How come no one responded to Cory Hamasaki's Challenge? Or DID you? : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

How come no one responded to Cory Hamasaki's Challenge? Or DID you?

From Cory at:[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=473889156&CONTEXT=925902426.1927086135&hitnum=3

"I've asked for a "Polly" to write an article for the DC Y2K Weather Reports but no one has responded yet. I have received lots of submissions on foraging for food, the joys of hoarding, and such but no one seems interested in making the Polly case.

I'm especially looking for an "anti-Ed Yourdon". Someone with a background in large systems who will explain why we're not in trouble. The closest I've found is Bruce Webster's essay on the resiliancy of complex systems. This is a remarkable piece of work and is in WRP106.

Perhaps that is all that can be said at this time. Given that a company will core itself out, keep the facade that "Everything's OK" until it can't lie any longer, we're not going to know until it's over. We're not going to hear reliable good or bad news and consequently don't have evidence, good or bad."

-- couldn't do it (, May 05, 1999


Where is the logic in "companies lying til they can't lie anymore"? Is anyone that ignorant to think companies would weigh 8 months of profit vs. going under next year? does this make any sense?

It is possible no one has responded to CH challenge because they are smart enough to recognize they are being baited.

-- L T L (NOTB@Tthis.time), May 05, 1999.

Cory's so-called challenge was to 'explain the Colorado payroll mess' but he wasn't very clear on what exactly he wanted explained. There aren't a lot of facts available so it would be fruitless to 'explain' it but I will share my opinion on why, as a polly, this has not changed my viewpoint on Y2K, which is what I think Cory wanted in the first place.

As far as I can tell, City Manager Jim Mullen is the primary culprit here. He was given information on 3 different occassions that there was a problem and either ignored it or attributed it to a lack of objectivity by the auditor. That is a management problem, not a Y2K problem. If Mullen was on the decision team, perhaps he was the one with a lack of objectivity and didn't want to admit he may have made a mistake.

Secondly, the new consultant contract to complete the job is for 66% more than the bid by the previous consultant to do the whole job. Also, the release states that the new consultant is a "PeopleSoft-recommended consultant" and thus, it is safe to assume, the original consultant was not. They apparently used a search team and consultants to select PeopleSoft software but it does not indicate that this team was used to select the implementer. So, IMHO, what you have is a major new software project the probably exceeded initial budget estimates and thus the implementation contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, despite the fact they were not vendor-recommended. Unfortunate and short-sighted but hardly unique to Y2K projects nor a reason to assume that all Y2K projects will be similar.

Finally, since (according to the doomers) there is such a shortage of qualified software resources out there that there is no chance of fixing the Y2K problems, how is it that a highly qualified contracter and one recommended by a major business software vendor happened to have over 10,000 manhours (WAG of $250/hour) of excess capacity the remainder of 1999?

Now, before you attack me for saying that this does not mean there will be no Y2K problems, you are correct -- it doesn't. I never said that nor implied nor was this response intended to do so. As I have said before, I shall be a polly until I see sufficient evidence to change my views and this example is not sufficient. Some may disagree but I would expect most of the pollys to have fairly similar views. If you are of the 'doomer' camp, then this response will have little or no impact on your views and I would not expect it to. Cory asked for a polly viewpoint and I provided it, nothing more, nothing less.

-- RMS (, May 05, 1999.

I think he is referring to the older challenge - where he wants a polly with 15 years of mainframe experience to write an article for the WRP. Now just how many people have 15 years of mainframe experience - and those that do are seldom up to date on client/server and such. Now I do know a few people that would fit the bill, and are up on later technologies - but would never ask someone to expose themselves to the vitrol from the doom side that has become my daily fare.

-- Paul Davis (, May 05, 1999.

Oops! You're right Paul.

"Never mind!" --Emily Latella

-- RMS (, May 05, 1999.


The survey I did here says that we have a bunch of people in the 15-30 year range. I wonder why none of them are pollys, or if they are, why they can't put their reasons on paper? <:)=

MAN-YEARS of programming

-- Sysman (, May 05, 1999.

Sysman hit the nail on the head - both he and I could rise to the challenge but we won't for the simple reason that Cory is correct in his assesment as are the vast majority of experts in the Russ Kelly league table.

The last taker we had was Cherri - I'll say no more about that one, work it out for yourselves :)

So come on Poole and Co. - we know you don't have the paper qualificatins (CET anyone, arf arf), experience (wouldn't know a mainframe if it toppled onto to you), background and common sense, but why not give it a shot anyway, we could all do with a good laugh.

-- Andy (, May 05, 1999.


It does not make sense for companies to lie. Actually, humans that work for the companies tell lies (at the worst) and half truths and also practice verbal deception. This is a fact that CH is referring to.

Here is an example from yesterday's news, not y2k related but an example of the company's aversion to make an honest, direct statement.

A car manufacturer initiated a recall because certain wheels on certain models were not properly tightened. Accidents have resulted.

The simple thing to do would be notify the customers that their wheels may in fact be loose and they need to be checked.

Instead they issued an obfuscated press release referring to a problem with possible wheel seperation due to improper wheel to hub contact area, etc.

begin quoted material:

DEARBORN, Mich. (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F - news) said Tuesday it was recalling about 57,200 1999 model-year Expedition and Navigator sport utility vehicles equipped with optional 17-inch, chrome-finished steel wheels because of a manufacturing problem.

``We are aware of 11 reports of wheel separation and one accident with two minor injuries,'' Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy told Reuters.

Some of the vehicles may have wheels that may not have enough contact area between the wheel and hub, which potentially could result in vibration or separation of a wheel and tire from the vehicle, Ford said in a news release.

This concern is related to a wheel manufacturing quality issue, the world's second-largest auto maker said. Shaughnessy said the concern was ``specific to this wheel.''

Ford said dealers would tighten the wheel to a certain specification that will increase the contact area between the wheel and the hub. They will also install a label with tightening instructions on each wheel at no expense to owners.

Ford said that owners of affected vehicles would be notified by mail to have their vehicles serviced.

end quoted material.

Note the reference to wheel manufacturing issue and the fact that no parts are involved in the recall, just tightning the wheels.

Now, to put this in context, go the the SEC filings and read Ford's assertions on y2k remediation and testing. Do you have confidence this is the simple truth, or is there a possibility this is less than the simple truth or that any information is omitted?

As for your implication that Cory Hamasaki has invited a submittal of a positive article on the prospects for large scale remediation to be in sight just to set someone up, I would say that you are not familiar with his Weather Reports or with the wide following that he enjoys because of his objectivity.

Cory raises objections, asks questions and gives examples, but he has not given in to ad homenum (sp?) attacks as others have done.

Because of his wide following, any article submitted should have the facts straight because it is subject to peer review. I wager anyone so doing that calls a loose wheel a "manufacturing specific wheel to hub contact issue" would get laughed out of town, as they should.

My daddy maintained anyone that tells the truth when answering a question has little to fear and much to gain.

The truth, however, has to be sought out and that is the vocation of many here.

Mr. Hamasaki has invoked an invitation for the truth, nothing else.

-- Tom Beckner (, May 05, 1999.

Actually I did put it on paper (or silicon, I guess): Nz

Not sending it to Cory, as I stated before.

In any case, wasn't much debate. Noticed Andy and Sysman were absent, as well. Lost interest when the thread turned to survivalist BS.

-- Hoffmeister (, May 05, 1999.


Missed it - will read it now and get back to you.

-- Andy (, May 05, 1999.

"Cory raises objections, asks questions and gives examples, but he has not given in to ad homenum (sp?) attacks as others have done."

Cory may not do ad hominem attacks at individuals (although I think I've seen a few). However, he does plenty of attacking of people and society in general.


-He takes every chance he gets to bad-mouth Washington, DC, whether deserved or not. -He constantly refers to "Bozo the QA clown" and makes plenty more remarks about professions other than mainframe programmer as if being a "big iron jock" makes him better than other people. -He has not refrained from using terms such as "denialist butthead."

Need I give more examples?

Why do so many seem to worship such a cynical jerk?

-- butthead (, May 05, 1999.

Mutha, you surely are sensitive to people who drink. Why is this?

Are you a tee-totaler?

-- drinker (wine's@fine.with_me), May 05, 1999.

Good effort Hoff - I personally am inclined with the zog scenario, death of a thousand cuts, having contracted around the world I tend to take the world view - which is not good - and then think how even an up to speed USA (which I don't see, at all) will survive and prosper in the new age.

Why not give it to Cory for the hell of it, you've had 3 more weeks to think on things, he has a wide audience with his RIP's :)

-- Andy (, May 05, 1999.

Don't think so, Andy.

Like I said on another thread, got burned once by Cory taking a piece of a post on c.s.y2k and ridiculing it in his WRP. A post he didn't feel the need to discuss in the NG, where I could respond. I even attempted to respond on the NG, and he didn't answer.

I then thought it truly funny when Pam and others over there were harassing Howard Belasco for turning a "dialogue into a monologue".

Sorry, but Cory controls the WRP, which is his right. He can do what he wants. Just not going to volunteer for the experience.

-- Hoffmeister (, May 05, 1999.


Here we go again. Dumbass doombrooders reading any post that they see as 'troll' to be posted by Mutha. *****sheesh****. I really do wish some of you would get a life.

I am Me. EOL

-- Mutha Nachu (, May 05, 1999.

"Here is a little Muthaly advice... don't be associatin' yerself with folks like Yourdung or Hadalil'tomuchsaki..." full post


-- imbiber (vodka@too.sure), May 05, 1999.

so, logically....that makes me the above poster? (butthead ( gee. you are a rocket scientist, aren't you? Do have any idea how many de-bunkers there are on the net? Normal, everyday folks who are TIRED of the hype? Tired of having to calm family members because of the nonsense being bantered around in places like this?

Well, no need to my neck of the woods we are inoculated against the grifters, hucksters and hype. I will be in lurker mode for the most part, from now on...because you have to LOVE the entertainment value of a place like this!

-- Mutha Nachu (---@haveyoubeendead.long?), May 05, 1999.

No more than the similarities of these two posts would imply that the same person posted them:

"Andy, Eater Of the Dead: (I love Crichton!) It's real simple -- provide one example, just one! Since there are billions of these embedded chips out there and millions upon millions are ready to fail at the stroke of midnight, someone of your obviously superior intellect should have no trouble coming up with a single, real example! You are not paying for Poole's site so you have no say in what goes on it! He is giving you the chance to post something to it, if you are man enough to take the challenge. I would say that it is put up or shut up time!

-- do you see (howstupid@you.look), May 05, 1999.

compare to

"S. Poole CET demands "Andy" of the useless Eaters " full post

Watch yer breadcrumbs!

-- ok, drunkard (, May 05, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ