Way back in October of '98 I exchanged a few e-mails with Mitch - I offered to share them with FF, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet, perhaps he has not seen my offer. I have decided to share a little of what Mitch had to say to me then, judge for yourself about this fraud! ------ "...also, keep in mind, please, that our site's been up for only six weeks, with three weeks work prior to that -- with only so many hours in a day, we just haven't had a chance to build a comprehensive library, yet.

but, i'd also ad the caveat that, as an editor and writer, i get paid for what i don't write as much as for what i write."

AND in response to my concern about nuke plants melting down...

"...we have endured different, but equally bad forms of pollution prior to now, as well, like mercury runoff from gold mining. But, there's probably no point in arguing about it, and please don't get Unabomber on me, okay? My kids would miss me."

THIS ONE SUMS IT UP VERY NICELY,

"Gee, thanks. I "could be a really great writer." I'm so warmed by that.

But you keep missing something: you're criticizing my lack of objectivity in editorials, which are not supposed to be objective. The point is to take a position.

Mitch"

I honestly believe Mitch has sold out. I can't find any other explanation for his position over these past months - despite all the evidence, the guy has a headline on his ZDNET site RIGHT NOW, "Opinion Will the Y2K sky really fall? Annette Hamilton: Y-Life's resident hype-buster says Y2K = BS."

Y2K=BS?

Y2K Sky fall?

Hype-buster?

So much for heros.

Ziff Davis has a vested interest in Y2K being no big deal. Think about it.

-- Tim Castleman (aztc@earthlink.net), September 18, 1999

Answers

Tim,

I agree with what you are saying about M.R. However, Ziff Davis also does publish other articles that are pessimistic or "alarming." I think what ZD has a vested interest in is having a large audience that is pounding on one another over the Y2k situation. They have tapped Mitch to take the no-big-deal side of this matter, and he has cheerfully stepped up to the plate, fully outfitted with thick skin and face plate. Such is the world of commercial publishing. ZD has chosen to treat this like a college debate, on a national level. :-(

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

I concluded, after watching Ratcliff on a ZDTV special about a year ago, that he is a smirking jerk and not a journalist. Just because he writes for a Ziff Davis publication, we're supposed to believe him or trust him? Don't forget: editors write what publishers allow them to. Ratcliff is a member of the "in" crowd that doesn't want to be "out." Everywhere you look on the Y2k issue you see vested interests, most of those on the Polly side. The stockbrokers, bankers, industrialists, bureaucrats, etc., are never going to be forthcoming with information that is going to make them look bad, affect their bottom line, or put them out of work. They'll keep gladhanding and smileyfacing until the bitter end, or until they are exposed.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), September 18, 1999.

Tim,

We ALL have a vested interest in y2k being no big deal. Think about it.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 18, 1999.

This thread, like so many, deals in personal attacks and myth-making, and it not contribution to debate. Do I reply to asinine attacks on my character with a barbed comment? Yes. Have I "sold out" or is ZD playing my pollyana character off against more pessimistic writers? Ha! I suppose you dolts believe World Wrestling Federation is real, too.

When all is said and done, I have been correct and will be proved all the more so when this is over. Y2K is a very real problem, but we have dealt with it far more effectively than the doomer "commentators" claim. It's *still* a serious topic and rational people involved in level-headed discussions that don't include apocalyptic scenarios are making a *positive contribution* to the Y2K project. In the meantime, if you want to pout about the fact that your insults bounce off me because I have a thick skin, enjoy. I'm laughing at you.

Mitch Ratcliffe

-- Mitch Ratcliffe (godsdog@ratcliffe.com), September 18, 1999.

Mitch is telling it like it is and u are too dumb to "get it."

-- Laughing At U (shakingmyhead@uarenuts.com), September 18, 1999.

Has there ever been any connection of any kind between Factfinder and Ratcliffe? If so, I haven't seen any sign of it. This seems no more than a thin attempt at guilt by association, among the nastier and more simpleminded loonies.

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

Hey, Mitch! You're on tv. You write a column. BFD. Is it a personal attack to call you a "smirking jerk"? Yeah, but a small one. You got thick skin? That's swell. You're right about Y2k? How do you know? When I saw you on that Y2k special last year, and we're talking bout '98, way too soon to be so smug, you were, well, smug and a jerk. Did you really know so much about the status of remediation back then? Of course not. No one did, as few do now. But back then you were all attitude and smugness. That's great. I'm happy for you. Smug on, my brother. I hope you're right about Y2k, not so much so that you can be unbearably smug and dance around in your underwear shouting, "I am so smart, SMRT," but because it will mean that I and mine will be well. If you're wrong, well, who knows what will happen. And isn't that the real story about Y2k? No one knows. Not John Koskinen, not Ed Yardeni, not you.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), September 18, 1999.

Flint, FF has said that he thinks Ratcliffe is the best Y2K journalist. Somewhere lately on the EUY2K forum.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

Thanks, Lane. I never got a password for Rick's forum.

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

Lane, Flint,

FactFinder was listing some reference sources for his statement that embedded systems, and other such things, were not a big problem. Under the heading of Mitch Ratcliffe, FF said, and I quote:

"He's usually right, sometimes inaccurate, but he's always in the ballpark on Y2K. Mitch was among the first to start cutting through the Y2K myths and hype to get to the facts, and is the best Y2K journalist around - period."

Flint, you gotta love that one. Bet you can do a few hundred words on FF's declaration!

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), September 18, 1999.

Hype. Yeah.

JFK Jr. The Phantom Menace. Y2K.

Which has gotten the hype?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 18, 1999.

Gordon:

As a general rule, the "quality" of a y2k journalist seems to have a near-perfect correlation with how much you agree with that journalist. I haven't followed Ratcliffe's writings, though I did read the debate he had with Yourdon. I felt the result of that debate was inconclusive. Essentially, the available information allows for wildly different interpretations. We can't know yet whose interpretation is best, and we will probably continue to debate this for years to come.

Most y2k articles (including Lane Core's) tend to address some slice of the big pie, explaining why that slice is so very complicated (it always is) and depends on so many contingencies (it always does), and is so difficult to predict both in itself and in relation to the rest of the pie. And I nod and think, uh huh, makes sense. And THEN, the journalist leaps straight to a conclusion. Ratcliffe apparently says THEREFORE things won't be bad at all, whereas Core says THEREFORE we're in for a heap o'shit.

And to me, is just means the entire situation does not admit detailed analysis, which would require an econometric/sociometric model that would make a mockery of our most powerful computers if we had the ability to contruct the model even in theory, which we don't.

What this means is, a lot of faith necessarily underlies our individual predictions. The gestalt one gets I guess is based more on your personality than your evidence (which is, after all, the same as my evidence). My high-level summary feeling is that Ratcliffe is a generally happier person than Core, everything considered.

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

Good prognostication, gordon. You got 1,371 characters out of Mr. Flint.

-- Nabi (nabi7@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

Flint said

My high-level summary feeling is that Ratcliffe is a generally happier person than Core, everything considered.

So that's the ticket huh Flint? Don't "worry" about y2k, plan how you're gonna spend all that 401K dough and be "happy"? I see you're in imbecile mode again.

And I think you mean the debate with Westergaard, not Yourdon.

-- a (a@a.a), September 19, 1999.

'a':

I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved yet. Keep trying. And I did mean Yourdon. Yourdon responded to Ratcliffe with two long essays on his website. Remember? Those are the ones I read.

If you read what's said, rather than assume what isn't said and attack that, you might make more sense. But think about this: when intelligent and informed people come to very different conclusions given the same information, those who assume that the "other" camp must have suddenly fallen stupid aren't making a sensible case.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

My high-level summary feeling is that Ratcliffe is a generally happier person than Core, everything considered.

Pardon the cliche, but Ignorance Is Bliss.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 19, 1999.

Thanks for the offer Tim, but I really don't want Mitch to be the issue. I think that we can all be a bit caustic at times though - I know I try. Can we go after someone else in the next thread though? I have way too many devoted to me...some suggestions:

"Flint - his favorite TV show - does it suck, or what?" "Lane - is his dog a Y2K Poly?" "Tim Casteleman - "doomer at TB2000, but poly at EUY2k?" "CPR at Debunkers - "No way one man can post that much, he has to be a dozen government gov. agents diseminating mis-informationist"

Regards

-- FactFinder on Vacation (FactFinder@bzn.com), September 19, 1999.