Decker,

You just really don't measure up. You need to go back to "Troll School" for a refresher. You're getting sloppy, and, I suspect, aware of how little chance you've left to accomplish your objectives here.

"What a difference perspective makes." This is the "bit of truth" that you hung your ad hominem attack on Ed Yourdon on, so it seems only fitting that it should be the key piece in the puzzle that convicted you of dishonesty and ulterior motive in my eyes. It is also fitting that it should allow many here a vantage point to perceive your ulterior motives regarding Mr. Cook.

Stupidity is, unfortunately, not one of your character flaws and it is apparent that you are aware of Mr. Cook's status as a leader on this forum. I'm sure that you are also aware that he is such with good reason. Mr. Cook is a steadfast voice of reason here and counsels prudence and caution. He is also an extremely valuable source of information in those areas where he has particular expertise and one of those areas is logical thought. A good example of his contributions here occurred last November when there was a widespread concern voiced over the safety of nuclear weapons vis a vis Y2K software flaws. Mr. Cook made it clear to anyone who could read at even a minimal level that there would be no nuclear explosions simply because a device "thought" it was year "00". Had he anything like the bias you attempt to ascribe to him, he could have easily fueled those fears and most likely done so in a way and from a position of expertise that would have badly frightened many people. His record, both here and elsewhere (read that as U.S. Navy) speaks for itself. I recognized your desperation when you resorted to an ad hominem attack against Ed Yourdon, and although I have had no doubt as to your motives since, your like attack on Mr. Cook demonstrates to all and sundry just what you've resorted to in your attempts to disrupt the cohesiveness of this forum.

Like I said; sloppy.

Your attempts to sow discord here by inaccurate and misleading reference to the free speech discussions that are underway are true indications of your motives.

Your thinly disguised attempts to disparage Mr. Cook's credentials by suggesting that his usage of the language is somehow inferior to your own is simply not credulous. As I am sure you are aware, his humor frequently reveals the depth of his expertise with the language and I have to tell you that it far outstrips your own.

I have a request to make of you, Decker, and I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so. Please continue to post here. Each time you do so, I find more enjoyment and satisfaction in the realization that whoever sent you failed in their search for a competent operative. In the, what I consider to be unlikely, event that you actually represent only yourself for some hidden reason(s), I find it absolutely hilarious.

Continue to attack the best among us, Decker. It serves us well.

For those of you with an appreciation of scatological humor, this footnote should provide a small chuckle.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 14, 1999

Answers

Some days I really believe Deck isn't technically a disinformatsia/discord troll, just a hugely insufferable megalomaniac.

Some days it's perfectly clear that he's both.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 14, 1999.

I would like to disagree with your charactorization of Mr. Cook as a "steadfast voice of reason" given his litany of name calling against me a while back.

The forum should expect more from a leader than that.

-- Jeff Donohue (jeff_donohue@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.

Obviously, you hold Mr. Cook in very high regard. Personally, I don't know him. He made a statement that I disagreed with. I am sorry your unadulterated admiration of Mr. Cook interferes with clear thinking... or the ability to read a simple news article.

The same applies for Ed Yourdon.

I had some tough questions for Mr. Yourdon... like why he took the Y2K money and ran. If all you want to do is pitch softballs to your Y2K heroes, you picked the wrong handle.

This goal of this forum is not "cohesiveness." You need to see the Socialists down the street. This is a rough-and-tumble search for factual information.

"Your attempts to sow discord here by inaccurate and misleading reference to the free speech discussions that are underway are true indications of your motives." I don't know what discussions are underway, because they are not public knowledge. The SysOps choose to remain anonymous and I will continue to protest their threat of censorship.

Finally, if you can prove I have made one cent by posting on this forum... I'll have your handle tatooed on my backside. I'll post a bounty in gold coin to anyone who can prove I've made money on Y2K anything. Pick a nice round figure. You have my name, my email address. Why don't you stop by and we'll chat?

Of course, you will decline. Just remember who is scuttling about in the shadows, and who is standing in the open.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 14, 1999.

Decker argued ad hominen against both Ed and Jennifer Yourdon here. He said this about Jennifer Yourdon.

For starters, anything about economics aka the banking system. Yourdon claims his daughter is an economist, but she has a B.A. in economics from Trinity and has done "some" graduate classes. Close, but no cigar.

I then asked Decker for his review of the chapter in Time Bomb 2000 that dealt with economics since Decker claims to have a background in it himself. No review of the chapter and no economic discussion of it was offered. That's the day I became convinced he would use any argument to further his own agenda if he thought he could get away with it.

Plainly speaking, Decker should extend an apology to Jennifer and Ed Yourdon unless he is willing to specify what's wrong with the chapter or chapters in question. And no, I don't know the Yourdons and I'm not paid to say this.

Read the book, Decker.

-- (who@really.cares), June 14, 1999.

Decker,

You really need to think before you post, dude.

Good one, Hardliner!

Diane

See also...

Announcement: Just One More Forum Moderator Logging In

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

Calling All Forum Moderators

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

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 14, 1999.

"I then asked Decker for his review of the chapter in Time Bomb 2000 that dealt with economics since Decker claims to have a background in it himself. No review of the chapter and no economic discussion of it was offered. That's the day I became convinced he would use any argument to further his own agenda if he thought he could get away with it."

I will call this the Cherri argument. If a "polly" doesn't jump through the appropriate hoop when YOU ask... he or she is lying, etc. My economic opinions have been posted on this forum and others. The continued postive reports from the private sector support my claim that the free market will solve most Y2K problems.

The problem for pessimists, however, is that they can find fault with any positive report. Using the logic of conspiracy theory, every positive news report is government "spin" and every negative report from anonymous Internet sources is the gospel. Failure to report is "noncompliance." Rubbish.

I did buy a copy of Time Bomb 2000. After a quick read, I gave it away. I am reluctant to buy a second copy... as it become less relevant with each passing day. If I feel so inclined, I will write a detailed critique. If not, just leave an address where I can drop you an email after Jan. 1st.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 14, 1999.

Decker still won't answer the question! And this is from the man who's complained before he can't find anyone on here to hold an intelligent economic discussion with. What did Ed or Jennifer Yourdon say about the banking system that showed a lack of economic expertise?

-- (who@really.cares), June 14, 1999.

Harliner:

Maybe you should be a little more consistent about statements by (for lack of a better word) y2k leaders.

OK, Yourdon decided to drop y2k, and gave his reasons. Decker doubts those reasons, and you blast him for doing so. Peter De Jager changed his mind and decided we'd turned the corner, and look at the treatment he got here. He was accused of being 'gotten to' by the NWO or whoever. He was accused of selling his soul, and 'repositioning' himself to keep the big bucks flowing in. de Jager was subjected to MUCH harsher treatment than Decker gives Yourdon, and the entire Doomer Chorus around here chimed in with "Amen"! I was about the only one to suggest de Jager was being honest, and I got treatment much like you are giving Decker.

I find your post here pretty disgusting. It seems the freedom of expression you support is, in practice, the freedom to express the Party Line any way we choose. I choose to believe that both Yourdon and de Jager are being sincere, and calling it as they see it. I suppose it's possible that both are instead 'repositioning' to where they feel the money is. If anything, de Jager's change of heart rings a bit truer than Yourdon's.

Your implication that anyone who disagrees with you must be in the pay of evil forces is what's hilarious. If you're saying this only for effect, you are contemptible. If you're saying it because you believe it, you should seek professional counseling.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.

"My economic opinions have been posted on this forum and others. The continued postive reports from the private sector support my claim that the free market will solve most Y2K problems."

If this is a sample of the sophistication of Ken's economic background as he applies it to Y2K globally, it is fruitless to request anything other than banalities from him on that score.

Ken, your best posts have had nothing to do with economics or your analysis of Y2K, which is pitiful, but rather with living a "frugal life". Why don't you continue to share along that line? It might be of genuine help to people like myself who are preparing their families for Y2K.

Based on your experiences growing up on a farm in Montana, I would think that there are many POSITIVE threads you could contribute on farming, animal husbandry, water resources, handling power interruptions, weapons care, hunting, mutual aid in small communities and the like.

Since you are in favor of frugal self-reliance, which as you yourself have stated, will not go out of fashion post-rollover, why not join in where you can find some common ground?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

" find your post here pretty disgusting. It seems the freedom of expression you support is, in practice, the freedom to express the Party Line any way we choose."

There is no party line. As witness your expression of your opinion in the words above. That "party line idea" is one of the destructive canards that energizes the trolls.

There is scarcely a single thread where regulars who agreed elsewhere now disagree, or disagree elsewhere now agree. That there are more people on this board pessimistic about Y2K impacts means, OF COURSE, that some opinions will be more prevalent.

Extrapolating from that to a party line is really silly. Unfortunately, repeating it often enough gives it currency it doesn't deserve.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

"There is scarcely a single thread where regulars who agreed elsewhere DON'T now disagree, or WHO disagree elsewhere now agree."

Sorry, was rushing.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

Big Dog:

Maybe the term 'party line' offends you. I encourage you to go back and review all the opinions expressed about de Jager when he came out with his "Doomsday Avoided" article. I referred to them as an illustration of the point I was making, which I notice you very carefully ignored. So OK, you don't like 'party line'. How about 'double standard'? Are you really supporting Hardliner's suggestion that anyone who disagrees with him or doubts the Great Yourdon must be in the pay of some evil forces?

I urge you to notice that Hardliner isn't making any attempt whatever to address the points Decker made and show that they might be wrong. Instead, he's attacking Decker personally, and trying to undermine his credibility. Are you really supporting a technique that ignores the opinion and attacks the person expressing it? If Hardliner were addressing Decker's points, that's freedom of expression. When he instead engages in petty personal viciousness against anyone who dares to disagree, that's defense of the party line as I see it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.

Disagreements are desirable. Civility is admirable.

However, I've found Decker to be most stuffy and insufferable.

I've found that simply ignoring his boring posts works very well.

-- texan (bullseye@ranch.com), June 14, 1999.

Flint said, "Maybe the term 'party line' offends you. I encourage you to go back and review all the opinions expressed about de Jager when as an illustration of the point I was making, which I notice you very carefully ignored."

I didn't carefully ignore it, I left and ate dinner!

You know how, shall we say, intensely I expressed my opinions about de Jager. Far more so than Decker has about Yourdon. No one ever said that Decker can't/shouldn't express his opinions about Yourdon as intensely as he desires.

But it is not out of bounds for Hardliner, myself, or anybody to reply back with our own convictions about Yourdon ... or Decker. How this becomes a "double standard" is simply beyond me.

"Hardliner: Decker is not free to offer his own opinions about Yourdon." Not. Never said it. Never implied it. This is one reason, to take up another subject, why Decker's new hobby horse, censorship, is more evidence of his denseness, to put it charitably.

Hardliner DISAGREES with Decker. Intensely. Whether he does so rightly or wrongly can itself be debated AS YOU ARE. As Decker can. The nature of Hardliner's disagreement has to do with his own judgments about Decker. Some of us share that basic judgment. Personally, I am sincerely open to Decker changing my mind about himself. I just haven't seen any evidence so far that would cause me to do so.

I was sincere in encouraging Decker to move away from the stuff he posts and share some experiences that might be of real benefit to us all.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

Ah, the "Cherri" argument again. Lest you don't think I hear your pain:

http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/18158.html

http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/zdy2k/stories/0,6158,2214698,00.html

http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/zdy2k/stories/0,6158,2213398,00.html

http://www.dismal.com/thoughts/y2k_olt.stm

Someone email me the Ed's Chapter on Banking and the Ten Year Depression, and I'll take a look at it. No promises, though.

Big Dog,

I can only say I have been equally disappointed in your comments on anything of a technical nature (and your slippery dodging of all return questions.) If you want, we engage in academic drivel. You can describe the nuances of programming languages, and I will provide elasticity of demand equations that refute the idiotic assumption that a 5% drop in oil production will result in a 50% increase in oil prices (made on an earlier thread.) If only I were still working on my gravometric transportation demand model, we could simulate regional traffic congestion in the event of Y2K panic. Whee!

Applied microeconomics (my former vocation) is much easier than macroeconomics. I don't think anyone can build an econometric model of the world economy that works worth a tinker's damn. Too complex. The best we can do is apply general principles.

How the free market works is a general principle ala Adam Smith. (Still waiting for that tasty little essay you suggested about the immorality of capitalism.)

What I can tell you about ranch living, BD, it's mostly experiential. With all due respect to Carla Emery and her charming book, you need to put your arms in... all the way to the elbows. Much of country living is watching, learning and making your own mistakes. With all due respect, it's not for the squeamish. We had an old neighbor named Mabel who used to inseminate our cattle. She'd talk shop with you while one arm was buried shoulder-deep inside a cow... a formidable woman, to say the least.

Many people just don't have the "sand" to make it in the hard countryside. Let me put it this way... when you are dirt poor and your best dog is too old, what do you do? Dig a hole, rub a beloved head one last time than put the animal to rest.

It's a hard life.

Most people just don't want to think too hard about the fact that the steak they are eating was, a short time before, a living, breathing animal. They want someone else to take knife in hand and move it from the hoof to the table. Country living, BD, is not something you can really learn from an Internet post. Sure, I can pass out advice like salt water taffy at the Fourth of July parade. But unless you have some sand in you, it's just a waste of words.

So, when do you want to butcher that hog?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 14, 1999.

Big Dog:

I'm not sure if we're communicating or not, but I agree what you've written here. At least Decker has a thick enough skin to keep showing up, expressing his opinions and defending himself.

And believe me, it takes a thick skin indeed when any opinion questioning the inevitability of Doom is dismissed, and the Almighty Chorus descends on the poor schlamazel personally. And sure, you can sit there, comfortable in your local conformity, pontificating about everyone's 'freedom' to take abuse, and their attackers' 'right' to be personal about it. Nobody is stopping anyone, sure.

As Anatole France wrote, "The law in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." I get emails several times a week asking me why I bother making any effort here. After all, why not let all these True Believers work themselves into an irrational frenzy all by themselves, it's not like they can listen? Even you have implied that anyone expressing consistently contrary opinions has no business here. Sure, they're 'free' to post, but wouldn't it be just so much more pleasant if they only went away?

You're absolutely right. Everyone can gang up and throw stones, and their target is welcome to throw back. But few bother.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.

Ken said, "Most people just don't want to think too hard about the fact that the steak they are eating was, a short time before, a living, breathing animal. They want someone else to take knife in hand and move it from the hoof to the table. Country living, BD, is not something you can really learn from an Internet post. Sure, I can pass out advice like salt water taffy at the Fourth of July parade. But unless you have some sand in you, it's just a waste of words."

I'm not one to have my arms up a cow. But my wife is. She has helped get more than one calf out of its mother when stuck. Does that quality for a bit of sand?

"So, when do you want to butcher that hog?"

Interesting you mention that again. We want to raise at least one pig this year, having raised chickens, geese and turkeys successfully. Why don't you do a thread on it, as well as on slaughtering them? I would find it very helpful, I suspect.

Don't underestimate the people on this forum. It makes you sound patronizing and condescending, which has been one of the chief problems all along. For instance,

"Country living, BD, is not something you can really learn from an Internet post." As IF anybody thought that? Between "really" learning and "being helpful" lies a lot of ground ..... including ground that others with a larger heart than you have been covering on this forum for months.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

Flint

One of the few times I have seen you lose it. So just to set the record striaght. Dejager did a major about turn saying that the problem was delt with and there was little to worry about. Little or no preparations needed. I was one of the ones cutting him down and as a Canadian I sent him an Email with witnesses to the effect that he had done a major diservice. The biggest problem in Canada right now is small and medium sized business. They employ alot of people. Alot of those people might listen to Peter and get the impression that the problem is solved.

That is not what our Government says.

Ed on the other hand has not changed his basic stance just his mode of communicating it. I would highly doubt that his commentary has been stopped. The internet does not need identity.

The issue with Mr. Decker and Hardliner doesn't consern me but Mr. Cook has been a very informitive member of the forum and he gets my support.

But comparing Ed and Peter is just to strange and if you want references Flint you know I can get them. Peter was scared by the US Government after the scathing letter to Clinton. Or look at it another way, Peter is a Canadian telling the Leader of the most powerful nation on earth how to conduct his leadership on a VERY public forum, the internet. Peter went way overline.

By the way Ed owes me nothing, I have never read his book, and have only started posting on this forum in Febuary. But his writing has always stressed a person judging for themselves the problem. In the course of reading about Y2K I have seem many great writers and Mr. Decker is one of them. But there are those that have a vision and a means to communicate it. They are rare. I see Ed in this category.

Just because we are told that there is less risk (and that might be the case) doesn't mean that the risk is going to be manageable. And as long as that risk is possible then folks must be aware. They are never going to be aware unless someone tells them. The only one that I know that can publicly disclose bad information and not get heat is the GAO. Of course I am a big Joel C. Willemssen fan.

Now in reading what Joel has put out as a highly paid member of the US Government and the information that Ed put out as consistant. The GAO put out a report not long ago saying that they have little idea of the Y2K impact on the water - wastewater systems because they can't get the critical information. I personally would be REALLY conserned with this report. But Joel is not called a doomer or a paid hack. He is doing his job.

Peter says there is little problem no preps, Joel says that there is LITTLE information on the water - waste water and it is doubtful that it will come. This would lead me to believe that someone is Bull Shitting.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 14, 1999.

Flint,

You'll get buttermilk from a bull before you get a straight answer from BD. He just doesn't answer the tough questions.

Hardliner is free to have an opinion. When he accuses me of being on someone's payroll... I just want him to pony up the proof. There was never any question of Ed Yourdon having business interests in Y2K and preparations. You can draw your own conclusions, but I think there is an inherent conflict of interest between reporting on Y2K and making money on Y2K.

You'd have thought I used the Holy Grail for a spitoon.

The "double standard" on this forum is clear. The pessimists care more about the ideology of the poster than the factual accuracy of the post. Period. This is why BD will support censorship in his "cause," but cry like a baby if the censorship turns against him.

I will always appear dense or dishonest to you, BD, because you are a zealot. I think you are sincere in your faith, and I do not hold this against you.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 14, 1999.

Ken --- does this mean you will do a thread on raising and butchering hogs or no?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

Brian:

I don't think you are reading what I wrote. de Jager changed his mind. The future will judge whether his change of mind was justified, but I believe de Jager really believes we've turned the corner.

Now, there are two distinct issues here: Have we in fact turned the corner (emphatically a matter of opinion), and is de Jager sincere in saying this is his opinion?

It's one thing to say, "well, I don't think the preponderance of evidence today lends sufficient support to de Jager's sense of where we stand." Fine, I have no problem with that. (and isn't de Jager still recommending at least a month's worth of preparation anyway?)

It's quite another to say, "de Jager is so obviously wrong, and so obviously knows it, that he must have been paid off." At best, this is petty closed-minded ranting. de Jager, Decker and I have ALL been accused of being in someone's pay. I believe this is because all three of us are intelligent, articulate, and relatively optimistic. NOTE the relativity there -- I'm without question the neighborhood Merchant of Doom, and considered a nutcase by family, friends and co- workers. I become an optimist only by contrast to the drooling, mindless extremism that permeates this forum.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.

Flint said, "I become an optimist only by contrast to the drooling, mindless extremism that permeates this forum."

Oh, the double standard is that YOU can say these things because you are "rational" and "fair" but Hardliner can't say what he says. Ah, I see.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 14, 1999.

Big Dog:

Don't you ever grow weary of the tactic Hardliner exemplifies here -- to support your opinion about the future by making personal attacks and accusations against those who disagree? Don't you ever feel that many of those here skip straight to the poster's name, and attack the 'enemy' without ever reading the content? Do you really feel (as you've implied) that if only those who disagree with you would just go away, the future would more closely resemble your expectations? Do you champion an active enforcement of the forum pecking order?

If so, then you should take Hardliner's bottom line to heart -- "whoever sent you failed in their search for a competent operative."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.

Hardliner wrote:

I have a request to make of you, Decker, and I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so. Please continue to post here.

Whether he realizes it or not, Hardliner has set up classic situation of cognitive dissonance. I don't know if he is trying to get Mr. Decker to refrain from posting, but this request closely mirrors a story by Natan Auusbel that was retold in The Psychology of Judgment And Decision Making by Scott Plous p. 22

There was once a Jewish tailor who had the temerity to open his shop on the main street of an anti-semitic town. To drive him out of town a gang of youths visited the shop each day, standing in the entrance and shouting, "Jew! Jew!" After several sleepless nights, the tailor finally devised a plan. The next time that the gang came to threaten him, the tailor announced that anyone who called him a Jew would get a dime. He then handed dimes to each member of the gang. Delighted with their new incentive, members of the gang returned the next day shouting "Jew! Jew!" and the tailor, smiling, gave each one a nickel (explaining that he could only afford a nickel that day.) The gang left satisfied because, after all, a nickel was a nickel. Then, on the following day, the tailor gave out only pennies to each gang member, again explaining that he could afford no more money than that. Well, a penny was not much of an incentive, and members of the gang began to protest. When the tailor replied that they could take it or leave it, they decided to leave it, shouting that the tailor was crazy if he thought that they would call him a Jew for only a penny!

Plous continued to analyze what happened in the story: Why would members of the gang harass the tailor for free but not for a penny? According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, people are usually motivated to reduce or avoid psychological inconsistencies. When the tailor announced that he was happy to be called a Jew, and when he changed the gang's motivation from anti-semitism to monetary reward, he made it inconsistent (or "dissonance-arousing") for gang members to please him without financial compensation. In the absence of a sufficiently large payment, members of the gang could no longer justify behaving at variance with their objective (which was to upset the tailor, not to make him happy.)

By the way Hardliner, I think your accusations that Mr. Decker is posting here because he is compensated is a cheap shot, unless of course you have some real evidence.

Though it is a cheap shot I would not advocate that Decker should be able to sue you for libel. If he were rich and could afford a lawyer to threaten you with a libel suit and if you were not rich enough to afford a defense, then you might be forced to censor what you said. Better that you two should have at each other on the net, then to bring this into court.

But I imagine that you might disagree with me, right Hardliner?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000c9w

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), June 14, 1999.

Great story! I too sensed that perhaps Hardliner was using what also goes under the name of "reverse psychology" on Mr. Decker.

Look, lets see if maybe we can work a compromise. I think that Mr. Decker has been doing a fair job of taking the place of the NORM machine, which apparently is out of commission due to being done in by a computer virus. Perhaps if we just ask Mr. Decker to continue to post in this capacity, like he did earlier today -- i.e., just post pollyanna articles, but otherwise don't type anything else -- this will enable Mr. Decker to feel that he is making a significant contribution to the forum, and build up his self esteem and self worth.

Would you do that for us, Mr. Decker? Carry the mantle for the defunct NORM machine? Brighten our mornings with good Y2K news articles? We all miss NORM, but we would rather have you!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 14, 1999.

Big Dodger,

Yes, I will ruminate on the hogs, although I regret missing the chance to teach you to finer arts of butchering in person.

By the way, BD, do you ever plan on giving a straight answer? Don't you think the thoughtful people on this forum notice how you change the subject and avoid answering the tough questions head on?

Flint,

"I become an optimist only by contrast to the drooling, mindless extremism that permeates this forum." Well, there you have it.

BD will not grow tired of the constant attack. See my earlier post. Do you really think he is looking for the facts on Y2K? C'mon. The "fix" is in for BD and the serious pessimists. He wrote an earlier post that was the equivalent of raising the drawbridge on any further debate. Don't you know the code is broken and we started too late? Church or school, Flint?

Robin,

I doubt Hardliner was practicing armchair psychology. I think he was just angry that I corrected the esteemed Mr. Cook. And I disdain litigation. Only the lawyers profit.

"King,"

I posted two articles in memory of Norm. You can ask politely for me to serve as an automated new forwarding service... and I will politely decline. You can lapse into your usual frothing, and I kindly suggest you take your request, fold into a shape with all sharp corners...

You know the rest.

How about a story about the fall of Spanish power and mercantilism?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 14, 1999.

Jeff Donohue,

You are certainly free to agree or disagree with anything I say or anything anyone else says.

Despite what I consider a fairly comprehensive attempt to keep up with the forum, I am simply not aware of what you are talking about in regard to Mr. Cook calling you (or anyone) names. As such I can make no honest comments to your point.

If you care to provide details, it should be apparent to all whether or not your position is justified.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

Dear Reader,

The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation.

The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all- inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm.

What is the point?

The PSF folks are better served by hardcore survivalist web pages or perhaps homesteading or small farming sites. Posts by the IOR contingent generally fall on deaf ears. Has anyone decided to ease up on preparations based on reading a post on this forum?

While I have only posted on this forum a relatively short period of time, the posts have become increasingly less interesting... at least to me. On occasion, some of the more rational folks become involved on a particular thread. Even then, one more often sees ridicule than reason. While I have seen flashes of IS expertise, the quality of thought on economic issues... abysmal.

Yes, anticipating that some readers have a grasp of the obvious, I can choose not to read the forum. I believe there are a few intelligent, reasonable people who read (and post) here. It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999

Link: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=000kW4

-- (vint@ge.kcd), June 15, 1999.

Anatomy of a Propaganda Missive

Decker, your reply could not have been more illustrative of my contentions if I had written it myself!

"Obviously, you hold Mr. Cook in very high regard." An excellent way to create the mental state in another's mind that will be receptive to your information is for the first thing you say to be something that they will accept without question. This should never harm your arguments and it is irrelevant whether or not it has anything to do with your point. All that is critical is that your audience agree with you. Personally, I don't know him. Here's the emotional "hook"; an attempt to elicit sympathy and draw the reader to your position (as in, "Gee, I just don't know him! I don't admire anyone that I don't know.) The reader is encouraged to disregard the fact that you know the target well enough to attack him! He made a statement that I disagreed with. Another true statement, and by now, the reader is getting used to agreeing with the writer. Sure you disagreed with him. So why didn't you simply say so instead of accusing him of being a spin artist? ("You give a fine lesson, Mr. Cook, on the art of spin.") I am sorry This is obviously an insincere apology and can serve no other function than to attempt to elicit more sympathy for the writer from the reader.your unadulterated While it is clear that Mr. Cook is admired to some extent, the use of the superlative is not called for. It is only opinion on the part of the writer, at best and more likely an attempt to discredit the admiration in any degreeadmiration of Mr. Cook interferes with clear thinking... Here is a timeworn device to deceive. Simply making the accusation (that 'unadulterated' admiration has interfered with clear thinking) directs the train of though away from the issue of whether or not the thinking was clear in this instance and tries to make the issue whether or not such admiration has interfered here. or the ability to read a simple news article. Here it is clear that you attack me, without any statement of any kind whatsoever on my part as to what I "read" in the article in question! The fact that I offered no perspective one way or the other on the article makes it clear that this is simply a device to direct the reader away from the issue of the ad hominem attack on Mr. Cook. None of this is about Hardliner, it is all about Decker and his behavior and motives.

The same applies for Ed Yourdon. If you had done this with a firearm, it would be called "a second shot". It is no more "on the paper" than the first one was.

I had some tough questions for Mr. Yourdon... By now (you hope), the reader will not ask the question, "Who are you that Ed Yourdon should answer to you about anything, let alone financial matters?like why he took the Y2K money and ran. Good job! (sarcasm) If you've been successful, by now the reader will swallow the assertion that Ed did "take the Y2K money" (You were going to ask him about it, remember? You don't know anything yet. As for the "ran" part, why don't you just accuse him of cowardice and be done with it? All the folks from Montana that I've ever known would consider such a comment to be "fightin' words".) If all you want to do is pitch softballs to your Y2K heroes, It is not. Not only is the reader expected to swallow this as an accurate statement of my desires based on nothing save your say so, it sets the reader up to accept anyone who you later choose to characterize as a "Y2K hero" as one who is only capable of hitting "softballs"! you picked the wrong handle. An attempt to discredit your opponent (me) based not on facts in evidence but on your unsubstantiated assertion of what my desires are! Tell us again about clear thinking". . .

This goal of this forum is not "cohesiveness." Of course it isn't! More misdirection. Cohesiveness is a characteristic of this forum. By simply saying that it is not the goal, you avoid addressing the issue of whether or not you attack it. You need to see the Socialists down the street. Really!? Now I'm a Socialist? Give it up Decker! Simple name calling stops being effective at about the third grade. This is a rough-and-tumble search for factual information. Now you're defining this forum? Although I would have thought that such military experience as you've referred to would have given you a different idea of what "rough and tumble" is, this is simply another true, but irrelevant, statement that avoids the issue of whether or not you've attacked the cohesiveness of this forum.

I don't know what discussions are underway, because they are not public knowledge. What is public knowledge is that such discussions are underway. You apparently do not feel the need to be privy to them to attack them when you say, "WARNING: THIS POST MAY BE EDITED FOR CONTENT OR LANGUAGE" The SysOps choose to remain anonymous and I will continue to protest their threat of censorship. If you keep as close track of this forum as you seem to want us to believe, you will have noted that statements to the contrary have been posted. To protest is your right (as it is anyone's) but to protest that which been declared as discarded simply makes you look like a rabble rouser.

Finally, if you can prove I have made one cent by posting on this forum... I'll have your handle tatooed (sic) on my backside. I couldn't care less about either your tattoos or your backside but I must point out that I didn't say that you were making money by posting here. I said, ". . . I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so." In a world where what, "the meaning of 'is', is", determines, even in part, the fate of the president of the US, your reply leaves too much "wiggle room". For example, if you are salaried and make no more or no less than if you did not post to this forum, your reply would be technically correct, yet you would be being compensated for posting here. What is wrong with a simple, "I am here all on my own. I represent no other entity or organization."? I'll post a bounty in gold coin to anyone who can prove I've made money on Y2K anything. Pick a nice round figure. This is simple chest thumping. Not only are you sure that no one will take you up on it (as evidenced by your statement further down, "Of course, you will decline."), but there are enough "outs" in your "challenge" that I'm sure that you are on firm ground in your belief that no one can "prove it" or even that you are not in any way being paid money directly commensurate with your efforts here.You have my name, my email address. Why don't you stop by and we'll chat? Anything I care to say to you will be public. I'm not about to hide any exchange with you from those on this forum.

Of course, you will decline. Just remember who is scuttling about in the shadows, and who is standing in the open. This is the same tactic you attempted with Arlin when you tried to discredit him. Why should you want to change the arena? You protest the "secret" deliberations of the moderators, yet you think it appropriate for this discussion to be "secret"? Tell us all, if you will, how the public speech of an anonymous person is, "scuttling about in the shadows", and the private (EMail) speech of an identified person is, "standing in the open". Or did you mean that my credibility is not dependent on my words and logic but on my willingness to forego my privacy?

Go back to "Troll School".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

II wwarned yyou aall aabout decker ffrom dday 11!!

enjoy ;)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 15, 1999.

Hardliner - take a close look at yourself man. You are getting awfully locked into an indefensible position.

BD - if you are going to slaughter an animal, I recommend a cow or pig. The insides of a sheep absolutely REEK, I mean STINK to high heaven. I did not mind watching my father butcher cows or pigs, or helping my mother with killing chickens when I was a kid, but when they did a sheep (for the fireman's barbq every spring - 5 or 6 sheep actually) I would leave the area at once, gagging all the way. The smell was incredible. And if the wool touches the meat it will taint it with an awful taste. BLEAH.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Decker is a wordsmith -- no doubt about that!

-- (none@t.all), June 15, 1999.

Paul, you are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black. Sorry, I haven't bothered to check out what you've written on that "other" forum lately but the agenda of that forum and your desire to participate is well known here. I wont bother responding in the future to anything you write.

In fact, I don't feel the need to respond to any troll trying to flush out a confrontation. I don't feel a need to. It's a waste of time and energy and I've chosen not to bother anymore.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, even Decker. I'm equally entitled to hold that opinion as meaningless and move on to the really important information and discussion which does occur on this forum.

Hardliner, I applaud your outspoken stance and your need to post your position regarding Decker. It's highly educational. Furthermore, I suspect that if your motivation was to allow Mr. Decker to hoist himself up by his own petard it's working.

Since I've been visiting this forum for a year I have grown to respect both Hardliner and Robert Cook over that time and I hold them both up as thoughtful people who are open to discuss any point of view and respect opposition. I've had the chance to even bump heads with them on a number of occassions. In those instances, I've learned much more than I can thank them for. I don't always agree with them but I've learned NEVER to discount their position or their argument.

Decker, respectfully, I have nothing to say about you.

Mike =====================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), June 15, 1999.

Flint,

Well, you've done it. You've gone and made me feel stupid and small and you've badly shaken my confidence. Just a few days ago I said, "I have a tremendous amount of respect for Flint and for his opinions, in large measure because he not only reasons so well, but because he, more often than I, succeeds in keeping his passions in check." Now you've shown everyone just how wrong I was.

You said, "Maybe you should be a little more consistent about statements by (for lack of a better word) y2k leaders." I'm not at all sure that reason even enters into this comment. I have no idea what you're talking about! ". . .consistent about statements by Y2K leaders"? I'm not aware of referring to anyone as a "Y2K leader" and I am truly baffled by this remark.

You continue, "OK, Yourdon decided to drop y2k, and gave his reasons. Decker doubts those reasons, and you blast him for doing so." You need to go back and re-read what I said. I "blasted" Decker not for his doubt but for his unsupported assertions (he claims that Yourdon made a lot of money, but provides no evidence of same), unlikely analogy (see the time line here that demonstrates the poor comparison of "now" to a seventh inning) and thinly veiled attempt to undermine morale (see the same post, where he said, " Of course, unlike the "fans," the "star" has made a significant amount of money on the Y2K ball game.", as opposed to simply stating his doubt. The rest of that paragraph seems to be little more than a rant about what other people said or didn't say about de Jager's about face and how unjustly you were treated. I don't recall what, if anything, I said about all that, but I do remember that it was clear that de Jager was in the unfortunate position (for him) of making two mutually exclusive statements about what his opinion was in a given time frame. Honesty is a lot like pregnancy in that you either are or you aren't. de Jager wasn't.

Then you say, "I find your post here pretty disgusting. Good for you, Flint! Wallow in your disgust. Enjoy yourself! It seems the freedom of expression you support is, in practice, the freedom to express the Party Line any way we choose. Here is a statement that really brings home to me just how badly I misjudged you. Regardless of how it "seems" to you, the freedom of expression that I support is the same freedom that allows you to find my posts disgusting and to make your erroneous suppositions about my position public. That you can read into anything I said to Decker as espousing a "Party Line" is clear evidence that you are not analyzing but emoting. I took great pains to attack nothing except Deckers motives and techniques. I did not in any way make Mr. Cook's arguments for him as it is quite plain that he is very capable at making his own. I choose to believe that both Yourdon and de Jager are being sincere, and calling it as they see it. I suppose it's possible that both are instead 'repositioning' to where they feel the money is. If anything, de Jager's change of heart rings a bit truer than Yourdon's."That's great, Flint. You have your opinions and you are entitled to them. I must point out however, that whereas you clearly labeled your thoughts as beliefs and suppositions and judgments, Decker clearly asserts his as fact ("Oh, and his contract is "guaranteed" through the end of the year. The book royalties and other ventures will continue to produce revenue.") without a shred of supporting evidence. In addition, even if it were fact, it certainly falls under the category of private and personal and has no business showing up here or anywhere except where Ed Yourdon might choose to reveal it. I hold that the behavior of the "messenger" (Decker) is such that it warrants attack (not Decker, the behavior). I hold the same with respect to his behavior toward Mr. Cook.

And lastly, you pull this right out of thin air, "Your implication I implied nothing. that anyone who disagrees with you Read it again, Flint. Decker didn't disagree with me, he disagreed with Mr. Cook. must be in the pay of evil forces EVIL FORCES? give us a break. Those are your words, Flint, not mine. That's just a little bit too theatrical for you to remain in my "reasons and argues well" category". is what's hilarious. I have to tell you , Flint, your sense of hilarity escapes me. If you're saying this only for effect, I am not. you are contemptible. If you're saying it because you believe it, I am not. you should seek professional counseling. First, to the best of my knowledge, you've not presented credentials which support your ability to diagnose the need for such counseling in anyone. Second, your "reasoning" again falls short here in that you've created a false dilemma. There are many more than two reasons why I might have said what I did, but in point of fact, I clearly stated why I said what I did and it was neither of the two alternatives that you presented. I said, ". . .I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so. " Now on re-reading what I wrote, it is plain to me that I could have been clearer in my usage, and I admit to a lack of precision in what I wrote. My meaning was, however, and still is, that I suspect both that Decker will continue to post here and that he is being compensated to do so. You can look the word, "suspect" up for yourself and if you would deny me or any other the right to hold suspicions, please be so good as to say so in plain language.

You really do see just what you want to see, Flint, regardless of my meaning. Well, I've explained to the best of my ability what I said (although I thought it was clear to begin with) and my responsibility to you is done. So is the respect that I previously held for your analytical ability and your "reined in passions". (as if you cared)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

Flint is an inveterate devil's advocate. When he's on a 'polly' forum he'll disagree with the majority there.

-- (yes@no.maybe), June 15, 1999.

wot does that say about flint :).....?

wanka

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 15, 1999.

Robin Messing,

Do you still have a bee in your bonnet over that libel/slander argument? Lose it. That argument goes on forever, regardless of you and me. There is no end and there is no "right" answer.

I read somewhere that you work in a library. Let me make a suggestion to you. Find the dictionary that you trust the most and whose definitions you place the most credibility in. Look up the words, "accuse" and "suspect". Return here and tell us all whether or not they are synonyms.

Oh yeah; tell Decker too.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

Some vintage Decker for your respective collections --

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/695/1/1/3/1/2.html

Mrs. Yourdon?

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Re: Ed, you disgust me (AG), Re: Ed Yourdon, Opportunist (Mr. Decker), Re: Ed Yourdon, Productive Contributor; AG and Decker, Whining Envy Police, Re: Ad Hominem, Ad infinitum (Mr. Decker), Re: Further revelations of an officer from the Envy Patrol

Date: Feb 16, 08:27, From: Mr. Decker

I am delighted. I rarely find myself laughing out loud, but your post rivaled Moliere (and I do love farce). As the chuckles subside, let me address your rapier wit.

Your vehement protestations center on Mr. Yourdon's expertise as a computer programmer. Good sir, I have not questioned Mr. Yourdon's expertise in this arena. Someone like "CPR" is far better qualified to discuss Mr. Yourdon's early writings.

Before you throw yourself on his lances, let me offer a few bits of advice. One's contribution to a field of study is not measured by sales volume or popularity. Were it so, Danielle Steele would stand in the first rank of great literary minds. Excited quotes by undergraduates hardly constitute peer review or professional critique. Finally, Mr. Yourdon's expertise in programming has absolutely no standing in the world of professional economics. On that subject, his comments are no more salient than those of the average supermodel.

Mr. Yourdon has committed the cardinal sin of academia. He has mistaken his expertise in computer science for expertise in a field completely outside his experience--economics. In today's celebrity-driven world, this is a common error. Actors who could not pass a high school biology exam make statements about complex environmental problems. Mr. Yourdon, despite his alleged computer programming expertise, has fallen into the same trap.

You are correct in one regard. My parting comment was a personal commentary on Mr. Yourdon's profiteering on the fear and disinformation he is spreading. As a trained economist and ethical professional, I find this distasteful. Until he crosses the boundary into fraud, however, he enjoys the same economic liberty (and stature) as the manufacturer of plastic pink flamingos or the circus.

In your other conclusion, however, you are quite mistaken. I have no desire to "be like Ed." My professional reputation is more important than doing the talking head circuit or being the sound bite du jour. Like many of this culture, I am quite sure you will not understand what it means to place the pursuit of knowledge above the pursuit of fame or material gain. Thankfully, I live in an alternative reality. My time is split between managing a large charitable organization and research... time, you may feel, poorly spent.

I do know this... Ed Yourdon is wrong in his economic speculation about Y2K. Unless you are willing to discuss substantive economic issues, I respectfully suggest we end this discussion and turn ourselves to more useful pursuits.

Mr. Decker

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/814/2.html

And just as I'm leaving for the weekend

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Re: Paging the "Economics Executioner" (AG)

Date: Feb 26, 14:14, From: Mr. Decker

Next week, the Masked Economist will weigh on the Jennifer Yourdon letter. I did read the first few pages... and she may be an economist. She has an inflated sense of her own knowledge and no sense of humor... almost certain signs (laughter).

I love this quote, "... he is not a trained economist. I am. Are you?" Economics debate, my friends, has moved to the local playground.

One cannot dispute her admiration of her father, a man who's "expertise in various areas of technology... is generally undisputed." One can only hope she never stumbles onto this forum.

If you have the patience to read her entire letter, you can easily see why economics is called the "dismal science." We are an unforgiveably boring lot. In the words of a distinguished colleague, "Economic theory can be divided into two categories: 1) obvious 2) wrong." In another era, "If you laid every economist end to end, you wouldn't reach a conclusion." (My end-of-the-week economist humor.)

Back to Ms. Yourdon, to do her justice, I really need to wade through her entire missive. A thoughtful response is better than a "shoot from the hip" critique. Please be patient as I enjoy an Internet-free weekend in the country."

Warm regards,

Mr. Decker

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

Maybe we've got Decker all wrong. He always talks like this -- it's not an act!

A slice of GNIABFI History

**********************************************************************

Date: Mar 02, 16:07

From: Mr. Decker

Dear Sir,

I politely decline to interject myself into a spirited discussion between you and CPR.

By the way, I have not bothered to visit Mr. Yourdon's forum. Quite frankly, the Y2K sites I have visited where there are public fora the topics tends toward "how to live off the grid, preserve foods and repel boarders." This board has been one of the few places the economic and technical issues have been raised... although at higher decibal levels, from time to time.

If you might suggest another area where reasonable people exchange ideas, I am willing to visit and share my ideas and learn from others. Of course, I do plan to continue visiting here. Despite the occasional outbursts, tantrums and fits... there are posts worth reading.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

**********************************************************************

Link

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/849/1/1/4.html

-- (outings@b.us), June 15, 1999.

Gosh, Hardliner, are you going to take my next my post down the individual vowels? You never have responded to my original bone with Mr. Cook, to wit, the article I posted did not support his characterization. Mr. Cook, like many of the pessimists, glide easily from problems to "breakdown." Rather than simply accept that he overspoke, you have tried to reframe the discussion on my motives (Wow, there's a new tactic.)

How about returning to the original subject, and addressing exactly what Cook said and how the article does not support his "breakdown" conclusion?

Cook admits his bias latter in the thread... anything the government says is "blather." This is just a stupid statement. In my opinion, it is proof that no evidence exists that will prove to Cook that Y2K is "solvable." He is pre-programmed to ignore or criticize all positive Y2K information, whatever the source. He even makes the mistake of calling the two individuals, one from the Gartner Group, government administrators.

Of course, as long as Cook is a pessimist, he gets a free pass.

Before I go, let me say that I do respect Arlin Adams for using his real name. I disagree with him on Y2K and his status as a PysOps Officer in a militia group makes me a bit curious, but he has been willing to meet folks like Stan Faryna in a public forum. Not a bad start. I am not representing anyone, public or private, on this forum. If you want to check it out in person, the arrangements can be made easily enough. Unless you are willing to back up your claim, feel free to apologize.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 15, 1999.

Ken said, "By the way, BD, do you ever plan on giving a straight answer? Don't you think the thoughtful people on this forum notice how you change the subject and avoid answering the tough questions head on?"

"Ever." "Straight answer." "Thoughtful people." "Change the subject" "Avoid answering the tough questions ... head on."

ROFLMAO, indeed. You remind me of the babe in Maltese Falcon and Sam's comment to her, "You're good, do you know that? You're really good."

Looking forward to the post on raising and slaughtering hogs.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 15, 1999.

Ah, but my dear Decker, I have never claimed the year 2000 problems are not soluble. (Solveable ?) they are emmentily solvable - like my atrocious typing, it only takes time and effort. The difference is, you are capable of reading my typing - despite my errors. The computers and processes cannot proceed unless their data is "clean" and their programs are error-free in all critical links.

The year 2000 symptoms are indeed mostly very easy to solve, and a few/some/many firms have solved them. The only thing required in time, money, effort, and a thorough, integrated test program to identify those that are left out of "program theory" and "it shouldn't be effected" decisions.

Once tested - in a complete integrated environment that duplicates the 'real world" - the solution needs to be applied to the "real world" processes, tested again, whatever bugs or interface problems that remain cleaned up, then the process can resume.

IF - all needed support services, and all support infrastructure remains available, and all (or enough) venders and customers are able to remain functional (profitable), then this particular firm has a good chance of remaining itself profitable early next year.

This simple process then only needs be repeated in all the remaining companies that wish to reamin profitable early next year. Or the government agencies that wish to remain "serviceable" to their clients. That's all that needs to be done.

If this process is carried out 100% in all businesses and agencies worldwide, nothing will happen. That is, things will continue as at present.

Now, a few simple questions remain you do not want to address - or, to put it more elegently, you have not, in my reading, accepted your personal responsibility for misleading people into complacency. You ar eof course in wide spread company here - the administration is also desperate to keep people from removing money from the banks.

So, what happens if this process is not completely done? As stated before, we don't know, and nobody has offered to test.

How many firms and agencies are not going to be through with this process? We don't know. I had hoped perhaps 95% would be complete in the US, 80+ % in Europe and our trading partners in Asia, and 50% worldwide elsewhere. It appears now that no more than 50% in the US, 40% in Europe and Aisa partners, and perhaps 25-33% worldwide.

What is the effect of these firms not getting through? We don't know, and cannot predict the answer.

If they can, how long will it take these firms and agencies to recover back to today's relative level of inefficiencies and errors? If they cannot, how many will go out of business? If these firms go out of business, how long will it take to rebuild the businesses and supply chain with their replacements? What is the impact of these failures elsewhere on companies that are remediated? We don't know.

The reason we don't know these answers is several fold - one, the government and certain industries don't want the answers revealed. they will continue to manipulate the media - who are very willing to go to any lengths to support their Democratic party - to control the information released. If you doubt the manipualtive evil of this (and prior) administration's to cover up inconvenient facts and gross government errors - I'll recommend several books proving it. If you doubt the willing complacency of today's mass media to distort the truth, to cover up facts and present a rosy glow to the public, I'll provide those references as well. But, until you read those sources with an open mind, you will only see what you wish to see.

Now, unfortunately, the media is distorting even the few facts put out by the government (such few as they are available) - and the business and industry groups are presenting very distorted reports themselves - always, of course, with the government regulators standing by their side. For example, the FDA reproted that the food process industry "will be completely ready" - based ONLY on the reports from the 3 companies (out of 400 companies) who bothered to return their survey. This manipulation is why I can accuse, and you cannot disagree with) my assessment that the government is lying - again - and the media is only accidently reporting the truth. They (the media) are NOT investigating the issue.

Two - the tests cannot be run without isolating virtually and entire nation to test. Care to invade New Zealand to test its systems? Care to isolate Iceland totest its infrastucture and money systems? So, we are forced to wait until Jan to get the results of the first test(s).

And my experience in software testing and debugging tells me it is not going to be pretty. It can be fixed, even then. But it will not be pretty, it will not be quick, and it will not be a bump in the road. And the worst impacts will be in the gaps between systems that people do not now expect even existed.

I am prepared to live with my decision to try to train enough people to prepare in whatever way that they choose, so that they (and their families) can manage through whatever period of troubles may occur. Are you willing to live with your apparent decision to cause hardship, hunger, and thirst, cold and discomfort, perhaps agony, for those families who choose to listen to you?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

Mr. Cook,

First, let's start with your attempt to make me responsible for the actions of others.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000p5p

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

I think reasonable folks can make up their own mind about Y2K, and each ought to bear full responsibility for their actions. If you disagree with the concept of personal responsibility, I'd like to hear about it in greater detail.

[The computers and processes cannot proceed unless their data is "clean" and their programs are error-free in all critical links.]

Please see "Hoff" on error rate data per thousand lines of code. And you are describing a "perfect world" solution... not unusual for an engineer. We are not looking for perfect, Cook, just "good enough."

[This simple process then only needs be repeated in all the remaining companies that wish to reamin profitable early next year. Or the government agencies that wish to remain "serviceable" to their clients. That's all that needs to be done. If this process is carried out 100% in all businesses and agencies worldwide, nothing will happen. That is, things will continue as at present.]

No. Your argument rests on the premise that all companies and public agencies must complete Y2K remediation (using your perfect process) to stay viable. Not all companies depend on computers. Of those that do, some are done with Y2K remediation. Of those not finished, some will complete remediation before the rollover. Of those not done, some will fix on failure. Of those unable to fix on failure, some will outsource or replace systems (at a loss, perhaps, but they will function.) Of those unable to outsource or replace, some will stopgap using manual techniques until things can be fixed. Of those unable to use manual workarounds, some will develop entirely new operating methods or other innovative "Hail Mary" solutions. Of those unable to function, some will be purchased or merged into larger "compliant" firms. (After all, there is much more to a firm's assets than the IT infrastructure.) Of those unable to find a buyer or suitor, some will seek bankruptcy protection to buy more time. Of those who cannot come of out bankruptcy, some will fail. The market share of those who fail will be actively sought by functioning firms.

This is how the free market works. Thousands of businesses fail every year. Even if every firm was 100% Y2K compliant, we would still have businesses failing each and every day. It's a dynamic marketplace, Cook. [So, what happens if this process is not completely done? As stated before, we don't know, and nobody has offered to test. How many firms and agencies are not going to be through with this process? We don't know.]

Right, but we also don't know how many firms will fail because of poor management, bad investment decisions, etc.

[The reason we don't know these answers is several fold - one, the government and certain industries don't want the answers revealed. they will continue to manipulate the media - who are very willing to go to any lengths to support their Democratic party - to control the information released. If you doubt the manipualtive evil of this (and prior) administration's to cover up inconvenient facts and gross government errors - I'll recommend several books proving it. If you doubt the willing complacency of today's mass media to distort the truth, to cover up facts and present a rosy glow to the public, I'll provide those references as well. But, until you read those sources with an open mind, you will only see what you wish to see.]

Since when does the Democratic party control the private sector? I don't doubt government tries to cover up ugly facts. Fortunately, the government is not very effective in most tasks... including conspiracy. The "media" is not a cabal, Cook. In economic theory, why do cartels rarely last? Because members are always tempted to "cheat." There are too many media outlets, including the Internet, for any good story to go unreported. The fact that you can read about government cover-ups proves this point. If the government was effective, you'd never know!

[Two - the tests cannot be run without isolating virtually and entire nation to test. Care to invade New Zealand to test its systems? Care to isolate Iceland totest its infrastucture and money systems? So, we are forced to wait until Jan to get the results of the first test(s).]

Wrong. You are using the "machine" analogy to analyze a system far more suited for an organic model. Business works every day without an isolated "test." Billions of transactions occur, and some errors crop up every day. With all due respect, Cook, you appear to have no idea how the free market economy works. There's no engineering staff running acceptance testing on every new business. The system works because people have a piece of the action. People respond to incentives. The incentive in Y2K is to continue making money next year... and maybe pick up some market share from the firms who are not smart (or lucky.)

You have decided, on the meager data available, to raise the Y2K drawbridge. OK.

I advocate a frugal living style that I think will serve most people well given the most likely outcomes of Y2K problems, i.e. a recession. Whether they take your advice or mine, they are responsible.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 15, 1999.

Hardliner:

As a matter of fact, I do care what you think. I'll try again here, now that I've recovered a little (I was very sick yesterday, and should never have tried to post at all).

1) I admit I got carried away, and I apologize for this. I was upset, and I wrote more out of passion than thought. Not good, I know. However, as Decker makes clear, this approach is generally applauded when used by the pessimists here. I'm well aware that given my viewpoint and the general tenor of this forum, I bear the burden of being as careful as possible with my thoughts and language. Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it), I'm not a machine.

2) Yes, some of what I wrote was hazy. (Hey, *I* was feeling hazy). I'll try to clear some of it up if I can.

As for de Jager, I'm willing to believe he changed his mind. I agree he did so suddenly. But I change my mind almost daily, expecting disaster one day and no problems the next, and everything in between. Certainly I can understand how this might come to be -- numerous commentators have come to the conclusion that we're not in for all that much difficulty. Even Russ Kelly's experts predict a wide range of outcomes. And as time passes, some of those experts get more pessimistic, and some become more optimistic. The point I'm driving at is that the information we have is pretty lousy and contradictory. Whether you consider changing your mind to be a sign of dishonesty or a sign of education depends (seems to me) on whether their mind change brings them closer to your opinion (they've seen the light!) or further from it (they've been paid off!). I see ample support for almost any opinion about what y2k will bring. Forming an opinion strikes me as being like drawing a regression line through a random scatterplot -- any line is *almost* as good as any other, and change one point and the line will change drastically -- and still be *just* as poor a descriptor of the underlying pattern. To be consistent, you should agree (at least in theory) that anyone whe suddenly decides that things will be very bad is just as dishonest as you consider de Jager, the symptoms being the same. Can you do that?

(As an aside, if y2k falls into the category of difficult-but- manageable (de Jager's current position), how many of his accusers like you do you suppose will be big enough to post apologies?)

Now, I've met Robert Cook and had a long talk with him. He strikes me as thoughtful, knowledgeable, and intelligent. He has indeed provided us with good information. If I have any disagreement with Robert, it's just what Decker noticed -- Robert has a tendency to discount the possibility of graceful degradation. He moves a bit too easily from problems to breakdowns, especially in areas outside his expertise. But I don't regard this as a serious failing, since I do this myself on my pessimistic days. And to be honest, I cannot say he's wrong in doing this. Robert knows that what matters are the exact details, and these are not currently knowable. Certain key failures are indeed not graceful at all, and if they happen we're going to suffer seriously.

The problem that I have with Robert Cook (and it seems Decker does too), is that he tends to take worst-case assumptions as givens -- probability 100%. This is dangerous, in my opinion, because these assumptions are subsequently used as inputs to further analysis. And once you have garbage-in to any step in the analysis, that step and all further steps are suspect. Many things can go wrong. An accurate analysis requires that each of these possibilities be assigned a reasonable probability. Robert, like many here, recognizes that assigning a reasonable probability is often impossible due to sheer lack of reliable information. While I don't object to assigning a high probability hypothetically, I do object to the failure to recognize that result is a hypothesis of dubious likelihood, and far from any sort of proof. Some problems really are very unlikely to happen at all, while others will almost surely be rare.

This is the Infomagic technique of linear analysis. Infomagic assigns the same probability to all events (claiming it's low, so he's conservative!) and shows how they all accumulate into certain disaster. The underlying assumption that all events are equally likely to happen, and equally serious when they do, is fundamental to this analysis. And highly unrealistic.

3) You complain that Decker fails to document that Yourdon made money from his y2k efforts. This raises the question of just what constitutes sufficient documentation. I don't know whether Yourdon was compensated for any of his speaking engagements, but it seems likely. Certainly de Jager has been. And Timebomb 2000 was billed as a bestseller. It seems reasonable to assume that the author of a bestseller made some money. Nobody here is ever likely to be privy to Yourdon's personal finances, and I think that as a reasonably public figure, his motivations are just as subject to debate as de Jager's. The notion that Yourdon made the considered determination that y2k income opportunities had fallen below other opportunities by this time is at least plausible. Nobody here seemed to have *any* problem deciding that de Jager changed tacks for monetary reasons. Why is the suggestion that Yourdon may have similar motivations not given similar consideration?

3) As for freedom of expression, I stand corrected. You and BigDog are quite correct -- anyone can say anything they want. As I tried to tell BigDog, I don't feel that personal attacks are productive. Yes, I'm guilty of this now and then too, and I recognize how easy it is. I agree (again) that I should exercise more restraint, and think before posting.

I seriously doubt that anyone here is being paid to post. Even if someone is paid directly, it's a waste of money. This forum simply doesn't have the penetration into the public consciousness to have any influence. This doesn't mean, however, that some posters aren't trying to make money off y2k indirectly. Just visit Minnesota Smith's web site and start spending! Gary North appears to be making a killing selling fear -- he's able to afford to drill his own natural gas wells. Cory Hamasaki advertises his services on his web site as well. And I don't object to any of this. It's a free market. There just is no market I know of for selling prudent caution and "smart living." So I just don't see any sound basis for your suspicions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 15, 1999.

Robert Cook said: [The computers and processes cannot proceed unless their data is "clean" and their programs are error-free in all critical links.]

Decker said: Please see "Hoff" on error rate data per thousand lines of code. And you are describing a "perfect world" solution... not unusual for an engineer. We are not looking for perfect, Cook, just "good enough."

No, you introduce the word "perfect." Cook was referring only to the "critical links."

Cook said: [This simple process then only needs be repeated in all the remaining companies that wish to reamin profitable early next year. Or the government agencies that wish to remain "serviceable" to their clients. That's all that needs to be done. If this process is carried out 100% in all businesses and agencies worldwide, nothing will happen. That is, things will continue as at present.]

Decker said: No. Your argument rests on the premise that all companies and public agencies must complete Y2K remediation (using your perfect process) to stay viable.

Wrong. Cook stated that it was unknown how many agencies would or wouldn't remain viable. He didn't say they had to complete remediation. That is a total mis-reading right on the face of it.

There are many other mis-readings here. Let others deal with them.

Your layers describing how business failures (and the free market functions) are very well-done and interesting in their own right. Next to nothing to do with Y2K impacts next year except that even pollys like Gartner predict far higher rate of business failures, alas.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 15, 1999.

And in that, we agree completely.

Your comments about the media were true - up unitl they gained power by electing Bill Clinton's regime, willing ignoring and hiding "not-nice" facts that would (previously) eliminated him.

It's obviously NOT a conspiracy - they are so blindly hypocritically prejudiced they (the national media collectively) do not need a conspiracy. Instead, they _the national media_ (not the local and small city newspapers) - the national reporters and anchors and analysts report what they believe in with a religious fervor. Their "conspiracy" if you wish - is the collective liberal agenda that blinds them to the truth. Their feelings and quest for "social" issues is strictly based on the emotional illogic and political will of the _individuals_ in the Washington-NYC-LA media.

And it is ever the more dangerous because the media so fervently hates the conservatives - their bias is hidden (to themselves) through hatred of the religious right, and anybody who they support. The danger is the extreme measures they will tolerate in their chosen candidate (such as Hillary) but their hypocrisy and lies told about anyone they hate.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

K. Decker wrote:

<< Finally, Mr. Yourdon's expertise in programming has absolutely no standing in the world of professional economics. On that subject, his comments are no more salient than those of the average supermodel.

Mr. Yourdon has committed the cardinal sin of academia. He has mistaken his expertise in computer science for expertise in a field completely outside his experience--economics. In today's celebrity- driven world, this is a common error. Actors who could not pass a high school biology exam make statements about complex environmental problems. Mr. Yourdon, despite his alleged computer programming expertise, has fallen into the same trap. >>

When I first read Decker's contributions to this forum and the responses to them I didn't understand what the hoopla was about. But after I tangled with him personally I began to see all too clearly why this particular individual consistently sets off fingernails-on- chalkboard cringes from the regulars here.

The little rant above is the catalyst issue that woke me up to his pretensions. You see, I began reading Yourdon's book as it was being posted a chapter at a time on the Internet. Anybody who has read the book knows that each and every chapter -- the one on economics included -- is presented in the format "a few days, a month, a year, ten years." Yourdon presents different possible scenarios and then some of the evidence that appears to him to support a less-than- rosy picture. The final conclusions are always left to the reader.

It was not until Yourdon's "One Year of Disruptions, Ten Years of Depression" that he actually came right out with "predictions" per se. And as far as I know there has never been any claim of economic expertise on the part of Ed Yourdon. This is fabricated out of whole cloth by Mr. Decker in order to provide a backdrop against which to tout his own supposed expertise in economics (BTW, do any of us here know of the advanced degrees held and scholarly articles published by Mr. Decker in the field of economics? How about it, Ken?)

Mr. Decker insists that he has indeed read Ed Yourdon's book. Given that, my simple conclusion based on his "critique" of that work is that he is either stupid or dishonest. And as Hardliner noted above, Mr. Decker is not stupid.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Gosh, Hardliner, are you going to take my next my (sic) post down (to?) the individual vowels?Gosh, Decker, don't get your vowels in an uproar! BTW, do you customarily use the term, "gosh"? Somehow it conjures up the "naive country boy" image rather than the "manager of a charitable institution and researcher" image. . .You never have responded to my original bone with Mr. Cook, I never had and still do not have any intention of doing so. My purpose is to expose your techniques as ad hominem and non sequitur and speculate at to your motives and objectives. to wit, the article I posted did not support his characterization. Whether or not that is correct, I leave it to Mr. Cook and yourself. Mr. Cook, like many of the pessimists, glide easily from problems to "breakdown." This is a valid dispute over word usage and not relevant to my issues with your techniques.Rather than simply accept that he overspoke, you have tried to reframe the discussion on my motives (Wow, there's a new tactic.) Again, whether or not he "overspoke" is a dispute between you and him. You are incorrect however, in asserting that I have tried to reframe your discussion. Had I wished to do so, I would have stayed on the same thread. I would have thought that by starting a new thread and attacking your technique as inappropriate (". . .Your attempts to sow discord here by inaccurate and misleading reference. . .", "Your thinly disguised attempts to disparage Mr. Cook's credentials. . .") you would have understood as much. Perhaps you simply are not as astute as I thought or maybe you are purposely being obtuse. It matters not which, or neither, as I have now stated it plainly enough for even the dimmest to understand. As for such being a new tactic, surely it is not and just as surely you know it is not and surely you don't believe that your own frequent usage of it here is not recognized by many.

How about returning to the original subject, and addressing exactly what Cook said and how the article does not support his "breakdown" conclusion? To paraphrase your words, I (not so) politely decline to interject myself into a spirited discussion between you and Robert Cook.

Cook admits his bias latter (sic) in the thread... anything the government says is "blather." This is just a stupid statement. In my opinion, it is proof that no evidence exists that will prove to Cook that Y2K is "solvable." He is pre-programmed to ignore or criticize all positive Y2K information, whatever the source. He even makes the mistake of calling the two individuals, one from the Gartner Group, government administrators. Again, I decline to interject myself into this discussion between you and Robert Cook. He is more than capable of mounting his own defense to legitimate argument.

Of course, as long as Cook is a pessimist, he gets a free pass. Not so. He is bound by the same standards of logical reasoning as anyone else.

Before I go, let me say that I do respect Arlin Adams for using his real name. I'm sure that Arlin appreciates that. Is it however, related in any way to my right to privacy or is it intended to be a universal "shot" at anonymity? I disagree with him on Y2K and his status as a PysOps Officer in a militia group makes me a bit curious, That's interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us all. but he has been willing to meet folks like Stan Faryna in a public forum. Is this supposed to prove that because I have not done so that I am "unwilling" as opposed to perhaps, "incapable" or "forbidden" or simply unable to reschedule higher priority events to suit the circumstances of the moment? And while we're here, why did you single out Stan? My understanding is that there were many others present and further that you did not attend, although clearly invited. Are you simply "unwilling"? Or is it just maybe none of anyone else's business except yours? Not a bad start. Start at what? Is your purpose clarity or obfuscation? (or perhaps something else?) I am not representing anyone, public or private, on this forum. Now here is a simple, clear and straightforward statement. I tell you quite plainly Decker, if you had made this statement "up front", it would have almost certainly prevented me from forming such suspicions as I have. Coming, as it does, on the heels of my query as to its absence, it carries somewhat less weight, but it may yet be sufficient. Suspicion is not conclusion, and this is certainly in your favor. I suspect (there's that word again) that my conclusions are of little moment to you, but in the event that they matter, I have not proven anything to myself yet. If you want to check it out in person, the arrangements can be made easily enough. Had I such a desire, I would have already done so. However, as you so accurately point out, arrangements can be made easily enough, and the resources required to ensure the objective factuality of any such circumstances are simply not commensurate with any wish I might have to know if you are really who you say that you are. Unless you are willing to back up your claim, feel free to apologize. Like many others, I suppose, I do not like to apologize. To do so requires that I admit to myself that I have done or said something that I wish I had not. Still, when such occurs, apology is my first choice. In the instant case however, I made no "claim" (see Robin Messing and his dictionary) and have said nothing that I regret. Although I voiced a suspicion, I clearly acknowledged that I was not sure ("In the, what I consider to be unlikely, event that you actually represent only yourself. . .") but considered it more likely than not. Regardless of whether or not you represent only yourself, your words and methods of argument are here for all to see. Some are legitimate and some are surely not. Those that are not are the issues between you and me.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

Sorry about the tag. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

Hardliner,

Sadly, this website doesn't appear to be searchable. Mr. Cook engaged in more than a bit of a tirade when I disagreed with him on the impact of Y2k. Specifically, I made a bet (ultimately accepted by Helen) that Y2k would not, among other things, cause FDIC-insured banks to fail.

Mr. Cook repeatedly (and without much support other than claims of "interconnectedness") called me "stupid." Not the argument, but me.

Not impressive.

-- Jeff Donohue (Jeff_Donohue@hotmail.com), June 15, 1999.

Dave,

Ed Yourdon what I might call a "beer and pretzels" book. It was a long ton of speculation based on a a few ounces of fact and a pound or two of software metrics (poorly applied to remediation.) My contention was never with his "what if" games. If Yourdon wants to talk about surviving a ten-year depression, fine. Actually, it's not a bad subject of conversation for a slow night at the local tavern. Unlike Yourdon, I think Y2K has a "snowball's chance" of causing a ten-year depression. We'll see who's right next year.

I am not saying Yourdon claims to be an economist. In fact, Ed acknowledged that I "probably" knew more than he did about economics on this very forum. I do contend that Yourdon was way out of his field of expertise when he was talking about economic impacts. I have posted links to other authors (Zandi, Ratcliffe) who feel the same.

If disagreeing with Yourdon makes me stupid in your eyes, Dave, I guess I'll just learn to live with the disappointment.

Hardliner,

First, can you please turn off the red font. It looks like my old King James version of the Bible in the chapters where Christ has a great deal to say.

We are both on record now. I hope you feel that you have thoroughly "exposed" me. I feel quite sure your posts accurately present your position... and whatever the reader may choose to infer.

I attempted to clear my schedule for Saturday to meet Mr. Faryna and those gathered. The event will require a great deal of driving, but I have looked forward to meeting Stan and sharing a decent cigar. If you plan to attend, we can continue the conversation in person. If not, I think we have exhausted the subject.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 15, 1999.

First, can you please turn off the red font. It looks like my old King James version of the Bible in the chapters where Christ has a great deal to say.

The red font was in direct response to the request of several forum participants. I had previously used yellow, and it was pointed out to me that most folks use a white background on their browser and that yellow was very difficult to read. Inasmuch as most browsers use flavors of green, blue and purple for other purposes, red seems to be the obvious choice.

I have never owned a Bible such as you refer to, much less spent time reading one, but I have seen such and the accuracy of your comparison is immediately apparent. If the subject of Christ were not deserving and demanding of genuine respect, I would find the comparison laughable. As it is, I simply wish to assure all and sundry that I had no intention to imitate and that I possess no Christ-like qualities that I am aware of.

We are indeed both on record now. As for any feelings of having exposed you, I have none. Any exposure that you have suffered is your own revelation. I have simply presented my perceptions, opinions, suspicions and conclusions for evaluation. My posts accurately present my position to the best of my ability, and, "whatever the reader may choose to infer" is, of course, his own choice.

I envy your meeting with Stan but cigars are such a rarity in my life anymore that I've all but given up even remembering them. I should very much like to meet him myself, but it is unlikely in the extreme that I shall ever meet him (or any of you for that matter) in person. I do look forward to "meeting" him in cyberspace however.

In the matter of exhausting the subject, I agree as far as the instant case is concerned. I have a suspicion however, that we may have things to say to each other in the future.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 15, 1999.

"Hardliner":

In this thread you have revealed your aim to display peacocklike your supposed impressive debate tactics, rhetorical devices, and literary flourishes. It all rings hollow, like the bellowings of an insignificant man who finds the thinking of superior men galling. That you would expend so much energy on dissecting the very phrases that Flint and Decker used exposes your insecurity in spades. Every time you pointed a finger at Decker or Flint, you pointed three at yourself.

Who are you, "Hardliner"? A ignoble, meanspirted, portentous pygmy who laughably fancies himself something of a writer. In fact, you lose the reader's patience because your prose falls so flat on its puffy face. Your writing comes off like the foul guffs of an overheated fat man after a twelve-course meal. I simply could not bear to read all the dreary stuff, even in screaming red type.

By the way, anyone who delights in employing "sic" on an Internet board baldly broadcasts to the world his flawed judgment and petty character. But then, as you have chosen to denounce others simply because they dare to be logical, you have already declared your essential poverty of spirit. Using "sic" just underscores the obvious.

Attack on, little man.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Yeah Jeff - I vaguely remember that episode, though no specific details relating to your comment(s) immediately preceding it which were evidently relevent.

I can, however, assure you that if I choose to deliberately emphasize (and evidently re-emphasize repeatedly) some phrase (such as "stupid" - which by itself describes a person incapable of learning, rather than ignorant - which is person who is simply unlearned but who can be taught) - it was specifically and deliberately to make that point to all readers, not just to you (as insults generally do no good) or to the original reader who asked the question.

Also, as neither you nor I can recall specific details of the episode, the causitive factors must have been minor. (I suspect - though - that I was playing off of a previous comment (regarding some use of "stupid") - made by yourself or a previous reader.) Regardless, since you do recall the episode, the emphasis appeared to work. However, I do regret that the actual lesson involved appears to have been forgotten - as your evidence anger indicates. To that end, that I missed my intended instuctional objective, I do apologize for your continued discomfort.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

Words mean things Celia - this despite an administration who sole defense against perjury lay in a contrived definition of "sex" and "is" - both defined by lawyers after the written perjured testimony was already submitted. Also, we are responsible for our own typo's - those of use who create more typo's than other are simply more responsible for more errors. Oh well. (I agree though, as mistypist-in-chief, it is tacky to dwell upon and emphasize those errors.)

The specfics in various quotes Hardliner and Decker were debating are relevent though. These "specifics" are being used and misused as well by our esteemed "leaders" in DC every hour - and so I appreciate the care taken by Hardliner to point out the words I used in my answer. Each was put there for the specific reason(s) cited. Decker's replies were indeed anticipated by each phrase I used - as Hardliner correctly stated.

Your subsequent attacks on him are, however, irrelevent and are truly meaningless and as the liberal say "mean-spirited" and typical od he-speech against those we are prejudged against.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

For the reader's delight, "plainspeak" from the dazzling pen of "Hardliner":

"However, as you so accurately point out, arrangements can be made easily enough, and the resources required to ensure the objective factuality of any such circumstances are simply not commensurate with any wish I might have to know if you are really who you say that you are."

"It matters not which, or neither, as I have now stated it plainly enough for even the dimmest to understand. As for such being a new tactic, surely it is not and just as surely you know it is not and surely you don't believe that your own frequent usage of it here is not recognized by many."

"Is this supposed to prove that because I have not done so that I am "unwilling" as opposed to perhaps, "incapable" or "forbidden" or simply unable to reschedule higher priority events to suit the circumstances of the moment?"

"Coming, as it does, on the heels of my query as to its absence, it carries somewhat less weight, but it may yet be sufficient."

"Simply making the accusation (that 'unadulterated' admiration has interfered with clear thinking) directs the train of though [sic]away from the issue of whether or not the thinking was clear in this instance and tries to make the issue whether or not such admiration has interfered here."

"Now on re-reading what I wrote, it is plain to me that I could have been clearer in my usage, and I admit to a lack of precision in what I wrote."

Lucid. Succinct. Bold. Hardhitting "honest" prose, from "Hardliner."

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

A clear indication that Hardliner works for the government.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 15, 1999.

Right - so now that you have duplicated his letter, I know what he wanted to say. Elegently and formally put, perhaps. Short, no. Effective, yes. To the point, no. Did it get his message across, yes.

Now, please let me know what message you wanted to add to the conversation.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 15, 1999.

Celia thnks she's a giant killer of some sort. She is not.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 15, 1999.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cook, but I did not understand your first post, especially the last sentence. Perhaps you could rephrase it.

I have no quarrel with you, Mr. Cook. I take issue with "Hardliner's" using your debate with Mr. Decker as an excuse to "convict" Decker of "dishonesty" and "ulterior motive," even going so far as to accuse him of working as an "operative." In my estimation this accusation is so patently outlandish it borders on outright lunacy. Along with others, I note that Hardliner" cavaliarly appropriated your debate with Mr. Decker but refused to comment on the substance of such.

Crude character attacks deserve the same, in kind. The dissection of someone's writing phrase by phrase, besides being painfully boring, is the work of an intellectual prig, or the work of a vulture, except that in this case "Hardliner" appears to be gorging on the pickings of his own pompous ego.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 15, 1999.

Celia... LOL LOL LOL

Pot

Kettle

Black

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 16, 1999.

May I assume you are referencing this: " Are you willing to live with your apparent decision to cause hardship, hunger, and thirst, cold and discomfort, perhaps agony, for those families who choose to listen to you?"

In that I meant to emphasize that in a public forum populated by new people confused with many sources of conflicting information, each person who writes also trains - particularly a person such as Mr. Decker, who espouses a view deliberately contrary to anyone who is loking for information about potential year 2000 troubles.

Therefore, his protests to the contrary, his words are actively present and specifically presented to discourage people (new people) from preparing for potential troubles. Therefore, it is my conclusion that by discouraging new (untrained) people from preparing, he is actually training them to do something else - to accept the status quo as the administration wants, the "keep the status quo" message that they are presenting. Therefore, it is my assumption that he should assume responsibility for those he trains.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 16, 1999.

Celia,

I'm so glad that you enjoyed my writing. You would, perhaps, enjoy it even more if you would learn to read better. It is apparent why it rings so hollow to you.

For your edification, the term sic (although usually enclosed in brackets or parenthesis) is not used to critique the quoted material, but as a convenience to the reader. It merely indicates that the material is accurately quoted and whatever "unusual" form appears is reproduced exactly as in the original.

I agree that, "Crude character attacks deserve the same, in kind." As yours does not even rise to the level of crude, you may consider this reply an undeserved bonus.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 16, 1999.

"Hardliner":

I know what "sic" means. And I think your employing it on an Internet board exposes the depth of your intellectual "integrity."

You really just don't measure up.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.

Mr. Cook:

I do not think Mr. Decker is "training" anyone here, and find your suggesting as much absolutely indefensible.

The sentence I did not understand is: "Your subsequent attacks on him are, however, irrelevent and are truly meaningless and as the liberal say "mean-spirited" and typical od he-speech against those we are prejudged against."

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.

One of the definitions of religion: a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Y2K has become a religion. For some, the collapse of modern society is no longer a matter for debate it is precisely a specific system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

This is not a new phenomenon and often occurs in movements. Environmentalism serves as a useful example. Extremists in the environmental movement (e.g., Earth First!) have become more invested in a belief system than in rational inquiry. This has resulted in bitter debates and the rejection of some legitimate scientific research.

What we know about Y2K is that there will be some indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is a muddle of speculation, opinion and theory. A pessimistic interpretation of this muddle has calcified into a belief system

The true believers of Y2K see every event within the context of their faith. A lack of information is the private and public sectors hiding Y2K problems. Positive news is spin or propaganda from a government-business-media cabal. Bad news is the gospel whatever the source.

The true believers are saved. The saved proselytize. If you convert, you get it ergo the GI label. As a GI you are expected to perform the rituals of the faith the most predominant of which is Preparation. The degree of preparation appears a litmus test of Y2K faith.

To digress a bit, a Y2K version of Pascals Wager is used to convert the DGI (Doesnt Get It). Pascals Wager is pragmatic approach to whether one ought to believe in God. In simple terms, the argument contends a belief in the Almighty has nothing but upside. If God exists, you win. If God does not exist, you are no worse off than before. One can easily see this same argument applied over and over to Y2K preparation.

[It is important to note that there are criticisms of Pascals Wager that apply equally to Y2K preparation. http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/pascal-wager/]

The faith of Y2K has little mercy for those who do not convert, and none for those who leave the church. The label Pollyanna can easily be converted to heretic. (A dissenter from established church dogma.)

The acrimony between believers and heretics is inevitable. Much of the Y2K debate has moved well beyond rational discussion and into attacks/defenses of the faith. How different is this from scientists who believe in evolution arguing with conservative Christians who believe in a literal creation? The creation science advocates have access to the same data. They reach a different conclusion. Of course, it is difficult to deny their interpretation of the data is not influenced somewhat by their belief system. I suggest the same is true for Y2K.

Religion is about Truth. Science is about fact. Religion is conservative, even reactionary. It resists change. For Christianity, the Bible has been the Truth for over two millennia. Science, on the other hand, is progressive. Very little is left of the science man developed two thousand years ago. Science hypothesizes and proves. Religion simply concludes.

Stripped down to the barest of facts, Y2K is an indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is belief an emerging Old Testament faith invoking fire and brimstone. America is the modern Babylon and the faithful are ready to build a new society cleansed of past mistakes (including a perceived misuse of technology.)

Y2K appears to have some sincere, good-hearted believers. It also attracts the inevitable hucksters and charlatans who use the faith for more worldly reasons. It has saints (Ed Yourdon) and sinners (John Koskinen.) I am sure the astute reader can find more similarities.

What are the implications of Y2K as a religious faith? I am not completely sure. One point seems obvious. Conflicts between the heretics and the faithful will continue unresolved just as the debate between creation science and evolution plods on.

I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.

Regards,

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

Link: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=000qf3

-- (vint@ge.kcd), June 16, 1999.

Mr. Decker

The above is drivel. It may not be the Y2K folk that have a "faith" although from my view it should be the natural order. You on the other hand are putting faith in a system that has only evolved for a short time. The basis of the Y2K problem, information through computers has only been in its present form for 30 - 40 years if that on most levels. Yet you deny folks the right to be conserned about something that is conditioned in them from the birth of life on the planet. That is the spirit and the "religous fever" going around. It is natural and not contrived. Therefore it is ligitimate.

And to take you up on the offer. The Canadian Government didn't stick their collective heads in the sand, they set the army and others to assess contingency plans. I expect to have power and phones and a government and my bank to at least open the doors and I know I will have water. If this is not the case I will survive. Untill that time I want to continue helping others make informed opinions on the problems and their preparations.

You should really not talk about the topic above unless you REALLY know what you are talking about. Stick to the economics. Confusing Y2K and religion shows a lack of understanding of both issues. Y2K is a "point" in time, Religion is the infinite.

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

The idealized leaders of antiquity did different things but with the same intentions, they took different roads to the same goal. Latter-day scholars, not knowing the unity of the Way or the totality of virtue, take up the traces of things that have already happened and sit around talking about them. Even if they are very studious and learned, they cannot avoid confusion. .....

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

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 16, 1999.

HHHMMMMM

On re reading Deckers post I see that it was reposted.

HHHMMMMM

Damm trolls eh?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 16, 1999.

Hardliner and I end the discussion, I trundle off to bed and awake....

Yikes.

As before, I think Hardliner and I have exhausted our conversation, at least for now. Obviously, different people have different interpretations on the exchange. (Of course, it is good to think there are a few who consider my points valid.)

Let me return to Mr. Cook, before I go.

"In that I meant to emphasize that in a public forum populated by new people confused with many sources of conflicting information, each person who writes also trains - particularly a person such as Mr. Decker, who espouses a view deliberately contrary to anyone who is loking for information about potential year 2000 troubles."

A few quick points, Cook.

1. I have written a great deal about "preparation," just from a perspective that considers social/economic collapse very unlikely. My moderate approach (aka 'smart living') is sound, although inadequate if one thinks Y2K will be the apocalypse.

2. Your attitude is in direct conflict with a core principle of conservatism, i.e. personal responsibility. By accusing me of "misleading" others, you are trying to make me responsible for their behavior. This is the origin of the welfare state, Cook. "It's some else's fault I can't get a job, it was the rock music that made me kill them, etc." So, Cook, are we responsible for our actions, no matter who we listen to, or not?

3. I think I was right in my original criticism. Your interpretation of the Y2K news article was overly pessimistic. I hope newcomers to the forum feel comfortable challenging and questioning what is written here, even if a revered forum veteran like you is doing the writing. What I hope newcomers do is continue to THINK through the end of the year.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 16, 1999.

Did I enjoy this or what!!?? Bestest reading in a long, long time. That is, of course, with the exception of Mr Poole's '24-hour woody' piece on our 'special little friend' Andy.

Hardliner - I see you're more of a crowd-pleaser than yours truly!!

LOL!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 16, 1999.

KCD wrote:

<< If disagreeing with Yourdon makes me stupid in your eyes, Dave, I guess I'll just learn to live with the disappointment. >>

Very interesting, Decker. You seem incapable of reading other peoples' words without distortion. That was my stated beef with your comments on Yourdon's work (twice now). I don't give a flying flip if you disagree with him, but I care a lot if you misrepresent him, which you did. And not once, not twice, but three times on this forum I have explicitly stated that I do not consider you stupid, just dishonest. Now, given your proclivity to misunderstand such clear statements, perhaps I should reevaluate that conclusion.

Oh, and BTW, can we take your silence to mean that you don't actually have any credentials in economics and you've just been blowing smoke this whole time? Why not pony up with a list of your advanced degrees and list of publications in economics? I'm not saying you don't have any, but surely a man who has been trumpeting his own expertise and downplaying others' won't mind telling us just what his credentials are.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.

Thanks hardliner for starting this thread. You are truly a piece of work! You think so highly of yourself, you shit ice cream don't you?

Mr. Decker I love your posts. Don't stop.

-- Someone (smarter@than.you), June 16, 1999.

Flint, Decker

The y2k problem is not the chicken, it's not the egg, it's the chicken AND AND AND AND AND the egg.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 16, 1999.

David,

Ah, the "Cherri" argument. It's the old twist of logic that contends Cherri, by not responding, was admitting "defeat." It gets a lot of mileage on this forum. For example, if an organization does not claim compliance, it must be noncompliant. Applied to me, if I do not list my credentials, I must be unqualified.

This is faulty logic, David. To your credit, you do admit the possibility that I am qualified.

I am a practioner, not an academic. I don't publish obscure articles in academic journals... although it does have an appeal on some days. As I have freely admitted on this forum, I currently work outside my "field" of applied microeconomics. I'm busy "saving the world" in the nonprofit sector... although my education and training do come in handy.

Out of principle, I use my real name. A careful reading of my posts reveals that I am originally from Montana and currently reside in the Mid-Atlantic area. Aside from those generalities, I have no desire to share personal information with the members of this forum. This includes where I attended university, graduate school, my employment record, the details of my military service or my personal life.

Unlike Ed Yourdon, my writing about Y2K is a hobby, not a business. Unless you are buying something from me, David, I feel no need to justify my credentials... or sacrifice my privacy. If you attend the Washington, D.C. gathering, I might be slightly more forthcoming about my background... unless you continue to call be dishonest and/or stupid in person.

In truth, I'd rather my writing be judged on its own merits (or lack thereof) than by the author. Now, if you want to email me the Ed Yourdon chapter on Banking, I'll give it a second look.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 16, 1999.

"Someone" - crude, unneeded, and insulting. You are illustrating that I too know several "someone's" smarter than you - many of them pollies....

Celia - you were not careful then with your reference. Please be more specific in the future to avoid wasted time.

Two comments/corrections to your reply:

< What is your formal education and knowledge of how adutls learn? Not kids. Adults. Adults learn differently than elementary schoolers, and must be approached differently. Since every word written is available to future readers, and since every word written will be read by a wide audience of experienced "GI's", inexperienced GI's, uncertain unknowns, inexperienced newbie's, old pollies, newly assigned polly's, uncertain polly's, and reformed pollie's - since Decker has introduced conversion terms - every word mus tbe used to teach and to train.

Or do you believe your words mean nothing? Do you believe no one will read them? Or do you believe that some one could read your words and NOT learn something? If your words mean nothing, do your ideas mean nothing? Hardly. Your words, once written for the world's review, are teaching anyone who comes later. You, therefore, are training people thorugh your responses. (I will let others debate whether the lesson(s) you present is worth learning, but that is a separate issue. Once you have presented them, your "lesson plan" has been executed for all to see.)

Decker's words, as a respected and well-known polly who has a strong financial background, DO mean something. They carry much more weight than yours, because none of us have learned your credentials, your background, nor have we learned anything about your "judgement" and character. (We are learning about it now, but again, that is a separate issue.)

Therefore, while I strongly disagree with Decker about his conclusions - and wish he would understand he agrees with me in most aspects and the long term impact on the financial impact of the coming troubles - I have learned he has enough character and knowledge to present his lessons properly and carefully.

_____

To continue, Celia, quoting you (quoting me speaking about your reply to Hardliner) from above.

<>

In this, I request you go back up to the sequence of replies between Hardliner and Mr Decker. Your crude, invective-filled insults did nothing to add to the conversation at that point. They were written in formal English, and I congratulate your English teacher(s) who showed you how to write such words - and I condemn the system that tought you to hate those who disagree logically with you, and who can present reasonable arguments that oppose you.

Now, it is absolutely true I depise Clinton(s) for their betrayal of the country for power and money, for their (and the national media's) hypocrisy, their lies, and their malicious attacks and abuse of innocents who need to resort to extreme measures to merely protect themselves from their own government. In this, I admit an "extreme prejudice" - but I submit that they earned their own reputationthrough their actions and criminal behavior. You, on the other hand, immendiately resorted to the basest of slander upon losing a logical argument. Naughty, naughty.

-- Celia

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 16, 1999.

Let's see if this will turn off those pesky italics

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 16, 1999.

Hardliner,

Is this all about my needling Cook about have the writing like a P.E? (laughter) Mr. Cook, I apologize. In past work, I read a fair amount of work by civil and traffic engineers... with all due respect, they were not exactly "athletes" of the English language. It was unfair to categorize Mr. Cook based on my experience. (By the way, have you seen Mr. Cook's certificate, or are you just taking his word on the P.E? Just curious.) For all I know, Mr. Cook may be a gifted engineer, but I still disagree with his "analysis" of the original article.

You are quite right that I have never produced Ed Yourdon's tax statements. I make the inference that authoring a book that sells over 200,000 copies is a profitable venture. I never said Yourdon was in it "only" for the money. I simply suggest, based on the number of his Y2K-related ventures, money was a consideration. His quick departure left me (and others) with questions. You do just as much speculating as I do, Hardliner, but from a different perspective.

Frankly, I don't think of my arguments as "persuading" others. Most of the pessimists are pretty calcified... at least from my perspective. For example... Big Dog.

Big Dog,

You are a classic Y2K zealot... and you are wrong. Unfortunately, you will not realize this until well after January 1st. You has no willingness to consider anything outside of this rigid world view. This is your church... and I am just another heretic. What qualifications you claim, you represent a minority of IT professionals. Do you plan on providing the survey links? Or will be another graceful avoidance by the Big Dodger?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 16, 1999.

Decker said,

"You are a classic Y2K zealot... "

OK, I know a compliment when I see one. Thanks!

Decker continued, "... and you are wrong. Unfortunately, you will not realize this until well after January 1st."

I'm glad you are so definite about it. Omnipotence, perhaps? But why is it unfortunate (that's just a rhetorical question, believe me)? I fear you are correct though, that it will be well after January 1st before we "realize" the extent of Y2K impacts. Meanwhile, I am thankful for the peace of mind that our family's preparations have afforded all of us ... and for the wonderful people we have gotten to know in the process, many of them through this forum. SO FAR, it has been all gain, no loss.

I am a very FORTUNATE classic Y2K zealot!

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 16, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

>>Do you plan on providing the survey links? <<

I see you have no compunctions about using the "Cherri" argument yourself, eh? How odd that you refuse to declare your personal "credentials, " though they could be complete fabrications, while insisting that BD produce links at your whim over a mention of surveys that are tangential to the subject. Not even quid pro quo.

As has been stated often enough, we are all working with roughly the same information. The difference is in how we weigh and interpret the various elements. So how can you state so unequivocally, based solely on your *opinion* of the data, that Y2K can not and will not be worse than your personal assessment? Give us an explanation other than egomania. Please.

Mr. Elbow Grease

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 16, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

The declarations of doom by about 90% of the people here have been as unequivocal as you can get. Shouted, even. And of course, pure opinions. And *Decker* exhibits egomania for saying something similar, but much more mildly? You're joking, right?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

Are you Mr. Decker's personal mouthpiece now? Perhaps I should invoke the "Cherri" argument and challenge you to prove your 90% figure? Just as you choose to ignore the hypocrisy of your hero, I choose to ask for an accounting from him.

You are right that whatever the opinion, it is just that, and no more. Of course, this includes yours and mine. IOW, your opinion is no better than mine.

What is "special" about Mr. Decker's particular POV, is that he admits to disruptions, but draws an arbitrary line: It will be *this bad,* but no worse.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 16, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

But many here say it will be *this bad* and no better. We've all drawn our own lines, and nothing seems particularly special about anyone's lines. We all evaluate the available material as well as we can.

I suppose we'll know all too soon which opinions prove superior, but I don't expect even that to be solid. Like I said elsewhere, you could pick any normal month over the last several decades and dig up enough Bad Things that happened that month, that if y2k had *also* happened that month you'd have 'proof' that y2k was a disaster after all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.

Mr. Flint,

>>But many here say it will be *this bad* and no better. <<

Your point is well taken. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, a la Monsieur Flint, but if I walk into a Baptist church, I expect to find Baptists. Likewise, I expect to find a doomer majority on a Y2K forum. Furthermore, I admit that (to me) the worst case scenarios are extremely unlikely. (Let's face it, worst-worst case is GTNW. How do you prepare for that?) Furthermore, I actually agree with Mr. Decker in that we are overdue for economic repercussions even without factoring Y2K. I could phrase my question similarly in the economic venue: How can you predict a 30% (or 40 or whatever) drop in the Dow, but no more?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 16, 1999.

Someone (smarter@than.you),

You're welcome!

Unfortunately, I've not yet acquired the ability to turn rice and beans into ice cream. Had I done so, I would have absolutely no worries about Y2K, regardless of how it may turn out. . .

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 16, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

I'm sure I don't know. But my sense is that guessing y2k impacts is like guessing how many beans are in the jar. CPR says none, but dammit, you can SEE the beans, and there's a bunch. Milne says a million, but you KNOW that a million beans would fill the whole room. So you pick something that looks reasonable, a ballpark estimate. Then you hope you got lucky.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.

BTW, Mr. Flint, it is imprecise to speak of "superior opinions." Some guesses will approximate the reality more closely than others. But I seriously doubt that the "winning" guesses will be the result of better knowledge or processing power.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 16, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

You may be right, but it seems unlikely. Kind of like saying that all the students guessed randomly on all the tests, and those who got consistently good grades just happened to fall at the far end of a statistical curve purely by chance. And that the guesses made by people with a long career in computers are no better than those of a highschool dropout. And the guesses made by those doing actual remediation are no better than those made by economists or historians. I just don't buy it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.

I'm simply saying that the highschool dropout *can* guess right, along with *some* of the IT professionals. Statistically, one would hope that the computer people would, as a group, plot closer to reality than the layman, but we see here that they (we) are all over the map. Some's agonna win, some's agonna lose.

Your student/test analogy doesn't work, unless you imagine the class teacher giving relevant and irrelevant information along with a large dose of disinformation....? Isn't it a foregone conclusion that we have a problem with the scope and quality of the data?

But tell me, Flint, in your opinion, is Mr. Decker justified in playing both sides of the Cherri card?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 16, 1999.

Elbow Grease:

We absolutely have a problem with the scope and quality of the data. This makes assessing y2k impacts HARD. But these data are not random, and there are techniques for interpreting them that have proven effective in the past (because our information about many important things in life is just as lousy -- look how many people marry the wrong person! Bad data, very important decision).

For example, we can look for internal consistency. We can look at track records. We can try to read what's there and try NOT to read what isn't there. We can assign degrees of reliability and descriptiveness to data, without accepting completely or rejecting utterly. We can try not to make assumptions in the absence of information. We can look at rough parallels (at least in microcosm) based on various problems of varying degrees in the past. We can use our life experiences as rough guides in certain cases. We can compare arguments against the rules of disinformation. We can strive to catch ourselves whenever we are using our conclusions as our axioms (which forces ALL data to mean the same thing).

None of these techniques is foolproof, and even used all together they give us only an approximation -- like I said, a ballpark estimate. They can help us weed out the absurd, if we so choose. The task is not easy, but not impossible either. And those who are careful about it can come pretty close. Those who see Doom wherever they look, and interpret all information in that light, are vanishingly unlikely to get very close. It's not pure guesswork.

As for Decker, if he applied a double standard, hey, welcome to the club!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 16, 1999.

Sorry to interupt you guys.

Mr. Elbow Grease,

If I quote a survey says four out of five dentists recommend Crest, you have every right to ask for the survey. BD quoted a survey (or surveys) and I asked for his supporting documentation. I'm curious about the results. Did the survey ask IT professionals if they planned on making ANY preparations for Y2K? If so, the number was probably high. Did the survey ask IT professionals had stored 6+ months of food and water? If the number was high, I think this might be very interesting data... depending on the validity of methodology and all the usual social statistics stuff.

If I make an argument and quote a source, I am willing to provide a link to the source... if it exists on the Internet. In my analogies, I have used NHTSA data. I always careful to attribute the data to NHTSA and can provide a "hot" link, if requested. This is part of scholarship, even the "beer and pretzels" Internet version. Unlike the "Cherri" argument, I am not challenging BD to write an essay about supporting the survey. I can make my own judgement. I just want to know where he found the information. Does that seem unreasonable?

It seems we agree the "worst case" scenarios are "extremely unlikely." And you make an excellent point when you observe that it is nigh impossible to prepare for the Apocalypse. We agree again (perhaps a record) that we are heading for an economic downturn.

My analysis of the downturn is very rough because the current economy has more variables than I can accurately account for. The geopolitical climate is shifting on what seems a daily basis, the market is beyond overvalued, productivity gains have been strong, but profits have been underwhelming. Favorable trends in commodities have bouyed the economy and despite a tight labor market, there has been little wage pressure. The best I can do is look at economic history and make a guess.

I will say this. I worry more about the average consumer-crazed, debt-ridden American family than most. I think a downturn will be far worse because of poor financial discipline on the part of most Americans. Before we get to rice and beans, I'd like to see the savings rate increase, consumer debt lower and a greater commitment to individual responsibility for retirement savings.

I could be wrong. The wheels might fall off the wagon. I worry about high probability outcomes before low probability outcomes, even if the stakes are high.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 16, 1999.

Well, shut my mouth. Reasonable posts from both Mr. Flint and Mr.Decker!

Mr. Flint, even without the second- and third- level criticism, the subject of Y2K is entirely in the realm of the absurd. I still mentally catch my breath at times over the absurdity of trying to consider and quantify the effects of a "butterfly's wings." If you weed out the absurd, nothing is left.

Example. My wife is not mechanically inclined. For years, however, when one of our vehicles developed a problem, she would tell me the battery must be bad. I would try to explain why it was not so, but the next time around, I'd hear the same diagnosis. And, as you'd expect, eventually, she was right. (For which I'm grateful; she just wanted to be right *once,* and hasn't offered any diagnoses since!) But the point is that the assessments of "those who see doom in every direction" could still be the correct ones. It is impossible to extrapolate a curve past a discontinuity. What happened before the Big Bang?

You and I, and probably a good portion of those who post here, have a logical, analytical nature. But my experience has proven that there is more than one way to *consistently* arrive at a correct conclusion. Intuitive people may not be able to explain their methods, and I certainly cannot understand them, but they can still get good, accurate results. Their conclusions should not be discounted!

Mr. Decker,

Actually, BD did not quote a survey, he referred to one, without quoting chapter and verse. I don't see that as unreasonable either. This controversy over a survey does not seem pivotal to the thread, IMO. Additionally, my recollections of survey *results* are that they often do not include individual questions, but only general analysis, so perhaps your request is not so reasonable.

What I find puzzling about your stance is that the single consistent thread that runs through your predictive ideology is *economic* disruptions. *If* your vocation is as stated, you probably see the ramifications leading that direction better than most. But why can you not see the parallel between the economic situation and the Y2K situation? If you feel the free market system is sufficiently robust, *why should we expect an economic downturn at all?* And if a downturn is essentially a necessary part of the system, why is it so unobvious that severe infrastructure disruptions may be a necessary consequence of the butterfly's wings?

My "vision" of the next six months (and I've stated this before on the tail-end of some forgotten thread) is that "reasonable and open-minded people" from both extremes of the spectrum will find their viewpoints approaching those of their counterparts as the singularity nears, and the fog lifts. This may mean that one side must give alot while the other side moves just a little. But in any case, it will be those who haven't budged at all from their current assessments who will be revealed as the extremists. Which prompts the question: why have you, Mr. Decker, not moved in any respect from the position you've held from the moment you began posting here?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 17, 1999.

BTW, I know this is way overdue. My sincere apologies to Mr. Hardliner for co-opting his thread. At some point I confused it with the "moderate prep" thread. Sorry.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 17, 1999.

Elbow Grease,

Thank you for your courtesy, but an apology is not necessary. Just because I'm the first one to have shot off my mouth here does not make this "my thread" nor do I have any wish to control it beyond expressing my own points. It seems to me actually, that the most valuable threads are those that take off on their own and lead us all into unexpected areas.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 17, 1999.

Mr. Elbow Grease,

You are right. BD did not quote "chapter and verse" of the mystery survey. In my experience, one can obtain survey questions and other data--depending on the firm conducting the research. I don't mind doing the "digging," but my hands are tied unless I know what survey BD is talking about. Aren't you interested?

***

I don't think an economic downturn is inevitable, just likely. And I have been careful to explain Y2K is not the only factor I am considering. The theories around business cycles are complex. In microeconomics, it's a bit easier to explain. For example, commercial real estate development is cyclical. During "good times," developers overbuild leading to a glut of space. Prices drop. Developers fail. The market corrects. Eventually, the demand for commmercial space picks up. Because of the development time lag (and the memories of the people who got burned during the last cycle), the increased demand for space often exceeds the available supply. Prices rise. The increased prices attract more developers who then overbuild. Do you see where I am going here?

We have fund managers who are controlling millions upon millions of dollars... and have never seen a bear market. A good friend of mine is an institutional investor. He's younger than me and he'll hit a billion dollars in managed funds before the end of the year. As I told him a few days ago, he makes me nervous.

We have benefited from an unusual confluence of forces. I doubt the stars will continue to stay aligned for us. Of course, you seem to feel the same way.

Unlike the "Titanic metaphor" fans, I prefer a more organic approach. The economy is not a machine. It is more an organism. It can burst with good health, lie dormant, get sick, etc. The business cycle is like the "morning after the night before." An unpleasant hangover from an excess of nonrational economic behavior. The amazing capacity of the free market is the ability to heal itself. In retrospect, the U.S. government did a great deal to make the Great Depression worse. Had they let the economy heal naturally, it would have over time. Even if Y2K problems are severe, the economic actors in the marketplace will "heal" the economy faster if allowed the freedom to make decisions without government "assistance."

***

I assume by the "butterfly's wings" you are referring to the "Singapore Effect." If a butterfly flaps its wings in Singapore...

Chaos theory suggests we cannot analyze complex systems with Newtonian calculus. I agree. This is why we cannot predict the weather or the economy in the long term. There is no "necessity" of serious disruptions, only the possibility.

***

Until we have better data, I doubt my opinion will change much. For those who say "we started too late" and "the code is broken," no amount of data will change their position. Every positive news report will be discounted as government or corporate propaganda. If anything, I should be more optimistic than I was a year ago. Some prognosticators have downgraded their Y2K risk assessments. (Yardeni, de Jager.) There have been positive reports from government, corporations and the IT community. The "iron triangle" reports have been positive including the latest from the NERC. In fact, the pessimists' primary argument has moved from iron triangle to foreign trade.

Despite the flood of good news, I remain skeptical. Much of the data is self-reported, so I am cautious in any optimism. I have no problem moving from my original position. I'd like to wait for enough evidence to justify this movement.

"But in any case, it will be those who haven't budged at all from their current assessments who will be revealed as the extremists."

I hope you will apply this standard, Mr. Elbow Grease. I predict you'll find the "hard core" pessimists much more set in stone than I.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 17, 1999.

Do I detect

Kissy-kissy???

Inquiring minds need to know...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 17, 1999.

Hi, Andy,

>>Inquiring minds need to know... <<

Although I'm not sure this is directed toward me, I would like to offer some perspective. There are far more points of congruency between your view and mine than Mr. Decker's and mine. I don't like his tactics and what still appears to be his economic tunnel vision. Your work experience, as you have related it, has been more valuable to me than Mr. Decker's. My paranoid barometer readings are roughly consistent with your own. Your links to the essays on gold and monetary policy are interesting and informative. Thank you for contributing them.

But occasionally it is worthwhile to build a bridge with Mr. Decker to explore a point of intersection. As long as there is no overt spin on his part, it works. Where am I going with this? Essentially nowhere beyond a recap of Arnie Rimmer's brilliant "Are you prepared to be wrong?" Everyone should take a position that is comfortable for them, but the *entrenchment* of positions at either extreme baffles me. There are just too many unknowns, too much misinformation. That being the case, I find the only prudent course is to "overprepare," that is, to prepare for something worse than what I think is the worst realistic case. Mr. Decker's "moderate preps" seem to be his upper limit, while I see them as merely a good *basis* for planning for what could very well lie ahead. It is apparent to me that his recommendations are reasonable under "normal" economic circumstances, that is, without the specter of Y2K looming ahead. I have read them in many good sources over the last thirty years. So I want to know: In spite of his assurances to the contrary, where are his Y2K factors?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 17, 1999.

Andy,

Could be "kissy-kissy".

Do you hear the "Whrrrrrrrrrrrr----Whrrrrrrrrrrrr----Whrrrrrrrrrrr"?

-- (cujo@baddog.com), June 17, 1999.

Decker: If Ed Yardeni has "downgraded his Y2K risk assessment" as you claim, it's news to me and worthy of a new thread. Can you substantiate this?

-- a (a@a.a), June 17, 1999.

"That being the case, I find the only prudent course is to "overprepare," that is, to prepare for something worse than what I think is the worst realistic case. Mr. Decker's "moderate preps" seem to be his upper limit."

Absolutely not. If the information dictates greater preparation, I have no problem adding shelves to the pantry.

On Yardeni, here's the evolution of his position.

"I first started to study and to write about Y2K during the summer of 1997. At the time, there wasnt much information about the subject. But I found enough to conclude that Y2K disruptions could cause a serious global recession in 2000. Given the dearth of data, I gave such a scenario a 30% probability."

"Currently, I believe there is a 70% chance of such a worldwide recession, which could last 12 months starting in January 2000 and could be as severe as the 1973-74 global recession."

"As of May 1999, I still see a 70% chance of a severe global recession. I am the first to admit that there is nothing scientific about my assessment. It is not based on a rigorous global economic model. It is simply my own subjective evaluation of the situation, as documented in this netbook. I am assigning a probability to a Y2K recession scenario to communicate my level of conviction and concern." "Compared to a year ago, I am somewhat less concerned about the readiness of the US government. I am also more optimistic about the electrical power grid, air transportation, and banking. But I now have more alarming information about the slow pace of progress overseas."

"Nevertheless, for now I am forecasting a 3% drop in real GDP for the US in 2000, with a recovery starting late next year. The following table lists the five possible economic effects of Y2K in 2000. The overwhelming consensus of my colleagues is that it will be a nonevent."

"I think I know enough about Y2K now to give you a more detailed assessment of my subjective probabilities of the five alternative scenarios. I assign 10% and 5% probabilities to the most optimistic and the most pessimistic scenarios, respectively. Unfortunately, most discussions and debates of the subject tend to focus on these two extremes, namely, either it is a hoax or it is doomsday."

Y2K Economic Scenarios Probability Minor disruptions. Business as usual. Only a few problems, which will be fixed rapidly. Stock market unaffected 10%

Same impact as natural disaster. Business as usual within a few weeks. Stock market unaffected. 20%

Multiple problems will cause modest 6 month recession. Real GDP down 1%-2%. Stock market down 10%-15%, then soars. 25%

Major global recession lasting 12-24 months. Real GDP down 2%-5%. Stock market down 30%-40%. Flight to quality. Deflation. 40%

Depression lasting 2-5 years. Blackouts. Social and plicitical upheaval. Stock market...you don't want to know. 5%"

By my math, there's better than a 50% chance of bouncing through Y2K with a slight recession or less. It is more accurate to say Yardeni's position has become more nuanced in that he explained the 70%. Hope this answers the question.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 17, 1999.

Oh I see...not "downgraded" but "more nuanced". Now why is it when Milne and I try this tact, ya'll call it "distorted lies" but when you and Flint do it, you say "it would be more accurate" :)

-- a (a@a.a), June 17, 1999.

"I assign 10% and 5% probabilities to the most optimistic and the most pessimistic scenarios, respectively. Unfortunately, most discussions and debates of the subject tend to focus on these two extremes, namely, either it is a hoax or it is doomsday."

Personally, I think moving from a 70% prediction of severe global recession to a 5% chance of depression is positive. And technically, Yardeni has modified his position to a 55% prediction of mild recession or less. As such, my original statement was factual. And I enjoyed his statements about the infrastructure and the quote I re- posted above. It sounds to like Yardeni completely dimisses the doomsayers like Milne and you.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 17, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

Mr. Yardeni explains this in detail in his T-200 seminar (still available on the internet for anyone who cares to give it a listen.) He even (probably jokingly) states that he's studying Chiropractic in case these predictions cause the end of his career as an economist.

Anita

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 17, 1999.

You can tell Deck's rattled/p*ssed when he starts misspelling stuff.

Anita - I still contend that you're not real.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 17, 1999.

My typing is usually decent, but on small posts (late in a thread) I sometimes fail to proofread. In truth, Lisa, when I am annoyed, I choose my words more carefully... and in truth, my spelling is probably better than when I am bored.

Actually, I read quite a bit of Yardeni and think he deserves a new thread. What say?

Lest we end this thread thinking I do not appreciate Hardliners literary reference.

"There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows*, Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd, They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way, And marshal me to knavery. Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own petard: and 't shall go hard But I will delve one yard below their mines, And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet, When in one line two crafts directly meet."

Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.net.att), June 17, 1999.

Hardliner,

You wrote: I have a request to make of you, Decker, and I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so.

You later said:

I said, ". . .I suspect that you will do as I ask, not because I asked, certainly; but because someone is compensating you to do so. " Now on re-reading what I wrote, it is plain to me that I could have been clearer in my usage, and I admit to a lack of precision in what I wrote.

That certainly is an understatement. Your original "accusation" was as confusing as hell. It looked like the word suspect was intended to refer to Decker's doing what you ask. It did not look like it was also intended to refer to Decker's being compensated. I am glad you cleared this up in your post to Flint. If you had written this more clearly in the first place I would not have written my post.

I wouldn't say I have a bee in my bonnet about the earlier thread. I was just sitting back enjoying the irony of the situation when you appeared to be libeling Decker with your accusation that he was posting for pay. The situation is not nearly as ironic now that you have clarified the word "suspect" refers to his being compensated as well as to his doing what you asked. With your permission I withdraw my previous comment.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), June 17, 1999.

Yardeni wrote this before the Horn report came out.

You guys are obviously morons (you know who you are).

Less than 100 days to go.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 17, 1999.

(Beige-walled office of faceless government agency. COOK, a middle- aged operative in a somewhat shiny grey suit, picks up telephone and speaks to secretary, percussing metal utility desk with fingertips. ANDY, his assistant, slumps in corner, drinking a Diet Pepsi.)

COOK: Cindy? Get Hardliner in here! Pronto! (Slams down receiver.)

ANDY (eyes widening slighty): Hardliner in trouble?

COOK: Yeah. Big time.

(HARDLINER enters COOK'S office.) You wanted me?

COOK: Yeah. Take a seat. (HARDLINER sits in corner.) Who's this Shakespeare guy you quoted at the top of your thread?

HARDLINER: Oh. (laughing noiselessly) C'mon. Don't you know? I mean, everyone knows he's, you know, a writer.

COOK: Never heard of him. You ever heard of him, Andy?

ANDY: Uh...maybe. Isn't he that guy who wore a...you know, a doublet?

COOK (glaring): What's a goddamned doublet?

ANDY: Just, I dunno. A British thing. (Sips soda nervously.)

COOK (to HARDLINER): Decker's used his name too, at the bottom of the thread. (ANDY and HARDLINER wince slightly at mention of Decker's name.) Looks like he knows this guy better than you, Hardliner.

HARDLINER (sheepishly): Yeah, well, he just quoted him more fully. I got the idea.

COOK: Look, dimwit. I want facts. Who is this Shakespeare guy? Reputation? Character? Background and credentials!! Jeesh! How many times do I have to knock this into your thick skull? We need background, and credentials!! This ain't no training camp, twit! This is the big time! Now I want this guy's dossier by 2 p.m. Got that?

HARDLINER (sighing heavily): Yes, sir. (Leaves office.)

COOK (yelling after him): Records! Reports! Miscellaneous pertinent data!

(2:15 p.m. HARDLINER leans forward in chair, a single piece of paper in hand. He hands it to COOK, who scans it briefly.)

COOK: You haven't told me a goddamn thing! This is all speculation! Where'd the guy go to school?

HARDLINER: We don't know much about him, sir. His background is...murky.

COOK (incredulously): You checked all the crime lab records? Basement archives?

HARDLINER: Yeah. And the local library. No one has a clue about this guy. He just...wrote stuff. His reputation is based solely on what he wrote.

COOK (red-faced): Your reputation will be murky, you dumb goon, if I don't get more facts! By the end of the day! All the training and teaching we lavished on you has been wasted! Wasted! (COOK belches loudly and bangs his fist on desk. ANDY slurps Pepsi, wide-eyed.) I want the dope on this guy by 5 p.m. sharp or you're sacked! Get it?!

HARDLINER (woodenly): Yeah. I get it.

COOK (in a screeching voice): Now get your skinny ass out of here and get to work!!

(4:50 p.m. HARDLINER sits in chair confidently, a slim folder in hand.)

HARDLINER (reading aloud): Shakespeare was born in 1561. He led an important public life as statesman and jurist. He was the younger of two sons of Sir Nicholas Shakespeare, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. But the sudden death of his father in 1579 left him with small means and he had to begin making his own way in life. He entered Parliament in 1584, but office was long in coming. He became Solicitor-General in 1607, Attorney-General in 1613---(COOK's face relaxes a little)--- Privy Councillor in 1616, Lord Keeper in 1617, and Lord Chancellor in 1618. He was knighted in 1603, and created Baron Verlam in 1618, and Viscount St Albans in 1621---

ANDY (with innocent expression): Hey---wait! Ain't that Francis Bacon you're talkin' about?

HARDLINER (to ANDY, coldly): Bacon? You mean the guy with all the gambling debts? The deep, outstanding, bottomless GAMBLING debts?

ANDY (stunned): Yeah. Oh, right. Sorry. Wrong guy.

COOK (suspicious): Wait a minute. Is it, or is not Bacon? What the hell are you guys talkin' about?

ANDY: I just got confused. Nothing. Really.

COOK (impatiently): Give me the folder. (Examines folder a few minutes.) Impressive work. But what is it that Decker's quoting from?

HARDLINER: He calls it "Hamlet," but it appears to be, in fact, from the "New Atlantis."

COOK: Are you sure?

HARDLINER (glancing at floor): Sure I'm sure.

ANDY (looking at ceiling): Impressive. Very.

COOK (sighing): Good work, men. (consults watch) Well, it's already after five, and you know how I feel about working after five! This is a govenrment agency, after all! (general hilarity as they all stand up) See ya tomorrow, boys.

-- Macro Plays (macro@plays.com), June 18, 1999.

"Macro Plays",

What a hoot! I love it! More! More! (I am quite serious)

As for Decker knowing the Bard "better", it's quite likely that he does although I am compelled to note at this point that his quote from Hamlet appears to be from a folio edition as opposed to the quarto edition that I took the original thread title from.

Mr. Decker's presentation of Hamlet's entire speech rather than the single line from it that titled the thread was a most excellent way to demonstrate that he not only knew the Bard's meaning but that he understood exactly what my entire positon was.

Seriously, your "macro-play" points out something that the Bard himself knew well as exemplified by his well known line to the effect that, ". . .all the world's a stage", and we are all merely players on that stage.

I look forward to your future efforts in like vein.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 18, 1999.

So our 'special little friend' Andy REALLY IS an idiot......imagine that!

Dude! That was some funny shit. First time EVER, ol' Hardliner and I agree on something! Well done and anxiously await your next chapter.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

Brava!

It seems we have a new dramatist on the forum. I hope he (or she) decides to continue. I might suggest additions to the dramatis personae, but who am I to advise a gifted playwright?

My knowledge of Shakespeare is reasonable, Hardliner, but I prefer the Histories over the more popular Tragedies and Comedies. There are times when some of the regulars remind me of Shakespearean characters.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 18, 1999.