http://www.yourdon.com/articles/y2kpoole.html

I will not post it here, I suggest that all go and check out the actual site.

Ed's response to Mr. Poole is very impressive. I find it to be well thought out and right on the money. Y2K is not a sure thing in any direction, however it appears to close to the roll over to make a massive change in direction.

Ed, You say you are going to start looking at things we can do after the roll over, what ever I can do to help, count me in. Good to have you back.

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999

Answers

http://www.yourdon.com/articles/y2kpoole.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarain.edu), July 21, 1999.

Would someone PLEASE post it here? I can't connect to his site!

THX

R.

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

Ernest Hemingway's definition of "guts": "grace under pressure." OG

Response to Stephen Poole's "Open Letter"

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

Ed,

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.

Yours,

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.

Sincerely,

Ed Yourdon

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 21, 1999.

Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.Oh my.. . .

THIS thread is certainly a keeper!

By the way, I've never, ever in any of my postings use the following acronym because when it's deconstructed it's not the type of language I prefer to use or teach my young daughter to use, but

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

And, just a P.S. to that,

We can certainly see which of the two (Yourdon or Poole) has a "way with words," can't we? Thanks, Ed. You made my day.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

See also...

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

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0016vR

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

Folks,

I've added a new paragraph to the Poole response, which links to a couple of pictures so you can get a glimpse of what I'm doing out here in New Mexico.

Cheers, Ed

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

welcome back, ed, and thanks for everything!

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

What a beautiful, intelligent, cogent -- and kind -- answer Ed has prepared! Thanks for being such a gentleman, and going out of your way to reply with such dignity and character to those who clearly don't deserve it.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 21, 1999.

Poole is guilty of the general malaise affecting this country: abdication of responsibility.

He attempts, rather pathetically after Yourdon shines the light of calm, reasoned rational argument on Poole's little corner of ignorance, to blame him for abortions, suicides and altered lifestyles that may or may not result in a poorer existence.

Poole is obviously one of those who looks for someone else to blame. Stick a screwdriver in your eye, blame the tool maker. Spill hot coffee in your lap, sue the restaurant. It can't be the declining moral values or the parental neglect or a lack of respect for legitimate authority or an educational system gone awry or uncaring teachers, so it must be the guns.

I suspect that most of those on this forum who are preparing are like Yourdon--aware of responsibility, willing to accept it and sadly cognizant of the disintegration of our country's moral fiber.

If Yourdon is, indeed, a leader, we should be thankful that he approaches this matter in a level-headed, cogent, practical manner, outlining his position in thoughtful, insightful, intelligent prose. That represents a 180 degree perspective from that to which he responded. (Sorry for the tortured syntax.)

In any case, Poole should consider himself honored that Yourdon would even respond to his puerile wager, particularly in light of the former's antics of a couple of weeks ago where he posted a bogus "doomer" message under a fake name.

Poole can rail against Yourdon and North and others all he wants. I, for one, thank them for alerting me to the problem, its depth and the future that awaits us.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), July 21, 1999.

Great, but DAMN that was hard to read.

Couldn't someone mark which text belongs to who? Using > or italics or CAPS or ** or just about anything.

You'd think these guys didn't know how to use a computer. ;->

-- getting (abit@bleary.eyed), July 21, 1999.

Ed,

Just curious about the reference to embeddeds, as we've all seen reports that they're far less of a problem than previously thought. I'm assuming your concern is based on the "it only takes one" principle, which I wouldn't dispute. But anyway, what's your current take on that issue?

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Nice response, Ed.

Cameron Daley, chief operating officer of TAVA, said in a June 30th Bloomberg News article that TAVA had found examples of power companies missing critical Y2K problems in embedded systems that would have caused power outages; Drew Parkhill of CBN News later confirmed these Daley statements in a phone interview (see his thread on Cowles's open forum a week or two ago). Mr. Daley further said that the power companies had not been lying about their Y2K status when they had previously said they were ready--they had just been WRONG.

Although Mr. Daley blamed much of this oversight on distractions caused by deregulation within the power industry, you have to wonder if some oversights would not have occurred anyway, given the reliance upon type (sample) testing and vendor compliance statements (which can often be wrong) by many power companies. Then you have to wonder about what might be missed by other critical industries--oil, natural gas, water (treatment & sewage), and, of course, the example you cite, namely, chemical. Many of these industries are considered to be somewhat behind the power industry in Y2K work anyway. Finally, you have to think globally: if critical U.S. industries are missing some Y2K problems in important embedded systems, what in blazes might be happening overseas? So, while I agree that the primary longterm effects of Y2K will be economic, I think you're also right to call attention to *possible* Y2K threats to health and even life in some instances and areas, depending on which embedded systems might fail in which types of critical plants.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 21, 1999.

Note Ed's lack of concern for those who may come to harm by following his advice. A modern day Jim Jones.

-- cd (artful@dodger.com), July 21, 1999.

cd... you're just plain wrong.

As usual.

Diane

See also...

Ed Yourdon - "I'm back"

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

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

http:// www.yourdon.com/articles/y2kpoole1.html

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

http:// www.yourdon.com/articles/y2kpoole2.html

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

cd, where's your concern for the people who listen to your drivel?

-- Answer? (xxxx@xxx.xx), July 21, 1999.

Way to go Ed! Congratulations, you chopped smart-alec Poole down to size. Ed, everyone (including Flint) will admit how knowledgeable, how cautious, and what a gentleman you are. Best regards.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 21, 1999.

cd said: "Note Ed's lack of concern for those who may come to harm by following his advice. A modern day Jim Jones."

Which "advice" was that, cd? The part about "think for yourself?"

You might try that some time.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 21, 1999.

I love the pictures of your house Ed. I wish I was farther north in the state. I do have some awesome views of the Sandia and Manzano mountains though.... Yeah, I think ya done good moving here to the land of Manana... I personally love it, and would live nowhere else.

Ready or not....

BTW... way to slam ol' Poole... he needed it in the worst way...

loungin' on the porch....

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 21, 1999.

cd--

"...Come to harm by following Ed's advice." ???????

Really? By having too much food and water around? Extra batteries? A solar oven? Extra Duct tape? Extra bandaids? Blankets? Huh, huh, huh?

Harmful???? Please, oh please, tell me how...

As Ed said "Duh!"

-- mar (derigueur2@aol.com), July 21, 1999.

Thank you for your letter, Mr. Yourdon. I would like to be a fly on the wall if you ever spend an evening in the presence of Paul Milne, Infomagic, and (perhaps) Cory Hamasaki. You have taught us a great deal, but I suspect that (if it ever were to happen) you would find this an experience that would not leave you unchanged.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Err - leave off the mountain and that view looks very much like a picture I have that was taken out the back door of my parents home in KY about 1957. Right down to the sheep and the pine tree. Spooky.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Ed- Just to let you know...many of us ARE following your advice to consider the facts and make up our own minds. And, the preparations have already come in handy (dock worker slowdown on the West Coast has disrupted our shipping to Hawaii).

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), July 21, 1999.

-- Diane J. Squire,

Looks kinda like what Jesus had in mind for us when he said, "Every man living under his own vine."

WE WILL BE FREE!

AKA Mark Hillyard

-- freeman (freeman@cali.com), July 21, 1999.

Welcome back, Ed. Looking forward to your further contributions.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Freeman (Mark) I think you are a few french fries short of a Happy Meal!

(With apologies to McDonald's)

-- (what@re.you smoking?), July 21, 1999.

Incidentally, Ed, I also liked the view of the Sangre de Cristo ("Blood of Christ") mountains from your backyard. At least I presume that's what they are, since you said the picture was taken looking east.

Peacocks seem to be a favorite in NM; I know of at least two people that have them right here in T or C.

To "Dog": with your Rio Rancho views of the Sandias (my favorite NM mountains) and the Manzanos, you might want to check out the 1962 film (available on video) entitled "Lonely Are the Brave." Great shots of Kirk Douglas leading a horse ("Whisky") up Juan Tabo Trail along the West Wall of the Sandias. Also it's just a superb movie, period (it is Douglas's favorite among the 80-plus pictures he has made); it is based on an Ed Abbey novel ("Brave Cowboy"), with a stellar screenplay by Dalton Trumbo, who was one of the "Hollywood Ten" blacklisted during the McCarthy era. Trumbo wrote the screenplay for another Douglas film, "Spartacus," a couple of years before "Lonely Are the Brave."

For non-New Mexicans: Sandia = watermelon; Manzano = apple tree.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 21, 1999.

Interesting that Ed insists that everyone's preparation decisions are personal, and we should all decide this matter for ourselves. Anyone on this forum saying the same thing is accused of telling people not to prepare.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 21, 1999.

Flint,

That's *not* what some of your "friends" are saying. They feel there is no reason to prepare for anything called a "bump in the road" and are using techniques of ridicule, heckling and disruption to "try" and get their point across.

That's just plain wrong too.

Diane

See also...

Y2K Glitch Likely To Disrupt Trade: U.S. Official

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

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

anyone in n.m.>question >are there any chemical-plants near sierra-county? also i,ve heard' alot of nasty stuff, goes up & down I-25. ANY STATS ON NEW-MEX.=LINK?

-- T.-0r-C. N.M. (dogs@zianet.com), July 21, 1999.

Diane:

Some of your "friends" are doing exactly the same thing. 'a' has been starting whole threads trying to heckle and ridicule, and "me-too" Ray chimes right in. Other "friends" of yours follow anyone around who actually tries to think, tying to disrupt thoughtful discussions.

I certainly don't deny that there are some real idiots doing real damage to this forum. That damage is taking the form of extreme polarization, whereby discussion has been replaced by flat assertions and empty attacks. Unlike you, however, I recognize that this damage is being caused by idiots at *both* ends of the spectrum.

Once again, you turn a blind eye to the idiotic pessimists, while trying to tar me with guilt by association with people whom I don't even know, much less agree with (the idiotic optimists). Can't you see that so long as you look the other way while those with the "right" opinion engage scot-free in *precisely* the behavior you condemn by their counterparts, your forum slides downhill into dogma and invective?

In any case, you will notice the praise heaped on Ed Yourdon for *refusing* to offer any preparation advice, other than to encourage us to make our own decisions. He did *not* tell everyone to run out and prepare. He even chided *Poole* for recommending preparations rather than thoughtful analysis.

Those ill-behaved boors you choose not to notice are in direct violation of Ed's position, *just as surely* as the boors you falsely attempt to associate with me. Yet you argue that insisting on browbeating people into one's position is OK, so long as it isn't the "wrong" position.

And the fact remains (as you well know) that I have always encouraged preparation and never discouraged it, and despite this I'm often accused of telling people not to prepare, and here you are joining those voices. Perhaps this behavior isn't beneath you, but it certainly *ought* to be.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 21, 1999.

Ed,
Since your e-mail address is reasonably unlisted, I guess I get to do this in a more public way than I had in mind. As you develop your project, I would be happy, honored, (you fill in the blank) to be of whatever assistance I could be to it. Particularly if it has to do with anything that assists people in thinking outside the box on the creation of the Millenial Society which may need to be created.

As always, the e-mail is valid.

Sincerely;
Chuck Rienzo, a Night Driver and part time co-moderator of the Prep Forum (Big Dog carries most of the freight on that one!)

-- Chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 21, 1999.

When you have one finger pointing at one person, you have 4 coming back at you. I'm a back seater here and the very thing you accuse Diane of you are guilty of the same. Just goe back several months to the archives and read for yourself.

-- 0202020202 (02020202@020202.com), July 21, 1999.

Flint says, "Other "friends" of yours follow anyone around who actually tries to think, tying to disrupt thoughtful discussions."

Would Flint be willing to start counting the number of times in the past week that a so-called "friend of Diane's" has disrupted a thoughtful discussion? (By the way, if he finds what he would consider "thoughtful discussions" that have been disrupted by such people, maybe he'll share the links?)

Then count the same for those "who don't share Diane's opinion" or whatever it is he would like to call them?

-- Count 'em (Trolls @re. wreaking havoc), July 22, 1999.

Don,

You neglected to mention Trumbo also wrote "Johnny Got His Gun."

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

glad to see ed's back. and he was absolutely right about business hiding their fiscal year and Jo Anne problems. it's easy to do. big business has its own IT people who fix problems and they don't talk to the press. small business calls a computer services firm and talks to a guy like my husband, who tells them how to fix the problem. and yes, my husband has got a lot of these calls all year, and is still getting them from some companies that are only now forecasting into 2000.

the problems have been fixed, and neither the businesses involved, nor my husband, have reported to the press that "XYZ company has had problems". so you will see very few stories in the press, especially stories naming names. what kind of business that wants to stay in business would talk?

if you want to know about numbers of businesses with problems, you could probably get that kind of info by polling computer services firms, accounting firms, etc (if they trusted you). they would not give you identifying information about individual businesses, though. i have yet to see a single news story where the press did this kind of poll on the Jo Anne effect, probably because the press doesn't understand what it is, or couldn't care less anyway.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), July 22, 1999.

Count'em:

Don't have time for a long reply right now. But I actually did do such a count a couple of times in the past, and learned an interesting lesson. If you take a post along the lines of:

[blank] is a total idiot!!!!!

Then this post, word for word, is voted constructive or disruptive purely on which name fills in the blank. If 'suck' posts it and fills in Ray's name, it's pure disruptive noise. If Ray posts it and fills in 'suck', then it is considered helpful information for those whose minds haven't yet been made up. See how that works?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 22, 1999.