The pollies are absolutely silent when it comes to all the money being "wasted" on things like the new $50M Y2K crisis center in Dee Cee. Or chemical plants "needlessly" closing for the rollover. Things that, directly or indirectly, they are paying for out of their pockets.

Yet, when it comes to where other people want to spend their OWN money, pollies get VERY upset. As if the money that someone spends to make sure that food will be on their table in 2000 somehow is robbing someone else.

Can anyone explain why pollies never complain about their "wasted" tax dollars, yet complain mightily about other people choosing to spend their own money for things that are perfectly legal and in no way cause harm to anyone else?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 17, 1999

Answers

KoS,

Because they haven't learned to appreciate the finer aspects of mudwrestling? ;-)

Really now, gossip is the manna of the small-minded, which many pollies are. It's too scary for them to open their eyes to see the big picture...

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 17, 1999.

Oh, I am upset. But I know that next year some time there will be investigations into government waste that has occurred all under the guise of "Y2k".

Private business will just fire or sue those responsible for needless purchases and wasted assets.

Don't get me wrong. There was work to be done, but a lot is needless, and simply an excuse to buy new equipment.

Look for investigations next year and remember who first told you this would happen.

-- You Knowwho (debunk@doomeridiots.com), November 17, 1999.

You Know: I've never seen anyone complain about getting new equipment unless it didn't perform as well as the old.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), November 17, 1999.

Yer Highness de Espana,

In my experience, most pollies are people that tend to trust the authorities, so, they trust goobermint to do the right thang. Regular civvies, on the other hand, don't have a clue as to how to run their own lives. Only the blessed ones in the elite circles should have that right.

Kookster

-- Y2Kook (Y2Kook@usa.net), November 17, 1999.

As we used to say. right on! right on! right on!. y2k@notok.com

-- y2k@notok com (y2k@notok.com), November 17, 1999.

Good one KoS!!

Easy answer. They are on the gubment payroll. Everyone KNOWS you don't badmouth da boss on a public forum.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), November 17, 1999.

BLOODY HELL! YouKnowWho has just made a sensible, reasoned post. I actually AGREE with him. Huzzah! I do believe that there *will* be more recriminations for alleged overspending than underspending post Y2K, because it's far easier to justify an underspend as being prudent, even after the fact. Companies do it ALL THE TIME, that's why (e.g.) utilities screw up ALL THE TIME. At the same time, 100% working business units are casually lopped off because they have spend 15% more than the 90% working unit down the hallway.

Of course, he's stated his opinion (for the first time?) that real Y2K problems did exist, which means - I assume, sorry if I'm wrong - that he believes that they were solved by throwing copious amounts of money and people at them. Anyone who has worked on any thought-based process will be able to see the flaw in that argument. It's not the quantity that matters, it's the quality.

That's not a Y2K issue, it's a general development issue. Big projects DON'T finish on time, and you CAN'T do it all at the last minute by throwing more people at them. All that does is to bloat the budget (just as YouKnowWho says) and put more pressure on the project manager to nudge the progress reports towards 100% regardless of the actual progress. And THAT is why I am so sceptical of the reports by (e.g.) the UK Health Service they slipped and slipped and slipped and then suddenly completed NINETY SEVEN percent of their fixes in the last three months of a five year plan.

Got any grounds for disputing that, YouKnowWho? I would be genuinely interested to hear your grounds for believing that Y2K is different from other software projects.

-- Colin MacDonald (roborogerborg@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

Well King Of Spooge,

It's very ironic that you would take this approach... but not very original.

You're a Doomer Troll. Who-da-thunk-it.

Oh yeah, and you're an annoying, greasy little sex addict. But that is very much besides the point.

-- (Doomers@suck.big time!!), November 17, 1999.

Whassa matter Suck? Jealous that he didn't ask you to mudwrestle? AWWWWWWW. You need to clear up those Oedipdial impulses taken care of, you know, by a COUNSELOR...

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 17, 1999.

Well, Spain...since I'm included in your polly picture:

I'm not complaining about the $50M crisis center [which is HIGHLY computerized, BTW], because I suspect it will be used for other things post-Y2k.

I can't relate to your other point. I have NEVER complained, nor do I now complain on how ANY individual spends their own money.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 17, 1999.

Sping of Kain,

Most of your posts can be catagorised as either sexist or riddled with lies. This one falls into the latter category.

I am a polly. I have repeatedly told people to prepare for whatever they believe will happen. I maintain that they should. And, I have absolutely no issue with anyone who is preparing for a catastrophic Y2K.

I have also stated that I am personally not preparing for anything other than normal mid-winter weather. And, I have gone on record here stating that I have some knowledge of engineering, programming, and systems design; and that I am basing my personal opinion of what lies ahead on that foundation.

The issue that I have with doomers is their continued insistence - sans evidence - that we face anything other than minor (if not un-noticed) inconveniences at the roll-over.

Government, the financial industry, and others needed to look into whether their systems would be affected or (as many discovered) their systems would not. It costs money to check to see if the problem exists. Nearly all checked (spending billions), and some found date- related problems. Those that did find problems then spent some more money to correct them. Though it is unlikely that all date-related issues will be resolved (or even found) before the roll-over; it is just as unlikely that anything left unfound will affect the lives of anyone reading these words.

The issue was never how much money any person or agency spent preparing - it was much deeper than that: It has been and is the fact that the potential of Y2K was "over-estimated" from the beginning by "experts" with books to sell. When evidence of their folly surfaced in the form of botched predictions, they then attempted further subversion by claiming that a large "cover-up" and "conspiracy" is responsible for their personal and professional inaccuracy. The word for the day was "under-estimation."

It's all elementary in principle. The issues were overblown from the beginning, by doomers. It's time for a new meme - this one's dead.

Amused Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

Andy, please excuse my ignorance, but I would like to know why they (the government) built such an eliborate bunker to watch for something they don't think will happen. Would you go out and by enough supplies to last you a year, given what you believe will happen, I just can't understand this. They have done, what they are trying to keep the general public from doing, prepairing for the worse. You yourself said we should all prepair for what we feel we happen, shouldn't this apply to the govenment too, what message are they sending, by building this $50 mill. bunker for a three day event

-- Marli (can'tget@it.duh), November 17, 1999.

Andy's Quote: "Government, the financial industry, and others needed to look into whether their systems would be affected or (as many discovered) their systems would not. It costs money to check to see if the problem exists. Nearly all checked (spending billions), and some found date- related problems. Those that did find problems then spent some more money to correct them."

so what you are saying Andy, is that most of the money that has been spent, has been spent on "just checking" for errors??? i am ROTFL as I type. and that is mainly on the 3% of systems that are deemed "mission critical". and a few of them needed some repairs? and maybe some testing? imagine what it would have cost to "just check" all the non-mission critical systems.

K of S, I am impressed. i like the way you think. clever line of thought. and i thought you only cared about wrestling.

-- tt (cuddluppy@yahoo.com), November 17, 1999.

Deb,

That syndrome you're talking about is one of loving your mother in a sexual way. Just how exactly did you glean that from my post?

Oh yeah, you're just a Doomer troll who thinks you're something better than you really are. At least I have the courage to admit when I'm a troll. of course around here that means I'm the bhoddisatva, the enlightened man in a world of fools. But at least I can stand here and be outnumbered and STILL laugh in your faces.

bwahhahahhhahahahhaha !!!!!!!!!

-- (Doomers@suck. big time!!), November 17, 1999.

The fifty million dollars spent for the Y2K monitoring center speaks very much for itself. Explaining it away with, "Oh, it can also be used for other purposes later on, after the three day Y2K storm blows over" insults the intelligence. One can hardly claim that it was built merely to pacify an overwhelming number of voters who are worried about Y2K, a non-issue on the part of John Q. Public if there ever was one.

I think that the answer is real simple: The Powers That Be do, in fact, take Y2K very seriously. This Y2K crisis center is but one of many components of large-scale preparation on the part of the U.S. government, often under the guise of so-called "cyberterrorism" preparation. This includes executive orders for martial law.

(Actually, to directly answer the King of Spain's question, if I were representing the Pollyanna Position, I would claim that it is due to international worries that will have no direct effect on the U.S. Of course, I would be lying through my teeth....)

44 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), November 17, 1999.

You Knowwho:

WHY don't you then use all the time and energy that you seem to have to WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN or something? Why are you so convinced that anything will be done next year in the way of "investigation". I mean, if systems are needlessly fixed/replaced THIS year, there won't be any evidence NEXT year. NOW is the time to get cracking, dude, while the "smoking gun" still exists -- next year will be too late.

I guess, what I am really trying to say, is that your post makes no sense whatsoever. But I'm trying to explain it to you in a nice way.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 17, 1999.