POLYANNA(NO BIG DEAL)PERSPECTIVE URGENTLY NEEDED ON "KOSKININ TALKS DIFFERENTLY OUT OF THE STATES"THREAD BELOWgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
the above mentioned thread has no non-doomer perspective,thus no debate,and it seems quite important....please,non-doom people,we need feedback!
-- zoobie (email@example.com), May 06, 1999
Zoobie, what is your problem? I have followed your recent posts, and you sound like you are going off the deep end. Calm down! If ya want to talk, MY e-mail address is also real. If I can help, feel free. I won't flame you, I only flame morons!
-- SCOTTY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 06, 1999.
Take a look at a few of the threads below and I think you can conclude that you are a very small minority in asking for the polly point of view. Even the few people who do try to debate once in a while have never admitted that maybe they were wrong or could be mistaken about anything. Once they reach teh point they have nothing factual (or even reasonable) to respond with, they either disappear or resort to personal attacks. Debating ideas can be mentally stimulating, even when it becomes somewhat heated and personal, as long as both sides retain an air of rationality and a real desire to debate, not just keep yelling the same thing louder and louder! Unfortunately, that is not the case here. Good luck finding a response from a polly -- I won't be wasting my time here any longer.
-- RMS (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
RMS -- If you'll read my posts carefully, especially on Tom Carey's thread, you'll see that I, at least, sincerely appreciate you, Davis, Flint, Maria et al. I have learned much from the so-called Pollys. I don't even consider it a term of derision: it's just a way of framing our debates. I don't understand what will be gained by opening up a debate on the Koskinen stuff since people would have responded if they had wanted to, but whatever. My only gripe is with hypocrites. Fortunately, there are very few on the forum, whether doomer or polly. Most are honest and direct and consistent.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 06, 1999.
Relax.....take a deep breath (are you smokin' something funny?) man. It seems the urgency is a little overstated, ie. large caps. Try to focus on all the threads instead of single ones. I don't wanna hurt your feelings by sounding critical here. It is just the reading on this forum has become more taxing due to seemedly irrational overtones and I simply want to get on some similiar wavelength, not to deny anyone of their individuality or writing style. I do appreciate your input.
-- Feller (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
actually,the aforementioned thread seemed quite relevant,yet it only has responces from doom types.And as I'm sure the non-doomers are interested in an on-going conversation,their input is needed so that there is more than doomers saying "ah-ha,I thought so!".and yes I'm sober and at work(isp tech support)
-- zoobie (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 06, 1999.
I read the entire transcript of his teleconference with the APEC Y2K Symposium in Singapore. It's clear that Koskinen is quite worried about international Y2K problems and also about "localized" problems in the U.S. (especially as caused by SMEs and small govt. agencies that have adopted an FOF policy). Nobody knows how many localized problems there will be in the U.S., naturally, but the lurking fear (which Koskinen, for obvious reasons, doesn't wish to dwell on very much) is that if you get too many localized problems, then you suddenly have a regional or even national problem. Koskinen has certainly not adopted a "doomer" position, but it's probably the most worried I've seen him. Also, it's the first time (that I know of) that he has said anything that shows he's aware of the possible dangers of residual errors. Somebody gave him a "crash course" on software metrics evidently!
-- Don Florence (email@example.com), May 06, 1999.
As has been stated before elsewhere all problems are 'local' problems. Is ketsup a vegitable? What is "is"? Masters of redefinition ala Orwell.
-- David (C.D@I.N), May 07, 1999.