Dear Reader,

The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation.

The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all-inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm.

What is the point?

The PSF folks are better served by hardcore survivalist web pages or perhaps homesteading or small farming sites. Posts by the IOR contingent generally fall on deaf ears. Has anyone decided to ease up on preparations based on reading a post on this forum?

While I have only posted on this forum a relatively short period of time, the posts have become increasingly less interesting... at least to me. On occasion, some of the more rational folks become involved on a particular thread. Even then, one more often sees ridicule than reason. While I have seen flashes of IS expertise, the quality of thought on economic issues... abysmal.

Yes, anticipating that some readers have a grasp of the obvious, I can choose not to read the forum. I believe there are a few intelligent, reasonable people who read (and post) here. It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999

Answers

Wow, Mr. Decker, you nailed that one.

-- Codejockey (codejockey@geek.com), April 22, 1999.

TROLL ALERT! TROLL ALERT!

-- Doomster (icanthearyou@myfingersinmy.ears), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Sorry you are feeling so frustrated. I too sometimes feel like I have to put hip waders on when I come here. However I respect everyone's right to their opinion and have learned who's threads to watch for info. pertinent to me. Sure it could be better, but it also could be a lot worse.

I am thankful that this forum is considered important enough to draw visitors from other forums frequently and keep different perspectives here. Personally, I attempt to answer and ask questions sincerely. Many others seem to as well.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

-- Kristi (securx@Succeed.Net), April 22, 1999.

Y2K is stupendously boring and, consequently, this forum is boring much of the time. Plus, we're in the most boring phase of this boring issue. Check back in four or five months or so .....

And you're right: ain't no one forcing you. "What is the point?" What is the point of parking your horse and hanging out in the local saloon? Sometimes you have a good beer, a good conversation. Sometimes you keep your eye on a nearby poker game. Other times, you watch someone being tossed through a plate-glass window. It beats TV.

Some of us do contact each other offline and communicate in small groups on various subjects that avoid meaningless forum noise ...... you, too, might be invited someday!

BTW, how would you recognize IS expertise?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker sums it up pretty well. What to do???

Well, I think we need to regain focus on the core issues. I.e., how to prepare; and how bad y2k will be, so we have a better idea of what to prepare for. Someone described the forum as a "chat-line" the other day. I was half offended, but I thought about it and that seemed a pretty good description of lots of the content here. There was a time when I would proudly explain to acquaintances that while I was apparently wasting my life on the internet, I was in fact involved with the world's best public forum concerned with the world's most important issue. The issue hasn't gotten any less important, but the forum has lost it considerably. Why this is?, no matter. How to fix?, ..um, YOU have to post as if you were posting to the world's best forum on the world's best topic, rather than chit-chatting and hairsplitting and OT'ing with all the wonderful minds here. There's lots of y2k talk along the lines of "we don't know". Well GO AND FIND OUT!, and come back here and tell the rest of us.

love

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 22, 1999.

".um, YOU have to post as if you were posting to the world's best forum on the world's best topic,"

I meant to say "the world's most important topic" not the "best" topic. Not a freudian slip, I'm just drunk that's all.

(and Big Dog, how can you say y2k is boring? I find that personally life-threatening situations tend to grip my attention somewhat.)

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I do hope that you will continue to keep up on the various topics in this forum and post your often thoughtful and intelligent commentary. Though your postings may be provocative for some (and those who do find it provocative will respond as they do), do try to ignore the various indignities (sometimes, shameless and heavy handed). Your arguments are often forceful-- if not always winning and persuasive. Your postings are read, your ideas are considered, and your efforts are appreciated by more than one (myself included).

In discussing Y2K with real economists, again and again, I have found a general unwillingness on their part to predict how Y2K will turn out. FAO's recent statement on potential food and farming problems seems to the best you are going to get for now. We are working on getting a big gun to consider some economic predictions for Q3, but I'll let you know. Practically speaking, economists need numbers and facts. You'll get more analysis coming in Q1 of 2000 and following. Otherwise, you need to hunt down some ambitious pre-dissertation economist-student that can afford to make predictions, good or bad.

Obviously, you are the kind of man that is not going to buy into the variety of opinions offered here, but I would have thought that you were the kind of man that would be more amused than in stern contempt for those with different opinions. Don't get embittered, laugh a little... laugh much. Light a good cigar, get hold of some brandy, and don't take it so hard. This forum doesn't run like a company at all-- not even a supposed non-heirarchical organization like McKinsey & Co. where you get the best and brightest teaming at almost every level.

We still don't know what's going to happen. We all sure would like to know. I think you'd agree that it isn't unwise to have some things on hand-- Y2K or not. It's not foolish, certainly. For those that are hanging up their city life for country life, the decision belongs to them. They probably were ready to slow down, anyway... and that's not a bad thing. As for all those tons of red wheat and canned food... if Y2K is just a bump in the road, the charities and the poor they assist will be the happy beneficaries. That's not a bad thing, either.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), April 22, 1999.

gee Decker...I tend to find the forum entertaining, enlightening, educational, and sometimes intriguing. Must be my small brain...huh?

-- a (a@a.a), April 22, 1999.

after one has been here for a while, one notices a certain pattern in which someone new shows up on the forum, makes a splash or two, and then realizes that there are others also making splashes at the same time...and sometimes those splashes cancel each other out. Then one gets frustrated and posts complaints about how 'off topic' everything is that causes splashes other than one's own...and THEN one either goes away or ends up becoming a regular.

careful Decker - you're in danger of becoming a regular yourdonite...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), April 22, 1999.

Humpty: Well, I'm not a masochist. I wouldn't come here if I didn't enjoy the give-and-take with most of the regulars and, yes, Y2K has a macabre, gripping quality about it. I'm at the saloon, aren't I?

Still, what could be boring than two digits? Frankly, though I still get high from cool technology, computers themselves are really amazingly boring and tedious. Look at it this way: if we survive, people a century from now will be amazed that we chained ourselves to our dumb little boxes like slaves and even (some of us) imagined we enjoyed it (I except the 20% or so truly challenging design, algorithmic and testing tasks that the best or luckiest of us are able to secure). Does this help?

In fact, one of the big reasons we're going to have a Y2K meltdown (probably THE reason, Decker pay attention) is that Y2K remediation is even more hideously and soul-destroyingly boring than the usual maintenance projects. Everyone, from execs through grunts, figured we could conjure it away by saying, "begone."

Arlin: ROTF. Decker's just another Yourdon groupie, isn't he?

Decker: Ah (see just above), welcome to the cult. Maybe you WILL get invited to those secret, mystical, offline activities where the real brainpower is exerted .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Dear Readers,

1. While I cannot claim the "decades" of experience so many posters have, I am not a complete IS neophyte. I wrote my first program using decks of FORTRAN punch cards (although I was quite young at the time). I have programmed, though mostly in applications languages. In my first post-Master's job, I ran a large gravometric regional transportation model using PCs and SUN workstations. While working for a college, I served as temporary IT director, developed a department, long range IT plan and fought for a budget. Oh, and transitioned them from a Honeywell Bull monstrosity to a client- server LAN/WAN. In my current role, I have chaired the committee responsible for a statewide MIS upgrade... from funtional analysis and technical specs to procurement. Personally, I have owned a PC of each chip generation... 8088, 286, 386, 486, Pentium and Pentium II. I am an amateur, but one with some experience.

2. Americans have an egalitarian streak. I often hear how one should respect "all opinions." Hogwash. Like ideas, people or horses, some opinions are better than others. I may respect one's First Amendment right to free speech... but the respect does not extend automatically to what is said or who is saying it. Some of the "opinions" on this forum are beyond idiotic. As a rule, I tend to avoid direct characterizations of specific posts. In my experience, reasonable words are lost the unreasonable.

Every good post enriches this forum. The converse is also true.

3. Yourdonite? Isn't that an alien metal that robs a superhero of his strength?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

and don't forget the joy of being a troll

-- trollforfun (troll@watchemjump.com), April 22, 1999.

Stan:

If you have actually worked and post work-interacted with McKinsey- ites, I am surprised you can type that with a straight keyboard. Can you say MASSIVE, ENTRENCHED, DGI/CLUELESS POLY? Nice people, for the most part, probably typically in the top 10% worldwide in the field they were in outside the Firm (well, in MOST of the fields) but not really real world driven. OY VEY!!

c

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 22, 1999.

To paraphrase Twain,

I'd never belong to any club that would accept me as a member.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Chuck -- You are so right about McKinsey and related ilk. Sadly.

Decker -- My question was serious (see McKinsey above as an indirectly related item). Most IS "experts" are not. As you say, not all opinions are equal. The inability of IS people to think at a meta- and cross-systems level is, I was going to say amazing, but how many of us can think/conceptualize at that level? Consequently, the systemic nature of Y2K (not only technical but cultural, political and economic) is, even now, NOT understood. You're missing the boat big-time on Y2K from an "epistemological" point of view but, take heart, you're far from alone.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

"Perhaps the best advice for dealing with year 2000 problem may be to mirror the advice of Zen Buddhism:

"Do not depend upon books and words because they only point the way. You must work out your own salvation with diligence."

--Capers Jones, the conclusion to The Year 2000 Software Problem.

-- Mr.Isetta (do_not_reply_@hotmail.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

The point to me is that, for all its faults, this forum with careful reading is still the best source of current information on Y2K.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

I should add that since I can only afford to buy a little extra each week, knowing what directions the Y2K issue is taking is important to me.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

"Big Dog,"

With all due modesty, I am bettered qualified for economic meta- analysis than for computer debugging. By the way, as you look down your nose at me, do I look small? (laughter)

This is why this forum so often disappoints. I am more interested in the commments of "real" anthropologists, historians and yea, even economists than in computer "experts." If there's a "chaotician" in the house, feel free to chime in.

Lest you think I wear my "rose-colored lenses" all day, I do worry. Y2K, in my mind, is much less threatening than cyber-terrorism. The building of biological weapons of mass destruction by tin horn dictators makes me very nervous. As I said in my response to Mr. Yourdon, Y2K is a slow pitch down the middle of the plate. Yes, some firms and public agencies will strike out... but not enough to move us into a Mad Max post-Apocalyptic world.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Decker -- I really DON'T look down my nose at you (it's hard when you have a muzzle, I am a dog after all). I'm certain you're far more intelligent and, no doubt, more successful and worldly-wise than me. Seriously. Flint, for instance, is more intelligent than I am. So are many on this forum (Robert Cook, Paul Davis and the list goes on and on).

But I stand by my statement. All opinions aren't equal and you don't understand. You aren't evidently capable of thinking systemically except, perhaps, economically. Y2K isn't a slow pitch. You're hopelessly in error. It's a spitball moving very unpredictably and singularly to the plate and most people are going to strike out.

I do agree with you that other threats also loom very large. Granting that self-sufficiency is a myth, and wouldn't be desirable even if attainable, 90% of the effort of so-called doomers here is simply to urge people towards maximal self-reliance, formerly an esteemed, native American trait.

Unfortunately, we have to expend ridiculous amounts of effort to thwart trolls and well-meaning rationalists, some of them brilliant, from making this forum an endless justification of the wisdom of such self-reliance.

I repeat, though, I am far from looking down my nose at you. The reverse is far more likely to be the case, my dear Mr. Decker.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker

i feel somewhat the same as you on the usefulness of this forum. currently it doesn't seem to be living up to its potential. **please note, this is my opinion only, everyone**

personally i would like to see more threads directed toward preparedness/survival issues (see my plea for pedal power sites on another thread), especially along the lines of the hamasaki alternative. even if this thread has already covered those kinds of topics to death, there is still some usefulness here concerning current events.

your phrase that all good posts enrich this forum caught my attention. as i see it, this forum is a garden. some of the posts are sunshine, some are manure, but they *all* enrich it.

thanx to all who think and contribute and prepare!

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), April 22, 1999.

"Big Dog,"

Nay, I say the thee again, prithee, nay. You are well spoken and obviously believe firmly in your convictions. We simply draw different conclusions from the "same" data. Fortunately, we will have the rare opportunity to compare notes in a few short months and reconsider our positions in light of actual events.

Never have I suggested some degree of "preparation" is irrational. I'm the person who ensures my gas gauge rarely falls below the halfway mark. Of course, while we engage in this delightful and civil discourse, the fellows down the hall are comparing ballistics tables. [This is a rich irony. While I am one of the more civil voices here, I also have a fair amount of military experience.]

Again, ironically, I am rather well prepared quite by accident. As an avid outdoorsman, I have no end of "gear." Because I enjoy a fire in my modest fireplace, I have well over a cord of seasoned oak in the shed. [When I mention oak firewood, some readers shudder, but I have the good fortunate of owning rural acreage with no end of hardwood.] As a "smart shopper," I often buy in bulk at Coscto. Growing up on a small ranch, I learned many handy, if rather esoteric skills. Do you think beekeeping will make a comeback?

As I have pointed out, most of "preparedness" is common sense daily living. On this, perhaps, we can agree. [Or do you have a few metric tons of soybeans hidden somewhere?]

(laughter)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

You miss much of the point. While you, indeed, are a fine specimen, many - hell, most - Americans aren't prepared to go 2 days without grocery shopping, myself included. I'm not prepared to go 20 minutes without coffee post-rollover if supplies are halted. Single mothers shouldn't go without diapers for even one day.

Do you have no sympathy for the lesser specimens who aren't aware that putting aside a few extra necessities should be considered?

-- Lisa (exasperation@always.everyday), April 22, 1999.

Lisa,

Mr. Decker has already made his priorities clear...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Thanks, Kevin. Once again, you have pinned the tail to the donkey.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Unfortunately, I have difficulty respecting the opinion of someone who, like the TV weatherman, earns a living by being right *occasionally.* For him to post remarks that consistently reek of condescension can hardly be considered mitigation. To compound this with criticisms demeaning others' expertise, while acknowledging lack of expertise, and complaints of "economic illiterates" who appear to be encroaching on his personal territory, (as if there were only one true economic theory) borders on the finest hypocrisy.

As far as opinions go, Mr. Decker, there are very good reasons for the egalitarian viewpoint. (But, of course, you know that.) However, with your discriminating intellect for insightful opinions, why did you bother to start this thread, which, aside from the obligatory hyperbole, says nothing but "Ho-hum, I'm so much better than this!" ? When people read ridicule, they respond with ridicule.

Mr. Elbow Grease

BTW, I think the attribution should be Groucho Marx, not Twain. But I could be wrong.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 22, 1999.

Actually, I think it was Woody Allen.

-- without (fe@the.rs), April 22, 1999.

You got it Grease! That's a Groucho.

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), April 22, 1999.

E. Grease -

Darn right it's Groucho! The precise quote is "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members."

Now where did I put that copy of The Portable Curmudgeon? Gems like:

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." --- George Bernard Shaw

Joy...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), April 22, 1999.

Kevin (and "Big Dog"),

I stand by my earlier post. Market forces are our best hope of resolving Y2K problems. Public panic makes me nervous. The system works because most people participate. If enough people panic, the wheels fall off the wagon. As one with libertarian leanings (and a student of history), I distrust our "helpful" government. I fail to see how this is "pinning the tail on the donkey." [Forgive the metaphor, Big Dog, but I can feel you straining at the leash every time you write. What is it about my viewpoint that bothers you so?] Per my own scale, I am a realist.

"Elbow Grease,"

Forgive me, but I will not apologize for my education or writing style. I use a formal style of writing. In the language of Montana, it may sound like I am "puttin' on airs." It is not my intent to condescend... but I feel the English langauge should be used as intended.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I think the point is to bring as many sides of this issue to the forum as possible. This would be a pretty boring place if everyone had the same view. I think that visitors here are looking for all the information that they can find. I think it's our job to bring our point of view to them. Some of the debates here can be confusing, and others can lead to non-sense, among other things, but as I think Diane once said, it's their job to sort it all out, and make up their own minds. I hate (not really) some of the pollys here, but I usually find their opinions to have some value. Just my $.02 <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 22, 1999.

There's been some debate about whether Kosovo was relevant. It surely is. It helps us consider what the general situation will be when Y2K hits. But...talking about it doesn't really help me much. I can just get the news directly, and for commentary a quick look at worldnetdaily.com covers it pretty well. The more we broaden the scope, the less useful the forum really is. We do tend to rehash the same arguments over and over. Sometimes I just hit the topical areas, but not everybody remembers to categorize their posts, unfortunately. Mr. Decker, if you have some links to good survival/prep sites I'd like to see them.

Still...the other week I was pretty burned out on this whole thing. I was ready to forget about preps for a while and smell the roses in the time left. I wrote up something to post about how discouraged I was, glanced at the new threads first--and found out half a dozen people were talking about the same thing. By the time I finished reading I felt a lot better. I eased up on the schedule for a couple weeks and now I'm going strong again.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 22, 1999.

"Market forces are our best hope of resolving Y2K problems. Public panic makes me nervous. The system works because most people participate. If enough people panic, the wheels fall off the wagon."

Great cliches and truisms. Unfortunately, the cause of panic, if there is one, is going to be people JUST like you in positions of power who infantilized the citizenry on this subject in 1997 and 1998. And continue to do so. Your first post on this thread was almost entirely condescending. Yes, increasingly now, it is getting too late for the nation as a whole to prepare WITHOUT panic, but I'm not going to stop for one second speaking the truth about Y2K to individuals, on this forum and off.

And no, public panic was never the biggest danger with Y2K. Sorry, that's laughably dumb. "It's the code, stupid." People are going to suffer and maybe die because of the patronizing position that the elitest class, like yourself, has taken on this.

It's not a game of chess or English mannerisms, Decker. It's real life. "I feel the English langauge should be used as intended": intended by who? There is no such intent conveyed by some committee of our betters, but you'd like to imagine there is and that you are one of them.

For those on this forum who understand, and there are many, they know exactly how/why Kevin "pinned the tail on the donkey."

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

"Forgive me, but I will not apologize for my education or writing style."

If you are not apologizing, then for what should I forgive you? :-)

I guess your formal writing style does not include addressing someone as signed. I am *Mr.* Elbow Grease to you.

Furthermore, the issue is neither education nor writing style. It is content and insight which is so sadly lacking in your post. In the absence of those elements, I ask again, why did you start this thread?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 22, 1999.

Use your real name, "Elbow Grease," and I will gladly call you "Mr." I posted as a general observation... and a few people have agreed.

"Big Dog"

Dismissing an argument as "cliche" or a "truism" is not a counter argument. It is a diversionary tactic. Accusing me of elitism... after suggesting you and the other intelligentsia meet after hours in your "offline" cabals. Please. "The code is broken." Yourdon himself readily admits this is a fallacious statement. There is no "the code." It is a vast hetergeneous mix of IS assets. Public panic can be a devastating force as history clearly shows. As has history demostrated the supremacy of the free market over all other economic systems... another point Mr. Yourdon and I agree on. (As a best-selling author, he knows what profit is.)

Like "Elbow Grease," why don't you step from behind the curtain. Drop me an email... or visit in person. You can see my "palatial estate" where I work the levers of the nation. (laughter)

You sound like a man who has made up his mind... and has raised the drawbridge on any meaingful discussion.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

"Accusing me of elitism... after suggesting you and the other intelligentsia meet after hours in your "offline" cabals. Please."

Humor. H-U-M-O-R. Psst, would you like an invite?

The code is broken. Indeed, it's always more-or-less broken, but with respect to Y2K, it is VERY broken ... the calendar just hasn't caught up with the execution quite yet. Yes, I understand "software assets," thank you.

My mind is made up that your nostrums of, "the market will correct everything" and "public panic is the main problem" are dumb. If that's where you want the debate to go, I will resist you over and over again on every thread where you raise it.

Cheers.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

This *is* my real name, the email address is false. Care to debate the nature of reality in this space? How is that relevant? My credentials are in the words I write, as are yours. Or have I lost you? You ask "What is the point?" and comment about the posts becoming "increasingly less interesting..." Yet you contribute to the decline about which you complain. I am underwhelmed by the knowledge you have thus far exhibited but impressed by the quantity of words.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 22, 1999.

And while we're on the subject of panic, it isn't going to be the public that panics later this year, in the sense Decker means. The public is going to decide RATIONALLY to get out of the markets/banks.

It's the market makers and the banks that are going to panic. They will have only themselves to blame, however much they spin that blame onto their "customers", namely, citizens.

They made a bet that Y2K could be manipulated. Game's (nearly) up. They lose. Unfortunately, they will, if history is any guide, find a way to make us suckers pay for their bet.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

While it is of course entirely possible to say nothing interesting while being civil and well-spoken, it is nearly impossible to make a thoughtful contribution composed of attacks and insults. I feel that attitudes here have tended to ossify, to the point where many of us cannot seriously entertain the notion that disagreeable material might contain kernals of value. We can't gain insights with our eyes closed.

And who knows, maybe the effort to appear thoughtful might inspire useful thoughts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 1999.

"Big Dog" and "Elbow Grease,"

I respectfully decline participation in any "alternative" conversation fora. My offer, however, stands. If you decide to step from behind your respective aliases, please feel free to write or even visit.

You are correct in one respect, Grease, this thread is going nowhere. Once again, "Big Dog" has chosen to take my words out of context... "The free market will fix everything." The free market only works where there is a profit motive... and then imperfectly. Of course, "Big Dog," feel free to offer an alternative economic system for consideration.

In the face of numerous positive reports, you cling to "the code is broken" mantra. Every day I work with companies where the code is "fixed." Of course, you know that everyone... everyone is lying. The computer genuises working in the trenches and the "GIs" on this forum are the select few who really "know" what's going on. Forget the IT/IS trade press... they are part of the conspiracy, too. The CIOs who have come out and announced progress... all management liars. Why? Because "they" started "too late" and "everyone" knows it is now impossible to fix the problem. Ed Yourdon's metric cannot be wrong. Y2K must be like all other software development projects. COBOL programmers will be making NBA superstar salaries because of high demand. No. The Euro will fail. No. Significant Y2K problems on Jan. 1, 1999. No. Major problems on April 1, 1999. No. Power plant failures due to rollover to 1999. No. 99099 Julian date causes problems. No. Stock market collapse. Not yet.

I will grant you this. If Y2K is a big business/government/media conspiracy, it is the best conspiracy in the history of the modern world.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Shimrod,

Sorry I seemed to ignore your original post. You asked about survivalist web sites. As I conducted some of my Internet-based Y2K reading, I encountered many such sites. Often, they are part of the survivalist webring. One site I remember was the Frugal Squirrel. It had a very distinctive name and offered free music downloads. If I recall, they have an extensive library on a huge number of survivalist topics. While we may disagree, I strongly support your right to access knowledge. Best of luck.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker says: "This is why this forum so often disappoints. I am more interested in the commments of "real" anthropologists, historians and yea, even economists than in computer "experts." If there's a "chaotician" in the house, feel free to chime in."

I wonder why it is that you assume that there are not already people with those backrounds posting? Is it because they are not posting credentials?

I assume from my more than one year participation in the forum that there are not only IT specialists but generalists of extraordinary backrounds. Beyond them,..there are "real" people, and jokesters posting. I remember you used "real". Perhaps it is is not your community, Mr. (Mister? Could you pick a more elitest handle?) Decker. Become part of the the community, (kvetching is permitted), or find a community that suits you better. Seems a logical choice to me. I don't agree with everyone here, but I would not in any other place...

This is not horn tooting, cos us generalists don't usually feel "qualified" to do so, but I have backround in music, psychology, sociology, domestic violence intervention and prevention, world literature, poetry, child development, history, anthropology, and American Studies. I might have something to contribute, and if I didn't I could always invent a handle and claim graduate degrees, and no one could dispute them. But I don't. I have a BA in Music Education and graduate studies in many things and life.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You have a very strange sense of propriety. The pseudo-intellectual facade is slipping when you deliberately refuse to address me directly in the manner I asked and added to your low brow response by calling me "Grease." It may not be the name I was given at birth but real people know me by this handle. I am proud of it. I am everyman. I am one of the great unwashed masses who apparently does not deserve an equitable response, hmm? You, sir, are a fraud and a boor: not because I say so, but because your initial post and subsequent comments prove it to be so. To paraphrase the words of a man who is a legend in his own mind: Keep your comments within the boundaries of your profession, because the quality of thought outside those limits is...abysmal.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 22, 1999.

Flint: "While it is of course entirely possible to say nothing interesting while being civil and well-spoken, it is nearly impossible to make a thoughtful contribution composed of attacks and insults."

Flint, Decker really isn't that bad. I don't mind the attacks and insults. For instance,

"The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all-inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm."

Still, those of us who have invested our energy and heart in helping folks on this board will continue to do our best to be thoughtful and civil towards Decker. Thanks, Flint!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 22, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

You answered someone earlier on this thread and said...

You sound like a man who has made up his mind... and has raised the drawbridge on any meaningful discussion.

If I'm not mistaken, though, you've already made up your mind on Y2K because of your political beliefs...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

[snip]

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.

Damn, Elbow, ah I mean Elbow Grease, er I mean Mr. Elbow Grease...I hope I never get on the wrong side of you. J

-- a (a@a.a), April 23, 1999.

Sorry Elbow! Seems that I too addressed you as "Grease". You have my humble apology. I will try to be more civil in the future.

Regards,

Mr. Deedah

(Hey, I kinda like that! It sounds much more refined than Unc.)

-- Mr. Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), April 23, 1999.

Decker, (I save the honorific, Mr, for only those whom I respect.)

I see that, not only are you a devotee of the "dismal science", but are in fact a "true believer" in the religion that Dr. Weiskel of the Harvard Divinity School calls "Economism." The good doctor has the background that I lack in refuting your simplistic and avaricious contention: "Market forces are our best hope of resolving Y2K problems....As has history demostrated the supremacy of the free market over all other economic systems." Btw, would you care to point out to us where and when a free market has ever existed?

With your self-proclaimed (but undemonstrated) background, you might get more out of reading "The 'Commons' and the Common Good: The Ethics of Common Resource Management, by Timothy C. Weiskel" than I ever could. If you don't have the time, perhaps you would condescend to read this short essay [ http://divweb.harvard.edu/csvpl/ee/ops-008.htm ]which presents a critique of the so-called free market metaphor that I could never equal.

You have stated that you, "...feel the English language should be used as intended." I'm sure Koskinen, Clinton and their ilk would agree.

You aver that you, "... can choose not to read the forum." Please feel free. I'm sure that Biffy or Debunkers is more to your taste.

Hallyx

"Consider the average intelligence of the common man, then realize 50% are even stupider." -- Mark Twain

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), April 23, 1999.

To "a" and Mr. Deedah,

Call me what you wish, guys.

Mr. Decker's brand of civility is more of a facade than any pseudonym. Pre-pending "Mr." to my name was a setup on a hunch regarding his psych profile. He is transparent.

I have just now discovered how late I am to this game, and suspect that I have simply rehashed what many already know from Mr. Decker's other threads which I've skipped. Sorry about that. Guess I'm just not good at the gadfly role. I will practice. :-)

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 23, 1999.

What a horrible waste of time.

Big Dog... my original post involved some venting. You seem very sincere and constant in your convictions. If you want to send me your email address, we can compare notes after Jan 1., 2000. Until then, however, I am not sure our conversations will produce much. If we part, I wish to respectfully disagreeing.

Kevin... I have no idea exactly what will happen. My "hunch" is based on my academic and professional background. My intent on this forum has been to provide some food for thought and to clear up a few misunderstandings about economics. Oh, and I have tried to remain civil throughout. Every news report about Y2K hits the "spin cycle" here. And as you will notice, since my microreview of Y2K predictions earlier on this thread, no one has come forth to rebut the individual points. If power plants actually crashed (and stayed down), tell me about it. I am very willing to change my mind on Y2K... but not due to sniping (What a list.) or intellectual mincing (Hallyx) or scare tactics (Andy, INVAR, etc.).

Mr Elbow Grease

I must confess. This is the first time I have encountered name calling because I declined to use an honorific in front of a nickname. You have yet to offer a countervailing argument, Mr. Elbow Grease, just empty criticism. I grant you this, you do seem like "everyman" in Modern America.

Moment,

Mr. is simply a title of courtesy, particularly for those who feel Dr. should be reserved for the medical types (unlike Gary North). My grandfather, complete with 5th grade education, was Mr. Decker as well.

Hallyx,

Our shared lack of respect is mutual. I am waiting for you references on the "life is nasty, brutish and short" debate. I will pick up Weiskel of the (oh, gosh) Harvard Divinity School. But forgive me if I decline to respond to you personally. Your role here has been of intellectual fop. You respond with clever quotes and avoid any serious discourse. Yours is not a counter argument, it's a reading list. As with Big Dog, if you want to carry this discussion forward in person... you know how to reach me. If not, I respectfully request you save both of us the time.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.

This morning I see that Mr. Decker was compelled to have the last word.

>>I must confess. This is the first time I have encountered name calling because I declined to use an honorific in front of a nickname. You have yet to offer a countervailing argument, Mr. Elbow Grease, just empty criticism. I grant you this, you do seem like "everyman" in Modern America. <<

Mr. Decker, it takes a two by four just to get your attention. You started this thread with a series of derogatory stereotypes and scattershot insults. Your last post is more of the same. In between, you offer nothing substantive beyond an oh-so-superior and disdainful attitude toward those who chose to respond to you. Your ideas are old and tired and tattered, yet you project an air of elitism unjustified by your trivialities. Why should we swoon and cowtow to this claptrap? Where is the keen insight? The emperor has no clothes. You, sir, are plainly everyman too. You just don't seem to know it.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 23, 1999.

From what I see Mr. Decker posted a question and instead of moving the debate, the other posts simply got into a personal attack. Most people who post to this forum make it a personal thing and don't discuss the topics at hand. I know as an example Hardliner loves to discuss my "chip" a lot. Well, quite frankly, my "chip", perceived or real, has nothing to do with the issues surrounding Y2K.

As for the original question, you asked if anyone has eased up on preparations. I seem to recall a few threads that went along those lines. Some have begun to question the reasons for such heavy preparations and have resumed a life, once again.

Mr. Decker I for one, enjoy reading your posts.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Maria --- Your own bias is showing. Decker's opening post was one long series of personal attacks and put-downs, nicely wrapped in slick verbiage. As for his posting here, he's welcome. But he's not going to get a free ride when he posts attacks as "dear reader" crap and tedious bromides as profound truths.

And why should he? You don't give me or others a free ride when you think we're doing that(as witness the words you just wrote above ...)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 23, 1999.

Maria,

Thank you for the public acknowledgement. I have received many positive email messages from others. It is one of the advantages of using my real email address. (On the downside there is a dental services company that mails every day....)

I think some readers are reluctant to post here due to the bullying tactics used by some. If you read my original post, "Y2K and Risk," many of the responses were purely personal attacks. "Idiot" and "Moron" come quickly to mind. Most completely avoided the topic of free market economics (although I hoped we could discuss market failures, external costs and other phenomena).

The anonymous nature of the Internet seems to encourage the churlish. Rarely do I encounter such behavior in daily life. (It could be my menacing visage, but I rather doubt it). One of the reasons I continue to brave the "slings and arrows," is the warm support and encouragement I have received from people like you.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.

Ok Big Dog, my bias is showing. Though, you have in past threads cut through the name calling and hit the hard Y2K issues. But I've noticed you are not willing to give Mr. Decker the same cordial responses that you've given me in the past (even though most have and will continue to call me names). I guess Mr. Decker must "hit your buttons". Getting back to (what I perceive as) the topic, do you think that things are looking better? Do you see any good happening? I used to be positive that the remediation will get done. Now, I continue to see good news and think it won't be as bad as I originally thought. Of course, time will tell.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Maria -- My problem with Decker is that it takes so long to cut through the baloney. That doesn't mean it's "personal". By contrast, you have at times said things I thought were outrageous (as I appear to you too sometimes, I'm sure), but it's not coated in smarm or subtle putdowns (Elbow Grease is quite right that Decker has done that repeatedly to him on this thread).

On this thread, after a set of "posts", Decker finally got real (his "no", "no", "no" post). I happen to think that this, plus his opening put-downs, reveal that HE is the one with no interest in any substantive debate.

In answer to your questions, there is much good news this year about Y2K, as there darn well should be considering what has been spent. The problem is (I know the reasons) it is largely self-reported and the numbers reported (for instance, the infamous compliance percentages) CANNOT be meaningful because there are no rational metrics standards or process in place in our benighted industry.

Considering that a batch of good news was certain this year, I don't find the news broad enough, deep enough, detailed enough or credible enough (see audits, metrics) to persuade me that the fundamental situation has improved at all. It could be better, the same or worse. I'm not sure what it would mean to "change my mind" about this, not because I'm paranoid but because this position seems entirely rational to me. Not crazy, not paranoid, but rational in the simplest sense.

Considering the stakes, I, as you know, choose to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. Others are hoping for the best and "preparing" for the best. I think that's foolish. So sue me.

Hope this helps.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 23, 1999.

Thanks for your honesty Big Dog and no I won't sue you. I agree that there doesn't exist a wealth of good news that maybe should exist at this time but it's still too early since most companies said June 30 as their completion date. Other reasons have been discussed on previous threads (in my case it's the lawyers). But also on the other hand there hasn't been the "meltdown" that was once predicted for this year. So each one of us weighs the significance of these data as they uncover.

I'm not preparing for the best (in my mind the best is a bump in the road therefore doesn't require any preps). I'm preparing for slightly longer distruptions than I think will occur. I don't believe in two week or longer power outages or TEOTWAWKI. It's a gamble but my positive outlook on life tells me we'll get through it. Good luck with your preps.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I hope you stick around.

-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), April 23, 1999.

One problem I see with the good news that is coming out is how little there is: one company (like GM getting finished with testing one robot assembly area at one plant, with so few earlier tests reported in that story that you can count them on one hand), or one utility (like Ontario Hydro.)

By now, late April 1999, we should be swamped with hundreds of big companies a week completed testing on everything. The problem I was worried about was trying to find who WASN'T finished in the midst of everybody else claiming compliance. (You know: Like a parent looking for the blades of glass in the midst of the haybales that the kids are going to ride on later.)

Instead - there is vast pasture of fertilizer out there there with weeds, grass, hay, and wheat growing all mixed together.

And somebody tells me everytime he hits the anvil that he is "almost" finished" making the scythe - to cut the hay, to spread the hay, to bale the hay, to clean the mud and fertilizer out of the hay bales, to put the bales in the wagon - to go on the hayride that next Friday night.

Well - the problem appears to me that we haven't seen enough progress to get the job done. The progress done is very real, but making a scythe and finally getting the kids on their wagon are two different things.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker said...

And as you will notice, since my microreview of Y2K predictions earlier on this thread, no one has come forth to rebut the individual points.

Here's something to consider.

What is the significance of April 1st? Unless the Canadian government, the state of New York and the British are already 99% or 100% compliant, then we should have heard about at least a few glitches in accounting software. None were reported in the media. Why?

Possible explanations...

1. Y2K never needed to be fixed. It was all a hoax from the beginning. Problems will be minor even if no remediation takes place.

2. It's easy to make an organization Y2K compliant. (But if that's true, then most everyone would have finished by December 31, 1998).

3. Agencies have prioritized their remediation and made sure that accounting software was dealt with early on.

4. Agencies changed the end date of their fiscal year 2000 from March 31, 2000 to December 31, 1999.

5. There are problems with accounting software going on at some agencies, but we don't hear about it.

My personal opinion about this? It's some combination of points three, four or five.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.

Kevin, I've thought that what JAE effects show up will become evident after April's books are closed - May 1-5, although I could be way wrong. I'd also anticipate JAE effects for fiscal years spanning Apr.1 - March 31 to be noticable Jan. 1 - March 31, as transaction dates are mis-sorted, corrupting Amounts-to-date and percent-of-total figures. But the system would have tanked by then, anyway.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 23, 1999.

Kevin, I agree that it's some combination of points 3, 4, and 5. I don't remember hearing any news about the state and government accounting systems being complete. So, some concluded that failures will occur. Well, they either remediated their systems and didn't advertise these efforts, developed "workarounds" for their systems, or for the problems that are occuring, they are finding solutions (not serious enough to make headlines). Let's draw this logic to 1/1/00. We haven't heard from a variety of companies. I still don't think that your points 1 or 2 apply. During the rollover, points 3,4, and 5 will hold true in any combination. The question remains, if April accounting systems are a "percentage" of the total Y2K possible failure rate, then what failures can we expect to see on 1/1/00. How can we extrapolate this data point? My personal take is that it's not a linear relationship but some kind of exponetial. I guess we wait to see what happens during July with other accounting systems.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 23, 1999.

Maria,

I wouldn't hold your breath on accounting software problems in July. If points three, four and five kept reported problems to zero in April, it could do that in July, too.

The problem is, as you said, how to extrapolate failure rates for 1/1/00 based on April 1999. The April situation deals with accounting software. 1/1/00 will take in a lot more territory...non- accounting software, BIOS chips and embedded systems. January 2000 also involves systems dealing with manufacturing and distribution, rather than just accounting.

Let's hope most of this additional territory can be fixed before January 2000.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 23, 1999.