Flint:

In a post on the thread below ("Give me evidence, I want the truth"), you said, "Banks look good; oil looks bad."

This seems like a contradiction in terms. Therefore, please explain how this can be, given:

Bank employees need gas to get to work, trucks need gas to deliver supplies and equipment to the bank, the electricity which the bank needs, itself needs gas/oil for the trains for coal transport, diesel fuel for its backup generators, etc. etc. etc. Or any combination of, or all of, the above.

I believe that this illustrates that if oil is bad, banks are necessarily bad, too.

If you would like more examples, please let me know.

Awaiting your reply.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999

Answers

Eve, Even though sometimes Flint seems like he's an intelligent fellow, he suffer's from the same problem that many do. He can't add up the obvious facts and see what the resultant would be. He gets caught up in the minutia of whether a particular detail is absolutely accurate, and then goes off debating why it may or may not be that way. Bottom line - he can't put the Big Picture together because some of the pieces are "fuzzy". Most people can't put the Big Picture together either. They focus on their "world" and don't take the time to extrapolate how their "world" would be affected if other "worlds" had problems. The other thing with Flint is he likes to argue both sides, but he is PREPPED. He will contradict himself from here until the end. It's how he ammuses himself and may be a way he deflects the "finality" of this situation.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 04, 1999.

I replied on the original thread.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Good call, Gregg. Yes, if a piece of the puzzle is remotely iffy, he discards it from the deck and plays solitaire with the remaining 'forthright' cards.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 04, 1999.

You guys need to lighten up on Flint a little. Some of you pounce on him for no other reason than seeing his name.

I'm probably as much a doomer as most, and Flint and I have traded verbal punches a couple of times, but if someone makes an honest observation, let it go as that.

There was no "contradiction in terms." In a departure from his normal style, Flint was succinct as he addressed remediation efforts and successes, not the interrelationship between oil and banking.

If you're going to argue with someone, do it honestly. No grasping at argumentative straws.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), November 04, 1999.

Gregg:

Sigh. The big picture is the sum of all the minute details put together. Whether you admit it or not, a great deal of the bad news you call "obvious facts" are really rumor, hearsay, predictions, projections, estimates, survey results and the like. These fall a LONG way short of being either obvious or facts.

Consider oil just for a moment. Here on this board, where people scour for bad news of *any* description and impose worst-case interpretations on it, we have a few people (out of how many hundreds of thousands in the industry) saying oil looks grim. OK, I'll give those people the benefit of the doubt, *recognizing* that their opinions are NOT consistent with any of the SEC reports from the major oil companies.

Now, which do you choose to consider the "obvious facts" -- the SEC reports or the hearsay opinions of avowed doomers? Be honest now. Have you derived a "big picture" from ALL of our sources of information about the oil industry? Or have you selected your own very own "big picture" by picking and choosing the worst you can find, from ANY sources, however few they may be and whatever unverifiable reliability they may have?

Almost without exception, those on this forum who claim to have the "big picture" have put it together from the worst of the worst, liberally spiced with assumption-laden interpretations. Look at eve, there. She seems utterly unable to distinguish between an industry that has substantially solved their own problems, and that same industry being dependent on others. She has such a big "big picture" that she can no longer see the difference between a banking bug and an oil bug.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Don't get me wrong: I love Flint.

Just can't fathom him.......

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), November 04, 1999.

Come on Flint,

I think eve sees the difference just fine. She is pointing out how dependent just about everything is on oil. "oil looks bad" - these were your words.

After power, oil has always been my #2 "fear," so I agree with her. Let's connect the dots here Flint. If oil is bad, how bad is Y2K going to be?????

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 04, 1999.

Sysman:

As Vic points out, I was trying to be succinct. Usually, I need to spend lots of words trying to to anticipate and defuse the anticipated misinterpretations.

I agree that if there's no oil, banking is moot, OK? NOW, how about them banking bugs? If there's no banking, oil is moot, OK?

Once again, efforts to decipher how the remediation effort is coming, one effort at a time, is being lost in the "big picture" that holds that even if *everyone* is compliant, it won't matter because nobody else will be!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Gregg & Lisa,

Having met Flint, I can assure you he is not "incapable" of seeing the "big picture" (though we disagree on occasion.) I find it amusing when the pessimists suggest folks like Flint are somehow intellectually limited. This criticism comes not from the titans of academia or the captains of industry... not from recognized experts, military leaders or agency heads.

Nay, this accusation comes from a group of worried, middle-class, white Americans who have the unique "vision" to see the meta-problem of Y2K. One might think individuals with such staggering insight would inevitably rise to the top of any chosen profession. Lisa? Gregg?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 04, 1999.

"Even if no one had lifted a hand toward remediation, a 50% probability of a depression is absurd" - Flint the foot swallower

-- a (a@a.a), November 04, 1999.

Speak for yourself Ken. I'm pretty much stuck to the ceiling on mine.

-- a (a@a.a), November 04, 1999.

Flint, Etc.:

I am fully aware that the comment was made in the context of remediation efforts. But the thread was started by an inexperienced person who was looking for help. In that context, to state that an intire industry is somehow "good" if oil is bad, is quite misleading, to say the least. Just keep in mind that, if oil really is bad (a premise, here,) to state that another whole industry is "good" is so out of context as to be essentially meaningless.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999.

Ken? And how do you know I haven't?

Think I might rummage around for 'Flint's Take' where oil wasn't a part of his big picture.

Flint doesn't give any credence to conjecture until it's been certifed as credible by the Senate or something. That's admirable if we're talking astrophysics, but not if the topic is Y2K.

That's what I don't understand. The stakes are too big to completely discount any threat [whilst constructing one's Y2K model] until it becomes a factual reality. By waiting until the pieces of conjecture morph into facts (which they recently are, at an alarming rate: witness the IRS), it's too late to meaningfully retrofit your preparation model.

Without contributing to the panic, anyway.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), November 04, 1999.

eve:

Come on now. The point I was making was that some industries seem to have addressed their y2k problems better than others. I tried to illustrate this by selecting one that looks best and one that looks worst, from where we sit today (meaning with extremely limited knowledge either way).

I should have known that some people would follow this train of thought: Oil looks worse than banking. Therefore oil will fail. Therefore everything that relies on oil will fail. Since almost everything relies on oil directly or indirectly, everything will fail. Therefore banking is irrelevant. Therefore anyone who notices that banks have done a good job must be missing the "big picture". Therefore those people are dumb and we're all going to hell.

Now, a newbie untrained in this doomer catechism might read what I actually wrote, rather than what you are determined to see whether it's there or not. It's possible, you know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Flint,

"Once again, efforts to decipher how the remediation effort is coming, one effort at a time, is being lost in the "big picture" that holds that even if *everyone* is compliant, it won't matter because nobody else will be!"

You know damn well that is an utterly absurd statement and is not the way most of us see it at all.

In my view the "big picture" is more like this... Even if MOST companies are compliant it won't matter, because there will still be ENOUGH companies that are NOT compliant to surpass the threshold of integrity of "The System" at which it can remain reliably functional as a whole system. Kind of like "a few rotten apples spoil the bunch" or "the chain is only as strong as its weakest links", or even... "waiter, there's a fly in my soup." (Waiter needs to discard the entire bowl of soup, unless he's a real sneaky bastard, goes back to the kitchen, removes the fly, and serves the same bowl to the customer. Problem with that tactic is that the customer is still at risk of getting a disease.)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 04, 1999.

lisa:

Somehow I doubt you have described my position very well. I don't completely discount any threat, I recognize that there are many. It's just that I don't completely discount good news either. From my perspective, many here are sifting out all the nutmeg from the pumpkin pie, eating it all in one bite, and claiming the pie is all nutmeg! As Hoffmeister has said repeatedly, the factual realities have been striking us for some time now. Some of them (i.e. Hershey, Whirlpool) have been pretty serious.

"By waiting until the pieces of conjecture morph into facts (which they recently are, at an alarming rate: witness the IRS)..."

Uh, we have two claims made here by the same people (Rosotti and Cosgrove) -- (1) That the IRS is substantially compliant and anticipates no "major" difficulties next year, but (2) There are some systems they haven't got around to yet. By implication, these systems aren't very important, or statement (1) could not be made.

Now, this is an alarming fact? Yes, I know that Gary North published an entire "reality check" (hehehe) based on the assumption that if some systems hadn't been inventoried, then nobody at the IRS could possibly know they were in good shape! Why, those systems might lie at the very core of IRS functionality, and nobody knows it! Right?

Well, excuse me if I'm not that alarmed by this "revelation". I suspect the critical systems at the IRS are in some less-than- wonderful state of remediation, but the chances that the missing systems are relevant to this condition are vanishingly small.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Geez, folks, the third graders that walk past my house every day on the way home from school don't squabble amoungst themselves this much. Lighten up and try and get a grip. My momma told me "if you can't say something nice, keep quiet." Perhaps you could all benefit from this advice.

-- Wallew (Wallew@aol.com), November 04, 1999.

I saw an article on Hamaskai's site that summed up what I'd felt almost 2 years ago. He talked about the Outfits that had done the work, started early (Social Security for one, 1989). These companies, as they bring thier systems onboard, are having PROBLEMS.

Like Cory asked, of the 50,000 outfits running 0S/390, how many have spent the big bucks and had the time to even get to that stage? 500?

Now we get claims from whole countries, that started THIS year, that they are OK. Yeah, my "low intelligence" has a hard time accepting that.

We basically have had to either fix or replace ALL of THE COMPUTERS IN THE WORLD. It's been a question of : 1. Is there time? 2. How's it going?

Clearly, from seeing what it really does take, to even get to testing, and then finding the flaws, test again, and hopefully wind up with something workable, that MOST OUTFITS either didn't start in time, or haven't even reached testing.

There's just too much to do in too little time, the money wasn't spent, so how can it even be close to being "fixed". The computers really weren't important? The computers were actually dragging down the business?

Now we are seeing the admissions that things aren't what we've been told (forget the missed deadlines)IRS, the NRC and nukes, Social Security, various Bank cards not working.

The writing is clear, without reading between the lines. Things are not working as they said they would. Are you surprised? When something BIG happens, will you start to piece it together then?

Considering the ever slipping admission of what has been "fixed", and the consequences of it failing, is there really any other prudent view to have other than to prepare for FAILURE?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 04, 1999.

How can oil not be in trouble? Progress against the Y2K bug in countries we import oil from sounds horrible. I also know one of the points DD Reed makes about down hole embeddeds systems in oil rigs is right (inside info), so this makes me think that the rest of his(?) story is probably accurate.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), November 04, 1999.

It is quite simple, as Gregg says,we have had to fix every computer system in the world and realistically it was never gonna get done on time so what do we do when people ask How is it going?

we LIE

-- Austin (freedom@baby.yeah), November 04, 1999.

Yikes. More linear thinking. Some pessimists think of the supply chain as a line of dominoes. Our economic system is better described as a multi-dimensional web. When one strand is broken, the "system" reverts to other "paths." If you break one strand on a (flat) spider's web, the web does not collapse. You actually have to destroy a fair amount of the web before you lose complete structural integrity. Now, imagine the multi-dimensional web of the economy withthe ability to heal itself. Broken strands are re-formed. Firms that fail due to Y2K problems are replaced. Existing firms increase market share. New suppliers are found. Substitutes are located.

The pessimist rhetoric sounds like the Club of Rome from the 1970s. The gloomy predictions were wrong then. Remember how we were going to run out of oil?

Same mistakes, different decade.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 04, 1999.

Of course if all the strands in the web are made of petroleum by-products and if the oil industry really has the underlying Y2K problems that seem to be surfacing these days, Charlotte's web is history.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), November 04, 1999.

Gregg, Very well said. Thanks!

-- Earl (earl.shuholm@worldnet.att.net), November 04, 1999.

Flint:

If you would just try to get across in your communications to "newbies" about issues such as this, that an industry being "good" or "in good shape" in terms of its remediation in no way implies that it will necessarily be functional or even survive after 1/1/2000, that would be a good start. It's not that hard to do.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999.

eve:

I don't share your outlook, you know. Why should I feel obliged to join the local chorus of people drawing worst-case conclusions at every opportunity? That role is already thoroughly populated around here, nor is there any shortage of people willing to inundate any newbie with links to the most dire warnings and speculations they can find on the web (and NO links to success stories).

It's kind of like someone asking about the nature of automobile transportation, and being swamped with links to stories about car crashes, most of the fatal. This is hardly the whole story, though the stories are true. Locally, I'm used to being called names for pointing such people to Car&Driver Magazine. What hype! What spin! Such magazines don't tell him he's sure to die in a crash. Die. Die. DIE!

Maybe he wants some of the rest of the story?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

Ken:

If I were you I'd be much more careful with my categorizations of people. You seem to be enamored of "titans of academia", etc. Believe me, I've seen academic types who are far more ignorant than many of the common folk I've met; just some of their words are bigger. Take away that, and an arrogant facade, and you'll find many times that there's nothing there.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999.

Gregg:

I understand exactly what you mean. An insightful response.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999.

Flint:

I'm just curious -- what useful purpose does it serve to even speculate on whether one industry is further ahead than others, or compare the apparent progress of different industries, etc. given your statement that oil is bad?

Perhaps it's simply just a fun thing to do. I guess I can't fault you on that.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 04, 1999.

Gregg,

Please do not make the assumption that all systems are broken and need to be rid of the Y2K bug. I have worked on numerous systems over the years that had four digit years programmed into them. Not all computers are broke, as there are many operating systems which will perform perfectly before/during/and after the rollover.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), November 04, 1999.

eve:

If there were no possible doubt that the oil industry would vanish, never to return, then of course we'd be facing a loooong uphill battle. But in that case, this forum would be a far different place, assuming anyone had time to bother with it while trying to make really hardcore preparations. And of course this wouldn't be obvious only to a small group of self-appointed cognoscenti either. There would have been a truly massive, worldwide crash program to develop alternative energy sources going on for some time now. Even the evil government fighting to keep everyone in the dark would recognize that without any energy sources, all their power and money would vanish along with Western civilization!

Now, back to reality, I didn't say oil is bad, I said it looks bad. But I also said (in some detail) that the SEC reports do NOT reflect this. Neither does the behavior of the oil companies. Have they all been struck stupid and ignorant? By what?

You have taken a 3-word observation and misconstrued it beyond all recognition. My intent was to imply that your bank account is likely to be safe, but that gasoline prices are likely to rise. Higher gasoline prices won't affect the state of banking software. Get hold of yourself, gal!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 04, 1999.

I strongly suspect that this particualr conversation can never be completed to the satisfaction of either party, until there is some clarity and closure on the definitions. What we have here (absent the Teapot) is a discussion of terms without congruence of underlying def'n's. Lisa and Greg on the one hand, define "looks bad" to be 'pre-set and for-ordained to failure- partial to complete'. On the other hand, Flint, Ken and I use a def'n that runs '*MAY* have a percentage of failures, falling in a range from somewhat significant through show-stopping'. I suspect that Flint and I also would define "looking good" as 'having a percent of failures falling in a range from non-existent through inconvenient to somewhat significant at the outer boundary'.

Before one castigates someone, lets get some kind of understanding of the underlying definitions, rather than simply applying our own. This way we MAY be able to avoid misunderstandings and the foolish charges of multiple standards and/or "glaring inconsistencies and disconnects".

Surprise:

Chuck, who still has no worry about his DoomBrood (TM) guild card, but WOULD like to see comon ground on def'n's. Or at least UNDERSTANDING of all sets there-of. (also a fugitive from spellshecks Anon a very special 12 shtep programm)

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 04, 1999.

Flint - here is what the letter said. Rosotti says the equipment missed is used - not some equipment that doesn't have any role. _______

IRS warns of "high risks" from Y2K By Reuters Special to CNET News.com October 31, 1999, 10:35 p.m. PT

WASHINGTON--The Internal Revenue Service has told Congress it has experienced some "trouble spots" in preparing for the Year 2000 problem, though it is working on contingency plans and could manually issue some tax refunds.

In a letter this month to House Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Archer, the IRS said its records of equipment and software at its offices around the country posed a "high risk" to its Y2K preparation efforts.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti wrote that visits to the Atlanta and Philadelphia Service Centers and the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh field offices had revealed both strengths and weaknesses in the inventory records.

"The quality of the IRS's inventory currently poses a high risk to the Y2K effort," he said in the letter dated October 15.

Some computers and software withdrawn from service were still in the database while other equipment being used was not recorded.

"While there is always an element of risk, and we do have some trouble spots in our effort toward becoming Y2K compliant, I am confident we will be prepared for the Year 2000,"

Rossotti wrote to Archer, a Texas Republican. . . . . . .

Gee, nice of them to tell us. But I guess you still believe he's playing straight with us.

-- Gregg (Captain of Indices) (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 05, 1999.

Eve, (Sorry King of Spain)

Do you like to mud wrestle?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), November 05, 1999.

(Pardon me if this posted already - I couldn't see it)

Flint - here is what the letter said. Rosotti says the equipment missed is used - not some equipment that doesn't have any role. _______

IRS warns of "high risks" from Y2K By Reuters Special to CNET News.com October 31, 1999, 10:35 p.m. PT

WASHINGTON--The Internal Revenue Service has told Congress it has experienced some "trouble spots" in preparing for the Year 2000 problem, though it is working on contingency plans and could manually issue some tax refunds.

In a letter this month to House Ways and Means Committee chairman Bill Archer, the IRS said its records of equipment and software at its offices around the country posed a "high risk" to its Y2K preparation efforts.

IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti wrote that visits to the Atlanta and Philadelphia Service Centers and the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh field offices had revealed both strengths and weaknesses in the inventory records.

"The quality of the IRS's inventory currently poses a high risk to the Y2K effort," he said in the letter dated October 15.

Some computers and software withdrawn from service were still in the database while other equipment being used was not recorded.

"While there is always an element of risk, and we do have some trouble spots in our effort toward becoming Y2K compliant, I am confident we will be prepared for the Year 2000,"

Rossotti wrote to Archer, a Texas Republican. . . . . . .

Gee, nice of them to tell us. But I guess you still believe he's playing straight with us.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting.point.com), November 05, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I try to avoid linear thinking when possible. It's late, so forgive me for not posting the percentages, but our oil comes from here, the east, and the south. Let's assume we're fine. And let's assume that every country can ship SOME oil. But how much? What is the "critical" amount, before it's a problem? How much before it's a BIG problem?

And oil, it's only part of the problem...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 05, 1999.

Ken:

Careful with that 'web' analogy. If you take it a bit further, you are in Infomagic territory.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), November 05, 1999.

In 1973/74, the worldwide oil shortfall was less than 10 per cent and it caused a severe recession. During that period, there were no problems with refineries, pipelines, tankers, etc. Even if the big oil companies such as Exxon and Shell are OK, there are still likely to be major problems with oil. The US obtains well over half of its oil needs from imports.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), November 05, 1999.

Flint intoned:

I didn't say oil is bad, I said it looks bad.

Hey Flint, is that anything like your famous quote

They're not lying, they're intentionally misleading

ROTFLAMO

-- a (a@a.a), November 05, 1999.

Flint:

Reduced to its essence, the first paragraph in your last post seems frighteningly close to a variation on Homer Simpson's observation on y2k (from last Sunday):

"It can't be too bad, because I'm not terrified."

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 05, 1999.

Reduced to its essence, the first paragraph in your last post seems frighteningly close to a variation on Homer Simpson's observation on y2k (from last Sunday):

"It can't be too bad, because I'm not terrified."

By "Reduced to its essence," you apparently mean "Twisting the meaning into something completely unrecognizable from the original idea" or "Making stuff up."

-- (duh@duh.duh), November 05, 1999.

Flint:

If you need an elaboration of my above post, it is that you appear to give primary emphasis to peoples' feelings and reactions about something. From there, you attempt to assess what the facts might be.

In other words, you've got it exactly backwards.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 05, 1999.

'a':

Unlike you, I try to be careful to distinguish my opinion from the underlying reality. This allows me to notice when I'm wrong and improve my opinion accordingly. You might try it sometime.

For example, based on your posts, you look stupid. Now whether you really *are* stupid, or just doing a consistent and convincing imitation, I can't say. I can only go by what you post. See the distinction?

eve:

You are partially correct. We have two sources of information -- what people say, and what they do. What they say is very inconsistent. Some claim huge insurmountable problems, and some claim at most minor inconveniences. Both are presumably expert and knowledgeable.

What they are doing (within the oil industry) is consistent either with vast ignorance, or high confidence. Vast ignorance is not consistent with knowledge and expertise. So the most likely conclusion based on *both* what they say and what they do, is that problems will likely be both serious and ultimately manageable. In practice, for you and me, this probably means shortages and higher prices of some items.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 05, 1999.

For those who are interested, a brief further elaboration on my Homer Simpson analogy, above:

Homer allowed his own emotions, feelings, impressions, etc. to "drive the facts", as it were.

My point (and I certainly stand to be corrected on this) was that Flint primarily allows others' feelings, etc. to drive the facts. If true, this is one step removed (and worse) than Homer's situation. But the principle is the same: Consciousness (whether yours or others') driving (i.e., taking precedence over) reality.

This subject deserves lots more explanation; perhaps some of you are far more versed in this stuff than I, but I'd better stop now before I get kicked over into the philosophy forum. It's now getting pretty OT. My apologies.

Thanks, Flint. Always the Gentleman.

-- eve (123@4567.com), November 05, 1999.

Guys, gals,

It's impossible to discuss with Flint simply because he lacks common sense, the least common of all senses. It's like discussing with a Y2K non-compliant computer.

But please don't be fooled. Flint has Y2K prepared down to his bare bones. He obviously has a hidden Y2K agenda. I think he might be making fun of all who pay attention to him.

I used to think he was some sort of Y2K acid test. Now I think he is some sorts of Y2K stupid test.

His English wordsmithing is attractive to newbies. That's a problem.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), November 05, 1999.

I forgot to add: Flint has no consistency: One day he'll tell you one thing, next day he'll say something else.

Just forget about Flint... and prepare, something he'll never tell you to do.

Take care

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), November 06, 1999.