CET: "This has already been posted in another thread, and the comments there apply. This is a consulting group making money off investigating Y2K problems. They are hardly an objective source of information." "Y2K is RIFE with conflict of interest."

You need to expose the cancer docs, dentists who have conned us into check-ups every six months, insurance companies, and oh my, automobile safety inspections.

What about those crooks at the volunteer fire station? Did you know that around here they hand out "fire safety" brochures at the mall.

Leave that pile of oily rags on the newspapers. Fire hazard? What nonsense.

Oh, and the health department tells people about the risks of sexually transmitted disease. I don't know about you but all that sex-talk gets me excited. It's a trick, I tell you. They're just drumming up more business.

Just because the people who know the most about the Y2K problem are muttering that they can't fix things in time, that's not proof there's a problem. It's simply means they're trolling for more money.

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

Answers

You mean like Paula Gordon?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 1999.

Don't forget Jim Lord.

-- -- (youvegotto@be.kidding), April 26, 1999.

Is this the same Cory Hamasaki that i read statements about in his newsletter....if so, are you doing a 180 here? I am confused as to where you're coming from if indeed you are Cory Hamasaki. You have always said there is not enough time and that it would be a good idea to do the survival thing to some degree or another. I understand your point of view about opportunists. Do you have an opinion about where "things" are headed?

sincerely, Feller

-- Feller (Feller@wanna.help), April 26, 1999.

Feller:

Cory is being ironic. He is actually trying to tell us that all dire warnings are truthful and should be taken to heart.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 1999.

Naw, he's just pointing out the silliness of the arguement that nobody with any kind of profit motive can be trused, although Pres Bubba is an exception.

-- art welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), April 26, 1999.

Art is right. Those with profit motives can be trusted to couch their information in the most profitable light. They aren't lying, but they are hardly telling the whole truth either.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 26, 1999.

Well Flint, i've been known to be the last one to figure out irony, sarcasm and jokes. None of the above fits my nature except wierd or word-play jokes since I see life as a wierd phenomena.Y2k only reinforces that point of view...hehe. thanks

sincerely, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), April 26, 1999.

Cory,

Doctors have already been investigated, too many times to count. (Gynecologists schedule more hysterectomies at certain times of the month, stuff like that ...)

Same goes for lots of other folks, from politicians to gas station owners. I guess you think that Y2K Consultants should be considered above reproach. Is that it?

Since you're too busy to talk to me, while we're in a new thread that you started in my honor (and I AM honored) ...

Last week, you stated that you weren't into control systems; your latest WRP has a report on a rail switching yard -- a report which actually illustrates that you know NOTHING of the equipment beyond that computer room.

Do you really believe that there's no way to manually set those electro-mechanical rail switches? (Please say yes.) What do they do now when the computer and/or switching relays fail -- or do you assume they never fail now? :)

So ... maybe I'm just a cynic; I wonder what the motivation is for someone to publish RUMORS like that without bothering to check the facts. Or, to post RUMORS on USENET about a POSSIBLE Y2K problem at an unspecified bank in DC in an effort to support that which, to most open-minded people, has obviously become a failed prediction (ie, the "Jo Anne Effect"). Even Sysman says that he never thought "look-aheads" would be a significant problem.

(We'll side-step the fact that any programmer who discusses the details of work done is violating a confidence, anyway ... and is AUTOMATICALLY suspect, in my book, from the start. I guess NDAs and gentleman's agreements don't mean anything in Y2K work.)

But pardon the interruption; please continue your lecture about virtue. Tomorrow night, we're going to have Gary North speak on how Christians should always tell the truth and never lie. We've got an exciting week lined up ...

http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 26, 1999.

Gee, sounds much like the argument made for not trusting company compliance statements.

Nothing wrong with the profit motive, as long as its upfront and stated. The problem comes when that "doctor" just happens to own the "drug company" that, guess what, makes the "cure" for that rare disease he just diagnosed you with.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 26, 1999.

Cory is talking about his remarks concerning this article:

Link

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), April 26, 1999.

OK darn it, if you guys insist. If you use this logic, at least be consistent and apply it across the board. Let's say: "Follow the money: Y2K is indeed rife with conflicts of interest." For example.

(1) Any government, like any parent, maintains control by authority. Not just by direct threat but by those controlled being generally afraid or unwilling to mutiny and generally unable to summon enough others at the same time to make it practical. A Y2K- oriented social breakdown, where people had nothing to lose and everything to gain by rioting, looting, stealing for survival, and had a great deal of anger as well, could seriously threaten the government's ability to maintain control, collect taxes, support international agendas, etc. Hence, the government has a serious conflict of interest when it comes to relaying information about Y2K to the public, whom they don't want to alarm, or cause to take money out of banks, which itself, in a distressingly small amount per person, could cause the collapse of the country's financial stability. As a result of this, as well as a result of numerous statements that turned out to be untrue or in many cases simply were followed by different statements (or different numbers), I have come to completely distrust anything uttered by the government about Y2K.

(2) Utilities, including electrical and nuclear power, whether public or private, are money making enterprises. Most in fact are corporations, exempt from liability to officers and parceling out shares and bonds. These utilities are double-damned: If shareholders fear Y2K failures and excessive money spent or possible litigation, they may pull out of the enterprise prior to Y2K, which could be harmful to it and could even harm their ability to get as compliant as possible. Similarly, if the general populace believes there may be problems with utilities, they are likely to stock up on propane tanks, generators, wood stoves, and other alternative heating sources, on lanterns and candles, low-wattage lights, and other alternatives to modern lighting, stored food, and many other alternatives to modern power. This could ensure a serious downturn in profits and then market for the utilities come Y2K. Hence, the utilities have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to relaying information about Y2K to the public, whom they don't want to alarm into NOT buying the product the utility is selling, or to relaying info to their shareholders, whom they do NOT want to alarm into selling their stock. As a result of this lose-lose situation they are in, as well as statements which have come to be viewed in retrospect as overly-optimistic to the point of dishonest, I have come to completely distrust anything uttered by utility companies about Y2K.

(3) Corporations face what amounts to a triple-threat. If a corporation should confess that they simply cannot be ready for Y2K, for whatever reason, they risk alienating, offending, or causing the loss to themselves of: (a) Their customers, which could put them out of business even prior to Y2K; (b) their employees, which could cost them a great deal more money, as employees looked for jobs they might hope to retain after the rollover; (c) their shareholders, which might sell stock, causing a drop in share value and loss of earnings. Hence, the utilities have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to relaying information about Y2K to the public or others, whom they don't want to alarm into NOT buying the product they are selling, or into leaving the employer who needs them and can ill afford yet more expenses at this juncture for new trainees, or into selling shares which could devalue the company -- in short, the company itself could be damaged or even could implode entirely, and the senior management responsible for these announcements would definitely be gone too, adding a very personal reason for this hesitance. As a result of this lose-lose situation they are in, I have come to completely distrust anything uttered by corporations (and many "organizations" and "associations" make money and are in this category) about Y2K.

(4) IT Project Managers and truly expert programmers are between a rock and a hard place. If they feel Y2K is really not a big deal, they face such a plethora of job options, as companies attempt to find a true 'expert' who can say something good for their investors / customers / etc. to hear, they would simply never have time to fulfill all these opportunities. If they feel Y2K is a serious danger, they still have job opportunities in remediation or project management. If they don't care about Y2K, they still have job opportunities -- the same type that they have ALWAYS had before the world freaked out about Y2K. Given this, I hesitate to suspect that IT experts are somehow the most "biased" of all the sources that clearly have a conflict of interest when it comes to truthfully disseminating information. In fact, these "experts" generally only got to the point of being considered such because they were well employed and well trained/educated for long enough and to a large enough extent to deserve respect. In which case, I would not expect these people to have difficulty finding a job. I would not expect these SMALL number of people to need to make up grand lies, designed to scare the entire planet, to remain employed. Nor would I expect anybody to be able to pull off the coup of forcing many world governments, corporations, and other groups into spending (in the words of Carl Sagan) BYLLIUNS and BYLLIUNS of dollars on this subject that IT people allegedly are overstating merely so they can hold a job.

Everybody has a conflict of interest with Y2K, because any potentially negative results affect, to some degree, all of us.

Suggestions by some that we cannot trust the experts in IT because they are experts in IT and therefore, being in the field, have a conflict of interest, are ludicrous. Does this mean we cannot trust the suggestions of military generals, who are obviously in a conflict of interest because strategy and even war is part of their career? Does this mean we cannot trust the suggestions of a carpenter or architect, when asking about the design and stability of a house, because they are both in that 'industry' and hence have a conflict of interest? If we do not ask the experts about IT and ES to talk with us about these issues, whom shall we ask? Janitors? Secretaries? Cashiers? Is there anybody who does NOT have a conflict of interest who is actually qualified to give us the answers we seek?

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 26, 1999.

Hey Stephen, why don't you tell us what a brilliant CET like yourself is doing to rid the world of y2k? Has that little soldering iron of yours been busy lately? Cory and I are the ones smack dab in the middle of remediations that are failing, and you want to argue with us that it's not so?

-- a (a@a.a), April 26, 1999.

PJ,

Had to take the cat to the Vet today. While we were there, he tried to sell me his (expensive) Special Diet canned food; his (expensive) Sooper-Dooper 1-month treatment for fleas; and so on.

Nothing wrong with that; it doesn't make him evil. He's a very good vet, too. Knows his job. But I still smiled at him and said, "no thanks" when he started the Sales Pitches. I'll go to WalMart and buy something cheaper, thank you.

Would that the average Doomster would apply a little of same common sense when a Consultant runs in screaming, "you don't KNOW if your computers will work! You need to pay me $$$$$ to check them all and confirm what the vendors have already told you for free!"

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 26, 1999.

I'll go to WalMart and buy something cheaper, thank you-

(You get what you pay for. The flea products at Walmart do not work. Check Consumer Reports.)

-- none (none@none.none), April 26, 1999.

Stephen likes to compare the y2k situation with getting his brakes fixed or his cat neutered. Something tells me we may be dealing with a simple mind here.

-- Anthony (ajenkins@hotmail.com), April 26, 1999.

CET: Last week, you stated that you weren't into control systems; your latest WRP has a report on a rail switching yard -- a report which actually illustrates that you know NOTHING of the equipment beyond that computer room.

What are you talking about? The report on RAILINC?

CET: Do you really believe that there's no way to manually set those electro-mechanical rail switches? (Please say yes.) What do they do now when the computer and/or switching relays fail -- or do you assume they never fail now? :)

If so, you miss the point, again. RAILINC is a database, and by the way, there are a few choo-choo's running around.

Here you miss the point again.

CET: So ... maybe I'm just a cynic; I wonder what the motivation is for someone to publish RUMORS like that without bothering to check the facts.

CET: Or, to post RUMORS on USENET about a POSSIBLE Y2K problem at an unspecified bank in DC in an effort to support that which, to most open-minded people, has obviously become a failed prediction (ie, the "Jo Anne Effect"). Even Sysman says that he never thought "look-aheads" would be a significant problem.

The story about the bank is a rumor of a rumor that we, some here and some in c.s.y2K, are researching. It just happens that I have seen the statement in question.

CET: (We'll side-step the fact that any programmer who discusses the details of work done is violating a confidence, anyway ... and is AUTOMATICALLY suspect, in my book, from the start. I guess NDAs and gentleman's agreements don't mean anything in Y2K work.)

Again, you miss the point. I'm not doing bank work. I'm speaking as a person who saw a very unusual monthly statement. A statment that had an extra $30,000 on it (hey where did that come from?) in January 1999, February 1999, and March 1999 (the March statement is dated Mar 15-Apr 15) Say, could this be what we call, a clue?

I'll write slowly so you can follow. I don't work for the bank. I know the customer who had the mystery $30,000 added to their account balance. I've seen the account statment. It started with the first monthly statement of this year. I think something's going on. I don't think banks just add $30,000 to someone's account balance for laughs.

This has been going on for a three months now.

You might check your statements closely. Maybe keep some cash on hand.

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

none,

You are absolutely right. We usually get the quality we pay for. We had fleas and (yuck! 'nuf said) Nothing worked until I bit the bullet and paid for the vet stuff. Haven't had a flea in two years. (I mean my DOGS haven't had fleas....you know...

-- LindaO (nomorefleas@hotnet.com), April 26, 1999.

Cory, Cory, Cory.... testy, testy, testy...

-- Amused (laughing@you.bet), April 26, 1999.

Very, very good point(s) PJ. Thanks.

The fact is, those who control the media, the media's access to information, the government, and the major corporate structures involved intimately in Y2K remediation (stock markets, banks, finance and insurance in general, chemical and pertochemical and oil, utilities, transportation, and most especially governments have real and credible reasons to lie - and few reasons (other than the public good, which might get these same politicians thrown out of office!) to tell teh truth.

So give me a credible reason to believe people who are proven liars in the past over minor things, major things, and criminal things. WHo DON'T put the American public interests first.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 26, 1999.

CET: "Do you really believe that there's no way to manually set those electro-mechanical rail switches? (Please say yes.) What do they do now when the computer and/or switching relays fail -- or do you assume they never fail now? :)"

This was the subject of a long thread on the old Gary North forum eons ago (specifically, 1997.) Basically the resident polly stated your position above. I came into the thread saying my hobby had been railroading since 1934. By the time 1964 had come around I remember taking my 6 y-o on a trip to the Cedar Hill switching yard in New Haven, CT, on the old NYNY&HRR. I showed him the myriad 'control rods' that fanned out from the 2-story high switching tower. In that tower was a guy whose sole job it was to throw all the various levers, and thus dispatch the various cars over the 'hump' as they were uncoupled by the 'yard switcher' (a special short wheelbase loco) to the appropriate 'ladder track' in the yard.

33 years later I was sitting in front of my PC, responding to the claim essentially the same as yours. Also in front of me was the official New Haven's Engineering Dep't's drawing of the Cedar Hill Yard's switching architecture, confirming my memory of the web of control rods (anywhere from 30 feet to a hundred feet long if I recollect), running to their respective 'turnouts' (what non-RR people call a 'switch.')

My comment to the poster was essentially, "Yes, you can switch the turnouts manually. All you have to do is rebuild the switching tower, find the manufacturer of the control rods, the linkages, and the tower levers. Of course he's long out of business. Then you need to find a switchman, whose got enough experience in general, and in the Cedar Hill yard in particular, to run the tower. Of course, he's long dead &/or retired."

After my post several old RR men came forth and confirmed my explanation -- that in fact manual switching can NOT be done expeditiously, and explained why.

As far as the 2nd part of your post, that question was not asked by the Polly. What would have been my response? Well, I've never heard of 'the computer and/or switching relays fail.' (Isn't that why we computerize industrial processes?) But my quick answer would be, "Well, the yard would transfer the 'classification' process (i.e., the switching) to another part of the yard ladder not affected by 'Sorry, the computer's down' message.'"

Stephen, what part of the American railroad system's operation are you familiar with, that we end up reporting two completely different scenarios? Were you a 'car knocker?' Were you a 'hostler?' If so during what period in American railroading was your tour of duty?

Further, I appreciate your (& Paul Davis') expertise in hardware, discussing the 'embedded chip' problem. Had to brush off the cobwebs of my time spent poring over app and data manuals of linear and digital IC's from NS, Motorola, Fairchild, and Intel back in the '70s. You both impressed me with your knowledge of chip specs & dynamics, and output buffering, bus dynamics, and timing dynamics. Made me ponder your points. It's that kind of background that is needed in discussing y2k issues.

Do you have the same level of knowledge/experience re railroading technology? If not, we need to know why you made such a confident statement? And why we should trust other statements of yours re the y2k problem. Remember, most of the readers here are in DIRE need of reassurance, one way or the other, and they DON'T have the expertise in RR technology that you implied you have.

Here's the biggy about your reporting to this forum: ----- we value your hardware posts -- if we lose confidence in some of your other posts it will somewhat undermine the confidence we place in your 'embedded' analysis. That's a loss for all of us.

Finally, I have just moved to the South (Guess why?) -- I'm your neighbor, just a 50 minute drive east of B'ham on I-65 -- Howdy.

Bill Schenker

-- William J. Schenker, MD (wjs@linkfast.net), April 26, 1999.

Not sure if this'll add any food for thought in the midst of the storm going on here, but I had an interesting experience today at my bank's local branch office (Crestar Bank in Fairfax, Virginia). So I get to the bank and the lobby is closed. At least the drive-thru window and atms were working. When I finally got to the drive-thru teller, I asked what was going on and when they'd open the lobby for business.

The teller told me quickly that all the telephone lines were dead, therefore by some federal regulation, they could not open the lobby for business. I'm assuming that since the alarm wasn't patched to the police department or whoever, this is the reason why the supposed regulation requires that they not open their doors for business. This may be an interesting factor to consider when Y2K hits and if the phones go down in some places. Does anyone know more about this reg?

So I started to wonder what other situations are there where if there is no water or sanitation or phone, a regulation requires that a business must close until these things are back on. In other words, if only one area of the infrastructure goes down (even temporarily) in one particular city, how does that effect business as usual in that city... in terms of other vital parts of the infrastructure. Has anyone considered possible non-Y2K problems triggered by Y2K problems?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), April 26, 1999.

Bill, You left out the fact that there are probably about a dozen guys who remember how to build a train, from scratch. Plus, those dozen guys are a bit older than you, and they have NO WAY to read the barcodes on the cars to determine destinations. Yes, the cars can be switched, and trains built by hand, but OH MY is it gonna be interesting to watch some young buck find out that 40 tonnes doesn't push around like a Lincoln!!

Chuck, who was once aflicted with a good friend who is a rail fan and still owns a share of a caboose, with the N&StL/Pickens decal on her. (somewhere in the Northeast)

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 26, 1999.

Robert,

The fact is, those who control the media, the media's access to information, the government, and the major corporate structures involved intimately in Y2K remediation (stock markets, banks, finance and insurance in general, chemical and pertochemical and oil, utilities, transportation, and most especially governments have real and credible reasons to lie - and few reasons (other than the public good, which might get these same politicians thrown out of office!) to tell teh truth.

I love the turn this argument is taking: "yeah, well, everyone has a conflict of interest, so what's one more in the overall mix?" Great defense.

I don't have a direct conflict of interest in Y2K; I'm not making any money off of it (unless you count the little bit of work that I've done in my broadcast facility as a -- minor -- part of my job). I pay for my Web site; I'm here on my own time. I consider it a public service. [g]

I am challenging statements which I believe to be contrary to fact (not to mention common sense), and look at the way I'm being treated here. I am challenging bad information -- like your repeat of the old bromide, "too many (embedded systems) to check in time!" when YOU, of all people, should know better.

We're really talking about professional responsibility here. Nobody's perfect; I don't expect perfection. But I do expect professionalism.

http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Cory,

Like I said, nobody's perfect, and we should be professionals -- which includes admitting mistakes. If I confused you, it's because I took the railroad story from what I was led to believe was a recent issue of WRP; in fact, it came from 1997.

William corrected me, and I stand corrected.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Bill,

It's pretty enough here in Birmingham; you're up in the Real Mountains, where it's even prettier. :)

I didn't (and don't) claim to have any special knowledge of railroad switching networks; like you, I rely on what I'm told by others who do work in that field. You need to understand something: what I'm addressing is the contention that, if computerized systems fail, we'll stand around and say, "whadd'll we do," and then just give up and go home.

The idea presented by Doomsters is that if this particular computer system fails, the railroads will be knocked out of service for an extended period of time. It's THAT contention that I take issue with.

The electromechanical switches that move the tracks do so in response to electrical signals. All you have to do is duplicate those signals. It might be messy, and UL might refuse to list it [g], but the trains will keep rolling.

(There's also the fact that tracks can be moved by hand. All it takes is a big pole to pry it with. And I KNOW about this one, because I grew up next to the tracks in NC, and watched the maintenance men do it whenever an automated switch failed. [g])

One of my favorite Y2K articles is Dick Mill's discussing how a black power grid can be restarted, one plant at a time. Even though I don't always agree with Dick, I enjoyed that article (over at the Westergaard site; if you're interested, I'll post the URL) because it illustrates the kind of ingenuity that will be applied to what Y2K failures we DO have in January.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Yep, this is AMERICA dammit! We can do ANYTHING!!!

-- Optomistic (optomistic@pieinthesky.com), April 27, 1999.

I've got motive for working on Y2K. I'm trying to keep my company in business, so they can give me a pay check every week. Any my company also has motive. We are trying to keep our clients in business, so they can pay our invoices every month. Profit motive? I guess you could call it that. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

http://www.uprr.com/y2k/2kprojct.shtml

[snip]

Year 2000 Project Status

Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure

(Last edited April 9, 1999)

Overview

The Year 2000 compliance project ("Y2K") at Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific") includes software (internally developed and purchased), hardware and embedded chips inside equipment and machinery. Union Pacific's enterprise-wide project encompasses computer systems and equipment in two data centers and a telecommunications network with thousands of personal computers, 3270 terminals, radios, telephones connected with land lines, microwave, fiber optics, and satellite links for data and voice communications spread over 23 states. Equipment containing embedded computer chips includes locomotives, automated train switching systems, computer aided train dispatching systems, signaling systems, computerized fueling stations, weigh-in-motion scales, cranes, lifts, PBX systems, elevators, and computerized monitoring systems throughout Union Pacific. In addition to the equipment described above, Union Pacific is dependent on 72 million lines of code in mainframe systems, over 100 newer client/server applications with 8 million lines of code, and millions of daily EDI transactions with customers, vendors and other railroads plus services from hundreds of service providers.

Union Pacific's approach to this complex enterprise-wide project was to divide it into five sub-projects, and develop enterprise Year 2000 contingency plans:

Mainframe Systems (Completed in 1998)

Client Server Systems (Critical completed in 1998, remaining systems 60% complete)

User Department Developed Systems (99% complete)

Vendor Supplied Software, Hardware & Embedded Systems (72% complete)

Electronic Commerce and EDI Systems (Completed in 1998)

Year 2000 Contingency Plans (Currently undergoing internal audits)

[snip]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 1999.

Last point first - the railroad. Good - they (one company) are making progress. (Applaude, applaude...which are well and truly earned)

Where is everybody else? Where are the other 499 of the Fortunate 500, the top 50,000, the top 5,000,000 companies?

Money. You're claiming above that "we" collectively should explicitly NOT trust the "so-called" experts because youo claim they have a financial interest in increasing Y2K awareness, and thus they are making money off of other people's preparations.

I'm pointing out that the "Serious" money - the billions in the stock market, and the trillions taken in by taxes, and (most important) the political lives of the unscrupulous (mostly Democrat) administration bureacrats is far more likely to "corrupt" someone's opinion, his public policies, and his public pronouncements.

Further, I pointed out (correctly) that htese same administration bureacrats have several times, already put their party's re-election ahead of the public good, and (in my opinion) ahead of the country's good.

Therefore, my conclusion stands based on my judgement and observations - they (the administration) got us in this situation through inaction and a lack of early awareness, they are exploiting it now, they are hiding and manipulating the news about potential Y2K troubles now, and they are systematically using the troubles to expand their own agenda(s).

The "Y2K experts" I listen to and respect (who are not all of the whole crowd) are not doing these things. Most importantly, they are not exaggerating the potential troubles, nor are they making illegal or immoral profits from my family's preparations.

The administration you are propping up is, however, taking illegal money, is taking illegal bribes, is lying to the public, is manipulating the news, ....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), April 27, 1999.

Before coming to this forum, I heard Mr. Hamaski's name used by others as a source. With all due respect, I find Mr. Hamaski one of the least compelling of the Y2K "experts." (Gary North, with his desire to overthrow the Republic and replace it with an Old Testamant theocracy, is automatically in last place) Mr. Hamaski tends to rant, and I do not find his "over-the-top" style very convincing. While I do not agree with Mr. Yourdon and his application of software metric to Y2K remediation, he has been civil and raises thoughtful points. This is not meant as a personal attack... Mr. Hamaski may be a wonderful person. But when you become an oft quoted Y2K expert, you move into the realm of public figure. Sorry, I just expected more.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 27, 1999.

Optimistic,

You're speaking tongue in cheek, but that's really a big part of the problem: Doomsters have lost their optimism.

It's no mystery that a lot of the people who are worried about Y2K also don't like Bill Clinton. A significant number are Christians who feel (in one riff or another) that God is going to "judge" this nation.

I touch on this at my Web site, particularly in the page Whatever Happened To Faith at my Website (there's a separate link to a page that looks at Christian Reconstruction in particular). I'm going to update to include this "we're doomed because God is mad at us" thing in general.

The next millennium should be exciting, what with reopened exploration of space, cures for diseases that are harming too many people now, and lots of other good things.

Yes, there will be bad things, too. I wonder -- along with some other cynics -- if America will remain determined to follow the Roman Empire's model of rise and collapse (if so, we're in the late Republican era now). (See, I can be cynical when I have to. [g])

That doesn't change the facts about Y2K. Are there real computer bugs? Yup. Will some computer systems have problems? Yup. Will this kill us, usher in a 10-year depression and all that other stuff? Nope.

How can I say that?

Because if society (and the power grid, and the food distribution system, and JIT scheduling, and [insert example here]) were as "fragile" as implied by Y2K'ers, then Hurricane Fran would have killed us all. That thing did billions in damage, put major corporations and vendors out of business for weeks, disrupted schedules and deliveries (including the main Amtrack(tm) line through NC) for quite some time, wiped out entire species of wildlife, and cast a good portion of the Southeast into the dark for a WHILE.

Or, pick another natural disaster: flooding in the midwest, widespread wildfires, you name it. If things were as fragile as the Doomsters say they are, we'd ALREADY be dead.

*THINK*, people!

THINK.

OK, so I have a guy coming into my house selling insurance. Is he going to tell me that I don't really need it? Of course not. He wants to sell insurance. But there's obviously a conflict of interest there, so I need to watch the sales pitch carefully, or he's gonna sell me more insurance than a I need.

Same thing applies here. That's all I'm saying. When some Y2K Consultant writes an article or testifies to The Clueless Club in Washington about how he "suspects" that 6.54% of all WibbleWobbles are "non-compliant" (whatever that means THIS week), he wants to line his pockets. Doesn't mean he's lying. Doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs to be fixed.

But son, even your Grandaddy would've told you to take him with a grain of salt, wouldn't he? And not to believe every word out of his mouth .. . .. .... ?

THINK, people.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

OK, Cory, you have a statement with an unexplained $30,000 on it. But there's no link to this and Y2K, aside from your _assumption_ that there's something to Jo Anne Slaven's "Effect," and the coincidence that it seems to have happened in January.

Tell me what the odds are that a Y2K date calculation would magically insert _precisely_ $30,000 dollars into an account, without touching any of the other accounts (you haven't mentioned any other statements with problems).

If ya'll ever come down heah, I take you out for a Sneaky Pete(tm) hot dog and tell you about the time an insurance company "accidentally" drafted about $2000 from my account. (Which is one reason why I won't let anyone -- regardless of race, creed, religion or political orientation -- have draft authority on my account anymore[g].)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

In reply to those who were asking about train knowledge - I was sampling and loading quite a few of them back in the period from 78- 82 or thereabouts. (I have posted a bit of a bio on a thread here somewhere, maybe someone remembers where?) There are several types of trains - but for the purposes of this discussion we only need two - trains whose loads are going to a single destination (called unit trains) and trains whose loads are split to several destinations. Unit trains are the trains which are loaded at a grain elevator or mine and are contracted to go to a particular location. Since no one can predict mining conditions from one day to another, the contracts deal with so many thousand tons per quarter or month. The train (same cars most of the time) shows up, you keep it till you load it (if you have a fast loading system the engine sticks around, otherwise it leaves till you have the train loaded and ready), then the engine takes it to Georgia Power or whoever. Unit trains are the ones that keep power and food running around the country in massive quantities - and don't require much switching as the same cars make the same trip almost all the time. You can argue about the others all you want, unit trains can certainly go through without a lot of hassle as not much switching is required.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

Stepehen exhorts us to *THINK*, so here's a thought, (though God! it's remedial.) Hurricane Fran was local, y2k is global. And although it may have impacted USA-centre of the universe, it was still not at anything like the scale that y2k will be. Most of the effected businesses and people had hurricane insurance, nobody has y2k insurance. And if you think things are SO robust now, have a little look at that little "Asian economic crisis" still rolling over many countries. And ah, Kosovo - proof that international affairs are under control and in good hands. And, while we're off the subject, if we cannot at all believe the 6.8% emb.sys assessment because it comes from capitalists, where oh where else are we going to get some better info?

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 27, 1999.

This addresses several comments in this thread.

The reason the WRP's and such are "rants" is multifold. Essentially, I'm a funny guy. But if you want, I can drone on like they do on Wester-raag; you know the writing style, huge blocks of clueless nattering, a woman would fall asleep before you got her clothes off, if you talked like they write.

CET was looking at a 1997 WRP Rail article. In general, the WRPs are well ahead of the pack on exposing issues, rail, commercial shipping, GPS ground segment, tm_year, banking, SVC-11, hospitals, the AS/400 in warehouses; there's a much longer list. In general an issue is raised in a WRP, it runs around USENET, garynorth picks it up, the denial butt-heads refute it, Ko-Skin-em screams, "It's not a problem." The GAO says, "well, yes it is." The print press picks it up, Wester-raag regurgitates it, and the cycle continues.

The cycle continues and understanding improves, or the issue is muddied depending on your point of view.

I hate to pick on CET because he's a sincere guy but he's probably a red-head, they pride themselves on being hot heads. I should tell you about the time in the 1970's when I was fooling around with a red-head geekette, what a temper. Whew, that was a clean get-away.

Anyway, the extra amount on the statement isn't exactly $30K and it's different every month due to deposits and interest. As for whether it's Jo Anne, lithe love goddess of Y2K, savaging the bank, I don't know. It might be Bozo the QA clown, slamming a system into production to make December 31, 1998 so he can have a full year for testing.

CET, we need to press the system reset button on your neck. You are reading things into the articles that are not there. Strike one, I was reporting inside info from a bank. Strike two, the amount was exactly 30,000. Strike three, this is claimed as proof of JAE.

...but anyone who has a cat, is OK by me. I like it when neighbors let their cats roam, I'll lure them over and teach them to sit, sit up, and shake hands. I learned that from a book on cat training, I haven't been able to teach a cat to use a toilet though.

I've had two separate neighors comment on their cat's new skills. One thought her cat was a genius, the other thought her cats were "starving, greedy pigs, they've started begging for food."

-- cory, known trouble maker (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), April 27, 1999.

Cory,

It is impossible to push a cat into a commode. It won't happen. The cat will grow extra feets and legs, if need be, to prevent it from happening. This much I do know.

Check out the bank thing. If it is a JAE event, tell us. If it's not, tell us that, too.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

humpty,

Hurricane Fran was local, y2k is global.

But the effects should be scattered into regional areas. That's probably the most significant testimony coming from the Gurus and Prophets now (assuming we can believe them yet).

A hurricane does the same thing -- hammering some Carribean islands, then moving either up the Atlantic seaboard or through the Gulf into the deep South. The effects are regional, but have world-wide impact. Losses are losses.

Besides, you missed the point, which I'll repeat: if everything was so fragile that a disruption in services, JIT deliveries, power, etc., etc., could bring EVERYTHING down, then a severe storm or other natural disaster should have already done it.

it was still not at anything like the scale that y2k will be.

You don't know that. Remember, the latest line from the Gurus is that the West will probably weather Y2K with only a few problems; it's the Rest Of The World that we're worried about. But the fact is, the rest of the world simply isn't as dependent on computers as we are.

And if you think things are SO robust now, have a little look at that little "Asian economic crisis" still rolling over many countries.

Yeah, that's a good example. We were told two years ago that it would cause all sorts of economic problems here. Our economy continues to boom. Imagine that; the Economics Gurus were wrong. :)

if we cannot at all believe the 6.8% emb.sys assessment because it comes from capitalists, where oh where else are we going to get some better info?

From the people who actually work with the equipment each day, and who have been shouting from the beginning that the Y2K Consultants are blowing the problem all out of proportion. Up until recently, their complaints fell mostly on deaf ears.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

Mr Poole,

The litter box is moved to the seat of the toilet. Then, through a series of incremental reductions in litter box size, the cat is trained to do it's duty into the open hopper. Be sure to remember to leave the lid up.

No, I've not the patience for the task, mine goes outside.

Regards,

-- Mr Deedah (questions@toask.com), April 27, 1999.

cory, don't ever change your style. i get more enjoyment from reading your 'rants' than from almost anything else on the net, just hits a resonant frequency, i guess.

'i may be wonderful, but i think you're crazy' - groucho marx

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), April 27, 1999.

Stan - yesterday (while I was in virus avoidance mode), you asked:

...what other situations are there where if there is no water or sanitation or phone, a regulation requires that a business must close until these things are back on. In other words, if only one area of the infrastructure goes down (even temporarily) in one particular city, how does that effect business as usual in that city...?

I work in a high rise (45 floors). We lost water (and therefore sewer and fire sprinklers) last year when a construction project sliced into the main. It was fixed after a few hours, but we were very close to being shut down because of the public health hazard. There are any number of reasons why a high rise would have to shut down if everything weren't working just right. Power rationing (one of NERC's recommended contingency plans) would probably do it. I have asked my company to pay more attention to the status of the buildings' systems, since I can see a lot of reasons, including unreliability of the public transportation network, I might be temporarily out of work next January.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), April 27, 1999.

How is it that some people can compare the upcoming y2k event to a hurricane or winter storm?

CET said:Hurricane Fran was local, y2k is global.

But the effects should be scattered into regional areas. That's probably the most significant testimony coming from the Gurus and Prophets now (assuming we can believe them yet). A hurricane does the same thing -- hammering some Carribean islands, then moving either up the Atlantic seaboard or through the Gulf into the deep South. The effects are regional, but have world-wide impact. Losses are losses.

I fail to see how to dots all fit together here? Comparing a global event to a regional event? What is missing in this arguement?

-- lisa_in_cedar (efchange@hotmail.com), April 27, 1999.

Stephen,

I'll repost this here, since it seems to be more on topic in this thread, so ignore the other one if you wish.

Aren't you the one that keeps jumping on people for speaking outside their area of expertise? Yet you keep bringing up the profit motive and these "Y2K consultants." Are you one? What do you know about them? How many of them are there? We have none at my company. None at any of our clients, as far as I know. I've never met one, and I know quite a few people in the business after 31 years.

I've got motive for working on Y2K. I'm trying to keep my company in business, so they can give me a pay check every week. And my company also has motive. We are trying to keep our clients in business, so they can pay our invoices every month. Profit motive? I guess you could call it that. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 27, 1999.

STEPHEN M. POOLE, CET, IS A POMPOUS SELF-DELUDED, LOUD MOUTH, GENUINE ASSHOLE OF THE FIRST ORDER. Now, I feel much better:)

-- Curious (anon@anon.com), April 27, 1999.

SORRY STEPHEN M.POOLE I MEANT TO SAY *I* AM A POMPOUS SELF-DELUDED, LOUD MOUTH, GENUINE ASSHOLE OF THE FIRST ORDER.

-- Curious (anon@anon.com), April 27, 1999.

Stephen said "But the effects should be scattered into regional areas". Ok, hands up everybody that doesn't live in a "regional area". You've got nothing to worry about.

Stephen said " if everything was so fragile that a disruption in services, JIT deliveries, power, etc., etc., could bring EVERYTHING down, then a severe storm or other natural disaster should have already done it" Storm effected areas get put back on their feet by help from non-storm effected areas. Such help probably will be very late or non-existant if most everyone has been hit by this "hurricane". Plus, if the y2k storm has hit most everywhere, then the world will be in a state of emergency and people won't have the resources or the normal motivation to help out those most afflicted. They'll be busy trying to save their own skin, or trying to ensure it for next month and the next month. A non-existant banking sector will probably hamper the economics of the repairs a little, IMHO.

I'd said "it was still not at anything like the scale that y2k will be." And Stephen said " You don't know that." While yeah, the "scale" of the y2k impact is in doubt, what I meant by "scale" was that it's going to effect pretty much every country at pretty much the same time, something which no hurricane or other natural disaster ever does. ("Tell that to the dinosaurs!" "yeah, whatever.")

Stephen said "Remember, the latest line from the Gurus is that the West will probably weather Y2K with only a few problems; it's the Rest Of The World that we're worried about. But the fact is, the rest of the world simply isn't as dependent on computers as we are." Clearly your gurus are different to my gurus. Only a few problems??? A few is three, right? Ok, 1. total economic meltdown. 2.pandemonium. 3.no solution any time soon. The rest of the world might not have peecees everywhere nor internet-connected microwave ovens, but they do have computers running in most of their important enterprises. Maybe you were thinking of Mongolia and Chad, but I was thinking of Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Bulgaria etc etc. They aren't as dependent on computers as the wEst is, but they ARE sufficiently dependent on computers that widespread y2k failures would cripple their country. My dear friends at the CIA tell us that 73 or so countries face widespread y2k failures. Think it through.

Stephen said " We were told two years ago that it would cause all sorts of economic problems here. Our economy continues to boom. Imagine that; the Economics Gurus were wrong. :)" I get the impression that "us" and "we" only refer to Americans for you Stephen. For me they refer to the humans. The economic crisis has made life way tougher for a couple hundred million of us. It's still grinding down weaker countries, and it's contagion has not passed. America is easily the richest country, and so has the best insulation. But you/we came pretty close with that LTCM episode.

On the chip question, Stephen said "From the people who actually work with the equipment each day, and who have been shouting from the beginning that the Y2K Consultants are blowing the problem all out of proportion. Up until recently, their complaints fell mostly on deaf ears. " This is halfway towards being a very good answer. Only problem is that there are other people who work with them everyday who agree with the consultants, and other more independent assessors, eg coast guard, who say the numbers are even worse within their field of dealings.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), April 27, 1999.

Humpty, circular argument. Name these other engineers -- remember, I don't want Y2K Consultants, I want actual hands-on engineers -- who work with the equipment every day and who say that the embedded problem is worse than, say, Gartner Group is reporting now.

Name them. Don't give me, "I know a guy who knows a guy who wants to remain anonymous, and he sez aliens crawled into his embedded system and killed 5 people."

If there's really that much disagreement over the scope of the problem, you should have no difficulty in meeting this request.

Better yet, start spending a little time over at the Debunking Y2K Webboard, where plenty of these people hang out. I've been commended for coming here to get both points of view; now you do the same.

http://www.wwjd.net/smpoole

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 27, 1999.

cory,

the only reason your cynicism works with Y2K is because everyone is hungry for info.

take away y2k and most people would tell you to take your rants back behind the glass of the server room

you probably got your cynicism from spending too much time there anyway

you can take your cynicism and your stereotyping (eg. QA Bozo) and shove it

and i got news for you too...people in the Shenandoah Valley don't like city-slickers coming in and building bunkers either.

-- u cause trouble but u dont take responsibility (bye@for.now), April 27, 1999.

I would be interested in the opinion of Hoff, CET, RMS, and all the other big brains around the forum on the impact of the Chernobyl virus, being discussed on another thread. It seems that about a million computers overseas had their hard drives wiped clean yesterday by the itty bitty bug that only affects PCs, and of those, only those with Windows 3.1/95/98. The economic impact is still being assessed, but the term disaster is being used in many of the affected countries.

Just another example of how easily computing threats can be underestimated by the overly optimistic and technically illiterate.

-- a (a@a.a), April 27, 1999.

Cory: I haven't been able to teach a cat to use a toilet though.

[chuckle] Many years ago, long before I met my lovely wife, my girlfriend had a cat who perched up on the rim of the toilet to do his duty. When he was done he took a few swipes with his paw at the flush lever. Smart cat ... no one had to teach him, he just copied the experts.

[/chuckle] Unlike the interminable debates between socialists and capitalists, or between supporters and opponents of Richard III, this particular debate will end on schedule. During the last week of December, when enough snoozing citizens wake up and say to themselves, What if Corys right, maybe I better mosey over to Luckys for a weeks worth of tuna, and small riots break out in the parking lot (where theyre lined up waiting to get in like it was a rock concert or something), Stephen will be on the net saying "This is all Corys fault! He caused this panic!" and Cory will be saying "Well no, idiot, I told them to prepare in 1998. This is what I was trying to prevent," as the gendarmes drag him off to Lorton.

The debate will go on right up to midnight. Then we find out whos right.

My money is on Cory. Every day I log onto the net and poke around for awhile. Every day I find a new clue. Heres the clue from yesterday:

HCFA Administrator Nancy-Ann Min DeParle, however, said less than 1 percent of Medicare software would be changed over the next few months. She acknowledged that HCFA got a late start on Y2K but said, "We are doing much better than most people would have a right to expect on a plan jammed into 18 months." [Washington Post (he res the thread)].

Read between the lines here, folks. Its not rocket science. Shes telling us shes going to fail. If I were a doctor, Id be worried about my income. If I were a person who uses a doctor, Id be hoping he/shes willing to work without pay for a few months while Ms. DeParle gets things straightened out.

-- Alan Rushby (arushby@my-dejanews.com), April 27, 1999.

Shes telling us shes going to fail. If I were a doctor, Id be worried about my income. If I were a person who uses a doctor, Id be hoping he/shes willing to work without pay for a few months while Ms. DeParle gets things straightened out.

Yep. Doctors and nurses and janitors and everyone who gets paid or reimbursed by the government for health care will have to work without pay for a few months. Not bloody likely.

-- Doug (djohnso1@vastar.com), April 27, 1999.

The cat ets taught to flush by the same kit as it gets taught to go. The flush mode is simply the scratch to cover move. If my cats were using the toilet, they would flush automatically (you should see the walls next to the litter boxes (OY!))

Chuck, who pays rent for 50+/- pounds of feline on 12 feet

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 28, 1999.

Look here, this is all interesting, but for failure to have catastrophic results it has to occur over much/most of a given sector of the economy. The question of 'will BP tank' has no meaning in this context. The correct question is 'will so many of the major oil companies tank that fuel shortages reach a point of causing a massive problem'. Same thing applies to every other part of the economy/infrastructure. You could bring down at least 1500 of the 7000 plus power plants in the US without causing power shortages for instance - around 20% will be off line much of the time just for scheduled maintainence. Other things are redundant in similar ways.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

>>You could bring down at least 1500 of the 7000 plus power plants in the US without causing power shortages for instance - around 20% will be off line much of the time just for scheduled maintainence. Other things are redundant in similar ways. <<

Mr. Davis, this is an outrageous statement. I don't have the time right now to point out how wrong it is, but I hope someone will take you to task for it. I will simply ask: If 20% is off line "much of the time" then how large an *additional* percentage could the system lose without disruption?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 28, 1999.

Paul,

Look what happened to gas prices in CA, and the rest of the country, because of problems at only 2 refineries.

Look at the recent generator explosion, the one that was blamed on a hydrogen leak. One of five generators was down for maintenance. Yes, 20% but not the entire plant. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

Sysman, you know perfectly well from your own experience that gas prices inflate on excuse. If you live in CA, tell me whether or not the prices stayed up till the refineries were back on line, or came down before then.

Remember the memory crisis of 95/96? Supposedly, just as memory hog Windows 95 was about to be pushed out the door, a plastic factory in Japan caught fire. This plant produced epoxy for making chips - the epoxy they wrap around the actual silicon to protect it. This caused a shortage, and memory prices about tripled for several months, just as memory was in high demand. Thing is, no one at ZD could find a picture of the plant, a picture of the fire, or even confirm the story except through the original press release. Some of the staffers over there actually printed that they think the whole thing was a scam. Don't know about that, do know that a small plant down the road from my house, that specialized in special epoxy mixes, was looking hard for business at that exact time, and not finding any contracts. This kind of price gouging DOES happen.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), April 28, 1999.

"Bump in the Road" is not as simple as the polly's want us to think.

It really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I mean really, what does it mean. If I was on a hay wagon rolling over a field, a bump in the road is what I just rolled over. Now, if I'm in the supermarket parking lot the bump in the road is there to make me slow down (or take evasive action). No big deal. Now If I'm at the Indianapolis 500, a bump in the road causes instant, smoky, and streaking destruction which could possibly remove 2 to 10 other twisted vehicles from the road.

So, which is it. Are we like the monstrous hay wagon, the auto in the parking lot, or Indy car streaking along @200 +/- mph? THIS is what the debate comes down to. There will be failures -- i.e. bumps.

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), April 28, 1999.

Stephen, you asserted that the hands-on embedded system experts say it's no big deal. I asserted that there are hands-on embedded systems experts who say it is a big deal. What the hell is circular about that? It's pretty apparent that a study of reasoning and argument isn't a requirement at Certfied Enema Technician college.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), May 01, 1999.

FROM:JOHN GEZI EMAIL-johngezi200@hotmail.com

Hello,

URGENT BUSINSS ASSISTANCE

My name is Mr JOHN GEZI the elder son of Mr. ANTHONY GEZI,of Zimbabwe. It might be a surprise to you where I got your contact address, I got it from South African information bureau. During the current crises against the farmers of Zimbabwe by the supporters of our President Robert Mugabe to claim all the white owned farms in our country, he ordered all the white farmers to surrender their farms to his party members and their followers.

My father was one of the best farmers in the country and knowing that he did not support the presidents political ideology, the presidents supporters invaded my fathers farm burnt down everything, shot him and as a result of the wounds sustained, he became sick and died after two days. And after his death, I with my younger Brother decided to move out of Zimbabwe for the safety of our lives to South-Africa.

BUT, before he died HE WROTE HIS WILL, which reads "(MY BELOVEED SON ,I WISH TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SUM OF ($25,000,000=00). MILLION U.S DOLLARS WHICH I DEPOSITED IN A BOX WITH A SECURITY COMPANY IN JOHANNESBURG (SOUTH-AFRICA). IN CASE OF MY ABSENCE ON EARTH CAUSED BY DEATH ONLY". You should solicit for reliable foreign partner to assist you to transfer this money out of South Africa for investment purpose. I deposited the money in your name and it can be claimed by you alone with the deposit code. Your mother has all the documents. Take good care of your mother and brother." From the above, you will understand that the lives and future of my family depends on this money.As much, I will be very grateful if you can assist us. I with my younger brother are now living in South-Africa as POLITICAL ASYLUM SEEKERS and the financial law of SOUTH-AFRICA does not allow ASYLUM SEEKERS certain financial rights to take out of south africa such huge amount of money .In view of this, I cannot invest this money in South-Africa, hence I am asking you to assist me transfer this money out of South-Africa for investment purposes. For your efforts, I am prepared to offer you 30% of the total fund, While 10% will be set used to refund for local and international expenses and 60% will be kept for me and my family . Finally modalities on how the transfer will be done will be conveyed to you once we establish trust and confidence between ourselves. Looking forward to your urgent reply .For detailed information.

NOTE: THE KEY WORD TO THIS TRANSACTION IS ABSOLUTE CONFIDENTIALITY AND SECRECY. THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% RISK FREE. YOUR URGENT RESPONSE WILL BE HIGHLY APPRECIATED.

BEST REGARDS,

JOHN GEZI

(FOR THE FAMILY).

-- johngezi (johngezi200@hotmail.com), November 01, 2004.