On earlier threads, I have read accusations that Y2K optimists have told people "not to prepare." Some have gone so far as to say Y2K optimists are morally responsible for those who choose not to prepare. "Blood on your hands" was the phrase, if I recall correctly.

Let me respond with a quote from one of my earlier posts:

"If you have made a personal decision to prepare... fine. I have no desire to interfere with how you spend your hard-earned money. I present an alternative viewpoint. This does not make me personally responsible for the actions (or nonactions) or others. If anything has weakened the Republic, it is the notion that "someone else" is responsible for our behavior."

This is a marketplace of ideas. Along with the other participants, I have provided speculation on the ramifications of the Y2K problem. If you withdraw all your money from your retirement account (and give a large share to the government), do not blame the pessimists. It was your decision. If you decide not to prepare (and Y2K bites), do not blame the optimists.

[Let's extend this logic; do not blame the manufacturer of a firearm for how it used.]

Absent malice, the pessimists have the right to speculate Y2K will be the end of modern civilization and the optimists have the right to speculate Y2K will be status quo. Let's stay on the issues and away from questioning motives and misplacing responsibility.

It has been suggested some optimists are really paid government agents who want to discourage people from taking Y2K seriously. To my knowledge, there is not a shred of evidence to prove anyone is working as a member of some secret Y2K propaganda team. If I might be direct: prove it or drop it.

Oh, and anticipating a possible response... my argument applies equally to "polly's" who accuse "doomer's" of creating panic.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999

Answers

Hmmmm...something I don't agree with Decker about.

Mr. Decker, do you think it would be fair to say that many panics and/or riots in history were started by rumors? And what about the Dow tanking 200 points today on news that Rubin resigned (even though it rebounded). Wouldn't you consider that somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction (panic)?

As for preparation, I agree, that's your business. Emergency preparedness is always appropriate--what that means depends on your situation. It's the unsubstantiated rumors that I take issue with.

-- Buddy (.@...), May 12, 1999.

Shazam, I didn't know it till I read it my Mamma's book. I did not have sex with that women,,, Ms. Luwinsky. No, they made chemical weapons not asprin. I remember the Churches burning in AK when I was young. Nuclear secrets?................. Yeah right!

Put your head back in that hole!!!!!!!!!

Forgot, Government lies to Goverment. GAO vrs. OMB. Flame on!!!!!!!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 12, 1999.

This is a forum for people who are concerned about Y2k and preparing for it. Many HAVE come here who have ridiculed others for preparing, accused them of "inciting panic," etc.. We have been over this before: there is a huge propaganda effort to minimize the probable TECHNICAL disruptions caused by shitty code, in order to prevent the SOCIAL disruptions caused by people reacting with a reasonable degree of self-interest to this DESIGN FLAW and subsequent FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP. The Y2k-prepared are being profiled as "paranoid whackos" in every newspaper in the country. In this context, "optimists" come on THIS forum, and tell others their preparation won't be needed. If people follow this bad advice, they may be without food, water and power. They may die. Why do you keep flogging this "pity me, an accused polly" horse, Decker? YOU haven't told anyone not to prepare - so what? It's not about you. But you, by extension, seem to imply that NO polly's here are discouraging people from preparation. Which is a transparent lie. What is this about? Are you feeling guilty?

Dano

-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Decker

It just so happens I am reading the GAO report on water and there are comments such as the one below. Now water is critical and will shut down business a would be a health and living crisis for alot of folk out there. Now the GAO is not a doomer org. Yet what is known is frightening. What is not known is even worse. The uninformed entities on the board and through out the world don't read GAO reports. I would recommend this before anyone says that there will be no problems. OH and if that isn't bad enough, just go through the SEC Y2K filings. There are big problems stated by big orginizations. I have the data and can post it if you wish.

Y2K - ignorance is not an option

So regardless if these folks work for the Government or not spreading disinformation is still stupid. This could also apply to the doomer camp. I like going by the Government reports. Often it is just a matter of not doing the homework and having information referanced.

The problem as I see it is that there are SERIOUS problems that do not include power - banks - telecoms. These problems have the ability to create disruptions in may of the lives that are involved in this forum. Clearly we should consider what would be no problem for one person will mean TEOTWAWKI for a family elsewhere. If the most powerful entity in the world can not assure clean safe water to the public how are the polly types going to be so confident.

GAO/AIMD-99-151 Year 2000 Status of the Water Industry

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ai99151.pdf

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To date, associations surveys have had low response rates and, as a result, little is known about the status of the nations water and wastewater facilities. Specifically, three national drinking water associations sent a voluntary survey to about 4,000 water facility operators through August 1998. Survey responses showed that 51 percent of respondents had completed an internal assessment of their Year 2000 risks, and 81 percent expected to complete their internal Year 2000 work in time. However, there was only an 18-percent response rate overall, and these responses accounted for less than 1 percent of the nations very small to medium facilities; about 8 percent of the nations large facilities; and about 25 percent of the very large facilities.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 12, 1999.

Decker, The eyes of this "little" forum are upon you. Wag The Dog.

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 12, 1999.

As the Polly's "Polly", I can state that I have not seen one person on this forum inpore people to not prepare - for any unexpected occurrence. I certainly have not, despite being accused (as well as being the devils spawn) countless times.

There is a difference between criticizing (in my view) irrational opinions on Y2K and saying "don't prepare". IMHO, everyone should be prepared for the absence of fundamental services in the event of a natural disaster.

This does not preclude me from saying that many Y2K prepared ARE paranoid wacko's; dribbling on about the NWO and Clinton canceling elections - indefensible, impossible to prove nonsense.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 12, 1999.

Below Koskinen is giving the low down on the local prep situation. He doesn't indicate that the US Government is going to responsible for local relief. This is going to depend on the abilities of the folks in their towns.

Now if silly people suggest there is no problem then why would Koskinen recommend that folks prepare for disruptions. Not only prepare but expect BIG PROBLEMS!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But what they do not have significant experience in is dealing with a number of otherwise manageable events taken by themselves, which create a major challenge when they occur all at once.

>>>>>>>>>>

Mind you this proves Mr. Deckers point about the pollies not being employed by the US Government as the info is out there, the government is telling you to prepare, just not panic. BIG DIFFERANCE. It doesn't indicate you have to be stupid though.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

TRANSCRIPT: KOSKINEN REMARKS TO APEC Y2K SYMPOSIUM

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/ latest&f=99050401.glt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

And, therefore, we've told our local governments and our state governments that they need to be prepared to handle emergencies on their own, since the federal government can't be everywhere dealing with every problem in light of the large number of problems that we are likely to have.

Each of these emergency centers is very good at dealing with the standard emergency, which is usually very localized. But what they do not have significant experience in is dealing with a number of otherwise manageable events taken by themselves, which create a major challenge when they occur all at once. We are also, therefore, ensuring that beyond each emergency center being able to respond to the range of issues it may have to deal with, that as part of our overall emergency response process, we, in fact, are coordinating the responses of those individual emergency centers.

QUESTION: Can you talk a bit about the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency?

MR. KOSKINEN: Surely. It's a good question. For those who are not as familiar with it, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, has jurisdiction for domestic emergencies.

Snip

Because we can deal with what the risks are nationally, but what happens at the local level is what really has the most direct impact on individual citizens.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 12, 1999.

Y2KPro

That is fair enough. But if you have objections to the political agenda of some on the board then address them directly. Don't lump all of the Y2K problems as a non issue. Some of the stuff I see on the board is to far out, but some of the problems like health, overseas and the water situation could be to real. By the way as a Canadian it should be noted that this board has folks from all over the world posting and lurking. The US has the best source of info on Y2K but the world revolves around the sun not the US. Nothing personal US folk but true.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

It sounds very much like your position here is based on the model of the "rational market", whose actors make decisions based on intelligent evaluation of complete, accurate and timely information.

With Y2K, we have far too little information to make such decisions, and most of that information is of dubious reliability. The most reliable information (legally required disclosures) unfortunately tends to be outdated by the time we see it. And as I am sure you have noticed, intelligent evaluation is rare indeed around here.

Responsibility isn't that easy to place. If you go to a mechanic to have a brake job, and the next day you are injured when your brakes fail, is this solely your responsibility? If your doctor prescribes medication (and a second opinion agrees), is it your responsibility if it's the wrong stuff?

I agree that my preparation decisions are mine alone -- nobody made me do it. But to some degree I must rely on the opinions of specialists in fields outside my own (and vice versa). At best, I can make a concerted effort to factor out perceived biases, to rectify apparent inconsistencies, and to devote considerable spare time ferreting out further information. Ultimately, I must make as informed a guess as I can -- and the information on which I base that guess is important.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 12, 1999.

Mr Decker stated: "If anything has weakened the Republic, it is the notion that "someone else" is responsible for our behavior."

Well Amen! Chapter One, page one in my tome entitled "Unconscionable Qualities of My Fellow Humans" (available in paperback), I give thorough discourse on that rarest of all traits - responsibility.

Why does Twentieth-Century man run like a babbling brook from all consequences pertaining to that which emits from his mouth, that which comes into existence via his actions? Is this inexcusable behavoir limited to last few generations?

Or is our very DNA encoded with a yellow stripe down its double- helix?

Do unto others & then run like hell! Ah, the credo of the spineless, the weak-hearted who flaunt their lack of precepts with every shallow breath.

Give in to the urge to purge your pain-wracked consciences in the safety of anonymity. Flame on dolts & doltesses.

Ponder this: Are there consequences to our actions? Do we operate in a moral/ethical vacuum? Ah, I see the sweat building upon your brows.

whew! must be the heat!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 12, 1999.

There my second polly attack ever. (Not really towards Mr. Decker personally) without injury or prejudice Now I am going to get back to maintianing a Archive.

Year 2000 Preparation Archive

Choose the category you are interested in and press Enter. The link will appear in a new page. Close window to return.

Category	Year 2000 Preparation ArchivePersonal ConsiderationsPreparationFamilyHome FoodFood Storage and PreservingGrowing FoodFood - Cooking< option>ClotheswaterSanitationHealth LightingHeatFuelAlternate powerMoney and Y2KCommunity PreparationRural LivingUrban LivingBugging outSecurity and gunsHam Radio - CommunicationsBooksLeadershipAnimals

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 12, 1999.

Y2k PRO After you finish growing up maybe we could have this whole Preparedness conversation face to face. Finish school get some reponsibilities under your belt and then discuss preparing for your families future. I Prayed for you today

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Decker: God I get excited in anticipation of reading the responses when you start a post with one of your persectives! You seem to have become a lightening rod for a rousing intellectual good time! I think you should appreciate the fact that were it not for your effectiveness in forcing people to consider both your as well as their points of view, you would largely be ignored. I believe you understand.........

Your comments on personal responsibility are, in my mind, the fundamental issue of our time (hell for all time!) If only each of us would accept the responsibility for our own actions and expect the rest of us to do the same. Then of course we each must translate that acceptance and expectation into the political arena....

With respect to the issue of resonsibility, once moral responsibility for ones actions are ascribed to some other person, place, or thing, or some collection of people (society) or circumstance (environment, then it is deuces wild - all bets are off! The fertile field in which grows the responsibility no longer residing with each of us, is now wide open to whatever creative causal agent your lawyer can conjure up, as he/she keeps one eye on the endless list of "causal agents", and the other on the depth of each of their pockets.........

Though I do not always agree with you, I look forward to your continuing humor, insight, and plain good sense!

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), May 12, 1999.

Mr Decker,

I have never responded to one of your diatribes before, but here goes...

First things first... touche', sir!!!

I guess I overestimate other people by comparing my conscience with what I think others would be. Big mistake. My conscience is an overbearing dictator compared to others on this forum I guess. I personally would be a shambles mentally if I knew I caused hardship on someone because they believed something I said in passing or on a forum such as this. There are many, many, naive people in this world. Some of them WILL follow someone else's lead.

Granted, I am NOT a full blown doomer, nor a polly, (here comes the flames) just an average Fido trying to make ends meet, and preparing for the unknown.

I hope the newbies on this or other forums will look deeply into this issue before diving in. I am also opposed to people advocating, sell everything, cash out your 401K, and move to Boonieville. This is a "Y2K must be doomsday scenario or I will lose my ass situation". Don't go there either.

Common sense... there is a dearth of that in the world it seems.

To Mr. Y2K Pro: Congrats on your skin of iron. Ducks will envy you.

There is a saying about "moderation in all things". I believe it is in the Bible. It works...

sunnin' on the porch,

The Dog

-- Dog (desert dog @-sand.com), May 12, 1999.

The Dog "I personally would be a shambles mentally if I knew I caused hardship on someone because they believed something I said in passing or on a forum such as this. There are many, many, naive people in this world. Some of them WILL follow someone else's lead. " Man your right on the money!!

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

As always, thank you for the generous comments.

Ah, Good Flint, a walk through the "rational market?" In economic activity there is rarely complete, accurate and timely information.

Consider an example--the commodity markets. The commodity markets prove "gambler's ruin." You know this and I know this, but we still have futures options on pork bellies. As a free economic actor, you can still enter the market... with no idea in Hades what pork bellies will do in 90 days.

[Of course, in our continuing effort to save people from their own stupidity, you'll probably need to sign a half dozen forms claiming you REALLY REALLY know you might lose your money.]

I agree that information on Y2K is imperfect... like any future event. Even when we carefully analyze both teams in the Super Bowl, the outcome is uncertain.

In the face of imperfect information, we make decisions based on our perception and analysis of the risks and rewards. We may not agree on Y2K, but I defend your right to "bet" any way you choose. Just don't blame anyone if you bet wrong.

If I may digress, the best way to protect economic actors used to be The Contract. Before the ruin of "tort reform," The Contract was considered sacred. Through the vigorous efforts of fuzzy-thinking lawyers, judges and legislatures... The Contract moved to lower-case, with increasing fine print and loop holes and more fine print....

The increase in torts was both an attempt to increase the employment of lawyers AND an attempt to save people from their own stupidity. As you well know, Flint, attempts to save people from their own stupidity are not only doomed to fail... but exceedingly expensive.

With all due respect, Flint, responsibility is often easy to place. Truth be told, very few economic actors are willing to accept responsibility and with the dilution of the contract, the courts are unwilling to enforce responsibility.

As always, though, enjoyed reading your post.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.ne), May 12, 1999.

Desert Dog,

I appreciate your conscience. Contrary to popular opinion, I have one myself. The information and opinions I post are congruent with what I believe. As vividly shown on this forum, those who read my posts are quite willing to disagree. For those people so easily led, I do not believe the Nuremberg Defense is a moral one. Be well.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Decker,

Malicious intent is not quite so easily denied or avoided here. While it is most certainly easy and comfortable for you to talk about a 'market place of ideas' and then simply claim a lack of malicious intent in your posts that really is NOT what this forum was designed to be - go back and read the purpose statement. viz:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

You see, it's not a level playing field, and since I *know* you know how to read, and it is within reason to presume that someone participating in this forum would have atleast taken the time to read the mission statement (you did do that, didn't you?). That being the case, it is obvious that you could only be acting out of malicious intent - in fact it's the only logical conclusion, unless one fails to rule out ignorance.

nice try, but pretty words don't take the place of truth, either.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

"On earlier threads, I have read accusations that Y2K optimists have told people "not to prepare." Some have gone so far as to say Y2K optimists are morally responsible for those who choose not to prepare. "Blood on your hands" was the phrase, if I recall correctly."

Decker -- it's interesting that just as soon as people start returning to fairly peaceable debate, you pop up with one of these kind of threads. Why? If you really want to establish a reputation for straightforward honesty, just post, don't make everything a debate about yourself.

For instance, I AM the one who used the phrase above, but you completely mischaracterize it. I wasn't speaking about so-called Y2K optimists generally (we've already been around the barn several times on the optimist-pessimist trip but I'll let that go) but about Stephen Poole.

Moreover, I wasn't even talking about him generally but about the stance he takes on his web site towards "fellow" Christian believers. Yes, I believe that, given his position, he may well end up having blood on his hands. Him. Not others. Him.

I can't say for sure whether anyone else has used that phrase or not. Were you or weren't you thinking of my usage of it specifically? If so, would you care to modify your post?

Whether or not you are a government agent is not known to me.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 12, 1999.

Would just like to point out that the guy who started this forum in the first place, Ed, has not, to my knowledge, given definitive predictions of just what would occur or told people what they should do. In fact, he has done just the opposite. He has consistently noted the possibilities and probabilities of various occurences. he has also strongly urged people to get informed and make up their own minds. Sure- some people on this forum believe they "know' just what will happen. but most freely acknowledge that they don't. they are advocating personal responsibility, for oneself, ones family and community. They are freely sharing info on what they are doing and where they are at with others. Period. That info is available for others to think about, emulate or ignore as they see fit. If a poster on this forum says they've put in an alternative energy system, stored food, amo and meds- that's just their list of preps. YOU don't have to do that if you don't want to. I don't understand why some people feel so threatened by those who are perhaps doing things differently than they are. it doesn't mean one of you is right and the other wrong necesarily. You're just in different situations in different places and your perception of the risks is different as it would have to be. Just read what is written, share what you can with others and let's quit the needless, endless and useless fighting over who's right.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), May 12, 1999.

Arlin,

You make this too easy. If you want to talk about preparation, the first issue is a REALISTIC assessment of the potential effects of Y2K. Preparation efforts vary widely from nothing to my 'smart living' to a fortified bunker and ten years of food.

If you'll note, I do not make off-topic posts about Russia, China, Clinton, etc. Nor am I offering technical advice on remediating COBOL programs on IBM mainframes.

This post was an attempt to rebut the incessant argument that an optimistic view of Y2K implies you are telling people not to prepare. And, by doing so, clear the way for more meaningful dialogue.

My effort has been to generate realistic discussion on Y2K impacts and answer the occasional question on preparation. Yes, there have been some ill-fated and infrequent observations about the ebb and flow of the Y2K debate on this forum.

To limit my motives to ignorance or maliciousness is simply a personal attack poorly disguised as deductive reasoning. I prefer you return to the straight forward frothing attack; it is a more honest approach.

BD, my use of the phrase was not linked to your writing. In truth, I don't recall your post. As I caveated, my use of the phrase was based on an imperfect recollection. I thought it was far earlier in the forum. I apologize for any confusion. (And I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to Christianity and Mr. Poole.)

I am not trying to make myself the focus of the debate... but I am trying to clear some of the rubbish blocking a more useful discussion. You know, as well as anyone, that there are a fair number of spurious arguments cluttered the field.

Nothing is known to you about me. This, of course, might change if we meet. Be well.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Dave,

Thanks. I appreciated your email as well. I'll probably get roasted for saying it, but I think I have made some decent points on this forum. Unfortunately, instead of debating the issues, my points often get lost in a mire of attacks. (This is not directed at you, BD, I think we have a cease fire agreement of sorts.)

Please feel free to email again, or ask a preparation or economics- related question.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Is Mr Decker really Alan Greenspan?

-- Johnny (jljtm@bellsouth.net), May 12, 1999.

ah decker, you, what was that phrase? oh yes, you make this too easy. Once again you've missed the point. You cannot defend your posts for what they are not, simply because your posts are not the same as Andy & Nik's somewhat unique perspective on world events does NOT mean that your posts are any more relevant than theirs are - different is not inherently better, it's just different. There are many different types of off topic, and as I demonstrated in my previous post, you are not within the topic range of the board.

Go back and re-read the mission statement of the board decker, no matter how many circles you run in, you cannot escape the truth that you are outside the mission statement.

Now if you're really silly, you *might* try arguing that your posts are at least as *on* topic as Andy and Nik's - to which I would point out that we've gotten them to start marking the subject lines of their posts with the "OT" for "Off Topic", thus if you were to do the same, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so much concern for your obvious attempts at misdirection.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

It has been suggested some optimists are really paid government agents who want to discourage people from taking Y2K seriously. To my knowledge, there is not a shred of evidence to prove anyone is working as a member of some secret Y2K propaganda team. If I might be direct: prove it or drop it. -- Decker

The latest comments from a long line-up of RESPONSIBLE public servants ... a PAID government agent/official ... who wants to discourage people from taking Y2K seriously.

Yes? Or No?

MAY 12, 1999 . . . 14:06 EDT
Navy: DOD must balance Y2K preparation, public perception
BY BOB BREWIN (antenna@fcw.com)

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0510/web-DOD-5-12-99.html

NORFOLK, Va. -- The Defense Department must be careful to prepare for possible Year 2000 problems while not alarming the public, a top Navy official said.

DOD commands worldwide must take prudent steps to ensure that Year 2000 computer date bugs in critical infrastructure systems -- electricity and telephones, for example -- do not cripple operations, according to David Wennergren, deputy chief information officer of the Navy. But Wennergren, speaking here at the service's semiannual Connecting Technology conference, added that preparing for possible interruptions -- what he called "consequence management" -- needs to be balanced with preventing public distrust and worry -- what he called "perception management."

For example, as part of its Year 2000 consequence-management efforts, Wennergren said a Navy base might bring in water tankers shortly before year's end to ensure that the base's water supply is not interrupted if computers fail. But perception management would dictate against such a move "because people outside [the base] would want to do the same thing," Wennergren said.

Wennergren said good perception management also would oppose calling out the National Guard to handle any Year 2000-related incidents. "You do not want to call out the National Guard," because Year 2000 doomsayers would see it as evidence of a large-scale public disruption, he said.

[snip -- to end]

Given the unknown WATER situation ... is this a responsible suggestion from a Navy CIO?

Is the recommendation for NOT calling out the National Guard for anticipated local needs, a responsible suggestion from a Navy CIO?

We could write a book on lack of preparation and all those trying their level best to discourage it. Unfortunately ... next year ... most may have to live through the experience of being unprepared.

And for this assistance we PAY these people.

*Sigh*

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 12, 1999.

So, Arlin, just what is on topic here?

I looked back at the last few topics posted by you. Not one dealt with fallback/contingency plans, unless you take the view that assessing the risks involved with the current Y2k status is part of the "on-topic" discussion. Which, I believe, was Mr Decker's point.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 12, 1999.

Arlin,

Thank goodness I have the patience of Job. Answer this, Arlin, how do you prepare for Y2K unless you have a realistic idea of WHAT to prepare for? Are you suggesting we should all take the "nuclear war equivalent" scenario as TRUTH and start digging our bunkers? OK, Arlin, let's do this. You tell me exactly what will happen, provide the supporting data, convince me, and I'll stick to preparation topics.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

Mr. Decker

Do you write for the Navy?:)

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 12, 1999.

Mike,

N.A.V.Y. Never again volunteer yourself! The short answer is "No."

By the way, if you can understand what I am saying, it isn't coming from the U.S. Navy. Oh, and no acronyms... like CINCPACFLT or COMNAVSURFPAC.

(laughter)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

ah, Hoff, now you're making this too easy. Since you didn't mention which posts you were talking about, I'll just have to guess - those would be the news items I posted earlier in the day, perhaps?

well, let's just consider that mission statement one more time - remember? it goes like this:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

obviously current events news that is directly related to y2k related contingency planning would be a part of such a discussion. They would *obviously* be on topic. Just as obviously long polly diatribes are not. By definition the attitude of 'no problem' being projected by polly posters on this board *means* that those posters are *not* "concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives".

there's this little bit in logic that something cannot be A and NotA at the same time, you know? C'mon Hoff, you're not one of the y2k kiddies, you know logic well enough to see the dichotomous nature of decker's claims. oh you don't have to admit it to me, but it would be a good idea to admit it to yourself...better you should keep a realistic view of your allies, no?

decker you just keep painting bullseyes on yourself, LOL! the whole point about preparing for the y2k problem is that there is no way to gain an absolutely realistic idea of what to prepare for. The supporting data already shows that.

That being the case, the only safe manner in which to approach y2k preparation is prayerfully. One follows as best one understands God's leadings, preparing as much as one can for as many different conditions as one can. Indeed logic would indicate that one would prepare for the worst and hope and pray for the best...to do less would be to give in to sloth, greed, ignorance or conceit. Ignorance is curable, but the other three are, I believe various forms of the seven deadly sins, which in the case of y2k, next January, could be very deadly indeed.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

Arlin,

"To facilitate an ongoing dialog about Y2K issues, we have provided a Web-based bulletin-board forum that generated over 100,000 messages through early May, 1999. Send us any new Y2K information that you've come across, and join in our discussions!" Ed Yourdon Home Page

To me, Arlin, this sounds like a big "come on in."

And, Arlin, Y2K as "unknowable?" I hope not. And I hope there is room for discussion about the contrast between 'smart living' and 'worst case preparations.' I'll grant you this... prayer can't hurt.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 12, 1999.

If the government is handling the y2k scenario they way they handled the maps of Yugo, maybe prayer is all we have to fall back on anyway.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 13, 1999.

Arlin, I doubt *any* would be here if they weren't concerned of the impact of Y2k, save a very few on both extreme ends. Here, I am a "polly". In the real world, I'm considered almost a "doomer".

No one can completely understand all aspects. I got involved because I have experience in one area. But I have to rely on information provided in most areas, such as Utilities, Telecommunications, etc.

As for polly diatribes, I can only point to quite numerous requests by many pessimists that polly's "explain their position". Apparently, when they do, they are then called "off topic".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 13, 1999.

Hoff,

Thanks for popping in on this thread. If you don't mind, check my work on this thread. Am I not expressing myself clearly? Appreciate your feedback.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 13, 1999.

K. C. Decker says: "This post was an attempt to rebut the incessant argument that an optimistic view of Y2K implies you are telling people not to prepare. . . . To limit my motives to ignorance or maliciousness is simply a personal attack poorly disguised as deductive reasoning."

I went to the Debunking Y2K site that BigDog first talked about, where you gleefully related to the pollyannas there how you had generated 55 pages of responses to one of your Yourdon posts. The forum's name is clearly printed in large letters at the top of the first page: DEBUNKING Y2K. It is not a forum for what level of preparations to make for Y2K, it is a forum for discrediting the notion that there will be any serious problems AT ALL associated with the rollover. I do not think you are ignorant of the raison d'etre of that board. At that site I found this post; it is not the only one of its kind:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 23588998&P=Yes&TPP=25&TL=923504284

There are no "metrics" on this based on 30 years of I.T. experience. For some, this will be the first exposure of the "Glass House" people to discussing their pride and joys with HUMANS.

I know there has been a lot of many spent by the Utilities and the Banks in "marketing" that is not seen because it is in the Business to Business arena.

We do know that the Supply Chain people had to dance to the tune of the "Big Buyers" from Autos to anything as in : "Hey, you want a long term contract, you will spend money on Y2k".

Banking will pay an enormous price to "Prove" to the Public that it will be ready. Here the MEMES have wrecked a great deal of damage to the Faith in the Banking Systems from North to Missler to Hyatt to the LoserWire and Roleigh Gump's idiotic repeatings of North's decrying the "fractional reserve system" on Westergaard last Sept-Oct.

In the greatest hypocrisy of all, Gump's questioning of the Banking Reserves system was not accompanied by doubts about the Securities or Insurance industry. Since at that time he claimed he was "Y2k Expert on Critical Infrastructure", his lack of comments on two of the major pieces of one's overall investments was somewhat "incomplete" to say the least.

I am still waiting for one singe one of the Gloomers on Banking to tell the "Fearful" that the FDIC has paid every single last insured deposit claim made since it was started in the Depression. That FDIC claim is the best refutation of the Memes' idiocy and that of the boosterism for "gold" and or "silver".

Restoring and shoring up that "Faith" cost money and time. Time is money. When the President of a Small Bank must make calls on his depositors to insure them that the bank's systems are in order, he can't be out prospecting for new business. It really is that simple.

And it is that "counter productive".

1. $20 Million for one "educational program" alone. BIA: (Banking Industry Association) the 20 largest banks threw in one Million per.

2. Texas Bankers Association: $4,000,000. for Y2k status "public education".

3. Small and almost trivial: yesterday, in a Compass Bank brank, at each teller's position there was a standing placard about (15x12)" that Compass Bank was Year 2000 Compliant etc.

Such things cost about $500-3,000 for design work and the printing is a function of the number of branches.

Start multiplying that by all the time the Lawyers, Y2k Project people and Sr. Officials spent in "Meetings" trying to establish policy about whether they should even do such a thing.

Lets take only 10 people involved in the "Exec. Decision making policy". How many hours?? 5 1 hr. meetings X 10 Sr. Mgt. bodies MIN: $100,000 avg. $50 hr.. FIFTY wasted hours in non productive effort.

Add in the PR people tracking feedback, platform officers answering questions (yes, the teller knew all about Y2k efforts) and on and on..

All to "PROVE" to the NorthYOURdoneWiths etc.

In what has to be one of the worst financial injustices of all, none of the Y2k Assholes will ever be held accountable for the COSTS their hysteria induced nor the damage they have and continue to do.

It goes without saying, I hold them ALL responsible for the 3 known DEATHS from Y2k Hysteria now known.

CPR

Did you read that? CPR says he holds all Y2K assholes, including Yourdon posters, responsible for the "costs and damage" of Y2K information dissemination and the three deaths he says are attributable to Y2K panic. I read that as an encouragement not to prepare and not to inform. He/she may or may not post on this forum under another name, but his/her pollyanna friends certainly do and they heartily agree with his/her frequent posts on that board. I am going to be kind and presume you were ignorant of CPR anad friends' mindset.

My brain is no longer as facile as it used to be when it comes to the rebuttal of questionable statements, so perhaps someone else can clarify any ambiguous points.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 13, 1999.

I regret that I do not have time to write an essay, today. I'll be on the road in a few hours and, them meeting with a client. Personally, I would like to continue to read Mr. Decker on this forum and find his text responded to with a little less hostility, yet greater enthusiasm and force. Forcefulness, I mean... and an enthusiasm to debate his points, not to agree with him. (grin) Though I find myself agreeing with him, at times. It seems we all may deeply share an admiration for the the American Experiment. I also imagine others do too and have even fought for the American way of life in a variety of ways. For some reason, I imagine Arlin to have been a well decorated soldier. However much you mistrust the men and women in politics today, does this mean that you have given up on the Republic and its improvement?

As much as I would like to see these very interesting and intellectual debates continue, I would also like to see an even greater enthusiasm and effort for writing about how we each are preparing for Y2K and coping/adjusting to the unhappy possibilities that loom in our near future. Brian has made an outstanding effort with his Preparation Archives. Old Git, God Bless her, provides an ongoing flurry of tips and cheats on better gardening. Brian's Preparation Archives, however, could benefit from concise essays on a number of things including water storage, etc. I realize this kind of thing is less interesting than punishing Mr. Decker for his aristocratic haught and word play, but such attention is demanded-- if you agree there is an urgency to the improvement of this forum.

The upcoming June retailer report will also benefit greatly from our enthusiastic attention. There was very little interest in the May report. In fact, a summary of past reports would be an excellent project for some one who has the time to review, analyze, and sum up the experiences and focus of preparations discussed over the months. Mr. Decker even suggested to me his interest in continuing a previous discussion about winter camping gear and such and this could certainly benefit from his thoughts as well as Chuck, who I believe, once worked with an outfitter. There are also other kinds of questions that even the likes of Mr. Decker and Stephen Poole may enjoy thinking about and contributing to... without much of the their disagreeing protest. For example, what books would they keep with them if it were the end of the world? What books are they reading now. What are you reading?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 13, 1999.

To refresh Decker's memory.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 15, 1999.