OK, going to climb up on the ole soapbox, this once.

Why do I post here? Why am I concerned?

Folks, Y2k is a problem. No surprise, huh? And, a battle is about to be waged. The fortifications are being built; systems are being fixed, as many as can be. Some skirmishes have already been won. But, beginning about December, the true battle will be waged.

I find it interesting how the definition of TEOTWAWKI has changed. Back when I first got seriously involved in these discussions, the current rage was the Infomagic "de-evolutionary spiral". Most of those scenarios involved extended loss of power and telecommunications.

Contrary to some claims, yes, much has changed. No one is seriously predicting grid collapses anymore. Whether or not you have nit-picking problems with NERC reports, the plain facts are that the electric industry has gotten the work done. In July, NERC will specifically list all utilities Y2k Ready, along with listing those with identified exceptions. It won't be a guessing game anymore.

But all the same, a battle will occur. No, not all systems will be fixed; and even those fixed, will have problems. The battle may be contained within the geek domain, or more likely it will spill out into everyday life. Problems will happen. But make no mistake, the geeks will be going to war. And whether or not you feel any effect, they most certainly will.

And that is why I post. You may feel you are helping in the fortifications, by your preparations. And you may be. But the battle to protect our systems, and perhaps our society, will still be waged. Many seem to feel that a collapse would be a good thing; I most emphatically do not. I don't buy the win-win attitude put forth by many; I'm sorry, but if we collapse, nobody wins. Well, maybe not nobody.

And yes, here I'll invoke the name of Gary North. No, this is not a critique of his information, but an analysis of his methods. Because Gary North's goal is not and was never to raise awareness, to get the problem fixed. Gary North's goal IS a collapse. He doesn't deny it.

And what is his method? To make the problem appear insurmountable. To make the cause appear hopeless. To post every piece of bad news he can find, and then apply his spin, to make it appear worse. In fact, the same method applied to a lesser degree, and admitted to, by some on this forum.

Others are aiding this effort. The talk used to be of the "Great Geek Migration", but even Andy has dropped that. But the underlying theme is still there. Deathmarches. Get ready to "Bug-out". No matter what you do, it won't be enough.

Why do I use Gary North as an example? Because of his goal. If he truly felt it was hopeless, he would button up. The last thing he wants is to raise awareness, and generate enough action, that a collapse is averted.

So why does this continue? I truly believe, for the same reason that propaganda techniques are used in conventional wars. Someone who views the cause as hopeless, will give up. And I've been through enough project implementations to know, there are times when you feel like saying f*ck it, I'm out of here. And you either find the motivation to continue, or not. The geeks in the trenches will be working loooonnng hours. And the one sure way to ensure a collapse, is for everyone to hole up and ride it out.

So that's why I post. It truly is not hopeless. Far from it. And that's why I call out those that twist information, to make the problem seem worse than it is. This truly is a winnable battle.

(end soapbox)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 25, 1999

Answers

"Nobody knows" whether it is hopeless or not. NOBODY. If the power grid shuts off for 60 days -- as Gary North likes to point out continuously -- then our civilization, The World As We Know It, sure will come close to anything North or Infomagic ever thought of.

It is now practically JUNE 1999, and the only good news that seems to be offered is promises, promises. The 60 Minutes program on Sunday night offered a very realistic and scary look at a major city that will not be ready. But that does not stop the promises, promises. Well publicized deadlines slip, and are replaced by new ones, which then slip, which then are ... promises, promises.

As Gary North points out, based on the EVIDENCE, there is no reason to believe that the worst case scenarios will not come to pass. Obviously, this is not the same as saying that they WILL come to pass, which gets back to the only thing that everyone should agree with: nobody knows.

Bottom line: You have no idea whether Y2K is winnable or not. You are, as we enter into mid-1999, grasping at any straws of good news that you can find. And, as North points out, EVIDENCE will in fact point in different directions, not just one way. But one needs to consider the preponderance of evidence, and the effects of being right versus being wrong.

Preparing for a Y2K that turns out to be a "bump" carries some penalties, obviously, but not preparing and having Y2K turn out to be a complete disaster is obviously worse. This is what the term "no-brainer" is based on. Preparing for Y2K should be a "no-brainer". There is not much time left to do it, either.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 25, 1999.

Hoff,

I'm inclined to agree in some area's. No this is not a winnable battle if the public is not made aware of factual arguments, pro and con. Your propoganda theories run both ways also. Who may I ask is the culprit of twisted information? Certainly not Ed as far as I can see. When he saw business comunities taking the bug seriously, with many outstanding efforts, he changed from his more severe words, to a less severe tone.

"Strive for "full Monty" disclosure about Y2K risks, so that citizens can be as well-informed as possible when they make decisions."

What is wrong with that statement. Does it imply that we as a human race that are possesed with the ability to think for ourselves, do not posses the necessary equipment to analyze and decide? I admit, there is "meme" type ideas prevelant in society. I refuse to let you think for me.

I said before, and say it again "Know your enemies!"

Now back to the Cox report.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 25, 1999.

Your contributions to the dialogue here is appreciated, Hoff.

I believe you, as do many others, sell Gary North short. IMO, he has contributed more than anyone to creating awareness of the potential problems Y2K may bring. He has emphasized personal preparedness over & over & over again. These are good things!

North's desire for societal collapse is irrelevant to me. The commentary he provides on his site at the beginning of each link doesn't interest me. I click through to read each story for myself.

He challenged me to do my own research. I will be forever grateful to him for that.

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 25, 1999.

Hoff,

One more thing. If you really have a problem with Gary, why not go to his site and pitch your bitch?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 25, 1999.

King of Spain -- Agree 100%.

Hoff -- Glad for every geek that is spitting blood to fix Y2K. But I emphatically disagree with this...

"And yes, here I'll invoke the name of Gary North. No, this is not a critique of his information, but an analysis of his methods. Because Gary North's goal is not and was never to raise awareness, to get the problem fixed. Gary North's goal IS a collapse. He doesn't deny it.

And what is his method? To make the problem appear insurmountable. To make the cause appear hopeless. To post every piece of bad news he can find, and then apply his spin, to make it appear worse. In fact, the same method applied to a lesser degree, and admitted to, by some on this forum.

Others are aiding this effort. The talk used to be of the "Great Geek Migration", but even Andy has dropped that. But the underlying theme is still there. Deathmarches. Get ready to "Bug-out". No matter what you do, it won't be enough."

Subtly (well, it's not even subtle) smearing the forum as a lesser "Gary North" is ridiculous. Who, specifically, HERE, has an interest in making the problem seem insurmountable and why? Name them.

Andy is working hard ON Y2K remediation so what's your beef there?

Or is your beef with Cook, Sysman,.... and many of the other Yourdonites who acknowledge the serious possibility of TEOTWAWKI (downplay it if you'd like but IFM is still a measurable possibility) while ALSO working on Y2K fixes? Name them.

You should stick to your tech posts. They're much better than this.

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

This is a good idea. Keep all the birds in one cage.

-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), May 26, 1999.

To King:

If you truly believe at this point a power grid collapse of 60 days is even a remote possibility, then my hat's off to you. You are able to maintain the blinder's better than anyone I've ever seen.

Tell me, just what EVIDENCE will suffice for you? Obviously, the disclosures and testing results aren't enough.

To R Wright

I agree, the more information, the better. I think collectively, companies are doing a decent job of informing people of their status, on what is essentially to them an internal project. Nobody is trying to think for you, at least not me.

As for Gary North, my problems with him were not the point of the post. I used him as an illustration of the methods employed.

To Bingo1

Again, what problems I have with North were not the point, and neither was the information he supplies. Once again, it was an illustration of the method used, and what he hopes to accomplish.

To BigDog

My reference to Andy was strictly related to his previous article, published in one of Cory's WRP's, about the "Geek Migration". As I said, he has since recanted this view.

My point isn't necessarily that people are actively aiding this outcome. But 'a' was the one, on a previous thread, who in essence confirmed that his goal was to crow about every piece of bad news.

You may feel that this encourages people to prepare, and is worthwhile. My point is making the outcome appear hopeless, by focussing exclusively on bad news, and twisting and distorting information to make it appear all bad, has a definite downside as well. Which is why I post.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

Hoff,

"You may feel that this encourages people to prepare, and is worthwhile. My point is making the outcome appear hopeless, by focussing exclusively on bad news, and twisting and distorting information to make it appear all bad, has a definite downside as well. Which is why I post."

I accuse every major performance in the media (not the net) of just the same thing, only slanted in the opposite direction.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 26, 1999.

"Yourdonites who acknowledge the serious possibility of TEOTWAWKI"

Ya know BigDog, I read your thread tonight, and I pretty much agree. I'm not a 10, but I don't think it going to take a 10. I haven't yet seen enough to rule out the possibility. So, yea, it's OK to include me in the above category. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.

I don't agree. For example, the latest 60 minutes story could hardly be accused of slanting the evidence to a total "good news" perspective.

But even if it were so, does that justify doing the same thing here?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

Hoff,

You win, Y2K is definately a 1 to 2.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 26, 1999.

Hoff, you said, "You may feel that this encourages people to prepare, and is worthwhile. My point is making the outcome appear hopeless, by focussing exclusively on bad news, and twisting and distorting information to make it appear all bad, has a definite downside as well. Which is why I post."

I absolutely do not want anything but accurate news shared about Y2K, so far as this is possible (and it is not very possible). Frankly, I think a does too (BTW, a is another remediator). However valuable the end (preparation), it is not justified in the slightest by twisting events. IMO, the news is plenty bad enough on its own.

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

Hoff,

Sorry I blew you off there. (I know sorry don't get it, but I mean it)

60 minutes was sugar coated and you know it. It did not deal with the whole picture. Once again spun for Elite intentions for mass consumption. Your problem with this board. This board spins? We learned from the masters.

I'm borrowing this from another thread, very relevent here....

"By NOT TELLING the masses the truth, the .gov has set up a recipe for aghast horror, disbelief, anger, betrayal, fury, and civil unrest. It has gone beyond stupidity into calculated evil. There can be no excuses anymore, long past rationalizing.

The timebomb is ticking, and it could have been defused with just a little forethought and compassion ...

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 26, 1999. "

could have been defused with just a little forethought and compassion

could have been defused with just a little forethought and compassion

could have been defused with just a little forethought and compassion

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 26, 1999.

I quite agree. Even if the information brought about means I make the choice about which I've written elsewhere, I still want to know the truth. Walking around in a pink cloud for a few months won't help me if I'm mentally incapacitated come the New Year.

-- Vera Crichton (crichton@digicron.com), May 26, 1999.

Yak-Yak-Yak! I agree-I don't agree-Yak-Yak-Yak!!! What does it all matter. Y2K will happen, whether you agree or not!!! Who gives a shit if you agree or not? I don't!!

-- y2k (y2k@prepared.com), May 26, 1999.

y2k,

It's called a forum. That's what people do on a forum, yak-yak-yak. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.

Jim Lord had it right about Gary North; he is a light house saying here are the rocks. What he cannot see is that the ship has turned, and he continues to say here are the rocks. What else can a man do, when his entire adult career consists of selling predictions of disasters? On the other hand, if you want to find an original source, where better would you look to find the link?

-- walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), May 26, 1999.

Hoff- As I tried to make it clear in the most polite way possible, all this "good news" is nothing but promises. Show me, TODAY, a single power utility that can say "We are, today, ready for the year 2000". I mean, its only May 26, 1999, don't you think that this is a reasonable request? I am fed up with future deadlines, future lists of who will be ready, future anything anywhere.

The Y2K problem, besides being completely preventable, was also clearly fixable -- at one time. But the fix-it effort started too late, thus Y2K will not be fixed in time.

What will the effect be when 1/1/2000 occurs and computer systems, embedded chips, etc., are not fully Y2K compliant? "Nobody knows." But to insist, at this laughably late date, that this situation is in anyway "winnable" is almost insulting. And the really amazing thing is that I have no doubt that you will be saying the same thing in July, after the June 30 deadlines get missed and new ones established. And even right up to December, for that matter.

Hoff, face it, pal: you just don't get it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 26, 1999.

i think what the King of Sperm is saying is "dont bother me with facts." it doesnt matter that such a tiny fraction of a % of imbeded chips have problems. it doesnt matter about the power plants that are now operating in 2003. it doesnt matter that the fyld didnt cause problems. it only matters that he keep his aliegence to g north. all hail north. "i worship you" says King of Sperm.

-- (oh@bro.ther), May 26, 1999.

Hoffmeister - Good post.

Being a vet of the Computer Industry for almost 3 decades now, I am in agreement with your assessment of the situation as well as the impact of North and Yourdon.

In most cases here, the facts, when portraying anything other than bad news, are generally pounced upon and attacked. The only reason I even stay in this forum is because there is, from time to time, news that *I* use as part of the overall weathervane.

As I have posted on other forums;

Literally every company that has engaged my services, over the last 3 decades, have done so with a non-disclosure agreement as part of my contract. This means that while I can speak in general terms within the industry and my work - I can not name-names or make statements that would cause the reader no other conclusion as to the identification of that organization. If this causes anyone heartburn, then I will not waste my time or yours by posting any of my articles.

These articles are written in terms that a lay person with a small degree of technical knowledge should be able to consume with little trouble. Some people want more technical jargon in the articles. I am fully capable of putting my articles into a technical white paper that only the most astute in the computer industry could consume. But if prepared in a technical white paper format, who would benefit from it? Generally speaking, the vast majority of those people would would understand that technical white paper format are already in tune with the computer industry and it's position in regard to Y2K.

So Hoffmeister, there you have it. I am, indeed, a brother in arms. I freely admit that I do not know what will happen overall when the stroke of midnight passes on 12/31/1999. I am, however, optomistic, as are you, that this battle is winnable. Others must realize that while we won the battle at Normandy, it was a bloody battle and there were many casualties. None the less, the battle was WON by the allied forces. I think one of the strongest words in the statement I just made was "allied". This is one time in the history of the world when we truly need to be allies of one another. To island ourselves from the rest of the community will bring about nothing but our own success, which could, indeed, be our ultimate failure.

My hat's off to you for speaking your peace!

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- COBOL Dinosaur (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.

Hoff: you said:

But 'a' was the one, on a previous thread, who in essence confirmed that his goal was to crow about every piece of bad news.

You are misrepresenting me. I said I crow about bad news that IMO is legitimately worrisome. You are an optimist; I am a pessimist, so I see more of the writing on the wall than you. I intensified my "campaign" when folks like Norm moved in, and I'm prepared to match wits and datapoints with them any day.

I too plan to remain in the city as long as it remains the safe and prudent thing to do. But I leaned long ago not to ignore warning signs such as those now appearing before us.

Yes you are right, the situation is not hopeless. However, it's far from hopeful. We are in for the worst crisis since the Depression and World Wars. You can argue with that statement if you like, but consider the likely possibilities:

• You say there is little or no chance that we will lose the power grid. Fine. What about the rest of the world? How will Europe fare with no energy from Russia? What if there are a couple of nuclear power plant meltdowns? What if we have a dozen?

• What about the saber rattling now going on overseas? What if the Russians aren't bullshitting about using nukes? What will happen near the rollover if North Korea moves its 1 million men into Seoul? And China into Taiwan? And Iraq into Saudi Arabia? Why are we at war with the former Soviet Union at this critical juncture?

• What will happen if the oil supply is drastically curtailed? If the 72-73 recession was brought on by an artificial blockade of oil by a greedy cartel, what will the effect of an actual production and distribution shortage be?

• What will be the effect of the largest speculative stock bubble in the history of the world exploding at the same time serious y2k problem begin manifesting themselves? Why does the popular business press seem to think that we can all get rich by sitting on our ass and pouring our hard earned money into a slot machine?

• Contrary to your unfounded optimism, numerous banking and financial sources are now talking about the imported data problem. What will be the net economic effect of a world banking system that is no longer reliable and cannot sustain international trade?

• According to conventional wisdom, Y2K is now a non-problem. It was solved. What will happen if Russ Kelly's experts are right and y2k is a 7? Will the relatively few people that have prepared up to this point make a difference? How will JIT production and delivery cope with the hoards of people that will empty store shelves in the waning days of this year?

• Assuming that we avoid a starvation crisis here at home by using US stockpiles of food, what happens to the 1,000,000,000 people in this world that are dependent on our surplus? Will the disease and violence cause by such a massive global famine be contained to third world countries?

• How will we cope with natural disasters in a world that has been ravaged by the techno-economic failures listed above? How bad will the 11 year peak of solar storms be? How bad will this years forecast of the worst hurricane season on record be? How many will die if tornadoes can not be forecast reliably? Crop failures? Ozone depletion? Rising sea levels? Earthquakes? Y2k won't happen in a vacuum.

And this is a partial list, and does not even consider the more technical problems that y2k will bring.

You don't have to be Milne or Infomagic to see that we are facing a larger problem than the pollyannas realize. My goal is not to induce panic, but to persuade as many people as possible to take this situation seriously and prepare to the maximum extent possible.

-- a (a@a.a), May 26, 1999.

(oh@bro.ther),

Does it matter that even a "tiny fraction" is still a pretty big number? Does it matter that 67 of the 235 major power producers are below the 75% NERC average, at this late date? Does it matter that 2000 isn't here yet, and that any early failures would be another "tiny fraction?" Does it matter that I don't agree with Gary North's view of life, but I do follow links that he posts? Does it matter if we are right, and you are wrong? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.

geez sysman, do you even keep up on this? think about it. if y2k were a 10 we would be seeing tons of failures now. based on a %. even if it were a 5 we should be seeing more failures than we are. the low % of failures and complete lack of critical failures up to now figures out % ways to be a 2 or less. i need to get back to school. bye.

-- (oh@bro.ther), May 26, 1999.

To King:

Ask me in another month and a half. NERC is publishing the list. Is that a problem? They have been working towards a June 30th deadline. NERC lists 12 currently as 100% complete, but without the names. My estimate is I'll have a list of around 200 after July 1st. Is that good enough?

To a

You are misrepresenting me. I said I crow about bad news that IMO is legitimately worrisome. You are an optimist; I am a pessimist, so I see more of the writing on the wall than you. I intensified my "campaign" when folks like Norm moved in, and I'm prepared to match wits and datapoints with them any day.

Truly, am sorry if I misrepresented your post. I thought I had the general gist of it. I don't think you "see" more than I, just interpret things differently.

I too plan to remain in the city as long as it remains the safe and prudent thing to do. But I leaned long ago not to ignore warning signs such as those now appearing before us.

Good. Never suggested that you ignore anything. Sort of the whole point; some here are intent on ignoring any "good" news.

Yes you are right, the situation is not hopeless. However, it's far from hopeful. We are in for the worst crisis since the Depression and World Wars. You can argue with that statement if you like, but consider the likely possibilities:

You say there is little or no chance that we will lose the power grid. Fine. What about the rest of the world? How will Europe fare with no energy from Russia? What if there are a couple of nuclear power plant meltdowns? What if we have a dozen?

Truly, a, if I lived in another part of the world, I would probably be just as concerned. Although, my general impression is that things in alot of these countries don't really work all that well to begin with. Probably just my US-centric views.

What about the saber rattling now going on overseas? What if the Russians aren't bullshitting about using nukes? What will happen near the rollover if North Korea moves its 1 million men into Seoul? And China into Taiwan? And Iraq into Saudi Arabia? Why are we at war with the former Soviet Union at this critical juncture?

Yes, and What If a hundred other things. Are these concerns? Yes, of course. But honestly, what am I supposed to do about them? The world can definitely be a dangerous place. And my guess is, eventually, the US will be touched by these types of events once again. And, I feel we'll address them, as we've done in the past.

What will happen if the oil supply is drastically curtailed? If the 72-73 recession was brought on by an artificial blockade of oil by a greedy cartel, what will the effect of an actual production and distribution shortage be?

Probably higher oil prices. Many in the oil industry probably regard some of this as "good" news.

What will be the effect of the largest speculative stock bubble in the hisory of the world exploding at the same time serious y2k problem begin manifesting themselves? Why does the popular business press seem to think that we can all get rich by sitting on our ass and pouring our hard earned money into a slot machine?

Again, hard to tell. I stopped trying to time the market long-ago. Agreed, I think it is over-priced. But I've heard that since about DOW 6000. Even a 20% correction would leave it, and my investments, higher. If my outlook for needing the money was 5 years or less, I'd be out. But it's not, and I'm not. To each his own.

Contrary to your unfounded optimism, numerous banking and financial sources are now talking about the imported data problem. What will be the net economic effect of a world banking system that is no longer reliable and cannot sustain international trade?

I'm glad they're talking about it and addressing it. The point was never that it couldn't happen; just that the measures in place would keep the system from collapsing.

According to conventional wisdom, Y2K is now a non-problem. It was solved. What will happen if Russ Kelly's experts are right and y2k is a 7? Will the relatively few people that have prepared up to this point make a difference? How will JIT production and delivery cope with the hoards of people that will empty store shelves in the waning days of this year?

I think the pessimists have repeatedly underestimated the common sense of most people, and are still doing it. I don't expect hoards of people emptying store shelves.

Assuming that we avoid a starvation crisis here at home by using US stockpiles of food, what happens to the 1,000,000,000 people in this world that are dependent on our surplus? Will the disease and violence cause by such a massive global famine be contained to third world countries?

And here is where you begin assuming that your previous "What If's" are in fact reality. There is famine in the world today. What do you do about it? Serious question. Are you more concerned for them following the rollover than now?

How will we cope with natural disasters in a world that has been ravaged by the techno-economic failures listed above? How bad will the 11 year peak of solar storms be? How bad will this years forecast of the worst hurricane season on record be? How many will die if tornadoes can not be forecast reliably? Crop failures? Ozone depletion? Rising sea levels? Earthquakes? Y2k won't happen in a vacuum.

And this is a partial list, and does not even consider the more technical problems that y2k will bring. You don't have to be Milne or Infomagic to see that we are facing a larger problem than the pollyannas realize. My goal is not to induce panic, but to persuade as many people as possible to take this situation seriously and prepare to the maximum extent possible.

Again, the main point of my post is that, in doing so, there is a downside. My goal is to ensure, in what ways I can, the scenarios you describe never happen.

There are multitudes of potential disasters, just waiting to occur. I guess you make the choice, whether to live your life constantly preparing for one disaster or another. For myself, preparing for every possible dire consequence that could possibly happen, is not living. And no, this is not in any way saying people shouldn't be relatively prepared for disasters. I got the wake-up call, not due to Y2k, but due to some ice-storms here last winter. People were without power for over a week. But these are personal decisions. To be made based on actual risks. Not hyped ones.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

(oh@bro.ther),

"geez sysman, do you even keep up on this?"

I don't know, you deceide. I spend about half of my "Y2K time" here and the other half on the newswires, and sites like Sanger's and North:

y2kboard@yahoo.com (1571)

I'm also neck deep in Y2K fix work now. I've been a programmer for 31 years, and have (still) worked on IBM mainframes, PCs and embedded systems.

So, your "concern" is lack of early failures I guess. I've stated my view on this many times here. Here's the short version.

The number of programs that do look-ahead processing is small, if not tiny, when compared to the total number of programs that have a date problem. Those that do look-ahead are well known, and it makes sense to me that they would be fixed first, because they are needed first.

See this link for a list of early failures. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 26, 1999.

"King of Sperm". Yeah, I kind of like that. Cool.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 26, 1999.

And the ISSUE is...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ bluesky_exnews/19990526_xex_y2k_senators.shtml

[snip]

Pamola O'Reilly, director of research for the Cassandra Project, an influential center for community Y2K preparations, told the senators "there is too much 'happy talk' coming from our administration, government agencies, corporations and institutions."

This "happy talk," O'Reilly noted, is excused as necessary to prevent "panic." "But when I ask them what they mean by 'panic,'" she said, "they define it as people pulling their money out of the bank or selling off stock. With few exceptions, their concern seems not for our families' health, safety and welfare, but with not rocking the economic boat."

[snip]

See also...

A Pessimist's Soapbox

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000sK3

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

Well, Diane, wouldn't you agree that a bank run would be a bad thing? Something worth avoiding, if possible?

Again, personally I don't really foresee this happening.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

Yes, Hoff.

But far worse is the risk of people dying as a result of Y2K problems, IMHO, domestically and internationally.

Especially if prudent preparation, could have avoided the worst of the impact.

I'd rather see a bank die, than it's depositors.

I am most concerned about the life-threatening Y2K issues, then the economic ones.

Diane

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

Yes, there are relative levels of risk.

Although, my guess is that, if bank runs truly occurred, and somehow banks collapsed, a good number of people may die, as well.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

Hmmm...

Scenario A: Diana has her way, bank runs ensue, people DIE.

Scenario B: Hoff has his way, public gets insufficient warning, people DIE.

Not very good odds I'd say...

-- a (a@a.a), May 26, 1999.

Well, let's see. My guess is there are more options than those. Or is the issue truly that polarized in your mind?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 26, 1999.

Hoff,please consider.... "It should be possible to discuss Y2K personal preparedness as calmly and objectively as we discuss, say, appropriate levels of life insurance and medical insurance. If I were to ask everyone attending this hearing how much life insurance he or she had, the most likely answer would be "Enough." If I pressed further, I would probably discover that some people had ten times as much insurance as others -- because their circumstances are different, and because their perception of the need for insurance is different. But it's unlikely that the discussion would be distorted by angry rhetoric; it would simply be an exchange of information that might help some of us re- think the rationale that we used for determining how much insurance we needed"-Ed Yourdon

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 27, 1999.