Chicken Little's thread below rapidly degenerated into name-calling warfare, when in actuality it deserves some more considered response.

I'll provide some response -- without the constant use of terms that are designed to label the opposing viewpoint, e.g., "doomer" is used to deny that anyone holding the point of view that Y2K will be a problem has gone way out on the limb. CL's thread is ripe with the use of terms such as this, then he gets his feathers ruffled when he gets attacked.

Actually, CL is guilty of exactly the things for which he blames others. Yes, there are some who post here who can't (won't) stay on topic, and who made up their minds long ago about the severity and effects of Y2K (total destruction, no problem), and who just like to run their keyboards. However, most feel:

a. There will be problems

b. They're searching for the effects of those problems on their own lives. Some are seeking information, others provide it.

c. Although the data available on a daily basis changes, most of it should be received and compared against a set of expectations, not absolutes. The real question isn't "where are we?" It's "Where are we, compared to where we need to be?"

These are the ones CL ignores with his thread, because although he pays lip service to such people, he rapidly degenerates into abuse of motives and personality: everyone who maintains a Y2K web site and doesn't think things will be is profitting from Y2K. This is accompanied by a rant telling us how much such people should stew in the hell he (CL) feels they deserve. This profit motive argument has been around a long time, and has been so thoroughly discredited that it is demeaning to those who drag it out every month.

CL ignores the fact that when most people began to form opinions, (months ago), they factored 'good news' into the equation. This is why I say that the news of today should be compared against status we feel should be achieved. Certainly few (if any) thought that no one would be compliant by rollover. Certainly, all expected to see announcements of readiness. In fact, the Gaussian distribution of such announcements (bell-shaped curve) was discussed. In other words, companies and agencies should be announcing compliance by now if we are to avoid total devestation. They are, as expected.

But, CL doesn't touch the real questions -- the ones that cause many of us to doubt that the rollover period is going to be nothing more than a walk in the park. Things are getting done. How much is getting done -- or more importantly, how much is not going to get done, and will not get done, without error, by the time it's needed.

Example: the federal announcement of x% compliance, accompanied by data that indicates compliance relates only to self defined mission critical systems, and that a large increase in x was only obtained by a correspondingly large decrease in the number of systmes deemed mission critical.

CL (and many others) love to point out that computer errors occur daily. By extrapolation, we are supposed to believe that errors that occur because of Y2K will cause only minor problems. This will be true only if only a few errors occur, and if they occur in non-mission critical applications.

A large number of error, even in non-mission critical applications, will be hard to fix because the errors can mask each other. A small number of errors in mission critical applications can cause the demise of a company.

Now, the recent postings of those who deny major problems will occur also deny that companies going under is really a societal problem. Just as computer errors occur daily, so do companies fold daily, replaced by new, more vigourous, more inventive businesses, say our denialists.

[When was the last time you saw a Fortune 500 company fold?]

Any company that can't meet payroll is cause for decreased growth. At the personal level this means people without jobs. At the personal, local, and national levels this can also mean recession and depression -- which is exactly what many of us see occurring.

Do all of these happy faces mean that we shouldn't expect loss of jobs, supply problems, possible severe reductions in petroleum (gas at the pump, heating oil ready for delivery), shortages in food supplies that are subject to problems at every point from the farmer's field to the grocery store?

I don't think so. The fact that many industries, businesses, and federal agencies would be able to do business in January, 2000 has never been questioned. What has been questioned, and still is, is the effect on us of those entities that aren't able to do business.

What should be questioned, too, is CL's claim to have been a "doomer." This I doubt, for so many of the arguments he uses have been so thoroughly discredited for such a long time that I can't see someone who actually grasps the possible implications of Y2K failures standing up and repeating them. In other words, there's nothing new in his arguments. Repeat after me:

see, people are working on the problem

see, some people are fixing their problems

see, everyone who is alarmed by Y2K has an ulterior motive

see, more good news

see, .....uh, don't see..... the man behind the curtain. Just ignore him.

-- De (delewis@(nospam)inetone.net), May 02, 1999

Answers

But De!

That's EXACTLY what I said to the old tosser! :)

Later,

-- Andy (2000EOS@prodigy.net), May 02, 1999.

de, aren't you the genius who posted the kissinger banking thread to the other y2k forum on greenspun?

-- ? (heh@heh.heh), May 02, 1999.

Do all of these happy faces mean that we shouldn't expect loss of jobs, supply problems, possible severe reductions in petroleum (gas at the pump, heating oil ready for delivery), shortages in food supplies that are subject to problems at every point from the farmer's field to the grocery store?

I don't think so. The fact that many industries, businesses, and federal agencies would be able to do business in January, 2000 has never been questioned. What has been questioned, and still is, is the effect on us of those entities that aren't able to do business.

What should be questioned, too, is CL's claim to have been a "doomer." This I doubt, for so many of the arguments he uses have been so thoroughly discredited for such a long time that I can't see someone who actually grasps the possible implications of Y2K failures standing up and repeating them. In other words, there's nothing new in his arguments. Repeat after me:see, people are working on the problem, see, some people are fixing their problems,see, everyone who is alarmed by Y2K has an ulterior motive,see, more good news,see, .....uh, don't see..... the man behind the curtain. Just ignore him. -- De (delewis@(nospam)inetone.net), May 02, 1999

_____________________________________________-

YOU WROTE: I don't think so. The fact that many industries, businesses, and federal agencies would be able to do business in January, 2000 has never been questioned. What has been questioned, and still is, is the effect on us of those entities that aren't able to do business.

_________________________________________

DE "doesn't think so"?? The operative word here is "think" and that is "opinion". Since DE can't know the status of the Major Corps or the FedGov DE's filters re: "spin" kick in. "Think"/opinion comes from what ever is found and processed by the finder. That is elemental.

Let me give you an example of what goes on here by way of analogy you can understand. If someone buys all the pornography one can afford and donates it to a library, the library will place it in a special section (hopefully for adults only where a signature is required).

If someone goes to that section every day for months on end, sooner or later a certain change in his/her prespective will take place. After the initial revulsion to such views takes place, one gets "used to it". As time moves along, the reader might actually go home and start trying to put some of the "more interesting" things into practice. Other readers in the same section will react in different ways. Some, sadly because of their "world views" and pre-conditioning might do things we throw people in prisons for, rightly so.

We know this to be true because not only is the Religious Right strongly opposed to pornography but so are the N.O.W. members.

If you do not think that this is a valid analogy, ask yourself why Gary North is touting the work of one Tom Atlee, a self-styled "un-repentant Hippee". Or some here would recommend the "Utne" guide or others would tout the far Leftist rantings of the collection socialists centered around D.C. demanding a Presidential Emergency and passing out flyers "prepare for Y2k" at the D.C. Metro line stations.

IN SHORT, YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT.

MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY. If you read enough "bad" stuff about Y2k for long enough and REJECT anything that is even hinting of improvement, YOU ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU EAT: GLOOMER / PESSIMIST and you hide behind the CLICHES nicely chanted here daily for you "Prepare for the Worst, hope for the best", "Better safe than sorry", "its a form of insurance, you do have insurance on your house and car, don't you?", or the ULTIMATE: "If I'm right, I will be safe and you will be dead".

YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT. YOU ARE ALSO WHAT YOU READ.

If you go to the REAL sources of the articles on Y2k both the Trade web sites from C/net or ZD or C.W. over to the Yahoo extended coverage, MSNBC, ABC, or De Jager's "Daily links" you will find many repeats of the same links but in general now there are at least 50 coming in including the Sunday ones which lean toward analysis and some editorializing.

But that would be "too much work" and time constraints lead people who **** have made up their minds and are not going to change them **** from going and doing the work that might in fact, lead them to ** change their minds *** as Chicken Little seems to have done along with many more. And the many more are NOT the "sheeple" you all deride who "don't know the facts" or are "in denial". The ones who have changed their minds are the Humans in the I.T. shops actually working on the Y2k problem and interfacing daily with others in their Companies or Enterprises who have some awareness of the danger that Y2k can or could be.

C.L. goes other places reads more than the C&Ps put here that re-inforce DE's viewpoint (getting fewer by the week) and rejects all others such as "Norm" as "spin". That is OFFICIAL POLICY HERE. Sysman or Cory H. get demolished in threads and the threads die out because the people doing the demolishing can't be answered anymore.

How can DE **know**? The fact is that DE can't nor can anyone. That leaves the Y2k redmediation progress status open to opinion no matter how well fortified with data and facts.

But data is not "fact". CL questions where YOUR "I don't think so" comes from because time and again, as you just demonstrated so very nicely, what you "think" comes from your set of beliefs rather than from first, second or even third hand sources of information and in the case of many of the posters to this forum : GOSSIP, HEARSAY, PROPAGANDA FROM VENDORS AND INDIVIDUALS, HOAXES and out and out LIES.

You ** REJECT ** reports that don't agree with your "preparedness" World View, deflect the slightest hint that "It won't be so bad and may be can deal with it as a business issue along with all our other problems".

One could enumerate all the sources of information for you with daily links of the newest, latest and greatest news of all shades of veracity and still you will filter it through your "pre-conceptions" because that is what has been going on here for over a year.

You come here to "re-inforce your beliefs" not to LEARN. That is the truth and you will reject that also because it is to *searing* to face. You are so certain you are correct nothing will shake that conviction.

Chicken Little told you that and the reaction was howls from "Andy". If the thread continues here or there, the rest of the "True Believers" will arrive some after Church and some on Monday when they turn their office boxes on.

WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING???? (I'm rather sure you don't but will leave this anyway.)

I DON'T MUCH CARE ABOUT YOU AND YOUR "EFFORTS" ANYMORE.

YOU ARE WRONG AND MISLEADING PEOPLE IS ***** ALSO WRONG ****

I'M WITH "Chicken Little".

YEAR 2000 AS A BUSINESS AND COMPUTER MANAGEMENT ISSUE IS WINDING DOWN.

GET A LIFE.

I ALREADY HAVE ONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WASTE YOUR OWN TIME.

-- C L Friend (CLfriend@knowledge.net), May 02, 1999.

well said, friend.

-- (att@boy.there), May 02, 1999.

So far the messages in this thread to me have been constructive and well debated without going into severe degradation due to name- calling, abuse, et al.

I'm impressed.

I hang around and read this forum not to confirm or deny my beliefs about Y2K but to see how things are going on around the world, how people react to the event and the information presented to them, to see the constructive debating from intelligent (sometimes :-) people about the various topics that Y2K covers and even to participate myself.

Continous expansion of the human mind and its thought processes happens through a multitude of ways. These include the stimuli you receive from your everyday life, interaction with other people and the discussions you may get into. I know one thing, it has always been hard to find a group of people that you can 'sit' down with and discuss a myriad of topis without falling into abuse. It still happens on here, which is sad to see, but overall the quality of writing and discussion to me has been above par.

So with this forum their is a diversity of people with a diversity of beliefs but regardless of race, creed, colour, religion, etc they have congealed into four (or more?) types of groups.

Doomers and Gloomers and GI's, Pollyanna's and DGI's, Stirrers and Trolls, New people trying to learn the truth.

Who is right? Who is wrong? On the 1st of January 2000 everybody worldwide will know the absolute truth and there will be no way of turning back and trying again. It will either be a non-event/hoax like so many proclaim or something will happen, that something will happen may range from minor disruptions to complete collapse of our society (depending on what you read or who you talk too.).

But what happens if we didn't question these things? What if no one had questioned the fact that come the Year 2000 this two digit thing could be a problem, on the other side of the coin what if no one questioned that the world was going to descend into chaos because of it? Through this questioning people have investigated deeper into the problem to ascertain the truth, some have said 'Systems will fail' others have decided it is all a hoax and yet others haven't researched at all and informed an opinion anyway. So if no one had questioned any part of it where would be today? Facing oblivion in less than eight months or life as usual to everybody?

Yet the whole event has produced some shocking results.

People have started to get to know their neighbours. Those people I've been living next to for twelve years aren't aliens from Reticula as I suspected, they are human. No longer do I look askance at them and think they would rob my house as soon as I left it, I actually greet them of a morning, or afternoon or whatever part of the day.

'Community' is in the dictionary and it is better to work and help out with your 'community' instead of living monastic lives. There are elected leaders as well but I'm still a bit suspicious of them.

I've learnt a few things as well, like a rain water tank comes in handy especially since where I live every summer we are having water restrictions. Our normal water use costs are going down and we have peace of mind just in case anything goes wrong and the best bonus of it all it hasn't got all that chlorine or fluoride to that gives scheme water its foul taste.

Y2K has motivated me and my family to do things we've always said that we were going to do but never got around to it. For years now we've been saying that we should have a vege patch, we are finally going to do it. Yes we've been ridiculed and laughed at, and our gazes wander over to the asians that live near us and no one ridicules or laughs at them. We wonder why when they've had a vege patch ever since they moved into their house.

If nothing else Y2K has produced more scapegoats and more people to laugh at that before.

A few months ago I was watching a TV show about Y2K and as a part of it they were interviewing a company that undertakes Y2K remediation. This company showed two examples of two seperate companies, one was a bank and they discovered that under a test for the Year 2000 rollover every single account in the bank would have shutdown, the other was a telecommunications company who discovered that their customers if they had been on the phone during the rollover would have received $12,000,000 (approx.) phone bills. These companies then undertook and are still doing remediation.

I look at this and think of various possibilities, one of those is what would have happened if the bank and the telecommunications companies had not questioned that there was a potential problem with their systems? What happens if they had said 'It's all a hoax let's ignore it', would they still be functioning next year?

These companies made the intelligent decision, they checked for the problem anyway. They didn't have to go any further and pay for any fixing to be done, they could have left things as is and potentially not let those 'money hungry scammers' get any money. I recognize that there are some our there who are scamming others, you will find that in any part of society no matter what the event. But I've learnt things over the years even before I knew about the implications of Y2K. I learnt that it is always better to be prepared, like having extra water, oil and fuel in containers in your car. Tools, spare tyres, etc just in case. I learnt that at least once a week you should check your oil and water levels, make sure your tyres are inflated to the correct pressure, just generally go over your car and make sure everything is ok to avoid any future problems.

Y2K for some is a problem, Y2K for others is not. It all depends on how much you will be affected (if at all) or how much you are prepared. Some people have decided to make preparations, some of these have even been doing it in such a way that they improve their quality of life (Totally solar panel your house and never receive a power bill again) and yet they get ridiculed but if they had done it ten years ago would they have been laughed at? Yet others have been dismissing the problem as one gigantic hoax that everybody from the person next door to our political leaders is in on. No matter which way people choose it is their right to make such a choice. Yes either side could be wrong but it is something that you do have to live with afterwards.

If after doing some research and have come to a decision in regards to it, well that is up to you. My decision is yes there are going to be problems and I'm sure glad that there were enough people out there who kept hammering at people to check into the problem to see if it was real or not. If no one questions, if no one checks, if no one does anything then where would we be today?

400 years ago a man questioned the fact that people believed the Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around the Earth. That was hearsay.

Today without a single doubt, the earth revolves around the sun. Or is it a hoax that has been perpetuated for 400 years?

Regards, Simon Richards

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), May 02, 1999.

Andy, you were right. The idots came out in force to rant, rave, and scream, today.

CL's friend has his cap locks on more than Dieter. Shout, jump up and down, act like a little kid. My, my. Do these people not realize that such behavior only demonstrates that they're incapable of adding anything intelligent to this discussion.....that it does their pollyanna cause more harm than good, because they demonstrate that they know nothing?

Fools!

-- De (delewis@(nospam)inetone.net), May 02, 1999.

Simon, I would sugest (gently in the spirit of this thread) that on 01-01-2000 we will all NOT know the truth. The type of failures available, the world-wide aspect of the possible failures, and the extended timeframes for some of the failure types, would suggest that we may not know the true ending situation for one or two quarters of 2000.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 02, 1999.

Chuck:

I think some of the truth will emerge gradually, and indeed already has been. I see no magic at rollover itself, with the possible exception of some unexpected shutdowns/explosion here and there. If public concern does come to a head later this year (looks unlikely right now) we may learn more.

What seems equally likely is that there will still be some hardcore doomists (like Cory) warning us in December 2000 that the *real* problems will show up with yearend processing any day now.

And the 'truths' evident to our conspiracy/paranoia contingent are timeless and lifelong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 02, 1999.

De

Back and forth. Some of these people are beginning to sound a little frantic. It is also true that much of what is now occurring is to be expected. Naturally there are reports of progress. The bad news is old news and the only thing new is to report on how America is doing in the bottom of the eighth inning. Sometimes this seems to be described more as a sports event than as a potential international disaster. People really have a tendancy to believe what they wish, not necessarily facts.

So where does this leave me? This forum gives me access to much information on both sides(yeah Norm). Over the last few months my "opinion" of the effects of Y2K has varried somewhat. Perhaps I am less concerned with the utilities being down for an extended time. However I am still convinced that economic devastation could cause equally alarming societal results. Perhaps a breakdown in some areas(cities). I do not see much serenity out there and I don't think that it would take much to push many over the top.

Anyway, thanks for your post. It will remain an individual decision, and that decision will be made on constantly shifting information. For me it is a question of how bad. There will be no such thing as normal for quite a while after the rollover. I intend to be ready in every way.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 02, 1999.