It's my guess that the majority of people on this forum share my experience re: initial awareness and research of Y2k. When I first began hearing of possible problems, I really had no idea what was involved so I decided to research the issue. I began with my computer and did a search for Y2k related information. Many of the sites referenced the same "authority" and my mouse quickly pointed to Gary North's website. At that time, I had absolutely no reason to doubt anything that was written there, and quite frankly, it scared the hell outta me! For the next three days I spent every available minute pouring through website after website and each one repeated the same TEOTWAWKI mantra. On top of that, there was absolutely no websites/information that offered any contradiction to what I was hearing. Over the course of the next few weeks I found myself becoming progressively more convinced of an impending doom which could not possibly be averted. In fact, I began feeling a certain sense of satisfaction that I had "done the research" and could consider myself well informed on Y2k. (Needless to say, I was not an "authority" but my friends/co-workers certainly believed I was whenever the subject came up.)

To those who have shared my experience, I would like to ask you a few questions.

How long have you been researching Y2k?

Do you feel that some of the sites which you originally visited may have exaggerated the Y2k problem for self-serving purposes?

Did you attempt to find information/websites which contradicted what North and others were saying?

If so, approximately how long had you been researching Y2k before you found them?

Would you describe your initial reaction to the information as "relief", or would you describe it as "disbelief"?

Do you ever visit these sights or do you restrict your surfing to this forum only?

Thanks in advance,

-- CD (not@here.com), September 30, 1999

Answers

As a (former) computer consultant I think I have a pretty good idea of what we are up against. I have used sites such as Gary North's purely as sources of news - the attached opinions are usually taken with a pinch of salt.

No, I never did look around for Polly sites - what a complete waste of time that would have been. I must admit to typing in www.garysouth.com and www.garywest.com, just to see... the former could possibly be called a Polly site, but the second is for Jerks.

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), September 30, 1999.

When I first started researching y2k,(April 98) I went to the usual websites. I also read all the y2k articles that came out everyday. Pretty soon it was overwhelming and took too much time. Now I mainly just visit this website as I find that I can be well informed here in a short amount of time. I like to read all views so I was going to Gary North is a big fat idiot site for quite a while but I found it difficult to access fast enough. And plus I got tired of the infantile crap on there. I do not feel like an expert at all. I do feel like a truth seeker. I keep looking for the truth of the matter and I know it is not a simple truth. Most of what I find on here has been on other news sources too (drudge, yahoo, abc, ect.) I do not believe everything I read anywhere but I figure if I read enough I will get a feel for the situation.

-- a mom (no@time.com), September 30, 1999.

Here's my favorite polly site, which I found almost immediately after "getting it" (back in April of 1998):

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/justanumber/feedback.html It's nice to know that so many people, especially programmers, are absolutely convinced that NOTHING will happen. Who knows, maybe they're right. Maybe all of us Doomers will look like fools next year. Wouldn't that be sweet?

Downside -- Most of the pollys quoted on that site are idiots.

-- not looking (forward@to.it), September 30, 1999.

If you really want to see scary stuff, forget North. Go to the SEC's Edgar site. Also check out the CIA testimony before Congress. I would refer you to Alan Greenspan's Congressional testimony in 1998, but that has been "sanitized." Check out the GAO site and the Commerce Department assessments. Go look at the published papers of Ernest Patrikis of the Federal Reserve from June of 1998.

After reading all of this stuff, you'll probably need to calm down. In that case, go to the North site for something a little less tense.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

I first discussed this problem in a FORTRAN programming class in 1967.

I first read about it in a SF book (Arthur C. Clarke?) several years later.

I first saw it happen in an Army Data Processing installation in 1980, when MILSTRP/MILSTMP/MILBILS standard transactions for supply systems had a one digit year embedded in the key for every transaction. Havoc.

I first started working on Y2K, as a result of the above in 1992, when I saw a reference to an insurance company Century Date Change Project, and, remembered the above and thought we better get busy with it.

I first decided to prepare personally in late in 1996, when I got off the elevator on the wrong floor of a major Wall Street Bank, who was ahead of any other customer we have. It was the Risk Management floor. There was a large sign which said "Y2K the Number 1 Priority." I figured the most advanced customer we have is barely going to make it, and it is their #1 risk management priority, it better be mine. They really understood Y2K, and knew everybody else was behind them. I knew we had spent 4 years educating customers in Y2K and almost none had put a penny into fixing things. (Not an incompetent organization, made lots of $$.)

I keep track of some sites, including this one.

There are 2 classes of information on these sites. There are facts and opinions. The facts are professionally useful to me in addressing technical and operational Y2K issues. The opinions are useful in tracking the other Y2K problem - human reaction.

People talk about doomers and pollys, but there is another group which is harder to pick out - Realists. People like Ed Yourdon, who have read code, used, studied, and created methodologies. Peolpe who have led maintenance projects. System Programmers like Cory Haminsky(sp?). People who come at this from real experience, expertise, and knowledge.

The reason you can't easily identify the realists is they look an awful lot like doomers. If you want to understand the reality as it unfolds, look at the reports form the realists.

The only stupid risk preparation is the one you knew of, didn't take and should have.

-- ng (cantprovideemail@none.com), September 30, 1999.

CD,

You seem to imply that there is some data out there that contradicts the assessments of the CIA, SEC, GAO. We poor delude doomers wander around aimlessly (like sheep, perhaps?), not seeking balanced sources of information? Well, help us out: where is it? I'm talking data, not spin, third party verification of compliance. There isn't any. The Maine report was keep so secret that the group preparing it was ORDERED NOT TO WRITE IT DOWN. Maybe you can get ahold of that for us. I'm sure it, and much other information besides, would prove Y2k is a big nothing. Now if only it weren't held under lock and key, and shrouded in lies, feel-good pronouncements and attacks on the character of those who are attempting to save themselves and their communities.

People are going to die, and it won't be because of "panic." It will be due to LACK OF PREPAREDNESS.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), September 30, 1999.

I been doing intensive IT for 16 years so I didn't have any trouble believing the problem once I understood it (took me about three days in July 98). I actually thought that by Sep 98 the public might catch on. But soon I began to realize that I am brighter than the average bear, and that even then it takes a special intellect to see the long reaching, convoluted, "big picture" that y2k portends. And I had drastically underestimated the level of spin that would be generated.

In those early months last year, I felt as though I knew what it was like for Galileo, who was scorned for his beliefs even though he knew they must be true.

North has certainly been wrong about some other things, and even in certain aspects of y2k he doesn't have his feet planted squarely on the ground. He may be making money off his warnings, but just like Paul Milne's posts, the underlying evidence is plenty of cause for alarm.

I check out the Debunking Y2K site periodically, mainly as a curiosity and to revel over the remarkable prolificacy of CPR. However, their pollies are very second rate. IHMO Flint, Hoff, Decker, and a few of the polly lurkers here are the only optimists worth engaging.

-- a (a@a.a), September 30, 1999.

Not looking.

Did you talk about this post "SEPTEMBER1999@dgweb.com "I haven't laughed that much in a long time.... They never listen to us programmers! I've been saying things about Y2K for 20+ years. They didn't listen then, now they're panicked. I have to admit, it is fun to watch!" when you said that programmers claim nothing will happen in Y2K???

-- Boris (MSIS@cyberdude.com), September 30, 1999.

Been Researching for the past 2 years...Best way to Balance the diet of Doomer/Gloom on Norths sites is to just do the bare bones news research. Utilizing the DrudgeReport links to , hell, damn near every newsgroup around the world, allows me to get a broader idea as to what is happing out there. Also, a great sight for Y2K issues, be it 'tinfoil'd' or otherwise is Jeff Rense's SIGHTINGS site. Lotsa laughs with some of the spastic freakshows out there, but still provides some diferent viewpoints(i.e. Y2K was plotted by the .gov to allow aliens to take over)Lots of luck

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

I began to research Y2k when I decided to participate in Lent this year (no I'm not a Catholic it just seemed like a good idea at the time). I gave up all my bad habits for 40 days and ended up with insomnia. I'm newly single and had nobody to - er - distract me at night so I went on-line. I found chat rooms to be a bore and remembered hearing somebody mention Y2k in passing. I thought it was silly but heck, what else did I have to do?

So I began to web search and found the csy2k site. Dang naive fool that I was I started posting doofus newbie questions about the power grid. I got lots of responses. Many of them less than civil - but informative anyway. Within 12 hours I GI'd. I still have the original thread that made me aware. After a month or two hanging out there with occasional forays to other sites I found TB2000 and here I made my home. I have stayed away from opinion pieces and have concentrated my research on govt. reports and the IEEE reports/testimony.

I thank God every day for that small inner nudge that inspired me (I guess I'm normally kind of a Buddhist) to participate in Lent. Its so funny because I was not raised Catholic, no Catholics in my family anywhere. I was a trifle dismayed when I realized (after I had committed to God) how long Lent is. I even gave up chocolate!!!

However, I will participate in Lent every year for the rest of my life because of the profound gift of awareness which was granted me. Thank God for insomnia. It saved mine and my children's lives. By Easter I was deep into preps.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

(1) I first became aware of the Y2K problem in the late 1960's (probably '68), when I worked on a program that had a one digit year code (it was set to fail in 1970). I suggested that we fix it, but was told no, it wasn't necessary yet! And that when we did, we'd only go to a two digit year code...

I started researching seriously about a year and a half ago.

(2) Some sites are blatently commercial. I looked for hard news sites and suggestion sites.

(3) I attempted to find sites with facts... I did (and still do) tend to ignore self-reported good news. As a former EDP auditor, such statements are not valid data.

(4) Good news is great; I just wish that there were more of it that I can trust!

(5) I visit 7 major Y2K news and commentary sites (including Gary North and CBN) daily to see what is happening. I probably average reading at least 30 articles each day. I am skeptical of everything, and look for second sources. I also look at the original source (London Times, vs. National Inquirer). Then, I drop by this forum, if time permits.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 30, 1999.

CD, would you care to state your current views in explicit terms?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), September 30, 1999.

Here's how it happened for me. In about 1996, I heard a news report that a 13 year old computer wizkid from New Zealand had discovered a fix for the century date change problem, and I didn't give it another thought.

Then in June 1998, I read an article in the Boston Globe about "Y2K" and my first thought was, of course, "I thought that kid fixed it." I remember studying the "word" Y2K, and that it took me a minute to figure out what it meant. Duh.

So I did a Yahoo search, and just as you predicted, I came upon North's site and others equally scary. It is important to note that my motivation for researching the topic was to find evidence that everything would be OK. I have been online every day since looking for that evidence.

Now my research includes only browsing for news items and stopping by this site for the sense of community I get here. I am responsible for my own analysis of the facts (or absence of facts). I have learned enough to convince me that preparation is prudent, and that I have nothing to lose by playing it safe.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can arrive at a different conclusion.

-- semper paratus (llmcl@usa.net), September 30, 1999.

CD, THat's not my experience at all. I began researching the mainstream news and then the U.S. government reports, which were alarming enough to lead me to understand that we're in deep trouble. I never went to commercial sites with an agenda and have not generally bought the commercial products offered, either...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

Actually Tom, I'd rather not. (Nothing personal BTW)

But as long as I'm chiming in again on this thread, I want to say thanks to all who have responded to this point. Would still like to hear comments from those who were "introduced" to Y2k in the same manner as I was.

-- CD (not@here.com), September 30, 1999.

I've been researching it for about 2 years - 18 months in earnest. Gary North had some provocative links, but I was more interested in the CSIS hearings and other such documents - GAO reports etc. I frequented the Westergaard, y2ktoday and other websites and checked out their links - both doomer and polly type. I've observed that the "warning" sites generally had specific concerns. The "happy face" sites offered vague reassurances that parsed their words carefully. I've spent 20+ years in media and advertising. I can smell weasel words a mile away. At some point in late 98 I shifted my focus to preparedness and that has been my focus ever since. I have only become a regular reader of this forum in the last month or so.

-- Fiver (fiver2000@yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

fiver,

whoa nellie. you're scaring me. my intro was identical to yours. there was enough on organizational, (IEEE, etc.) and governmental sites to scare me spitless. i read north et.al. but i soon found that you didn't have to frequent "fringe" sites to get religion. if a person spends any time at all researching this dilema they quickly come to the realization that the problem is indeed

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), September 30, 1999.

How long have you been researching Y2k? > 2000 hours

Do you feel that some of the sites which you originally visited may have exaggerated the Y2k problem for self-serving purposes?

There are always those with an hidden agenda. Trying to get FACTS about Y2K is very difficult - it's akin to trying to find out who raided the cookie jar ...

Did you attempt to find information/websites which contradicted what North and others were saying?

No. I understand systemics and although I take 'opinion' with a pinch of salt, it is hard to argue with the maths. I find very few polly arguments are sustainable.

If so, approximately how long had you been researching Y2k before you found them?

See above

Would you describe your initial reaction to the information as "relief", or would you describe it as "disbelief"?

Neither. The arrogance and ability of senior management to be able to comfortably worship at the altar of short-termism never ceases to amaze me. Those who will not learn from history etc ...

Do you ever visit these sights or do you restrict your surfing to this forum only?

I can be found in many places where sensible discussion about Y2K can be found. This tends to mean editing out a lot of noise though ....

-- merville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), September 30, 1999.

I originally got a newletter from Gary North. I don't know why, but I sat down and read it in March of '97, and most of it made absolute sense. Then I found the year2000.com, and for months just read the articles, but and was frustrated because the "reports" didn't add up and no hardball questions were ever asked. Then I found Gary's site. I loved that his commentary was much like what I was wishing I could say or ask of these people.

I'm still confused about what people think his agenda is - he's already said this IS NOT the Christian Revelation taking place - for that needs computers to work to have the mark of the beast etc.

So, what's his agenda? To be free of a Government that acts as ours does, with it's corruption and lies? Seems OK by me.

Anyway, it seemed so clear what we were facing. I talked to a Colorado State Senator (Wham) about this in summer of '98 - she was very disinterested. Since no contingency plans came from the National level, I moved my Mom to a rural location that fall. Can't believe others don't see either.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), September 30, 1999.