I know you want to debate this with CPR, but I thought I would offer you someone to "warm up" with - Me!

We know each other from many years ago and I will let you guess as to my identity - I helped establish Fido-Net's Echomail when I lived in the DFW area during the 80's and early 90's - Started a business (TLSI) and eventually sold it and moved on.

You can find a basic snippet of my resume' at: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000uib

Most of the contracts I have held either directly or via sub-contract can be found at: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0017uL

What would you like to discuss about Y2K Mr. Heller?

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

P.S. It doesn't matter if you remember me at all. I can speak to the IT industry in general - primarily in regard to mainframe based systems which are financial in nature. Afterall the vast majority of this hub-bub is in this realm now isn't it?

P.S.S. The above links were good the last time I looked but with the moderators selective deletion of threads, they are not guaranteed.

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), August 06, 1999

Answers

Hey Cobol Dino,

The time for debate on y2k is ***OVER***. It is now time for anyone with an ounce of common sense to get serious about providing for the welfare of their family.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Ray -

Just because *you* think that the time for debate is over - does not necessarily mean that it *IS* over.

I have nothing against your preparations and what you feel is right for *YOUR* situation and *YOUR* family. I do, however, feel that there are many people still uninformed of **BOTH** sides of the issue. This is why I offer my vantage point for information.

Now I am sure that neither you or anyone else on this forum really wants to go around with blinders on. Only seeing one side of the issue would put you at a severe disadvantage.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), August 06, 1999.

Hmm, now THERE is a classic doomer rebuttal. lol

-- (okay@dokey.dookey), August 06, 1999.

COBOL Dino, PLEASE read the link in this thread I just posted (81 pages) and let me know your thoughts with regard to the status of y2k.

Link to thread

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Ray,

Just because Cobol is capable of doing IT work, doesn't mean he can make the leap into what all the international connections and dependencies will do to our own social system. Maybe he believes there will be a recession next year, maybe not. He certainly does not see or accept the possibility of a severe depression, lasting many years, as a result of Y2k disruption of global supply lines. No amount of reading of other opinions will change that for someone who just can't accept and integrate such a scenario into their current life.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in debating someone who refuses to reveal his identity. Actually, I'm not really interested in debating at all: Y2K is not an intellectual exercise but a real world danger. Anyone who refuses to see the possibility of a disaster after all of the missed deadlines, lying, and incompetence that has been amply documented is beyond my ability to convince.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

Gordon,

By my read, Dino is simply challenging Heller to a debate within their mutual area of expertise. If Heller contends systems will fail, my guess is Dino will want to discuss the specific hardware and software. I would find a debate about specifics refreshing after all the generalization on this forum.

Even Ed Yourdon admitted "the code" is actually a vast, hetergeneous mix of IT assets. It seems both Heller and Dino have some expertise in specific ares of IT. Perhaps a spirited exchange would cast some light on a few systems that will or will not function on rollover.

I find specific data more convincing than the sloppy software metrics argument, i.e. all software projects are late; Y2K remediation is a software project; therefore; Y2K remediation will be late.

Finally, the "we GIs just have more cranial capacity" argument is wearing thin. From my experience on this forum (and meeting "GIs" in person), there is no evidence pessimists possess some higher level of intelligence. Nor do I see any indication of advanced multi- disciplinary training or experience that allows pessimists to claim better systemic insights than the leading experts in IT, economics, finance, utilities, etc. The pessimists see supply chains with fragile links. Those who understand the economy see a multidimensional "web" of redundant connections. In the 1980s, 2418 banks failed. We survived. If you understand the "systems," Gordon, you realize how capitalism is the "cockroach" of economic systems. Omnipresent and nearly impossible to destroy.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 06, 1999.

Come on you guys, stop taunting Heller. It is obvious he does not want to debate. He just wants to spout off his believs without anyone challenging them.

-- Leave Him Alone (unable@to.debate), August 06, 1999.

Dino, if you have something to say regarding the polly stance of y2k, why not submit it to Cory for his polly piece? He's been begging for input for almost a year now. I guess we need to put you in the same camp as Cherri, huh.

-- a (a@a.a), August 06, 1999.

Well stated Mr. Decker. Unfortunately, you have employed reason and logic in your post and it is not applicable in this forum. Especially as it applies to the comments from Gordon who has yet to express an independent thought anywhere other than to say Yes, yes Lane, I agree with you. Thats just what I was thinking too! It has become a mantra with him but if you repeat it several times real fast, it does become melodic and entrancing, doesnt it?

As for Mr. Heller, his post above speaks for itself.

Dont bother me with facts or reason, I find my lack of grasp quite pleasin.

-- Chill (doomers_r_us@inarut.com), August 06, 1999.

I was originally intending to only respond to Mr. Heller in regard to my request for a debate. However, there have been other messages here which deserve a response.

Mr. Decker -

Thank you. Yes, I believe I do bring another perspective to the table in regard to Y2K and the efforts in the mainframe world. I currently work within the industry and, as you know, have done so for the better part of 30 years. While my viewpoints may not be unique, they are genuine and not contrived from mis-information.

a -

"Dino, if you have something to say regarding the polly stance of y2k, why not submit it to Cory for his polly piece? He's been begging for input for almost a year now. I guess we need to put you in the same camp as Cherri, huh. "

I am not a Polly "a". Neither am I a doomer. I am, however, a realist that deals with knowledge on a first hand basis since I currently work in this arena. If you think you need to categorize me the same way that you have others, then maybe you need to do it. It matters not to me. I do not think that *YOU* speak for the entire population of this forum.

Mr. Heller -

I have been using this moniker in regard to public forums for a number of years now. I am known by the same moniker in many newsgroups - even by people such as Dennis Ritchie - and they deal with the handle as they would any other name. I tried to E-mail you, but for some reason this E-mail bounced back. My E-mail address is real and has been in the Yahoo system since it's inception.

Yours in COBOL... Dino!

-- (COBOL_Dinosaur@yahoo.com), August 06, 1999.

Dino -

It seems we're both realists. I have no IT background and I'm not a programmer. I do have a question I would love another realist to help me with. I hope you'll choose to indulge me.

It's obvious that the population has grown in this country over the last few decades. No doubt, much of this growth is due, in part, to modern technology. Modern technology makes possible the larger population levels because it has a hand in every possible area of the modern human experience. These levels are carried by artificial means.

As a realist, I can see that failures will occur and disruptions will happen. No project as large as Y2k remediation taking place in every facet of the government, business and utilities world could go through this transition phase without problems. That wouldn't be realistic.

So, we have "manual workarounds" and other contingencies. One example would be writing 30,000,000 Medicare checks a month. Broken down, that is quite a task to complete in a month. It would seem that attrition would be a necessary natural measure which would occur.

My question is this.

With the stresses and strains of adaptation to a manual system, the time necessary to implement and adjust, and the realistic view that these "manual" systems could not operate or function as timely or as productively as the automated systems they had to replace - could we not expect to see a drop in population levels down to a "more comfortable" operating environment?

The gist is doesn't going manual = at least a drop in population simply because, in real terms, the manual system couldn't sustain the current levels?

If this line of thinking is valid, then is a BITR even possible?

I really would love to discuss this as, given the high degree of automation and technology required to sustain current population levels, I can't see how - from a realistic viewpoint - if those artificial means are lost we would not see a serious drop in population levels.

Thanks,

Mike

============================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

"a" commented:

"Dino, if you have something to say regarding the polly stance of y2k, why not submit it to Cory for his polly piece? He's been begging for input for almost a year now. I guess we need to put you in the same camp as Cherri, huh."

"a", this is a rather SEVERE punishment, even for the Dino!!

These folks just like to SPOUT OFF so to speak, when it comes to providing material for Cory's publication they clam up immediately.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Dino...I'd love to hear some good debate for a change.......

Frankly, I've found it hard to express my opinion on anything here without being shouted down by Ray and his depressed colleagues.......

It seems that far too many people here seem to be comfortable, no, even enthralled with their simplistic worldview. In their need to live in this simple mindset, they insist on labelling everything and everyone and can only understand black and white. Acronyms are their best friend and they can't wait to slap one on anyone who will not chant "We're all going to die...." or something else in that vein.

There is no middle ground with them; You're either a GI or a DGI. When DGI lost its edge, someone came up with DWGI's. They love the word Polly and the acronym TEOTWAWKI. They try to convince themselves that 'God' is on their side with their frequent and out of context use of Biblical phrases and allegories.

Slogans, such as "Y2K cannot be fixed!" are their mantra. They insist on throwing nonsensical statements such as "There is not one compliant company anywhere in the world" around like a kid tosses popcorn around in a movie theater.

Not content (or possible able) to intelligently discuss Y2k on its own merits, they use the secondary artillery: black helicopters, Ebola, white vehicles, earth-destroying comets, the wrath of God, solar flares, crime, UN soldiers, NWO, Art Bell and his assorted gang of wacko guests, David Icke, the stock market, martial law, prison camps, Clinton, guns, ammunition, cannibalism, trading supplies for sex and much much more.......

They are experts however only about 2.36% of them even know what an IF-THEN-ELSE loop is about.

A real IF-THEN-ELSE loop I mean, not a Gary North one which goes like this:

IF y2k happens....THEN we all die.....ELSE I find another crisis to hijack so I can start the loop all over again.......

Anyway, have a debate.......IF you can find anyone over there intelligent enough and who isn't too busy teaching their children where to shoot to kill when some evil DGI attempts to take their peanut butter and jelly sandwich from them.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), August 06, 1999.

Decker, What did you think of that "Third Summary of Assessment Information" link I posted above?? It sure does boost one's confidence in our y2k remediation efforts.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Interesting how all our pollies are beginning to claim non-polly status.....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 06, 1999.

Hey Craigo, did you read that 81 page link I provided above??? Nah, I forgot, your decisions are based on info you receive from Der Bonkah.

Well, back to some SERIOUS preps.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

FOLKS, if you can actually manage a discussion which rises to the level of civil debate, I'll leave it. It IS going to have to rise QUITE a BIT from the level of the above posts. If it devolves to the level shown by the above posts, it's gonna go away.

i will admit, the second go around is quite a bit better than the first, which I removed as the whole previous thread seemed phrased in tauntings. TRY not to devolve to that level, shall we?

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 06, 1999.

Great point Chuck.

Mike

===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

BTW, the question I have asked above is open to anyone. I would love to hear all points of view regarding this.

Thanks,

Mike

===================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Chuck, what Specifically, not generally, is wrong with the above posts?? Are you really serious about deleting here??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 06, 1999.

Mike - (And anyone else interested)

You can find my arguments @ http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~merville/Crisis.htm

Cheers...

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 06, 1999.

Under the "About" section of this forum:

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.

I see nothing about debating the issue of Y2K as the purpose of this forum. I do not come to this forum to be persuaded that Y2K will be a bump in the road. If I begin to doubt my opinion I know which forums to go to.

-- Johnny (can@read.thanks), August 06, 1999.

Rob,

I just added your page to my favorites list. I was able to read the first two paragraphs but I have to run out, work calls : )

However, just your first two paragraphs gave me goosebumps. I want to really take the time and concentrate, and ponder what your site offers.

I hope others can take the time to do so as well.

Thank you very much.

Mike

================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 06, 1999.

Craig wrote:

There is no middle ground with them; You're either a GI or a DGI. When DGI lost its edge, someone came up with DWGI's.

[snip]

Not content (or possible able) to intelligently discuss Y2k on its own merits, they use the secondary artillery: black helicopters, Ebola, white vehicles, earth-destroying comets, the wrath of God, solar flares, crime, UN soldiers, NWO, Art Bell and his assorted gang of wacko guests, David Icke, the stock market, martial law, prison camps, Clinton, guns, ammunition, cannibalism, trading supplies for sex and much much more.......

DGI - Don't Get It - These people simply don't get it. They don't understand the computer problem or they don't understand the interconnectedness issue or they understand it all but think it's no big deal - either it doesn't have much impact anyway or we can "go back to manual."

DWGI - Don't Wanna Get It - These people understand the basic issues, but have an even stronger sense of denial than most and simply REFUSE to accept anything that could possibly disturb their current lifestyle. DGI & DWGI are very different, and in my mind the DWGI is much worse. A DGI can eventually become a GI, but there is little hope, if any, for a DWGI. They have made up their minds that there will not be a problem and that's that!

As for the second quote, while I don't necessarily agree with all the points listed, I have but one statement: Y2K WILL NOT HAPPEN IN A VACUUM. I think this point has been well addressed on this forum and is just plain common sense.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 06, 1999.

Okay, if you want to debate, see this thread for my suggested rules.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), August 06, 1999.

I know this is way off the subject but I wonder if there could be a debate on national TV for discuss the y2k subject. I wonder if any news organization would touch such a debate. Think of the ratings or lack of ratings? Could the public ingore the issue? Would there be too many ricks for one group vs the other? Could there be a declared winner? Would the people react?

-- I am (not@real.email), August 06, 1999.