Dear Readers,

When Ed Yourdon left, he seemed to take moderation with him. While there has always been rancor, the "survivalist" approach to Y2K seems quite loud of late. For the new reader with moderate leanings:

"The self reliance/homesteading movement existed long before Y2K. It is possible to believe in self reliance (what I call "smart living") regardless of your Y2K opinion.

I looked in vain for a post on the archives where I talked in detail about smart living, e.g. staying out of debt, saving, etc. As I recall, one response correctly pegged my post as the kind of speech you used to hear from your grandparents. My great-grandmother, who lived into her late 90s, was a great practitioner. Frugality was so ingrained as to be reflexive, even when she had plenty of money in the bank. I supppose country life has a way of assisting folks into smart living.

Too often, our differing opinions on Y2K often overshadow our common ground on smart living. As a rough guess, I'd say 80% of Y2K "preparation" is just smart living. Of course, there are folks who take preparation to a level where it moves into serious homesteading, self reliance or survivalism. For example, I don't think smart living requires you to exist off the grid with a complete, independent power system. At least my great-grandmother didn't have one.

In saying this, I hope when we debate the impacts of Y2K, we can avoid knee-jerk accusations of wanting people to "not prepare." Even if you think I am a pollyanna, this does not mean I advocate a "grasshopper" approach to life. In my opinion, the more folks who practice smart living, the better. I also think it is unfair to assume people who have an optimistic outlook on Y2K are not practicing smart living."

AND A LATER ADDITION:

"I just wanted to separate the two issues... self reliance and Y2K. Based on all the evidence thus far, I cannot find reasonble grounds to anticipate a nationwide lack of basic services (electricity, water, telecommunications) for an extended period of time. Now, we can debate if the grid will stay up... but I think the data so far suggests it will. Reports from these three sectors are positive and improving. Worst case Y2K scenarios are usually predicated on a loss of basic services. If the power stays on, folks, we have a solvable problem. Uncomfortable, maybe, but with power we have heat, hot water, refrigeration, cooking and information. In short, we have civilization.

With the grid intact, we are really talking about the economic impacts of computer-related failures, disruptions in the supply chain, etc. Now, even in this moderate-severe environment smart living will serve you pretty well.

First, you'll have money saved and be debt free. Trust me, debt collectors have functioned in the darkest days. No matter how bad it gets, no one is going to forget you owe them money.

If you have invested in your skills, you'll have a decent job... and you'll be able to find new work if you are laid off due to economic problems. Remember, during the height of the Great Depression the employment rate was 75%. Three out of four people had jobs... and most of us will work no matter what happens with Y2K.

If you are living smart, you'll have a tight budget, you'll know how to fix your own car and take care of small repair jobs around the house. You'll know how to find a bargain and how to buy in bulk; how to cook and bake. You'll be in good physical condition (if not disabled). You'll have friends and family to help. In the words of my great grandmother you will: "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without."

Listen, if you want to prepare as if you are stocking Fort Apache, have at it. But remember, even remote outposts on the western frontier relied on trade. Someone else made their guns, iron cookpots, shoes, tack, etc. I have already talked about the myth of self sufficiency on an earlier post. I think it's better to see how interdependent we are and how much we rely on trade. Even if Y2K problems are horrible, our economy will still produce goods and services. And it will prioritize the goods and services necessary for basic living. Right now, only a small percentage of our GDP actually goes towards life sustaining commerce (leaving health care out of the picture for a moment). We spend staggering amounts on entertainment, luxury items, fast food, silly cars, etc. All of our productive capacity can be be redirected... even if diminished. Remember how we came together during the second world war? Yes, there were victory gardens and ration cards. But we also won the war through sheer productive capacity. In reality, the Germans had better equipment... but we had much, much more. As much as any factor, capitalism won.

This is why I have faith in our nation of Yankee traders. Right now, while I am writing, someone is fixing a Y2K problem. Not because it has been ordered by the central government, not for charity or for amusement... but because he (or she) is free to work, free to profit, free to gain. Listen, the Republic has some warts... but for my money, it's still the best game in town."

AND FROM THE MYTH OF SELF SUFFICIENCY:

There is a picture on the cover of "The Good Life," a classic in the homesteading genre. Scott Nearing is holding an axe. Mr. Nearing must have bought or bartered for the axe... the head was forged and ground at some distant plant. He and his wife, Helen, are both wearing "store bought" shoes and clothing. In truth, the Nearings were more "self reliant" than "self sufficient."

One might suggest this is just semantics, but I think it an important point. The jars filled with jelly and other wonders Bonnie Camp describes so beautifully--all manufactured in a glass plant. The sugar we use to make jams edible comes from overseas. If you have tried some wild berry jams without sugar (Oregon Grape and Elderberry come mind), you know they need sugar.

Very few (if any) homesteaders have the ability to make forged steel tools. As I have pointed out, almost all the supplies required for homesteading (or Y2K preparation) are mass produced. No different than they were a hundred years ago.

My great grandmother's wood-burning cookstove was shipped out from some long departed company in Michigan. Her well-used cast iron pots and pans were store bought. My grandfather ran the local feedstore. While many families raised chickens, rabbits and hogs, they did not grow grain. It was shipped by rail from eastern Montana. In the Yankee tradition, we bought or bartered for good and services. Gardening and raising small stock mostly extended the family budget... as did working on the truck, splitting wood for heat and buying in bulk.

As one considers Y2K preparation, it is good to keep in mind the distinction between self-sufficient and self-reliant. Division of labor has made sense for centuries... and will continue to make sense no matter what your outlook. It is difficult to survive outside of a community where goods and services (like medical care) can be fairly traded.

Greater self-reliance can be a noble goal... when governed by common sense. Today you cannot raise vegetables (when you factor in your own labor) for less than you buy them at the local farmer's market. I still think a kitchen garden is a wonderful joy, but I decline to rationalize it on an economic basis.

It is important to look around and realize how much we depend on the goods and services provided by others. Even the most self reliant depend on others to bring goods to market... like Scott Nearing and his well-used axe. On a very small scale, this is the power of the free market.

When people begin to think they can be "self sufficient," they ignore the interdependence of the human community. For better or worse, we are in this together.

Regards,

P.S. For homesteading devotees try the "Encyclopedia of Country Living" by Carla Emery, "Five Acres and Independence" or "The Have-More Plan," all available through Amazon.com."

Regards,

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

Answers

Mr. Decker

Well put. We would all be better of if we practiced "smart living". Although, as you point out, we will still be specialized to some extent, if more people could see to more of their own needs the country would be stronger and more resiliant as a whole. Yes, I plan to get some solor power and learn how to cook from garden/hunting to table. But I always planned to do these things for reason of environmental preservation, health and enjoyment. Now I'm just ramping up to do them sooner.

I don't have "The Have-More Plan". If it's as good as the other two books you mentioned perhaps I'll get it.

Take care and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.net), June 15, 1999.

Well said, Mr Decker.

Sincerely,

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), June 15, 1999.

MR. DECKER: Once again a very good perspective, well written and loaded with useful advice.

For myself, my preparations for Y2K are the result of an accelerated "life plan" while continuing to exemplify the use of what you term as "frugal, self-reliant living." Much of the fact that I am ready for most of what Y2K may engender, is a result of my established and on- going values. They have seemingly served me well thus far, and as you clearly articulate, they should continue to serve not only me, but all who choose to enbrace them, in the foreseeable future.

It is my hope that others who may potentially benefit from your perspective, will simply do so and not become focused on what they believe to be, is your "idiocy" or even more bizarre still, your malice.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful insights.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), June 15, 1999.

In other words,what Mr. Decker is *straining* to tell you is, that if you choose to prepare in ANY way "over the line" of *his version* of being prudent, frugile, responsible, practical, using "moderation"......you are a survivalist, extremist, out of control, nut-case wacko. Thanks. Very informative.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 15, 1999.

Indeed, "self" sufficiency is a chimera. And I most fervently hope you are correct about the "Iron Triangle".

However, my interpretation of the news available to us is less optimistic than yours. So I base my plans on my "gut instinct". We do agree on the nastiness that is inevitable should things spiral down to a "10" or "Infomagic" scenario.

I'm glad you've stuck around. We don't agree about everything, but you are quite thick skinned to take some of the comments that have been directed your way.

Take care.

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), June 15, 1999.

FEMA brochure on emergency food and water supplies:

http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 15, 1999.

FEMA - Financial Disaster Preparedness Brochure:

http://www.fema.org/pte/finplan.htm

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 15, 1999.

Mr. Decker I agree with you whole-heartedly. My only twist is the majority of items being manufactured that we purchase anymore comes from China, Taiwan, etc... Check out how many of your clothing items and shoes are made overseas... Expect a dearth in the JIT manufacturing cycle if 010100 turns sour.

watchin' a bird,

The Dog

-- Dog (cmpennell@juno.com), June 15, 1999.

Yes, sensible advice all in all...

But my life hasn't gone in straight lines, and FWIW I don't have a foundation of frugal living. I do have some extra money, but very little time.

The "frugal living" is a good overall ideal to strive for in the long term. Doesn't necessarily apply that well to Y2k preparations.

Lots of people like to say "I'm prepared, but I was living that way already." More power to them. Some of us have lost sight of that imperative, in this late 20th century. That doesn't make us unwise; it can just be a result of our best efforts at living in a world out of balance. (In the old days in rural America you didn't have two breadwinners commuting to city jobs all day just to make payments on a dwelling!)

So when suddenly we realize we have to provide for Y2k on top of everything else, things can seem overwhelming. This is a "do what you can quickly, in the time remaining, to the best of your ability, without burning your bridges." And "try to glean some good knowledge from it." It really IS different for each person.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), June 15, 1999.

Will continue: <>

I read what Mr. Decker said very carefully. I saw the words "survivalist", survivalism" and "moderate", but I'll be d*mned if I can see him write the words "extremist, out of control, nut-case wacko" anywhere in his article.

Look again, Will continue. It just isn't there. You are seeing things.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 15, 1999.

"IF------ the power stays on folks" Mr. Decker

This "if" has never had to be contemplated before in any of our lifetimes! Never has a 2 letter word had such power for speculation on our survival, hence the variance of opinions!! It's ok to think about "if"!!!! without all of the egos jumping in with their best guess about "if"!!

-- David Butts (dciinc@aol.com), June 15, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Smart living was a bit easier in the old days than it is for many, today. Back when, quite a few had more than a third of an acre of land... when sons and daughters did their chores like they were told (and promptly!)... when a family might include an aunt and uncle and everyone's combined savings... when young men didn't rip up their draft cards and would charge a machine gun nest with rifles and a grenade. Back when; that was a different time. Not sure it was a better time. Back when... your father tanned your hide with a leather belt until your back bled... when an uncle or a brother touched you in a wrong way... when women got slapped around and didn't talk back.

Back when... the city was the place to be, brother. Now, the country is the place to be. It's hard to say when times were better. It's just as hard to do get on board with smart living. Perhaps, smart living, as it's called, ain't necessarily so smart, today. Not if your hour is worth fifty dollars or more. I guess that it depends on how you look at smart living. Are you preparing for hard times ahead? Are you preparing for a natural disaster or war? It seems to me that smart living is long-term insurance for whatever hard times may come, but smart living doesn't come cheap! It's also driven by its own fears. But what have we got to fear in the greatest nation that Man's ever known?!

You can pay off your debts and keep on keeping on being poor. Or you can take your chances, make the gamble, and see how big a piece of the American Dream you can grab. If you want to stay poor and enjoy the aristocratic comforts and technological enchantments of our modern society, that's one thing. That's a disease. But if you want to strike it rich and take your chances, that's what being American means to most. You can finish high school and go plow fields-- if you want. But you'll find someone else taking out big loans and going to the big university, getting the degrees, seizing opportunities in the city, taking out even bigger loans and building an empire in a niche market.

A lot of people left the country when they realized that they weren't rooted to where they were planted. They left the small rural towns and the family farms. They went looking for a better quality of life. They sought opportunity, fortune, and fame. They gladly threw down the axe and the pitchfork and were more than happy to buy everything they could need from Martenelli's sparkling apple juice (California) to sun dried tomatoes form Italy. They were happy to have some one else butcher the cow and wrap steaks in cling wrap for them. Me too. I admit that I miss a glass of cold milk from a cow milked just a few hours earlier, but I don't miss it enough to ever want to go back. (laughing)

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

P.S. Certainly, there is room in my life for some degree of smart living, but what my granfather thought was appropriate is different than what my grandma thought. Grandma left him and the farm, moved far away, and still swears up and down that it was the smartest thing she ever did.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), June 15, 1999.

P.S.S. But Y2K is a totally different thing. It's a bona fide danger with a non-negotiable date. Now, that's something for which I can make preparations for-- whether I enjoy them or not. And while it is true that if nothing much happens, I may be forced to suffer some of my preparations as if I had intended to live smartly all along. Yes, I can live with that as long as it takes to get back into full steam of my capitalist delusions of fortune and empires and the American way.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), June 15, 1999.

I enjoyed your post. Thanks dude.

ratt

-- ratt (at@tat.tat), June 15, 1999.

Whoa, wait a minute here, folks.

Mr. Decker presents a good argument for .......er, for what?

His main argument is that if things are really bad, if we go Infomagic, then self-sufficiency wont hack it. All the goodies we stockpile will eventually require replacing, and we wont be capable of replacing them. I have no trouble agreeing with that much.

Then, Mr. Decker argues that the grid wont go down and stay down and that people (some) will get dial tone. John Koskinen makes the same argument. What John -- and Mr. Decker -- hope well overlook is that while the grid wont go down, some power outages are probable. How many? Where? These are the unknowns. The question is whether or not we wish to play Russian roulette and bet that the outages will not impact us, or whether we might want to be prepared in case we are the unfortunates who dont have power.

Moreover, the spectre of severe gas shortages is entirely overlooked. Decker argues that since the grid wont go down then there wont be supply problems. Hogwash!

There is a big disconnect here. In order to resolve it, first, lets dismiss the Infomagic scenario. Get it out of the way so that it wont be dragged into the discussion. We will assume that things wont go Info.

Now then, will there be shortages? Will it be difficult to keep store shelves stocked, especially when most of our inexpensive clothing today comes with a made in China label? Lets say that there are problems with transportation. Ships dont sail, railroads dont run, and airplanes dont fly -- at least in sufficient quantity to keep us well supplied. It certainly is logical that, if the means of supply is disrupted, then a lot of articles rapidly disappear from the shelves.

Well now, arent these shortages really the things many of us -- most of us -- are guarding against? Arent we really protecting against the moderate scenarios by stockpiling? Isnt that the reason many of us are laying aside the things we think we need?

If I were to stockpile a 1 year supply of food, would I be guarding against temporary shortages, or would I be planning to live off that food for the rest of my life? When Scott Nearing showed off his axe, was he planning to chop wood with it well into the 21 century -- or was he really planning to be able to use it to get him over a short term hump? Will a 6 month supply of medicine keep a person for 5 years?

Mr. Deckers treatise is nothing more than a cleverly disguised attempt to persuade people to disregard preparation, even though he claims otherwise, and purports to be in favor of moderation. No preparation for Y2K can be anything except moderate. None of us can prepare for the worst.

-- de (dealton@concentric.net), June 15, 1999.

he he

-- he (he@he.he), June 15, 1999.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I have taken some unpopular stands on this forum. Most often, I have squared off with the "extreme" Y2K pessimists. Ironically, I think the message of "preparation" would be far more successful without their "end of the world" rhetoric.

When people come here looking for help, depending on the day, they might find information on government conspiracies, the New World Order, contrails, etc. With all due respect to those who think we are about to be invaded a U.N. army, these posts make the forum look like home to an ultra-right fringe element.

There is a strong case for modest preparations. If more Americans returned to common sense living, wouldn't we be better prepared for any calamity? I don't think the forum needs to find the dark cloud in every "silver" Y2K news report. In the long run, I think the appearance of bias (real or not) reduces the credibility of the forum.

Regards,

I know that I have taken some unpopular stands on this forum. There has been the inevitable flak, but on the whole, I think vigorous debate is good for the forum.

Personally, I think the "end of the world" rhetoric serves little purpose.

His main argument is that if things are really bad, if we go Infomagic, then self-sufficiency wont hack it. All the goodies we stockpile will eventually require replacing, and we wont be capable of replacing them. I have no trouble agreeing with that much.

Then, Mr. Decker argues that the grid wont go down and stay down and that people (some) will get dial tone. John Koskinen makes the same argument. What John -- and Mr. Decker -- hope well overlook is that while the grid wont go down, some power outages are probable. How many? Where? These are the unknowns. The question is whether or not we wish to play Russian roulette and bet that the outages will not impact us, or whether we might want to be prepared in case we are the unfortunates who dont have power.

Moreover, the spectre of severe gas shortages is entirely overlooked. Decker argues that since the grid wont go down then there wont be supply problems. Hogwash!

There is a big disconnect here. In order to resolve it, first, lets dismiss the Infomagic scenario. Get it out of the way so that it wont be dragged into the discussion. We will assume that things wont go Info.

Now then, will there be shortages? Will it be difficult to keep store shelves stocked, especially when most of our inexpensive clothing today comes with a made in China label? Lets say that there are problems with transportation. Ships dont sail, railroads dont run, and airplanes dont fly -- at least in sufficient quantity to keep us well supplied. It certainly is logical that, if the means of supply is disrupted, then a lot of articles rapidly disappear from the shelves.

Well now, arent these shortages really the things many of us -- most of us -- are guarding against? Arent we really protecting against the moderate scenarios by stockpiling? Isnt that the reason many of us are laying aside the things we think we need?

If I were to stockpile a 1 year supply of food, would I be guarding against temporary shortages, or would I be planning to live off that food for the rest of my life? When Scott Nearing showed off his axe, was he planning to chop wood with it well into the 21 century -- or was he really planning to be able to use it to get him over a short term hump? Will a 6 month supply of medicine keep a person for 5 years?

Mr. Deckers treatise is nothing more than a cleverly disguised attempt to persuade people to disregard preparation, even though he claims otherwise, and purports to be in favor of moderation. No preparation for Y2K can be anything except moderate. None of us can prepare for the worst. 9

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

Mr. Decker,

What makes serious preparation necessary is that so few see even your "strong case for moderate preparation". The population you so dreamily remember just isn't there anymore. "We have met the enemy and he is us." (apologies to Pogo)

Keep posting, I like your stuff.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 15, 1999.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZphooZZZZphoo

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 15, 1999.

More on self-reliance from Decker --

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/1058/1.html

Date: Mar 25, 05:41

Dear Sir,

Society has never been civil. In addition to general tomes of history, I suggest you try reading the book, "The Way We Never Were," by S. Coontz. We often tend to romanticize the past. As a side note, my favorite movie in the "Western" genre is "Unforgiven." A hardscrabble existance raising hogs in a sod hut is probably pretty close to prairie life. Oh, and love all the civility. (laughter)

If a lack of civility resulted in annihilation, New York City would not exist. Do I think civility is important? Of course. Only a fool would wish for a uncivil society. But its lack will not end "the world as we know it."

While I am glad your children know how to hunt, fish and start a fire. As a young man in Montana, these skills were second nature to me. I hope you are not suggesting these are skills they need for the 21st century? In the next century, more valuable by far will be skills in literacy, critical thinking, mathematics, judgement.

Like many, I respectfully suggest you cannot prepare for a social collapse. Hunting? During the first six months of the Great Depression, many areas were so heavily poached for deer it took decades for the populations to recover. Hiding in the woods? With hundreds of million of people, there is no part of America that would not be overrun in a social collapse and subsequent urban flight. A subsistence level existence, like hog raising on the prairie, is incredibly hard, near impossible for an individual family. And what happens the first time one of your children need antibiotics. Do you just start digging a hole in the back yard because you know they will die... now that "the world has ended." Human survival has most often depended on cooperation and community... and division of labor. I challenge you this... 90 percent of what the "average" survivalist stores, he (or she) cannot make or even fix. Can you fix a gun... machining new parts from metal stock? Can you manufacture a solar panel? In fact, you may wish to add to your nighly prayers all the people who design and build the tools you need for "survival" living in the Apocalypse. Well, enough for this morning.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

And a reminder of Decker's own personal plans --

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/965/1/2/1/1.html

Ms. I,

My parents once joked that I would read the label on the toothpaste to pass the time. Reading is a lifelong love. For a young man in rural Montana, it offered a free passport to worlds far outside my own. Even now, I polish off a book or two a week... depending on my hectic schedule. At mid-career (I'm 36), I want to segue into university teaching and writing... combined with the life a gentleman farmer. Too Jeffersonian? Providing the world (as we know it) does not end, it seems a fair enough plan. Et vous?

Mr. Decker

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 16, 1999.

My spending on Y2K preparations as of today: $0. Everything I recommend in my original post is part of the 'smart living' I already practice. Let me address some individual questions.

Sanitation: Have a shovel and a place to dig a hole. Not an elegant solution, but remember... no water, no flushing. (The super prepared can buy a bag of lime and a red Folger's coffee can.)

Welfare mother: There's never been a better time to move off welfare. Social services will provide transportation and child care assistance. Other agencies will kick in with fully funded job training. Unless you are profoundly disabled, you can work. With your new job, you can start earning your way towards economic self sufficiency and a better life. Job first, extra diapers later.

Alternative heat: Apartment dwellers will just have to bundle up. You can walk into a store, buy a sleeping bag rated for 0 degrees and spend less than $50. Or find friends or family with whom you can stay. (Very inexpensive). Bear the cold rather than take chances with carbon monoxide or fire.

Squirrel: OK, I'll correct you. If you are Bill Gates, $1,000 is the kind of money you lose in the couch. If you are disabled or have a chronic medical condition, you have much different needs than an able- bodied person. Preparation is an individual economic decision. I just wrote what makes sense to me. [It may be me, but it seems silly to fortify a house with sand bags and grenade pits.]

Unlike many, I decline to participate in "conspicuous consumption" or "pecuniary emulation." For example, I drive a well-maintained Toyota pickup with about 175,000 miles on it. People who earn less than me drive far newer and nicer vehicles... but the money I save on transportation goes into investments and savings. About 15% of my pre- tax income goes directly into retirement. And it will stay there for another 30 years.

I have living expenses for six months sitting in the bank. Costco is my favorite store and I do buy in bulk and cook.

As an avid hunter (even Andy can get one right) I have outdoor gear including a modest selection of firearms. I own some acreage near where I live and more near my "ancestoral" home.

[My property had nothing to do with Y2K. It was a simply a good investment. It provides firewood and a private refuge for hunting, when I am so inclined.]

This is why I haven't spent any money on Y2K.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 19, 1999.

Link

-- (vint@age.decker), June 16, 1999.

Sorry about the earlier response. I thought to respond to a post, and then forget to "cut" before I submitted.

Thanks to my "fan." While the tone of my other two posts is different, the message is very consistent. I don't think the world will end. Division of labor and trade is good. Living smart is 90% of the preparation you'll need for Y2K.

Regards,

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

Let's get down to brass tacks. As I recall, you have recommended elsewhere about a month of back-up supplies of various types, based largely on what one should do in ordinary life anyway. That's already way ahead of Koskinen. Good.

But while entertaining, this is a trivial post with respect to preparing for Y2K. Y2K preparation involves preparing for a singular event with unknown supply chain breakdown possibilities, including the grid. You have left the core issue (the relation of supply chain breakdown to Y2K preparation) entirely untouched except to deny that it will happen. That is your right, but it eviserates any reason for distinct and specific preparation purchases.

It's always fine to maximize skills for earning a living in the economy and I have urged this myself. Where next year gets dicey will be if different types of skills than MOST people have become necessary. In any case, it's too late for 95% of us to worry about that at this time. If so, we'll have to adjust on the fly.

Where most people are utterly lacking, even if they "live smart", is in possessing the types of supplies that will be mandatory in a month-long or greater survival emergency (water storage, medical and first aid, self-defense, etc). Many of the threads on this forum have wrestled with these needs in a desire to help folks.

On this board, I suspect that not more than 1 in 50 are thinking along "survivalist" lines. That argument continues to be the big straw-man. Survivalist thinking hasn't increased since Yourdon has left. What has increased is a glum sense that Y2K isn't getting fixed and that, while the odds of a smashup are unknown, the stakes continue to grow.

Living smart never goes out of style. But preparing for Y2K is a one-time event and demands one-time, out-of-the-box thinking and the taking of immediate actions.

Complete your Y2K preps by the end of July, at the latest. If you have the opportunity to continue after that, good. This remains the bottom line.

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

BD,

"Y2K preparation involves preparing for a singular event with unknown supply chain breakdown possibilities, including the grid. You have left the core issue (the relation of supply chain breakdown to Y2K preparation) entirely untouched except to deny that it will happen."

If you want links to the NERC or other experts on the grid, I can supply them. As a St. John's graduate, however, you must know that you are asking me to prove the negative. I cannot prove the grid will NOT fail. You cannot prove the grid (or any element of the supply chain) will fail. We simply have different opinions on the relative odds of different scenarios. If you can develop enough rock- solid evidence of potential failures (and not just armchair speculations), I'll help you publish the material. I am quite serious about this.

"On this board, I suspect that not more than 1 in 50 are thinking along "survivalist" lines."

I'm not sure the ratio, but a significant number of posts definitely presume a worst case scenario. You may be right, though, it may be a minority of readers.

"What has increased is a glum sense that Y2K isn't getting fixed and that, while the odds of a smashup are unknown, the stakes continue to grow."

Most objective observers admit the Y2K news is increasingly positive. This has not prevented some serious spin or attempts to discredit the sources.

"But preparing for Y2K is a one-time event and demands one-time, out- of-the-box thinking and the taking of immediate actions."

The "bottom line," BD, is that you have an opinion. So do nearly 300 million Americans. If you want to convince more people to prepare (beyond the modest goals of 'smart living') make a better argument.

Regards,

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

Ken -- I wasn't asking you to prove the grid would fail. That isn't necessary. I simply said you were ruling it out as a possibility.

Since even the utility industry admits that Y2K is a singular event, and experts within that industry disagree even today about the impact of Y2K globally on utilities (not just U.S.), I consider that ample evidence exists to support preparations against global supply chain breakdown. No one can visualize the impact of such a breakdown, since it depends critically upon where, when, how and the nature of the dynamic response at the time.

I could add the same about many other critical infrastructure sectors worldwide (banking, oil, food, medical, defense, ...).

This isn't an "odds" game, but a "stakes" game. The stakes for the next year with respect to the survival of my family in the midst of our technical culture are higher than they have been in my lifetime. How high? I don't know whether they are fractionally higher or an order-of-magnitude higher. I'm not God. But I can't afford to bet my family's safety on the "order-of-magnitude" possibility.

Regrettably, the evidence persuades me that we are moving more in the direction of "order-of-magnitude" than "fractionally". So far from welcoming that, I fight against that conclusion and bitterly resent the slothfulness and lack of integrity on the part of my profession that has put my family and the world at risk. Needless risk.

There can be no "rock-solid" evidence, alas, due to the nature of the Y2K issue politically and our free market system (which I support) corporately. The evidence that exists is, indeed, circumstantial and inferential. That is enough to convict in a court of law, providing the case has been well made and the jurors are listening.

I continue to do my best to make that case. Some jurors have listened, thankfully. I know of many people who have responded to my opinion and are preparing for Y2K. I am hopeful, based on other efforts underway, some related to this forum, some still in the works, that hundreds or thousands more will also prepare, at least to some degree.

Failing that, I have begun to turn my attention to ways of helping people recover after rollover.

My conscience is clear about Y2K, towards God, towards my family and towards my fellow man.

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

BD,

You mischaracterize. I have clearly stated I think there will be localized glitches in the power grid. A complete failure is possible, but in my opinion (and others) highly unlikely... particularly for an extended period of time.

For every game, odds and stakes are a consideration. Without a great deal of thought, you routinely "risk your life" in behaviors you consider low risk. High stakes, low odds.

"The evidence that exists is, indeed, circumstantial and inferential. That is enough to convict in a court of law, providing the case has been well made and the jurors are listening."

I disagree. America has been listening and the evidence is weak... a thin fabric of "what if's." Y2K has received incredible press coverage. Ed Yourdon sold 200,000+ books. It has run as a cover story on national magazines. I wager more Americans can identify Y2K than name a member of the Supreme Court. (Sad, but true.)

The case has been made and made again. So far, few people have been convinced. Of course, I am part of the minority who thinks we are headed for an serious economic downturn. Like Flint, I am a pessimist everywhere but here.

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, BD.

Regards,

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

While IT people do disagree, taken as a broad group, surveys have repeatedly shown that IT professionals are FAR more persuaded of Y2K's potentially dangerous impact than people outside the profession and are preparing for serious disruption at a rate quite in excess of the general popoulation.

This, like everything, can be "explained away." I could list the rationalized responses myself.

But the survey data is real and repeated. Those who know most about the world's information infrastructure, by training and experienced, are most concerned. Interesting.

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

Big Dog, sorry you can't make a statement like "taken as a broad group, surveys have repeatedly shown that IT professionals are FAR more persuaded of Y2K's potentially dangerous impact than people outside the profession" and expect people on this forum to take it seriously. How do you type in the words with no backup? I work with lots of professionals and have yet to come across one who regards Y2K as more than a bump in the road. We all know about surveys. Even the one that said 45% believe in disaster also said that 45% believe in a bump. That sounds like an even split not the "FAR more persuaded" that you contend.

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

Someone Smarter --- Good work! Quick, too. "Rationalized Response #1".

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

BD,

How about links to those "repeated" surveys? I'd really like to see the actual survey questions, methodology and raw untabulated response data, if available. Like many, I think survey design can be "gamed" to produce almost any result.

What might be interesting is to determine how many IT pros have engaged in serious (6+ months) preparation versus those who have stocked some bottled water and canned goods. How many have left their positions in urban areas to take up subsistence level agriculture in the country? How many have purchased firearms and large quantities of ammunition? I'll wager most IT professionals have NOT engaged in "serious" preparation... but it would be an interesting survey.

Does the IT community secretly think Y2K will be the "end of the world." If so, why hasn't this news leaked to the IT press?

Standing by for those "hot" links.

Regards,

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

Decker said: "I'd really like to see the actual survey questions, methodology and raw untabulated response data, if available. Like many, I think survey design can be "gamed" to produce almost any result."

Right. So I should spend my time digging this up so you can then trash it. Give me a break.

Decker said, "Does the IT community secretly think Y2K will be the "end of the world." If so, why hasn't this news leaked to the IT press?"

You are such a smarmy, deceitful son of a bitch. Game over, Decker. You're trolling again. And, yes, if I have a chance to see you at the picnic in DC, I'll say it to your face.

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

"You are such a smarmy, deceitful son of a bitch. Game over, Decker. You're trolling again. And, yes, if I have a chance to see you at the picnic in DC, I'll say it to your face."

Another graceful avoidance by the Big Dodger. So, I take it you won't back up your statement about the surveys. (chuckling)

And if you plan on behaving poorly, you might want to skip the picnic. I think Stan Faryna and those gathered would be heartily disappointed by an outburst of profanity and name-calling. I plan to be the picture of civil behavior, even with you in attendance.

I will say this, little man, consider carefully the words you choose should we meet. While I have tolerated your shrill tantrums on-line, I will not be as generous in person.

Regards,

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

Threatening again? Ken, your civility is just for show, nothing more, as your postings so clearly demonstrate. They drip, however subtly, with your disdain for all except your theoretical group of "thoughtful pessmists." You don't have a sincere bone about "Y2K evidence" in your body. Not one. Tell the guys who are paying for you that this "little man" isn't afraid of you, online or off.

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

Consider it advice, Big Dodger, not a threat. If you were to saunter into any local watering hole and call a man a "son of a bitch," you might just find yourself quickly in the deep end of the pool. Oh, I have no question you are just bull-headed enough to give it a try. You may think this makes you brave. I think it makes you rude and stupid.

I don't have disdain for many folks, but I reserve a portion for a computer geek like yourself playing at Y2K survival. Do you have a single callous on your hands? Have you ever worked a manual labor job a day in your life? Have you ever butchered anything? Have you ever buried anything, except for your head in your backside?

I think your lack of blue-collar, real world experience has left you with a "knowledge gap."

If you are right about Y2K, you'll soon have this gap filled. You'll pop off to wrong person and you'll find out how vigorous differences of opinion are settled between "non-IT" types.

If only for the sake of your wife and kids, try to behave.

Regards,

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

Hey decker...what would you do if a woman called you a red-faced, puffed up, Son of a Bitch? Just curious "Montana Man". Women in Wyoming shit bigger than you!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 16, 1999.

Your moral and personal blindness is breath-taking and ever increasing. If I don't post anything personal, you attack. If I do, you claim I don't have "calluses". You're such a hoot.

"If only for the sake of your wife and kids, try to behave."

Thanks, Dad. ROFLMAO doesn't begin to describe it. What IS wrong with you? Get a life.

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

Wyoming... where the men are men, and the women are, too. Wyoming... where the men are men and the sheep are nervous. The three most common lies in Wyoming... I've only two beers, Officer. Sure, that 4X4 is paid for. And, I was just pushing that sheep through the fence.

Heard 'em all, good will punting (except using "Wyoming" instead of "Montana" seems funnier.) Your question has me at a loss. All the women I know only use "son of a bitch" for wayward husbands and bad horses. Maybe you should move north and experience better manners.

Big Dodger,

So, you really are not going to supply me with the links to those surveys where your IT buddies are bunkering in? Gosh, Dodger, what a surprise. Don't worry, BD, there are thoughtful pessimists who can actually provide supporting data to bolster their arguments. Why don't you find one to pull your backside out of fire? Right now, you are embarrassing them, as well as yourself.

Regards,

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

Blow me Decker.

Give us one good reason to put all our faith and trust in the fairy tale that the grid won't go down and stay down.

Bandying semantics and wordplay to spin arguments in your favor is a waste of all of our time. Nice deflection on Big Dog's unassailable points and logic...but they don't work on the thinking you twit.

You sound like a Vegas junkie with all your talk of odds. You're gambling with lives here...innocents and the curious that want to learn about preparation. Preparation is prudent whether Y2K was an issue or not. You do nothing more than muddy the waters to create confusion under your disguised civil posts. You're a deceitful sonofabitch as Big Dog said you were, and I say that because I'm calling you what you are based on your last posts in this thread.

Your thinly veiled threats to Big Dog disgusts me, especially that bullshit comment about for the sake his wife and kids. "I will not be so generous in person..." F-U asswipe! I'd be glad to stand up next to Big Dog and knock you into next week! If there's ANYONE that needs to be careful about who he screws with, it should be you. You have no clue about whom you're making such idle threats.

And if you insist they aren't idle....well then you may find out you are on the losing end of of a painful conflict. I don't take that kind of shit from little assholes like you, and neither should anyone else.

Yes, you are little. Nothing you say has any standing of worth to me any longer with that above comment you made.

You and your moronic ilk will cost lives. Your precious ideology isn't worth a life. You're a moron, a coniver, and in less than six months, a murderer. I simply call you what you are and will be.

If you want to fight about it, let's do it and get it over with.

-- Milord (gammorean@guard.net), June 16, 1999.

Milord Guttermouth, your rants cannot possibly forward your cause. Can't you see this?

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

Milord,

Does this mean you're not taking me to the prom? (laughter)

Listen, O profane one, the only life I am gambling with is my own. This is America. Every adult citizen can make up their own mind about Y2K and bear the full responsibility of their decision. Unless you are a welfare state liberal who believes in a paternalistic government.

If you read the original post on this thread, I advocate modest preparation as a part of lifestyle. I just fall short of the bunker mentality Big Dodger and others promote.

Despite BD's personal hatred of me, I plan to be very polite on the occasion we meet. I think his using profanity and name calling would an embarrassment, particularly if his wife and children were present.

What BD and you apparently do not understand is that there are parts of the world where people still take comments like "liar" and "son of a bitch" very seriously. Of course, right now you are just an anonymous Internet punk... ho-hum.

As I offer friends and foes, feel free to stop by. I'll put coffee on and if you behave, you can stay on for supper. If you find, after a thoughtful conversation, that you still want to call me a "liar" or a "son of a bitch," we can go from there. Fair enough?

Regards,

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

Milord,

(is that you INVAR?) Will you be attending our little get together on the 19th? If so, hopefully the adrenaline will have cleared your system by then. That goes for BD & Ken as well.

For those fancying themselves alpha males planning to attend - please be considerate of others. This will be a FAMILY gathering. Children fight, adults discuss, at least in theory. :-)

See ya'll Saturday.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 16, 1999.

Bingo,

Amen. I will not use profanity or engage in inflammatory name- calling. I simply ask the same respect be extended to me.

Fair enough?

Regards,

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

My "cause" Flint?

This isn't about recruiting members to a social club. Look at the calendar, ...it's MID-JUNE 1999!!!! Playtime's over as far as I'm concerned. Whether it's a "bump" or a mass collapse, we're past the point of parsing each statement and Y2K news item or arguing minute points to sway folks to any particular ideology. It's time to finalize preparations, make final plans.

It's about saving lives should Y2K prove more than a bump-in-the-road. We have no time for idiotic odds rambling from Decker, or putting up with juvenile threats of violence to forum get-togethers.

It's about saving lives now Flint. I doubt giving a fire-safety tip and encouraging preparations for such an event would garner as much harrassment as what we get daily from pollyannas because we urge the same thing for Y2K.

Time's up. Time to act and stop with the nonsense.

-- Milord (gammorean@guard.net), June 16, 1999.

Decker said, "Despite BD's personal hatred of me .... "

As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again." You are simply amazing. My mouth hangs open in sheer admiration of the way you handle words so that dirt is left hanging over the character of everything you touch verbally. Are you sure you don't work for the White House? I'm serious, it's amazing. After a fashion, it's an extraordinary gift.

Ken, I don't hate you, even a little bit.

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

Big Dodger,

OK, it's a definite "no" on the survey. Right?

Perhaps hatred was the wrong emotion. On the other hand, "liar," "coward," "son of a bitch" are not terms of affection, at least not in Montana. They are, for lack of a better phrase, "fighting words." They are the most base of insults usually meant to provoke a response. In my experience, once these words lead to trouble; do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

Now, you may not understand the gravity of your language. You may routinely use this type of language when you argue in your personal life. I have no idea, BD, but I hope you can maintain enough emotional control to respect the DC gathering, if you attend. I'd like to have a enjoyable afternoon getting to know Bingo, Stan and some other folks.

Regards,

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

BD, I don't know WHY you do it -- post more than once on a Decker thread, that is....

Actually, it was "Smarter" who diverted you in the discussion with:

"Big Dog, sorry you can't make a statement like "taken as a broad group, surveys have repeatedly shown that IT professionals are FAR more persuaded of Y2K's potentially dangerous impact than people outside the profession" and expect people on this forum to take it seriously. How do you type in the words with no backup? I work with lots of professionals and have yet to come across one who regards Y2K as more than a bump in the road. We all know about surveys. Even the one that said 45% believe in disaster also said that 45% believe in a bump. That sounds like an even split not the "FAR more persuaded" that you contend.

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

Why didn't you just give him the source, explain that the survey properly was as a comparison _to the public_, not a majority opinion -- and leave them behind?

Then, Decker got you with "Still waiting for those hot links." "Smarmy", yes. "Son of a bitch" shows that he can get your goat. And keep it. He's here just to hear himself talk, so why engage?

We need to dance more lightly across the thicket of opinion that is y2k in June, 1999.

Here it is:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/ctf361.htm

Survey: 45% of Y2K experts worried By M.J. Zuckerman, USA TODAY WASHINGTON -- With little more than six months to go, nearly half the experts grappling with the Y2K computer problem remain deeply concerned, according to a unique survey being released Thursday. See also: 7 Special report: Millennium bug countdown "About 45% think it's going to be a bump in the road, and about 45% think it's going to have significant impact," says Bruce Webster, author of the survey of 337 professionals fixing or tracking the computer glitch. "And about 10% think it's going to be the end of the world as we know it." The experts are more pessimistic than the public at large. USA TODAY polls in March found 65% expected minor problems and 12% expected no problems.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 17, 1999.

Someone (smarter@than.you) ain't so smart. S/he said: Even the one that said 45% believe in disaster also said that 45% believe in a bump. That sounds like an even split not the "FAR more persuaded" that you contend.

But jor-el quotes the USA Today report of the survey: And about 10% think it's going to be the end of the world as we know it.

Way I see it, that adds up to 55% serious or worse and 45% bump in the road. Hell, most presidential elections have been won by less than 55%. Sounds like BigDog is right - again.

-- Someone (not@that.smart), June 17, 1999.

Thank you, "Jor-El." At this point, I am happy to have the survey (if it is indeed the one BD referred to.) As usual, the information available at wdcy2k is more interesting than the U.S. Today piece.

http://www.wdcy2k.org/survey/

The polls asks the 2000+ members of a Y2K group what they think will happen. The results are based on 337 responses. This is not a random sampling of the membership, nor is the membership a representative sample of IT professionals. To the credit of the survey authors, they acknowleded this:

"Before presenting the results of the survey, some cautions are in order. Polls and surveys do not establish facts, predict the future, or fix probabilities. They merely report how the surveyed group of people happened to respond to the question(s) put to them. As such, the results are not actual probabilities of the associated consequences. They are just the collective guesses of a particular group of people at a particular point in time (February-March of 1999), and the group is self-selected at that.

Beyond that, the levels of impact for different sectors (given in Table 1), while attempting to reflect possible Y2K consequences, remain somewhat arbitrary, occasionally uneven, and in some cases in danger of going out of date (e.g., recent assertions of progress by the Federal Government on HCFA). Some respondents expressed a wish to have been able to specify different or more finely tuned consequences. So we must be careful in putting too much weight on specific details of a given result.

What makes the following results of interest, however, is that these people for the most part work on or otherwise deal with the Year 2000 issue day in and day out in a wide range of organizations, settings, and levels. Collectively, the respondents probably know as much or more about the realities of the Year 2000 situationhow the actual work is going in the sectors giventhat any other group of people one could assemble. In that light, these resultsand the supporting comments volunteered by some of those surveyed, found in Appendix B reflect as informed and broad-based an opinion on the subject as one is likely to get at this point in time."

The caution does not include the possibility that those most concerned about Y2K might be those most motivated to complete and return the survey.

Even so, the results are interesting and suggest there will be some problems associated with the Y2K rollover. Even I can agree with that conclusion.

Regards,

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

Game, set and match Mr Decker . . (as usual)

Next thread . . new balls please.

(anticipate MacEnroe-like whining and yelling at the referee to follow from the losing team).

-- Dont byte off (more@than.you.can.chew), June 17, 1999.