This may have been posted before, but doomers like to see things more than once.

June 4, 1999 Daily Fix: My dinner With Westergaard, or Truman defeats Dewey
By Mitch Ratcliffe, ZDY2K

It was a bit of a setup, at least in my opponent's opinion. I was supposed to lose the debate with John Westergaard, of y2ktimebomb.com, over the economic impact of Y2K held this week in Troy, New York. When it was over, I felt a little like Harry Truman hoisting the famous headline, Dewey Defeats Truman, above his head in victory.

I urge you to listen to the debate for yourself. The entire evening will be available here on ZDY2K. The event will allow you to decide for yourself whether Y2K will bring on a major change in global economic conditions. The audience attending the debate voted when it was over, agreeing by a wide majority with my argument that Y2K is not a threat to the general health of the global economy. My position has been outlined in my past several columns, including "Scare tactics" and "The continuing drama."

John Westergaard argued energetically, but not very convincingly, that Y2K will bring about a recession resulting in a five percent to ten percent reduction in global wealth.

Officially, the results were 17 in favor of Westegaard and 41 for Ratcliffe. An additional ballot in my favor was handed to me afterward, so make it 42-to-17 for the ZDY2K home team. More importantly, nine people changed their mind about the economic impact of Y2K during the debate - in other words, before we began it was nearly a dead heat at 26 for Westergaard and 33 on my side. I should have thought to poll the audience about whether Westergaard had converted anyone from an optimistic outlook, but did not do so.

The important point to take away from the debate is Westergaard's rather remarkable description of his research into Y2K, which he revealed was based entirely on unsourced hearsay. Rumor, not fact, is the foundation of Westergaard's prognostications.

Let me step back and say that Westergaard has produced some remarkably prescient analyses of companies and markets, based on his extensive contacts. His example during the debate, a report that accurately predicted the downfall of Republic Oil, was masterful, but it was based on solid research, not rumor. In the case of Republic, as Westergaard said during the debate, was examination of financial reports, industry statistics and personal contacts.

Apparently, when it comes to Y2K, Westergaard has relied on anonymous email for his information, and he hasn't bothered to check out the veracity of information. At some point, the rumors achieve a critical mass of authenticity for Westergaard. He describes his research strategy as "inferential analysis," which depends on collecting a lot of information and looking for trends - it's a valid and useful approach, but needs to be buttressed by careful sourcing.

The example he used, of receiving email from an oil worker in Saudi Arabia who said his employers were lost at sea with regard to Y2K, is striking, because he said he never bothered to see if the mail was from an oil worker. Moreover, he did not look into such accusations, but waited until he had enough such messages to conclude Y2K was going to be bad, and that remediation efforts are failing.

Look, folks, every company has at least one employee who thinks that the boss is clueless - and sometimes the boss is clueless - but the fact that all those disgruntled people share their opinions about their company's fundamental incompetence does not add up to one iota of useful information. Rather, it provides the fodder for questions, which Westergaard never asked.

"Inferential analysis" is essentially what journalists do, but they do check to see if a source is real, whether they have hidden motivations for making accusations, and so on. The process has worked for Westergaard in financial matters, since he is connected with people who he knows and can depend on for accurate information. But, to use anonymous sources, without checking out stories and motivations, as the basis of the frightful alarmism Westergaard celebrated during the debate is just plain daft.

Everything Westergaard said becomes immediately suspect, because his approach to Y2K research is not even as sound as the typical hack writer who regurgitates corporate press releases - at least, when a company lies in a press release, it is on the record. Unverified rumor should not be the basis for warning people that their investments, their livelihoods and the reliable delivery of basic goods and services are risk.

You need to listen to the debate. You need to decide for yourself. I'm just glad I was able to be there, to play the role of Give 'Em Hell Harry. Thanks very much to Dick Mills, Jerry and Irene Miller, and the Hudson Valley Community College for their tireless efforts to make the debate happen.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 05, 1999

Answers

Actually, it was no where NEAR a debate proper. RATcliffe pats himself on the back because listeners voted for him. In essence, since it was in NO WAY a debate, what it all boiled down to was a 'popularity' contest. That there are FAR more pollyannas out there is not in the least surprising.

RATcliffe presented nothing in the way of verifiable evidence that the remediation is proceeding well. Just pollyanna rhetoric that so easily deceives the weak of mind and logically bankrupt.

It is not in the least surprising , either, that an as***** like Y2Kpro would send kudos to the winner of a mere popularity contest and have the nerve to call it a 'debate'.

In a real and moderated debate, debate proper, RATcliffe would have walked away with a fractured skull.

But, pollyannas want to hear what pollyannas want to hear. They need to be able to sleep at night and find ways to exculpate themselves from blame in the soon to come devastation of their families because of their refusal to prepare.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 05, 1999.

TROLL POOLE ALREADY POSTED THIS!!!!!!

I agree with Mitch. The important thing is that Westergaard finally admits that he uses so-called "inferential analysis" -- which basically means, if you get one unverified story, you might can ignore it; but if you get 10 or 20, you assume that there's something there.

In fact, most Y2K Doom and Gloom prophets do this. The few attempts at finding "hard" information almost always require that you believe that (A) the companies themselves are lying and covering up when they say they're fixing the problem, so that you must rely on (B) leftist- leaning organizations such as the European IEA and outdated government sources such as the GAO. They're the ones telling the REAL truth.

Don't miss the real significance of the numbers after the debate, either. 8 people changed their minds -- FROM THE DOOM TO THE NON-DOOM POINT OF VIEW. There was no mention of anyone leaving the debate with a WORSE opinion of Y2K.

I agree with Mitch. Have a look at the transcript, or listen to the debate on RealAudio.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 04, 1999

Answers I'm sure mitch is soooooo glad you agree with him!

-- I don't want my family to die because I listened to you! (you're @butthead too!.com), June 05, 1999.

Debate? It sounds more like a contest to see who has the biggest male part.

Why not just unzip, & get it over with.

-- someone (get@a.ruler), June 05, 1999.

It really won't matter how clever someone is, or how well anyone argues. It won't matter who people vote for. Only time will really tell the answer to this question. After all, the computers will have the last say on this one. I have worked on Y2K remediations. I won't be unprepared when Y2K rolls around.

-- Jean (jmacmanu@bellsouth.net), June 05, 1999.

ATTN MR. PRO, THIS IS THE POLLY POLICE!

Put the beer down slowly.

Now, stand back from the keyboard, and nobody gets hurt.

That's a wise decision on your part, sir. (applying cuffs and ankle braclets) Now, follow my lead toward the Paul Milne Express Flaming Death Train. (watch your head as you enter)

Before I forget, let me read you your Miran...er...Milne Rights:

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. You have the right to legal representation.
3. Any quoting on your part of Mitch Ratcliffe tripe can and will be used against you in a future people's tribunal.

Oh, wait a minute here, shoot, that's right. You've now boarded the Paul Milne Express, so you have no rights. You exercised your stupidity last year. Your ticket's already punched, pal.

Have a nice day, sir.

-- Rodeo Rosie (fatch@nce.sucka), June 05, 1999.

Y2K Pro = Norm = Vinnie

-- Quiet (Observer@watching.you), June 05, 1999.

I can just visualize 12 months from now. I will sit in my chaise lounge chair in my back yard with a full tummy, soaking up the sun.

Y2K Pro on the other hand (if he's still alive) will be frantically going from door to door, begging for food. Most likely he will be carrying a sign that says "Will work for food"!!!

-- Y2K ready. (Y2Kready@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

To Rodeo Rosie:

I do not think that it is a joking matter to even poke fun at something like the 'suspension' of rights.

We all have inalienable rights. They were granted to us by God. Our Constitutionis is supposed to protect us from encroachment against those inalienable rights. It is not a joking matter and I will not be associated with any infringement of the rights of another in reality or as part of your little feeble attempt at humor.

RATcliffe has every right to be a moron. So does flint and y2kpro. It is their God given right to be stupid. They come in here every day excercising that right. I have NO problem with that. What I *DO* have a problem with is people like you who, in jest or otherwise, intimate that removing the rights of another is a laughing matter.

Find something else to joke about.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 05, 1999.

Don't understand the strong feelings on this. There was no debate because there were no facts. Just two people debating "what ifs". Neither would have passed my class

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 05, 1999.

To Z1X4Y7:

Exactly my point. It was not a debate. But not only was it not a debate, the moron RATcliffe goes on and likens his vote of popularity to something akin to Truman defeating Dewey. How delightfully arogant as well as preposterous.

Typical of the total lack of anything remotely like thinking displayed by one of the paramount Pollyanna morons.

Additionally, to even 'consider' that Westergaard is in the doomer camp is a laughable joke. He is a mealy mouthed pollyanna himself. His site is REPLETE with Pollyanna authors and articles. It is a Pollyanna repository with the exception of a very few like E. Lane Core Jr., Victor Porlier and Jim Lord.

Let the Pollyannas slap each other on the back because their RATcliffe won the award in the RAT popularity contest.

Soon the only slapping they will be doing is a collective "dope slap"

DoH!

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 05, 1999.

Rodeo Rosie =

* Fake stealing handle: OutingsR (us@here.yar)
* mike goodin (newswires@loose.wires)
* Dan Webster (Dan_Webster@flashmail.com)
* Reality Based (not@wind.bag.like.cpr)
* Fake stealing handle: a (a@a.a)
* Anti-Wanker (anti-w@nk.er)
* Dan Webster (cantsp@m.me)
* Dan Webster (cantsp@mme.com)

Please stop the trolling. If you choose to contribute something of value to this forum then do so. If not, then please leave.

-- Quiet (Observer@watching.you), June 05, 1999.

You know, a while ago Ratcliff listed his credentials (sorry, I don't have them handy). He listed his many years REVIEWING software and hardware, but I noticed that he had ZERO experience doing actual programming. ZIP, ZILCH, NADA.

Until he's spent a few years working 'in the trenches' his opinions on Y2K remediation are worthless.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 05, 1999.

While I agree that this 'debate' wasn't rigorous and will have no effect on the future, I can't help but notice we have some very sore losers here. Why worry about it?

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

typical response from flint.

There are no sore losers here. There are no losers at all, in fact. In order for there to be losers there would actually have had to have been a dbate. There was none. What there was was a barking contest between two dogs. A full blooded pollyanna on one side and a mongrel pollyanna on the other.

What is laughed at is that the one crows about how well he did in a debate that never existed and likens it to a national election like the true ass and megalomaniac that he is.

And only a simp like yourself would even raise the issue of 'sore losers'. But it certainly goes a long way in helping folks see exactly what camp YOU are in. Only a Pollyanna would deride the 'others' as 'sore losers' now, huh?

Go chase yourself some more, flint-boy.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 05, 1999.

If Mr. Ratcliffe only contributes details about Mr. Westergaard's research, it is still useful information. However, my own experiance in four companies matches what is reported from "Disgruntled Workers". And I guess you would describe me as a pollyanna, because I'm guess-timating only a 1 in 60 chance that the lights go out. But that's still too many loaded chambers for me in this round of russian roulette. I can make preps and if nothing happens recoup my almost all my losses by using what I stored next year. It's a cheap insurance policy. Why NOT prepare? I assume that Mr. Ratcliffe is out to debunk scam artists. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. No flames from me on this. And I prefer that both sides of the debate be heard in any issue. We would have a much wiser society if that were always the case. But after hearing both sides, you have to make your own decision.

So keep your ears and...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), June 05, 1999.

The gaseous emission that is moron Milne stamps his little feet in outrage. How dare we stand in the way of his apocalyptic fantasies with mere facts - he sputters. How dare we stand in the way of his ultimate fantasy - killing another human being.

Milne=death, perhaps the most outrageous culpable Monster to have been excreted down the Y2K pipe since North - he is walking, talking smegma...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 05, 1999.

To y2k'novice'

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

I really love seeing who are the 'really' malevolent ones. Y2k"novice's" vomit is truly a demonstration of the pollyanna and unprepared's character.

Not one so called doomster has said tht he relishes the thought of taking another life. They HAVE said that they will not shrink from that obligation in defense of their loved ones.

This REALLY rankles who? The ones who have not or who have refused to prepare. Why? because they will be on the receiving end of a personal, gas operated, magazine fed, lead distribution system when they attempt their criminal tresspass.

Only a deeply disturbed and insidiously malignant individual like y2k 'novice' could possibly insist that a person who has taken great pains to AVIOD confrontation relishes it.

It is part and parcel of their psychological makeup. They engage in cognitive dissonace regarding Y2k and have a marked propensity towarda calling black, white: and white, black. It is their only recourse to retain sanity. Otherwise they would have to face reality and actually take steps to do something. Now, that would scare them, so they MUST see NO BAD thing happening and ALL bad things must emanate from those who are preparing for their family's safety and well being. YES!! That's the ticket! All those people who love their families enough to make sure they are supplied and in a safe environmnet, whether anything happens or not, ARE EVIL!! Yes!! It is an EVIL man who looks after the welfare of his family. It is an EVIL man wicked and perverse man who does not trust the unverified statements of complinace from government and business. It is an EVIL man who sees harm when every scrap of evidence conclusively shows that the remdiation is slipping further and further behind. Yes!! An evil man indeed he is.

And to show how evil he is, I will insert the word "masturbatory" into my description of him in the hope that some weak minds will find that just one more thing to condemn him for.

Y2k pro/novice is a pathetic little man, scared to death about what is going to happen. Instead of having any common sense and taking even minimum precautions for the sake of his family he reguritates his moronic tirades in here.

Have at it pea-brain. You won't be around much longer.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), June 05, 1999.

Ms or Mr Quiet,

The only thing you've apparently captured is people coming in from anonymizer.com, as I have *never* posted under any of the listed names.

(but I have been here before)

Better luck next time.

[Please resist trolling Rosie that's all we ask]

-- Rodeo Rosie (fatch@nce.sucka), June 05, 1999.

Tech32, Milne, etc.

I would like to know what your background is that allows you to make such "informed" decisions or predictions with regards to Y2K. It would be interesting to contrast your education/experience against your opponents (Y2K Pro, Ratcliffe, et al)...

-- wholst (w_holst@hotmail.com), June 05, 1999.

wholst or whatever you call yourself;

Without being rude, Your question proceeds from a fallacy. That fallacy is that only someone of a certain background is qualified to make comments on Y2K.

There is hardly time to explain the amount of energy or the hours I have put into studying Y2K.

Suffice it to say, that I have intricately examined the situation. From ALL perspectives.

The several things that stand out above all else are these:

1. IT has an horrendous track record with projects of this scope and magnitude. Thirty years of IT statistics do not fly out the window just because it is now imperative that they do. If anything The remediation is the beat all and end all of business as usual.

2. The number one reason, historically for IT failures is late starts. Virtually everyone started too late, that is if they started at all. To date, not ONE major comopany has admitted that it will fail as a direct result of their own remediation shortcomings. This is statistically impossible, and it underscores the inherent dishonesty of the compliance reports that say companies are on track.

3. The money has not yet been spent as verified by SEC filings. As of December, the SEC filings indicate that the average Fortune 500 company had not yet spent fifty percetn of their proposed budget.

4. We live in an ultra dependent world. Never before have we been saddled with the intricate spider web of dependencies and the division of labor under which we now exist. Capitalism, is a relatively NEW economic system. Its main emphasis is to squeeze out a profit. Computer technology has so enhanced the profit making ability, that to maintain profitability and efficiency in the face of the problems that may be sprung by Y2K, will be near impossible.

5. No significant percentage of any industry is yet compliant. This is probably the most telling. They will not all magically spring up ready to go in the last quarter. "IF" we were going to have a significant number of companies ready, a large number would already be compliant and would be becoming compliant along the lines of a standard distribution, a bell curve, if you will. We have not even yet started up that curve yet. Only the naive believe that companies are holding back due to litigation constraints. Only the naive believe that companies do not have to be esentially compliant internally, but just ready enough to eke out business in this never before computer driven dog-eat-dog economy.

6. Testing is the most expensive and time consuming part of the job taking at least fifty percent of resources and time. On the whole, testing has not yet even begun. Not only has it not begun, internally, but a myriad of entities must be able to relate to one another. This has not been done to any large degree.

7. Internationally, the remediation is a conclusive disaster. Country after country has related where they are. 75% of all the computer code is outside the US. Russia, not begun. Italy, not begun. China, paralyed with 90% of pirated software. Canada, slipping schedules as is Ireland and New Zealand and England. Country after country announces it needs a billion dollars to proceed. Iran, Venezuala. The list is endless.

8. To a one, virtually ALL 'positive' information is completely unbacked by and substantive evidence and is utterly unverifiable. For every company that releases info that it is doing well there are a thousand companies that are not even in the running.

The above is not even remotely exhastive. It is the tip of the iceberg.

Make up your own mind. If you want to discuss this with me, personally, you have my e-mail adress.

You have a choice. You can rely on governments and companies who have AT BEST remdiated only a tiny fraction of the totality of their systems for the continuity of that upon which your life depends, or, you can prepare.

The degree of your preparation will depend on whom you believe. and without being inflamatory, your preparation will be based, in large part, on how willing you are to let the safety of your family reside outside your own hands.

I am not willing, for one minute, in light of what I know about Y2K, to allow my family's well being to be out of my hands as far as dependecies for the basic things of life are concerned. Food, water, a relatively safe environmnet. My status is meaningless. My 'job prospects' are meaningless. My 'vacation plans' are meaningless.

I have a wife, five children, two parents in law, a sister in law and her two kids and a brother in law who may have to depend on me for their lives.

If I have to be mistaken, one way or the other, I would rather be mistaken and end up losing .....what? Money? Status?

If I am wrong the other way, people die. People that I love, die. I get no second chances. No do-overs.

The evidence that I have gathered and post daily is conclusive. We are not going to experience a mere recession or depression. The one thing that most of the 'pollyannas' can not get through their heads is the big picture. More specifically, the economic context of Y2K. All of this is coming to a head in a world never before in this condition. AWASH in a sea of debt. Fiat money. Fractional reserve 'banking' scams. Wildly out of control populations consisting of mere speculators, the breadth of such speculation boggles the mind.

But, like I said, the info is quite conclusive to any one who has any degree of intelectual honesty, meaning that they will accept what is true even though it is not pleasant. If you want to talk, you have my e-mail.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo @halifax.com), June 06, 1999.

Paul, it is heartening to see you posting and answering questions with explanations. Disciplined to-the-point discussion is a virtue ;^)
Bugging out is the truly sensible, wise and prudent approach.
Self-reliance, back-to-the-earth sustaining practices are what is called for.

Unfortunately, some of us who agree with your conclusions cannot do as you have done because of financial limitations, plus no tribal (family) support throughout the whole of life.

Ashton & my deliverance will come through God, after we have left Earth. We are preparing, and trying to help others see the need to prepare. But we can't do enough. Unless the Lord intervenes, we will probably die in 2000. We've accepted that, yet when the time comes it will not be easy. Just letting you know that even though you are right to post as you do, it can sting and there are some who through no fault of their own will not have the antidote to the hornet.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), June 06, 1999.

wholst,

Check out the thread For all the newcomers, who here is a programmer?. It has my background as well as that of a few other tech types around here.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 06, 1999.

Let's try that again:

For all the newcomers, who here is a programmer?.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 06, 1999.

The fact that fart catcher Milne repeats the following invective in so many posts:

" Why? because they will be on the receiving end of a personal, gas operated, magazine fed, lead distribution system when they attempt their criminal tresspass. "

..leads one to believe that this is one cat who can hardly wait to mow down some humans. The real worry of course is how he will react when Y2K does NOT turn our world into a scene from Lucifers Hammer? How long can our inbred fool contain his psychopathic rage?

Milne is on the fringes of the Y2K Cult. Positive news about remediation and compliance are all lies and spin - all bad news is immediately embraced as "the truth". This guy is the ultimate chicken little. One can only hope that there are just two words in this Doofus' Y2K future - 'Straight Jacket'

"On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not."-- Ed Yourdon

"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 06, 1999.

Poole posted this answer to Milnes idiocy on another thread, but it's worth repeating here...

OK, I'll take a stab at Milne's "wisdom."

Your question proceeds from a fallacy. That fallacy is that only someone of a certain background is qualified to make comments on Y2K.

When I first appeared in this forum, a list of my own "qualifications" was demanded in several cases. The implication was obvious: my opinion should be discounted until I did this.

There is hardly time to explain the amount of energy or the hours I have put into studying Y2K.

But if all that study is in the wrong place, reading the wrong materials, and/or -- here's the biggie! -- you really aren't qualified to understand those materials, you won't reach a rational conclusion.

IT has an horrendous track record with projects of this scope and magnitude.

That it one of the most tired and misapplied bromides in cyberspace.

Y2K is not a single "project;" it is zillions of little projects being worked on simultaneously by zillions of different people. Some are faring better than others. Further, Y2K remediation, in most cases, is not a NEW project -- it is maintenance of existing code.

But I like what Dr. Scott Shemwell, Director of Oil & Gas for the EDS E-Business Solutions Group said recently:

While the jury is still out, one thing is clear: our Herculean efforts are drawing to a close rapidly. While the industry is making the world "safe" for the new millennium, one other thing is becoming clear: IT has finally not only brought a project in on time, but in many cases has finished ahead of time ...

To date, not ONE major comopany has admitted that it will fail as a direct result of their own remediation shortcomings.

BZZZT! Disconnect alert!

If you don't read anything else here, read this. In fact, call all of your Doomer friends around the computer screen, because this is very, very important. I have a FACT for YOU:

The fact is that in every case to date, without exception, computer experts have overestimated the effects of computer problems. Without exception!

In plain English: COMPUTER FAILURES MERELY REPRESENT THE LOSS OF USEFUL TOOLS. Having a power screwdriver is handy, but I can get by manually if I have to -- for that matter, in a pinch, I can use a table knife (when I was growing up, we called 'em "Poole screwdrivers"[g]).

You will find few IT/IS professionals who can even countenance the concept that their work isn't indispensible; this is just human nature. But the dentist sees a world filled with (potentially bad) teeth; the farmer, a world filled with (potentially failed) crops ... and the programmer sees a world in which everything grinds to a halt if his precious program doesn't crunch numbers correctly.

Each is right in his/her limited vision -- and flat wrong, at the same time.

In this case, how many examples do you want? The Michelangelo Virus. Electronic Pearl Harbor. The Ping O' Death security loophole. Bugs in popular programs. In every single case, without exception, the so-called "experts" have estimated that there would be disruptions (usually severe) due to these problems.

And in every case, the disruptions -- if they occurred at all -- were minor, and were soon forgotten a few weeks down the road.

Look at the Win95.CIH "Chernobyl" virus. Several hundred thousand computers were hammered unexpectedly on April 27th. At the time, the "experts" stated that this was an unqualified disaster (and they were right), and that it would have serious, long-term economic effects in Asia (and they were flat WRONG -- in spite of the fact that Asia has already been struggling economically).

Guess what? The effects of this -- the worst computer disaster in history! -- are already fading. They've worked around it. The net overall effect was something less than a bump in the road ... supporting what Mitch Ratcliffe, and NOT John Westergaard, said in the debate.

A humorous note: when the Chernobyl thing first hit the news, many Doomlits crowed that it would provide an excellent idea of how Y2K disruptions might look. Yep, it sure did! I tried to warn them that they were shooting themselves in the foot with a .44 magnum ...

The money has not yet been spent as verified by SEC filings.

And this is utterly meaningless. Next question.

We live in an ultra dependent world.

Ah, yes, the old "we're interconnected" thingie. JIT dependencies; transportation chains; the whole nine yards.

When hurricane Fran ripped through NC, it knocked out several major industries -- some of whom were JIT suppliers and vendors to other corporations elsewhere -- and the net overall effect was NIL. If your "interdependencies" were that serious, ONE MAJOR NATURAL DISASTER would shut down the entire country (if not the world). Chernobyl would have paralyzed Asia. But the premise is incorrect -- and the evidence is right in front of you.

I'll leave it to you to find that evidence. Let's hurry up and get through with these.

No significant percentage of any industry is yet compliant.

Utterly meaningless. Aside from the fact that NO ONE can provide a single, consistent definition of "compliant," the truth is that many functions can be continued (manually or by hand, if necessary), EVEN IF THE COMPUTERS ARE RIPPED OUT AND THROWN INTO THE DUMPSTER.

(Remember, computers are USEFUL TOOLS. Nothing more.)

This is something that you would KNOW if you were anything approaching a computer or control systems experts (which I am), but since you're not, I can't excoriate you for NOT knowing that. (You're not alone. Half the people in Washington haven't caught on to this FACT yet.)

Against the remainder of your comments I plead abyssus abbsum invocat; they're essentially different facets of the same "compliance gem." Just re-read what I said above a few times, and maybe you'll get it. I'll finish with this:

virtually ALL 'positive' information is completely unbacked by and substantive evidence and is utterly unverifiable ...

Boy, you've got stone cahones to even say such a thing. It is the DOOMER side of the argument that has virtually no facts, only unverified stories from "insiders," assumptions, guesses, and worse ...

But I don't expect you to believe that, either. Like most Doomers, you already made your mind up and aren't interested in facts to the contrary. Maybe you'll get it next January when the rest of us head for pizza before the Rose Bowl. We'll see.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net)

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), June 06, 1999.

we all know gary north hopes for the end days,y2kpro,most christians do,they just don't all look foward to throwing rocks.I'm not christian either,y2k pro,but try practicing a little religious tolerance.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), June 06, 1999.

Let's see---hmmm! we've got a bloody glove--ok-- a wool cap with hair fibers--bloody foot steps---yea!-- blood stains on socks-- blood inside the vehicle--- and the polly verdict is??? Not enough evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 06, 1999.

It's June 1999 & people are still launching ad hominem attacks on Milne... Reminds me of kids in first grade throwing rocks at a hornet's nest. What an idiotic waste of time.

If Milne is wrong, then that's that. If he's right, & I suspect he is, then we should all spend our time preparing as best we can. Either way, little boys, leave those hornets alone. They're very busy, & they know how to defend themselves.

-- grow (up@already.guys), June 06, 1999.

Interesting feedback. On this forum every poster has already taken a position and rarely deviates.

I'm preparing for a terrible Depression, and no amount of governmental/business/banking spin will be able to deceive me into believing Y2K is "no big problem".

Well, I'm off to the grocery store. It's the last sale day for BuyOneGetOneFree on Smucker's Strawberry Jam (expiration date JAN01).

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), June 06, 1999.