• Mr. Yourdon's response to Mr. Poole's open letter was courteous and professional.
• This is a direct contrast with many of his followers.
• Personally, I find Mr. Yourdon's admission of error regarding 990101, 990401, and 990701 refreshing, and am inspired to admit I was wrong about how he would respond in my earlier post: Why pollys are here, IMHO.

Kudos, Mr. Yourdon.

I remain in disagreement with your opinion of the ramifications of Y2K on society. Your conspiratorial assertions of "cover-up" are intriguing, and makes you sound like either a lunatic or a politician (despite your stated objectives to the contrary). It is nice to see we won't have to hear or read any more predictions about 'mini-Y2K' dates. I believe your views contain yet more underestimations.

Perhaps one such underestimation is your personal influence over the minions who agree with your assessment of the situation. They practise statistics without integrity, debate without evidence, and thinking so circular one cannot refer to it as "logic." In short, you seem to have accumulated quite a few "kooks," for lack of a better term, who are content to follow your every whim without regard to accuracy. They preached your predictions with gusto, and are still vehement in maintaining (as you yourself suggest) "it was all a big cover-up...the JoAnne Effect is real...there were failures on 990701, you just don't know about it yet..." You must agree that not discouraging such antics does nothing for your credibility - now or post-000101. You seem content to spend the money made on the Timebomb book, and enjoy the benefits of celebrity with these people; while denying the responsibility of what they have (aptly) discerned to be your beliefs about Y2K, with which they agree; and to which you have contributed.

It reminds me of a debate I read regarding the influence of media on society, in which a media person maintained society suffered no ill-effects due to media because media does not exert enough influence over people's actions (parallel to your argument that people can make up their own minds about your earlier catastrophic predictions). The opposing arguer stood and stated in response: "Advertising;" and sat down. Point, game, and match. It is unbalanced to bask in the authority without undertaking the responsibility - the two go hand in hand - and somewhat shameless to deny the authority exists in the first place.

But let it not be said that you did not step up and take responsibility for your beliefs when they proved to be in error. May your example be emulated by all whose predictions fall short of accurate; minus, of course, the conspiratorial nonsense.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999

Answers

Sorry Andy Ray, the cutsie response "advertising" is not point, game, and match. This is because all sides, all people, all ideas, both legitimate and illlegitimate constantly advertise themselves, how could it be otherwise ? They have no responsibility to go around disavowing and apologizing. Yourdon is correct, let people hear all sides unapologetically stating their case, then make up their own minds. Don't worry about unscrupulous "advertising" - remember the old adage:

'when the fix is equal, justice prevails.'

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), July 21, 1999.

Thanks for starting this. I too have comments but I won't go into detail here expect for this one: "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"

What do you know about this Ed? Nothing. The US has been and continues to build a co-located warning room and has always expected 40 Russians to come over to watch the rollover. Before you make these statements do you investigate your conclusions. I suspect not.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 21, 1999.

since Maria is so smart, maybe she'll post a URL with support for this. if there is one.

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

Here's the URL you asked Maria for...

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

duh

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 21, 1999.

Er, Buddy, buddy, that was support for the statement Maria made.

Duh.

-- Answer's (secretary@the.computer), July 21, 1999.

uh, Maria, the break in plans for sharing early warning data was in all the major media, dearheart.

Competing pressures tempt one to believe that an issue deferred is a problem avoided: more often it is a crisis invited." - Henry Kissinger

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

Ct Vronsky: ???

Answers and Buddy: Perhaps Mr. Yourdon was referring to this.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Andy Ray is jealous cause Ed answered Poole. Poor baby.

-- he's trying to get (some@ttention.too), July 21, 1999.

Actually, I'm glad to see Mr. Yourdon back online. Whenever he's around, his more radical followers seem to mimic civility.

:)

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

...and by "civility," I mean there will likely be little discussion about barbequing people who disagree over an open flame...

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

font off

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Ct Vronsky,

Your point is well-made and -taken.

My initial analogy referred to the fact that media refuses to accpet responsibility for mimicked violence - even when the violent name media as their inspiration - claiming media does not affect human behavior. Yet the same media will sell advertising to companies claiming that media will and does affect consumers.

My comparison was to the claims of Mr. Yourdon that he is not responsible for the results his ideas inspired (if not conceived) in the minds of his followers. This is false.

If it was true, then the 'conspirators' in government and business - whose willingness to obfuscate the facts Mr. Yourdon admittedly underestimated - are guilty of nothing as well. If this is true, then why attempt to fix any blame upon them?

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 21, 1999.

Here is what our resident expert on Russia had to say in May:

"Y2K will have little impact to [Russian] operations." - maria

Here is what the CIA says about Russia:

"At risk: Power loss, telephone loss will be widespread. Interruptions to imports/exports will be severe. Interruptions of government services will be widespread and severe. Air transportation interruptions likely. Chance of unrest or bank panics is moderate." - CIA

Now, we have Maria accusing the kettle of being black when Yourdon says:

" 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. It's late July, and it's getting pretty late to even attempt setting up such a system." - Yourdon

There you have it folks. Maria. Ignoramus. Nuff said.

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

Never-the-less,

Y2K or not this "SYSTEM" is doomed! It does not matter one bit wether the computer bug takes it down. Fact is, it will go down. When? Maybe tomorrow! Maybe Jan. 1, 2000, I do not know but it will happen because it is corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, evil, evil evil...

How long will people tolerate slavery?

Most of you out there are far to educated to bend, bow and scrap to a bunch of goofs for long.

WE WILL BE FREE!

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

a, try to stick to the topic. I know it's hard for you but you claim you're smart enough to be logical. Ed has no clue about the preparations being made and the money being spent on a facility in Colorado Springs. If he did, he wouldn't make such claims. Check it out for yourself. But I suspect you won't, you'll just go to your mentor, Milne, for his wisdom to bestow upon you.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 21, 1999.

The STRATFOR page included an analysis of the Soviet and US nuke forces and the situation there and has NOT indicated that there has been ANY softening since the Soviets escorted the US tech's out and told them that there would be no more discussions.

c

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 21, 1999.

PS Some of us read other sources, so a couple urls wouldn't hurt, ma'am. All I would like is a starting point.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), July 21, 1999.

Maria,

This is from an Associated Press article in the Washington Post, and is dated July 20, 1999:

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990720/V000312-072099- idx.html

[snip]

The United States has proposed that the countries jointly monitor nuclear weapons on New Year's Eve. However, a dispute between the nations over the Kosovo conflict put all military cooperation on ice.

[snip]

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

The US has been and continues to build a co-located warning room and has always expected 40 Russians to come over to watch the rollover.

Field of dreams, Maria? If we built it, they'll come?

-- de (delewis@inetone.net), July 21, 1999.

off

-- mm (mn@mn.mn), July 21, 1999.

Maybe we can get Cherri to kick 'em, get 'em started again.

-- Randy, eh? (---@---.---), July 21, 1999.

Sorry Randy, Maria left to board her private jet. She's wooshing off to Colorado Springs to remediate the new Dairy Queen the government has been building. Pee-pee Buster Parfait.........

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

Newest attraction: Vodka floats!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 22, 1999.

There was a report by the media after the Russians announced they didn't want to play nice. I can't find a copy of it now. But I don't trust the media very much; my facts come from my experiences and first hand knowledge.

A friend of mine (we worked together on DoD contracts) is involved in implementing this center. While in the Air Force he flew dignitaries around, some of them Russian. He speaks the language and it came in handy as it will for this endeavor. Yes, they continue to build it even after the reports during the Kosovo conflict.

Personally I think it's a stupid idea, a waste of money and manpower. But the gov never asked for my opinion on how to spend their money.

BTW, Will you are an idiot.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

Maria, you posted, "But I don't trust the media very much; my facts come from my experiences and first hand knowledge."

But this is exactly what you, the other trolls, pollies and assorted Debunkerites so often criticize Yourdonites for--distrust of media spin and not providing evidence. How come we're always being asked for sources, proof, evidence, smoking guns, when you see nothing wrong in going with your intuition, based on experience and knowledge?

"Yes, they continue to build it even after the reports during the Kosovo conflict."

Where is your proof, Maria? You base this assertion on the word of a friend. Yourdonites get fried for quoting unnamed friends! If construction is still going on, and we don't know that it is except via your unnamed friend, then it's possible that the contracts have been let, there was no contingency clause for a war in Yugoslavia, so it was either go on with it or lose all the budgeted money to the contractor.

If our intuitions are not good enough for you, yours are not good enough for us, Maria.

-- Squirrel (nut@acorn.com), July 22, 1999.

No sweet heart. It specifically come from a news telecast, then I verified from a friendn working on the project. FWIW, I have always stated that my opinions come from my personal experiences and that the media (the web being the worst source) hardly gets it right. I laugh at the number of mistakes in reports on topics in my background. I have never demanded that any doomer cite any report. My criticism of doomers is the logic they use to conclude a ten year depression. When someone makes a statement, I challenge the statement and how that person reached that particular conclusion. Just as I'm questioning Ed's statement when I know for a fact he did no investigation.

I know first hand that the telecommunciations within the US will work. How do I know? I work for a major company on their Y2K remediation efforts. I know first hand the testing done, the IV&V, the interfaces, and the status. I don't need to go to any media reports and would never go to the web (the epitome of misinformation with unverified sources).

Unlike most doomers I only weigh in on topics I have experience in. I don't discuss topics about embedded chips for I don't have experience with them. I do however discuss the missile launch data because the majority of my background is in missile capabilities, nuclear power of the Russians and US, and our missile warning systems. Unlike Ed, I do have a background in this area.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

mr. andy ray shows how absolutely clueless he is, when he states that there was no Jo Anne problem. there has been one all year, and my husband, who works for a computer services firm, gets fresh calls every month from businesses panicking because they can't close the monthly books. there are new calls because firms have different fiscal year ends and mostly because each firm forecasts using different timelines. some are only now forecasting into 2000.

so far, there have been at least 50 firms in my area of northern indiana/southern michigan that have called him this year who had a current problem, and they were told how to fix it. many others prevented the problem by paying attention when my husband talked about it.

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

Maria, its hard to tell -- are you digging your hole with a backhoe or a steam shovel?

-- a (a@a.a), July 22, 1999.

jocelyn, having problems is not the same as failures. Ed predicted failures, too many problems that could be spent under the rug. A failure to me is a company closing its doors. I have no reason to doubt what you say but you haven't cited any failures. You have mentioned problems that your husband fixed (good news) and others that listened to him before the deadline (great news). So once again, where are the FAILURES?

a, I'm still waiting for your answer on the sanitation in Detroit. Unlike you, you ignoramus, I don't make wild ass assertions.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

Jocelyn,

1. You are in the correct place. The fatal flaws of the doomer mentality lie with scope and interoperability. You will enjoy much support here...until the non-events of 000101, when this forum's popularity will disintegrate.

2. How many people died as a result of the Jo Anne Effect problems your husband encountered?

3. How many went hungry or without some other necessity due to 'crises' caused by this 'failure?'

4. How many people were merely inconvenienced and had to simply place a telephone call to your husband to 'fix' this manifestation of the millenium bug? You have provided an excellent argument for the 'polly' position, and I thank you.

5. If you search your hard drive, do you find 'clue.txt?'

Maria is correct. Doomers are a mostly disenfranchised lot led by people who capitalised upon an opportunity to bank a few rands off fear of the unknown, and cannot decide now whether to go down with the ship they commissioned on this doomed journey. Those of us who work in the field know it's a bunch of bunk, and are attempting to inform the general public thus. Our work is largely accomplished for us when we request some sort of independently verifiable proof for doomer claims, and receive no such answer; and when the doomer response to any such request is ranting and raving like lunatics.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 22, 1999.

Here it is Chuck. I just got an e-mail (garbled) from KOAA who ran the report. Hope you can read the formatting.

Broadcast 5/12/99: COLORADO SPRINGS WILL BE THE SITE OF AN HISTORICAL MILITARY MEETING BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA. ....THAT IS, IF THE RUSSIANS SHOW UP...

-- THE U.S. HAS INVITED I FORMER COLD WAR ENEMY TO PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE A END OF DECEMBER, TO MAKE BOTH COUNTRIES MAKE A SMOOTH TRANSITION INTO YEAR 2000

-- BUT AS ROGER LOHSE REPORTS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT THREATEN THIS PLAN TO PREVENT A Y2K IND WORLD WAR...

TAKE PKG......................... -- :50 #Lt. Col. Greg Boyette #Peterson Air Force Base #Roger Lohse #Eyewitness News .pf

DEEP INSIDE CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, THE UNITED STATES CLOSELY WATCHING OUR FRIENDS AND ENEMIES AROUND THE WORLD RUSSIA IS SOMEWHERE IS BETWEEN. WHEN THE CLOCK STRIKES MIDNIGHT...THE Y2K BUG THREATENS TO CUT OFF ALL COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE WORLD'S TWO MILITARY SUPERPOWERS.

WHAT IF ONE COUNTRY FLINCHES ? AND THE OTHER REACTS.

-- "Our concern is the 'what if's'..what if something happened ?"

LT. COL. GREG BOYETTE MILITARY LEADERS IN WASHI ARE PLANNING A NEW YEAR'S PARTY OF SORTS INSIDE THIS BUILDING AT PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE..AND THEY'VE INVITED RUSSIANS. CREWS ARE BUILDING A SPECIAL ROOM WHERE MILITA LEADERS FROM MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON WILL BE ABLE TO MONITOR EACH OTHER'S WEAP SYSTEMS.

-- Lt. Col. Greg Boyette, Peterson Air Force Base: we're trying to do is ensure that both nations are sitting side by side during the year rollover to give that strategic stability to ensure that nothing possibly could happen in case y2k does p problem to either nation.

-- BUT THE CONFLICT IN YUGOSLAVIA HAS STRAINED O(deleted) COUNTRIES' DIPLOMATIC TIES..AND RUSSIA IS IN THE MIDST OF A POLITICAL CRISIS. RUSSIAN MILITARY LEADERS HAVE VERBALLY AGREED TO S(deleted) NEW YEARS IN THE SPRINGS. THAT WAS IN MARCH.

-- Lt Col. Greg Boyette, Pet(deleted) Air Force Base: "Since the time with the Kosovo acti(deleted) have not had any contact the Russians."HE SAYS THE 4 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR Y2K CENTER BE BUILT ANYWAY...CONVINC(deleted) HIGH LEVEL NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS WILL BEAR SO(deleted) KIND OF DEAL. IT WOULD BE THE FIRST (deleted) MILITARY OPERATION BETWEEN TWO COUNTRIES.

BOTH SAY THEIR WEAPONS SYSTEMS ARE Y2K COMPLIANT. THEY DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY PROBLEMS..BUT TIME IS RUN(deleted) OUT. THE COLD WAR IS OVER. HOW WARM IS THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE UNITED STATES ? WHEN THE CLOCK STRIKES MIDNIGHT..THE WORLD WILL BE WATCHING COLORADO SPRINGS

ROGER LOHSE EYEWITNESS NE .pn --tag RQ ON CAM 1, SINGLE TAG.......... -- PRESIDENT CLINTON AND RUSSIAN PRESIDENT BORIS YELTSIN HAVE ALREADY AGRE(deleted) BUILD A JOINT MISSILE WARNING CENTER IN MOSCOW BUT IT W (deleted) BE READY BY THE FIRST OF (deleted) YEAR...

AFTERWARD THE Y2K CE(deleted) AT PETERSON WILL SERVE AS TRAINING GROUND FOR AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO'LL ONE DAY W(deleted) AT THE JOINT CENTER IN MOSCOW...

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 22, 1999.

Oh this is just another cover-up. Why should we believe them.

-- see (the@light.now), July 23, 1999.

from
The Doomer Guide to Evidence Evaluation

1. Assert the premise that a catastrophic Y2K is inevitable.

2. Extrapolate from any and all worries and concerns over Y2K to your premise.

3. Whenever confronted with:

• evidence contrary to the asserted premise;
• suggestions of tolerance and of preparation to be less than correct; or
• scientific inquiry,

deny, deny, deny.

:)

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

well, andy and maria, contrary to what you may think, i am not a doomer. nor am i a polly. i like the facts, and just the facts, please. so andy and others, if you insist on making a statement that there is *no* Jo Anne problem, then you just prove your total ignorance of the facts.

i actually see the Jo Anne effect as a good thing, as it has pushed some businesses to get off their butts and remediate. but i can't guarantee they will all do it, and frankly, it's not my problem if they don't.

-- jocelyne slough (jonslough@tln.net), July 23, 1999.

The following thread has quite a few links to information on fiscal year rollovers, accounting software and the Jo Anne Effect:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f

"Significance of States Fiscal Start"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

Here's another opinion on the Jo Anne Effect...

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000XvI

[snip]

Companies don't always open up a new fiscal year right away. They often wait until all of the year-end entries are posted before they "roll over" to the new year. This could take 3 or 4 weeks. And accounting system problems aren't the type of thing that is immediately obvious to outsiders. I would imagine that most corporations could muddle along quite nicely for several months with a non-functional general ledger.

Hope this helps.

Jo Anne

-- Jo Anne Slaven (slaven@rogerswave.ca), February 27, 1999

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

Andy Ray,

Blei Still.

Ek dink je verstaan nie.

Gaan huis to.

b

-- b (b@b.b), July 23, 1999.

yo! a! Got any wise comments????? Now what do you think about Yourgod's comment now that it's too late to start building this system? What's the matter, Lisa got your tongue?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 23, 1999.