A long long long time ago, I wrote "The Pollyanna Progression'. So long ago, that I have virtually forgotten about it. Some other people have not.

======

THE POLLYANNA PROGRESSION

1. We will fix all the systems

2. We will fix most of the systems

3. We will fix all the Mission Critical Systems

4. We will fix most of the Mission Critical Systems

5. All of the Mission Critical systems can not be fixed.

6. There will be some mission Critical systems failures

7. We will use paper and pencils to work around what was formally called 'Mission Critical' and now is recognized to not only be not mission critical, but we never needed then in the first place.

======

Points 1 through 4 have already gone down.

Here is what Lane Core has to say on the Yourdon forum today....

Re: the "Pollyanna Progression", it is noteworthy that the latest Cap Gemini - Rubin Systems survey showed that 48% of the companies will not finish their critical systems remediation.

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

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

Lane's comments seem to confirm points 5 and 6 in the 'Pollyanna Progression'.

In the very near future, I imagine you'll be hearing a lot on point 7. A whole lot of shuckin' and jivin' will ocur. "Well, we jes' never really needed that anyhoo. We'uns kin git along wid'out it'. Amazing what they proclaim they can get along without when the time and money runs out.

What I have always maintained was that there was NEVER enough time nor resources to get the job done. It would constantly be redefined to fit the lack of resources and time. That's the whole point of the 'Pollyanna Progression'.

At very best, the companies 'proclaiming' themselves 'done' or 'compliant' or 'substantially compliant' or 'Y2k ready' have no where NEAR all of their systems done. More to the point, they do not have near ENOUGH done. In fact they have a very small percentage of them done. Additionally, this brings up the issue of what actually is or is not mission critical in the first place. This, they call 'readiness'. And sometimes , laughbaly so, 'readiness' also includes MANIFEST non-compliance as long as there is a contingency plan.

"We're Y2k ready!' "Are enough of your systems compliant to call yourself ready?" "Well, no, but we have a 'plan' for when systems fail. We're ready!"

LOL LOL or just a good old BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

First of all, the remediation was always doomed to fail for one simple reason, amongst many. An arbitrary deadline, a gauntlet that the IT industry could NEVER have sucessfully run. The overarching lack of calender time is the single biggest cause of IT failure. The start was too late, insufficient resources, insufficient Board room support, lack of government support, etc etc are just all more contributing factors to the inevitable failure. Perhaps one more reason. WILD WILD WILD underestimation of the scope and magnitude of the task coupled with WILD WILD WILD overestimation of ability to remediate.

When push comes to shove, you will find out that very very little has actually been done. What do you think it means when 48% of companies **WILL NOT** finish their mission critical systems? And Mission Critical system being in the minority of the totality of systems. They could not even handle a fraction of 'enough' sytems. What happend to THE MOST important part of remediation, the vaunted YEAR OF TESTING?

Won't be long now.

-- Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 20, 1999

Answers

The Year of Testing was consigned as a footnote of oversight.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 20, 1999.

Unfortunately I must add the WILD WILD WILD underestimation of the failures by all.

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net), September 20, 1999.

there's a subset in there somewhere.

We will use paper and pencil to get around the failure of the non- mission critical systems.

Whoops! ran out of pencils, paper, and paper pushers by the time the mission-critical system failed.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), September 20, 1999.

Sigh. Some comments are in order, as usual:

1) To my knowledge, nobody at all has ever laid claim to points 1, 2 or 3. These are pure straw men.

2) Points 4-6 are identical except for the wording. Three different ways of saying the same thing.

3) The most optimistic posters here and on csy2k have always conceded that points 4-6 are happening RIGHT NOW, and indeed have been happening continuously since computerization began. Breakdowns in critical systems have been a fact of life for a very long time.

4) Accordingly, there IS NO PROGRESSION, except as a clever artificial fabrication. These are not claims made by any real people.

NOW, let's reorganize this "progression" to match reality just a bit better:

1) We will fix as much as we can.

2) We won't fix everything.

3) Some important things will break.

4) We will have to do without them for a while.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? How much will we have to do without, and for how long, and how difficult will it be? The time to place your bets is now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up....

As I've said to others: Y2K doesn't care HOW YOU FEEL, WHAT YOU THINK, or WHAT YOU SAY. If the remediation level is sufficient, we're cool. If it's not, we're HOSED.

What side of that little equation are you willing to BET YOUR LIFE ON?

*I* still remember hearing "...leaving a FULL YEAR for testing...." Yup. You betcha.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 20, 1999.

Dennis:

Yes, the "full year for testing" was made famous by Gary North. You will notice that said year isn't up yet, and almost everyone is still testing, and will be all year. As announced, predicted and expected. And we should certainly hope testing continues as long as possible. Testing can never be "completed", even in theory.

Now given all this, what is North saying: What else -- North says Look, they're still testing! They're NOT YET COMPLIANT!

Doh!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

Re: Non mission critical stuff

In my office, I generate reports from COPIES of information that people give me, that they wrote up from COPIES of information that someone has given them. Then I FAX it to corporate, who uses this information to go about their daily business. A few months back we lost both copier machines in one day, and everyone stood around and stared at them. It was a step away from hell in our little business world. I can't even picture the world continuing on without copiers and faxes. Nope, can't picture it.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), September 20, 1999.

Flint, I believe the public was told:

1) We (they) will fix everything that really matters, 2) We (they have) developed contingency plans for anything that falls through the cracks, and 3) In the unlikely event that we (they) miss anything important it will be cleaned up and solved in three days.

So, not being a code-head I'm asking you. Will they fix the stuff that matters in time? Will contingency plans work well enough to mitigate any serious problems? Assuming the first two fail, can they fix it in three days?

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), September 20, 1999.

In response to flint or WHY FLINT IS STILL A RAVING IDIOT...

Sigh. Some comments are in order, as usual: 1) To my knowledge, nobody at all has ever laid claim to points 1, 2 or 3. These are pure straw men.

( Then the issue is merely your lack of knowledge. in early 1997 president Clinton himself assured the public that ALL systems would be fixed. he said this in the presence of Sally Katzen, then OMB head moron for Y2k.)

2) Points 4-6 are identical except for the wording. Three different ways of saying the same thing.

( BWAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I love this one. "4-6 are identical, except for what they say.'

BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!)

3) The most optimistic posters here and on csy2k have always conceded that points 4-6 are happening RIGHT NOW,

(Really? The MOST optimistic posters have concedeed that ? You mean that they have gone all the way to conceeding that there might be one mission critical system WORLD WIDE that might fail?

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

My, they sure have made some mighty concessions.)

and indeed have been happening continuously since computerization began. Breakdowns in critical systems have been a fact of life for a very long time.

4) Accordingly, there IS NO PROGRESSION, except as a clever artificial fabrication. These are not claims made by any real people.

(Who said they were made by real people, moron? They are a characterization of the prevailing attitudes)

NOW, let's reorganize this "progression" to match reality just a bit better:

1) We will fix as much as we can.

( BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA! This is utterly irelevant. faxing as much as we can is meaningless. The only thing that means anything is if ENOUGH is fixed, not 'as much as we can. Imagine flint sitting in his grass hut on the beach as the beach patrol tells flint that they will stop as much of the tsunami as they can.)

2) We won't fix everything.

(Straw man. Flint's specialty. NO ONE has ever asserted that we need EVERYTHING fixed. we need enough fixed. And no where near enough HAS been done.)

3) Some important things will break.

( Ohhh. Do ya think? 'Some' 'Some'. It is a very inoffensive and non- threatening quantification, dontcha think? Which 'some' will kill people? )

4) We will have to do without them for a while.

( Do without them for a while? How long is 'a while'? how long does a dyalisis patient have to wait for 'a while' to be over? How long does GM go without carbeurators? How long do high rise apartment dwellers go without heat, electricity , water and sewerage? How long do businesses that can only operate on a JIT basis wait for 'a while' to pass? )

There, that wasn't so hard, was it? How much will we have to do without, and for how long, and how difficult will it be? The time to place your bets is now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

flint-boy, Once again, you manifest yourself for the ass that you are. If I said the sun was out at high noon, you would post an argument. Being the devil's advocate is one thing. Being argumentative merely to be argumentative and 'believing' it to be the devil's advocacy is psycopathic.

Time after time after time I see people who respond to your responses to me, and call you a malignant idiot. Just on percentages, don't you get it?

Even with ALL that *I* could be faulted for in style etc, does it not dawn on you from the responses that you are a drooling idiot? Do you wonder that, once again, with ALL that *I* could be faulted for, that YOU recieve the greatest amount of derogatory comments.maybe you think that is because that most people in here are merely doomers who want to side against you? Is that it? No, no matter hwther they are doomers or not, it is the CONTENT, the SUBSTANCE that has to prevail.

As usual, you are found wanting.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 20, 1999.

Paul:

Your schtick is not fooling people, you know. Each time I respond to you, the thread tends to fill up with posts from BRAND NEW anonymous handles, never seen here before (and never seen again). And every one of these "new" people attacks me and supports you, using *your exact words* to do so.

And then, you turn around and say "can't you see that everyone supports me and attacks you"?

Paul, were it not for the fact that our "moderate" moderator would call me out in a minute for pulling that stunt, and were it not beneath me, I could do that too. The fact that you're reduced to such things ought to tell you a little, if you were capable of noticing.

By the way, I have to give you no more than a C- for this effort. Usually you do better. You have missed your target completely in your eagerness to attack, and your enthusiasm has blinded you. Try again, addressing the points I made and not your own mistakes. You'll do better, I'm sure.

Dave W:

The worst of the problems have already been fixed in most places (excepting government). To believe otherwise, you have to stretch everything you read beyond all recognition. You must say that all compliance reports are lies (and what we do NOT read and make up instead is the truth), and that the money spent on remediation was instead poured down the drain, and that the massive and successful testing going on all around us is all faked. Essentially, what we know is pretty much good news, and what we do NOT know, we don't know. If we assume that everything we don't know is sure to be the worst news possible, and everything we DO know is lies, then we can actually reach the Milne position. Which requires a huge conspiracy on the part of almost everyone except the paranoid nutcases this forum seems to sift out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 20, 1999.

I know it's not as stimulating as the King of Spain's fantasies, but I sure would like to see Flint and Paul in a real tug-of-war over Paul's hog pen. I'd pay to see that!

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.

Flint, you said to Paul Milne:

"Your schtick is not fooling people, you know. Each time I respond to you, the thread tends to fill up with posts from BRAND NEW anonymous handles, never seen here before (and never seen again). And every one of these 'new' people attacks me and supports you, using *your exact words* to do so.

And then, you turn around and say 'can't you see that everyone supports me and attacks you'?

Paul, were it not for the fact that our 'moderate' moderator would call me out in a minute for pulling that stunt, and were it not beneath me, I could do that too. The fact that you're reduced to such things ought to tell you a little, if you were capable of noticing."

I think I have everyone on this thread listed, other than yourself and Paul Milne. Would you be kind enough to point out which of the following is a "BRAND NEW anonymous handle" that you believe to be Paul Milne posting as someone else?

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com)

-- (snowleopard6@webtv.net)

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com)

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net)

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 20, 1999.

Flint, I'm really not exploring how we get to Mr. Milne's position, I'm merely trying to validate the government/mass media position.

Regarding my three questions (I know they are oversimplifications -- but representative of the evening news), can I accurately read your comments as yes, yes, and yes respectively?

-- DaveW (dwood@southwind.net), September 20, 1999.

Flint...............you malignant idiot!

HA!

(loved that one paul....hehehe)

posting non-anonymounsly

-- andrea (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), September 21, 1999.

Nonsense. Flint doesn't drool.

I used to argue like that. If somebody criticized a proposition, I'd defend it. If somebody put forth the same proposition next day, I'd challenge it. Don't ask me why. I forget. It was sort of fun, but a lot of people got really annoyed with me. Including my children.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

flint, You have sunk to new malignant lows. Instead of even trying a feeble attempt to defend your own position you accuse me of making up anonymous posts. You really are pathetic, you know that? Absolutely pathetic.

What's next for you flint? Is there anything lower? If there is you are sure to sink to that level to find it.

I post under my own name and under my own e-mail address, flint-boy.

I calls 'em as I sees 'em and I stand firm hiding behind nothing at all.

And you stoop so low as to accuse me of fabricating anonymous posts.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 21, 1999.

When 48% of companies ( major?) admit they will not have their mission critical systems remediated by the end of the year they are admitting failure, perhaps even business failure next year. Flint seems to be failing to take into account the interconnected and interdependant nature of business. Flint also wonders why we can't take companies at their word when they say they are Y2K compliant.I remember Dr. Ed Yardeni talking about how one day he drove by a bank and in their window they had a sign saying they were Y2K compliant.He stopped by the bank and talked to the bank manager."Oh yea,we are Y2K compliant alright,no problem,we already have that thing licked" the bank manager told him.On his way out the door he overheard two programmers talking to each other and asked them how things were going.One of the programmers said to him "There is no way this bank is going to be Y2K compliant by January 2000.It is not going to happen".

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), September 21, 1999.

Flint, this IS NOT an "attack"; but FWIW, Paul's "schtick", as you put it, is fooling me. Obviously, the dew-er-dye handle isn't my "real" name; but I am a real person. I'm not a shill for Mr. Milne; I guess ya' could say that I, too, am one of the [y2k] "paranoid nut cases" which this forum seems to have sifted out. . . I don't take offense at that. In fact, by the end of next spring I would much rather be (still) (comfortably) eating crow as a PNC disposing of my PNC preps; and if TSHTF, I may well be "toast", but I'll be properly prepared SOS. . .

-- Dewer Dye (qwerty@!!!!.net), September 21, 1999.

I shutter to think of what .8, .9. .10, etc, on the Pollyanna Progression would be. I have a feeling progressing pass PP .7 would entail martial law, forced labor, and seizure private property.

-- Cirgarette Smoking Man (csm@smoke.com), September 21, 1999.

Flint is a strange creature that can repeat words and speak. (I presume) I've seen parrots do that, but they have no brains.

It is an unusual condition. Poor man.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), September 21, 1999.

This is very entertaining. Thanks Flint for taking Milne's bait. Haven't you learned yet?

Flint, you remind me of poor ole' McFly being bullied by Biff. Tell me your laughing at yourself.

(Pssst.........I'm really Paul Milne)HAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

-- Dr. Brown (backto@the.future), September 21, 1999.

Pollyanna (8) Your papers, please. Pollyanna (9) There is not enough food left in the shelter. Pollyanna (10) Cannibalism really is OK, don't ya think?

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), September 21, 1999.

Flint said: "Points 4-6 are identical except for the wording. Three different ways of saying the same thing.", so Paul jumped in with "I love this one. "4-6 are identical, except for what they say.'".

Flint is right on that. He certainly did not deserve to be called a raving idiot. Points 4-6, though differently worded, do mean exactly the same thing. Fixing most systems means that not all are fixed, and in that case some will fail.

Flint's proposed 4-point progression seems to fit reality fairly well. I will now take cover and prepare to be called a raving idiot.

-- J (j@j.j), September 21, 1999.

IIRC Pauls Pollyanna progression was his anticipation of the press releases and media mantra that would be heard as the time to the big day got closer. So, debating the semantics and the way its written isnt relevant, it really has come down this way-if youve been following the news over the last 18 months or so, I think youd agree he's nailed this one right on the money so far. It isnt if points are the same-yea they pretty much are-but the way the news would be released, in a progression toward the admission that "we aint gonna get it done". Hate to see you all wasting the testosterone, save it for when you really need it. BUt I really do enjoy a good BWAHAHAHAHA every so often : )

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

and oh, BTW, I'm sure somebody will correct me if I did recall that wrong, so I apologize in advance if so. Neither am I male,so I'm not Paul,its a real "e", I havent drooled on my keyboard in weeks, and I'm not paranoid-not since the voices told me not to be.... (just thought Id save y'all some time and bandwidth speculating on the above) TTFN

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

Paul, quit feeding Flint. :-) If you had posted something like the equivalent of his version of the progression, he would have corrected it by posting something like the equivalent of your progression.

He argues for the sake of arguing. He corrects anybody and everybody just for the sake of correcting everybody and anybody.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

When 48% of companies ( major?) admit they will not have their mission critical systems remediated by the end of the year they are admitting failure, perhaps even business failure next year.

Stanley, Cap Gemini calls them "large" corporations and government agencies. The sample size is only 161, but the study is longitudinal. Last year in August, the percentage expecting not to be done with critical systems was 12. It has gone up steadily since then: 16% last November, 22% this April (or May?); now 48%.

We shouldn't jump to conclusions about outright business failures. But if anybody does not find this to be alarming, they just don't want to be alarmed. Period.

Given this, and the bad news in the June Y2K Experts Poll, the burden of proof seems to be on those who say that big companies are going to be ready.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Of course, it can be argued that Paul's points 4-6 say the same thing. But that's the whole point! The PR machines word their statements as carefully as they can to give the best impression.

Like Greenspan's remarks the other day that "many" companies are ready and are now looking to their suppliers and customers. Ha! How many are "many"? 100,000,000? 1,000,000? 100,000? 1,000?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

(Flint) - "It's alright, there is no problem, everything is going to work out just fine.

(Flint's Child) - "But Daddy, I'm really hungry and cold!"

(Flint) - "Shhhh, it's going to be just fine, there's really no problem."

(Flint's Child) - "Daddy, please, I'm thirsty."

(Flint) - "You're not really thirsty honey, I know what I am talking about, there really is no problem."

(Flint's Spouse) - "Flint, your hard head got us into this situation, I know we will make it through, but what really bothers me is the thought that you have done you damndest to convince so many others not to prepare with you daily diatribes on that discussion group thing on Y2K. I know deep in your heart that you must really feel awful."

(Flint) - "........ You're right honey, we ARE going to make it through this together, but please, let's not talk about the discussion group any more... I would really appreciate that..."

-- Fly (on@the.wall), September 21, 1999.

While the headlines of the articles did purport what Lane Core says about the Cap Gemini survey, the actual survey itself does not mention "mission-critical" or even "critical" systems.

The survey questions are available here: http://www.hrubin.co m/download/y2k2q98.zip, from this page: http://www.hrubin.com/s urvey/index.html

See also this thread:

Cap Gemini Survey Clarification

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

I'm a real person (take the nospam out of the email address for my real address). I've been lurking for over a year and a half. After reading Milne and Flint I've got to admit that Flint is either the most argumentitive person I've ever read or a paid government shill. Milne's style is offensive but I agree with most of what he says. I've been involved with programming since 1973 (anyone remember NCR's NEAT/3 language?) and I'm praying that everything I believe will happen won't. God help us all.

-- Jeff Stocker (jstocker@raexnospam.com), September 21, 1999.

Yep, it only mentions what "needs" to be compliant. Go figure. :-)

As I have noted above, this is a longitudinal study. The terminology "mission-critical" may not have been widely enough used when the survey was written that they decided to avoid it. (The Word document is dated May 1998.)

It is important to see, though, that a distinction was drawn between all systems and those that "need" to be remediated. If you are not trying to give the impression that the distinction has not been drawn in the survey and in the press releases, then you are giving the wrong impression.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

Poor Flint & Hoff. Circling their little ideological wagons as their wheels come off.

They still can't see the writing on the wall, although the letters are three feet high and written in fluorescent paint.

They think the remediation was successful because managers don't lie about status and interconnectedness is just a fallacy and we really didn't need all those systems after all.

They think there will only be "inconveniences", like no power or telephones for much of the world, a second great depression, and massive starvation.

They think I'm Paul Milne.

And they accuse us of paranoid delusions...

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

But what is that distinction?

Take for example this NewsBytes article, which includes an actual interview with Rubin, and leads:

Fewer than half of US Fortune 500 companies expect all of their computer systems to be ready for Year 2000-related failures, in part because they are devoting much of their attention to ensuring that their top "mission-critical" systems are Y2K-compliant, a new survey has found.

http://curren ts.net/newstoday/99/08/12/news1.html

This article, at least, supports the fact the 48% refers to all systems, and not mission-critical systems. And was written by a source that actually spoke to Rubin.

Press releases from previous surveys alternate on using the term "critical". Are they that imprecise? Or do they use the term as a descriptive of systems, and not a class of systems?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 21, 1999.

By the way, Hoff, thanks to you and Don Florence for hashing that out so thoroughly.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 21, 1999.

All I know is, Flint doesn't even have the integrity to post with his real name. This should make it a lot easier to hide when everybody finds out he was wrong. Come to thing of it, the majority of the trolls don't use a real name.

Chicken.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

The same goes for Hoffmeister. He posts all of this polly crap and doesn't use his real name either.

-- Disgusted (disgusted@fedup.com), September 21, 1999.

Yooohooo! Flinty-boy! Guess who I am?! Am I Paul or am I ______?

Hey, look down Flint --------> Butthead! got ya.

-- (not@now.com), September 21, 1999.

Amy:

I really do use my own name. What gives you the idea that I don't? Why would I want to disguise myself?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

To Paul Milne,

I've read this forum on and off for about a year now, and one thing I just can't figure out with you is, what are your intentions and/or what do you hope to accomplish with your postings here? I mean no disrespect, nor will I "spar" with you like you've done with so many others, but here's the rub: If this event will be as bad as you believe, are you still trying to convince people that we're done for?? People, including myself (a PC technician working on a near-complete Y2K desktop project), will probably have already made up their minds about Y2K by now to the point that reading your forum battles with Flint etc. won't change anything. Maybe you just enjoy the debates. I certainly don't have much to add here; I haven't posted to this forum since probably springtime. If the world will collapse here in about 100 days, I would think that we're all "up shit's creek without a paddle" anyway, regardless of the debates posted on this forum. As I stated on my last post (whenever the heck that was), the best I can hope to do is keep my (hopefully pregnant by then) wife and myself and my pets fed and warm as usual.

Another thought that keeps crossing my admittedly average mind is this: don't you think that massive amounts of revenue, stock prices, and coporate goodwill being in jeopardy has served (and will continue to serve) as an INCREDIBLE motivator for remediation and clarification of systems in business?? It seems so to me.

Any replies would be welcome, Paul, from you or anyone else. Thanks very much for your time.

-- Larry Goldberg (ljgoldberg@worldnet.att.net), September 21, 1999.

Hi Larry,

You see, the problem is that all of our leaders were cheap and stupid. This includes both business and political leaders. And all of our geeks and nerds were just stupid too, being too poor to understand cheap. They didn't understand the problem. Then when they did, they didn't understand how big it was. And once they figured that out, it was too late and everyone was all dooooomed.

And now, at this very late date, there is no hope of surviving unless you've moved to the outer boonies to raise pigs. We know this because of all the reports of substantial compliance, which of course proves everyone is lying. And all the reports of successful testing, which also proves everyone is lying. And because of all of the warnings of things that just might go wrong, unless you buy the expensive tool sold by the source of these warnings, which proves they're telling the truth and very bad things will happen.

But mostly, we know we're all doomed because of all the information we lack. Everyone knows that absence of evidence is the same thing as evidence of absence, and we sure have a lot of absence of evidence.

And oh yes, anyone who fails to find inspiration in the transcendental clarity of these revelations is an idiot. So there.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 21, 1999.

Flint,

Point well taken (after I thought about it for a minute, and realized that your statement was intentional exaggeration). The "all or nothing" idea some people have of remediation, and the "it's all hitting the fan that Friday night" notion also widely held, are both off the mark, it seems to me....I think we'll all deal with the ramifications of this as human beings for some time, but it's certainly not going to be as incendiary as some would think. Thanks for the reply.

-- Larry Goldberg (ljgoldberg@worldnet.att.net), September 21, 1999.

Larry: I can't speak for Milne, but even at this late date, if we convince even one more person to prepare it is a step in the right direction.

As far as continued profit being a motivator for businesses to remediate, you're missing one of the salient points of the y2k debacle: Its not about money, its about time. Time is almost up and the work has largely not been done. (I'm not talking about upgrading PCs; I'm talking about correcting the billions of LOC and millions of embeds).

The Y2K rollover will occur in 100 days, in the midst of the probably the worst economic crisis in human history. There is little that can be done to fix things at this point. From here on out, it all depends on contingency plans, the reaction of the public, and luck.

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

gee, here's a thought for you: Larry & Flint & Hoff. If you (that's the indefinite you) maintain that y2k is "real" AND that it is "no BIG problem" but possibly a "small" problem... and most of the media agrees with you.. (so far i think we can all agree that this has happened) what effect will that have on the QUALITY of remediation?

I can see it now: Programmer #1 "hey, nice to see you this (it's jan 1998, ok?) morning! have you been reading all of those newstories on y2k? Programmer #2 nah, well, a few of em. Programmer #1 i dug out that old 97 article form newsweek, scary stuff. Programmer #2 look, if it was gonna be that bad, don't you think we'd have heard somthign from the: (talking heads upstairs. the media, john koskinen, the pope, the president, other programmers, etc etc. take your pick)? I mean jesus christ, it's January, and we haven't had any failures HERE that we can't fix! Why don't you just shut up about it? Programmer #1 no need to get nasty... Programmer #2 ok, sorry, do you want a doughnut? Programmer #1 you got a glazed? Programmer #2 yeah, here you go last one... sorry Programmer #1 ( making vacation plans for idaho in head) no problem dude, let's get back to work on the LAN. Programmer #2 ok, cool... My point is the idea that "we don't know what's going to happen" (to our house, our pensions our aunt millie etc.) conflicts with "whatever happens, it will be negligible" this conflict causes cognitive dissonance (Stress) to relieve this stree we go into DENIAL which allows us to pander whatever bizzare theories we can come across to explain away THE REALLY SCARY SHIT.

Also, Denial feeds on itself, the right wing nutcases try to link massive y2k failure with UN or NWO takeover... HUH? come again? massive banks and utility failures followed by an INCREASE in governmetnal power? for about a week maybe. (they can't admit that they cried wolf, y2k came out of left field in 97 folks, admit it) But get this, the denialists take that.. AND USE IT AS 'PROOF' that y2k WON'T happen!! (ie only right wing nutcases believe that stuff) now, do you think this may have a negative effect on remediation? (Why work your ass off to fix something that doesn't really matter?) so, if many (most i believe but let's be conservative)programmers have gone into denial, to protect their psyches, along with everybody else... how will it "get fixed?" can we say "self fulfilling prophecy? (denial hurts remediation becasue consequences of not making remediation work too hard to think about)

-- Jeremiah Boyd (Braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

gee, here's a thought for you: Larry & Flint & Hoff. If you (that's the indefinite you) maintain that y2k is "real" AND that it is "no BIG problem" but possibly a "small" problem... and most of the media agrees with you.. (so far i think we can all agree that this has happened) what effect will that have on the QUALITY of remediation?

I can see it now: Programmer #1 "hey, nice to see you this (it's jan 1998, ok?) morning! have you been reading all of those newstories on y2k? Programmer #2 nah, well, a few of em. Programmer #1 i dug out that old 97 article form newsweek, scary stuff. Programmer #2 look, if it was gonna be that bad, don't you think we'd have heard somthign from the: (talking heads upstairs. the media, john koskinen, the pope, the president, other programmers, etc etc. take your pick)? I mean jesus christ, it's January, and we haven't had any failures HERE that we can't fix! Why don't you just shut up about it? Programmer #1 no need to get nasty... Programmer #2 ok, sorry, do you want a doughnut? Programmer #1 you got a glazed? Programmer #2 yeah, here you go last one... sorry Programmer #1 ( making vacation plans for idaho in head) no problem dude, let's get back to work on the LAN. Programmer #2 ok, cool... My point is the idea that "we don't know what's going to happen" (to our house, our pensions our aunt millie etc.) conflicts with "whatever happens, it will be negligible" this conflict causes cognitive dissonance (Stress) to relieve this stree we go into DENIAL which allows us to pander whatever bizzare theories we can come across to explain away THE REALLY SCARY SHIT.

Also, Denial feeds on itself, the right wing nutcases try to link massive y2k failure with UN or NWO takeover... HUH? come again? massive banks and utility failures followed by an INCREASE in governmetnal power? for about a week maybe. (they can't admit that they cried wolf, y2k came out of left field in 97 folks, admit it) But get this, the denialists take that.. AND USE IT AS 'PROOF' that y2k WON'T happen!! (ie only right wing nutcases believe that stuff) now, do you think this may have a negative effect on remediation? (Why work your ass off to fix something that doesn't really matter?) so, if many (most i believe but let's be conservative)programmers have gone into denial, to protect their psyches, along with everybody else... how will it "get fixed?" can we say "self fulfilling prophecy? (denial hurts remediation becasue consequences of not making remediation work too hard to think about)

Now, in order to believe my scenarion, you would have to believe that entier societies can go into mass denial... hmmmm... Germany 1945 (Fuhrer WE CAN WIN!!) japan 1945 (Atomic Bombing isn't TOO bad) ALL of EUROPE 1914: (this war will only last 6 weeks! Yippiee!) USA 1860: "all the blood that wil be spilt over this issue( civil war/slavery), you can wipe up with a pocket handkerchief." A senator actually said that! Gee i wonder how many handkerchiefs it would have taken to wipe up after Shiloh?

PS to paul milne: a hundred peopl will be fedd this year in Michigan, thanks for the warning, also a nod to Gary North, Cory Hamasaki, and Michael Hyatt... thanks guys.

-- Jeremiah Boyd (Braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.