When the panic comes late this year, and it will, you can all thank the polly's, and the government, for bringing it to a town near you. People who have prepared have no need to panic. No harm can come from being prepared. No harm can come from warning people that we may have a big problem. There are always people that pay no attention to warnings and die. Mt. Saint Helen's, Andrew, Pearl harbor, ect. These people are at the very core, of the polly camp. It is either stupidity or just plain arrogance. I think, latter.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 05, 1999

Answers

My first blow to the mind was the result of Clinton's State of the Union Address. Y2k actually ended up being the butt of one of his many jokes, how very sad. It's no secret how I feel about the man. I just somehow expected *some* leadership. My brother worked on the hill back then. He told me it would never happen, but, I just couldn't imagine how the subject could be avoided. Clinton and his agenda, has had me in tears. My country is dying and I'm helpless to stop it. If only they had stepped up to the plate and told the truth.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Lehman you've hit the nail square on the head. The pollys are liberals who belief system is based on the premise that the worse off people are, the more dependent they will be on Big Brother Bill. Only it seems that Klinton is not quite liberal enough for them. So they want people to be dependent on him, but have him look bad at the same time. They will always stoop to a lower level to keep their fellow man dependent on the Big Gubmint.

-- Tea Boy (pollys@wantto.spamme), June 05, 1999.

Y2K may end up being the undoing of current government, rather than increasing dependency upon it. Remember, the government is also far behind remediation efforts. The new leaders will be those who are functional and thought and acted intelligently and compassionately AHEAD OF TIME. Will there be any leaders?

We don't see panic happening at all. Too much ridicule and ignorance out there. Not enough ppl will realize the ramifications soon enough to create a panic. Just OHO after watching the weeples and seeing only miniscule rise in sober awareness.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 05, 1999.

My mother made that point just yesterday, Leska. Could be. Estimating public reaction is the biggest, "what if" of all. I wish I had more faith in our population's common sense and character in general! I honestly don't think this is a matter of "intelligence".

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Will Continue, we went to a camping store yesterday to find a little sterno-type stand, and we overheard a customer ask about lighting for Y2K, and the store salesman said, "Oh, that's just silly hype so you'll buy more emergency stuff, don't listen to any of it, it's a hoax."

La tee da, this is a camping store which naturally gets inquiries.
The customer laughed, said thanks, and left without buying anything. Now she "knows" about Y2K from an "expert."

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 05, 1999.

"Will continue" pointed out the LACK of LEADERSHIP within our Federal government with regard to y2k. The Social Security Administration began their y2k remediation work in the early 1990's. The federal government was well aware at that time of the immensity of the y2k problem. If it had taken a LEADERSHIP role back then we would be in a much better position today.

It decided instead to put its efforts into creating the largest credit bubble in the history of the world. Last year the administration appointed John Koskinen, an attorney to head up its y2k SPIN TEAM. They immediately got to work doing what they and the Administration do best, SPINNING. No thought of LEADERSHIP was forthcoming.

Now the piper is knocking on the door and the chickens are coming home to roost. We have been served up with a number of military actions to divert our attention from the oncoming Tsunami. LYING has become our national pastime on the part of government, industry and banking when it comes to y2k. This INTENTIONAL LYING has helped to deceive our family and friends into believing that y2k will be a "bump in the road". Many of us have tried in vain to convince these loved ones to begin preparations while in the meantime the SHILLS like Koskinen say have three days of food and water on hand. This has been the most frustrating part of y2k for me

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 05, 1999.

Same here, Ray. The word "devastating" also portrays my feelings towards our government's role. I guess, in a dire emergency.....we obviously have no leaders. I've been asking myself for a very long time, "Who's in charge"? They've made it more than clear to me, that it's, THE ECONOMY STUPID. Hey...it just occured to me that THAT is the VERY question I would ask at one of Ko-skin-em's town chats..... "Could somebody please tell me who's in charge around here?"

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

BTW Leska...after reading your last post, I've decided to recant my previous statement about "intelligence" not being an issue. LOL

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Here's another spin for you guys: I'm a "polly" (at least by your standards) who WILL be prepared, and who WILL NOT panic. I'm also a Y2K desktop remediation team leader at work, and deal with the technical (although PCs are the easiest part, in my view) side of the issue. I don't share your views (although I will respect them!), but my wife and I will prepare ourselves for disruptions. Although I'm definitely a liberal politically, I don't look to the govt. for leadership on anything. So I think labeling all "pollys" as panic-inciting, underprepared liberals is a bit of a reach on your part, Mr. or Ms. Lehman. You need to do something that hasn't happened on this forum yet...respect that fact that the "pollys" are entitled to the opinion, however flawed you may see it, that Y2K disruptions are going to trip us up but not cause us to fall entirely.

-- Larry Goldberg (ljgoldberg@worldnet.att.net), June 05, 1999.

The pollys try to take over this forum. It's always 3 day disruption this, minor inconvenience that. Well, even if we are wrong we are the smart ones because we are prepared

-- Tea Boy (pollys@wantto.spamme), June 05, 1999.

Ashton & Leska:

Our camping store, which we've haunted every month or so over the years, is somewhat different. It's a family-run shop, and they know that my shweetie and I are IT folks. They've never asked us about Y2k, though, which I find quite interesting.

Anyhoooo...When we a purchased few Katadyn Pocket Filters back in September, we were told that they wouldn't be in until November. He was a tad surprized about the backorder status, but figured that this was a niche-market item for hard-core campers, etc.

Once December rolled around, I kept calling every few weeks or so to check, and eventually they arrived mid-January. When we coughed up the cash, he paused, smirked, and said, "Well, friend, you're going to be able to hand pump over 30,000 gallons of the dirtiest water imagineable through those lil' suckers before a major overhaul. I wish I could talk with you, but I gotta keep the line movin."

We're still visiting this store, and they know why we're there, LOL. However, the phrase "Y2k" is never uttered. Instead, lots of hidden innuendos, such as "Did you watch 60 Minutes?", "People seem to be more interested in Jet skis than this kind of stuff, I don't know why..." or "Good choice. Very durable. This will last a loooooonnnnnng time...looks like you guys are set."

I think the folks there take Y2k seriously, but don't want to preach it too loudly so folks don't think that they're trying to make an easy buck.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), June 05, 1999.

I'm sorry Mr. Goldburg, I find your position baffling. To me, it would seem illogical to prepare for something you don't give credence to. If your wife had undergone a hysterectomy...wouldn't it seem "foolish" to stock up on and hoard baby items? After all, you could see no possibility of her ever being in need of them. And yet, you prepare for y2k, while announcing it is "poopie-doodie". You say you are a Polly and yet *I* have to wonder if it may not be more truthful, that in fact, you are a "Polly Wanna-be". Do you see the truth to this delema, but continue to wish really, REALLY hard that it just ain't so (so to speak)? Please, by all means, enlighten us further to this delema of complete confusion, that you find yourself attempting to deal with. We're your friends....we want to help you. (I hope the rest of you are real impressed with my new found ability to control myself....for a change)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Where did he go? Has anyone seen Goldbloom? There IS that sale at Sam's Club going on today....yea, that must be it.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

It's time to reread this from January:

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

"Feds Plan Y2K Spin Control"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 05, 1999.

Will continue:

Know what probability means? Look it up. Know what insurance is? Look it up. Did you realize that there is a difference between certain and possible? Look it up.

Look up anything at all, you can only learn.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Larry: Had you read a previous post, you would know, I no longer give a shit about polly opinion. Also, if you have taken a stance, that you will take care of your family and freinds, you are not a POLLY !!!!!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Will;;;;;;;;

Do not give up on your country! It will continue! Give up on the gene pool! You are NOT alone!!!!!!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Larry;;;;;;;;

It is MR. , and I shall be the first to admit that everyone has the right to their opinion. However, y2k is not an opinion, it is a fact. What may happen as a result of it, is opinion. There is to much doubt to blow this off. If you, or anyone else can not see that, may GOD have mercy on you.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Well HOWDY Flint, I missed you (kissie-kissee-SMACK). let's see....what day is this? Hmmmm...it's the 5th of...DA,DA,DA,DA,DE,DUMMM *JUNE 1999* (sorry, I know how that get's your pantyhose in a twist, but...)What's left to "learn" about this, eh? Go ahead....lay that theory of yours, on the rest of the gang. (whisper) "You know...your fault tolerence thingee" . On second thought, let's refer them to our discusssssion from last night. Go ahead, after you. No? It was a's post from MILNE (oooooooohhhh). Sorry Flint. I'm a smart assed broad who's had enough of you intelligent types, telling me not to worry. I say, hold on to your saddlehorns boys and girls...you're about to get "sucked" into the stampede. Got Q-Tips?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Will continue:

Your parody of an addlebrained nitwit exceeds anything I could ever hope to write. How do you do it? Whatever you're on, it sounds like fun.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Your parody of an addlebrained nitwit exceeds anything I could ever hope to write. How do you do it? Whatever you're on, it sounds like fun. "

Flint-o, everything I've ever read thal you posted sounded like an addelbrained nitwit and I'll bet the only thing you were on was a glass of water!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 05, 1999.

Ahhhh, gee Flint, I haven't done drugs for yeeeeears now. (and besides...I NEVER inhaled). Let me translate your last linguistically impressive post (for any of those common folk, like me, who might be attempting to read his bull). What Flint means is that I'm a stupid putz, who's on drugs and he has no evidence to support his theories, so he's going to take his marbles and go home. Oh, and he'd like some of the others to please leave with him (you know who you are). By the way Flint....something really searious happened after our little talk last night. (go see...go see for yourself. It was: Milne on Ireland)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Where DID Goldman go? I'm suddenly feeling my old self again!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Will Continue,

I'm with you in wondering why a Polly would prep and still put on all the pooh pooh smiley face stuff. There's something really bizarre about that. Goldberg, Flint, Poole, etc, all say they are making preps. For what? If they are making preps now, then they didn't have them before this, right? So what is it about Y2k that they feel they should have some protection against, and why do they still say "Oh, it really isn't going to be that bad, stop the hard line talking about it". If they lived by a river and the long range met forecasts said there was a high probability of flooding this spring, and they went and bought some flood insurance (preps) would they then try to convince everyone that it was probably only going to be a "little tiny" flood? Would they buy only enough flood insurance to cover a 10% loss? Or if they were buying sand bags, would they only buy enough to put a 12 inch ring around their place. And argue with those who said they thought the river could rise at least 8-10 feet. (their prep is a for a 1, ours is for an 8-10 scenario) What goes through their brains, I wonder, if they can say they are preparing, but don't think it will too bad? And then chastise us for talking so "seriously" about it. Can't figure it, unless the answer is on some psychiatrist's couch somewhere.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Gordon:

This isn't nearly as complicated as you work so hard to make it. The probability of flood (or fire) is small. The damages if either happens is quite likely to be total. Of course you hope that neither happens, and you hope that if either does, the damage is only partial. But you don't insure against what you hope, you insure against the max. If it turns out that you didn't need all your insurance coverage, you consider yourself lucky.

So many of us who see clearly, can understand that the probability of total disaster, while very small, is not zero. We do our best to insure against the worst, why not? Buying fire insurance is in no way a *guarantee* that your house will burn to the ground. I don't understand why you'd insist that it is. You insure against the *worst* case, if you're smart. Insuring against the *most likely* case would mean no insurance at all. That's not smart. Which doesn't change the probabilities at all. Your house is still *most likely* never to burn down at all. Almost all of us carry insurance against things that *never* happen to us. This is prudent, and not inconsistent in any way.

I don't even have any argument with the far-out doomists about what *can* happen. I agree that it can. I disagree that it *will* happen, because the likelihood is small. Not zero, but small.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Flint,

OK, I follow your idea here, but it still doesn't answer my question. Let's go back to the flood analogy. I prefaced it with a forecast for flooding, above normal. Now, the way I see it, you are arguing with the forecast. You are saying, in effect, that the forecasters who predict a possible disaster are probably wrong. Isn't that it? You are saying, sure, there may be some little local flooding, but no disaster. So why prepare for more than a little local flooding? Yet, you concede that if the flooding does go worst case, it will wipe out the house. Just what are you planning for and why? Or use the sand bag analogy. How high would you build the dike around your place? If some of your neighbors were building it 8-10 feet high, would you do the same, or would you drop over there and engage them in a debate about why it probably isn't going to be that bad? That's my question.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Thanks Gordon, I don't have a clue. There seems to be no logic to their logic. They sound like the government's position. There will be serious problems bbbbbbut, not EVERYWHERE. Banks are the safest place to keep your money bbbbut, make sure you have hard copies of EVERYTHING. There will be alot of problems with power bbbbut the GRID will be just fine, don't concern yourself. And ALL the checks will be in the mail just as soon as the Postal Service has completed their remediation! (that's a joke...kind of) What really makes my head spin, is the fact that they almost REFUSE to look at the International problems. We are a world bank, a world market, we are not an island. They really get steamed when you remind them of the time or point out all the missed deadlines and THEN, bring up testing....ooooh baby. They have no answer for the complete unavailability of ANY government or industry being compliant, with testing AND (here's the one I love the most) VERIFICATION. there is NO verification and I don't expect to see any either. Self-reporting, self-verifying ISN'T proof at all. They don't answer...they just fade away into cyber-space to gather what thoughts they have and return to BS another day! They anticipate we should take their word for it 'cause they have big...really big brains. Poop. We're talking about the world my children are about to be *forced* to live in. My kids don't give a monkey's rump how big these brains *think* they are. All I've ever wanted was the truth. All I've found are lies, spin, manipulation, conspiracies and plenty of big-brain mumbo-jumbo that offers us nothing but further confusion. so, what's the bottom line? The work's not done. They're out of time. The rest of the world is butt-naked. They are terrified of panic. They are creating panic by screaming, "don't panic". It's only a matter of time.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Flint writes:

"So many of us who see clearly, can understand that the probability of total disaster, while very small, is not zero. We do our best to insure against the worst, why not?"

"You insure against the *worst* case, if you're smart. Insuring against the *most likely* case would mean no insurance at all. That's not smart. Which doesn't change the probabilities at all. Your house is still *most likely* never to burn down at all. Almost all of us carry insurance against things that *never* happen to us. This is prudent, and not inconsistent in any way."

What you are saying here Flint is to prepare, whether the detrimental effects of Y2k are minimal or not. Thank you for jumping into the G.I. bandwagon. It is about time. We are hoping the rest of the people in the country agree with this thinking. This pro-active tone is very much appreciated. I think this is all we are asking...To prepare and not get in the way of those suggesting to prepare.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 05, 1999.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Mt. Saint Helen's ???

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

-- Hahaha (h@h.a), June 05, 1999.

Will Continue,

Yes, I see it the way you do too. Let me explain my reason for thinking the way I do. I spent my career as a commercial airline pilot. Making decisions based on forecasts was an everyday thing. It's all we had. If we were flight planning for a long flight, overwater to Asia, or whatever, we needed to plan for the destination weather as well as winds aloft, etc. But just using the weather as an example, we might get a forecast for 75% probability of fog at our destination from one forecast, and only a 25% probability from another forecast. Who would be right? What should we plan for? Since the primary stakes were lives, career, equipment, schedules, in that order for me, I always planned for the worst case scenario. Planned for extra fuel to "hold" awhile if necessary, fuel to safely get to an alternate or two, that sort of thing. Never did I take the position that, well, it may turn out to be OK when we get there so let's not talk about worst cases. Never. So, when I see the Polly position of admitting to "some" preps but still wanting to debate the harsher forecasts, I get the impression that they have never been making decisions where lives were at stake, plus career, etc. If I was ever confronted by another pilot who wanted to debate the weather forecasts on the *minimal* side, I either would say we are going to plan for the safest scenario, or I'm not working the trip with you. I certainly wouldn't accept just a standard fuel load in that situation. Thus, after more than 30 years of working in that career, it comes as a shock to me to see the minimalist Polly attitude, given all the varieties of expert forecasts available, including the US Naval War College, most recently, just to name one. Go figure. I can't.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Will Continue & Tim,

We went to another camping store, found what we needed. Will have to home-make a little modification addition, but it will work! Yea, one more item off the llloooonnnnngggggg scrolled List :-) That List is ever-so-slowly getting shorter.

Today at GI Joe's (camping store with some other stuff) we noticed many very wealthy bejeweled ppl buying water filters and fuel lanterns. They were asking very basic questions. Some of them were saying, "We've never used anything like this before." The unspeakable 'Y2K' was never mentioned!

Some of these ppl were older, heard one say to another crony, "Hope to hell I never have to take it out of the bag." Hhhmm. Also saw many men buying gun stuff, and trying out some very different-looking bow & arrow rigs.

So maybe a tiny fraction of the herd has heard something, or was it just a Saturday at the beginning of Summer, a rare day of no rain? But why would couch-potato-type folk be buying camping stuff hoping never to use it? Logic escapes a situation once again :^)

Y2K is the unmentionable untouchable word.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 05, 1999.

To Gordon,
Thank you for that excellent post about forecasts and flying airplanes! It really strikes a perfect A tone.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 05, 1999.

Gordon:

Yes, I'm a firm believer in preparations. I've been at it over two years now. I'm very cautious. Nor do I expect clear weather. But the far-end predictions of a worldwide tornado strike me as unlikely.

I see the concept of preparing for more than you expect, just because it's possible even if unlikely, is totally lost on Will continue. I get this picture of her buying fire insurance and then torching her house to prove she needed it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Gordon:

Quite a realistic analogy that applies to the Y2k issue. Hats off 2 U. The just-in-time deliveries in this country = the rate the fuel is spent in the jet you fly. I would suggest to buy extra fuel, in this case, MUCH more fuel. Who knows when this country will land back on its feet!

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 05, 1999.

Flint writes:

"Yes, I'm a firm believer in preparations. I've been at it over two years now. I'm very cautious. Nor do I expect clear weather. But the far-end predictions of a worldwide tornado strike me as unlikely."

Flint, As much time you have spent countering the G.I. stance, with what you say, may we go ahead and consider you a G.I.?

Also did you really mean to say, "the far-end predictions of the United States experiencing a country-wide tornado strike me as unlikely.".......We all know the rest of the world is at big-time odds against getting their Y2k remediations done in time, including the Oil producing countries, affecting the United States ability to function as we know it today.

Flint are you a G.I.? you sound like one. Just state your Peeves, get them out of the way, and join the rest of us in asking the Polly's to prepare since you've already stated working on your second year of preparations. What is so hard about that? You seem to be sliding over anyway from the dark side. I'm proud of you sir for that.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 05, 1999.

To "will continue,"

I was actually out of the house all day if you must know (banking, dropping clothes off at the Albany Salvation Army. In response to your post, I say this: I give Y2K plenty of "credence," as you say, but I don't give the level of evangelical devotion (so to speak) as you do. As I said in my post, it WILL cause us many interruptions in our daily lives, but it will not be the chaos that you seem to propose. And by the way, it's spelled Goldberg, not Goldburg, Goldbloom, Goldman, etc!! C'mon man, be an adult! You asked the group whether they were proud of you for not flaming me, as though that's what you used to do to lurkers and/or newcomers....are you really portraying yourself as my friend who wants to help me understand????

To Mr. Lehman (Flame Away): I stand corrected sir. You are absolutely right; Y2K as a technical challenge, event, etc. is indeed a fact, not an opinion. The "devil is in the details," as they say. I guess I must not be a polly after all, but I probably do represent the thousands of ordinary people who "get it," and who will make modest preps, but who also refuse to dwell on this issue as their sole issue in life. I have several equally big fish to fry right now (including, happily, a new home, a new niece, and hopefully a new child for us next spring). By the way Mr. Lehman, thanks for being respectful and civil in you responses to me. That's an event in and of itself given the usual atmosphere in the forum.

-- Larry Goldberg (ljgoldberg@worldnet.att.net), June 05, 1999.

Feller:

I think there's a lot to worry about. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, albeit none of it very solid, that we've got problems ahead. But how solid does it have to be when there's so much of it?

My peeve, as you put it, is with those who can't seem to understand that this evidence is *not* solid. Some of it has been proven wrong or exaggerated (been a while since we've worried ourselves sick over the 'billions of chips', eh? Real-life remediation has conclusively demonstrated that the 'embedded chip' problem was way overblown).

There's no question that if every warning we've heard comes true, and if every problem anyone's been able to dream up happens, and if all our remediation efforts fail utterly, and if all our testing has us completely fooled, and if we can't fix enough of what ends up failing to at least hobble along for a while, then yes, doomsday might happen. But that's an awful lot of unlikely if's stacked up there.

What looks most likely to me right now is a whole lot of fairly small problems and a few really big ones, followed by a grinding ineffiency in the economy and a slow recovery. I expect we'll hear 'the computer is down' until we scream. I expect shortages, screwups, and delays. I expect much higher unemployment, and jobs much harder to find. I do *not* expect the market or the banking system or the grid to collapse (too much evidence now indicates otherwise). I don't expect riots or bank runs. I don't see any compelling reason to move to the sticks unless that's what you'd have done anyway.

Finally, I expect to be wrong about some of this. I only wish I knew which part.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Flint;

Welcome home!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Scotty:

Don't get carried away here! If you wander over to the 'overlooked items' thread, you'll find that if my predictions come true, 90% of what they're buying won't be needed. And they money they spent will be sorely missed (unemployment is tough, believe me). And that's why I keep trying to focus on the most likely problems, and fight against those who see their own worst case in everything. Preparations will be essential for some of us. The wrong preparations will be frustrating at best. Like, you wouldn't need all those oil lamps and lamp oil if you'd saved the money you spent on them so you could pay the power bill, you know?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Flint: It is funny. (not really) I live in the country and see things getting bad. We probably see alot of the same info. You live in the city and for some reason, after seeing the city function as it has for so long, it is difficult to see it not function in the terms presented here on the forum. Sometimes I see the issue being overidden by a psychological bent when in the city. Do you see what I'm trying to suggest here?

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 05, 1999.

Flint,

As I said, it's in my nature to prepare for the worst, for safety sake. I think this may be difficult for many people. I remember when I first discovered the "Y2k nasties"early last year.I had just retired from my flying career (mandatory age 60) and thought I had all my ducks in order.Retirement plans chosen, investment plans in place in a "great" stock market. Mortgage paid off. All that stuff. Then I somehow stumbled onto this Y2k business on the Internet. First it was Gary North, but then Ed Yourdon, Ed Yardeni, Sen. Bob Bennett, GAO reports, even good-ole Pete de Jager before he reversed himself. By early August I can remember sitting on the back porch, looking over the fields, with what the military calls the "1,000 yard stare". Everything was changing, all the plans, all the ducks were scattering. The Golden Years dream was turning grey. Of course I kept digging for good news, hoping against hope that what was being said by the harshest forecasters was incorrect. Now here I am sitting with less than 7 months to go and not feeling optimistic about what is coming at us. I feel it is highly probable that internation banking (which includes US banking) is going to tank. It almost happened last year due to the Long Term Capital fiasco. But that was just the indicator of how close to the edge the whole international banking situation was and still is. It will only take a couple of large bank failures to bring it all down. So much for the financial scene, including the stock market. Then there is the oil situation, and it won't take much of a shortfall to serverely impact the entire economy. I'm not even mentioning the electric or telecoms, but I have seen both AOL and ATT go down real hard in the last two years over just the tiniest miscoding of their systems. Are there just tiny miscodings waiting for us up ahead, all over the place? So, I really can't comfortably debate bump-in-the-road or mild recession anymore. I dearly love to have good data that would allow me to take that position, but I don't believe it will unfold that way. Here is where I separate from so many of my friends and neighbors. They don't want to deal with this data in a negative way. They seem to sense that 1,000 yard stare problem and don't have the stomach for it. But for me, I subscribe to the old saying "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". And I am more convinced now, at this point in time, that the going will get real tough, just up ahead. Not my Golden Years dream unfolding, but I have to play the hand I'm dealt. So, when you want to debate how it maybe isn't going to get too bad, fine, except when you are talking to any newbies or DGIs who *want* to believe in fair weather forecasts, you do them a diservice. We aren't going to get out of this unscathed, especially on the international level. The military is making serious plans for serious problems here at home, in Canada, in England, in Australia, etc. I have never seen such military preparations, world wide, in my entire life, without an actual war in progress. How many signs does it take to point the direction? Sorry Flint, I'm not a pessimist by nature, but I can't find any solid reasons to be optimistic about the coming months.

(Please excuse some of the bad punctuation and spelling above, but the word processor is screwing up and overwriting my attempts to correct it. I have a real love/hate relationship with computers)

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

Gordon:

I don't disagree that the going will get tougher ahead. I see no way to avoid it. Just how tough, and in what ways, depends on details nobody can predict. And I'm well aware that if things go very wrong for *you*, it really doesn't matter if it didn't happen to most people. You have to play it where it lies.

I admit I have some trouble with your picture, though. You cite several examples of problems we've experienced, all of which were quickly handled without much impact. The contention that we handled them in the past, and *therefore* we won't be able to handle them in the future, always baffles me. The Long Term Capital problem was tiny compared to the savings and loan fiasco, which in turn was tiny compared to the great depression. And the banking industry carried on pretty seamlessly, and nobody lost any money in the banks. The Galaxy IV satellite went out, taking 90% of pagers with it. A day later, we're back up and running.

Now, how clear evidence that we handle things becomes proof that we can't, remains a mystery to me. Based on your vision today, I predict the future will come as a pleasant surprise to you. But I'm preparing for much worse than I expect, and I recommend you do too. Use your best judgment. I have no argument with rational concerns -- they are real and many. Blowing them up into irrational concerns is what *I* consider a disservice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Gordon, wonderful post. You are not only a realist, but have common sense as well (very rare). Leeska, we've noticed some "stirring" lately too. Pawn shops mostly, but nothing significant. This is the area of y2k we're watching very closely! Larry, (may I call you Larry?)I totally stand by my only response to you. I joke around ALOT. Get a sense of humor, or just get over it. You take yourself too seariously. That leads me right into the Flint topic (ohhhhhh, I'm just too tired to go there). Flint, there's nothing I can say. You're hopeless. Even in a moment of break-through....you continue to waiver. I'm sure you are a very nice person....I just can't stomach your gutless refusal to take a stand. You and Larry are middleground kinda guys. Too bad. The "middle ground" is shrinking fast. I know you think I'm TOO gutsy. There we have it. I can't fight with you any longer...it's like kick-boxing a wet towel. I need to go close up the chicken house, have at it while I'm gone. Just remember.......I'll be back!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 05, 1999.

Will continue:

I know you don't like people to be reasonable, when they could be fanatics instead. I wouldn't use the word 'gutsy', though. To use Gordon's weather metaphor, if someone isn't insisting on a hurricane, because indications are we'll have showers, then you're disappointed at how they 'waiver'. Hehehe. And when we get showers, what are you going to say? That a hurricane prediction, however absurd, was so much more *gutsy*? Maybe the word you're looking for is 'irrational'.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 05, 1999.

Gordon: Great post - my sentiments exactly. I'm closer to 40, like Flint, and we both have been seriously preparing as well. But I'd like to ask Flint to put himself in someone's shoes who is just starting out - 21, first job, no money. And now think about the 15% of Americans living below the poverty level. And the third world that is even poorer. Now can you see why Cory Hamasaki, who makes good money as a consultant, is so concerned with writing WRP's that focus on 70 cent Bumblebee tuna.

It's not gonna take much to upset this applecart, and once the crisis sets in, it will get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better.

-- a (a@a.a), June 05, 1999.

Exactly. For the huge masses that live paycheck to paycheck, losing jobs right and left and not being able to access a "safety net" will quickly, within two months, lead to homelessness. Would you like to be out on the streets in the depth of Winter just after Rollover? Scrounging to survive, with very intense, violent competition, with the police and military preoccupied elsewhere?

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 05, 1999.

You're right Flint. I'm nothing but a right-wing extremist, subversive to the government, home-schooling, God-fearing Christian fudamentalist, gun toting, flag waving, bank running, food hoarding, shit kickin' red-neck, alarmist, wacko extrodinare. AND...I like me.(Janet Reno wouldn't. People like me scare her). You've been in the City too long. This country is FULL of people like me. I'm also a self-taught High School drop out that is able to "see the big picture" while so many others keep adjusting their glasses, and clearing their throats. You hate me for the same reason you hate any of the others who stand up, speak their mind and refuse to pat you on the back for your far too many, eloquent, soft spoken words. You see, if *I* have an itch, I scratch it. When you itch, the assessment begins, "First, let's rule out the source being of an interior nature, perhaps caused by an allergy or parasite even. On the other hand, it could be of an *exterior* phenomenon. If in FACT this is the case,several various conclusions could be drawn. If prioritized and eliminated in a timely fashion, I might possibly be able to "scratch by noon". This should never be misconstrued as an actual deadline...more appropriately a given time frame from which one may occasionally depend, but not always. "Scratch youself and go to bed, Flint"

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Flint

You reminded me of what I told people in the past about preparing, You should be expected to last through a winter storm and Y2K as they are differant yet the same.

Just say you can't get Bic lighters, or Bic pens, or Bic razors, (an example) cause they are now made overseas (I don't know) The vital items will increase in value. Or rarity.

I like Bic razors, toothpaste, soap, toothbrushes, TP and what ever bathroom stuff to make sure there will no problems for a while. Buy it cheap, buy a bunch. Big deal it will be used and no loss, no y2k worries.

The above mean nothing in a winter storm. This is where I think we have a problem with Y2K.

We are still looking at the scope of the problem and the consensous (sp?) is not there.

Thank you though on the clear thought about Y2K

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 06, 1999.

'a':

I'm afraid I'm much closer to Gordon's age than to yours. Maybe being 21 isn't very fresh in my mind anymore, but I'm *still* broke at the end of every month (but I'm getting out of debt, honest).

Will continue:

If all I had was ignorance, I'd treasure it too. Certainly I don't hate you. I believe you 'know' far more than I do. One of the side- effects of education is, the more you get, the more you realize how little you know. Consider yourself lucky you'll never face this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Consider yourself lucky you'll never face me! (no wonder Milne spits in you general direction)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

To All,

How about a little flying story that reminds me of Flint. I am going to omit the name of the airline, although it's one of the big ones, because they took this incident so seriously that they changed a lot of their procedures to try to avoid something like this ever happening again. The story is true, and happened a few years back. A flight was inbound to a major airport, at night. The plane was a large 4 engine jet. When they dropped the landing gear on final approach they didn't get a green light for the nose gear being down and locked, so they aborted the landing and went back out to a holding area a few miles from the airport to try to sort out the problem. Calls to the company maintenance department didn't come up with the answer and the crew tried to figure out just what the situation really was, but couldn't exactly pin it down. The Captain started debating all the possibilities, over and over, as the fuel slowly but surely was used up. The other 2 crew members, copilot and flight engineer tried to get the Captain to just land it anyway, before they ran out of fuel, but he couldn't bring himself to make that decision. He could have landed on a foamed runway with emergency vehicles standing by, but instead he kept going round and round in the holding pattern, unable to commit himself to such a landing. When the fuel pumps started sucking air on one tank, then another, he finally decided to go for the landing. He didn't make it. They flamed out and crashed in some trees. There were a number of fatalities, but the Captain survived but still couldn't admit to himself or others that he had made a horrible decision. It was an unreal situation to him and he didn't believe he had done anything wrong. He never went back to flying again with that airline. Debate, debate, indecision, and unwillingness to accept the brutal reality of what was happening to him. This is why I have said that I don't think Flint has faced the responsibility of other's safety and why I don't think he would make a good Captain. He's intelligent enough, but just won't make the committment required in a badly deteriorating situation. I think others here can see that, because I have seen it said of him before, but I don't think he can see that of himself.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 06, 1999.

Will: your scratching skit was hilarious (sorry Flint..)

Flint: OK then, if not seperated by money, think of the seperation in amount of time to prepare. You say you've had two years, in the best of times, when there is no competition. Now think of the rest of the world who will (or will they?) be scrambling to get basic necessities all at the same time, probably with only a few months or weeks to work with. That is why folks like me, Ray, Cory, Paul, Yourdon and North are screaming that we have to sound the alarm -- and LOUDER.

-- a (a@a.a), June 06, 1999.

--wink--

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Gordon, go to the head of the class my man. Your analogies, anecdotes and analysis are superb. Your contributions on this thread need to be consolidated and reposted as a new submission.

Not to gang up on Flint (yes Flint we think you're a butthead, but you're our butthead), but what you say about Flint is even more applicable to our fearless leaders in government and industry. Like Flint, they are playing wait-and-see - with all our lives.

-- a (a@a.a), June 06, 1999.

LOUDER -a- LOUDER! "Playing with all our lives!"

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 06, 1999.

That's right gentlemen, and they're ALL highly educated people, just like my mentor, Flint. Oh wise one....tell us more, you see, I have no education, never owned a pair of shoes and lost my teeth in a farming accident. Help me to know the way, Flint. You are wise and I'm just.....stupid.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Gordon:

There is a vast difference between refusing to make any decision, and refusing to make the wrong decision. If one of your instruments contradicted all the others, would you base your decision on that one, or on all the rest?

To make the case for worldwide collapse, you must take a tiny subset of all the information available, ignore all the rest, and make a nice, firm decision based on that subset. And you believe this so strongly that anyone who points out what you're doing must be dangerously indecisive! Hogwash.

All I ask is that you make an effort to recognize the thought processes being expressed here. I'll give you a few examples (and for each of them, a little digging through the archives will yield many cases indeed):

1) If large amounts are being spent on remediation, that proves things will be bad. If relatively little is being spent, that proves things will be bad too. In other words, no matter *how* much is being spent or not being spent, *both* are used as evidence of disaster.

2) If a company has spent most of their y2k budget, this proves things will be bad. If they've only spent a small part of that budget, this *also* proves y2k will be bad. In other words, no matter *what* percentage of budget has been spent, it's proof things will be bad.

3) If bad things had happened at the spike dates, that would have proven things will be bad. Since nothing happened, that just means things will be worse later and things will be bad. So both computer errors and *lack* of computer errors are proof things will be bad.

4) If companies have not announced compliance, that proves things will be bad. If they have announced compliance, it's self-reported and doesn't count, which *also* proves things will be bad. So both announcements and lack of announcements are interpreted as disaster.

5) When government reports, or Gartner reports, or Giga reports warn of possible serious problems, this proves things will be bad. When other reports from the *same* organizations report that things aren't so bad, or are being fixed or passing tests, this proves those organizations have ulterior motives or are idiots, so things will *still* be very bad.

6) When news articles don't report success stories, this proves there aren't any. When they report one, this is proof that all the stories *not* written show things will be bad. If they report many successes, this shows that the media are controlled by the government, which lies. (Except see #5: If the government issues warnings, then suddenly they're honest, see?)

I could go on and on, but you should be getting the picture by now. When *everything* is regarded as an indication of disaster, even exact opposites, you can be sure you aren't dealing with analysis. You're dealing with Faith. A classic case of heads I win, tails you lose. People here read exactly the same thing between all the lines, regardless of what those lines actually say.

This approach is NOT rational. If you buy into it, I can't stop you. All I can do is point it out, and leave the conclusions to you. And if all I get for doing so is personal attacks, I can only regard this as an indication that there *is* no rational response, and this only confirms that to see disaster in everything, you must start with a conviction and force everything to fit it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Flint....all of YOUR instruments are "haywire". You are in need of being "talked down" by the tower. Unfortunately, everyone in the tower is busy attempting (once again) to get their screens up, baby!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Gordon:

See what I mean? Point this stuff out, and you get met with flat, mindless denial. Faith without thought.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

My apologies Flint. I "choose" not to participate in "linguistic calisthenics" with you any longer. I could never hope to compete with your big brain that has been filled to full capacity (similar to a sponge) and as a result, has no possible hope of absorbing anything further. You have made it chrystal clear that you consider me to be a mindless bimbo (apparently like the many others on this forum) and I'm totally willing to continue allowing you to "roll in the feces" all you want. Sorry.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Will continue:

I raised and discussed a serious issue. If you don't have what it takes to address it, don't blame me, that's not my fault. On the other hand, if you *did* address the issue, maybe you wouldn't look quite so mindless.

Go ahead, give it a try.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Flint, you're puffin' and fluffin' in an empty room here, my man. Give it up. You're beginning to make yourself look foolish, and I really hate to see that happen (in an empty room, anyway..HA)!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Since you seem to be the only other person here, I must agree with you that the room is empty. Thanks for the advice.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Any time, my man. No problem-o. Say, how 'bout you and I go back to the most recent "Milne" thread. It's kinda died down for awhile....but I'm sure WE could rev it up again. What do you say, eh? Let's face facts here, Flint. I won't win on YOUR level and you don't stand a chance on MINE. So, you do your "thang" and I'll do my "thang" and we'll have a good time, ok? Lighten up. This problem's coming to a close....really soon now. Laugh a little, it's much more fun than pouting.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

I don't even have any argument with the far-out doomists about what *can* happen. I agree that it can. I disagree that it *will* happen, because the likelihood is small. Not zero, but small.

-- Flint

-----------------------------------------

I disagree, it is either zero or very probable that the failures will be devastating. The small chance is that it will be recession/ depression bad. Complex systems slide from functioning to failure on a very steep slope. Our system of systems will most likely either continue to function with little notice from us peasants day to day or the breakdowns will be severe. This is not to say that the middle road scenarios CAN'T happen, merely that they are not LIKELY to happen.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), June 06, 1999.

Gordon:

The following will show briefly where the differences are, and why Flint's approach is dangerous and not responsible.

1) If large amounts are being spent on remediation, that proves things will be bad. If relatively little is being spent, that proves things will be bad too. In other words, no matter *how* much is being spent or not being spent, *both* are used as evidence of disaster.

This is correct. That is because THEY ARE STILL doing remediation when they should be doing testing by now. Relatively little remediation leaves no doubt as to the result (like 40-50% of small businesses who plan to wait until rollover to fix on failure). But what is even scarier are the ones spending billions and not are not yet tested nor certified ready. And that leads us to the problem of importing corrupted data and recorrupting the ones who are trying to remediate and may complete their work.

2) If a company has spent most of their y2k budget, this proves things will be bad. If they've only spent a small part of that budget, this *also* proves y2k will be bad. In other words, no matter *what* percentage of budget has been spent, it's proof things will be bad.

True again. For the reasons given above plus..... We don't know what a budget proves. Budgets are constantly changing and the majority of those doing remediation are upping their budgets. That is why budget statements don't mean anything. What we want to hear is not 'how much money' but we're done remediating and testing and so are our suppliers and vendors.

3) If bad things had happened at the spike dates, that would have proven things will be bad. Since nothing happened, that just means things will be worse later and things will be bad. So both computer errors and *lack* of computer errors are proof things will be bad.

I'll split this one with you. The lack of publicly announced failures or noticed failures has surprised me. But this could be because it is being kept in-house or because they have found a way to deal with it. So far the only spikes were Jan. 1 and April 1. It is a good sign, that is the half I give you. It is still bad because, like the tidal wave thread, it is all slowly building in deep water and won't really hit until it gets close to shore say around 1-1-2000. July 1 and October 1 will still be interesting. This half to me. Let's wait until the Federal Gov. fiscal rollover. Cory H. is saying the news is just now starting to out.

4) If companies have not announced compliance, that proves things will be bad. If they have announced compliance, it's self-reported and doesn't count, which *also* proves things will be bad. So both announcements and lack of announcements are interpreted as disaster.

Yes this is also true. I don't trust self-announced compliance when it would be so easy to get third party verification. The problem here is that only a miniscule amount of announced compliance. I am willing to believe in their announcements but again I ask where is the rest of their industry and what about suppliers and vendors and what about importing corrupted data. This is why companies that announce they are compliant is still bad news. Their SEC reports are self-reported and lawyerese.

5) When government reports, or Gartner reports, or Giga reports warn of possible serious problems, this proves things will be bad. When other reports from the *same* organizations report that things aren't so bad, or are being fixed or passing tests, this proves those organizations have ulterior motives or are idiots, so things will *still* be very bad.

Unfortunately this is true. I was born at night but it wasn't last night. Gartner flipped too easily for me since the government is one of their clients. I will listen to the GAO on the government thank you. I can't speak for Giga. But maybe just maybe the reason for this is that...lo and behold....they find they have one third less mission critical systems to fix. And let us say Gartner and Giga are accurate, they don't connect the dots. In other words, if the refineries go down and the power goes down, what good does it do if companies are ready to go. They report of fixes and passed tests, but funny.....they are not yet done. What are we supposed to do Flint, wait until December to see? No, like Yourdon has said brilliantly, we must make a decision now based on what we know now. Gartner and Giga might be right, but I'm not trusting my family to them and their reports.

6) When news articles don't report success stories, this proves there aren't any. When they report one, this is proof that all the stories *not* written show things will be bad. If they report many successes, this shows that the media are controlled by the government, which lies. (Except see #5: If the government issues warnings, then suddenly they're honest, see?)

To put your life in the hands of newspaper articles is nothing but foolishness. The news media is not following y2k close enough for me to listen to anything they write for me. "When they report one" is exactly the problem. It is one here, one there. Your statement, "If they report many successes" miffs me. Can you point me to a news article that is reporting many successes? The media, by and large, is pro government and their views are biased. The problem here is what Sen. Bennett has been saying, "The problem is that we (even his committee) don't know how things are going. Companies won't tell us...their lawyers won't let them. Their CEO's won't let them. We are in the dark. We can't know how bad it will be because we don't have the information."

I could go on and on, but you should be getting the picture by now. When *everything* is regarded as an indication of disaster, even exact opposites, you can be sure you aren't dealing with analysis. You're dealing with Faith. A classic case of heads I win, tails you lose. People here read exactly the same thing between all the lines, regardless of what those lines actually say.

I could go on and on too Flint. I just wanted our friend Gordon to see where the differences lie between the DGI and the GI. The GI, based on the evidence and/or lack thereof, see plenty of reason to prepare. The DGI like Flint, are for some reason optimistic on y2k for reasons we are trying to understand. There are times when I rented that I didn't carry contents insurance and took a chance. I was lucky I didn't get robbed. Flint's perspective is like that. You probably won't need the insurance but buy it anyway just in case. The GI perspective is, you more than likely are going to need all you can get, and if you don't have it you may could die. In Flint's eyes, you will in all likely hood not need to have prepared. In the GI eyes, you better get prepared. Flint's approach can cause people to take a chance and not prepare. The GI's approach wash their hands of blood.

b

This approach is NOT rational. If you buy into it, I can't stop you. All I can do is point it out, and leave the conclusions to you. And if all I get for doing so is personal attacks, I can only regard this as an indication that there *is* no rational response, and this only confirms that to see disaster in everything, you must start with a conviction and force everything to fit it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 06, 1999.

Will:

You may be right, but I'd love to see some good examples of this steep slope. We've had systems become nonfunctional pretty regularly for a long time, but no slope. Old systems have been getting replaced with new and very different systems for a long time now. No slope.

I've seen many theoretical examples along the lines of IF A fails, then B might fail, and if B fails, then C might fail, etc. And while there's nothing explicitly wrong with these sequences, in practice they don't seem to happen. Odd, isn't it?

Your all-or-nothing position isn't based on past experience in any way. It's based on fear. In real life, we never get all, and we never get nothing. There have been trends and cycles, yes. But this may be a question of visibility. Most things that go wrong, even drastically wrong, aren't visible far beyond the immediate locus of the problem. And most of them are temporary. I think history shows us that the more drastic the problems, the more drastic the efforts to contain them. There is a feedback mechanism, and so far it has worked fairly well. Whether it will be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the y2k problems, I'm not convinced either way. But it seems there is an elasticity involved. It's a curve. The harder you stretch that bungee cord, the more difficult it becomes to stretch it further. If our systems were as brittle as you believe, they'd be snapping all the time. We couldn't keep up.

I wonder if you're another victim of the thought process I outlined above for Gordon -- that everything points to disaster, and the opposite of everything does too!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

THANK YOU BB !! What a work out! It frustrates me beyond belief to "see it in my head" but be void of the words. I know I shouldn't speak for someone else but....I just "know" Gordon "knows" this already. So do I and I'm grateful for your completely logical take on Flint's floundering comments. (he's worn me down to a skeleton of a woman *sigh*)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

BB:

You remind me of the soldier who saw everything twice (in Catch-22). The doctor held up one finger, and the soldier saw two. The doctor held up two fingers, and the soldier saw two. The doctor held up 10 fingers, and the soldier saw two!

Your reasoning, in a nutshell, is "I'm right, therefore everything that seems to agree with me is right, and everything that doesn't is wrong. Therefore all right information agrees with me. Therefore I'm right!"

I appreciate the effort you've spent illustrating exactly what I was saying. To you, *everything* points to disaster, and the opposites do the same! NO MATTER WHAT you read, you find SOME reason to CRAM it into the only pigeonhole you have.

So just hypothetically, try assuming you're wrong (I know, this is hard, but try anyway). NOW, how could you possibly learn this? Not from analysis, your thinking is a closed loop. Not from the evidence, you discard what clearly contradicts you (self-reporting, unreliable sources, insufficient detail, whatever) and embrace whatever does support you (despite self-reporting, unreliable sources and insufficient detail). Not even from those who disagree with you (they're wrong, therefore why listen, therefore I'm right).

So I ask you: if things really, truly aren't nearly so bad, is there ANY way you could figure this out? Or has your circular reasoning completely closed your mind and made it impossible?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

You are quite right Flint. My reasoning isn't very reliable when it comes to computers. Man, I'm just learning to cut and paste. And I can be stubborn and hard to change when I start believing something. It's good for me to know this about myself so I don't end up trusting in the limited information that enters my average brain.

So I just rely on those who strike me as knowing a little bit about the subject. Not you of course, but men like Yourdon, Hamasaki, Cowles, Yardeni and the GAO for starters. I see these sources as trying their best to be honest, don't you think?

I also read this forum because information comes through here that gets analyzed by both gi and dgi. I process it and try to stay open to it. If you would see my bookmarks you would see that I've read thousands of pages since 1997. I've waited long enough for a clear resolution to y2k. My pessimism grows Flint from this man's perspective.

So to be brief, I don't depend on my 'circular reasoning'. I find wisdom in the abundance of counselors. I'll admit that it will take a Yourdon or Cory or Cowles to say 'it looks like no problem' and provide me evidence why that is so. It will take info that the refineries are almost fixed. It will take new info that the 40-50% of small businesses and companies have changed their minds and will not wait to fix on failure. I will have to be given evidence that the 20 largest banks in the world,(eight in Japan) are into testing interconnections. I will have to be shown that the lagging third of power companies planning to fix on failure have changed their strategy. My utility, Conectiv, is in that group. You will have to show me local communities developing contingency plans. Mine hasn't. You will have to show me that our weaponry is now compliant and that we don't risk an attack by terrorists or Russia because their weapons aren't compliant. I haven't mentioned phones, or the food chain problems.

And what company claiming compliance has ever, ever said that all their vendors and suppliers are compliant AND THEIR vendors and suppliers are compliant and their vendors and suppliers are compliant and their vendors and suppliers are compliant. Whoops there I go again falling into that circular reasoning thing you mentioned. Sorry.

You asked me what it would take to get me to see differently. There it is....

Now, What will it take for you to tell people that preparing is more then renters insurance, it could be necessary to save their families?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 06, 1999.

BB:

Good reply. I take all of those people seriously also, which is why I'm preparing.

As one example, let's look at Rick Cowles. First, he's not the only utility person out there. Dick Mills has added a lot, and Dan the Power Man has also. Second, not one of these experts is guaranteeing power. Rick is now expecting only local and temporary problems, and not too many of them. In fact, you cannot find any real power expert any longer who expects the grid(s) to collapse. Too many detailed investigations have been done for this position to be tenable any more.

Of course this doesn't mean you or I might not be among the unlucky few to experience outages. Certainly it's prudent to prepare against them. But it does mean that visions of civilization collapsing due to universal long-term outages are no longer useful. The catechism response we keep hearing, to all observations that we really do fix things when they break, that "they can't fix them with the power out" no longer holds water.

Yes, I've taken the position (see the recovery curve thread) that some is better than none, and a lot is better than a little, when it comes to remediation. I genuinely believe that more is greater than less, and better beats worse. I believe we're talking about degrees, and magnitudes, and levels, and rates, and other highly variable things. We aren't talking about black and white.

And I agree that there is good reason to take *everything* we read about y2k with a grain of salt. EVERY source of our information has an agenda, and sometimes our information has been filtered through several agendas before we see it. To me, this makes ALL information debateable, not just good news and not just bad news.

So sure, you can take any one of those false dichotomies I listed and you responded to, and turn them around and make an equally strong (or weak, but equal) case that everything points to no problems. But I don't buy it either way. We're dealing with a very messy situation, and the results will be just as messy. It's a crapshoot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Well Flint, you oughta know crap when you see it. As for BB...All it takes to see this problem IS an "average" brain. ( I know this to be true, because I have one....very strong, but average) Yours on the other hand, BB, seems to be functioning extremely well, to this broad! I would have to say, well *above* average. Flint, I'll give you alot of credit for your refusal to give up being unenlightened. If I didn't know better, I'd say you must be popping Mini-Thins like Tic-Tacs. I'm impressed, now, go get something to eat....'cause things are about to get very uncomfortable for you on this forum. You'll need your strength!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Will continue commented:

" Flint, I'll give you alot of credit for your refusal to give up being unenlightened. If I didn't know better, I'd say you must be popping Mini-Thins like Tic-Tacs. I'm impressed, now, go get something to eat....'cause things are about to get very uncomfortable for you on this forum. You'll need your strength! "

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 06, 1999.

Oooops ........ never do my fingers leave my hand.

Here is the rest of the story.

Will continue, Flint has a word quota per day here and cannot retire until this is met. I for one would be happy to punch out the rest of his quota for the day, I could sit and read a good book with one hand and just keep tapping the keyes with the other.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 06, 1999.

Like, wow, I've got *groupies*. Far out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 06, 1999.

Oh...there you are. Come on back to the Milne thread, would ya? He misses you AND SO DO I. come on...pick up those marbles, it'll be fun!

-- will continue (farming@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Flint>>>>

I've seen many theoretical examples along the lines of IF A fails, then B might fail, and if fails, then C might fail, etc. And while there's nothing explicitly wrong with these sequences, in practice they don't seem to happen. Odd, isn't it?

No, Flint it isn't odd at all. It is exactly what happens in highly organized and efficient complex systems. You misunderstand my analogy. Our system of systems is miraculously resilient.

Flint>>>> There is a feedback mechanism, and so far it has worked fairly well. Whether it will be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the y2k problems, I'm not convinced either way.

That is the question now isn't it? Being convinced either way is of no real import.

Flint>>>>>> The harder you stretch that bungee cord, the more difficult it becomes to stretch it further. If our systems were as brittle as you believe, they'd be snapping all the time. We couldn't keep up.

Again, our systems are not brittle at least the greater system of systems is not. That being said, the point comes when they are not able to cope and then the collapse is sudden and severe and irreversible.

Your bungee cord analogy is an example, eventually the cord snaps. It is forever changed by that event.

Flint>>>> Your all-or-nothing position isn't based on past experience in any way

Yes, in fact it is. Living systems. Life is an all or nothing proposition, Flint. Living systems either work or they don't. They handle all hardships and continue to function, or they collapse.

That is my point regarding y2k. Nothing has ever presented itself to our complex system that remotely could have been systemically threatening... until now.

That is why I prepare as a Doomer. I perceive that I will either not need my preps to any extent that justifies my expenditures, or I will need them desperately. You mistakenly assume that means I possess some certaintly of opinion, that assumption leads to the erroneous conclusion that I have lost objectivity. In point of fact I see all the picking of nits regarding why Doomers are irrationaly fearful is itself myopic. Our collective society is at this moment, either ok, or a dead man walking.

It is beyond your ability or mine to know which.

-- Will Huett (willhuett@usa.net), June 07, 1999.

Will:

OK, I accept what you've written. It sounds pretty good to me, although it does some real damage to our 1-10 scale. Basically, you're saying that if the system doesn't snap, then y2k will be pretty mild, a few inconveniences here and there, maybe some economic problems fairly short term, nothing we can't work through while maintaining our present lifestyle pretty much intact.

However, if it does snap, the results are off the scale. Phase change, bigtime.

On the whole, this model doesn't appeal to me as quite realistic, but what do I know? You may well be right. And if you are, the preparations most of us are making are moot. If a few weeks' worth isn't enough, a year's worth will be no better, and the few survivors will be living in caves and foraging for nuts and berries. A depressing thought.

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

Cheer up Flint!

Collapse of the System of Systems wouldn't necessarily mean Mad Max and the Thunderdome globally. Preparations will make a difference, especially year plus. If we suffer System Death, then everything will become local. Would lots of people die? Yes. Would lots of areas disintegrate? Yes. Would lots of GIs die in spite of their best efforts? Yes. Would roving bands of trained mercenaries harvest sweet innocent homesteaders at their leisure? Yes. Will governments collapse with the ensuing civil war and the chaos associated with the destruction of civil order and means of exchange? Yes.

But not everyone, Flint, and not everywhere. That is why our individual preparations are so vitally important. If the highly organized system we call modern civilization attains maximum entropy, then everything will become local.

And not all localles will suffer the same fate. Enough will survive the chaotic period to rebuild. That is why our individual preparations are so vitally important. The more people that prepare for long term problems and the less people spend their time debating how long the trouble will be and what it will look like ( these are unknowns and unknowable ) the better off we will all be.

One of the greatest seductions of y2k is the attempt to divine the outcome and prepare for it. This is treacherous ground because it is far too easy to fall in love with your opinion and then one is forced to spend inordinate amounts of time and energy defending it. This is especially tragic if there is no allowance for anything worse than what you think will happen.

A better strategy is to allow some provision for long term rebuilding in the areas of food producion, power generation and knowledge preservation. ( maybe as little as some seeds and tools and a couple of solar panels, doesn't have to break the bank )

Think monastery, 1000 A.D..

Above all else in this type of situation, what is needed is hope. That is why some long term prep is vital, especially if you don't think you will need it.

Here's hoping all we have to do is take two aspirin and call the programmers in the morning.

Regards,

Will

-- Will Huett (willhuet@usa.net), June 07, 1999.

Good points Will. I am preparing for a 10, although I only give the Infomagic scenario a 1 in 100 chance. I think a "Milne" is about a 1 in 5, and Yourdon's "10 year depression" 50-50. I think the best we can hope for is a shorter depression.

The living systems example is a good one. I just had to dump the contents of one of my salt water aquariums yesterday. Neglected it too long and things took a turn for the worse. What a mess.

-- a (a@a.a), June 07, 1999.

Freelancer writes:

"In my previous commentary I touched upon the difficulty of getting people to agree. Our discussion here bears witness to that very thing ... Some comments that help illustrate the problem in organizing were alluded to by another poster, i.e. each according to their life style, etc. Therein lies the problem. It is challenging enough to integrate people into a group environment given no stress much less the kind of stressfull situation we are discussing here."

There has a great deal of emphasis on military methods and I suspect that is because quite a few people here have the actual benefit of a military experience and being a member of a military team (whether it is a unit or a platoon, etc.). Myself, I wonder if the same civilian methods of team building as used in the cutting-edge companies can be used before the rollover to get like-minded people to come to some agreements, take ownership in team work, and develop a team spirit. I emphasize that corporate team building may be more effective before the rollover, whereas a military model may be expedient in a crisis. Yet I also think there is room here for discussion of corporate organization in general and some of the "best practices" used in world class organizations to get things done. I might even suggest we consider the various advantages and disadvantages of the modern non-heirarchical organization.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), June 09, 1999.