The great mystery of the doomer mentality prompted my study in the first place, which then led to the collection of quotes, which is now leading to a book on the subject (which, incidentally, needs to be completed very soon to be ready for press on or around 000101...busy, busy, busy...).

First, there is something that predisposes doomers to catastrophic fantasies. In all honesty, that is the root I am after: What predisposes an otherwise psychologically balanced individual to engage in this type of delerium?

Next, in short order, the predisposed person finds some statement or other that "reveals" he/she was right about their predisposition. It appears to snow-ball from there, and all sorts of psychological malady parade about in this assumed (idealistic, desired) new "reality."

It is not unique to the Y2K issue. Several religious groups have had similar experiences. There are also people living simpler lives in isolation because they believe a world economic collapse to be imminent - they have been there for years now, waiting. Sociologists have long studied the effects of "failed prophecies" in the past - see this study of one such group.

If you believe nothing else of what I post, I implore to consider this: If you cannot produce one piece of evidence to scientifically verify your "reality," you should question its validity.

All I have asked you to do in two threads now is to produce an independently verifiable (preferrably repeatable) experiment to validate your hypothesis. For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, this is how we engineers and scientists keep ourselves from making drastic errors in logic. It is not new, but a tried and found true method of discovery.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 08, 1999

Answers

"we engineers and scientists"

ROTFLMAO. You're an engineer or scientist? LOL

I know an engineer, and you're no engineer.

Nope. You're a troll.

Buzz off

-- uggh (get@lost.troll), July 08, 1999.

I believe the engineers. This is what REAL engineers have to say... Excerpts from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' June 9, 1999 Open Letter to Congress in support of legislation imposing severe limits on liability for Y2K failures.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.html

"PREVENTION OF ALL Y2K FAILURES WAS NEVER POSSIBLE: For many large and important organizations, technical prevention of all Y2K failures has never been possible in any practical way

"Y2K COMPLIANT" DOES NOT EQUAL "NO Y2K FAILURES." If an organization makes all of its systems "Y2K compliant", it does not mean that that same organization will not experience Y2K failures causing harm to itself and other organizations. In fact, efforts to become "Y2K compliant" in one place could be the direct cause of such failures in others. If interconnected systems are made compliant in different ways, they will be incompatible with each other. Many systems in government and industry are mistakenly being treated as if they were independent and fixed in the most expedient way for each of them. When this "Humpty Dumpty" is put back together again, it will not work as expected without complete testing, which is unlikely

"ALL PROBLEMS ARE NOT VISIBLE OR CONTROLLABLE. many Y2K failures are inevitable because some technical problems will not be discernible prior to a failure, and others, while discernible, may not be within an organizations jurisdictional control to correct. This is especially true in large complex organizations with large amounts of richly interconnected software involved in long and complex information chains and in systems containing a high degree of embedded devices or systems purchased in whole from external parties

"INCOMING DATA MAY BE BAD OR MISSING. To maintain their operations many organizations require data imported from other organizations over which they have no control. Such data may have unknowingly been corrupted, made incompatible by misguided compliance efforts or simply missing due to the upstream organizations lawful business decisions.

"COMPLEXITY KILLS. The internal complexity of large systems, the further complexity due to the rich interconnections between systems, the diversity of the technical environments in type and vintage of most large organizations and the need to make even small changes in most systems will overwhelm the testing infrastructure that was never designed to test "everything at once." Hence, much software will have to be put back into use without complete testing, a recipe, almost a commandment, for widespread failures

"MANY THINGS ARE OUTSIDE THE CONTROL OF ANY DEFENDANT. Incoming data from external sources outside its control may be corrupted, incompatible or missing. Devices and systems embedded in critical purchased equipment may be beyond the defendants knowledge or legal access. Non-technical goods and services the defendant depends upon may not be available due to Y2K problems within their source organizations or distribution channel.

"THERE WILL BE A STRONG DEFENSE OF IMPRACTICABILITY. Existing large-scale systems were not made safe from Y2K long ago for good reasons. Many systems resist large-scale modernization (e.g., IRS, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicare) for the same reasons. Widespread, coordinated modifications across entrenched, diverse, interconnected systems is technically difficult if not impossible at the current level of transformational technology

"COMPLEXITY AND TIME NEGATES ANY LEGAL LIABILITY INCENTIVE. Even if making all of an organization's systems "Y2K compliant" would render an organization immune from Y2K failures (it will not), the size and complexity of the undertaking is such that if any but the smallest organization is not already well into the work, there is not enough time for the incentive of legal liability to have any discernible positive effect on the outcome

"Y2K IS A LONG TERM, NOT SHORT TERM, PROBLEM. Irrespective of the notion of Y2K being about time, a point in time, or the fixation on the rollover event at midnight December 31, 1999, or even the name Year 2000 itself, Y2K computer problems will be causing computer system malfunctions and failures for years into the next decade.  it will take years for the infrastructure to "calm down" after Y2K impacts themselves AND the impacts of the sometimes frantic and misguided changes we have made to it"

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 08, 1999.

And, this material has been provided to you in previous threads. When you are able to refute it, then come and ask for further data, but not until then, troll

http://www.year2000.com/bugbytes/NFbugbytes.html

http://info.cv.nrao.edu/y2k/sighting.htm

That all blue is hideous. If you really don't want something read, continue to use that color. Goodbye

-- withoutalifepreserver (jumpin@the.lake), July 08, 1999.

Do you want to know about some other research also? It has been proven many times that people like yourself (youre also being analyzed) that have such a ridiculous attitude towards other people, generally have a size problem. Whats the matter Andy come up a little short", do you? You are the full of nothing but crap. Christ am I glad we never had you on any important research projects, your methods are borderline grade-school, and you have a piss poor attitude to boot. Stop playing and get a life.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 08, 1999.

the army telling us they'll be ready by november with a full month of testing tells me somethings not right.oh,wait,I'm wrong.They'll certianly be ready by dec.31 1998,with a full year of testing,right along with all the telcos,banks,power companies,fortune 1000 companies,and all goverment agencies.What kind of alternate universe are you talkin' about.In my safe little universe,department managers always accuratly report the accurate data the accurate programmers are providing.In my safe little universe,computer projects always come in on time and on budget,third party vendors are all fine, and my government never lies. In my safe little universe,banking doesn't requier zealous faith on the part of depositors,because the entire system is insoulvent and fraudulent. Do you want to live in my safe little universe? So do I.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 08, 1999.

Andy said

: If you cannot produce one piece of evidence to scientifically

verify your "reality," you should question its validity.

Whoa carefull Andy.This must mean that millions of people live in a delirium and must question everything they live for.

After all, There is NO scientific proof for God and here I don't care

what name you give Him.

All thats known are books written by man for man ( isn't that what you want to do?)

There is NO proof for anything spiritual call it soul or whatever.

Yet 90% of human beings on this planet believe in a God one way or another.

So I guess we are in good company don't ya think?

Until a year from now nobody can say what will happen.

This btw. is the difference between Y2k and any religion. Polly's and doomers alike have a timeframe they can work with unlike religions who are vague at best yet believed as the truth by the followers.

-- justme (justme@justme.net), July 08, 1999.

Andy,

It may have something to do with the fact that some of us have families with small children that we care about. We are busy enough with just the day-to-day routine of living. Between going to work and mowing the lawn and growing the garden and the multitude of tasks relating to child rearing, who has time (or energy) to sort through the mountain of information and misinformation that is y2k? It's just a whole lot easier to do a little planning ahead for an event that you know is coming...and that you have no control over...and that may or may not have a disrputive affect on your lifestyle.

Best regards,

Dan

-- dan (dbuchner@logistics.calibersys.com), July 08, 1999.

If I swallow any poison stick your finger down my throat.

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), July 08, 1999.

Andy Ray,

You are sadly misinformed. Oh well, Darwinian selection in action. By this time next year, a BUNCH of folks will have been removed from the gene pool. I think Andy is one of them...

Dennis Olson, IEEE member #40361316

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 08, 1999.

Andy Awray, I think you need to include magicians in your analysis. Magic is what happens at 4am to a big iron production run that bails in JS20. Unlike the physical world that most "engineers" and "scientists" work in, the cause of software failures based on data/logic combinations can not be appreciated unless you, and I mean YOU, have stared into the green screen abyss. If you have done this, say so.

Thanks, br14

-- br14 (br14@bout.done), July 08, 1999.

If you cannot produce one piece of evidence to scientifically verify your "reality," you should question its validity.

Andy Ray,

Using your logic, would that mean that the federal government needs to suspend all further Y2K remediation until they can prove that failures are possible? I saw an excellent working example of your logic the other day on your "predictions" thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012gt

If you are by chance actually collecting quotes about Y2K for a book, you might find some of the ones made at the following link interesting...

http://www.afa.org/magazine/0799midnight.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 08, 1999.

andy, try DISCERNING signs of the times.hint> as it was in the day,s of NOAH.=MUCHO SCOFFERS=A FEW GI,s.

-- need-eyes? (dogs@zianet.com), July 08, 1999.

"The great mystery of the doomer mentality prompted my study in the first place, which then led to the collection of quotes, which is now leading to a book on the subject"

Perhaps you should consider the "great mystery" of denial and the fear that goes along with a shift in the status quo as a great subject for a book. It's always best to write from a position of what you know, personally. Those are the books which are always more successful.

Either way, you money grubbing "scientist" troll, you have shown you are unethical in your quest. You did not post until now your intention and motivation for the questions you seek answers to. Writing a book, eh? Obviously, the profit motive is not a factor which can be placed only on the shoulders of "doomers" and Y2k experts.

Regardless, if you were truly interested in "discovery" you would not write a book based upon a subjective view of the current situation. A more objective view, using real logic and not your contrived version, would allow you to see the truth on both sides of this issue. Your limiting your field of vision to only one perspective shows you have no real interest in truth or discovery.

You can quote this in your "book";

You fail in your own use of "logic". I'd go so far as to say you couldn't find "logic" with both hands if it came up to bite you in the ass.

However, that is the ONLY quote I grant permission of fair use for you to use. Any other quote attributed to me, true or false, will bring a legal response. In other words, you will hear from my lawyers.

That response would not be personal...just logical.

Sincerely,

Michael Taylor ===================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 08, 1999.

Andy, Andy...I was just on the U.S. Department of Commerce website. Do you think those analysts have some psychological predisposition when they graph out the inter-relatedness of world trade and the problem of unremediated countries? God bless, buddy.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 08, 1999.

Might as well jump in....

Andy Ray:

The future cannot be predicted by anyone. End of point.

The "doomer mentality" (as you call it) is one of caution. We realize that since we can't predict the future (see point one), we should engage in risk management and plan for the different possible outcomes (possible, not definite outcomes) by assessing the probability and risk involved for each of our specific individual situations. Your "polly mentality" involves saying what is definitely going to happen (nothing) before it happens. This can get one in a lot of trouble (again, see point one). If you happen to be incorrect about what unfolds, your book release "on or about [20]000101" could well be analagous to "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN." Remember, everything is not expected to fail right on midnight 12/31.

Oh, and for the "independently verifiable (preferrably repeatable) experiment," I'll just go with the old standard:

CURRDATE - BIRTHDATE = AGE 99 - 55 = 44 1999 - 1955 = 44 2000 - 1955 = 45 00 - 55 = -55 *********** PROBLEM, GET IT ?!?!? *************

-- Jim (x@x.x), July 08, 1999.

andy,have you considered; zoomers? zooming in on the remarkable'prophecies-being fullfilled in OUR generation?

-- zoomer. (dogs@zianet.com), July 08, 1999.

"The masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb."

"We should not hold rashly an opinion in a scientific matter, so that we may not come to hate later whatever truth may reveal to us, out of love for our own error."

(St. Augustine)

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."

(Bertrand Russell)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 08, 1999.

---

Oops. The first quote is from Marshall McLuhan.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 08, 1999.

---

Moderation questions? read the FAQ