Marma, in view of Canada's recent Y2K telephony problems, I have some questions for you and your 'first hand' sources:

(1) Does "will work" mean 'same as today'? Any worse? How worse? What about international calls?

(2) How will interdependence among telcos, carriers, both domestic and foreign affect phone calls? What degree of progress has been made in Brazil, Russia, China, Italy, Argentina, India, Indonesia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.? Could routing, overload, and 'point of origin' be affected both domestic and worldwide?

(3) Why are AT&T, Sprint, the State Dept., and the CIA, so worried then?

(4) Are you aware of the impact that telecommunications have upon US and worldwide trade, finances, POS transactions, banking, defense, public health, etc.?

(5) Is it clear to you that the type of testing (lab simulations only) currently reported as 'successfull' is inadequate?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999

Answers

George,

The type of testing conducted to verify Y2k compliancy is not limited to lab simulations. Several of the infrastructure vendors (Nortel, Lucent, Ericsson, Nokia and Alcatel) along with system providers participated in a interoperability test with their Y2k compliant products. The exchanges carried live traffic and no major errors were seen during the above test. I work as a systems engineer for one of the above vendors and provided support during the three week tests...Our group along with other Technical Assistance Centers/Customer Service Orgs (within our company) have been helping our customers remediate and test their equipment. Regards,

-- w holst (w_holst@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.

George, I find it amazing that you could believe Gary, Milne and Yourdon without a second thought but yet question my honesty is relating info about telecoms. I've worked on Y2K for one of the biggies since 1997. We've completed unit, component, system, interface, integration, and "cross-company" testing. We have an independent contractor doing his thing right now. With all this, we've only found minor glitches, the majority of problems come from setting up the envrionment. I'm so confident that you'll be able to make phone calls on 1/1/00; it will be a non-event. The only problems that may pop up deal with the ma and pa LECs. If you live in a rural area, I'd suggest to make it a point to get them to remediate their systems.

Frankly I don't know about foreign progress on Y2K. Do you? Do you know for a fact that those countries are behind? I only deal with facts, not some Milne or North scenario. Are you planning on making a call to these countries on 1/1/00?. Why don't you find out the answer to the questions about foreign remediation and report back to us?

Yes I am aware of finance dependencies on telecom.

What testing would you consider adequeate, since you seem to know a lot about testing?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

Maria: Why do we believe Yourdon instead of you?

- How many books on software engineering have you published?

- How many times have you been asked to testify before Congressional technology hearings?

- How many times have you appeared on a televised debate to discuss software matters?

- Do you a have a web site that focuses on software issues?

- How many articles have you had published in leading software journals?

- Is your name synonomous with any software development methodologies?

Need more reasons?

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

Marie,

Has "cross-company" testing has taken place outside the test environment? If so, with whom and when? Has end to end testing involving billing systems taken place? If so, with whom and when? Why are MCI systems continuing to work slow and have so many problems especially with downtime? Are you familiar with these problems?

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.

Don't believe me. Go find out for yourself. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I asked George to do. You ask me how I know about telecom. I tell you honestly but you don't have to believe me. Don't let me stop you from following yourgod, blindlessly.

But tell me, where are all the other experts? Is yourgod the only expert in Y2K? No, yet he's the only "expert" who believes in a ten year depression. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

a, since you brought it up. Yeah Eddie spoke in front of congress... two in the audience and one left five minutes into his speech. Glad I didn't have that experience.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

Marma,

(1) For Crissake I never questioned your "honesty" Marma ! Should I ? Stop playing sissy will ya.

(2) I did mention your 'first hand' assurances that phones will work, and you insist.

(3) I did mention official, truly worrisome concerns from AT&T, Sprint, State Dept. and the CIA about lack of foreign remediation at this very late stage of the Y2K game, which also matches the findings of reknown international consultants such as Gartner Group and International Monitoring. This has prompted AT&T and others to request State Dept. assistance with global network readiness. Please link to

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

I can easily supply you with many other links confirming this serious problem if you wish.

(4) You ask me Marma if I am personally "planning on making a call to (foreign) countries on 1/1/00"?? Yes, No, what are you talking about Marma? You think we are talking about calling Grannie on New Year's Eve? Do you nearly realize what it means to us (meaning YOU TOO) if international telephony doesn't work well come Jan.2000???

(6) Marma, you haven't answered any of the questions I asked you on my original post of this thread. Please re-read them and try again. Thank you.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Maria -- Look, you are anonymous, remember. That said, my own LEC buddies here rurally (and they are no slouches) are quite confident that U.S. telecom and Net will stay up. Glitches? Probably. Some down-time? Perhaps. But nothing above the frustration level. Are they right? We'll find out. Overseas? Crap shoot.

I am personally assuming that U.S. telecom and U.S. Net will be working "good enough" (ie, THEY won't cause TEOTWAWKI) in 2000.

Billing systems are another issue. I was involved in high-level consulting work to MCI (thru another org, as high as MCI CEO-level) in the early 90s. It was a mess then.

Remember that "depression" scenarios are "economic" and not only "iron triangle" stuff. Wouldn't take a whole lot of Y2K "noise" to push some of those systems into chaos mode. That's an opinion not based on personal, recent knowledge. If overseas telecom shuts down or cripples Fortune 500 comm to their suppliers, NOT GOOD.

Maria, who do you work for? It's not like you make yourself legally liable for anything other than your own opinion ... and they are "ready".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 26, 1999.

BTW, I am somewhat more concerned about U.S. util than U.S. telecom. The former really are majorly complex in ways not so with telecom (sounds odd, I know, but too hard to explain here), not to mention the many more players, layers of embeddeds over time, etc. and the util industry not as compete-driven as telecom. Even here, I don't foresee a complete grid collapse but MORE frustration than with telecom in some regions.

Obviously, we continue to disagree on this forum about the potential devolutionary impacts of these sectors ON ONE ANOTHER (plus water systems, fuel, etc) and with good reason: ain't never tried to endure it before.

Even if all sectors stay up MOST of the time, Murphy could end up with one region of U.S. enduring catastrophe (with hundreds of thousands of deaths). Could, not will.

And depression still another vector off to the side.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 26, 1999.

The AT&T hot link I posted doesn't seem to be working well for me. Quite frankly I don't know why, because it seems to be O.Kay, but surely I am screwing up without knowing exactly where. Maybe someone with more experience can hot link that URL for us. At any rate the link is entitled: "Wall Street Journal: AT&T Asks State Dept. To Assist With Global Network Readiness" whereby A. John Pasqua clearly leaves on record that the international readiness has worsened from the doubtfull condition it was found before.

Marma, isn't this AT&T official statement plus Gartner Group's dreadfull description of foreign country readiness enough to at least concern you and your 'first hand' sources?

W. Holst, thanks for your input

(1) Have these "y2k compliant products" you mentioned been IV&V validated/verified or are they the usual self-claims? What norms or standards were applied ?

(2) Isolated positive experiences are just fine, but not meaningful.

(3) My questions above still remain un-answered.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

BigDog, lots of coulds in future events. We all have our opinions on how it will turn out based on our own experience and knowledge.

George, stop ranting. 1) will work same as today.

2) What the hell do you mean interdependence affect phone calls. Already discussed foreign progress, please re-read. No overload expected, no effects from 'point of origin' or routing.

3) Define 'worried'.

4)yes, already answered, please re-read.

5)No it's not inadequate, please re-read. How do you test in real environment? All our software is back into production.

George you are an asshole.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

By the way, A.John Pasqua happens to be AT&T's y2k czar. He should know what he's talking about and I hope we all also agree that he is not interested in scaring people for the fun of it, right?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Good point, George. It's pretty clear that the phones have some BIG problems. I don't expect them to be working at all post-Y2K. I wouldn't expect any clear answers to your questions, either. Just more double-talk.

-- (its@going.down), July 26, 1999.

Well, as eager as you are to break the Sysman truce (only 3 days ago!) please be advised that:

Marma, you are fart, which means that as per your definition above I hold you warmly and snuggly tight every time you roam around this forum.

Even worse, you are very subjective fart, as you and your "first hand" source (first ass maybe?) have not yet nearly answered any of the questions above. Marma, can you read English? Can your "first ass source" read English?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Truce??? Give me a break you moron! Take a look at the title of this tread!! You call that a truce, beckoning me to respond. Then after I respond giving me more ranting. Grow up you asshole.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

Charles R:

Actually, I think Maria has only mastered three of the rules -- #2, "Become incredulous and indignant"; #8, "Invoke authority" (her own, of course, while denying the authority of her superiors); and #9, "Play dumb".

"Play dumb" covers a lot of ground here -- like asking for a definition of "worry". C'mon Maria -- that all depends on what a definition of "is" is, right?

This is even too lame for comment, folks. If Maria is truly unable to see the contortions she's making to support her beliefs, then we're not going to open her eyes with logic or reason.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 26, 1999.

Marie works for MCI formally with Systemhouse before MCI bought them.

This is part of MCI 10Q statement: The Company achieved year2000 compliance for the majority of its mission-critical systems, including network and customer interfacing systems, on or before March 31, 1999. The remaining mission-critical systems, and non- mission critical systems, are targeted for compliance by June 30, 1999, with full deployment of the remediated solutions throughout the Company's network targeted for completion by September 30, 1999. The Company is continuing to develop new systems and services that are expected to be implemented as year 2000 compliant throughout the year. Selected international, enhanced service platform systems and internal security/scheduling/mail systems are also expected to be implemented as year2000 compliant in the third and fourth quarters of 1999.

I am one, who watches with interest what Marie does state about MCI efforts even if they are only her opinion.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.

Anita you taking over patroling this forum? Glad to see you got those rules down pat.

Yes, I guess I need to know how George defines "worried". I don't recall quotes from AT&T, Sprint, State or CIA that says they are worried that telecomm will cause massive disruption. Actually I don't recall any quotes at all. The question was for George to explain the source of that question. How does he know they are so worried? Does he sleep with them at night?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

Maria:

Try reading the links George posted.

BTW, good use of #19: "Ignore proof presented".

Also, on making a spurious suggestion about "patroling the forum" and on "sleeping with" someone, you qualify for: #24: "Silence Critics", and #17:"Change the subject".

Charles R: Really glad you posted the 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION -- maybe you're right. Maria's using a lot of them.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 26, 1999.

WOW, everyone Wow!! ... Let's calm down now... Time is of the essence.

And if Marma is taking offense because she believes I put her on the spot, I formally leave on record that I never tried to attack her personally and that she deserves all of our respect and love, etc. Marma, you must understand that hundreds of thousands (literally) including many journalists and decision makers are following this discussion right here right now, and if you make a daring statement such as that "phones will work just fine", well dear you expose yourself to the acid test of proof and evidence, so hard to find these days concerning y2k. That's all honey. We all appreciate your efforts, and you have a lovely name by the way, only I'd wish you would place the accent on the "m" , so that 'Marma' sounds just as it's supposed to (beautiful).

For those Y2K pessimists (I don't like the "doomer" idiom) that someway or other share my views and were relishing about the possibility of a free-for-all mud-slinging contest, I hereby invoke the Sysman truce and call the troops to put down the mudballs right now...

And it wouldn't be fair anyway to pick on Marma (she being all alone and all) just because she believes everything will be fine. We asked her some questions, she tried to answer as best she could, and the evidence is hereinbefore presented for any lurker/optimist to decide.

Now then, I suggest that far better would be to make headway by paging the Pooles and the Deckers and "the Anita" (Spoonera) and the Flints of this world just to hear what they have to say, if anything.

Otherwise, for the time being, I rest my case... although we all welcome additional comments, opinions, whatever, as long as we leave Marma alone and don't pick on her any more.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Anita, the link doesn't work. Go fuck yourself.

George, knock yourself out. You're just proving what an asshole you truly are.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

Maria, how old are you, are you good looking, and what are your measurements? In other words, do you have any redeeming qualities whatsoever?

-- Inspector 9 (QA_Dept@WorldWideMudwrestling.com), July 26, 1999.

????, Maria???

-- WFT? (someone@work.hmm), July 26, 1999.

O.Kay Marma honey, as dirty-tongued as you are, I hereby declare the truce temporarily OVER (exclusive operating theater: "Marma") and on the count of three I call on the Y2K-pessimist camp to clobber Marma with our best manure-filled mudballs. On the count of ONE... TWO...

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Maria didn't even bother answering any of the questions. What else would you expect from an idiot polly????

-- (its@coming.soon), July 26, 1999.

Hey Inspector9, don't get your hopes up. Maria's just a fat pig.

-- (eww@gross.bleah), July 26, 1999.

Play nice now kids. Try this link, Maria... <:)=

Today's Wall St. Journal: ATT Asks State Dept. To Assist With Global Network Readiness

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.

No, no, no, Wailin' J:

That's not #5: "Sidetrack Opponents with name calling and ridicule" -- it's #18: Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents....

"If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated...(snip)....Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism"."

But, anyway -- it's still 7 in a row.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 26, 1999.

Anita, it's BOTH. So that would make EIGHT. Either way, she's worthless.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 26, 1999.

I might want to remind everybody the MCI can only test their systems. Since the LEC's are still controlling a majority of LD and DATA transmission I would be looking at them. Marie knows that MCI will not operate is the LEC don't do their work.

This is a little quote from testimony given last year about the telecommunication industry:No organization in private or government in its brief to the NSTAC's Network Group offered a guarantee of total Y2K eradication from its network, services, or systems. In addition, these organizations could not offer guarantees of the adequacy of the Y2K internetwork interoperability testing. Compounding the problem, many felt that the millennium change was not a January 1, 2000 problem, but could begin before and extend well after that date. Link

I would suggest reading the testimony again just to see how complicated the whole telecommunitions field is.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.

Anita, I stand corrected.

-- Wail'in J. (wailin@barf.org), July 26, 1999.

Thanks for the hot link Sysman.

So whatta we've got here: Officially, AT&T's y2k czar is informing the whole wide world that countries that used to be 'medium' risk now have become 'high risk'. HIGH RISK. And the guy is asking for US State Dept. for help. Do we feel comfortable now?

This means that the US telephony system will be affected by incoming calls that never take off (think Brazil, Indonesia, Italy, etc., think foreign trade, defense, banking, public health, etc.) and by the probable disruption of routes and nodes that will overload the normal design capacity of the system as is.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 26, 1999.

Now who said this was going to be easy? And this is just one of 5 LEC's. If I am not mistaken, I do not believe SBC is allowing independent verification of its systems. And has USWEST replaced the 1,400+ routers yet? Link

Bell Atlantic's inventory includes the following: Over 350 types of network elements which Bell Atlantic has deployed tens of thousands of times in its network; more than 1,200 software applications with over 250 million lines of computer code, which support Bell Atlantic's business processes; approximately 88,000 personal computers, 800 mid-range computers, 40 mainframe computers, and hundreds of supporting software products; hundreds of unique security access, air conditioning, elevator control, and similar systems servicing thousands of buildings, garages, and other facilities.

Once inventoried, each type of network element and computer in each information system must be assessed to determine if it is Year 2000-compliant, and if not, when and how it would most likely fail. Knowing when a component may fail is important because this will influence the sequence and prioritization for correcting that component. Because telecommunications carriers purchase the vast majority of their network elements, information systems, and computers from others, an extensive program of equipment vendor communication at this stage and throughout the process is necessary. The carriers must know what steps an equipment vendor is taking to make its products Year 2000-compliant.

Detailed planning follows assessment. In this phase, plans are developed for the remediation or replacement of each type of network element and computer and for each information system. Even components found to be compliant during assessment will require testing or verification to validate manufacturer- provided information. For those components evaluated as non- compliant, we must determine if they should be fixed or replaced. Detailed plans must include all activities required to insure that the particular components within a carrier's network will operate correctly.

The next stage of a Year 2000 plan consists of testing compliant components, remediating and testing non-compliant components that will be retained, and replacing those components that will be retired. This is the stage most carriers are at currently, and it is by far the most complex. During this phase, new and remediated network elements, computers, and information systems are comprehensively tested. Once network elements, computers, and information systems are fully tested, they can be deployed. Deployment for most companies has begun and will continue through early 1999, with some additional deployment occurring after that.

It is also important for carriers to develop comprehensive contingency plans. These plans should address actions required in the event that scheduled activities, such as the replacement of a particular software application, do not occur on time, as well as planning for possible failures. A contingency plan should also include the establishment of internal, industry, and customer command structures to effectively manage critical situations.

In general, the performance and integrity of the worldwide telecommunications network is primarily dependent upon three factors: First, the performance of the various network components and software manufactured by numerous equipment vendors; second, the integration of these network components by telecommunications carriers within their networks; and third, the interoperability of the separate networks owned and managed by numerous telecommunication carriers throughout the world and their customers.

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.

Wow that I should elicit such a response. BTW, that last post wasn't mine. I must be doing something right.

Sysman thanks for the link. As I stated in my first response I don't know about foreign companies in foreign countries. I only have 'first hand' knowledge about my own company. In it I also stated that you may need to prompt the smaller LECs if you use them.

Anita, thanks for keeping track (and you say you're not patroling, you're way too modest!) You wrote, "If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated" Seems to me (and I know it's only me) that is exactly what George did in beginning this thread. Oh I forgot, he's a doomer, so it's OK. So Anita, what do you do for a living (besides patrol this forum).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 26, 1999.

My GUT feeling has ALWAYS BEEN the phone system will crash and burn. Why? To many electronics. No proof, just gut.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), July 26, 1999.

Based on the EVIDENCE, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the phone system will NOT crash and burn. In spite of Maria's constant claims to the contrary, the reality is that there is a lot of worry by people who really ARE knowledgeable -- the usual two words: "nobody knows" what will happen. The only thing that we do know is that IF the worst happens (and, again, there is no reason to believe otherwise, based on the evidence), then it will be a huge disaster. Probably one of many, many SIMULTANEOUS huge disasters, all occuring at roughly the same time.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 26, 1999.

KOS:

You seem to epitomize this thread. We have one person (Maria) who actually works on telephony y2k remediation. She gives us details based on her experience. We have a pack of hyenas who don't know squat about the subject, and have *no* experience. The *only* evidence one way or another here is from Maria. This evidence is positive.

So what do you say? You say we have 'evidence' that phones won't work (when NONE is presented), and you say we have NO evidence that they will work (when that's ALL that was presented). In other words, you have rejected the only facts you have, in favor of a conviction supported by NOTHING! Can't you even see this?

I certainly won't claim all evidence about everything is positive. But if you must support your case by dismissing facts in favor of fantasies, you do your cause a disservice, because you look like a dolt.

Maria is reporting her hands-on experience. Since it's positive, she is attacked mercilessly, and without cause. If her experience were negative, she'd report that just as honestly, and she'd be put on a pedastal as a paragon of virtue by these same hyenas. Who *still* wouldn't know squat about the subject.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 26, 1999.

King,

EVIDENCE to me would be the companies in question using their remediated systems in production NOW. We have heard from multiple sources the introduction of more errors in code that was supposed to be fixed.

Also, I hear of no contingency plans for the employees that are running these systems. Absolutely no company-wide preparedness programs that I've heard of. Maybe I missed something. I believe this is a severe glaring error in the rosy scenarios dreamed up by Maria and her myopic friends. Somehow the system of systems ends here.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), July 26, 1999.

And, of *course*, Flint, you *know* that "Maria" is precisely who she purports to be, right?

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), July 26, 1999.

Flint: Pay attention. This is EVIDENCE:

Officially, AT&T's y2k czar is informing the whole wide world that countries that used to be 'medium' risk now have become 'high risk'. HIGH RISK. And the guy is asking for US State Dept. for help.

Most people on this forum could CARE LESS how "maria thinks" the remediation is going. Maria is has proven that she is not credible. She suffers from a bad case of foot-in-the-mouth disease. Do you want me to dredge up her past fopauxs? And what's this "she works for the telecos" crap? Last I heard she was building missile systems for DoD.

-- a (a@a.a), July 26, 1999.

PCL,

I heard that MCI is giving most people a mandatory 4 day weekend at the end of the year. Perhaps this is their contingency plan? LOL If you guys want to check on phone service readiability, check with the LEC's. Why did weiss give uswest a low rating?

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), July 27, 1999.

a, the aliens are coming.

-- ET (just@arrived.here), July 27, 1999.

Flint old buddy, thanks for the input. As you might have guessed, I sure wished that you'd show up on this thread. Actually, I sort of paged you (read post above) because you are the ACID TEST Flint. If we y2k-pessimists can pass the "Flint test", to me it means that we are damn right on the mark.

Now I get these very strong mixed feelings almost every time you post, because on the one hand everything you say, and the way you say it, sounds smooth from the philosophical angle. A bit wishy-washy- fishy-wishfull-thinkish for my taste but pretty smooth still, for academia. I confess that my deceased father, university professor and researcher (microbiology), whom I dearly loved was pretty much like you in that sense.

So I respect and admire you for that. But the subject matter at hand is Y2K, the ugly y2k monster. And INVARIABLY Flint, you defy common sense. This is not the case of competing with Plato and Aristotle hundreds of years B.C. with a syllogism-dilemma essay for the Athens debate club. Flint: Marma first said (on several other threads) with explicit emphasis, that phones within the US would work just fine. Now, thanks to debate on this thread, it is clear, even for her, that she does not really believe that in so many words (read her own posting above please). Furthermore, AT&T's highest y2k authorities and high ranking State Dept. and CIA officers under sworn statements before the US Senate y2k Committee have left on record their unequivocal worries concerning:

(1) HIGH RISK telephony abroad. Does "high risk" mean anything to you? (2) As per (1) above risks and uncertainties concerning US telephony because of failed 'point of origin international calls' that never take off and thus never make it to the US (think trade, banks, defense, public health, etc.) and routing overload because of failed foreign nodes for which the worldwide is resilient and redundant up to a point, but not infinitely resilient and redundant.

These people are knowledgeable, they are EVIDENCE Flint, there is much more evidence (if you need it I can dig it up), Marma's views have been already dismissed by Robert Cook (P.E.) more than once on this forum, who seems to be far more qualified than her on this subject... Flint, do you follow ?

Take care, best regards.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

Robert more qualified than me on the topic of telecom? Now George, I know you don't have your thinking cap on, but go through this once again. George can you read anything? Armstrong has concerns with foreign countries, not ours my dear. Our domestic companies will work just fine, not a doubt in my mind. But then again you know so much more about this topic than I do.

Which systems have you remediated? Which systems have you tested? Oh that's right none. But you've been studying this topic (specifically telecom) for what, two months. Oh yeah, that gives you more insight than me. Oh stupid me. I should have told my CEO to come to you for advice. ;)

Sorry my dear, but you wouldn't know testing if it bit you on the butt. So, your answer to 5 above (which is stated as "when did you stop beating your wife") is based on your total lack of knowledge, right?

a, please post my fauxpaux (check your spelling). Your credibility has gone up so much with your posting of views in the scientific realm. Don those foil antennae!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

Hmmm. Very good, Maria -- you just worked in a new Rule....

#8: "Invoke Authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources."

Also, by requesting "a, please post my fauxpaux (check your spelling). Your credibility has gone up so much with your posting of views in the scientific realm. Don those foil antennae!"...

Maria has included #17: Change the Subject, and #15: Fit the Facts to Alternate Conclusions.

Very, very good. Just a few more, and Maria will have managed ALL 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION, just on this single thread!!!

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 27, 1999.

I insist Marma that you must either live inside a peanutbutter-and- jelly sandwich (wrapped with aluminum foil) or inside a jar of diet mayonnaisse (tight lid on).

Have you dropped your own LECs worries my dear as posted somewhere above? Banks and power plants (just to name two) don't care you think?

Having the US isolated from the world means nothing to you honey?

Have you noticed Marma that only good ole Flint has come to your rescue? (as best as he could!)

You are proving to be a very y2k-ignorant individual Marma. You, and your boss, and your boss's boss, and the White House itself has never been through a y2k remediation (let alone testing) process and can hardly be safe in announcing that "phones will work just fine". How can you be so arrogant and conceited? This usually has its costs. Are you aware that Y2K could prove to be very expensive for you? Poor soul.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

Thanks Anita. Let's see now how much have you added to this topic? Ah, yes, you're keeping track. I'm glad you can add. I've asked you before is there anything else you can do? No answer. I guess keeping track of rules is about it. I'll ask you another question (one which I know you won't give a response): do you track doomers invoking the rules?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

No sweethear, take a look a LECs, afterall you say you know so much. How much of the populations uses the ma and pa LECs? Then you can decided how much of the population is at risk. Now I know this has been posted so you'll need to do some homework. Then come and tell me your answer. Keep digging. Reread my post. Try reading every word, George, I know it's hard for someone of your stature but try. Banks and Power plants have the same dependencies you and I have on LECs. Again go look up those figures.

Flint thanks for trying to discuss issues with these guys but they won't see past their nose.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

Here George let me make it easy for you. "If you live in a rural area..." That's rural not near or using any of the major 8 LECs. Now you still need to determine how much of the population does not use the big 8. I'm waiting.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

and another thing George, "Have you noticed Marma that only good ole Flint has come to your rescue". We pollys don't behave like you doomers; we don't have the "pack of wolves" syndrome. We're pretty independent in our thinking as opposed to you memes.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

Maria said: "Thanks Anita. Let's see now how much have you added to this topic? Ah, yes, you're keeping track. I'm glad you can add. I've asked you before is there anything else you can do? No answer. I guess keeping track of rules is about it. I'll ask you another question (one which I know you won't give a response): do you track doomers invoking the rules?"

If this was the "Let's Talk About Anita Evangelista" forum, I'd be happy to accommodate you.

But this forum is for the discussion of y2k, and this particular thread asked for your comments on some specific questions. Instead of answering the questions, directly, honestly, and saying "I don't know" when you don't know the answers -- well, instead you decided to fall back onto the tried and true 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION.

Golly, even this stuff you posted about me is #17: "Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic."

Hey, how about some honest answers to the ORIGINAL questions, instead? And please -- don't fall back on your favorite "read what I posted"....I already have, and the answers aren't there -- but the disinformation sure is. (How DO you define "worried"?)

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 27, 1999.

At least "pack of wolves" survive. The problem for you Marma is that "bundle of morons" usually carve each other's eyes out. So just keep waiting like you say, right next to your phone, ready to call another polly for help, only to find that y2k has frozen your line and your butt off. Poor soul.

I suggest you check out MarktheFart's thread above "Explain Global Denial". You'll find that what you call "doomers" is NOT a pack of wolves, but rather a group of critical-thinking, soul-searching group of people, to which you can eventually belong only if you take those blinds off your eyes. And your input is wellcome, Marma, believe it or not.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

Sorry, George, but I think you're wasting your time. Maria's too busy drowning in her "Poole" of denial to ever consider changing her mind. You can't teach an idiot new tricks.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 27, 1999.

Which means you can teach a polly to prep or help others prep, which is as important.

Take care guys

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 27, 1999.

Anita, try reading, I put this statement in my first post on this thread, "Frankly I don't know about foreign progress on Y2K". Yet your last post states, "Instead of answering the questions, directly, honestly, and saying "I don't know" when you don't know the answers -- well, instead you decided to fall back onto the tried and true 25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION". Well my dear you're falling behind in keeping track. Now I know it's a difficult task for someone as smart as you but try a little harder; you can do it.

Pay attention Anita when I say "I don't know" it means I don't know. Unlike you doomers throwing out all kinds of scenarios having no clue about the effects or impact, I ONLY speak about system I know.

George, I read your post on the denial thread. Oh my, what mental agility you have!! (she said tongue in check). I guess you won't respond to the request about LEC or about your background in testing. Yes George, deny all you want but I do have experience remediating code and testing (of all kinds). Does that make you feel inferior? Don't worry George you must be good at something.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 27, 1999.

Maria: Here you go, latest info from Weiss:

Downgrades:
    --       AT&T                from "average" to   "below average"
    --       SBC Communications  from "average" to   "below average"
    --       US West             from "average" to   "below average"

Hmm. BELOW average. ATT. USWest. SBCC. This doesn't seem to support your findings. Maybe the teleco you worked for is included in the 37% that failed to cough up any status at all. And why do you and Decker insist on associating me with aliens? I have said I think UFO's are neither hoax NOR spaceships, and are something else entirely, as yet unexplained. Can you grasp that concept with your feeble mind?

-- a (a@a.a), July 27, 1999.

I'd like to thank Maria for speaking up, even though most here don't want to accept that she knows what she's talking about. I hate to burst the bubble of doomers here, but my DH works for a software consulting firm whose biggest customer is Sprint. Sprint has finished testing and is Y2K compliant, and has been for several months.

Julie

-- Julie (j@j.com), July 27, 1999.

Julie, thank you for this unsolicited testimony. As the Polly/Trolls would say, that's all it is !!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 27, 1999.

Julie, the only thing bursting is your brain from the ridiculous lies you're spouting. Do you have any proof that Sprint is compliant? Oh and "because they said so" doesn't count.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 27, 1999.

Julie = Maria

-- (@ .), July 27, 1999.

George, I'm waiting. But I know you can't response because you're not smart enough.

Julie, amazing how they behave, isn't it?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 28, 1999.

Julie's not exactly objective, been hanging around the BFI forum and agreeing with the polly-trolls we all know and don't love. Here's a July 7 post --

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/1342.html

Just a question: Where are the July 1 failures that were so widely predicted on Yourdon and North's forums? I find it odd that they didn't happen, don't you? After all, people on the aforementioned forums are still madly "prepping", and trying to get the word out about the non-event -- ooops! Y2K. BTW, I also notice that there is NOT A WORD about the lack of July 1 failures on Yourdon's site, and that *any* industrial accident is now a result of "Y2K".

Here's a question: What will the doomers do after 1/1/00, when their preps were for naught, and family, friends and neighbors have shown up at their front doors, demanding their "preps" money back?

Can't wait to hear the answers to this one, Julie

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 28, 1999.

I had a wet meme about Julie and Maria. They appeared in my meme as old-fashioned telephone switchboard operators, dressed in Victoria's Secret lingere, shouting into their phones at all the doomers. (Especially Maria, whoo boy, can she cuss up a storm.) Finally, their shift over, they retired to a large waterbed and proceeded to give a new meaning to telephony.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Well, OutingsR, I'm honored that you'd repost my thoughts over on this board, and I stand by them. My ideas must be very threatening to the meme lifestyle if you are so desperate to discredit me.

Where do any of you think you'll hide from the family, friends and neighbors who will be angry as hell and looking for you after Y2K is a bust, and want to know who will reimburse them for their "preps"?

Sprint is remediated and Y2K compliant. Let's face it: None of you are interested in remediation, because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Julie

-- Julie (j@j.com), July 29, 1999.

Julie you say that Sprint is remediated and Y2K compliant. They don't claim to be on their web page (July 99). They say they are still completing remediation (they'll be over soon now) and testing.

Julie, could you please tell us exactly from where did you get your daring claim about Sprint? It wouldn't be from what you infer from their brochures, would it?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 29, 1999.

Forget it, George. Typical "polly hit and run": make an outrageous BS statement about Y2K gompliance, then run and hide.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

Hey King, this matter is important enough to deserve a new thread, don't you think?

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 29, 1999.

George, if I started a new thread every time I had a wet meme, I would make Andy Ray's waste of threads look downright thrifty.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 29, 1999.