Ed Yourdon, could you set the record straight?

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

Ed, could you please set the record straight on a couple of points? It seems to me that you are on record as saying that you moved out of New York City at least in part because you thought NYC would look like Beirut. Now it looks like you are trying to weasel your way out of that stance by misstating the historical record.

On October 12, 1999 you stated:

Whoa! As I recall, this is based on a speech that I made some TWO years ago, in which I said that I was concerned that Y2K could create a situation in which New York City COULD be like Beirut. As for "moving out of New York City," that's not accurate -- my family still has an apartment in NYC, and I'll be celebrating the Thanksgiving holidays there.

Now, the word could is a very slippery one. This passage makes it sound like you didn't really think it was highly probable that NYC would look like Beirut. Furthermore, it sounds like the possibility that NYC would look like Beirut was never a major factor in your decision to move out of NYC because you never really moved out of New York City. This passage makes it sound like you thought y2k COULD make New York City look like Beirut in the same manner that if you bought a lottery ticket you COULD win a million dollars.

Now, here is what you said in Y2k Survivalists, Safe Havens, And Bugging Out that you wrote on July 5, 1988. It can be found at your site by clicking on "Ed's article's, Y2K essays".

Rather than discussing this in a completely removed, detached manner, let me summarize my own situation. My wife and I recently sold our New York City apartment and bought a house in a small town in New Mexico; but I'm not abandoning the computer field, and I would have been moving out of New York City even if Y2K hadn't come along. . . .But let's not beat around the bush: even though the move to New Mexico is part of a larger, long-anticipated transition in my life, it doesn't eliminate the black-and-white reality that I would not allow my family to be in New York City for Millennium Weekend. I've often joked that I expect New York to resemble Beirut if even a subset of the Y2K infrastructure problems actually materialize -- but it's really not a joke. It's likely to be fairly cold on New Year's weekend, and a combination of disruptions in utilities, telecommunications, banking, schools, hospitals, airports, unemployment checks, Social Security checks, food stamps, and/or welfare checks be enough to make the citizens of New York (who normally only have to tolerate problems like subway strikes and embarrassingly incompetent baseball teams) extraordinarily grumpy. There's enough gunfire in the streets even in normal times, and I'm not comfortable exposing my family to the city's ill humor if Y2K turns out to be a serious problem.

And how does your statement that you would have moved out of NYC even if there was no Y2K problem square away with the following which you wrote in March 1998:

Frankly, I couldn't care less whether your computer veterans agree or disagree with my views on Y2K; my daughter and I wrote our "Time Bomb 2000" book to articulate personal Y2K contingency plans for our family, our friends, and other personal acquaintances. If Y2K does turn out to be as bad as I think it will be, nobody is going to care abut the opinions of software professionals on 1/1/2000 (other than possibly lynching them for having created the problem in the first place!); instead, everyone is going to be concentrating on how to get food, shelter, clothing, and the basic necessities of life. Y2K threatens all of this, except in the backwards economies that have never depended on automation or socio-economic interactions with other automated societies. Rural China will probably be okay; but in my humble opinion, New York, Chicago, Atlanta and a dozen other cities are going to resemble Beirut in January 2000. That's why I've moved out of NYC to rural New Mexico a couple months ago. [emphasis added] Notice that only a couple of months after you moved from NYC you did not qualify your motives. You stated that you moved from the city because you thought it would look like Beirut. A few months later, in July 1998 you qualified your statement by saying you would have moved from the city anyway, but you still thought there was a good chance NYC would look like Beirut. Over a year later you make it sound like you never really moved from the city. (And BTW, whether or not you plan on spending THANKSGIVING in the city is totally irrelevant. The real question is whether you intend to be there come January 1st.)

So which passage most closely reflects your reasoning for moving out of the city? Should we believe that your memory of your motives for the move are better now than they were only a couple of months after the event? Is your most recent discussion of the subject just backpedaling on your part? Are you trying to reinterpret history in a way so you don't look ridiculous? Or is it just that your memory of what you wrote is about as accurate as Clinton's memory of what he did with Monica Lewinsky? If you claim that you just didn't remember what you wrote over a year ago then why should we believe that your memory of what motivated your move is more accurate now than it was a year ago?

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 15, 1999

Answers

Folks,

I used to wonder why it seemed that politicians worked so hard to avoid ever saying something definitive ... after reading through this thread, I think I understand: if the issues involved are controversial enough, people will pounce on every word, every nuance, and assume that it has enormous cosmic significance.

To answer Robin's point: yes, it does appear that there are some inconsistencies between the various things I've said about moving out of NYC, and whether or not NYC will resemble Beirut. I'll try to provide some insight into those inconsistencies, but I have to agree with the comment made by one of the posters, i.e., "Who cares?" If there has been one consistent theme throughout ALL of my Y2K writings, I think it has been this: people need to make up their own minds about what they're going to do, and they need to take resonsibility for their own Y2K-related decisions. Thus, it may be true that people have been "influenced" into moving somewhere based on my life-style decisions, but I don't take responsibility for it.

As for the statements themselves: the first time I discussed Beirut and NYC at the same time was in a speech that I made to a NYC Y2K group in November 1997. Unbenownst to me, there was a BBC reporter in the group who thought it was sufficiently interesting to write up, and the quote appeared in the U.K. ... and then gravitated over to the U.S. I was trying to make a serious point, in a speech to a group of experienced Y2K/computer professionals, about the dangers of social disorder if there are infrastructure disruptions in any urban city -- and I chose to use hyperbole to make the point. Had I known that it was going to be recorded and quoted, perhaps I would have been more cautious... but once having said it, the phrase took on a life of its own.

As for the March 1998 material you've excerpted: that was written extemporaneously as an email message to someone, on an evening when I was in a particularly grumpy mood. It got picked up and posted on a listserv ... and again, took on a life of its own. Again, had it occurred to me that it would become the subject of public discussion and debate, perhaps I would have been more careful in my choice of language. However, since you DO worry so much about language, note that I said that "I" had moved out of NYC, and did not include the rest of my family.

The reason I mention this is that two years have gone by, and one of the things my family and I have learned is that they have a much stronger affinity for NYC than I do. I spent my childhood years in the western part of the country, and believe that I could happily spend the rest of my life in this area without ever seeing NYC again (but that, too, is probably hyperbole ). In any case, my wife and children were born and raised in NYC, and they love the place. Thus, while it is true that we sold our "coop" apartment in NYC, and bought a house (not a ranch, not a bunker, not a cave, just a modest little house) in New Mexico, it's also true that we decided to rent a small apartment in NYC. My family enjoys spending part of their time there, my college- age children enjoy seeing their old school chums during holiday periods, and as a result, we do spend some of our holidays in NYC. It also turns out that much of my consulting work is still on the East Coast, so I spend a lot of time in the NYC area regardless of where I would choose to live.

I don't think the key issue is whether or not I've moved or haven't moved, or whether I live in one place or two places. Who cares? The real question is whether one would willingly choose to be in a major city like NYC (or Boston, or Beirut, or Rome, or Washington, or any of a hundred other places) immediately before and after the Big Rollover. That issue is real, and it hasn't gone away, and it's something that I believe everyone should think about very carefully before making whatever decision they're comfortable with.

For whatever it's worth, my family is a little grumpy about my having said "I would not allow my family to be in New York City for Millennium Weekend," because they believe, quite justifiably, that they are adults who can make their own decisions. They're right, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that I would use whatever powers of persuasion I might have to persuade them to spend New Yeark's Weekend in an area I consider safer. Whether it will be safe for them to go back to someplace like NYC on January 3rd remains to be seen... If anything, I'm more concerned than I was two years ago, because it seems to me that the possibility of terrorist activities is greater than before. If you were a disgruntled terrorist, what better place and what better time could you imagine than Times Square on New Year's Eve? And if something like that should transpire, NYC could indeed end up looking like Beirut.

I hope that provides some insight, for whatever it's worth. Seems to me that, with only 77 days left, this is all pretty irrelevant. By now, you should have made up your own mind, rather than obsessing with the question of whether or not you should believe my memory and my motivations...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), October 15, 1999.


No one, including Ed, has to justify moving out of the rotten apple. NYC is a shithole when compared to Taos, NM. Granted there are a few places and maybe some unfortunate family members worth visiting there (hence Ed's going back for Thanksgiving), but given the choice between living in NYC and Taos, come on.

-- Bill (y2khippo@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

What's the point?

Is there something you want or expect to gain by this line of questioning?

How do any of Ed Yourdon's reasons for moving his family affect you in the slightest?

Why take such a position?

Is this any of your business, anyway?

Are you the self appointed hall monitor?

---

I say NO.

Butt Out!!!

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


Robin

Get a life. Ed is not a GOD. (has the ability to make errors or even change his mind.) Only GOD is never changing. He can say and do what he wants just like you and me. He saw something and put it on the line and did something about it. I never got the opinion that he felt comfortable telling other people how to live thier life. He only shared with the world what some of the things he was doing to show he was more that just talk. We all have to make our own choices. Ed has shared some of his and for that I know that I and many others are thankful as we try to do our own evaluations and plans for the future. Thank you Ed

-- Andre Coltrin (andre@coltrin.org), October 15, 1999.


It looks like "Weekend Madness" may be beginning a little early this week.

I mean, like, who cares? Anybody who goes to these lengths to document the difference between would, could and going to (IHHO), has just little too much time on his hands.

-- (dot@dot.dot), October 15, 1999.



Or perhaps very desperate and hoping that if Ed can be found as contradicting himself in the span of 11 years on his reasons for moving out of NYC, the city will be safer after the roll-over.

Pollies have done worse.

-- (not@now.com), October 15, 1999.


Student or teacher?

If this is an example of what we can expect from a cornell.edu address, it's no wonder our nation appears to have lost the capacity for thinking. Please tell me that's a fake address, else it's another indication that we're down the tubes.

-- de (delerwis@XOUTinetone.net), October 15, 1999.


I mean, like, who cares? Anybody who goes to these lengths to document the difference between would, could and going to (IHHO), has just little too much time on his hands.

Yeah, like all those that jump everytime a CEO or VP leaves a company? Those trying to "piece together the clues"?

Normally, I'd definitely agree that private decisions require no public explanation.

But Ed Yourdon has publicly used these statements, multiple times, in multiple places, to provide dramatic evidence of just how bad he thinks it'll be. He is the one who took these private decisions public, not anybody else.

I think the main question is was it "more than just talk".

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.


Bill, Ed doesn't have to answer anything but he put himself in the lime light. He made statements that seem to contradict. He should clarify them for credibility sake. No, it's still a free country and Ed can look like a fool if he wants.

No talking please, Ed should clarify. He seems to waffle on many of his past statements. But he doesn't have to (as in my response to Bill).

Andre, Ed believes he is a GOD. You doomers made him GOD. The way you continually praise his every word made him a GOD. But you don'e seem to be praising his words now, how come? Now his words are coming back to haunt him. He should explain himself.

Dot, Just pointing out the facts. You guys don't like contradictions pointed out when it involves yourgod, only when it involves Flint.

Robin, good job.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 15, 1999.


With Ed's gloomy outlook for Y2K, I would be surprised if he chose to stay in the Big Apple. Wondering whether the horse came before the cart, or after, or in tandem seems like a total waste of time to me. Slow news day, Robin?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Andre, Ed believes he is a GOD. You doomers made him GOD. The way you continually praise his every word made him a GOD. But you don'e seem to be praising his words now, how come? Now his words are coming back to haunt him. He should explain himself.

Dot, Just pointing out the facts. You guys don't like contradictions pointed out when it involves yourgod, only when it involves Flint.

Maria

Hey Maria, nice guy that I am here's a hint that will save you time and effort. Go down to your local Sherwin Williams store and ask the nice young man behind the counter for an 18 wide inch roller. I think that you will find it does a much better job than that overly broad brush you are currently using.

;)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


---

Interesting comments Hoff and Maria.

Now what exactly is your point?

Will there be some great rendering of knowledge from this line of questioning?

Or do you simply wish to try to tarnish someone else in an attempt to bring yourself up?

I don't see any value in any additional information along this line.

It only seems to be inflammatory at best.

Or a direct affront to another's reputation.

What possible good can come of it?

And what possible purpose do you intend?

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


This thread and one from yesterday reminds me of something I read awhile back (maybe here, maybe somewhere else) don't remeber the exact words, but something like:

Intelligent people talk about ideas... Educated people talk about events... Ignorant people talk about peopled...

I visited the 'competition' yesterday and saw nothing with someone's name as a part of the conversation....

(If any of you said the above, you got the credit, just thought it appropriate)

-- BH (silentvoice@pobox.com), October 15, 1999.


---

Thank You ---BH

Well said.

Nuff said.

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


Unusual format in the answers pn this one, like massive amounts were cut-and-pasted together....regardless.

Robin - it appears your working too hard to find a specific, single word to use against a man's words and writings that span dozens of years on computer topics and national consulting.

I'd be amazed if there were not more discrepancies like this - but fail to see the point of your attack. Are you trying to imply that if "one" word is incorrect, or iplies a different purpose when compared against previous statements several ago, that ALL conclusions and thoughts from that person are wrong?

Seems to be the case.

Then, for some reason, you throw in Clinton's "forgetting" about Monica: not the same. He signed and submitted (with his lawyers' specific and deliberate counsel) a documents that perjured himself with deliberately and specifically misleading language - AHEAD of the sworn grand jury testimony. Then, in fornt of the judge, Clinton deliberately and specifically got the judge to throw out two of the three specific definitions that HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY DENIED, in a court case already underway for several years specifically linking Clinotn to sexual harrassment and intimedation. It was only after the judge threw out two of the three definitions that the written statements could be "re-interpreted" as being true by a compliant news media - eager to "protect their annointed head from all evil, foreign and domestic."

He never "forgot" anything: he lied from the beginning, when he was on tape to Flowers telling her to lie about their affairs to cover those earlier ones up.

No, no "forgetfullness" here, m'lady - continued deliberate perjury to cover up a previous criminal act.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.



Robin,

I can't believe how these doomers answer a question posed to Ed Yourdon. I've been waiting for this answer myself. There was also another controversy about using email letters in his book without permission. Both those threads dried up REAL fast.

Why don't you doomers let Ed answer this question and keep your brown noses out?

-- (NoneAyobiz@666.com), October 15, 1999.


---

And more bile...

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


Ed has written somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600,000 bytes about Y2K that are on the WWW not including posting on forums. Tell you what, gather those all together, do a statistical analysis on them and you can come up with what YOU think he thinks about Y2K.

sheesshh....

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), October 15, 1999.


Ed has written somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,600,000 bytes about Y2K that are on the WWW not including posting on forums. Tell you what, gather those all together, do a statistical analysis on them and you can come up with what YOU think he thinks about Y2K.

sheesshh....

Has anybody ever figured out WHY it is so important to everybody (apparently) to figure out what ONE person (North, Lord, Yardeni, Yourdon, Greenspan(!), deJager, Koskinen, Bubba, etc. whoever) thinks about Y2K? It's not like there is a dearth of info on Y2K. ANYBODY can look up thousands of articles, reports, speeches, testimonies, etc. and take that information and make up their own mind. I really don't understand the fuss.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), October 15, 1999.


Look, much as you'd like to pretend Ed Yourdon is somehow just another person commenting on Y2k, he is not.

He has positioned himself as one of the main Y2k "Fear" Leaders. It wasn't by default, and no one did this to him. He did it himself, consciously. He wrote the books, wrote the "essays", made the videos, created the "Y2k Web Malls", participated in the MLM's.

As an IT "expert", his words carried much more weight than a Gary North's or a Michael Hyatt's. In essence, he validated the theories and scenarios for the North's.

And, much as he apparently would like to wash his hands, his books, videos, essays, and words, have influenced people. How many? Don't know. But it would not surprise me in any way that many have at the least validated their decisions to "Bug-Out" with the thoughts "hey, look, if Ed Yourdon is bugging out, I better too".

And yes, if these statements were just "talk", and not reality, then I believe he should answer for that.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.


Andre, you said: [Ed] can say and do what he wants just like you and me.

I'm glad to hear you say that I can say and do what I want. Some others here might not agree with that statement.

de: The e-mail is real. I am neither teacher nor student. I am a staff member. And what I say is my own opinion and does not represent that of Cornell University or anyone or anything else for that matter.

Y2K ready: I have no idea who started the thread. It wasn't me. I would have been happier if Ed simply said "Yes, I made that statement and it looks like I may have been wrong. Perhaps I did overstate the case in the past." Being wrong is not a sin. Even the best of us can be wrong from time to time.

However, it appears Ed was wrong in a big way. And it is important to set the historical record straight. If someone has been wrong about a major issue in the past, I will use that in evaluating how much weight to give his current opinions on similar issues. You may feel free to use other criteria in deciding how you should weigh the importance of someone else's opinion. I am not telling you what to believe.

There is also another factor I use in deciding how to weigh someone else's statements. That is their integrity. If someone changes their story repeatedly or tries to rewrite history, then I want to know this in deciding how much emphasis to place on their words. Again, you may feel free to disregard that as a criteria for deciding who to listen to.

Now, I am not calling Ed a liar. It just appears to me that he hasn't been consistent. It appears that Ed is trying to wiggle his way out of past statements. But maybe I am missing something and I am just giving him an opportunity to set the record straight.

Robert Cook: I am not asking Ed to remember everything he has written over the past dozen years on computer topics. These statements were written only over the past two years. And Ed didn't have to respond immediately to the poster who originally asked him about the Beirut/New York connection. He could have taken the time to look up his past writings, one of which was on his own website.

To All who object to this post: Why the vehemence over trying to set the historical record straight? Would you rather history disappear down an Orwellian memory hole?

Hoffmeister You have it exactly right in your assessment of Ed's role in the y2k story. I am not calling him a god, but he has been very influential. He should be willing to take responsibility for what he has said.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 15, 1999.


Robin, you poor misguided soul. What does it really matter why Ed moved from NYC? What is your point?

Make up your own mind on what you think you need to do, and stop attacking others for doing what they feel they need to do.

For those putting Ed up there with God, well, God help you. Ed is not "God" and he will be the first to admit that. If you had "God" in your life, that would be obvious to you.

I moved out of the city too. Want to know my reasons so you can attack me?

Where will you be on Jan. 1??

-- Bill (bill@tinfoil.com), October 15, 1999.


I too would like to know what the point of this is.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 15, 1999.

Robin, et al,...how is this any different than any other schoolyard quabble over who's right? (of course the answer to that question in the ongoingly bent social animal that is western culture is: If we can't be right and make others wrong, well, well,...life is meaningless,...the great anomie) Y2K as the center of any dialogue, discussion, or debate goes poof magically amid the sing-songy refrains coming from both sides of "caughtyou, caughtyou!" All are discredited and made impotent.

So circular and pointless.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 15, 1999.


---

They want to cause more useless chittering...

---

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


Hoff:

Your argument presupposes that people are not capable of independent thought and possessed of free will. Doubtless there are those who read his book and visited his site and then decided it wasn't necessary to move to the hills.

Further, are you the pot or the kettle? Up in the thread, you said, "Yeah, like all those that (sic) jump everytime (sic) a CEO or VP leaves a company? Those trying to 'piece together the clues'?"

Looks a lot like what you and Messing and the other pollies have done on this thread. You jump every time a perceived misstep or misstatement is made, with no other intention than to "piece together the clues."

Yourdon's writings, comments, posts and musings to many of us, I believe, have constituted another ingredient in our recipe for planning for the future. To some of us it may have been a pinch; to others a tablespoon. We will sample the meal shortly.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), October 15, 1999.


When we get this thrashed out,maybe we can move on to How Many Angels Can Dance On The Head Of A Pin.

-- Sam (Gunmkr52@aol.com), October 15, 1999.

This has got to win the award for the most asinine thread in the history of the forum and there have been many.

Could, will, is, won't. What a joke.

Ed had/has an opinion about New York (what will happen). That is not inconsistent with saying that such an event "could" happen. It's a FUTURE EVENT (not, as with Monica, something that was done and that, btw, really shows the spirit of this post). He isn't a prophet.

It also isn't inconsistent to have moved to New Mexico, something he has spoken about many times (ie, his recent comment about New York has nothing to do with DENYING he moved to New Mexico), but to make the point that his family hasn't ABANDONED New York (has an apartment). Get a clue.

And Hoff continues to show his true colors, ie, to smear Ed as purveying FEAR, which Hoff, on a number of occasions, has asserted that Yourdon has done consciously and knowingly (by implication, to feather his own wallet). It's despicable, "Hoffmeister", or WHOEVER YOU MAY BE THAT HIDES AS YOU DO, while posing as someone with such great integrity -- pathetic. Yourdon is a big boy who has lived Y2K in the public sphere, good and bad. He has apologized when wrong. He has responded with remarkable grace (a lot more than me) when he IS smeared. You haven't done jack. I may have a handle, but my email is real, people know me and I can be held accountable. I give Decker and Flint credit for the same. North too. You don't. You're just a poseur. And I'll be glad to remind you of this on your other threads too, so the regulars who don't read the crap on this thread can have a chance to weigh it and you on the merits.

Is Ed a "god"? I'm personally sick and tired of the way you (Hoff) and others (Maria) mock people on this forum with that nonsense. And if Flint comes out here to sing-along, instead of to show some integrity, he can take the same comment to himself.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 15, 1999.


"And, much as he apparently would like to wash his hands, his books, videos, essays, and words, have influenced people."

Hoff, clarify this statement for me? Where do you get the idea that Ed would like to wash his hands (and wash his hands of what?)

-- (not@now.com), October 15, 1999.


Vic:

I think you need to tread very carefully here. If you're right and people are fully capable of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions, then surely you see that this applies to the output of influential optimists (like Koskinen) as well as pessimists like Yourdon.

While I recognize that my own biases influence my opinions very strongly, I still see an inconsistency between holding optimists responsible for "talking people out of preparing", while absolving pessimists of talking them INTO preparing on the grounds that people can think for themselves.

If people weren't influenced by what Yourdon has written, this forum might not exist. There has been plenty of talk about lynching those who could have warned us and did not. Remember that this coin has two sides.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 15, 1999.


God...leave it to you Flint to see all sides. Do you ever stand still or do you spend all of your waking hours spinning like a top? Your essays are exhausting, its like trying to find the beginning of the thread in a skein of yarn. You have put new meaning to the sayings of "middle ground", "the truth is in the middle"......and mid life crises and middle ear syndrome and my head is spinning, and....

Taz

-- Taz (Taz@aol.com), October 15, 1999.


[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

http://www.accessatlanta.com/technology/y2kdrill.html

Technology

Emergency officials hold Y2K rehearsal

By Clint Williams, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A computer malfunction has opened the floodgates of a dam north of Columbus, and Michael McGuinn is having a difficult time finding sandbags.

Fortunately, this is only a drill.

McGuinn, a colonel with the Georgia Defense Force, was among the hundreds of people participating Wednesday in a 12-hour drill to test the state's readiness to handle Y2K-related problems. Dozens of reports of fictitious disasters jammed the phone lines in the basement operations center of the Georgia Emergency Management Agency.

In a script that would make Stephen King shudder, the first hours of the new millennium see Georgia afflicted with everything but locusts. The scenario used to test GEMA and other agencies included a winter storm in northwest Georgia, a blackout across Middle Georgia, a plane crash in South Georgia and the west Georgia flooding that sent McGuinn scrambling for sandbags.

There's a prison riot at Reidsville and a drunken riot in Buckhead. Roads are closed across North Georgia and a bridge is closed in Camden County. A fiery collision between a gasoline tanker truck and a tour bus kills at least 30 people. At least 60,000 chickens are dying and no one knows why.

"It's overkill," admitted Tracy Sargent, who headed the exercise.

The exercise wasn't a likely end-of-the-year scenario, Sargent said. It was a worst-case example of bad luck run amok, she said, designed to stretch the capabilities of the state agencies and private groups that would respond to an emergency. Although billed as a Y2K drill, the lessons learned apply to a wide array of disasters.

"We're not preparing for just one event or just one day," Sargent said.

Indeed, many of the disasters--the truck-bus crash, food poisoning at the Georgia Dome--have nothing to do with the so-called Y2K bug. But the potential computer-related problems that could accompany the new year has a lot of people bugged.

[snip]

"Whatever may occur, we want to reassure the citizens of Georgia that we're prepared for it," Sargent said.

The drill included a number of touches to make it as realistic as possible: Trucks commandeered to haul water need gas and drivers; faux newscasts provide gloomy updates of widespread panic. But planners can't think of everything.

Widespread power outages--the script called for 30 counties to flicker dark--would disable hundreds of traffic signals. Restoring order to many of those intersections would be a job for the Georgia Department of Transportation, said Bryant Poole, assistant state maintenance engineer.

"For this to be more realistic," Poole said, "we'd be hopping more with that problem."

And not all the tools GEMA plans to use are yet available. The agency will broadcast Y2K news bulletins using the National Weather Service radio system, which is not yet operational, said Donna Martin, GEMA's Y2K contingency planning manger.

The statewide radio network used to broadcast weather information will keep people informed of developments, good and bad, related to the Y2K bug, Martin said. Details will be worked out this month.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), October 15, 1999.


Oh, give me a break.

The issue still remains for Ed Yourdon: When are you going to admit publicly that all of your "possibles" are no longer "probables." Never, it looks like. Despite all evidence to the contrary coming from experts of equal or greater reputations as yours that Y2K is not going to be a catastrophic event, you still repeat the old argument that people can decide for themselves. And then go on to say that you're still worried that New York may indeed end up looking like Beirut due to possible terrorism. So, it's terrorism now, not infrastructure breakdowns, eh?

I don't agree. People can not decide for themselves. In order to make intelligent decisions about anything, we all rely on experts. There is a certain amount of trust built into our society that keeps it all going. Without that trust none of us would be able to accomplish anything. All you are accomplishing now is a continuance of the kinds of "ifs" and "coulds" that lead to a breakdown of that trust.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


Oh, no, Buddy weighs in.

Let's just turn this on its head.

Koskinen says prepare for a three-day-storm.

If that Y2K "three-day-storm" hit New York, you can absolutely believe it would resemble Beirut on day three, particularly if there was no frozen precipitation to be found.

Any polly disagree with this?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 15, 1999.


OK, Lisa set me off even more...so I'm crossposting this...

What the hell are you talking about?

Like NYC has never had a big blizzard? Like there has never been a hurricane or tropical storm wreak havoc there? Do you even know what Beirut looks like right now?

The only reason that the official message is "three day storm" is because that is what people understand and that is standard emergency preparation advice.

I contend that even if the worst doomer predictions were possible, the standard doomer "prepare" message would still be the wrong response. That is what the doomers have never gotten, get it?

The idea that all families should individually and unilaterally start stockpiling (read hoarding) is ludicrous! If there is a major crisis to deal with then aren't we all in this together?

Do you not think that if the Chinese were to invade Seattle tomorrow, and a state of war were declared, and then you started hoarding that you wouldn't be arrested or maybe even shot.

What a bunch of selfish whiners. You think you're helping people? You're only helping yourselves.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


And who do you think you're helping Buddy?

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.

Hi Buddy - truer words may never have been spoken: But let's see just who you have decided is trustworthy of leading these "huddled masses yearning to be led, unable to decide for themselves.....scary words themselves from a liberal - who (right now) is worthy of leading these people? Are you claiming Americans cannot think and decide for themselves?

Anyway - are the Clintons' (or anyone else in his administration) reliable, on any matter regardling anything? Why do you trust their conclusions about potential y2k events? They have not been right in the past - or can you name any event they have correctly been able to "manage"? Can you name any event they have NOT turned into politcal advantage by manipulating their beloved press corpse of zombies?

Can you show me why we (nationally) should believe Mr. K's happy-faced conclusions rather than Ed's more pessimistic conclusions?

Do you claim that Clinton - who owes his political life through impeachment to the economy and Wall Street, and his re-election to illegal and uninvestigated Communistic Chinese and labor union and lawyer money that has been shielded from by the national Democratic Party and a compliant press corps to be "unmotivated by greed, profit, or money?"

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.


Robin - your reply appears to confirm that your goal is trap Ed into one completely true statement - agreed spread over 2 years, not ten - so to use that against him.

Thus, I await your next press release claiming Ed (and thus all others in the awareness community) are lying to the public based on his replies here. As well - of course - of being fanatic, profit-mongering fear-spreading, right-winger, armed Christian terrorists huddling behind locked doors hoarding their beens and guns....did I miss any key words and tricky phrases? 8<)

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.


Leave it too the esteemed Mr. Cook to turn the whole discussion into politics. Do you really think that Clinton matters that much? I don't see too many Republican, Libertarian, Reform, or any other candidates challenging the Administration's Y2K stance. So, why the heck does politics enter the picture? That's always been a stretch in my mind.

The Senate committee is bipartisan. Are you going to now say that they are in on Clinton's vast Y2K conspiracy?

I'm sorry, I just don't see evil and ulterior motives everywhere.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


What a bunch of selfish whiners. You think you're helping people? You're only helping yourselves.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.

And helping ourselves is evil because....

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


And while I'm at it...

The idea that all families should individually and unilaterally start stockpiling (read hoarding) is ludicrous! If there is a major crisis to deal with then aren't we all in this together? --Buddy

Yes, we are, in my mind anyway. But, if nobody has put aside for a rainy day, who is able to help who?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Buddy,

If I understand you right, you are saying that even if I know something bad is going to happen I should not prepare and let the goverment take care of me.

You are implying that I should rather starve and die like everyone else rather then eat the food that I have stored just "in case".

You are implying that just by buying a couple extra cans of food each week I am a hoarder and deserve to be shot.

You are implying that I should not have the right to live because I like to be responsible for my own actions.

You kind Sir, (grumble).. never mind...

All the blessings in the world to you Buddy. May God show his full love and wisdom to you.

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), October 15, 1999.


[straining at the straight-jacket and trying to chew thru the duct tape]

Buddy - is not really all that terrible a polly.

He over-generalizes about us - thinks we all want to waste, rather than feed, DGIs....

He really has a big heart but hasn't tempered his humanitarian spirit with wisdom.

[end Buddy kiss-A$$ mode]

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 15, 1999.


De-bunkers have now caused a new river of misunderstanding to flow.

Birthing lies and spewing them forth, hoping to cause confusion.

Their desire to confuse with such annoyance proves that their motivations are anything but constructive.

And are truly evil in intent.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.


I agree with you Lisa, he has just spent too much time inside the "beltway".

C'mom Buddy, tell me why looking out for myself is inherently evil. Please.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


I am not implying anything of the kind. I am not saying it is evil to have a well-stocked pantry. There is nothing wrong with being prepared for emergencies or for a rainy day. Duh.

You've gone beyond the point here. What I am trying to say is that Y2K was once thought, and rightly so, to have the potential of being a major crisis. People's concerns have been justified. As a result of those concerns a lot of people started asking a lot of questions. Now, most of those questions have been answered by the people who could address them most appropriately. And the conclusion is that Y2K is not going to cause a major catastrophic breakdown in the basic infrastructure. Whether you believe that or not is your problem.

Now, my contention was and always has been, that if we reached the conclusion that Y2K was going to cause a major catastrophic breakdown, then the correct response would not be to start telling everybody to get 40 acres and a mule, or stockpile rice and beans. The only way that we could provide for 260 million people would be a concerted effort by all of us to cooperate and find the right solutions. Of course, that would require that the government step in and coordinate that effort. How the heck else would it get done?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


Of course, that would require that the government step in and coordinate that effort.

See Lisa, I told you he's been in DC too long.

;)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


[Unc - he's teetering - leaning - he's | | close to being a Yourdonite again....]

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 15, 1999.

Ed's family are DGI"s? Gotta make you wonder how he feels about people who have nasty things to says about DGI's which would seem to reflect on his Loved ones. Remember when you post something really really rude about people who do not agree with the GI point of view, you are possibly talking about Ed's family members, and just what do you think that makes him think about you?



-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 15, 1999.


[Unc: have you the faintest clue what to do with Cherri???]

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 15, 1999.

I don't mean to pick on you Buddy, but there is a hurricane outside, so I'm stuck in here, and am somewhat bored.

You've gone beyond the point here. What I am trying to say is that Y2K was once thought, and rightly so, to have the potential of being a major crisis. People's concerns have been justified. As a result of those concerns a lot of people started asking a lot of questions.

Hmmmm, would any of these people be "Doomers"? You know, those awful "sky is falling" types?

Now, most of those questions have been answered by the people who could address them most appropriately.

Ummm, OK, sure, folks who have no vested interest in seeing things go on as they always have? Not that there is anything wrong with that, I would like my little life to continue as it has too, but it does tend to color my view of their statements.

And the conclusion is that Y2K is not going to cause a major catastrophic breakdown in the basic infrastructure. Whether you believe that or not is your problem.

Actually, I tend to agree that things look a LOT better than they once did. But, whether I believe that or not is not so much my problem, as it is my perogative. Let some people make fools of themselves on the side of being too safe, is that not better than the current situation of the vast majority of people risking making the mistake of not being prepared enough?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Flint:

I try to watch where I'm about to step, mon ami. Nothing I wrote runs counter to the notion that all the "output" should be factored to allow arrival at a conclusion. Perhaps I didn't express myself as wello as I should have.

I have never once in this forum accused you or anyone else of trying to talk people out of preparing. Likewise, I've offered no absolution of pessimists for talking them INTO preparing.

My whole point is that a lot of us are capable of rational decision-making, and it is based on input from all sides. It's a matter of retrieving the information, filtering it carefully based on our opinions of those offering it and arriving at a conclusion.

I have my biases, too, and one of them is that I trust and believe an Ed Yourdon much more than I do a Koskinen whose main function is to put a positive spin on a negative situation.

Koskinen is guilty by association when it comes to truth and lies. He works for the guy who looked us all straight in the eye and said he didn't have sex with that woman. Sorry, I just can't believe him.

The other contention in my response was that Hoff was guilty of the same egregious error of which he was accusing others.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), October 15, 1999.


No, I don't. She doesn't live in DC, if I recall correctly. She is usually polite though.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

This whole thread has become even more pointless than the first post. It looks like it's heading toward rehashing every polly/doomer arguments that has ever been made, even the debates over Clinton/Lewinsky and the meaning of what "is" is thrown in.

What are you scared of Robin, Hoff, Buddy et al. at this point? That Ed Yourdon will finally succeed in "brainwashing" the great masses, as opposed to the tiny fraction of "loonies" such as us who has ever read his book or heard of his name?

Well you may ALL rest assured guys, because Koskinen and the Clinton administration has won the brainwashing game! It's too late for anyone to change anyone's mind, our positions are all cast in dye and one side or the other will eat crow soon enough.

So please do yourselves and us a favor and leave this forum, go mingle with like minded people.

You truely are a special human being Ed, I admire your patience and dedication, shown again here by responding to this thread . Whether you turn out completely wrong, somewhat right or completely right, you will remain a courageous, concerned and intelligent man who did what he thought was right.

-- (not@now.com), October 15, 1999.


Buddy,

I am sorry if I have gone beyond the point that you were trying to make. However, that is how *I* perceived your message.

You state that most of the questions have been answered. Which one's have been answered..?? Did I miss something..??

You also state that there will not be a major catastrophic breakdown in basic infrastructure. How do YOU know...???

What *IF* I told you that *I* had personal knowledge about a BIG goverment agency as failing there y2k preps. Completly. What if I told you that because of the DATA that I have in front of me I KNOW that y2k remdiation are unsuccessful at 10 MAJOR U.S. Airports.

What *IF* I told you, that because of that, *I* am concerned about the spin that is given to the public. When I *KNOW* that they are lying.

Please, just enlighten me on the answers that you have gotten. What is the data that you are drawing you conclusions from.

I whole heartedly agree that it would have taken a cooperate effort by *ALL* of us to find the right solutions. Thinking back I think somewhere I read a column by Ed Yourdon for making just that assertion. That is what in my opinion the Humpty Dumpty forum is all about.

Your last question was the best one. "How the heck else would it get done?" Honestly...?? I don't know.. I am not very smart... I am not very wise... I am just a simple guy trying to find out how to take care of me. That I have to do before I can take care of others...

As for the name of the agency... I said *IF*....

Sometimes it is wiser to be silent then going crowing of rooftops...

Blessing to you and all others on this forum...

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), October 15, 1999.


Ditto to StFrancis,

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 15, 1999.

Well, I can't help the fact that I've been in DC too long, since I was born and raised here. It kind of gives me an outsider's view from the inside, so to speak.

What makes you think that the vast majority of people are not prepared enough? Not prepared enough for what? Here we go with that 3 days or not stuff again. To say that the vast majority are not prepared enough is to make the assumption that there will be a major breakdown that they can't handle. You're back to assuming that the infrastructure will crash. I believe that the vast majority are already prepared for short-term interruptions in the infrastructure. They deal with them often enough already. Just because there are lines at the supermarket before a snowstorm doesn't mean people aren't prepared for the most part.

And yes, some of the people asking the questions have been "doomers", but most of them are not. It is one thing to ask the questions. It is quite another thing when you don't believe the answers. Since I believe that the major Y2K questions have been answered truthfully, then I guess that's the major difference between the "pollys" and the "doomers"--the "doomers" don't trust the answers.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


Uncle D, good luck with the hurricane.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 15, 1999.

Yes, take care, Unc. I'll 'e' ya some more beer.

St. Francis, if you were to say that, you'd send Y2K Pro into an aneurism, that's what'd happen.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 15, 1999.


Lisa,

Thought you were gonna stick your finger down your throat. Why didn't you?

-- (gagme@gane.com), October 15, 1999.


Oh, that's rich, not@now.com (whose post is a textbook example of a troll post) wants me to go mingle with like-minded people. But you're right, this is a rehash of all doomer/polly points. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

"St. Francis" gave me some big *IFs* just now. And to those I would say PROVE IT. *IF* you have this evidence, then prove it. Go to the media, go to your congressman, and prove it. It's time to put up or shut up. So what if a major agency isn't going to make it. What agency and what programs will it impact? Will the failure of that agency cause the power to go off, the gas or water to stop flowing? Then prove it.

What is the data that I draw my conclusions from? The same data you have, only you don't believe it.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


"can't we all just get along?" Rodney King, Los Angeles, c.1993

-- cavscout (tiredof@ll.thebickering), October 15, 1999.

Buddy

I didn't say that the vast majority wasn't prepared enough, I said that they were RISKING not being so. Having said that, I will not profess to have a clue as to what is coming, nor to having a clue about how much is enough, nor too much, nor too little.

Seems to me that you and I have had this little talk before, many moons ago, about how much is enough, or too little. I'm ready for what I can be without taking huge radical steps in lifestyle changes. But I am comfortable with that, if it is worse than what I can make it through I don't really care if I'm around to live in it or not. Each one needs to make up his or her own mind about the risks, and the accuracy of media spin. You've made your asessment, I've made mine, and only a short time until we see who chose wisely.

Of course, even if nothing goes wrong I've chosen wisely. I saw a risk and took steps to guard against it's affects on me and mine. And I've done so in the context of buying only things that can be used regardless of the outcome. Those folks who have chosen to not do anything different may end up looking like soothsayers, or, they may end up in government cheese lines. Time will tell.

(PSSST hey Buddy, tell ya the truth, nothing is going to happen. How do I know this? Cause I ready for it, Murphy's law in reverse.)

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Yawn.......

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 15, 1999.

Sir Buddy of the DC,

<<. Since I believe that the major Y2K questions have been answered truthfully, then I guess that's the major difference between the "pollys" and the "doomers"--the "doomers" don't trust the answers. >>

Comes back to that key point you didn't answer before - why do you believe the Clintons' administration's conclusions?

If there were only the one scandal you discuss, not thousands of lies in thousands of press releases and deceptions over hundreds of different scandals affecting issues as trivial as "plowing in Tennesee" and as vital as "no nuclear weapons are targetted at this country" to John Glenn's "Well then, if the DNC received nothing for this money, I don't see any reason to continue this investigation ...." while ignoring Communistic Chinese nuclear spying rings. There is NO reason to believe this administration. They have NEVER been honest and correct in predicting anything of public importance, and have ALWAYS abused their power to further their reign, at the expense even of the 11 convicted felons in the WhiteWater probe.

You are only repeating their self-serving conclusions, while deliberately ignoring the ability of the American public to respond and prepare for uncertainity.

IF they (the American public) had been seriously and consistently told to prepare, not the laughable and deliberately ignored "3 day storm warning" - meaningless anyway in three quarters of the country; and ignored in all the remaining areas but those already self-reliant such as country and rural areas.

HOWEVER, I do note that now you claim only the fed's can respond - was that not the Clintons' goal from 1995? To abort civil liberties, expand emergency powers, and appear the saviour of the public to their adoring fans?

The Clintons cold have responded in 1995 and 1996 to prevent the whole thing from being a threat - they (deliberately) choose not to do that. And have encouraged political deception ever since - in every matter investigated.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), October 15, 1999.


I would be remiss if I did not thank you kind ladies for your best hurricane wishes, but fear not, it's just a little one. Didn't even drag out the plywood this time. Also, Lisa, thanks for the E-beer, how'd you know it was my favorite?

Cheers to all, gotta run, it's time for another liver transplant.

Ciao.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


Buddy,

That are some big *IF's*... What would you do...?

What would you do...? Go to your congressman..? Yeah right...

What if you are a foreign national from india for instance...?

What if you would go to the media... Who's word is more trusted your's or Johnny Kosky's..???

And you want me to come forward WHY..???

Thought so...

Peace and blessings to you all...

.

.

All of this is of course PURELY HYPOTHETICAL...

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), October 15, 1999.


Extracurricular reading, Robin...

New Senate Y2K Hearings - "What in the World Will Happen?"

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

Or the direct route...

Senate Y2K Committee

Hearing on International Preparedness: What in the World Will Happen?
http:// www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/

Opening Statements:

Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), Chair
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013bennett.htm

Senator Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Vice-Chair
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/st991013dodd.htm

Witnesses:
(HTML & PDF Files)

Admiral Robert Willard
Joint Staff, Department of Defense
(Closed Briefing - classified information)

Bonnie R. Cohen
Under Secretary for Management
Department of State
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013cohen.htm
PDF...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013cohen.pdf

Larry Gershwin
National Intelligence Officer
Central Intelligence Agency
HTML at CIA web-site...
http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/ pr101399.html

Michael J. Copps
Assistant Secretary for Trade Development
Department of Commerce
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013copps.htm
PDF...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ copps%20testimony.pdf

James L. Price
Chief Economist, Department of Commerce
(no written testimony)

Nick Gogerty
International Monitoring
PDF...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/gogerty_intl.pdf
Addendum: global finance paper
PDF...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ instit_banking.pdf

Howard Rubin
Cap-Gemini, YES Corps
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013rubin.htm
PDF...
http:/ /www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/hrubin.pdf

Hon. James Moody
President and CEO
Interaction
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013moody.htm
PDF...
http:/ /www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/jmoody.pdf

Statements for the Record

Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers, State Department Inspector General
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013bridgers.htm

Bruce McConnell, International Y2K Coordination Center
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/ st991013mcconnell.htm
Or HTML at ICC web-site...
http:// www.iy2kcc.org/Testimony/19991013.htm

James Bond, World Bank
HTML...
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/st991013bond.htm
PDF...
http:// www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/jbond.pdf



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.


This whole thread, started by Robin, is just the old "shoot the messenger" strategy employed so frequently by pollies. They think that if they can make Ed look bad, then Y2K will just go away. Yeah, right.

-- Ohio Bob (ohiobob@buckeyestate.com), October 15, 1999.

OK, last word for me.

Uncle Deedah, it's a pity there couldn't have been more attitudes like yours around here all this time. There's been some real Y2K info. posted here from time to time, but most of what gets posted here is useless crap. I've never understood why some of the more level-headed people here didn't see it fit to debunk the obvious crap.

Robert Cook: What makes you think that I, or any of the pollys, base my opinion on what you call Clinton's spin. There are a lot of other sources of info. besides that. The way I see it, most of us pollys drew our conclusions before Clinton's people did. Heck, they probably got some of their info. from some of us.

Diane, I don't understand the point of posting all of those links on this thread, but I will take advantage of one of them.

From Bruce McConnell's statement:

Y2K Effects In Less Prepared Countries

Infrastructure Will Not Crash.

Y2K is characterized foremost by uncertainty. The need for credible, public information about organizations Y2K readiness (including details about fixes and about contingency plans) grows weekly. Unfortunately, current public predictions of the effects of the Y2K bug on critical global infrastructures tend to be gross and simplistic. Although no one knows what Y2K will do to critical infrastructures, those responsible for assuring that citizens and public service institutions are prepared to respond appropriately to Y2K events must look beneath the surface and understand what Y2K "failure" actually means.

Modern life depends first on two infrastructures  telecommunications and electricity. "If the phones are working" and "if the power is still on" are the two most-common introductions to Y2K readiness statements. In fact, in telecommunications and electricity, such "binary" (on/off) service interruptions are extremely unlikely. The core systems that initiate and complete voice and data communication, and those that produce and distribute electricity, are largely immune from the Y2K bug because they contain no date dependencies. At the least, these core systems are highly resistant to the bug because of redundancy. It is almost certain that, in the first hours of the new year, the lights and phones will continue to work about as well as they normally do.

And Ohio Bob, sometimes the messenger must be taken into account along with the message.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


Robin,

Watching the doomers backpeddle for the last 9.5 months has been the best entertainment on the Web!

:)

Humored Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Oh, I forgot St. Francis...

If those were all purely hypothetical, then why the hell bring them up? You're just adding to the pile of useless ifs, ands, and buts.

Later folks, the weekend is here.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 15, 1999.


I'm sorry, but in some ways, this particular thread has been one of the funniest things I've ever read during thousands of hours of inquiry evidenced by over three thousand pages of notes Ive compiled in the course of researching Y2k. Here we are, a little over two months from "the magic moment" and the debate not only continues, but it's hotter than ever. What's wrong with this picture? IT'S THE FACT THAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF Y2K IS STILL BEING DEBATED AS OF OCTOBER 15, 1999! Pardon my yelling, but the lack of consensus regarding how Y2k will affect our lives is theater of the absurd. William Shakespeare should be rolling over in his grave right now. Someone oughta write a book about this. Oops! Its on its way!

The Toilet Paper Chronicles: Gallows Humor from the Y2k Underground

Gallows Humor as defined for this book: Humorous treatment of a grave or dire situation, as in conveying with gallows humor the utter insanity of a particular situation under human control. FYI, you heard it here first. The actual ship date of the book has been postponed until November 1, 1999. This delay reflects a deliberate trade off. A television crew is coming to my dead tree cluttered office to interview me next Friday so they can get the story on-air in time for the first day of the November television ratings period that begins October 28, 1999. (An aside here: Mark your calendars wherever you live. You will see many special reports air on your local television stations between October 28 and Thanksgiving. Some of them may actually be about Y2k.) Because I cant reschedule the taping date, I will need to delay the remaining steps in the fine tuning of this book. Also, I have to clean the darn office, and I need to expand the acknowledgments page. So many people to thank, Pollys and Doomers, alike. (By the way, I will make every effort not to thank you without your permission. I have yet to contact more than a few folks. Im human, though, so the possibility remains that I may elevate you to Worthy of Worship status without your consent.) Emails and post-cards are going out this weekend to those who have already purchased the book. If you are among them, I particularly appreciate your support because I need to go to Sams. Why? IM ALMOST OUT OF TOILET PAPER! (Ill leave it to you to figure out whether or not Im kidding. Some will know the truth sooner than others!) Smooches to you all. In the meantime remember, I AM NOT CORRINE! (Despite the smooches) I am also not ANDY RAY!

See for yourself

[Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), October 15, 1999.


I hope you were at least kind to me. And I hope that you, if I was worthy, did not chose to publish my E-mail. I hate hunting down women. There is no real sport in it, just hide in a dark room, and they will come to you.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 15, 1999.

Dang! I'm an author (albeit not an HTML author) and I LIKE paragraphs. I'm gonna try this again. I'm sorry, but in some ways, this particular thread has been one of the funniest things I've ever read during thousands of hours of inquiry evidenced by over three thousand pages of notes Ive compiled in the course of researching Y2k. Here we are, a little over two months from "the magic moment" and the debate not only continues, but it's hotter than ever. What's wrong with this picture? IT'S THE FACT THAT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF Y2K IS STILL BEING DEBATED AS OF OCTOBER 15, 1999! Pardon my yelling, but the lack of consensus regarding how Y2k will affect our lives is theater of the absurd. William Shakespeare should be rolling over in his grave right now. Someone oughta write a book about this. Oops! Its on its way!

The Toilet Paper Chronicles: Gallows Humor from the Y2k Underground

Gallows Humor as defined for this book: Humorous treatment of a grave or dire situation, as in conveying with gallows humor the utter insanity of a particular situation under human control. FYI, you heard it here first. The actual ship date of the book has been postponed until November 1, 1999. This delay reflects a deliberate trade off. A television crew is coming to my dead tree cluttered office to interview me next Friday so they can get the story on-air in time for the first day of the November television ratings period that begins October 28, 1999. (An aside here: Mark your calendars wherever you live. You will see many special reports air on your local television stations between October 28 and Thanksgiving. Some of them may actually be about Y2k.) Because I cant reschedule the taping date, I will need to delay the remaining steps in the fine tuning of this book. Also, I have to clean the darn office, and I need to expand the acknowledgments page. So many people to thank, Pollys and Doomers, alike. (By the way, I will make every effort not to thank you without your permission. I have yet to contact more than a few folks. Im human, though, so the possibility remains that I may elevate you to Worthy of Worship status without your consent.) Emails and post-cards are going out this weekend to those who have already purchased the book. If you are among them, I particularly appreciate your support because I need to go to Sams. Why? IM ALMOST OUT OF TOILET PAPER! (Ill leave it to you to figure out whether or not Im kidding. Some will know the truth sooner than others!) Smooches to you all. In the meantime remember, I AM NOT CORRINE! (Despite the smooches) I am also not ANDY RAY!

See for yourself

[Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), October 15, 1999.


I have failed at formatting 101.

Please forgive me.

I may not be worthy, but you might be surprised.

Smooches to ya all.

(By the way, Corrinne, am I infringing on your copyright with that "smooches" thing? Send me an email if I have sinned.)

[Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), October 15, 1999.


Uncle Deedah,

To set the record STRAIGHT, I'm not publishing anyone's real identities or email addresses WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.

You are, however, one of my favorite posters in the plethora of same.

Maybe I should start a thread stating, "Post your handle here if you DO NOT want me not to thank you based upon your anonymous handle?

Well, why not?

(Although it's entirely possible that someone will come up with a reason!)

[Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), October 15, 1999.


Got to respond to this one.

I've read a bunch of Ed Yourdon's stuff, most of it totally unrelated to Y2K, and BTW, if the prices I paid for those books, versus the price I paid for one of his Y2K books is any indication, he makes a LOT more money on the non-Y2K stuff than he'll ever THINK about making on Y2k.

But I digress. In point of fact, I believe that in virtually every one of his books on the subject of Y2K, and in almost every post I've seen, he makes it a point to state FLATLY that every person should make up his or her own mind about things, and then tries to state FACTS, albeit as seen from his perspective, to try to allow them to do that.

Now what, exactly, is the problem with that? 'But he's back-pedaling now!', you cry? How so. Did he make some statement to the effect that he is moving back to NYC? Did he state that he was planning to be in the Big Apple for the roll-over? I don't think so. What he is probably trying to do is smooth down some of the hype, which I have to admit gets just a bit hyper-ventilating here. (And elsewhere, for that matter).

I think that a man in his position, who had a great deal to lose, from the perspective of reputation, and even income, who would come forward and tell people about what may be the greatest threat to their way of life, if not their very LIVES, would be thanked, but I guess that the idea of shooting the messenger, and the horse he rode in on, is as apt now as it was 100 or 1000 years ago.

If the above wasn't clear enough, GROW UP!!!! GET A LIFE!

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 15, 1999.


And, most of all, STOP THE DAMNED MUSIC!!! It is driving me bonkers, who keeps putting in MUSIC on these threads!!!!????!!!! Gawd!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 15, 1999.

KOS,

Do you like to wrestle in chocolate pudding?

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 15, 1999.


Robin S. Messing:

If you are not already living in New York City, please, move there for at least the first few months of the year 2000. Please take notes and have plenty of film and keep us updated as much as you possibly can.

Is this a record number of posts on a single thread? If so, can I have the honor of being the last?

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 16, 1999.


You guys still at this? You're too easy my friends.

Consider: Robin throws down the tired, worn *gotcha Yourdon* gauntlet. Butty (SuperPoly?), stokes the now kindled flames and what have you got? Only fodder to feed a few *Idiot Yourdon Desciple* threads over at Debunky. A humorous raid for them while a considerable loss of band width for us.

Don't misunderstand. I enjoy a good joust even over and over and over the same subject. But, let's burn their bandwith with this clatter and ignore obvious attempts to burn ours. I'm not suggesting their tactic of starting trouble on their turf for the sake of trouble but rather if they bring the battle, let's fight it there not here. Old troll rule...remember?

Server busy....Server busy....Server busy. Our problem, not theirs.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 16, 1999.


Ed,

Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful response. Some of those here could take a lesson from you on decorum.

While I appreciate, your thoughtfulness, I must take issue with you on a few points.

You wrote:

the first time I discussed Beirut and NYC at the same time was in a speech that I made to a NYC Y2K group in November 1997. Unbenownst to me, there was a BBC reporter in the group who thought it was sufficiently interesting to write up, and the quote appeared in the U.K. ... and then gravitated over to the U.S. I was trying to make a serious point, in a speech to a group of experienced Y2K/computer professionals, about the dangers of social disorder if there are infrastructure disruptions in any urban city -- and I chose to use hyperbole to make the point. Had I known that it was going to be recorded and quoted, perhaps I would have been more cautious... but once having said it, the phrase took on a life of its own.

THE PHRASE TOOK ON A LIFE OF ITS OWN??? This makes it sound like you were the victim of circumstances beyond your control. It sounds like a grade B movie where the mad scientist accidentally creates a monster who escapes the lab and destroys the city. In most of these movies the scientist is alarmed at what he has done and does what he can to stop the monster, but the monster is just too powerful. But wait! This is not a proper analogy. You go on to say:

As for the March 1998 material you've excerpted: that was written extemporaneously as an email message to someone, on an evening when I was in a particularly grumpy mood. It got picked up and posted on a listserv ... and again, took on a life of its own. Again, had it occurred to me that it would become the subject of public discussion and debate, perhaps I would have been more careful in my choice of language.

I find it surprising that you were surprised that your letter became part of the public debate. After all, the next to last paragraph of your March 1998 e-mail stated:

You're welcome to post these remarks on your listserv if you think it would serve some constructive purpose; I'll leave that up to you. But in general, I assume that your listserv group has come to the conclusion that Y2K is not a problem, and that you'd rather not hear any opinions of the sort that I've expressed above. That's fine with me; as Spock says on Star Trek: "live well and prosper." I wish you well, and hope that we'll all be able to compare notes about the Y2K situation in a calm rational fashion on 1/2/2000.

It seems to me that you were welcoming the person who received your e-mail to put it on a listserv for a potentially skeptical audience. It is obvious from your statement that you thought many who read the listserv were not exactly big fans of your ideas. That being the case, I am surprised you would not expect your letter to cause some controversy if it was posted to the listserv. It would be a stretch for me to say that you invited the recipient to post this to a listserv, but it is obvious that when you wrote your March epistle that you were aware that it could possibly end up there.

So did the phrase that "New York would look like Beirut" really take on a life of its own? Were you just a victim of an unfortunate choice of words that, once uttered, could not be controlled? Did you try to denounce the phrase? Did you ever say "Hey, look everyone, I was just using hyperbole. I didn't really mean it to be taken literally." No you did not, at least not to my knowledge. Instead, after this phrase took on a life of its own after your November 1997 speech in New York City, you chose to use it again in your e-mail that you knew could end up on a listserv. It seems like you weren't like the mad scientist in the movie who was doing what he could to control his monster. Instead, it looks like you were helping the monster escape.

But you not only helped this monster escape once. You helped it escape twice when in July 1998 you wrote I've often joked that I expect New York to resemble Beirut if even a subset of the Y2K infrastructure problems actually materialize -- but it's really not a joke.

So here you are stating that the phrase should not be taken as a joke. You want those who pay attention to you to take the possibility that y2k would turn NYC into Beirut seriously. That is a funny way for the mad scientist to try to get the monster back in his cage.

Oh, but it wasn't really your fault. You were in a grumpy mood (at least the first time you wrote the NYC/Beirut analogy). Perhaps you might save yourself some grief in the future by not engaging in WWG behavior. (Writing While Grumpy.) Or if you do decide to WWG then you might want to preface your works by stating I'm in a grumpy mood so don't take what I write too seriously.

Your response to me appears to generate a new inconsistency with the historical record. It appears that in March 1998 (and perhaps still today), you thought that staying in New York City was dangerous. It was tantamount to staying in harm's way and was at least partially responsible for your move to New Mexico. You also seem to regret that you have been unable to convince your family to move away from the city for the rollover:

However, since you DO worry so much about language, note that I said that "I" had moved out of NYC, and did not include the rest of my family.

Yet in your March 16, 1998 essay Shouting Fire in a Crowded Y2K Theater you wrote:

Suppose this was not a theoretical exercise; after all, fires do break out in crowded buildings occasionally; and in the absence of effective leadership, everyone is on their own. Some would be paralyzed by fear (as seems to be the case with Y2K), but those capable of acting would have to decide whether their own survival was more important than that of their fellow theater patrons. In my case, there would be no hesitation: I would tap my wife urgently on the shoulder and whisper, "Psst! There's a fire!" My wife, who is just as fascinated by the Monica story as everyone else, would be incredibly annoyed; but she knows me well enough to realize that I wouldn't joke about a life-threatening situation. "Are you sure?!?" she would whisper back to me crossly. And when I responded that I was absolutely, positively sure,we would both snap into a well-rehearsed parental-emergency mode: we would march the children quickly, quietly, and calmly up the aisle of the theater, and out through the exit. Only then would I go back into the theater to warn the others, assuming that management was still abdicating its responsibility.

The Y2K "fire" has not broken out yet, though we'll begin seeing the first few flames in 1999, possibly as early as January 1, 1999. But like many of my Y2K colleagues, I can already smell the smoke, and I believe, deeply and sincerely, that it's going to be a very bad fire indeed. We can quibble about whether it's better to whisper or shout,but now that I've gotten my family out of harm's way, [Emphasis added] I've got to warn the rest of the audience before the theater is consumed by fire.

So which is it? Did you get your family out of harm's way or not? Had you persuaded your wife to leave New York City in March 1998 because you feared the City would look like Beirut or not? Note that in this piece where you claimed you had gotten your family out of harm's way was written only ten days before you wrote your grumpy e-mail.

Now, you may claim that whether or not your family moved out to New Mexico with you because of y2k fears is non of my damn business. And normally I would agree with you. But it was you who placed the status of your family's situation into play for public debate when you made a big deal out of moving to New Mexico and claiming that you had gotten your family out of harm's way.

Perhaps I am not being fair to you. The truth could be a bit more complicated. You may have thought in 1998 that you persuaded your wife to move out of harm's way. She may have moved to New Mexico with you and you were being honest when you wrote your e-mail and your Crying Fire essay. It is possible that in the intervening two years she had decided to move back to the City. And if this is the case then I have no right to bring this up.

And I wouldn't have brought it up except for this: It seems like you are now trying to disown the New York City/Beirut analogy. You would like us to believe that you never really thought that y2k would make New York look like Beirut and that you had never really tried to persuade others to believe it. And as part of your effort to distance yourself from that analogy you said that you never really moved out of New York. And to prove that you never really moved out of New York you stated that your family still has an apartment there. I am not sure why you dragged your family into this since the poster who started the original thread never claimed that they had moved out of New York City. He or she only claimed that you had moved out of New York City due to your y2k beliefs. It seems disingenuous at best for you now to say the statement is not accurate because your family still has an apartment in New York City. This claim directly contradicts both your e-mail statement and the passage from your Bugging Out essay stating that you had moved out of New York.

Since

a) you are trying to back away from the Beirut analogy by claiming that you never moved out of New York City

and

b) you are using your family's status as evidence to prove that claim, despite what the written record states

I conclude that examining your family status is fair game in deciding whether you really meant the Beirut analogy. And now you are left to explain whether you are being disingenuous when you claim that you never really left New York City because your family has an apartment there while in 1998 you were claiming that you had moved from New York City and that your wife was out of harm's way.

Even while you are trying to step away from your Beirut analagy, you are still trying to revive it under another guise:

If anything, I'm more concerned than I was two years ago, because it seems to me that the possibility of terrorist activities is greater than before. If you were a disgruntled terrorist, what better place and what better time could you imagine than Times Square on New Year's Eve? And if something like that should transpire, NYC could indeed end up looking like Beirut.

This technique looks like bait and switch. During 1998 you were saying y2k would make NYC look like Beirut. Now that it looks like the y2k bug has been largely tamed you state that it will be terrorists that make NYC look like Beirut. I grant you, Times Square on New Year's Eve will be a very tempting targets for terrorists. But you also stated in your grumpy e-mail that "Chicago, Atlanta and a dozen other cities are going to resemble Beirut in January 2000." Do you think that terrorists are going to strike all of those places too?

And even if terrorists do strike Times Square, I don't see how they can do as much damage in one night to NYC as was done in many years of civil war in Beirut. They might kill a few hundred or, at most, a few thousand people. But the damage would be localized and this is not a good reason for the average person to leave his job in the city .

If you wanted people to leave the city because they will be safer from terrorists attacks then that is what you should have said in 1998. People could then have decided based on the evidence you provided whether staying in the city was worth the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not the approach you have taken. Instead, this just looks like a lame excuse to breath one final breath in a dying analogy.

Now for the big question: You wrote:

"Who cares?" If there has been one consistent theme throughout ALL of my Y2K writings, I think it has been this: people need to make up their own minds about what they're going to do, and they need to take responsibility for their own Y2K-related decisions. Thus, it may be true that people have been "influenced" into moving somewhere based on my life-style decisions, but I don't take responsibility for it.

This seems to be a theme that strikes a chord with most people here. People should assume responsibility for their own actions. It is not the writer's fault if people read his words and act stupidly because of them (unless, as Flint pointed out, the writer or speaker happens to be Koskinen or Clinton, or NERC officials lying about their y2k status or CEOs lying about their company's readiness or . . . well you get the point.) People should be responsible for their own decisions.

This brings up three sets of questions:

1) Do you think, Ed, that this absolves writers from all responsibility? What if there was an author with phenomenal rhetorical abilities who put up a web site where he posted links to thousands of y2k articles. What if he quoted selected portions of those articles and introduced each article with a spin carefully calculated to induce fear? What if he selectively left out portions of the article that contradicted his fear mongering point of view? What if this person was on record stating that he wanted to see y2k cause runs on the banks that would bring down the U.S. government and usher in an age of Christian theocracy? What if this person urged his readers again and again to sell all their belongings, leave their jobs in the cities and move to the country where they could establish their own farms? If this person deceived his readers into ruining their lives would he bear any responsibility, if not legal then at least moral, for his actions? Now, what if there was evidence that he didn't really believe that it was TEOTWAWKI since he was selling two-year subscriptions to his magazine? This is all hypothetical, of course.

2) Did you intend to influence people's actions when you wrote Timebomb 2000? How about when you wrote your many y2k columns, recorded your y2k videotapes or set up your business marketing y2k survival items? If you did not intend to influence anyone else's actions then why did you go to all this effort? And if you did intend to influence people's actions then is it fair to evade all responsibility if they were persuaded by you to do something foolish? Do you not have at least a moral obligation to apologize if you are wrong rather than wiggle around and say "Well, I didn't really mean that NYC would look like Beirut and I didn't really move out of NYC"? Wouldn't you at least have the moral obligation to say: "Yes, I blew it. I really did say it and I really did believe it at the time, but now it doesn't look so bad and I apologize to anyone who I've mislead."

3) Assume you said "No, the alarmist who put up the web site in question number 1 has no moral obligation for his reader's behavior. Assume further that you answered question number 2 by stating that you intended to influence people's behavior but that you shouldn't be held responsible for their behavior. (Or let's suppose you deny that you intended to influence people's behavior, but that you claim that even if you had been trying to influence people's behaviors, you should still not be responsible for their actions.) Making these assumptions, answer the following question:

Should the author/speaker ever be held responsible for the actions of his audience? Or is it always the audience's fault for not checking things out thoroughly and believing the author or speaker? What if the author was trying to commit fraud? Do you think thespeaker should be able to go into court and tell the judge:

Your Honor. It is not my fault he gave me $500 to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Just because I showed him this title to the bridge and told him I owned it doesn't mean that he had to believe me. No one forced him to buy it. He should be held accountable for his own actions and I am not to blame. Can I help it if he didn't check out my claims thoroughly enough.

Or do you think the judge would buy this excuse?

Your Honor, I didn't really mean it when I told him he could have the Brooklyn Bridge for $500. I was in a grumpy mood so he shouldn't have taken what I said too seriously.

Now, this example of selling the Brooklyn Bridge is a bit ridiculous. If you want a more realistic example, picture a mining company issuing a press release with false claims that they struck a vast gold mine that would yield great riches. Should they be hel responsible if they knowingly made false statements?

Please don't misunderstand me, Ed. I am NOT accusing you of fraud. I don't even want what I have written to taken as a hint that I think you are guilty of fraud. But I do think that writers should take responsibility for what they write and not try to evade it with verbal slight-of-hand. You have a greater responsibility than most because of your high public stature and because you are an expert in the computer science field. The greater one's expertise and the more widely one is perceived to be an expert, the more important it is to take responsibility for what one writes.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), October 16, 1999.


And just what is this responsibility Robin? For him to acknowledge that what you percieve in his writings is the only truth? Many of us here disagree with you. It's obvious that you are grasping at straws, and I can only speculate at your agenda.

A waste of bandwith, and a waste of Ed's valuable time to respond to you.

-- (not@now.com), October 16, 1999.


Ed Yourdon has earned his place in the intelectual dishonesty hall of shame, with minor places for all those who disengenuously asked "what's the point" or complained about wasted bandwidth. The world could use a lot more Robin Messings who have mastered rational forms of analysis.

-- Trewth Seeker (trewth_seeker@yahoo.com), November 11, 2002.

Actually, I've come to appreciate Ed's ability to deflect accountability by ever-so-slightly moving just to the side, just at the right time, rhetorically. He's a master at it, and I occasionally use him as a reference.

He combines self deprecation with an applied lack of metacognition - By "applied", I mean he makes a choice not to self examine past a point that he knows will be dangerous to himself. This allows him to deflect blame publicly, and also, I suspect, allows him to maintain some semblance of a clear conscience. If he hasn't admitted to himself his lack of self-examination, then he doesn't have to apologize for what it led to.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), June 21, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ