Dear Doc,

I was prepared to be disappointed yet again when I read your post, and I must say, initially, I was delightfully surprised! You are most welcome for any assistance I provided in helping you arrive at your decisions regarding the catastrophic nature of Y2K, though I question the validity of that claim - based on observations regarding your use of the numeric facts.

Your calculations are off only a little, and only in three areas - one of which a diligent post-er pointed out in a response:

1) The total products listed at Year 2000 Ready number more than 199. As a result, your math, while accurate, does not portray the ratio of date sensitive/unaffected equipment with statistical integrity.

2) There are twenty-eight listed "Known Issues," of which you counted an affected 199 systems. These issues include:
ten which simply require a manual reset of the date (five of which are only affected by the leap year day 000229);
six which have already been fixed with patches;
two with patches shipping next month;
four in which the date is merely misreported;
two which are actually operating system issues (one VAX and one NT/Win9x - both of which have been addressed);
two that require the customer to contact Allen-Bradley due to the custom nature of the design specifics;
and two that are truly not ready.

3) If you factor the age of the systems with "Known Issues" and their installed base, the affected systems amount to less than four percent of Allen-Bradley's total offering. If you factor the "Not Ready" systems into this portion, one arrives at a 0.2857% maximum possible percentage of affected systems.

I have postulated since posting on this forum (fora?) that doomers habitually over-/mis-state their case to produce their desired numeric results. The most likely outcome must frighten them much more than any of their hoped-for scenarios; viz. the lights stay on, people shop as usual, and ignore everything doomers ever say again. And, with each passing "mini-Y2K" date, and each defection of the leadership, their cause grows yet more futile.

I noted the overwhelmingly positive response your massaged presentation (and liberal interpretation) of the "facts" received. After this post, please note the dismay, harassment, and harsh-wishes that are certain to follow. And all who sincerely seek the truth, ask yourself: Do the facts form the basis of the hypothesis? or are the facts accepted/rejected based on their agreement with the hypothesis?

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

Dear What,

In response to your questions about what I believe you should do to prepare...I am shocked! You are the first person to ask me that, and you may be shocked by the answer: IMNSHO, each person should prepare to whatever level grants them security. I actually have no problem with concerned people seeking advice on how to protect themselves and their families from a perceived menace. My objections lie with those who falsely claim to have knowledge about the coming events - setting themselves up as "experts," and misleading the general public - creating the misperceptions in the first place. I equate this with crying "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. The best example of such chicanery was the recently-departed-from-public-view Ed Yourdon, who was, again IMNSHO, simply mistaken about the nature, scope, and effects on society at large of the coming new year.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

Honest to God I'm amazed at how the posters here let this guy push their buttons.

"If you cannot PROVE that Y2K will be bad you must question your assumptions, and I want PROOF."

Well no shit Sherlock! One needs to question his assumptions if there is no proof. Golly! How many years of schooling did it take for you to realise that little lesson?

Here's a question that you will ignore: Can you PROVE that everything is going to be just fine? Tell me this Inspector Gadget, why is the world spending BILLIONS of dollars to fix this glitch if it's no big deal?

And, since you obviously think Y2K=A-OK, where is YOUR proof? And don't reference your cute little link again, I WANT PROOF!!!

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 10, 1999.

Andy

First, No one knows what is going to happen,

Second, Your use of color is an insult to communication, so I can't see why you are bothering to communicate. Because any worthy reader knows that real words are on Black and White. Of course words are cheap anyway but that is not the point I am trying to get across.

If someone wrote a book with that color of text no one would read it. Also they would wonder about the judgement of the editor.

IMHO

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 10, 1999.

I have a much faster method for you in your quest to "study the doomers". First learn as much as you can on profiling, this enables you to work at light speed in the field of humane nature.

Second, with your newfound knowledge do a profile on yourself. With your self portrait completed, you should be able to see why all of your future efforts should be made closer to home, you know, theres a lot of work to be done there first! I would be making sure my own house is cleaned before I started with anybody else, and yours Andy is truly a scary place (even your color choice has great implications).

Want to here a profile on yourself that is updated with each new post you make? To put it simply, I would make sure I have lots of guns and ammo if I lived anywhere near you in a crisis.

Your constant dribble about doomers and computers prove one thing, you know nothing about either one of them. Stick with something you know, and quit using the cut-and-paste feature to make yourself look smart.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 10, 1999.

Andy Ray says: ...and misleading the general public - creating the misperceptions in the first place. I equate this with crying "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

A-ha! The mantra of the Bonkers bunch. Here we have another one with a Messiah complex, saving the poor ignorant masses from - from what, who?

What, Unc D, Brian, you three selling survival supplies? Got some maniacal desire to mislead people? You setting yourself up as experts and misleading the public when there's nothing to be worried about? Of course you're not!

What is it makes these assholes think everybody doesn't have common sense enough to work things out for themselves, that only these self-appointed Messiahs are the way, the truth and the light? Full-strength arrogance, straight out of the bottle!

Do some real good, if you have an urge to save people, go to Calcutta and help Mother Teresa's nuns--there are hundreds of thousands of people there who really want to be helped.

-- Dont (need@sav.ing), July 10, 1999.

Unc: Here's Andy's proof, courtesy of the Poole Page:

-- a (a@a.a), July 10, 1999.

"After this post, please note the dismay, harassment, and harsh- wishes that are certain to follow. And all who sincerely seek the truth, ask yourself: Do the facts form the basis of the hypothesis? or are the facts accepted/rejected based on their agreement with the hypothesis?"

Conclusion: the truth hurts. Do not seek it if you are not willing to address the consequences to your perception of reality with intellectual integrity and intestinal fortitude.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

There you go with that cut-and-paste again, feel smarter now?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 10, 1999.

Lets see, in the

Y2K will be a big problem column

Dr. Ed Yourdon Dr. Ed Yardeni Dr. Gary North Naval War College IEEE CIA Senate Report

and in the Y2K will be no big problem column

Andy Ray Mutha Y2K Pro CPR Doc Paulie Steve Poole Norm

-- a (a@a.a), July 10, 1999.

"Conclusion: the truth hurts. Do not seek it if you are not willing to address the consequences to your perception of reality with intellectual integrity and intestinal fortitude."

Absolutely (amazing how much you share in the writing style and content of another poster here).

Don't bother spouting off if you cannot live by what you preach.

I've been fortunate enough to have participated on this forum for well over a year which allows me some interesting insight.

Do you really think you are bringing something NEW to this discussion?

Do you really think you are original?

Do you really believe you are so intellectually superior that you are raising issues that have not been discussed, contemplated, beaten to death over and over again on this forum and elsewhere?

If this is what you believe, great. You are entitled to your own point of view.

However, so am I.

There is not one shred of objectivity in your posts. You will not look at both sides of this issue. In this respect your are very different from the majority of "doomers" you are currently seeking to "convert."

You are not interested in points of view contrary to your own. If that were the case you would have learned something by now from people on both sides of this issue.

So far you have brought up JAE issues. These are points well documented and argued about long before you entered the discussion here. They are NOT problems which bring a company to an end of business in one day (if ever). To claim they don't exist or they aren't causing problems is a leap of faith. I chose not to take that same leap.

And you've brought up embedded systems. Congratulations. This is the most argued, confused issue of all Y2k problems.

Bottom line, NO ONE knows. Not even you. I hoped NOTHING related to Y2k would ever occur but unfortunately problems already have.

You state, " My objections lie with those who falsely claim to have knowledge about the coming events - setting themselves up as "experts," and misleading the general public - creating the misperceptions in the first place."

Well, well...you must think this is original thought too.

Wrong.

Where do you fit into this group who falsely claim to have knowledge?

I question exactly how long you have researched this issue and what kind of interquarrel you have gone through in coming to your conclusions.

What kind of REAL technical knowledge do you bring to the issue?

Other than your own self-important desire to convert others to your point of view what is your motivation here? Is it still the desire in doing research for your book?

Can you offer NEW information and bring NEW light into this discussion or simply rail against the thoughts and research others have done?

If you really, and I mean REALLY understood ALL the issues that are contained in this MASSIVE, interconnected set of POSSIBILITIES then you would then be FORCED to become objective.

There are real, deeply thinking people who participate here. Some may well be labeled as "pollys" but they understand and have made their evaluations based upon the entire set of possibilities. I don't always agree with them but I appreciate their perspective.

I don't respect anything about you.

Real or perceived, you bring NOTHING new to this discussion. You aren't the first to bring up these issues. You wont be the last. You are not original in your thoughts.

Unlike you, I am not at all interested in converting your thoughts. I feel no desire to share information with you especially it it is to prove a point one way or the other. I'm not in this for an ego trip or to pound my chest. Unlike you, I understand exactly where my own personal responsibilities and limits are.

Again, my disclaimer. You can qoute me only when given permission. You can quote me only when you seek permission.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 10, 1999.

For anyone who thinks Y2K is not a problem, click this LINK

-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), July 10, 1999.

a---Do those little cartoons with their big pointer fingers remind you of Clinton shaking his finger at us and admonishing, "I did not have sex with that woman!"?

Michael Taylor---great post!

Sandmann--Nice link. When did it go up?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 10, 1999.

...sigh...

There are really too many assumptions here to tackle them all. It reminds me a lot of the Clinton Administration's tactic on scandal - overwhelm the public with nonsense, and they'll not be able to keep track of it all. Are all of you supporters (as well as emulators) of liberal political types?

First, Mr. Taylor, if you type anything interesting enough to quote, I will quote it. Until then you are worrying about at least two things that will not happen.

Second, a, have you heard anything from Mr. Yourdon lately?

And last, all I did was ask a couple of questions. They have not been answered. Attempts have been made to malign me personally, but no one has yet produced a shred of independently verifiable evidence to justify fearing the first failure of an embedded IC, or one system. All responses have been exercises in disingenuous statistics, quotes cut and pasted from others who agree with you (circular something...though not logic), and personal attacks - which demonstrate your true motives to the people who pop by to see what the hubbub is about (and after reading your rants, likely agree with me that you are a rather excitable and rude lot - to which they wish not to be associated). So, you are actually accomplishing the opposite of your fear-mongering motives. Personally, I am not bothered if you discourage people from taking you seriously, as I am not taking you seriously. If you had independently verifiable (and therefore sound) reasons for believing what you do, you would have produced the evidence long ago. Instead, you have ranted because I dared come here and ask. Who better to ask? You claim to believe this unfounded nonsense! Personally it matters to me little. And, it should either bother you that the recently-dropped-from- public-sight Mr. Yourdon and I are both going to earn money writing about the issue, or it should not.

You act as though I have labeled you freaks of nature. Please. This is just a little blip that you got all worked up over. It is truly not that big a deal. If it were, your leadership wouldn't be abondoning ship at the end of it all. I imagine it hurts your feelings, and that is why you feel it proper and right to try and hurt mine, and anyone else who dares ask "Why do you believe this?" I excuse you, hold no malice against you, and forgive you for the attempt at insult (though a failed attempt).

And remember, triviality counts; but it counts against the trivial. :) So, continue as you have been.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

The problem isn't the missing answer, its comprehension. Did you see the information about the DEAD children? Your high and mighty stance from the beginning is what turned people off. Ever tried to talk to a "doomer" instead of at one?...might find somebody you like...might find someone just like you...then you may never find...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 10, 1999.

Dear BiGG,

Several friends are what you and I would generally classify "doomers." We have civil discussions about the issues and ramifications regularly. They are in different fields, and bring a lot of insight to the discussions; for instance, one works in the computing field for NASA, one is a Professional Engineer who served on United Nations committees to set up standards for communications in developing nations, and one engineered some key electrical utility telemetry equipment for a large power company in the US.

No one of us agrees with any other completely on Y2K.

I have civil discourses with people in other Y2K forums with whom I disagree. And, my posts here have generated a few queries from people seeking advice and information. I believe I have been consistent in stating my opposition to the idea that we should fear the fear of Y2K, unless we know something is going to happen. Hence, I do not discourage people from planning to whatever level makes them secure.

I can be brusque. It is part of my nature, and apologising for it would be akin to apologising for breathing. The things I point out about the rudeness of my opponents is also true of my own rudeness. Realising this, I strive to maintain temper. I sometimes fail miserably - or marvelously, depending on which side of the argument you are on. :) In short, I do have friends, associates, employees, and family who see this issue differently than I. We mostly seem to be able to discuss it without the emotion generated here.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

I shall do the same. From here on out, I will try to stick to the issues and leave the personalities out of it...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), July 10, 1999.

To whom it may concern:

"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith)

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.

Andy Ray,

The fact that you find nothing I've written to be interesting enough to quote doesn't surprise me. I would think that anything having to do with questioning your ability to remain objective or viewing this problem from multiple dimensions and perspectives would not be interesting to you as well.

And, just to put the quote issue into it's proper perspective, it was you who stated you were doing research on this forum as a way to compile quotes for a book. You managed to bring this issue up only after you had trolled responses in previous threads.

This is why I view you as someone without credibility or ethics.

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

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), July 11, 1999.

andy ray said;I can be brusque. It is part of my nature, and apologising for it would be akin to apologising for breathing. (end snip) it was in Geoffery Dhamer's nature to murder and ass rape.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 11, 1999.