Ed Yourdon - "I'm back"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Ed just posted this. I hope he doesn't mind me starting a new thread... <:)=

Poole has lost it: "Open letter to Ed Yourdon"

"Bottom line: I'm back, and for better or worse, you'll be hearing more from me than you have in the past two months. But I'm focusing on a different aspect of Y2K than before, and a different perspective than this forum currently has. Stay tuned...."

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999


To recent answers... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Thanks for the heads up Sysman. It will be good to see Ed around again, and interesting to see what this is about.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), July 21, 1999.

I will be interesting to learn what it's all about. Preping or dooming are the only topics on our minds these days.Met Ed in Seattle at a preparedness show. Nice guy; compassionate and smart. Maybe he will be selling Ed Yourdon Vodoo Dolls for the pollies. Maybe the men in Black have "programmed" him to be like Peter de Jager. But I bet he may wake up a few more boarderlines. Spending more time offline and home/ community prep was my plan of action this week, but I guess I lurk a bit longer just to find out!

-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), July 21, 1999.

Sysman, I'm looking forward to the different perspective. Perhaps he finished spiffing up the NM pad and is thinking about life post- 2000. Based on what Ed posted 4 or 5 threads down, it may be on how/when to get things up and running again. Shades of "Tom's Take"?

-- Margaret (janssm@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

See also...

Another Y2K Experts Opinion

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0017Bd


Why not just skip over that, and focus on our options AFTER Jan 1, 2000? That's what I've been thinking about for the past couple of months. More details on my web site (www.yourdon.com) in the next few days...



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Ed Yourdon said yesterday:

"My opinion about the outcome of Y2K has not changed fundamentally, but has become incrementally more pessimistic with each passing day."

Something tells me that's not the kind of statement Poole was looking for.

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.


Okay, my response to Mr. Poole is now posted on my Web site at www.yourdon.com

I'm rushed for time at this point, and haven't had time to start adding some of the new stuff I'm working on. Will get to it as soon as I can


-- Ed Yourdon (still.lurking@newmexico.com), July 21, 1999.

Ed -

Not to be a noodge, but the site still says it was last updated in May. Where might we find your reply to Mr. Poole?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), July 21, 1999.

OK, fine, hide it behind the "Y2K Articles and Essays" link and don't update the date on it. See if I care! 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), July 21, 1999.

Mac, you are SOOOO funny! :-) (Thanks, Ed!)


-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

I'm glad Ed is back too. But I have to say dw that when you said, "Preping or dooming are the only things on our minds these days," isn't true for everyone. I had a life before I heard of Y2K, and I still do.

Frankly, I'm spending much less time on this forum. My preps (all I'm going to do) are finished. And I simply don't worry about the future. I'm involved in my wildflower/wildlife garden and it is on my mind much more than anything else. Also, my vegetable garden is at the harvesting stage, which is the most fun you can have without leaving the house, and I'm very invoved in tomatoes and cucumbers.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 21, 1999.

Can someone paste the response on this thread. For some reason, I can't connect to Ed's site.



-- Roland (nottelling@nohwere.com), July 21, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

Your response to Mr. Poole was absolutely wonderful, intelligent, mature, thorough, objective, and most important...honest.

BTW, saw a y2k piece done by gov't last night on PBS that included you and dozens of others. Very disappointed that your comments weren't included in important points about power grid, water & transportation. Why is that, I wonder?

-- I'm (with@titude.now), July 21, 1999.

Dear Mr. Poole,

Though I've seen some of your postings on the TimeBomb Y2K discussion forum, we've never met, and I don't recall exchanging any email correspondence with you before. Thus, I had no idea that you had posted an "open letter" to me on your own site until I noticed a raucous discussion about it on the forum. Since I don't know your email address, I'm not sending my response to you directly -- but I assume that someone will make you aware of it.

I've taken the liberty of interspersing my comments between portions of the text of your open letter.

An Open Letter To Ed Yourdon


If any one name is synonymous with "Y2K," it would be yours (save, perhaps, for Gary Norths'). That has made you a target, and yes, I've poked fun at you quite frequently on thissite. Maybe you think I've gone too far at times.

Yeah, maybe I have. I'll admit it. I'm even willing to do something about it; read on.

You have a large following (even at this late date). With a following comes responsibility; you can't escape this. Whether you like it or not, you are responsible for how many of yourfollowers are behaving.

I certainly agree that all of us have a responsibility to act, talk, and write in a calm, mature way about Y2K; I've addressed this in two of my essays, "Shouting Fire in a Crowded Y2K Theater," and "Will Y2K Discussions Cause Panic?", which you may or may not have read. In any case, I think you're going too far when you suggest that I (or anyone else) am responsible for how many of my "followers" are behaving. I suppose one could make a theoretical argument that naive, impressionable young children are visiting my site and getting scared out of their wits; but if that's the case, there's a lot worse stuff on the Internet! Realistically, I think you'll agree that the vast majority of people who have read my books and articles are adults; we can further assume that they know how to read, and they know how to manipulate a PC in order to link up to the Internet. Thus, they presumably have an IQ close to, or perhaps even above, a three-digit figure; and that being the case, they're ultimately responsible for their own decisions. It's a very simple principle, but it has profound consequences. I believe very strongly in this principle, but it appears (particularly with respect to Y2K) that our government does not. And it appears that you don't either; your suggestion implies that someone wiser than my "followers" should decide what they should hear, and what kind of decisions they should make.

Here's the problem.

These people have read Time Bomb 2000 and the materials at your Web site and, in some cases, have decided to quit their jobs and spend their life savings preparing for Y2K. Butthat's the least of it; I have received email reports of girls who've had abortions because they didn't want to raise a child in Y2K. I've heard from senior citizens on fixed incomes (they can't prepare, not they way your followers recommend!) who've lived in constant fear since this whole thing started. There have even been suicides.

You know these things are happening, Ed. It's time for them to stop.

Before I dropped off the Y2K radar screen at the end of May, I was getting 300 email messages a day. Yes, I've heard from senior citizens, and from welfare mothers, and from paraplegic war veterans, and from ministers, and occasionally from children. I've heard from a number of adults who say they've changed their life-styles, changed their jobs, and started Y2K preparations in earnest. I have not heard of any abortions, nor have I heard of any suicides; but I have heard of divorces and bitter custody battles between spouses who disagree about the severity of the Y2K problem.

Yes, this is serious business. You don't have to read very many of the email messages that I got for two solid years before realizing some people could be taking your ideas so seriously that they make life-and-death decisions based on them. It makes you look deep into your heart and soul to ensure that you're not making casual, glib remarks about Y2K. I'm not perfect, and I may have made some mistakes (more about that below), but I've worked as hard as I know how to make my Y2K comments thoughtful, objective, and balanced. You may or may not think I've succeeded in doing so, but the overwhelming feedback I've gotten for the past two years suggests that I haven't done too badly.

And the spotlight now falls on Ed Yourdon: you can be the hero.

It might surprise you to learn that, when you made your predictions for January 1, April 1 and July 1, I actually agreed with you. I felt that these dates would be critical tests of howwell IT and CS professionals around the world were handling the Y2K problem.

You knew it, too -- otherwise, you'd never have made the predictions in the first place, right?

You can sit back in silence now and watch people like Cory Hamasaki and Steve Heller play down these non-events, but you know better.

Repeat: you KNOW better, Ed.

I'm calling on those decades of experience now. Forget these other people. This isn't even between you and me; forget Stephen Poole. I'm just a noisy guy who lives in Alabama.

This is between you and the Truth (with a capital "T").

Ed, you know that the lack of substantial failures on these dates means that Y2K isn't going to be nearly as serious as you originally believed. The fact that dozens of foreign countries --many of which are "Third World" nations which are supposedly farther behind us in remediation -- haven't had any major problems is an even bigger indication.

This may be something that you'd really prefer not to admit, but deep down inside, you know. And it's time for you to state this publicly.

My wife has known me since I was 13; she's about the only person on the planet who can claim to read my mind, and who can tell me what I "know" and what I don't know. With respect, Mr. Poole, you're not in a position to tell me what I know; as far as I know, you've never even met me. You weaken the credibility of your argument by saying such things.

Nevertheless, your argument deserves a response; obviously, you're not the only person who has suggested that the "lack of substantial failures" associated with Jan 1, Apr 1, and Jul 1 means that Y2K "isn't going to be nearly as serious as you originally believed." As you may know, there has been some excellent discussion of this issue on the TimeBomb Y2K discussion forum; let me simply summarize the two relevant aspects of this issue: (a) why was I wrong, and (b) what does it imply about the rest of the Y2K problem.

As for the first part, it's ever so tempting for me to behave like a politician and try to wiggle out of it. Maybe I wasn't really wrong, maybe we'll see the effects of fiscal-year Y2K in another month or two, yadda yadda yadda. But fortunately, I'm not a politician, I'm not running for office, and I'm not trying to convince my "followers," (who, in your view of the world, can't be trusted to make up their own minds) that I'm perfect. So it's much easier to avoid beating around the bush, and simply say what I assume you want me to say: I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. As you can imagine, I've given this a lot of thought, and I think these are the reasons I was wrong:

I overestimated the impact of fiscal-year computer logic on day-to-day operational systems. That was my largest technical mistake, and several other computer-savvy people have been emphasizing this point for the past year. Budgets and financial reports may indeed be blowing up in organizations around the world, but organizations can manage to operate for a few days, or a few weeks, or even a few months without a budget while they fix the bug, establish a work-around, or figure out something else to do. Meanwhile, it doesn't interfere with day-to-day transaction processing systems. I deserve to be criticized for this oversight; several people have already done so. I underestimated the ability of organizations to keep their problems hidden. I actually don't know what problems (if any) occurred on April 1 and July 1, but I do know of a number of non-trivial problems that occurred on January 1, especially with the introduction of the euro. I don't have the URLs handy at the moment, but some of the British newspapers picked up on this issue around March of 1999, and reported that several of the European banks have suffered major disruptions, delays, and losses of money because their euro-compliant systems were experiencing severe problems. No loss of life (more about that in a moment), no bankruptcies, no "in-your-face" evidence of the problems; but from what I've read, it has taken an enormous amount of work on the part of the banks to keep the problems hidden. I underestimated this capability, and what I believe to be a similar capability with respect to the April 1 and July 1 failures, and that was rather naive on my part. Paradoxically, this supports your argument in a different way: the very fact that organizations are capable of covering up these problems means that they're not that serious after all ... unless, of course, you happen to be an investor in one of these organizations, in which case you might be rather grumpy about the fact that large sums of money were wasted because of the problems. I underestimated the intensity of organizational efforts to deny that they were experiencing any Y2K problems, and/or to downplay them as trivial. For example, the problems that were recently experienced at Manchester airport, when a new Y2K-compatible system was installed, were described whimsically by a spokesperson as "teething problems." I've heard of glitches, bugs, wrinkles, and various other euphemisms, but "teething problems" was a new, and wonderfully creative, explanation. I'm sure that the passengers who missed their flights because of incorrect departure information were equally delighted. In any case, when I first started talking about the fiscal-year rollover problem back in 1997 and 1998, I was obviously very naive about the likely behavior of organizations when responding to such problems. That naivete began to fade throughout 1998, and it disappeared entirely after Jan 1, 1999.

So what does all of this mean, with respect to the rest of the Y2K problem. For those who disagree with the entire premise of a serious outcome to the Y2K problem, the fact that I was wrong once may be sufficient evidence that everything else that I have to say should be disregarded. This line of reasoning usually shows up in the Internet "flame wars" between Y2K "doomers" and "pollys," where each side uses whatever ammunition it can find to discredit the other side. However, I don't think it's a very practical strategy: aside from one or two utterly perfect members of the human race, most of us make mistakes from time to time.

But you've made a valid suggestion in your open letter: if I was wrong about the fiscal-year aspect of Y2K, does that mean I should reconsider everything else I've said, to see whether I was possibly wrong about the fundamental argument that Y2K will cause serious consequences? Yes, of course! Believe me, I have reconsidered everything; I do that frequently anyway, without even needing the humbling experience of being publicly wrong about the fiscal-year situation, because I would desperately like to find a credible argument that the pollys are right. "Trigger dates" are merely a visible excuse for doing this kind of reconsideration, and I think we'll all be going through such an exercise on August 22, September 9th (which I don't think will be a problem at all), October 1st, and perhaps a few other key dates.

But having done some serious soul-searching on this issue, my fundamental outlook on Y2K remains essentially unchanged. My reaction to the fiscal-year situation is basically the same as when someone tells me earnestly that, say, the banking industry is completely finished with Y2K remediation and testing, and that 98.27% of the banks are 100% compliant. My reaction is, "I'm not sure I believe such a statement without the assurance of a third-party IV&V vendor, but even assuming that it's true, what about everything else?" It's all got to be fixed -- the fiscal-year bugs, and the banks' systems, and the airlines, and the airports, and the utilities, and the telecommunication systems, and ... on and on and on. Yeah, sure, we can get away with less than 100%; we'd be fine if 98% or 99% of these systems were fixed, and we might not see too many serious consequences if we reach the 95% level. But when we drop down to 80-85%, which is what I think we'll see amongst the larger organizations, I still believe the consequences will be severe.

I'm sure you can anticipate what my strongest disagreement will be, with regard to the assertion that "fiscal-year Y2K problems were non-existent, and therefore Y2K won't be a serious problem after all." That disagreement involves two words: embedded systems. In various other essays I've written, such as "My Y2K Outlook: A Year of Disruptions, A Decade of Depression," I've suggested that the most serious, long-term consequences of Y2K will be economic. I still believe that to be the case, and I desperately hope that I'm right. But in recent months, I've begun seeing some of the statistics about toxic chemical sites in the United States, based on a report submitted to the Senate Y2K Committee by the Chemical Industrial Safety Board. If I remember correctly, there are approximately 66,000 companies in the U.S. who operate 278,000 sites that manufacture, transport, treat, or dispose of toxic chemicals; 85 million Americans live within a 5 mile radius of such sites. Most of these sites have embedded systems, and once you get below the level of large, reputable companies like Dupont and Union Carbide, there are thousands upon thousands of small companies whose Y2K readiness is obviously something to worry about. The point, of course, is obvious: embedded systems don't care about fiscal years. But many of them do care about January 1, 2000 (as well as February 29, 2000 and some other significant dates). I don't worry about airplanes falling out of the sky, and I don't worry that toaster-ovens or VCR's are going to explode and kill someone, but I do worry about the embedded systems running large, complex toxic chemical sites.

All it takes is one Chernobyl, or one Bhopal, to erase whatever optimism most people have about Y2K. I suppose you could take the callous position that the 3,000 lives that were lost in Bhopal could be ignored because it was just a "local" situation; but I think the Europeans would express a very different opinion about whether things like Chernobyl are "local" problems. I'm worried enough about the possibility of life-threatening disruptions in our own country; when I think about the situation around the rest of the world, particularly in third-world countries whose overall state of readiness is dismal at best, I really do get worried? Aren't you worried? Do you honestly believe all these problems will be taken care of? If so, you must sleep a lot better at night than I do. I wish I understood the basis for optimism in this area, and I really wish there was some detailed, credible evidence that these problems are being dealt with. Instead, all I see to find are quasi-religious expressions of faith and optimism ("they'll fix it, because it would be unreasonable for them not to fix it!") and happy-talk press releases written by government and corporate spokesmen would wouldn't recognize a computer if they fell over one ("they'll fix it, because we've ordered them to fix it! They dare not disobey us!")

Meanwhile, the steady stream of bad news continues to show up on the Internet sites. Of course, the doomers tend to look only at the bad news, and the pollys tend to look only at the good news. It's hard to know which reports to believe, and many of us spend a considerable amount of time trying to test the credibility and accuracy of the reports we read. If we take the press reports at face value (a dangerous way to treat Y2K, I believe) our optimism rises when we read reports that the FAA is ready, that the utilities are ready, that the banks are just about ready, and that 92% of the federal government's mission-critical systems are ready. But as I suggested above, it all has to work; so even if these optimistic reports are entirely accurate, we can't ignore such things as:

Washington, DC essentially admitting that it won't finish its remediation in time (duh!), and is now desperately working on 88 separate contingency plans to cope with failures on January 1. 19 of the 21 major cities in the U.S. assessed by the GAO as being not ready for Y2K. And that says nothing about the thousands of small towns and counties, of whom roughly half have still not begun doing anything about Y2K. 9 of the states in the U.S. reported as dangerously behind, because less than 70% of their mission-critical systems have been repaired. I live in one such state, so this is not an academic issue for me. Third-world countries, and a bunch of not-so-third-world countries (e.g., Italy, Spain, Portugal, according to a recent report in the British press) reported as dangerously behind on their Y2K work. The California sewage problem that dumped 3 million gallons of raw sewage in a residential park. Yes, the problem was fixed, and yes, that particular system probably will work properly on January 1, 2000. But the problem (which, as I'm sure you know, occurred during a contingency-planning test) illustrates the potential severity of Y2K failures -- and it makes one wonder: what about the tens of thousands of other sewage systems, municipal water systems, etc.? The Russian missile situation. As you may have heard, the U.S. Defense Department has just issued a new appeal to the Russian military for a joint "early warning" system to prevent misunderstandings and mistakes associated with Y2K. You may also recall that a tentative agreement had been reached earlier this year for such a cooperative effort, but it was then canceled during the Kosovo War. So now we're starting all over again, and as of July 20th, I had not seen any reports of a response from the Russians. It's late July, and it's getting pretty late to even attempt setting up such a system. I assume that the U.S. DoD isn't doing this just because a few generals want a boondoggle trip to take their vacation in a Moscow dacha. Given the overall state of affairs in Russia, I don't feel particularly optimistic at this point.

It doesn't matter if you add the proviso that people should still prepare for some disruptions. In spite of what my detractors say, I recommend that myself. I don't expect you to become as much of a Polly as I am.

It's not enough to wait until next year and then say, "I was wrong." By that time, it'll be too late for a lot of people (and your reputation).

Here's the deal: you do it -- word it however you like; leave in the need for modest preparations, whatever -- and I'll remove any stuff from this Web site which you might find personally offensive.

Well, I'm interested that you feel that "people should still prepare for some disruptions." I feel that people should make their own decisions, rather than blindly following your advice, or my advice, or Gary North's advice, or John Koskinen's advice. As I tried to express in my testimony before the Senate Y2K committee back in May, everyone has something different at stake, everyone has a different assessment of the risks involved. It's all very well and good for the folks in Washington to tell us that we don't have to worry about Y2K, because whatever problems occur will be "localized." The problem is that we're all localized, and a localized problem in northern Minnesota on Jan 1, 2000 is likely to have different consequences than a localized problem in, say, Miami. And as you noted earlier in your letter, Y2K is something that could affect senior citizens on fixed incomes, as well as young, affluent Gen-Xers. Everyone should decide for themselves whether it's appropriate to make no preparations, or sufficient preparations for the proverbial 3-day winter storm, or a month's preparations, or a year's preparations. You may think that a one-year stockpile of food is extreme or "radical"; I trust adults to think carefully about the situation and make their own decisions.

You don't even have to contact me: as soon as I see you join Peter de Jager in denouncing the radical, fringe Y2K crowd, it'll all be zapped: the silly Flying Pig Award, the "Y2k Authorities" page and all that other stuff.

You have my guarantee on this.

Well, I've never seen your Web site, so I haven't lost any sleep worrying about your Flying Pig Award, whatever that is. You're more than welcome to do whatever you want, and to express yourself in whatever fashion you consider appropriate. But it seems to me that it would be more productive to spend your time composing detailed, thoughtful, credible arguments to support your polly position than to spend it making personal attacks and posting pictures of pigs on a Web site.

Bottom line: I don't think my position is a radical one, and I don't believe that I've ever supported the radical, fringe Y2K crowd. If I were to denounce them, I believe that fairness would demand that I also denounce the radical, fringe Polly's -- e.g., the head of the SEC, who told an audience a few months ago that the outcome of Y2K would be a zero on the Y2K "Richter scale." Zero. Nada. Zip. No impact, no consequence, no problems. I haven't denounced him for the same reason I won't denounce the people who believe that Y2K bugs were introduced by aliens when they landed in Roswell in 1947: I figure that intelligent adults can listen to the entire spectrum of Y2K opinions, and make up their own minds. And I don't say this casually: I realize that there may be tragic suicides that will prove to be "unnecessary" if Y2K turns out not to be a problem; but I also suspect that there will be suicides (as there were in 1929) if people act on the advice of the SEC chief, and then discover that Y2K has wiped out their investments because the Dow Jones average has fallen by 90%.

So: what'll it be? You can be a voice of calm and reason now, or you can wait until next year and try to salvage your professional reputation.

The choice is yours.

But it's time for the madness to stop -- and I can think of no one more uniquely suited to help stop it than you. In the name of sheer honesty, if nothing else, it's time for you to speak out.


Stephen M. Poole, CET

My professional reputation probably means a lot more to me than it does to you. I've been lucky enough to gradually build a decent reputation during the 35 years I've worked in the computer field. When it comes to issues that could damage my reputation, I'm very careful. With regard to Y2K, I made the decision to put my reputation at risk back in 1997; if it turns out that I'm fundamentally wrong about Y2K, my reputation isn't going to be salvaged by changing my position now -- as many computer professionals believe (fairly or unfairly) that Peter de Jager has done in recent months. I think I'm fundamentally right in my outlook for Y2K, but I try very hard to keep an open mind to listen to credible evidence that I might be wrong -- and I'll certainly acknowledge that I was wrong about my assessment of the impact of fiscal-year Y2K problems.

Thanks for sharing your concerns about Y2K with me. Best wishes to you, and to all of us, for whatever success we can achieve with Y2K in the remaining 163 days.


Ed Yourdon

-- a (a@a.a), July 21, 1999.

"a," it may be a little confusing to people without the italics to show who was saying what.

I LOVE this paragraph from Ed to Poole:

"Well, I've never seen your Web site, so I haven't lost any sleep worrying about your Flying Pig Award, whatever that is. You're more than welcome to do whatever you want, and to express yourself in whatever fashion you consider appropriate. But it seems to me that it would be more productive to spend your time composing detailed, thoughtful, credible arguments to support your polly position than to spend it making personal attacks and posting pictures of pigs on a Web site."

AIN'T IT THE TRUTH! (Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of OZ)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

Hi Ed- welcome back! Looks like the break did you good. I tend to agree with you, in respect to your contention that you have NEVER told people what they SHOULD do, or what WILL happen- but rather have laid out the possibilities for people to think about and decide for themselves. You are also so right when you state that all effects are local- when there was amajor ice storm up where I live- that had no effect on California. Likewise for flooding last summer, etc- but if there are many "local" hurricanes, floods, blizzard equivalents all taking place on a "local" basis across the globe- everyone is impacted by something.......

That's another thing- the whole TEOTWAWKI concept- Every day, it's TEOTWAWKI for people somewhere. The other day was TEOTWAWKI for the kennedy's/Bessettes for instance. Every time a loved one dies, a job is lost, a home burns down, cancer is diagnosed- whatever- it's TEOTWAWKI for someone, somewhere. The difference is that the effects are very localized- to that family for instance.The potential impact of a y2k type event is that TEOTWAWKI is widespread. This can be difficult- but also can lead to shared strength and resillience if handled well.

I think that contemplating the y2k scenario can be a useful exercise. Panic over it is not useful; neither is hopelessness. If people change their lifestyles due to y2k concerns- perhaps that is good. Maybe that is what they needed to do and this just spurred them on. In fact- I would hope that if anything were to come out of this whole thing, it would involve a serious look at the impact of technology on our lives, the truthfulness or lack thereof in government, the role of the media, our global economy, and similar issues on a global perspective. I would also hope that individuals are taking a closer look at their own lives, jobs, debt and other items, and are reevaluating them. I truly hope that the wind generators and pv panels purchased this year are not "yard saled" next year. Would love to see people continue to garden and can and keep emergency supplies around all the time. Would hate to see "business as usual" as a matter of fact- although seeing billions starve is not what I want either need I say.

So- am interested in seeing where your thinking has taken you now- and commend your reply to the rather egotictical posting by Mr. Poole- why would he even think you bother visiting his web site- whatever that may be- and would even care what he thought of you anyway??

P.S.- not that what I think means much- but my take on the whole thing more closely aligns with your depression scenario- have not thought the planes will drop out of the sky and who cares what Mr. Coffee does anyway? My biggest immediate concern is nuclear reactors- on a global level- expect several "events" due to y2k re: nukes. Also- would not rule out chem plant type disasters either. Add to that some spectacular rail "switching accidents", and lots of potential for trouble. But beyond that- expect lack of imports, lack of gas/oil or very high prices for them, and lots of business shutdowns/unemployment due to the above.......

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), July 21, 1999.


I've added one paragraph to the Poole response, which contains links to two different pictures of my house in New Mexico. I'd put the links in here, but I've forgotten the arcane HTML construct for pasting links into an in-line message like this...

...don't know why some of you are having trouble connecting to my site; I'm going to be moving to a new ISP in another week or so, and maybe that will help clear things up.

In any case, the top-level page HAS been updated, and has a date of July 21st. Some of you who are getting old versions of the page might want to flush your cache (egad, what a strange phrase)

Cheers, Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (still.lurking@newmexico.com), July 21, 1999.

I, for one, would like to offer my heartfelt thanks to Mr. Poole for "coercing" Ed out of retirement.

Mr. Poole, it's nice to know you're good for something.


-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), July 21, 1999.

Ed, I think "flushing one's cache" is illegal in some states...

Scott Johnson

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Let's see if I can....

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

Oops! Wrong picture! hee hee!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

Let's see what THIS does:

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

Don't mind me, I'm just playing:

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

Good tries Gayla!

See also...

Ed's Response = Very Impressive

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0017KC

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Gayla -


Sorry. Just wanted to do a little take-off on Mr. Poole's fantasy about us as Ed's followers. 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), July 21, 1999.

Ed's solar stuff... (image)...


The view from Ed's back yard... (image)...


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.



-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Let's try that other image Gayla...

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

You DID it, Diane! Very good! I love practicing with that stuff just for fun.

Hey Mac! The picture IS a little, um... "imposing" in that size, huh? :-D In the "spirit" of Poole's logic, just remember: Ed is watching YOU! hee hee!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 21, 1999.

LOL Gayla!

Not only is... Ed watching... but he clearly "lurks" and has been keeping up-to-date on the Y2K newz twists and turns.




-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Doesn't look as dry as I had feared in N. NM, Ed. (Remember I told you about our brush with ABQ last year, from which we escaped to the Northwest where our main problem is what to do with all the water flowing down, up, by, under, around our home in the winter.)

Remember what happens at the end of every Inquisition? After the Grand Inquisitor gets your confession, you are then executed. In order to save your soul from further wanderings astray from the orthodoxy, I believe it is. For your own good, of course.

In this case, Poole hasn't quite got the garotte he'd like to have for you waiting in the next room.

Also, for him, the the hoped-for rubbing-off of "esteem" from the "Great Man", as in "I brought down the Big One, boys."

Poole's ostentation is exceeded only by your consistent humility, Ed. Believe me, it shows.

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), July 21, 1999.

Welcome back, Ed! Great response to Poole. After looking at the view from your backyard (thanks, Gayla) and recalling my dismal 8 years in NYC, I have to say you're in a great place - y2k or no! Looking forward to further comments from you and the new direction you are taking. God bless!

-- dr. ben (benalurker@usa.net), July 21, 1999.

Welcome back to the party :-)

:::slides a breskie:::: ::::::::::::::::: |_|P

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), July 21, 1999.

Oops. Wrong thread. Sorry about that!

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), July 21, 1999.

What is that white stuff up there on those wrinkled up rocks in the background? Dandruff?


-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

No, it goes along with the sheeeeple shown, and all of you getting a snow job!

-- X!X!X (X!X!X!@X!X!X.com), July 21, 1999.

OH NO! Ed has just subliminaly demonstrated he's THE Super-Doomer! Just look at his house, it shows how far he fears we're going to regress and it looks like Fred Flintstone's house!

Move over Infomagic, you're wrong and it is much worse.


-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), July 22, 1999.

S.O.B., I can tell you live nearby! :-) The highest points in Houston are high-rise buildings and freeway overpasses! Makes me want to move to Colorado!!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 22, 1999.

Ed Yourdon has done a "Michael Jordan."

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.

Welcome back Ed,

We have all missed your posts and insight. Thanks for your willing to take a stand on the issues.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), July 22, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ