New book out from Dave Hunt, sample TOC below (hey it features quotes from all our favorite characters, Gary, the 2 Eds, everybody 'cept you Cory sorry guess you aren't enough of a doomster to rate refutation by Dave... ??) I present this neutrally, just for your comprehensive info, everybody needs to stay plugged in to every possible influence from whatever direction.

• Worldwide Chaos and Disaster?
• Panic, Stock Up, and Arm ?
• Could It Really be that Bad ?
• A Calm Appraisal
• The Church's Finest Hour ? Or Greatest Folly ?
• A Biblical Rejection of Y2K Disaster
• A Contrary Scenario
• The Christian Response
  
  -- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 24, 1999

Answers

off

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), April 24, 1999.

Jesus said to them: "Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, proclaiming that I am the Christ, and will deceive many" (Matt. 24:4-5).

-- First Seal (revelation@white.horse), April 25, 1999.

it's great irony that the y2k design flaw coincides with melinnial kookyness...a lot of people who would look into y2k and make an adult decision to make common sence preparations are doing nothing because the media always associate y2k preparation with fringe mellinium nutbags and the one thing that terrifies a status-quo-joe-normal is being with any thing ''wierd".that is why many see the media as practicing "spin-control"

-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 25, 1999.

Read/skimmed the book in anhour at Borders --- don't waste your time. Nothing new and a few quirky things. Definitely a "it can't happen here" approach.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), April 25, 1999.

Blue barks: "everybody 'cept you Cory sorry guess you aren't enough of a doomster to rate refutation by Dave... ??)"

I've wondered about that. Here's the deal, everyone in Y2K knows me but few dare to link to my site or quote me.

The possible reasons are, I don't fall into either camp (except I strongly agree with Ed Yourdon and Steve Heller.); I'm willing to duke it out with people, call em names; I'm more on the side of the geek in the trenches and the poor joker who is working for a living than management; the general run of the mill, bombastic pontificator isn't quite sure what I'm saying.

Read through sites like Westergaard or the popular press, then take a look at the WRPs, they're not sure that there is a problem. I'm absolutely sure there is.

They talk about 3 days or a year (depending on their spin) and don't quite have the threads tied together but pretend to. I tell you that this is "non-computable". Something bad is about to happen, I don't know what.

What I like about Ed Yourdon (and Steve Heller) is that they have a public presence, technical expertise, and they have put their reputations on the line.

I don't have as much at stake as they do. I'm a down to the bare metal programmer who has some decent academics. If Y2K is a fizzle (and it won't be.) I'll still earn a good living cranking code, eating donuts, hanging out with the geekette babes.

If Y2K goes milne or Infomagic, I lose by consulting practice, my mainframe, and I end up scratching out a living in the Shennandoah valley. This is a real possibility, an order of magnitude more likely than you getting into an automobile accident in the next year.

We'll see soon enough.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), April 26, 1999.

Cory, that would actually be "Blue mewed", not barked, as a feline I resemble that remark. I am for you sir!

No seriously, when I wrote "not enough of a doomster", I did not mean "of insufficient standing in the y2k community", I meant "not suffciently pessimistic on a fully consistent basis, with attendant uniformly alarmist rhetoric". In other words, you have a sense of humor. Ah, the sublime vagueness of natural language !

I actually like the wrp's and hope to contribute an essay "Blue Himalayan's Experience of Y2K" to the very first issue of next year, am plucking a goose, sharpening the quill, and rolling the papyrus even as we speak...

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), April 26, 1999.

Dave Hunt has made it his life's work to criticize and condemn others. Quite frankly, it's hard to take the man seriously. Everything is evil, it seems, except that which he perceives is truth through his tiny self-centered spectacles.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), April 26, 1999.

Zoob:

it's great irony that the y2k design flaw coincides with melinnial kookyness...

No coincidence, sez me. Guess we'll find out later, eh?

-- Grrr (grrr@grrr.net), April 26, 1999.

cory is right when he says y2k is "non-computable." i say it is statistically unforecastable. by that i mean the number of variables is so high that the combination thereof is literally infinite, and therefore no outcome can be predicted with any degree of reliability.

-- drew parkhill/cbn news (y2k@cbn.org), April 26, 1999.