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

Whether or not it is prudent to make personal preparations in light of the risks associated with the Year 2000 Technology Problem

Proposition One
Some say that personal preparation is not necessary because Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Some feel these reports can be believed.

On the contrary,
According to Webster, risk is a factor, thing, element, or course involving uncertain danger. The risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem are not completely mitigated by ongoing Y2K projects. As long as Y2K issues continue to require attention, assessment, remediation, testing, and debugging, risks remain for some one person or any number of people.

According to Webster, an indication is something that serves to indicate; a sign. Y2K readiness in total is not proven. Therefore whether or not the amount of money spent (and being spent) is vast or not is, in fact, not a clear indicator that there are neither potential failures nor risks. Vast amounts of money (spent and being spent) is a sign that the Y2K technology problem is being taken seriously by those who have spent and continue to spend money toward Y2K readiness. If there is a risk to an organization, then there is a risk to people; therefore the vast amount of money spent (and being spent) on Y2K readiness effort (Y2K projects, public relations, etc.) demonstrates the advisability of contingency plans and personal preparation.

According to Webster, the adjective, "positive," describes a thing as displaying certainty, acceptance, or affirmation. Alternately, the thing is to described as admitting no doubt; irrefutable; absolute such as in the phrase "positive proof." The Year 2000 Technology Problem refers to the design flaw in which the calculation of the years date in double digits is at risk at the turn of the century; therefore, reports stating that the status of Y2K projects is such that less risk is to be associated with specific Y2K technology problems are not "irrefutable" and "absolute" until the rollover. Whether or not there is an actual consensus or "acceptance" by experts (programmers, monitoring organizations, and government experts) that there is less risk associated with specific and general Y2K technology problems is uncertain. Neither public indifference nor confident statements made to the public represent positive proof that risks are now so insignificant that preparation is not advisable.

Furthermore, not all reports are positive.

Personal opinions about the risks associated with the Y2K technology problem may be weighted with a general confidence or concern. Without appropriate cause, the weight of a personal opinion reflects only a judgement about the accuracy of such reports; such weight has no effect on the accuracy of a report. While a personal opinion of a report may have confidence in the accuracy of the report, the risks associated with Y2K Technology Problem remains (as I have demonstrated above); therefore; personal preparation is advisable.

A. Whether or not concerns about risks are an exaggeration on the Y2K problem

Risk is that which involves uncertain danger. Taken together, these risks are serious risks. That these risks are not completely mitigated by ongoing or so-called "completed" Y2K projects also makes these serious risks by the nature of their possibility. Y2K problems have occurred and continue to occur, therefore, confident doubts about the possibility of uncertain dangers are unfounded.

billysucks@aol.com writes:

nothing is going to happen, everything will be just fine! (sic)

source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000G7q

Just as billysucks@aol.com believes that nothing is going to happen, some argue that others (concerned about the risks associated with Y2K) exaggerate the nature of Y2K problems by their very concern for risks associated with Y2K. To argue this, however, is to confuse the meaning of risk which is that which involves uncertain danger. By definition, risk is not a certain danger.

Flint writes:

We don't *know* that y2k bugs pose serious risks.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001OoM

The risks of computer and embedded chip failures include simultaneous and multiple disruptions in services including financial services, power, water, sewage, health care, telecommunications, public safety, distribution of food and other goods, and the operation of offices and stores. In view of the wide-spread risks associated with Y2K, those risks are serious. Again, risk is that which is an uncertain danger; therefore, we can and do know know that serious risks are associated with the Y2K Technology Problem.

Y2K repair leaves cash machines on the blink
The Oregonian - July 28, 1999

A software glitch rattled up to 5 percent of the nation's automated teller machines for more than two weeks earlier this month. The glitch resulted in failed machines, slow transactions and incorrect bank balances for tens of thousands of ATM transactions.

All ATM processors were required by federal regulators to be Y2K- compliant by June 30, meaning that their computer systems had to be able to process dates in the year 2000 and beyond. ACS began installing a new operating system in January, upgrading an old system that was not able to properly process dates beyond 1999. The company had been moving terminals systematically onto the new system without incident, until it moved the last of the terminals on the last weekend in June.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Aea

IMF concerned over booming U.S. stock prices
Reuters - September 8, 1999

The IMF also said that corrections to stock prices and to currency levels and the uncertainties of the Y2K computer glitch could all have an adverse impact on banks.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001NNo

Had no Y2K problems occurred, it may have been possible to say that the risks are not serious. Y2K problems have occurred and continue to occur; therefore the possibility of uncertain dangers remains a possibility. Beyond the actual technological risks of the Y2K Technological problem, other risks also remain possible such as those associated with the anticipation of Y2K. Those risks are also serious.

First Answer

By definition, risk is that which involves uncertain risk. The risks associated with the failure of technology can be said to be serious; these serious risks include simultaneous and multiple disruptions in services including financial services, power, water, sewage, health care, telecommunications, public safety, distribution of food and other goods, and the operation of offices and stores.  There are also serious risks associated with the anticipation of technology failures including potential of a loss of confidence in the stock market, banks, and government. The risks associated with Y2K include both kinds of serious risks. Y2K problems have occurred and continue to occur; therefore, the risks can not said to be unfounded. In view of the serious risks associated with Y2K, personal preparations are advisable; it can also be said that personal preparations are prudent.


Stan Faryna


For further preparation information, click here to visit the TB2000 Preparation Forum.

How do you make spam tasty? Ask Sally Strackbein at the Y2K Kitchen! Click here.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999



You write a good stick, guy. I'd like to sit down with you over a beer and take a stab at the Manischean heresy or some other knotty philosophical point some time.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), September 17, 1999.

Excellent post, Stan. An analogy that I personally am fond of is to think of Y2K as a bomb threat. When someone annonymously phones in a claim that there is a bomb planted in a public building that will explode at a designated time, do we demand that the caller prove his claim? And if the caller cannot prove this to our satisfaction (e.g., instead of providing proof, the caller just hangs up), do we simply dismiss the call and do nothing? Of course not! We take the prudent steps that such a potentially life threatening situation demands, including evacuation of the building, until we can find and defuse the bomb, or prove to ourselves that the whole thing was a hoax.

Really, Y2K is no different. Especially since


-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), September 17, 1999.

Correction in the First Answer:

By definition, risk is that which involves uncertain *danger*.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

Whew, reading Stan's prose is like going down in warm maple syrup for the third time.

Proposition One states, in plain English, that the huge bundle spent on remediation, in combination with the avalanche of positive reports of all kinds, has convinced some that the y2k threat (the ODDS) have been reduced below the level where preparations are still sensible.

Once Stan's tortured logic is disentangled, his argument is that the y2k threat has not been eliminated. (This is being generous. Disentangled in more detail, Stan is saying that if the ODDS are not zero, they must be uncertain. If they are uncertain, they can be anything at all! That ANY non-zero probability is undefined!)

Well, the risk of being hit by a meteor is also non-zero. Therefore it too is uncertain. By Stan's logic, this uncertainty necessitates the expenditure of significant resources to prepare against a meteor strike! Stan has carefully reasoned away the *probability* of the threat, contenting himself with the fact that it's non-zero, and the worst case is very bad. In terms covered ad nauseum on this forum, he's looking only at the stakes, and dismissing the odds. Proposition One is ALL about the odds, and not about the stakes at all.

Stan's arguments also tend to be tautological. He writes that y2k poses risks. Therefore there are risks. Because these risks are uncertain, therefore they are serious. Circular reasoning all the way. Think of all the things a meteor might hit. Make a list of sensitive targets. Hitting these is serious. Therefore meteors pose a serious risk! Stan has used his conclusion (that risks are serious) as an assumption (assume risk are serious), and arrived straight back at his conclusion without apparently realizing it at all!

From my reading here, people seem much more concerned with the practical threats y2k presents, and less concerned with philosophical explorations into the whichness of the why. And practical people recognize that y2k is really a codeword describing a whole constellation of different threats. Over the last year, we have discussed hundreds of different threats y2k might present. The ODDS of each one are different, and we would prefer to allocate limited resources to those threats where the odds-stakes product is greatest.

I don't know of anyone who has looked at y2k and decided that NO possible threat is likely enough to bother doing anything to prepare for at all. But the huge resources spent on y2k have without question accomplished two things -- they've fixed a very large number of date bugs, and they've determined pretty accurately the number of date bugs in the original population (especially in embedded systems). We really can estimate the odds more accurately than saying "uncertain", and we really can dismiss iron triangle threats as vanishingly unlikely. Not zero.

Summary: Stan has assumed high odds, and dismissed any argument in favor of low odds based on the STAKES, even though the argument didn't address the stakes at all. He clean missed the point.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.

I guess stan is shilling for sally s.

see the shill

-- hnkvhg76obviudlnhgw (lksdnrgpu@lksydflt.lske8r76o2), September 17, 1999.

Flint, get a life! You must have all kinds of time on your hands to post all of that doublespeak crap. GET A LIFE!!!

-- It Figures (itfigures@hopeless.com), September 17, 1999.

Answers to Proposition One continued:

B. Whether or not Y2K related expenditures clearly indicate Y2K Readiness

The term, "Y2K Readiness," is legal concept concerning liability and not the actual progress of Y2K projects. However, the use of this term in the context of Proposition One suggests that it refers to a threshold point (delta) in Y2K projects at which risks associated with Y2K are no longer serious or severe. Some argue that Y2K related expenditures (as one instance of indication) clearly indicate that the risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem are no longer serious or severe. On the contrary, Y2K related expenditures are neither clear in indicating that Y2K projects in total (or individually) have reached delta nor do Y2K Readiness expenditures provide a full reading of individual and total Y2K progress made.


EVIDENCE EXCLUSION- No year 2000 readiness disclosure, in whole or in part, shall be admissible against the maker of that disclosure to prove the accuracy or truth of any year 2000 statement set forth in that disclosure

source:http:// www.itpolicy.gsa.gov/mks/yr2000/hill/s2392es.htm


An Act

To establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.

source: http://www.y2k.gov/new/C.html

The term, "Y2K Readiness," is a legal concept concerning liability and not the actual progress of Y2K projects. A proper understanding of this concept will come from a reading of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act of 1998, (a U.S statute enacted on October 19, 1998. See S.2392< /a>) and the Y2K Act (see  H.R. 775). In general, Y2K Readiness should not be understood as a successful and diligently conducted Year 2000 conversion (another legal concept which also does not mean absolute compliance) However, Y2K Readiness may indicate that a Year 2000 assessment and conversion is underway. Therefore, Y2K Readiness expenditures (generating Y2K readiness statements and publishing these statements, for example) can be said not to necessarily indicate the progress of (total and individual) Y2K projects.

Findings Contradict Regulators' Tallies
BUSINESS WIRE - March 8, 1998

In a new survey of Y2K preparedness, 247 of 1,128 banks and S&Ls reported completion dates that were deemed to be inadequate, according to Weiss Ratings Inc., a leading bank rating agency.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000b 3u

Anticipating Y2K
World Bank, Global Commodity Markets Report - July 1999

There have already been some unpleasant surprises in preparations for Y2K such as the discharge of raw sewage into a Los Angeles park during tests of computer and electronic systems (Washington Post), the loss of telephone service during Y2K testing in Canada (The Ottawa Citizen) , and the shut down of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania during testing.

Source:htt p://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gcmonline/y2kfeature.pdf

Despite the vast amounts of money spent, "some unpleasant surprises" have occurred and are occurring. On the other hand, some Y2K projects have missed important deadlines-- despite the vast amounts of money being spent.   Therefore, there is no necessary and defining correlation between money spent and the success of Y2K projects. If there is no necessary and defining correlation between money spent and the success Y2K projects, it is unlikely that money spent is a clear indication that "delta" has been achieved. However, it is possible to propose that the vast amounts of money spent may be viewed in a court of law as a clear indication of Y2K Readiness on the part of an organization.

Quarterly Report (SEC form 10-Q)
EXXON CORP (XON) August 31, 1999

Notwithstanding the substantive work efforts described above, the corporation
could potentially experience disruptions to some mission critical operations or
deliveries to customers as a result of Year 2000 issues, particularly in the first few weeks of the year 2000.

Through June 30, 1999, about $210 million of costs had been incurred in the corporation's efforts to achieve Year 2000 compliant systems. The total cost to the corporation of achieving Year 2000 compliant systems is currently estimated to be $225 to $250 million, primarily over the 1997-1999 timeframe, and is not expected to be a material incremental cost impacting Exxon's operations, financial condition or liquidity.

Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/9 90831/xon.html

GM To Spend $360-$420 Million On Y2K Bug
Reuters - August 16, 1999

General Motors Corp., the world's largest auto maker, said Monday that it will spend $360 million to $420 million to prepare its extensive computer systems for the year 2000.

GM already spent $142 million in 1997 and 1998 and about $96 million in 1999 for work on the year 2000 bug, while EDS has performed $233 million of work under its master service agreement.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001F f7

Vast amounts of money have been spent (and is being spent) on Y2K projects.  Past and current spending, however, fail to account for future spending and upgrading of Y2K project budgets. However vast the spending, such spending is one indication (and a clear indication) that the risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem to organizations are serious and severe.  In fact, no absolute conclusion can be drawn (from the vast amounts of money spent) that these Y2K projects have successfully reached "delta" until after the rollover.

Second Answer

While it can be argued that vast amounts of money may be admitted as evidence to indicate the Y2K Readiness of an organization in a court's determination of liability. It can neither be said that the vast amounts of money spent on Y2K Readiness necessarily reflects spending on Y2K assessment, conversion, or compliance. Nor does it reflect that "delta" has been achieved in the total sum of Y2K projects. Ultimately, "Delta" can not be verified until after the rollover. Generically speaking, organizations have and are spending vast amounts of money on Y2K projects in light of the serious risks associated with Y2K technology problems that may have impact on them.

Despite this spending, some Y2K projects have encountered problems and missed deadlines, therefore it can be said that serious risks remain.  If there is a serious risk to an organization or one of its holdings (a nuclear power plant, for example), people are at risk (in this case, those people whose local grid receives electricity from the nuclear generation of electricity and, perhaps, those people who live within the vicinity of a nuclear power plant ). In view of that serious risks associated with Y2K are not necessarily mitigated by any amount of money to spent on Y2K projects), personal preparations are advisable; it can also be said that personal preparations are prudent.


Stan Faryna


For further preparation information, click here to visit the TB2000 Preparation Forum.

Have you read Sally Strackbein's "Bean Theory" at the Y2K Kitchen? If not, click here.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

Flint, why do you object to people who are nervous about the status of whether Y2K is really going to be a bump in the road or not, and simply want to prepare for Y2K turning out to be more like a big crater on the road?? (Though I'm sure most will not be 1/10th as well prepared as you are, based on your previous posts concerning YOUR personal preps.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 17, 1999.

Stan -- a lot of work to prove what should be to Flint and (other) pollies a self-evident proposition. But it is a thorough piece of work that should strengthen the GI resolve.

-- A (A@AisA.com), September 17, 1999.

Flint wrote:
Whew, reading Stan's prose is like going down in warm maple syrup for the third time.

IMHO, this statement is akin to the pot calling the black... with the exception that Flint's writing usually leaves me feeling like I'm going down in something less sticky and more stinky than maple syrup.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.

Warning: Long, but worth it. Seems the appropriate thread, Stan.


Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 09:03:33 -0700

Tom Atlee sent around...

...Jan Nickerson's Top Ten Lists with the following note. There's so much creativity in this Y2K movement it is really hard to step out of the flow!!! -- Coheartedly, Tom


While you're culling Y2K files to send out, and before you stop distributing them yourself, please consider distributing these 4 fliers to your network:

Looking for a quick, easy, one-pager to share with others about why Y2K is concerning, and what we can do about it? Here are four fliers to hand out at programs, email to associates, or discuss with neighbors.

Top Ten Myths About Y2K
Top Ten Reasons Why Y2K is Bigger than a 3 Day Storm
Top Ten Actions a Y2K Task Force or any Citizen Can Do
Top Ten Tough Questions to Ask Local Infrastructure Providers

I'm appreciative to those who've contributed to these already, and hope others will continue to: Are these useful? How are you using them? What updates would you suggest? Thanks!


Jan Nickerson
Y2K Connections ~ building community not crises ~ the ONLY Y2K game in town
http://www. Y2KConnections.com

Top Ten Myths about Y2K

1. IF Y2K happens, it will happen at midnight, December 31, 1999.

*Things seeming normal on Monday, January 3, 2000 are not indicative of Y2K impact.

* Gartner Group predicts only about half of Y2K failures will occur in calendar 2000, and that most will occur in the fourth quarter, 2000, after a spike of embedded system failures at midnight, New Year's Eve. They predict only 10% of failures will occur by 1/14/2000, not all of which will be recognized during by then.

* Complex systems do not fail instantaneously. The Titanic took over 2 hours to sink. The Great Depression occurred 4 years after the Stock Market Crash of October, '29. "Cascading" little problems can combine with each other to eventually cause later larger system failures, often 30 days after they first appear in a system.

2. It's just about computers or it's just about computers and embedded microchips.

* Y2K expert, Mark Frautschi, describes Y2K as "an unpredictable, worldwide threat to complex, interrelated economic, social and technological networks dependent on digital systems that fail to process dates according to unenforced standards."
http://www.tmn.com/ ~frautsch/y2k25.html

3. Only date-sensitive applications are at risk.

* Non-date time-sensitive applications are at risk, too, as embedded microchips may use dates to compute change in time (traffic light timing, gasoline pump flow, hydro-electric dam water flow, natural gas flow, etc).

4. Collecting written compliance claims from vendors makes us Y2K ready.

* Recent validation tests report instances of over half compliance claims to be invalid.

* Some recent reports indicate 1/3 of vendor claims they investigated are being revised. Are you SURE your vendors KNOW whether they're ready? And THEIR vendors? And THEIR vendors?

5. Assessing and remediating (fixing) our own systems make us Y2K ready.

* These steps are less than half the systems-ready effort that is required to determine Y2K compliancy. Systems need to be tested, too.

6. Assessing, remediating and testing our systems make us Y2K ready.

* Today's systems are interdependent - relying on accurate data from other systems to run.

* Include end-to-end systems testing with other organization's systems to ensure Y2K compliancy, to prepare for detecting non-compliant data in feeder systems, and for recovering from exposure to non-compliant data.

7. Assessing, remediating, and end-to-end system testing make us Y2K ready.

* Your systems may pass Y2K tests, but what are your assuming regarding continuity of power, telephone, transportation? How many days will your back-up generator operate? We're all dependent on infrastructure, which we don't control. We all need to be make contingency plans and hold public drills for preparedness.

8. Assessing, remediating, end-to-end system testing, contingency planning, drills and informing the public make us Y2K ready.

* It goes a long way. It makes us ready, but for what? To continue to provide reliably the services and products others are counting on? Are you ready to respond to unpredictable disruptions that may occur? Are your neighbors? Your community? Your state? Your region? Your country? The world?

* We live in an interconnected economy - those not-ready can cause others to become un-ready.

9. The Federal government will be ready, so we don't have to.

* Many Federal reports of readiness rely on self-assessments from agencies, which decided to exclude 1/3 of the systems they previously defined as mission critical.

* Congressman Horn's Y2K committee reports 22 high impact systems that will not be ready before Nov/Dec., 1999, if then (incl US Postal Service, FAA Air Traffic Control, Medicaid, Medicare) (9/10/99)

* Senator Y2K Chair Bennett: "It's clear we can't solve the whole problem, so we have to allow some systems to die so mission-critical systems can work.... Pay attention to the things that are vulnerable in your life and make contingency plans." "Take charge of your own situation....take charge of your own Y2K future." (6/99)

* The Fed. gov't does not provide your power, telephone or transportation. Y2K is a local issue. Everywhere.

10. The American Red Cross and FEMA can provide food, shelter, water, sewage treatment and medical treatment for all 88,000 communities nationwide on 3 days notice.

* Historically, most disruptions are geographically localized, allowing resources to come in from nationwide.

* Y2K is unprecedented for its possible simultaneity. Resources may not be available for your location.

* Moral of the story: Be prepared for longer periods of time than historic disruptions.

Bonus: Y2K is equivalent to a 3 day storm:

* See our Top Ten Reasons Why Y2K is Bigger than a 3 Day Storm

Disclaimer: The contents of this document constitute the opinion of the author and are not necessarily authoritative. Some of the information in this document may not be current or accurate. Any user of this information does so at his or her own risk. Free Use Copyright. You may copy and distribute this material if done so in its entirety, without financial gain and bearing this copyright notice. )1999 Y Connect, Wayland MA. All rights reserved. Jan Nickerson Y Connect 508-358-7002 http://www.Y2KConnections.com

Note: The purpose of exposing these myths is NOT to diminish the fine efforts and accomplishments of the organizations working diligently to prepare for Y2K. The purpose is to alert individuals and families that they need to be preparing, too. And their neighbors. And their communities. And their organizations. And their customers. And their suppliers. And their suppliers and customers. And their families and communities. No one is exempt from Y2K. Everyone needs to be on the Y2K Leadership Team. There's a role for everyone. Everyone can make a difference. There's no need to panic. AND there IS a need to prepare.


Top Ten Reasons Why Y2K Is Bigger Than a 3 Day Storm

1. US economy is dependent on international supply chain; many countries are only a third as prepared as US. Jacquelyn Williams- Bridgers, U.S. State Department's inspector general, testified the Y2K bug is likely to disrupt the worldwide flow of goods and services, perhaps sparking havoc and unrest in some countries.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ tc/story.html?s=v/nm/19990721/tc/usa_global_2.html (see also CIA assessment http://www.msnbc.com/modules/Y2KInternational/ map_nestframe.asp )

2. US transportation of goods, people, is dependent on oil. Off shore oil drilling, refineries, shipping and dockage all have embedded microchip risks. Disruption to the oil supply chain could take months to reach gas stations, and could last years.

3. US business and government functions are dependent upon automated transfer of information (like direct deposit). Once-compliant systems can be corrupted by importing non-compliant data. Weeks can pass before non-compliancy is detected, compounding the "virus" effect.

4. Many organizations don't understand their systems interdependency, let alone are doing system wide testing. E.g., Few utilities are testing shut-down and coming back up - both high risk areas.

5. Many organizations , including utilities, are following a "fix on fail" strategy - without sufficient consideration to the difficulties of procuring parts and technical skills at a time when transportation and communication are at greater risk.

6. 22 high impact Federal systems are not scheduled to be ready before Nov/Dec, if then, including: US Postal Service, Medicare and Medicaid, FAA Air Traffic Control, and Food Stamps. (Congressman Horn's Management, Information and Technology subcommittee 9/10/99 - http:// www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/index.htm )

[See also TBY2K thread...Why no interest in most recent report card. ]

7. Finding, fixing and testing a computer glitch takes highly trained skills and unpredictable time, unlike snow removal with which we have more experience and sometimes some solar help. In some cases, the errors won't be found for months or years, further compounding the impact.

8. People have experience in a 3 day storm, and so they have confidence they can "ride it out" with last-minute purchases. If unprepared for longer duration, their emotional state could be fear and anger, causing social, economic and political disorders.

9. Special interest groups are predictably planning on taking advantage of Y2K uncertainties to promote their own agenda, which is not necessarily in the interest of the common good (for example, cyber-terrorism)

10. Our society is dependent on power, which is dependent on coal (which is dependent on trains), or water (which is dependent on power), or nuclear (35 nuclear plants are not yet Y2K ready - see http://www.nrc.gov/ NRC/Y2K/Y2KReady.html ).

Bonus: Economic failure within a supply chain or critical to a region can have a ripple effect throughout other formerly-sturdy economic elements within the economic system, further impacting our social systems.

Like coffee to which milk has been added, our entire culture and all of our basic infrastructures have been thoroughly, inextricably woven into the computer age. Rev. Dacia Reid, The UUY2K Project http://www.UUY2K.org

Consider the Top Ten Actions a Y2K Community Task Force Can Do

Disclaimer: The contents of this document constitute the opinion of the author and are not necessarily authoritative. Some of the information in this document may not be current or accurate. Any user of this information does so at his or her own risk. Free Use Copyright. You may copy and distribute this material if done so in its entirety, without financial gain and bearing this copyright notice. )1999 Y Connect, Wayland MA. All rights reserved. A perpetual work in progress, compiled by Jan Nickerson - Y Connect 508-358-7002 http://www.Y2KConnections.com Y2K Connections ~ Building Community Not Crises ~ The ONLY Y2K game in town


Top Ten Actions a Y2K Task Force, or any Citizen, Can Do

1. Get started reading, with Social Chaos or Social Transformation (http://www.berkana.org), Citizens Y2K Action Guide (http:// www.utne.com/yu2k), the Naval War College Year 2000 International Security Project Report (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6929/ y2krep.html), Awakening: The Upside of Y2K (Laddon, Shook, Atlee) and Just-In-Case (Michael Brownlee) (both at http://www.Amazon.com) [see http:// www.y2kconnections.com/resources/..... for more Y2K books]

2. Watch any of 3 videos: "Year 2000 Crossroads" featuring individual and home preparedness, with Paloma O'Riley - (http://www.visualcomgroup.com), "Y2K Family Survival Guide" featuring 3 ranges of scenarios, with Leonard Nimoy (Blockbusters, http:// www.Amazon.com), "The Year 2000 Problem: Challenge of our Lifetime" featuring business preparedness, with Dr. Leon Kappleman (Y2K Solutions Group, Inc., http:/ /www.y2kvideos.com)

3. Find out what other communities are learning from their testing and preparations - Ashland, OR (http:// www.rv-y2k.org), Boulder, CO (http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/y2k/ index.html), Montgomery County, MD (http://www.co.mo.md.us/Year2000/) and Santa Cruz, CA (http://www.y2ksantacruz.org/taskforce/startcomm.htm ) and Paloma O'Riley's Cassandra Project, for general community and individual preparedness ( http://www.cassandraproject.org)

4. Read what the experts are saying (http://www.russkelly.com); subscribe to Doug Carmichael's newsletter (http:// tmn.com/y2k), or subscribe to Y2KNews at http://www.Y2KToday.com.

5. Develop a comprehensive scope of Y2K preparedness with and for your community (Top Ten Community Goals: http://lowellonline.org/bna/y2k/ topten.html )

6. Update a Y2K Preparedness Grid weekly, and publicize it (with blanks for unknowns) in the local paper (http://www.swampnet.org/y2k/grid.html )

7. Sponsor community awareness programs and involve diverse community leaders and volunteers (use Y2K Connections - the scenario game - to build their awareness http:// www.Y2KConnections.com)

8. Bring it all together with the Millennium Management Blueprint (http://www.tma2000.org)

9. Update and publish weekly in the local paper - with blanks for unknowns - the Community Report Card (Center for Y2K and Society - http://www.y2kcenter.org/ planning/)

10. Adopt a Global Action Plan for rapid and comprehensive preparedness in neighborhoods (see http://www.GlobalActionPlan.org for community preparedness organizing tools)

Bonus: Conduct frequent community conversations with open dialogues with local citizens and grass roots activists, as well as industry and government leaders. Be ware of political agendas. Y2K is too critical and all-encompassing to be limited by those with personal ambitions or fears. Ask the Top Ten Questions of Local Infrastructure Providers.

We are all on the Y2K Leadership Team, whether we realize it or not. Margaret Anderson

Disclaimer: The contents of this document constitute the opinion of the author and are not necessarily authoritative. Some of the information in this document may not be current or accurate. Any user of this information does so at his or her own risk. Free Use Copyright. You may copy and distribute this material if done so in its entirety, without financial gain and bearing this copyright notice. )1999 Y Connect, Wayland MA. All rights reserved. A perpetual work in progress, compiled by Jan Nickerson - Y Connect 508-358-7002 http:// www.Y2KConnections.com Y2K Connections ~ Building Community Not Crises ~ The ONLY Y2K game in town


Ask Your Local Infrastructure Providers

Many municipalities, businesses and other organizations have misunderstood Y2K to be "just a computer problem".

On the technological side, they've overlooked PC applications, or embedded microchip systems, or time-sensitive applications that aren't date sensitive.

Or they've overlooked their interdependencies, like automation between two systems, or receiving data from an outside system. Or they're relying on a supplier who isn't Y2K compliant. Or on a supplier's supplier. Or on a supplier's supplier with raw materials coming from a non-compliant country overseas. Or counting on a customer whose shipper's key employee is impacted by an infrastructure disruption in another community.

I'm not saying we shouldn't rely on others. I'm saying the stakes are too great to accept the answer we want to hear, without making sure those we're depending on understand the complexity and unpredictability of Y2K.

We depend on our local infrastructure. And often take them for granted. Services like power, telephone, police, fire, fuel for shipping and transportation, banking, and health providers.

People and computers run your local infrastructure, much like other organizations throughout our culture today. Like many other organizations, they may be assessing Y2K only within their span of control, and overlooking the need for contingency plans and drills, with the public, just in case. Or they may feel their culture won't allow them to say, "we're working on it, but . . .

How do you know? What can you do?

1. Build community. Get involved. Ask or offer: What can we, as community organizers and citizens, do to assist you in meeting the Y2K challenge?

I may not be an programmer or a contingency planner; however, I am an intelligent passionate partner willing to learn, willing to tour your facilities, speak with your front line people, ask them proving questions and speak about what I have learned, what my concerns are, and the strengths I see that build my confidence in your organization. I am willing to speak along side you or in separate venues. I ask that you let people like me know what we can do to insure that your organization is going to be there for us, and to let the community know, we are all in this together.

2. Don't accept "happy talk" ("We're ready. Don't worry. It's all under control.")

Question ANY organization that reports they're Y2K ready. At best, they can be "getting ready, and so should everyone else." Question whether their readienss reflects their interdependence with other systems, especially the infrastructure. Question whether their concept of Y2K readiness means "completing a computer assessment checklist" or "our customers (you!) can rely on us to provide services to them." Ask the Top Ten Tough Questions For Local Infrastructure Providers to help them see the bigger picture, so we can all work together at getting ready, a never ending process, for the unpredictable consequences of inevitable Y2K breakdowns.

Disclaimer: The contents of this document constitute the opinion of the author and are not necessarily authoritative. Some of the information in this document may not be current or accurate. Any user of this information does so at his or her own risk. A perpetual work in progress, compiled by Jan Nickerson - Y Connect 508-358-7002 http://www.Y2KConnections.com Y2K Connections ~ Building Community Not Crises ~ The ONLY Y2K game in town


Top Ten Tough Questions To Ask Local Infrastructure Providers

1. How many mission critical systems do you have? What are they?

2. Which ones are not yet fully assessed and remediated? When will they be? How many embedded microchip systems have been tested?

3. Which systems (including embedded microchip systems) are not yet tested? When will they be? Which ones are not yet tested in systems wide testing? When will they be?

4. When will you complete full "end-to-end time-shifted" testing, with all clocks, including those on embedded systems, turned to year 2000 dates? Which systems do not include testing with shutdown and bringing back up? Why? What are the risks of uncontrolled shutdown? What are you doing to mitigate those risks?

5. Which ones have contingency plans? May we see them? Which ones do not have contingency plans yet? When will they be published? What and how will you inform the public of those contingency plans?

6. What assumptions do your contingency plans make regarding the availability of power, telecommunications, transportation, civic unrest? Which contingency plans have not been practiced? When will they be? What and how will you inform the public of those drills?

8: What assumptions are you making about how long it will take to fix a Y2K error, if, despite your testing, one occurs after 1/1/2000? What assumptions are you making about the availability of your technical resources to fix any errors that may occur?

9. What mission critical systems of your adjoining communities are not fully assessed, remediated, tested, contingency planned and drilled? What risks to this town does their unpreparedness pose? What are you doing to prepare for those risks?

10. What risks are you concerned about? What are you doing to mitigate those risks? What and how are you informing the public about those risks?

Bonus Questions

I am asking this question to make a point. Then ask: Do you wear a seat belt? Service provider says Yes (or no) If they say no, express incredulity. If they say yes, Ask: "are not contingency plans for a business equivalent to seat belt for that business? Shouldn't the public be wearing a Y2K seat belt just like businesses are?

How can we as citizens trust/know that what you are saying is true? Where are the measures? Where's the direct information?

Have you ever regretted getting health, life or fire insurance without a substantial claim? Do you think you would regret preparing for possible Y2K disruptions? What personal preparations are you making for yourself and your loved ones?

If you say nothing disruptive will occur, how will you feel next year if you're not right, and your reassurances precluded the public from getting ready?

Disclaimer: The contents of this document constitute the opinion of the author and are not necessarily authoritative. Some of the information in this document may not be current or accurate. Any user of this information does so at his or her own risk.

A perpetual work in progress, compiled by Jan Nickerson - Y Connect JaNickrson@aol.com 508-358-7002 http://www.Y2KConnections.com
Y2K Connections ~ Building Community Not Crises ~ The ONLY Y2K game in town

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.


Go take a look at Decker's original post. The first sentence of proposition one is "Y2K is being addressed." Thats FOUR words long. Now Stan has restated that proposition. In Stan's version, it reads "Some people say that preparation is not necessary because y2k is being addressed." Do you see any difference there? Any at all?

Decker is NOT addressing the necessity for preparation. Decker (as I tried to make clear) is assessing the PROBABILITY of major disruptions. One argument against such disruptions being major, is the huge amount of resources that have been thrown at the problem. The second argument (in proposition one, anyway) is the avalanche of positive reports about status and test results. The preponderance of evidence is quite clearly that the work has been done (albeit at great expense) and that it has been done successfully (albeit not in every case, and not with ironclad guarantees. Life is always risky.)

Nowhere did Decker say that ANYONE is saying that preparation is not necessary. You could conclude (in my opinion correctly) that as more results flow in, the case gets stronger and stronger that a prudent *level* of preparations is becoming less extensive. It's my opinion (though Decker didn't say it directly) that a prudent level of preparations will never reach zero. But that's somewhat beside the issue at hand.

In essence, Stan stuck words in Decker's mouth that Decker never said, and aimed most of his response at the very words Stan fabricated! You may find this technique persuasive, but I find it less than trustworthy. Perhaps I've become sensitive because I've been called too many names for having "said" what others inaccurately attributed to me.

Maybe Stan will claim that addressing what was actually written is artless, whereas addressing what Stan *wishes* were said is moving and creative?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.

Answers to Proposition One continued:

C. Whether or not the reports about minor Y2K related risks are positive

There are reports, studies, press statements, news stories, and opinions about  the Y2K Technology Problem in general and concerning individual cases. They represent the body of information through which an interested audience comes to understand the Y2K Technology problem and the risks associated with Y2K. Government, associations, institutions, industries, organizations, main stream, regional, and independent media, experts, every day people, etc. contribute daily to the "Report". On the one hand, confident "prognoses" dominate this information. On the other hand, some confident and so-called prognoses conflict (more or less) with facts, criticism, information, and possibilities.

Gartner Symposium: Embedded systems will not fall prey to Y2K bug
World Bank, Global Commodity Markets Report - October 15, 1998
Posted by Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com) on September 15, 1999

The risk of embedded systems crashing because of Y2K is based on ill informed and over hyped information, analyst company Gartner Group warned this week, encouraging users into unnecessary remediation work.

source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Agx

Embedded Systems Fault Casebook (May 1999)

Index of results

Access control, eg-01, eg-02, eg-51, eg-53
Acid treatment, eg-84
Air conditioning, eg-13, eg-14, eg-15, eg-16 , eg-17, eg-18, eg-67
Audio monitor, eg-32

BMS, eg-03, eg-52, eg-53, eg-54, eg-55
Boilers, eg-14
Building management system, eg-03, eg-52, eg-53, eg-54, eg-55

Car park management, eg-24
Card access, eg-24, eg-01, eg-51, eg-53
Chart recorder, eg-26
Chemical, eg-58, eg-79
CNC, eg-39
Communications, eg-04, eg-13, eg-17, eg-23, eg-28, eg-30, eg-54
Custody transfer, eg-75, eg-78

Data loggers, eg-19, eg-20, eg-21, eg-25, eg-50, eg-68, eg-69, eg-70, eg-74,       eg-76
Date coding, eg-05, eg-06
DCS, eg-07, eg-08, eg-60, eg-61, eg-62, eg-63
Defibrillator, eg-49
Density analyser, eg-48
Detector, eg-35

Fire alarm and control, eg-03, eg-09, eg-10, eg-11, eg-12, eg-64, eg-65, eg-66
Fuel dispensing system, eg-77
Fuel pump, eg-36

Gas, eg-07, eg-35, eg-36, eg-48, eg-76
Gas flare stack, eg-80

Healthcare, eg-31, eg-32, eg-49
HVAC, eg-13, eg-14, eg-15, eg-16, eg-17, eg-18, eg-67

Intruder panel, eg-02

Keypads, eg-51

Logging, eg-19, eg-20, eg-21, eg-25, eg-50, eg-68, eg-69, eg-70, eg-74, eg-76

Metering, eg-47
Milling, eg-39, eg-58
Monitoring, eg-12, eg-17, eg-19, eg-20, eg-21, eg-25, eg-27, eg-32, eg-34, eg-42, eg-45, eg-50, eg-55, eg-58, eg-60, eg-66, eg-68, eg-69, eg-70, eg-76,eg-84

Packet switching, eg-23
PBX, eg-34
Petrochemical, eg-07
Photocopier, eg-29
PLC, eg-37, eg-38, eg-39, eg-40, eg-69, eg-79

Railways, eg-27, eg-28, eg-72
Recorders, eg-19
Robots, eg-40
Robotics, eg-59

Satellite dishes, eg-22
SCADA, eg-41, eg-42, eg-43, eg-44, eg-45, eg-79, eg-80, eg-81, eg-82
Scanning, eg-31
Security, eg-01, eg-51, eg-52
Smart instruments, eg-46, eg-47, eg-48, eg-83
Stand alone instrument, eg-49, eg-50
Surface mounting, eg-56, eg-57
Swipe cards, eg-53

Tape machine, eg-19, eg-30
Telephone, eg-34
Train describer, eg-72

Ultrasound, eg-31
UPS, eg-50

Vibration, eg-27, eg-76

Waste disposal, eg-26, eg-72, eg-84
Water leaks, eg-20
Weighbridge, eg-71
Weighing, eg-33, eg-46
Welding, eg-42

Source: http://www.iee.org.uk/2000risk/Casebook/eg_index.htm


Utility Officials Discount DOE Report on Y2K Readiness
American Public Power Association - September 13 1999

In a DOE press release, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said he was worried that "there are still eight major electric utility providers that are not yet Y2K-ready, or are Y2K-ready with limited exceptions." DOE named four public power utilities as among the laggards: City Public Service of San Antonio, Texas; the city of Lakeland, Fla.; Brownsville, Texas, Utilities Board; and Lafayette, La., Utilities System. But spokespeople for all four utilities told Public Power Weekly late last week that they are ready for the year 2000.

Campirano noted that DOE also issued the names of 16 municipal and cooperative utilities that had not reported the status of their Y2K work. Those utilities do not come off as being poorly prepared; DOE simply does not know about their state of readiness, he said. "We [at Brownsville] would have been better off not reporting," he said.

Source: http://www.appanet.org/news/ppw9909-13-01.html

Findings Contradict Regulators' Tallies
BUSINESS WIRE - March 8, 1998

In a new survey of Y2K preparedness, 247 of 1,128 banks and S&Ls reported completion dates that were deemed to be inadequate, according to Weiss Ratings Inc., a leading bank rating agency.

The Weiss results contradict recently announced tallies by the FDIC -- that only 2.9% of insured institutions have failed to achieve a "satisfactory" rating in their Y2K compliance evaluations.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000b3u

Above are just a few of the examples of previous confident prognoses which were based on supposed facts, educated presuppositions, judgements from experience, etc. that have been contradicted or shown to be erroneous. Likewise, experts previously concerned about severe Y2K problems have downgraded their assessment of Y2K risks (a la Peter de Jager). Furthermore, prognoses of pre-Year 2000 risks that did not have significant impacts as some had anticipated to occur on various dates throughout 1999. Predictions have not been proven; some reports contradict other reports.

Y2K Prof: Power Industry Misrepresents New Year's Party as Y2K Test

PRNewswire - September 8, 1998

'Don't believe anyone who says tonight's so-called Power Companies Y2K Test is actually testing anything!' So says Professor Dick Lefkon, who has taught New York University's Y2K-Methods courses since 1996.

'Rather than performing any real Year 2000 testing at all, what they're actually doing is rehearsing the same New Year's Eve Party that nearly every other major enterprise is already or soon will be will be holding -- called a Manual Contingency Plan.'

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001N7S

The Electric Utility is Y2k (sic) Ready
North American Electric Reliability Council - August 3, 1998

If the transition to the year 2000 occurs tonight, the electric utility industry would operate reliably with the resources that are Y2k Ready now. That is the bottom line in the North American Electric Reliability Council's (NERC) final quarterly report to the U.S. Department of Energy on the industry's Y2k readiness.

Source: ftp://ftp.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/pressrel/8-3-99-Y2k-Press-Release.pdf

North American Electric Reliability Council - March 1999

Composite Results                                            Nuclear Generation Facilities

1. Date: 04/10/99                                                 No. of Responses: 15


4. Have you completed an integrated test of the facilities listed in 2 above?

Yes: 1    No:15    16?

Source: march99.xls

Beyond general contradictions to be found in Y2K related documents and statements, some reports are internally inconsistent, misrepresent actual events or data, or are covered up (a la Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers). Such examples jeopardize the credibility of government, institutional, and corporate sources. The possibility of belief in reports becomes a serious question for those willing to engage in independent thought. What criteria should be used to evaluate the credibility and accuracy of reports regarding the Y2K Technology Problem?

Panel Urges Responsible Y2K Reporting
Newsbytes - September 17, 1999

Print, broadcast and Internet media outlets bear a heavy responsibility to avoid Y2K alarmism and to provide balanced coverage of the upcoming date rollover, a panel of journalists, industry leaders and federal authorities said today.

Koskinen participated in a panel on media coverage of the date rollover at a Y2K Summit sponsored by a handful of media trade groups.

Source: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001QKm

Y2K Drill Preparations
North American Electric Reliability Council

The April 9 drill is intended to instill public confidence through success and at the same time be a real test of our ability to operate with limited communications capabilities. How can these two goals be balanced to provide the greatest value from the exercise?

Prior to drill, test the system(s) that will be exercised.

Verify that there are no real security issues during the date of the drill.

Do not make the drill to complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication.

Source: ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/drill-preparation-strategies.pdf

Y2K Spin Comes Home

Randy Guidry - June 16, 1999

In my opinion, the Community Conversations program is essentially a means of dispensing the party line through organized local government channels via a pretty package. Including everything from sample flyers and posters to invitations for local celebrities and executives, the Community Conversations package has all the makings of a media dream—high exposure, familiar faces, and a lot of good news about the Y2K problem. Don’t worry about Y2K—Go back to your daily lives, citizens.

Source: http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/community.htm

Y2K preparedness of other countries posted online
Dallas Morning News - September 15, 1999

Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate special committee on the year 2000 problem, said after reviewing the report that the State Department was 'withholding information from the public for fear of creating panic.'

'The information vacuum this helps create may result in the very panic they
are striving to avoid,' Mr. Bennett said.

Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/technology/0915tech111y2kglobal.htm

What is a believable report? Are reports from the mainstream media and government to be believed? And if they are not to be believed, what does it serve to lie about or misrepresent the risks associated with the Y2K Technology Problem? In fact, Government officials have expressed a serious concern about the risks of panic ( a la Alan Greenspan in his recent speech). On several occasions, Chairman of the President's Council on 2000 Conversion John Koskinen have urged members of the media to exercise the greatest restraint when describing failures and risks.  According to Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 problem, incidents have not been reported and information has been withheld.

Third Answer

A positive report is a report that is irrefutable; absolute. The Y2K Technology Problem is expected to unfold over time, but notably so on January 1, 2000. Until we get to the other side, the best report possible is the best estimate possible. By definition, a report on the Y2K Technology Problem can not be a positive report. But is a best estimate possible in view of contradictions, errors, misrepresentations, lies, and the withholding of information? An evaluation of the seriousness of risks associated with Y2K becomes difficult. Generically speaking, credentials and credibility must themselves be evaluated with scrupulous attention. And without overwhelming positive proof or positive statements that Y2K

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

Last sentence of 1C:

And without overwhelming positive proof or positive statements that Y2K risks are now less serious than before, personal preparations are advisable. It can also be said that personal preparations are prudent.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.


-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

Earth to Stan: Your sophistic gymnastics are directed toward confuting your own mis-stated version of proposition one. Not the real one, which remains as sound as ever.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.


You seem to be in a very bad mood. Why do are jumping up and down, wildly waving your arms? Well, take a rest. I won't have time to get to 1d and conclusions for propistion for a bit.

Cheers! Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

P.S. From the looks of my sloppy typing, it must be my bedtime too.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 17, 1999.

I think Hardliner was the first to put his finger on it: It ain't about risk, it's about stakes. I don't care if the "risk" is one in ten thousand that the gun against my head might go off, the "stakes" of having my brains decorate the wall is too high.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.


Since you ask, here is the REAL proposition, from Decker:

"Y2k is beint addressed."

Now, here is YOUR version:

"Some say that personal preparation is not necessary because Y2K is being addressed."

You will notice, upon careful examination (we'll wait while you do this, take your time) that YOU added the verbiage about the necessity for preparing. The original proposition made no such claim. Do you see this yet? If not, we'll wait some more...

NOW, if you read the final conclusion drawn by each of your blasts of verbal diarrhea, it's that "personal preparations are prudent." Yet the only statement in this proposition about the prudence or necessity of preparations is the one you yourself fabricated. Nobody else has made any such claim. Decker himself has advocated steps to be taken in preparation for y2k.

So I ask: why go to such substantial efforts to take issue with a statement you yourself made? At best, you look foolish, and at worst dishonest for putting foolish words into Decker's mouth and then attacking those words. I'm just trying to save you some effort, and perhaps some face as well.

But don't blame me if you choose to continue to bash your own straw man. I'm just pointing it out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 17, 1999.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz etc.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 17, 1999.


I try to give most posters here the benefit of the doubt. But sometimes there's no doubt at all. You nailed this one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.


Curious, if it's a sleeper, why did you waste so much verbiage?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

Because if Stan would address the actual issues, we might generate a useful and informative thread. I can always hope. Yes, tortured definitions, careful avoidance of the point being made, and artificial arguments against positions never taken tend to be somniferous. Can I entice you somehow to join me in asking Stan to stick to the issues Decker raised? They were good ones, well grounded in reality. If there are reasonable objections, they'd be good to hear. So far, Stan hasn't been in the ballpark. We'd all be better off if he were. So unlike Andy, I don't just give up hope, I have more faith in Stan than that.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

Forgive me Flint if I am off base, I've been exceedingly busy lately with other things. Could you define the "actual issues" for me? From what I've gathered, they concern that the work being done is enough to avert disaster, vs the perception that "the work being done" is insufficient to avert same.


-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.


No problem. Ken Decker started a thread called "Polly" world: An optimist's guid to y2k" (or something similar), which gathered quite a few reasonable replies (and of course some ranting). But Stan Faryna decided to respond to it on a separate thread.

Decker's points (21 of them) were well worth considering. Faryna claims that on this thread he is addressing the first point Decker made. If you read Decker's actual post, you will see that Faryna (as I've made clear on this thread) is addressing a version of the first point that Faryna has modified to the point where the essential meaning has been altered!

If you read the original "polly world" thread, you'll get a much better picture of the issues at hand. It's an excellent summary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

"So unlike Andy, I don't just give up hope..."

Flint, your analysis of the whole situation is inaccurate.

You prove this on a daily basis - that you have no grasp of reality, y2k-wise.

I haven't given up hope you fool.

Au contraire. We've got Bob Hope and no hope.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 18, 1999.


While digesting Mr Decker's (though I've seen him call himself Ken Decker now, wasup wit dat?) treatise on doomer failings I could not ignore this following quote:

. The disruption in trade will cause economic hardships... perhaps even another great depression. A depression, however, is quite different than a complete collapse of society.

True, but yet...is not a great depression The End Of The World As We Know It? Unless folks spend their last 50 bucks enjoying a nice meal at the Outback, I fear he may be right/wrong. Many of us are not worried about gunning down starving masses, but instead worried about how to feed our own if we haven't an income.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

Uncle Deedah:

Maybe Decker should explain himself. My interpretation (no better or worse than anyone else's) is that he's contrasting a depression with a power failure or the need to stockpile generators, guns 'n' ammo, non-hybrid seeds, or a library of survival literature. Depressions don't call for such preparations. Even stockpiled canned food and soybeans are only good for so long before you need to find employment of some kind. Mad Max didn't live in a time of ordinary economic depression.

In any case, the first point was that we came, we saw, we conquered, we spent a fortune in the process because it was necessary to spend a fortune to fix the damn problem. We spent, we fixed. No, we didn't fix *everything*, nor did we fix perfectly what we did fix. The world has never been perfect. The argument that we have come close enough is very well documented. There are very few notables who claim otherwise, and most of them are selling something.

Stan's basic argument is that since we didn't kill the y2k bug completely, we can't be sure if we even weakened it at all. This is simply wrong. We know damn well we weakened it nigh unto death. Not quite, of course, but nigh. But you read and make up your own mind if you'd like. In a year, we'll be pretty damn sure one way or the other.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

"This is simply wrong. We know damn well we weakened it nigh unto death. Not quite, of course, but nigh. But you read and make up your own mind if you'd like."

dear oh dear, you'll never learn...

always talking about America...



-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 18, 1999.


I agree with you, strangely enough. My personal fears have lessened by a factor of....oh I don't know...9834-2038-=0823481-82-82%? Beats me. But yeah, I don't FEAR Y2K like I used to. Whether or not that means shat in the long run is yet to be seen, the future ya know.

I was, and still am, of the opinion that Y2K will either be a total disaster because of cascading faults, or, it will be livable because of the lack of them. I'm not sure whether that makes me a spin victim or pragmatic. But I will still keep the pantry stuffed because of the STAKES. Too high to ignore, as I know that you have not. Still, the search for truth is fun, is it not?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

Gawd you guys have been busy on this thread - busy going nowhere. What's the point? Ah, yes:

Y2k* might be bad. Prepare... just-in-case.

I hope I haven't offended anyone or said anything controversial.

(Unc - Ever have the feeling like you've been through this before? A Bazillion times?)

* Some older computers may incorrectly interpret the year 2000 as 1900 and...

-- PNG (png@gol.com), September 18, 1999.


I think we're up to a googillion.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 18, 1999.

I've only speed-read this thread, but, Flint, why is it that you suggest that Stan was addressing Ken's other post here? He mentioned something said by Billy-Joe or Billy-Bob or someone, but nowhere did I see him mention Decker's post as his starting point.

I HAVE seen Stan becoming more and more frustrated/angry at both you and Ken in OTHER threads. I really don't understand that myself, but nor do I understand why Andy has been repeating posts in threads of unrelated topics.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 18, 1999.


Two reasons. First, Stan said he would address these issues in more detail in a response to the "polly world" thread. Second, here is Decker's first point:

"Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Some feel these reports can be believed."

Now, here is the point Stan claims to be addressing:

"Some say that personal preparation is not necessary because Y2K is being addressed. The vast amount of money attributed to Y2K readiness is one clear indicator. There are also many positive reports. Some feel these reports can be believed."

When I add up the promise to address these points, with the similarity of wording between these points, I conclude this is the address Stan promised to make.

If you slow your reading down a bit, you'll probably understand what bothers me about this whole thread -- the fact that Stan has added words that change Decker's meaning, and then attacks the changed meaning rather than the original intent.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 18, 1999.

Thanks, Flint.

I responded to the OTHER thread and seem to be the last one STILL who responded there. I didn't remember Stan stating that he would respond to the issue in another thread. I don't typically remember folks saying such things, as they add nothing to the thread at hand.

Unlike many on this forum, this is not my only stop for Y2k information on the internet, or even ELSEWHERE. I tend to glance at the new topics or check out "new responses" on topics that I've not yet reviewed but find of interest, or threads on which I've replied. I read Stan's 14-day preparedness article (as an example) ONCE, but I have no interest in clicking on that thread every time presented. If I'm a polly, and he feels that pollies disagree in general with a 14- day preparedness plan for ANY emergency, then he does NOT speak for me, although I DO think that his estimates on costs were over-flated, just as I felt that Super-Polly's estimates on those costs were under- flated. I wouldn't even KNOW about that thread had it not shown up on another forum. Bottom-line: I NEED to speed-read this forum, and restrict myself to specific threads.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 18, 1999.


You are like some crazy junkie, man. Get a hold of yourself. All this panting, huffing and puffing, arm waving, and foot-chewing for what? But good things come to those who wait. Sometimes.

Laughing loudly! Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 18, 1999.


You have confused several things together to make them one very long sentence of non-sense which can not and should not be attributed to me. First, in my recurring 14 Days of Preps thread, there is nothing about pollies. Second, in regard to my estimate of a two day shopping trip for 30 days of preps (30 days being what Super Polly said he had prepped for), this was not a recommendation. It was merely one example that illustrated that Super Polly was never really prepared for 30 days of the reasonable worst. But you were right on in guessing that I wasn't addressing Red here. Of course, Flint will insist I was. On the other hand, Flint has criticizes my arguments here for lacking this or that point... points that are well made and included in the continuation of the argument. I do wonder, however, why you two worry warts are so interested in my addressing and not addressing Red. As for why I became frustrated when met with contempt and dishonesty, well I don't put up with that sort of thing. Do you? Red did good by me when he had issued his apologies. You might have missed Mr. Decker's apology when you were doing that speed reading that you do.

Do you need a link and thread directions to Mr. Decker's apology?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 19, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ