hear some sap like an Uncle dedah at Yourdon's board ask why us Realists care what them wackos are doing, think about some of these basic issues raised.

[Uh, you haven't raised any issues yet. What's to think about?]

These are the basic ones.

[hehehe. You've made one preposterous claim - that a lunatic fringe of nutcases has somehow made y2k more expensive. You've provided absolutely nothing to back this up. There is certainly no question that y2k has been and will continue to be very expensive, in many many ways. But the nutcases have not contributed anything to this expense at all.

Even in the unlikely case that the most painful impact of y2k turns out to stem from public overreaction, this could hardly be placed at the doorstep of the loonies. It would be due to the mismanagement of information -- backfiring government spin combined with legal overcaution.]

There is no doubt a ton more.

[You're right. Get back to us when you think of one.]

Doc Paulie

[Been a while since I've read anything less rational. The doomists turn molehills into mountains. This dude doesn't even start with a molehill, he makes it up out of nothing.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 07, 1999.

Flint thanks for your response to that a**hole. I have little mastery over the language so I appreciate those who do. You expressed my thoughts exactly. If a group as small and scattered as this one holds that sort of power over the economy, we're all in big trouble.

-- (rick@ina.com), April 07, 1999.

(Y2K Pro) "You may WANT to be a victim, but you are not.

Assume you're right on that. Then what could possibly be your problem here?

It is -- for me -- simply beyond any stretch of the imagination to conceive that the intensive and costly remedial effort in DOD, in SSA, in financial services, in the power generation industry, in the automobile industry, in telecommunications, has been motivated by the fantasies of Infomagic, Hamasaki, Milne, Tom Benjamin, Yourdon, Yardeni, Sen. Bennett, Congr. Horn, or by anyone post on this forum.

Perhaps your imagination is more elastic. In this case you really should tune in to Art Bell's radio show. You'll love it. From the High Desert, every night of the week.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 08, 1999.

Flint, ummmmm, what?

"OK, Doc, calm down. Take a deep breath. Count to FF slowly. I'll wait. Better now? Good, let us reason together."

Together? Reason? Sorry, methinks you will be waiting a long time for that. Here is an example of the brainpower that you are trying to "reason" with;

Doc Paulie: "a weeks worth of supplies is totally reasonable".

Considering that the average American shopper buys 1 to 2 weeks at a time, what the "Doc" is saying is that NO PREPARATION IS NECESSARY! All is well, go back to sleep. Billions and billions spent on a meme...

Hey you dipshits at GM, Whatsamatta U? All of you dullards should hire ol' "Doc" Paulie, he tells it like it is!(n't)

And I'm the sap!

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), April 08, 1999.

Dic Paulie?

-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), April 08, 1999.

Flint:

thanks for the balanced approach, again.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 08, 1999.

Uncle Deedah:

"Let us reason together" was a phrase used by LBJ, and what it meant was "I'm gonna tell y'all how it's gonna be, and you can like it or quit."

I personally expect that a week's worth of supplies will indeed prove sufficient for many of us. For many others, it will not be nearly enough. Since we don't know who will need what, we all need a lot more than that. Just like fire insurance isn't needed for most of us -- only those who end up suffering fires! Except I think the percentage who need a more than a week's worth will be much higher than the percentage who have had fires.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 08, 1999.

Flint commented:

"I personally expect that a week's worth of supplies will indeed prove sufficient for many of us. For many others, it will not be nearly enough. Since we don't know who"

Flint, you are infering that you have a week's worth of supplies and that is enough for you. Is this correct?"

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 08, 1999.