If you actually look at what the basis of the positions taken by legitimate pollyannas, specficially Hoffmeister, Flint and Paul Davis (I'm not even going to worry about trolls like Y2K Pro, Mutha, etc.), it always boils down to the following: Acceptance of happy face reports on Y2K progress without question, then challenging anyone who disputes them. Herr Hoff is especially good at this -- asking what evidence you have that the report is not accurate, or demanding proof that the report, even if not completely accurate, would actually cause big problems. Repeatedly missed deadlines (e.g, the infamous Dec 31, 1998 "with a full year for testing") are never considered in any way as suggesting that the latest brand new revised deadline has any chance of not being met.

Now I ask: if any of these pollyannas were in the position of being a CREDITOR, say, and the DEBTOR repeatedly promised a payment (or partial payment) and then did not make it, would they take the same position?? I mean would Herr Hoff say, "Well, OK, even though you have consistently failed to pay me when you said you would BEFORE, of course that means absolutely nothing for the FUTURE. I mean, its not like there are any CREDIBILITY issues running around here." Would Flint, analogous to the various Govt agencies that the GAO has caught fabricating and outright lying about Y2K compliance, say "Well, gee, just because the last two checks that you gave me BOUNCED, that in now way diminishes my confidence in the check that you have given me TODAY. I mean, I can't PROVE that this check is no good, so I guess it must be." Would Paul Davis ... ahhh, skip it, you get the idea, and anyway I can never figure out what the heck Pauly-anna is saying half the time anyway (and I'm not sure that he can either).

And pollys: If and when you come up with any answers, please DON'T come up with crap like "Well, Gary North said that the world would die of AIDS in 1985 and THAT didn't happen, and Ed Yourdon said that we would see all kinds of Y2K failures in April, and that didn't happen..." This is not about hazy hypothetical predictions, this is about meeting project deadlines. There is a big difference!!!

-- Kng of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 07, 1999

Answers

Ahh, well, I guess I'll take a stab at answering.

I try not to post just vanilla "happy-face" reports. With few exceptions, I try to post articles and information that have some substantive facts.

No, I don't believe there is some "conspiracy" to hide the "true facts". Sure, companies and organizations are going to put their status in the best light, but that does not mean they are lying.

Yes, I challenge those who do say a report is a lie, to back it up. I don't apologize for this; if you want to base decisions on rumours and innuendo, fine by me. If someone has information that a report is false, I want to here it.

Yes, I also challenge people to back-up their statements in general. The time is gone when we have to read "tea-leaves" to determine some of the more important impacts of Y2k. And the endless string of maybe, if this happens, then this might happen, which could cause.. should have been challenged long ago. I don't post without having some backup for my statements.

As for the CREDITOR/DEBITOR scenario, I look at the early trigger dates as being those payments. The fact that nothing of real significance has occurred, is the payment prior to the "Balloon" payment due Jan 1, 2000.

Finally, the Dec 31, 1998 deadline. Two points. Number one, many did make it, in all liklihood. The statement and a year for testing definitely implies they would not be done then. Second, the only real deadline in most instances is Dec 31, 1999. As I've said before, setting a deadline of Dec 31, 1998, allowed projects to be late, without jeopardizing the actual project.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 07, 1999.

Off, I say

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 07, 1999.

Gotta agree with Hoff, of course. Just what is a 'happy-face' report anyway? Granted, some of the reassurances we see are pretty hollow, meaning they don't have any useful substance to them. Yeah, everyone is 'on target' and 'expects to be ready' and all that. What else would you expect them to say if they were behind? But if they give good solid numbers, test results, detailed status reports and the like, they are worth noting. One hell of a lot of money has been spent reaching this point, and dismissing *every* report detailing the results of this spending as 'happy-face' is self-serving.

Most of the 'disputing' reports have become increasingly subject to question. Too many maybes, and mights, and coulds. Too many ifs. The question is, just what are such worries based on? And who is doing the worrying anyway? Just as empty expressions of optimism from corporations and government contribute little of value, empty lists of possible problems from those selling solutions are also of little value.

Trying to make it all add up is an exercise in futility -- too many unresolvable conflicts, too many gaps, too much comparing apples and oranges.

Finally, I think you have a perspective issue here. Anyone who rejects all good news and accepts all bad news is bound to see anyone trying to question *all* news as biased. This happens because of course questioning the good news is 'good', everybody does it. Questioning the bad news is heretical and stands out. It's a frame of reference issue. Whoever doesn't share your prejudice looks unreasonable by contrast.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 1999.

Subject: O pollyanna!doomer

If you actually look at what the basis of the positions taken by legitimate pollyannasdoomers, specficially Hoffmeister, Flint and Paul DavisSysman, Andy, and numerous others (I'm not even going to worry about trolls like Y2K Pro, Muthaaaahhh, INVAR, etc.), it always boils down to the following: Acceptance of happy face any negative reports on Y2K progress without question, then challenging anyone who disputes them. Herr Hoff Sysman is especially good at this -- asking what evidence you have that the report is not accurate, or demanding proof that the report, even if not completely accurate, would not actually cause big problems. Repeatedly missed deadlinesincorrect predictions of failures (e.g, the infamous Dec 31, 1998 "with a full year for testing"1/1/99 or 4/1/99 or 4/9/99...) are never considered in any way as suggesting that the latest brand new revised deadline prediction has any chance of not being metbeing incorrect as well.

The truth is that very few companies ever stated that they would be done on Dec. 31, 1998 and have all of 1999 for testing so you are simply setting up a strawman to knock down and you did it very well. Almost every organization had a completion target somewhere in the second half of 1999 and, as stated above, no one is truly late until 12/31/99. If you buy a new big screen TV and tell them you only bought it to watch the Super Bowl and they guarantee delivery in October but don't get it to you until Novemeber, it was late but still 2 months ahead of the real deadline.

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 07, 1999.

clever...

-- . (.@...), May 07, 1999.

Well said RMS. I suppose we should all just unquestioningly accept the most awful BS as long as it is bad news. Maybe I should apologize to Beach for outing him as a complete KnowNothing on hardware, after all, it WAS bad news. NAAAAHHH!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Davis talks like CPR when he uses words like 'KnowNothing.' Are we but hoi polloi to you Paul?

-- Scratching my head (??@!!.why), May 07, 1999.

Well, pollys, thanks for responding without flaming. (That is why you really are the responsible types that make this forum still worth coming to, in spite of its undesirable elements.)

-- King of Spain (marid@aol.com), May 07, 1999.

"Sysman is especially good at this -- asking what evidence you have that the report is not accurate, or demanding proof that the report, even if not completely accurate"

Bull.... RMS. I asked to SEE ANY reports of so called good news. I'm tired of hearing your opinion. I want to see the evidence that you have. I don't care where you get it, news wire, company report, I'll even take a rumor, just show a link so I know it's not just more of your opinion. Find some other people that agree with you, and show me them, except for your 3 or 4 buds from biffy. You guys did come up with a few last week. However, we also have seen these before. Old news as you call it, anything over 30 days I guess. FLP has been working on their problem since 1995, and are not done yot, I think they say 95% as of last week, just like the FAA saying 99% last year. What difference is another 30 days going to make? SHOW ME when they say that they are DONE. That's what I want to know, not opinions, talk and spin. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Sysman:

I admit I would not believe any sizeable organization who said they were done. I don't know if this task is completeable at all. And even though close counts and closer counts more, I hardly know what to make of reports that organizations are 'close.' Too hazy. So I think you demand an impossible proof. The best any of us can really do is come up with a general sense of where things stand and how they are coming, and a gut feel for what impacts the shortfalls will have. The job is hard. Not hopeless, but hard.

I think citing the debunked FAA number is not to your credit. We now know that FAA was reporting progress according to their own self- defined stages, and that the 99% referred to their status with respect to the first (of four) stages. This wasn't a very informative reporting mechanism, and it backfired on them, because it wasn't clearly reported and made them look better off than they were at the time at the cost of making them look like they were going backwards later. But why keep bringing this up when you know better now? Right now, FAA's *overall* status is as mysterious, and therefore ominous, as everyone else's.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 1999.

Flint,

"Right now, FAA's *overall* status is as mysterious, and therefore ominous, as everyone else's."

Yup, I agree. I didn't believe it then, and still don't now, but it was picked up by the media. Let's look at the FPL report. They set their clocks ahead, well, I guess 95% of their clocks, and everything seemed to work, at least 95% of it I guess. Good news, yes, no argument there. Dan says that we have at least 100 others that have done the same thing. Again, more good news. The NERC report (I haven't read it yet) says, I believe, overall "readiness" is at 75%. FPL, and I posted another one at 94% done, push this number up. They are also the same ones that started early, in 1995. Others started later, or didn't work as hard, and are at 55%, OR LOWER. The 75% is an average. Are enough going to be "ready?" Dan says yes, no problem. Robert says not so sure. And the clock continues to tick... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

PS - And things like this are why I still don't believe the FAA. Notice the last of the post... <:)=

New York Airport problems similar to Chicago

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Excuse me RMS, did you call me a troll? Check the statistics page genius. Im one of the top ten posters. Been here almost a year now. And you?

I have 16 years experience with complex software systems. Handling Y2K compliance issues for the big boys. Moved up from programmer to systems analyst to project leader to program manager. Now making six figures as a consultant. And you?

I have a genuine concern that not enough will be done to avoid disaster. I have tried to warn everyone I know, in every way I know how, to prepare, which is the focus of this forum. And you?

I have studied almost every spec of data on y2k, and evidence of a coming collapse, daily for over a year. I have seen how systems can and will fail, even in controlled situations. I am not so foolish to believe that our technology is infallible. And you?

I will be here long after you have discovered the error in your ways and departed in shame. You need to check the definition of "troll" so as to stop looking like an idiot.

-- a (a@a.a), May 08, 1999.

Flint said -- "Finally, I think you have a perspective issue here. Anyone who rejects all good news and accepts all bad news is bound to see anyone trying to question *all* news as biased. This happens because of course questioning the good news is 'good', everybody does it. Questioning the bad news is heretical and stands out. It's a frame of reference issue. Whoever doesn't share your prejudice looks unreasonable by contrast."

Reasonable, ain't he? But.....

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 25084982&P=Yes&TL=925057082

Some wheat (not much) among the chaff Sunday, 25-Apr-1999 20:03:02

209.16.243.13 writes:

There are a couple of people on that board who are trying to make sense of things, or who can give occasional insights from personal experience.

But you need to be willing to waste a whole lot of time finding them among the noise. I visit there for the entertainment value, to tweak the loonies and look for the most mindless nonsense. I accepted long ago that you can't change a mind that someone doesn't use.

Flint

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 08, 1999.

Yup. I stand by all that. Those who don't enjoy this forum don't stick around. And the single best way to tweak the loonies is by being reasonable. Think about it.

I'm certainly not alone in noticing the rising noise level -- there have been too many whole threads about it lately.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 08, 1999.

Excuse me RMS, did you call me a troll? Check the statistics page genius. Im one of the top ten posters. Been here almost a year now. And you?

Yes, I did call you a troll, your prolific posting statistics notwithstanding. A troll, in my book, is someone who posts but adds nothing to the discussion but attempts to either change the subject or turn it into a rash of juvenile insults. If you have been around for a year, maybe you have made some non-troll posts but my personal experience with your replies to me has been that they have always been insulting, off topic, or simply restating the same old rhetoric and displaying no original thought whatsoever. If you doubt that, your most recent reply in the "Dr. Don" thread is typical of what I have come to expect of you.

I have 16 years experience with complex software systems. Handling Y2K compliance issues for the big boys. Moved up from programmer to systems analyst to project leader to program manager. Now making six figures as a consultant. And you?

I have 15 years experience with industrial automation systems (DCS, PLC, MES, etc.), from a control system design engineer to product manager to Year 2000 Manager for a $1 billion division of the largest automation company in the world.

I have a genuine concern that not enough will be done to avoid disaster. I have tried to warn everyone I know, in every way I know how, to prepare, which is the focus of this forum. And you?

As I have made it clear, while I do not share your concern, preparation is a personal issue. I encourage everyone to evaluate the facts and make their own decision on how to prepare for the year 2000.

I have studied almost every spec of data on y2k, and evidence of a coming collapse, daily for over a year. I have seen how systems can and will fail, even in controlled situations. I am not so foolish to believe that our technology is infallible. And you?

I too have studied everything I can find on Y2K (it's my job!) and I have seen how unremediated systems can fail as well. I have also seen how 'non-compliant' systems can continue to chug merrily along after the date is set forward. I have seen what a small percentage of systems have serious problems with '00' as a year and have seen how they could all be fixed, replaced, or worked around. I have worked with PLC's and instumentation and other deviced with 'embedded systems' and found no problems with identifying where problems existed and finding appropriate resolutions where needed. I do not believe that technology is infallible but neither do I believe that those problems cannot be fixed.

I will be here long after you have discovered the error in your ways and departed in shame. You need to check the definition of "troll" so as to stop looking like an idiot.

If that happens, I will be the first to admit it. And you?[g] If I have used the term 'troll' incorrectly, I apologize but the rest of my post above remains. And you might want to rethink your writing style. Using vague, meaningless terms like "complex software systems" and "the big boys" impresses no one with your qualifications and any discussion of salaries is an admission of fellings of inferiority. Finally, someone of your obvious intelligence should be able to come up with something a little more creative than "a", shouldn't they?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 10, 1999.

"Finally, someone of your obvious intelligence should be able to come up with something a little more creative than "a", shouldn't they?"

Atta boy RMS, stick to the point! And speaking of creative, RMS, your e-mail address sure is. You do know it's the year 2000 problem, and not the year 200 problem, don't you? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 10, 1999.

Well done Sysman!! Ignore everything else I wrote and focus on the least relevant statement. Yes, I know it is 2000 -- the 200 has an entirely unrelated connotation. By the way, how is your response to the Beach article coming? It's been what, 3 weeks now?

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 10, 1999.

RMS,

Yes, I do still have an opinion on Beach, and it is still on this C: drive about 3/4 done. I really have been swamped with business and personal things for the last two weeks. This is the first time I've been on the net for more that 10 minutes in the last 4 days. And now Beach has more to say, and I do want to look at that. I doubt it will change what I have to say, but I should at least read it first. So hold onto your britches, it's on the way. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 11, 1999.

Umm Sysman, given Cousin Ray's approach to Maria, you seem to have gotten off easily. Not to say I agree with either of the folks who are harrying either of you.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 11, 1999.

OI!!!

Davis - know-nothing(tm) is MY term and I hold the copyright!

Desist!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.

RMS - wrong dude, a can be a little abrasive, but he is laser sharp.

If the world were full of a's there would be not BE this problem.

Think about it.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.

thats right. If anyone has a copyright on "know-nothing" it would be Andy!

-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999.

Thank you sir!

I rest my [brief] case :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 11, 1999.