The purpose of Old Git's "Let's be nice" is simple:

People who tend to disagree find it irresistable to fight unfairly, spawning resentment, hostility and bad table manners. This is fundamental to human nature. Violence begets violence. Bad table manners begets bad table manners, unless, of course you are Mr. Decker, whose facade mimics a cool and calculated ex-armed forces specialist on a mission to kill with kindness. There are people who demonstrate the use of psychology to achieve an ends.

Old Git simply wanted the tennis match to come to an end so the referee's could have a nice talk between themselves. This talk would be calm and objective, stating the facts of the game involved and which outcome would have a better likelihood of happening. This is the theme Old Git was talking about. You can see a polly is not in favor of it much less is a G.I. in favor of a polly being wasteful of precious time. Dense is the doornail and predictable is the synapse firing. Old Git is tired of the tape being played over and over again. This is more of a G.I. based forum than a Polly forum and I guess the G.I.'s are tired of shooting Kamakazi's . Old Git is suggesting that there be a cease fire so those who are newcomers will not be confused by irrational rhetoric when a serious matter is at hand, even moreso than any of us want to admit. The truth is painful and so is being in denial. Many of the Hosts of this forum want to cure what ails this country and reveal what many politicians and govt. leaders are concealing. Many of the people of this country just are not exposed to facts that are inherently hidden. The facts will not be revealed due to Politicians and lawyers. This is the fundamental reason why Y2K is not aired on T.V. or within the work environment. They want to see if they can fix it in time before everyone is set into panic mode. There is still time to speak on a level playing field and talk about current remediation efforts and whether or not they will be effective before the deadline. Many programmers host this forum and they have more insight than non-programmers. That is important not to forget.

Sincerely, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 24, 1999

Answers

Would you kindly stop reading my mind, Feller! Yes, that is EXACTLY what I meant. Thank you.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 24, 1999.

Polite villian... not bad given the usual range of insults.

The use of mimic and facade suggest my neither my politeness nor military background are genuine. I am sorry you feel this way, Feller.

I think I understand exactly what you and Old Git want... for those who don't agree with your view of Y2K to go away. We don't want to "confuse" new readers with alternative viewpoints. Gosh, they might get confused and question the "reality" that Y2K will devastate our economic infrastructure. Why, if they read the wrong post they might hesitate withdrawing all of their money from their retirement account. They might ask questions. They might even decide modest preparations are enough.

How about this. Let's act like readers are adults. Invite them to read the new posts and the old. Let them decide who is credible and who is not. The forum would be better served by encouraging people to act in a polite manner (whether you think they are sincere or not) rather than attempting to squelch alternative viewpoints.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

I love you guys. Really. Mr. Decker, Mr. Poole, even Norm. I love the way the forum tears apart your good news point of view. And, well, except for Norm, I love the way you guys tear up the bad news. It raises questions. It makes people here reply. It makes us think. We learn.

What we need here, IMHO, is to stick to the point. Keep the personal attacks, name calling, !@#$%^&, and other BS down to a minimum. Keep it civil. Let's discuss the topic, not the person. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 25, 1999.

Oh shut up, Sysman.

Just kidding!!!!!!!

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), May 25, 1999.

I much more suspect that this was what she was after:
Offer of a Compact http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qc9

Offer of a Compact

Jest follow the links and read'em if you haven't already.

This is just an attempt at ALL AROUND civility, NOT "if you think anything but "X" you should go"

Chuck Companion reaction thread to "COMPACT" http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qcA

Companion reaction thread to "COMPACT"

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 25, 1999.

They're all there, just not exactly where I wanted them!

LOL!@!!

Chuck who would rather LAUGH at this than SWEAR at the formatting kluges he has to use!

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 25, 1999.

Mr. Decker, with all due respect, I do not see you as a villain. Actually, I see you as more of a minimalist or frugal person whom applies that frugality to a blind situation applicable to city dwellers. I really did not mean to be hurtful with the Kill with kindness line nor do I want any character assassination. I guess it has been an impression of mine that you are simply trying to outdo the emotionally charged impatient G.I.s with politeness and minimalism, which tends to infuriate them.

You have mentioned that where you live, you feel secure due to the remoteness and availability of resourses...ie..firewood and game. This would tend to give you some advantage maintaining a relaxed position on Y2K, no matter which way it goes. I think most people cannot be as fortunate, living in highly populated areas and prone to many bad outcomes if indeed Y2k becomes a bad situation. I will always regard you as a practical and level headed person who exercises politeness. If everyone was fortunate enough to live away from the big cities and live in the manner you do, they would also be able to relax, buy minimal items and live off the land. You may think your politeness gets you flamed. That may be part of it. The other part is with the politeness, you are willing to suggest minimal preperation. What is in the cans will last for a long time and it really doesn't cost that much. Consumers insurance is prudent, even for 6 months or a year. You can always eat it. I just feel you're wasting your time trying to frustrate others with politeness and minimalism in order to undo the forum's focus. Being driven with this in mind is counter- productive and possibly harmful if your wrong. If Y2k is bad and you prepare moreso than a frugal person would, you get to eat. If Y2K is not bad and you still prepare as previously mentioned, you still get to eat. It is either Win/Win or Lose/Win outcomes. I hope you can feel better about my opinion of you and I hope others will follow this thread to get a better view of my opinion of you as well.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

Feller,

For the record, I live not far from two major urban areas. The "Better Safe Than Sorry" argument can be taken to its logical extreme. This is why I wrote the essay on wearing a helmet while you drive. If you REALLY want to be safe, put on a helmet. Why not? It may save your life.

Unlike wearing a helmet, some of the "advice" given about preparation is risky. Withdrawing all of your money out of retirement accounts is risky... because if all we have is an economic downturn, you will have given a chunk of your retirement away. How many people do you think will actually eat rice and beans for an entire year? What will happen... some will let the food spoil, some will feed it to the hogs and some will donate it to the food bank. Don't you think there will be enormous economic pressure to bring food to market... even if there are some disruptions? We have wheat rotting in the field right now due to low grain prices. I think even if we have problems, we will continue to feed the nation. My suggestion of 30 days of food is not "survival." It's comfort. It's not having to wait in line if the stores are low on inventory. It's having what you want to eat instead of what's available. Do I think the U.S. will have people starve to death due to Y2K? No. I have not seen any data that support that hypothesis.

I'm still waiting to see my first commuter wearing a helmet.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

Mr. Decker. I was referring to the storage of canned goods. The effort you spend here skirting issues is redundant. The Govt. has admitted it does not know what will happen or the outcome of Y2K. They have mentioned challenges with embeddeds in Farm equipment, Factories processing food, chemical plants ( that really put alot of ingredients in food), the trains, maritime, Oil refinement, gas pipelines etc. That really covers alot. The govt. is a self preserving entity. With many questions to be raised here, are you willing to only have your months supply with all theses embedded issues? Prudence is preparation. Frugal is not having waste. For under 1.50$ per can, I can purchase canned food with at least 1,000 calories or better. Canned beef ravioli, canned beef stew, canned beef tamales, canned mackeral, canned sweet potatoes, jars of cheese sauce, apple sauce, grape juice....etc.

If you are insisting that everyone is going to pull money out of the bank or insisting people will buy only rice and beans, stop reacting to those points and try a little more helpful advice instead of spinning your wheels in redundancy. Minimalism advice is what adversarial countries would offer precluding a war. Someone in our country would not be so hell bent in putting The people of the U.S. in hells way. Mr. Decker, what really are your intentions?

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

Thank you Mr. Decker! As a "newbie" to this site I can assure you that the vitriolic attacks on this site put people off from reading "anything" (pro or con) posted. When you have to wade through vugarity and pettiness to find a nugget of truth, it hardly seems worth the effort. With diligence and persistance one can find this information elsewhere without having their senses assaulted by immature baiting and backbiting. This site has some powerful information and wonderful potential. USE IT! If your goal is to persuade people to your point of view, don't kill the messenger; attack the issue with reason, clarity and CIVILITY.

And a special "thanks" to Old Git - for his plea for, may I call it "maturity" on the site.

-- Morrighan (matotipi@worldpath.net), May 25, 1999.

Ah- Morrighan- it's HER plea, "Old Git" is a delightful lady from Across the Pond, currently trying to educate the Whole Research Triangle, probably single handedly, and probably successfully (LOL). Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 25, 1999.

Chuck

Thank you for the correction and my apologies to Old Git for my error.

-- Morrighan (matotipi@worldpath.net), May 25, 1999.

K. C. Decker said in his first post above: "How about this. Let's act like readers are adults. Invite them to read the new posts and the old. Let them decide who is credible and who is not." Quite right. So please read my original post to which K.C. refers (appended below), and then read his first post above, and see who is credible and who is not. I said:

". . . we ought to show them our BEST side.

I promise to do my utmost when it comes to tongue-biting and mouth-zipping. I do, really, unless somebody flames a newbie, then look out! So if you right honorable gentlepersons don't mind, wouldja just put a sock in it for a day or two? At least let the newbies get used to us a bit before you start in on them and one other--agreed? It's just a cease-fire, okay?

Y'all know what constitutes views labeled "extreme". Let's just keep to the middle ground (like Critt does so well)--it's only for a day or two, just so we don't scare 'em away, not just from us but from Y2K as well. Let's try to live down the stereotype fruitcake image. (Even if we really ARE stereotypical fruitcakes. I know I am.)

Remember that those prompted to visit by 60 Minutes are going to be a little afraid and insecure. They may even be shocked, we don't know. Depends on the program. But let's be prepared for this too, okay? Let's try not to frighten them off. Be gentle with them and one other--just for a day or two. We desperately need every new pair of hands, you KNOW we do."

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Now let me explain what prompted me to ask for a "cease-fire." A couple of years ago I subscribed to an unrelated forum and the first thread consisted of several people engaged in a heated, uncivil argument about a tiny point, which in the grand scheme of things, didn't amount to a hill of beans. (Metaphor intended.) It alienated me at once and I immediately unsubscribed. The experience came to mind when I thought of all the people who might be looking for info about Y2K after they saw 60 Minutes. In spite of regular arguments and flames, there is still a great deal of useful information available on this board, and time would be better spent in providing more of the same (which I'll do after this). Ironically, civility is to the benefit of all--the "no problem" crowd, the "bump-in-the-road" bunch, the "middle-grounders," AND the "bunker survivalists." And please note how many times I said "only for a day or two" - THREE TIMES.

Any other interpretation of my words is wrong. Period.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 25, 1999.

Old Git, I agree with you, really. "I promise to do my utmost when it comes to tongue-biting and mouth-zipping. I do, really, unless somebody flames a newbie, then look out!" But tell me, where was the civility when I first came on this board? I got flamed for being a newbie and asking for some explanations. Where were you to defend me?

Do you remember the "Patsy" thread? My, how you doomers flamed that poor person. More than 110 responses in one day; I think it was an all time record.

It seems to me that you doomers are pleaing for more civility only because it's not just one or two pollys on this forum that you can easily beat down. The number of pollys have grown and you can stand the tide of flames turning in your direction. Just my opinion.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 25, 1999.

Maria...I believe more Programmers reside here (on this forum) in the G.I. mode than Pollies as Programmers. I think what flame you are referring to may have a different octane and rightly so. I think most programmers and investigators of Y2K pack a higher octane than an ininformed lurker or newbie who is just that. It is like a newbie or uninformed person trying to spit freshly lit alcohol from their mouth where little combustion takes place and the rest gets all over the face of the programmer or investigational expert. I think when the Programmer Spits their high octane fuel from their mouth, it burns in an instant, leaving no residue on the newbies face. The flame packs a punch of insight where the residue of unburned fuel reminds us of the quality of what is conveyed. I don't think Old Git would feel flaming from Pollies to be that threatening. It is Y2K that is the issue and the time left to get the word out to prepare. If you have food saved up you will eat whether or not Y2k is a problem. If you don't save food and prepare, there is not 100% chance you will eat at a later time. The Food issue is simple and the hypothetical y2K outcome is complex. Do what is easier.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

Feller,

My intentions are simple. As you probably know, I have a libertarian streak. I am responsible, as an adult, for my actions. For example, if I smoke cigars and contract lung cancer, it's my fault. I know the risks inherent with tobacco use. If my goal is to maximize the odds of living as long as possible, smoking a cigar does not make sense. As a free citizen, however, my choice of goals and actions are my responsibility.

My decision to smoke a cigar is based on my perception of the risks and rewards. The same is true for Y2K preparation. We may not agree on preparation, however, I defend your economic right to prepare to the extent you feel warranted. If you are right, and I am wrong... perhaps I will suffer consequences. As a free citizen, I accept that responsibility. Because we disagree on preparation does not make either of us "stupid." People can reach different conclusions from the same data. And in the case of Y2K, there is little data and a great deal of speculation. To condense my entire argument into a sentence; I think the Republic and the free market economy are very resiliant. I'm betting both survive Y2K in decent shape. You may not.

I am here expressing ideas and supporting the right of others to make an independent choice about Y2K. Quite frankly, I think adults can read and make decisions for themselves.

If a person decides to engage in extensive preparations, so be it. But if they decide modest preparations are appropriate, they should not be bullied by the pessimists on this forum. They should not be told they are responsible for causing the deaths of others including their family. They should not be subjected to ridicule, taunts or abuse.

Despite "forum opinion," I am not stupid. Nor am I a government operative. Based on the current information available, I have concluded that modest preparations are appropriate. I think other people may reach the same conclusion. In fact, I have offered my thoughts on modest preparation on an earlier thread.

I plan to enjoy a good cigar this evening. Like most people, I enjoy many activities that have some element of risk. At the end of the day, I simply try to find a balance somewhere between the extremes.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

Personally I like Decker's posts. Sensible person.

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 25, 1999.

Thank you Mr. Decker and your analogy. You know you don't have to defend your rights and your freedom of speech. I guess I consider the the people who come here defending thier american rights is redundant and milk-toast at best. What we are doing here has nothing to do with dried-up ammendment rights, however though, we are exercising them. The cutting edge can be with those watching remediation efforts, budgets spent and reports regarding such.....or.....the cutting edge can be you sitting there clipping off the end of your cigar and stating your rights as an american.

Mr. Decker, Old Git wants peace here on the forum. I see more why the build-up of frustration is an end product as subtle inuendo's Of OFF- TOPIC material and analogies get passed back and forth. Those who really are looking at Y2K more closely than you can identify with what I'm saying. How much investigating do you think you do on Y2k that justifies what you say, compared to the programmers and investigators of Y2K here on the Forum? If you do more than they do, elaborate a little. If not, enjoy your cigar and the newspaper and CNN and 60 minutes and.........

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

Blue Himalayan...I agree with you about Mr. Decker's posts. He is quite level headed and practical, with good posts. I was defending my position earlier, trying to explain, as the tennis match goes on, why the net attendant (Mr.Decker) gets whacked by a ball every now and then. There are two kinds of net attendants. One who plays with the ball a little out of the reach of the players and one who promptly returns the ball. One ball handler is defending his right to handle the ball while the other is defending the rights of the players to move on with the game as it unfolds.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

"There is no squabbling so violent as that between people who accepted an idea yesterday and those who will accept the same idea tomorrow."

-- Christopher Morley

Oops. Howzat? :-)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 25, 1999.

Feller,

In general terms, I trust computer experts with computer problems. It makes me nervous when a computer "expert" suddenly feels qualified to comment on economic phenomena.

I usually stay clear of the "tech" debates. The nuances of COBOL are lost on me. When people start talking bank runs, market collapses or the complete meltdown of the economic system... I step forward.

The actual number of technical failures is an interesting question and worth debate. We have not seen the same quality of debate on the economic issues. The numbers produced by some pessimists make the Great Depression look like a bump in the road. I call it the "nuclear war-equivalent" scenario. I challenge the NWE scenario, and in response I get "the code is broken" and "we started too late."

"Those who really are looking at Y2K more closely than you can identify with what I'm saying. How much investigating do you think you do on Y2k that justifies what you say, compared to the programmers and investigators of Y2K here on the Forum?"

I consider Y2K carefully, but from a different perspective. For me, the questions are about market failures, inefficiency levels, price changes, labor market fluctuations, interest rates, external costs, government intervention in markets, trade issues, GDP, etc.

The tricky part of Y2K is translating diverse system "failures" and inefficiencies into real economic terms. On this subject, I feel modestly qualified to comment (and have) ... with the obvious limitations of imperfect data.

With all due respect, I must differ with your last metaphor (and I find the comparison to a "net attendant" less than flattering.) The vitriol I have experienced is not getting "whacked" with a tennis ball. Of course, Feller, you have not answered the issue of double standards. Why is "OK" to slur the optimists and give the pessimists a free pass?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

K. C. Decker said:

"I consider Y2K carefully, but from a different perspective. For me, the questions are about market failures, inefficiency levels, price changes, labor market fluctuations, interest rates, external costs, government intervention in markets, trade issues, GDP, etc."

When Maslow formulated his hierarchy of needs, those of a basic biological nature (water, food, shelter) were placed first.

I submit that most of the people on this forum are thinking in terms of basic needs. There is little the average person can do to influence "market failures, inefficiency levels, price changes, labor market fluctuations, interest rates, external costs, government intervention in markets, trade issues, GDP, etc." It is much more realistic and feasible to provide the basics. This statement is borne out by the fact that the Archives show a total of 1154 threads for alternative energy, food, health/medicine, utilities, and only 680 threads for banking/finance, economy/jobs, stockmarket, etc.

In short, there is almost twice as much interest in basic needs as there is in matters of finance and economics.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 25, 1999.

With all due respect, ma'am, all your your basic needs are provided by a free market economy. It has been the success of this economic system that has provided the wealth of goods you now store in preparation of Y2K... at affordable prices, I might add. The complex workings of our economy bores most people, but it has been a lifelong fascination for me. You see the basics in seeds, jars and tools. I see the basics in supply, demand, division of labor. Two sides of the same coin.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

So,

What's "basic" if you run out of food and water, D?

I'm interested in economics too, but I'm more interested in the economics of Y2K.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 25, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I picked the metaphor "net attendant" for you because the net attendant is a sort of diplomat. The tennis players are busy whacking at each other while the only person(s) left not whacking at each other are the net attendants. Old Git wanted peace and you have provided and lived up to her standards. A net attendant is not a slave but a privileged position that is earned. The fact that the net attendant(s) get(s) whacked every now and then and refuse(s) to fight back makes the net attendant(s) quite admirable.

The double standard part you refer to is simply an acknowlegement on the G.I.'s part that the underestimation of Y2k's seriousness on the polly's behalf is not up to par. The fact that many bits of evidence progammers and Y2k investigators have come to share with you has been given little credence by you and that your blatant disbelief that the sun will rise (because you are on the dark side of the moon) credits those who actually do their homework to dole out a double standard. They simply cannot break through all the ice, barriers or whatever is surrounding you to allow the information to flow to your mind. You just won't have it, won't accept it, deny it and expect your diplomacy to wear down the opposition by getting them to stoop with low blows. You have heard some say you are a clever troll. I would say you are very persistent with an agenda while wearing blinders. If Y2k was an event that would never happen, your level headed and well balanced advice would be widely accepted by most or all people. Y2k is going to happen. They've done tests by turning the clock forward. Many strange outcomes have come to fruition and the information has been recorded. In the light of all that and the fact that most or all programmers agree there isn't enough time, they suggest to the public (in what spare time they have) to play it safe, prepare for an unknown and do it before everyone has to do it simultaneously. Simultaneous preparation is not possible. That is the point here and G.I.'s see you getting in the way of an orderly, timely or trickled preparation mission. We want to save as many people as we can in this country and do not want to see have nots go without. I really don't know any better way to explain it to you without falling into a CHANGE OF ATTITUDE, which is really the point or reason of this thread.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 25, 1999.

Decker said, "You see the basics in seeds, jars and tools. I see the basics in supply, demand, division of labor. Two sides of the same coin."

If supply, demand and division of labor break down next year, they won't feed my family or protect us. Will they break down? You don't know. I don't know. But I know that the year 2000 is the most likely year for them to break down in my lifetime.

You're correct that you don't understand Y2K as a technical problem. Unfortunately for you, you have decided to side with the Poole's instead of the BigDog's and Hamasaki's. You must be feeling very lucky.

For those who aren't trusting to luck, all reasonable preparation is mandated, depending on situation, including some unusual holding aside of financial assets to cover the possibility of financial breakdown.

I consider "reasonable" the same six-to-nine month period that some utility companies are planning for, within the limits of affordability.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 25, 1999.

KC, as usual you have sidestepped the issue. Of *course* I know the free market economy provides my basic needs. For the moment. But I can tell you from first-hand experience that when Hurricane Fran left this city without power, nobody gave a damn about their 401(k)s, Munis, T-bills, CDs, the DJ, AMEX, S&P, GNP, or any other letters of the alphabet, they wanted food, water, ice, candles, charcoal, gas and generators. If they were caught without cash (and many were) they wanted their banks and ATMs to be open (none were for the first few days) so they could buy their basic needs, but that was as far as their financial interests went. Oh I'm sure there were some who wanted to call their brokers, but the average person was more interested in surviving without electricity. They knew it would be only a few days before power was restored but it made no difference. Their basic needs were uppermost, not economics.

In immediate post-World War II Britain, there were people who were working on getting the destroyed economy back in shape. But the rest of the struggling millions were trying to survive, mostly on Spam and powdered milk and eggs from the US. I can assure you that very few gave a thought to what provided the meager rations they got (but they did think about who--thanks, Yanks!).

Now, no matter what you opine about the preferred subject matter of this forum, the numbers from the archives show that almost twice as many posts were made by people seeking information on basic necessities as were made by those with economics interests. And if I had time, I'd go through those posts and discard those relating to whether banks will be open, further cutting the numbers. You have a deep interest in economics. Fine. You will be among those who are putting the economy to rights if any power outages are long in duration while we try to keep our friends and families alive and healthy to enjoy more goods provided by more free market economics.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 25, 1999.

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/901/6.html

Ed's is skating on thin ice

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Re: Is EY really a "gump"? (Mutha Nachu)

Date: Mar 09, 08:22

From: Mr. Decker

For a "smart guy," Ed Yourdon picked a horse that will drop dead in less than 300 days. With the rising tide of positive news about Y2K, I will not be surprised to see an "adjusted" message from Mr. and Ms. Yourdon. Both Yourdons are defensive, and they are well out of their league, particularly in economics. Next year, the Yourdons will become candidates for "where are they now?" clips.

Mr. Decker

(End of quote)

K.C. "Modesty" Decker

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 25, 1999.

Feller, et al,

The Y2K pessimists have mixed anecdotes, rumors, speculation, falsehoods, unrelated failure and real problems into a stew. They have done tests by turning the clock forward. Yes, Feller, they have. One regional bank I work with has been running dual systems since the beginning of the year. Many companies are resolving Y2K problems and the reports from the iron triangle have been overwhelmingly positive. With all due respect, to say most or all programmers agree there isnt enough time is just not true. While derided by BD, the IT press is silent. The 60 Minutes segment completely dismissed the run for the hills school of preparation. Formerly pessimistic experts like de Jager and Yardeni have grown more hopeful. When Ed Yourdon had the attention of the U.S. Senate today, he urged disclosure and preparation a far cry from:

If Y2K does turn out to be as bad as I think it will be, nobody is going to care abut the opinions of software professionals. Rural China will probably be okay; but in my humble opinion, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and a dozen other cities are going to resemble Beirut in January 2000. That's why I've moved out of NYC to rural New Mexico a couple months ago. When I talk about modest preparations I am getting in the way of an orderly, timely or trickled preparation mission. When Andy advises people to max out their credit cards, drain their savings and retirement plans, to finance preparations its a mission?

Where do you store your preparations after the bank repossesses your house?

Moving on to economics, supply, demand and division of labor will not break down next year. Nor will the laws of physics. Good and services will be exchanged perhaps less efficiently for a time due to Y2K problems. When you need medical assistance, where are you going to go? Physicians will not forget their craft. Currency will continue to be the medium of exchange. Even if we enter an economic depression, there will be markets for goods and services like there have for a few thousand years.

My job (post-Y2K) will not be to create the economy. The free market is self-creating and self-perpetuating. In the worst of times, I will fall back on my blue-collar trade skills or engage in commerce. Why, I even have some experience with the time-honoring craft of distilling spirits an avocation far more appreciated than my current profession.

Ah, finally to Outings thanks for reminding me. Despite his recent canonization by this forum, Mr. Yourdon is still a businessman.

In addition to a number of Y2K activities that I do on a purely voluntary/charitable basis (including this forum and virtually all of the articles and essays available on my web site), I'm also involved in a number of for-profit activities. These include the publication of my book, Time Bomb 2000; publication of a Y2K Home Preparation video together with Y2K Solutions Group, Inc; participation as co- founder, Chairman and Director of Y2K Advisory Services for the Cutter Consortium (www.cutter.com/consortium), which provides technical reports, newsletters, and Y2K consulting services; participation as a member of the Board of Directors of Mastech Systems, Inc., a software firm that provides a wide range of software and consulting services, including Y2K; speeches, seminars, and workshops at various Y2K conferences; and participation in Y2K International's multi-level marketing (MLM) business.

I support Mr. Yourdons right to engage in commerce. I also think his business interests create a conflict of interest with his role as Y2K observer. I have questioned the multi-level marketing business, because my experience with such enterprises has been less than noteworthy. I will say this, he does seem a very savvy businessman although what happens if Y2K does not turn New York into Beirut. Personally, I think his professional reputation suffers and thus, so does his earning potential. (Of course, Gary North, the Energizer Bunny of Doom still manages to sell two-year subscriptions to Remnant Review.) Finally, Mr. Yourdon admits he is not an economist, yet a great deal of Time Bomb 2000 is economic speculation.

Only in America.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 25, 1999.

Decker said, "Moving on to economics, supply, demand and division of labor will not break down next year. Nor will the laws of physics. Good and services will be exchanged perhaps less efficiently for a time due to Y2K problems. When you need medical assistance, where are you going to go? Physicians will not forget their craft. Currency will continue to be the medium of exchange. Even if we enter an economic depression, there will be markets for goods and services like there have for a few thousand years."

You define "break down" AS IF what? There were no exchange of any services of any kind? Who suggested this would happen? Or that there would be no markets for goods and services?

The question is, "what kind of markets"? and "what kind of currency?" and "how will my family be affected by the turmoil?"

The reason I find so many of your posts disingenuous is that you redefine a meaningful statement (the supply chain may break down) by setting it up as an absurd straw man. Always, the impression left is that serious preparation is irrational though you are at pains to let people do what they want.

While "division of labor" will remain in the abstract, that won't help me if our local hospital goes out of business and the rural physicians move away BECAUSE OF Y2K. Multiply that if you wish. It won't help the mom who can't get to the hospital to have her baby. Will there be help available? Sure, my wife is a CNM who can legally do home birth. Will the result be acceptable? Probably better, frankly, in most cases. But she can't do Caesareans ...... so the mom may die.

Your "model" does okay but a mom dies. Does that real possibility (real, at least, to the family practice doctor and head of hospital admin who have discussed it with me) mean anything to you in your cold world?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 25, 1999.

BD,

And your posts leave me scratching my head because you glide so easily from an indeterminate number of computer-related difficulties to an unprecedented cataclysm in our society. For you, Y2K makes the Great Depression or Civil War pale in comparison. Even if we have a wide range of computer problems, I think most people will struggle mightily to continue day-to-day as they know it... even doctors.

I don't question your honesty, BD. I just question how you can make a prediction of Apocalyptic scope with limited data... and then wonder wide-eyed why people don't swallow it whole. Maybe you should ask Mr. Yourdon why he didn't preach the Apocalypse in front of the Senate yesterday.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 26, 1999.

BigDog, just a comment, more Caesareans are done because of malpractice suits than because of medical reasons. A few years back, 50% of the births in Califor. were c-section, and you can't tell me it was because the women had problems. Women had babies in fields one hundred years ago. It's a very natural process and many more are having home births once again. Your example is a very specific what if. People have found ways to deal with problems including how to deliver babies.

Can you tell why hospitals in local areas would desolve because of Y2K? Most tools are compliant, that is, not year dependent. Power is (imho) the main concern for hospitals staying open. I can't speak for rural areas but hospitals in cities are the primary. Utilities will feed them first, then critical businesses, then last on the totem pole are the residencial areas. Even in Kosovo, we destroyed their infrastructure and power is their main concern in keeping patients alive.

When you spoke to the hospital what was their concern?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 26, 1999.

Decker said, "For you, Y2K makes the Great Depression or Civil War pale in comparison." Where and when have I said that? "Pale in comparison?"

"Maybe you should ask Mr. Yourdon why he didn't preach the Apocalypse in front of the Senate yesterday."

What does that mean? Yourdon predicts a depression that is real but probably somewhat less severe than the 30s. Sorry, that isn't the Apocalypse.

You're not responding to my point AT ALL.

Maria [my comments]

"BigDog, just a comment, more Caesareans are done because of malpractice suits than because of medical reasons.

[Not so and here is an area where, thanks to my wife, we are experts. Malpractice is an element but medical philosophy, "birth as a medical problem", plays by far the major role. Actually, wrong. The money you can earn from Caesareans plays the MAJOR role.]

A few years back, 50% of the births in Califor. were c-section, and you can't tell me it was because the women had problems. Women had babies in fields one hundred years ago. It's a very natural process and many more are having home births once again.

[Agree 100%. My wife is one of three CNMs who can legally do home birth in NY (cf hostility from medical profession). We have had two home births of our own children.]

Your example is a very specific what if. People have found ways to deal with problems including how to deliver babies.

[Indeed, people can deliver their own babies successfully. However, the example I cite is not far-fetched. In the absence of medical care and/or midwives, and even with midwives, births that require surgical intervention lead towards the death of mother and/or baby.]

Can you tell why hospitals in local areas would desolve because of Y2K? Most tools are compliant, that is, not year dependent. Power is (imho) the main concern for hospitals staying open. I can't speak for rural areas but hospitals in cities are the primary. Utilities will feed them first, then critical businesses, then last on the totem pole are the residencial areas. Even in Kosovo, we destroyed their infrastructure and power is their main concern in keeping patients alive.

[I am not saying that hospitals, in general, will close though some may. However, and here is where Decker is being disingenous, one can have a breakdown in division of labor without a complete, unfixable collapse (think: cars). I'm not a prophet so questions like, "how long"?, "how severe?" and "when fixed, where?" are not answerable at this time.]

When you spoke to the hospital what was their concern?"

[Their administration has NO Y2K concern, awareness or intelligence. Seriously. Their GI medical staff (itself a minority) frankly expects billing systems and Medicare to fail completely or completely enough to sink a hospital where cash flow is tight in the best of times and has the usual mix of knowledge/ignorance about embedded systems that we all do.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 26, 1999.

"I support Mr. Yourdons right to engage in commerce. I also think his business interests create a conflict of interest with his role as Y2K observer." -- Decker

I would define his "role" as Y2K activist and computer expert and business person rather than a mere "observer." So does the U.S. Senate.

As an alternate example, does not a bank also have a "conflict-of- interest by not disclosing their complete Y2K status to the people who have invested their money in a particular institution?

At least Ed, has "disclosed" his opinions quite publicly on Y2K issues-at-large, to which we all can become self-educated and agree or disagree with his stance. He also, like the rest of us recognizes, Shift Happens.

Are the banks doing the same?

What is the bottom line in banking economics anyway? You figure it out.

Not, only in America, but everywhere on the planet.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.