I've had a challenge to Pollies on my local forum for over a month with no takers.

Here are my predictions, specific to my home state of Wisconsin (though I'd be willing to modify them to be your state if you'd prefer):

-The unemployment rate in Wisconsin will increase by at least a full percentage point by the 2nd quarter of 2000.

-Chapter 11 bankruptcies will increase by at least 10% in Wisconsin by the 2nd quarter of 2000, compared to the same time period in 1999.

-The cost of goods will increase by at least 5% in Wisconsin during the 1st quarter of 2000, led by increases in the cost of gas and heating oil.

-Supply chain disruptions in Wisconsin will cause shortages of thousands of items for several months into 2000.

-Somewhere in Wisconsin, some people will be without either heat, power, or phones during the first week in January.

-There will be at least one fatality in Wisconsin directly related to a Y2k failure during January of 2000.

I hope I'm wrong on every count. If I am, I'll happily donate $1000 to a charity of your choosing. If any of these predictions come about, you donate to the charity I choose.

Feel free to respond on this thread, on the local forum (need to register first), or privately by e-mail.

Terms can be modified somewhat, and means of measuring the items in question can be specified. Anyone willing to make your charity (or mine) $1000 richer??

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999

Answers

Steve, my friend, you have come to the RIGHT forum, dude. We have pollies here that not only think that Y2K will result in nothing even remotely like the things that you predict, but actually believe that Y2K will result in a BOOST to the economy, efficiency, etc., due to all the replaced systems. (LOL! But, yeah, that's what they say.)

So you should get LOTS of takers. They should be responding any time now. Any minute now. Real soon, I'd say....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 01, 1999.

Yes, any doggone minute, I tell ya. Honest they will.

T-H-E-Y W-I-L-L C-O-M-E

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 01, 1999.

Uh, Steve. I am not quite convinced I am a polly and therefore, probably not the type of person you'd be looking to bet. Also, I am rational enough to realize that I wouldn't want your $1000---nor would I want to part with mine, as I am not a rich man who can throw away money on such things.

But, I'd gladly make a gentleman's bet with you--with some provisions:

* explain to me how you can fully indicate the unemployment rate rise was in direct correlation to y2k problems.

*illustrate in exact terms how the rise of Chapter 11 bankruptcies are a direct correlation to y2k problems.

(knowing what i do about such items---and it is much more than just a casual knowledge or revised knowledge that someone like King of Spain would make us believe about himself on many issues---factoids usually speak of 'possible rationales')

-Ah, winter in Wisconsin and increases in fuel and goods. I would say that if any type of recession would occur, such an idea would be a good bet. Once again, you could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt it was all attributable to y2k, right?

--Ah, Winter in Wisconsin (pt2). Someone will not have heat, electric, or phone usage. Wow, this certainly deviates from the norm, eh, during bad weather months. Once again...you feel you can prove this, right?

--I'll grant you that a supply chain disruption would indicate systemic failures. But this is only one facet of this bet.

Steve, I'd like to hear your means of measurement. I 'bet' you won't find someone to agree on that issue, alone.

regards, and BTW, I hope you are wrong, too.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 01, 1999.

It would be virtually impossible to attribute any of the above solely to Y2k. However, I've chosen my numbers to be sufficiently large as to be unprecedented. Clearly, Y2k would be the primary driving force behind such large increases.

Loss of heat, phones, or power would have to be directly due to Y2k failure(s). All items are measureable using standard economic indicators, and/or news accounts.

Again, for anyone who believes Y2k is/will be a "non-event", this should be a no-brainer.

Shouldn't it?

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999.

Steve, there is baggage on the other side, as well. The idea of 'non event' is open to discussion. What is a non event to you may be somewhat eart-shattering to me. Point is, your wager is based upon interpretations. Given two widely differing viewpoints exist between doomer and polly, how can one ever hope to agree upon the perceptions that shape such a bet?

I say it's impossible.

I also say that the things you list are too general and can have y2k problems as contributing factors, but not as THE ONLY such factors.

Non-event? That's hard for me to say. Cataclysm? Scenarios many here feel will come to pass with regards to basic services being out for days, weeks, months....that's much easier for me to say a resounding 'no'.

Guess that eliminates me from the bet, eh?

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 01, 1999.

These predictions match mine pretty closely in most respects. I should point out that there are *always* shortages of thousands of items -- call any department store and ask how many items are backordered from the factory. This is Wisconsin? Check Harley Davidson's back orders! There's tens of thousands of items right there.

Unemployment has been predicted to rise for some time now, and economists (as I understand it) are scratching their heads trying to figure out how both unemployment and inflation can be so low simultaneously. Can't last under any circumstances, according to our models.

Has there *ever* been a first week in January when someone in Wisconsin *wasn't* without power for at least a little while?

In legal terms, the word "direct" (result of y2k) is dicey. They wrangle endlessly over "proximate cause" and first causes and chains or circumstances forseeable by the "ordinary, reasonable and prudent man". Say, for example, a hospital suffers a 1-minute blackout, and one patient being operated on at the time dies. Would that patient have died anyway? Did the blackout "cause" the death, or did the surgeon cutting the wrong place in the dark cause the death with a fully compliant scalpel? These are hard questions to decide.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 01, 1999.

Gee, Steve, I think you're low-balling it. If that's ALL we get out of this, I'll be happy!

Kook

-- Y2Kook (y2kook@usa.net), December 01, 1999.

Steve,

Here's the reason for your chagrin... you are a "Polly." Those wimpy numbers barely suggest a recession. C'mon, Steve, you can't be a true pessimist with lightweight predictions.

Let's make this interesting. Raise the stakes to $10,000. Let's make some decent benchmarks... short of the Milne standard, but well within the "doom & gloom" range:

1) The national unemployment rate rises above 15 percent any time before July 1, 2000.

2) Over ten percent of U.S. businesses file for bankruptcy protection before the same date.

3) During the first quarter of 2000, there is a statewide power outage anywhere in the United States lasting over 10 consecutive days.

4) The annualized inflation rate exceeds 12 percent during the first quarter or second quarter of 2000.

5) Y2K results in martial law declared anywhere in the U.S.

Let's say $2,000 a benchmark. Drop me an email with your attorney's name if you'd like play along. I'll need to see the money in escrow before I take this seriously. If you'll admit Y2K won't be as bad as my benchmarks... send me the name of your charity. I'll make a donation just for your honesty.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 01, 1999.

Ken:

I have no idea what an "admission" by me means. It would have no bearing whatsoever on how events unfold. I have no clue as to the outcome. Do I think any of your "benchmarks" will be reached? I would imagine that at least one will, but probably not all. We'll find out together soon enough.

I'm not a "Polly", nor am I a "Doomer". My views are decidedly middle- of-the road, but I am tired of the "Y2k will be a non-event" nonsense I'm reading, such as the recent poll of 50 economists, where x% (I forget the number, but it was the majority, I believe) predicted Y2k would indeed be a "non-event".

We both know that is most definitely not an option. The probability of a "non-event" (which I would define as problems no different than we have today) would be, IMNSHO, precisely zero.

Yes, my numbers are tame. However, I'm not a fool when it comes to laying my money on the line. If you think I'm a fool and your charity can benefit from my foolishness, let me know.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999.

Steve --

Why the bets? All involved have *ALREADY* made bets *MUCH, MUCH LARGER* than these paltry stakes!! They have either bet their *LIVES* and the *LIVES OF THEIR FAMILIES* (although I must admit, having read a bit of 'cpr', I am unsure that he has a family, he probably reproduces by fission, like all bacteria), or they have 'hedged' their bet with 'insurance', like what you buy at the blackjack table when the dealer is showing an ace.

In theory, the 'doomers' have taken insurance against the 'ace showing', while the pollies have 'doubled down' with their lives.

(And I'm sorry folks, from where I am sitting, which is a ringside seat to this circus, not only is the dealer showing an ace, *but* I also caught a glimpse of his hole card, and it looked to have a face.)

-- just another (another@engineer.com), December 01, 1999.

Kook:

I would be thrilled, as well, if that's as bad as it gets.

If any of the predictions come about, Y2k clearly will not have been a "non-event". The numbers are too high to be considered "coincidental" or attributable to "extraneous factors".

Flint:

Your legalese and nit-picking continue to endlessly annoy. Were you a lawyer in a previous lifetime? That would explain a great deal...

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999.

Ken Decker - It seems like you came up with some ridiculous figures. You mentioned in a previous post that you had at some point in the past made your prediction or predictions - buried in the archives somewhere - Where is it so I can see where your coming from.

First Steve makes a moderate general challenge to the pollies then Ken Decker pulls some science fiction figures out of his sleeve. You could quit the bickering once and for all if there was a thread somewhere where everyone could succinctly register there prediction accessible by everyone and then come June some people will be mocked and others get to claim prediction victory, simple as that. NO KEN, you don't have to hand me any money - post your damn prediction somewhere you weak kneed, limp willed proclaimer of Y2K future!!! instead of just mocking everybody elses claim.

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), December 01, 1999.

just another:

I simply want one person to come forward, with a charitable spirit, who sincerely believes that a "non-event" is about to "not" unfold.

My apologies for the double negatives in two consecutive posts.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 01, 1999.

Decker,

You will make a donation to charity if we just admit that Y2K won't be as bad as your benchmarks?

OK!! You're on friend, that's mighty generous of you.

I admit that I do not think Y2K will be as bad as your #4 benchmark:

"4) The annualized inflation rate exceeds 12 percent during the first quarter or second quarter of 2000."

Send my $2000 to Greenpeace USA

When you get documented proof of your donation, send it to Ed Yourdon or Phil Greenspun to post on the forum, and I will never again doubt your sincerity or integrity.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 02, 1999.

Those of us who are true doomers can't figure out any way to profit by betting. Sure, if you're right, Decker, you collect. What if I'm right? What good is your money to me? How about this: I'll bet you a hundred dollars that by May first there is at least once nuclear reactor meltdown in the Ukraine or Russia. I'll bet you another hundred that by April 15, the IRS (if it still operates at all) has gone to a contingency plan for collecting taxes and/or issuing refunds. And I'll bet you a third hundred that by December 31 of 2000 the earth will have a billion fewer people. Gentleman's word, favorite charity. How can you lose? One way you'll collect, the other you'll be dead. Give me your posted word, and I'll print it out. You have mine.

-- StanTheMan (heidrich@presys.com), December 02, 1999.

Normally, I don't weigh in on these threads... and now and I remember why. Pardon me folks, but what a load of horse fritters.

First, the serious pessimists have been predicting Y2K will be worse than the Civil War and Great Depression combined. My "benchmarks" generally fall well short of the Great Depression (where unemployment eventually reached 25%).

Steve's predictions are a joke... and the wager is a "sucker bet." Thankfully, most optimists are intelligent enough to determine this.

As for "Hawk" aka "a," I never said I'd make a $2,000 donation to Steve's charity... or yours for that matter. I told Steve if he admitted Y2K would not get as bad as my benchmarks... I'd make A DONATION to his charity. I'll pick the amount, thank you. If you can find a pair of stones somewhere in your jockey shorts... you might want to take my bet. I consider it a sucker bet... but it's the bet some pessimists are making.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 02, 1999.

Steve:

I'll address your predictions in detail (not wanting to disappoint the mud-wrestling King):

-The unemployment rate in Wisconsin will increase by at least a full percentage point by the 2nd quarter of 2000.

I would bet, Steve, that Y2k freezes have already put a lot of good programmers out of work in Wisconsin, as they have elsewhere in the country. One full percentage point, eh?

-Chapter 11 bankruptcies will increase by at least 10% in Wisconsin by the 2nd quarter of 2000, compared to the same time period in 1999.

Are we including firms established to do Y2k remediation in this increase?

-The cost of goods will increase by at least 5% in Wisconsin during the 1st quarter of 2000, led by increases in the cost of gas and heating oil.

Well, Steve, I just received a letter from my mom's type-B facility that her basic care rate will increase on January 1, 2000 by 5%.

-Somewhere in Wisconsin, some people will be without either heat, power, or phones during the first week in January.

This is a no-brainer, Steve. It took the phone company 2 weeks to get my phone working when I first moved into this house. Later, local construction cut both phone and power lines. Does it make a difference whether heat, power, or phones are out due to Y2k or just due to squirrels, crows, racoons, limbs, ice, or other things?

-Supply chain disruptions in Wisconsin will cause shortages of thousands of items for several months into 2000.

Sorry...missed this one. Are we talking about CRITICAL items here, Steve, or are we talking about the things we've typically paid more for out of season? Are we talking about not having 30 different brands of salad dressing from which to choose, or something more critical?

-There will be at least one fatality in Wisconsin directly related to a Y2k failure during January of 2000

Only ONE, Steve? Will this failure be due to a power outage, a lack of heat, or will it be similar to the ice-storm wherein more people died from improperly connecting or using alternative sources of energy because they FEARED Y2k would shut down power?

Forgive my glibness, Steve, but you seem to be describing manageable problems associated with the unfolding of Y2k (which is how I acquired the Polly label on this forum.) I STILL believe Y2k will be manageable....perhaps much MORE manageable than other events that have preceded it (based on locale.) Using Illinois as a reference, I'd say that Y2k will cause no where near the hardships that Caterpillar created when it left Peoria, nor the hardships when U.S. Steel shut down their plants on Chicago's South East side.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), December 02, 1999.

Steve

Sorry, but if Y2K didn't exist at all, there is a real high chance of at least half of your scenarios coming to pass.

Decker has set the bar in about the right place. If those results don't come to pass, Y2K was a BITR. If you're not predicting those numbers, you are a polly, even if you are preparing personally. (Most pollies are.)

-- walt (walt@lcs.k12.ne.us), December 02, 1999.

Ken, Anita and walt:

My challenge isn't aimed at the "typical" optimist. It is aimed at those who believe Y2k will be a "non-event" or, at the absolute worst, a BITR. To anyone convinced of this, my challenge is hardly a "sucker bet".

As for the unemployment rate: A full percentage point increase represents tens of thousands of jobs. Far more than the number of laid-off programmers.

As for the bankruptcy rate: A 10% increase would translate to thousands of companies. Far more than the number in the remediation biz.

As for the cost of goods increase, I'm talking across-the-board, not any single item or group of items. And 5% would be unprecedented increase.

As for outages, I've already said that they would be the direct result of Y2k failures.

As for shortages, "critical" is certainly subject to interpretation, but I didn't have strawberries in mind.

Without Y2k, all of these criteria simply would not be even close to being met without a major triggering event.

The problems described are indeed "manageable". If Y2k is only as bad as these predictions (they are, as stated, mild compared to "doomer" predictions), it's safe to say most people would be greatly relieved. Except for those who are convinced it will be a BITR or "non-event", which is who this challenge is directed to.

Presumably, this would be the majority of the American population. Yet, no one wants to accept the challenge. Still waiting...

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 02, 1999.

Anyone is free to cross-post this at BIFFY. However, I'm not interested in flame wars. I'm only trying to find a single soul who truly believes in a BITR or "non-event", and is willing to help out his/her (or my) charity.

Or, does such a person really not exist?

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 02, 1999.

Steve, Maybe one reason is the challenge is all about "Wisconsin", why not mkake it a national thing, with easy to measure, clear factors? I may come up with my own challenge for you doomers, I could use the money, lol.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), December 02, 1999.

FactFinder:

I made the challenge specific to Wisconsin because it was initially made on my local Y2k forum, where the "optimists" there insist that the only thing that matters is local impacts.

As I stated initially, I'm willing to modify it to be any state, or national, if you'd prefer.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 02, 1999.

Steve,

Sorry... but it's still a sucker bet. If one person dies and you claim it's Y2K-related, you win. As for your economics... unemployment is at the lowest point in decades. Given the increase in temporary and contract-based workers, it is not hard to imagine a full point increase, even due to a minor business slowdown. In addition, we normally see a bump in unemployment after the holiday season and many firms wait until January to announce layoffs. If businesses have been stockpiling for Y2K, there may be a slowdown in 1Q 2000.

As for the bankruptcy rate, we are moving towards the tail end of a phenomenal expansion. The bankruptcy rate is relatively low, and would grow much higher in even a mild recession.

As for annualized inflation rate of 5%, hardly unprecedented. We have seen double digit rates of inflation in my lifetime. America has enjoyed an unusual confluence of a poor world economy and low commodity prices. Gas is up 50 cents a gallon where I live... from earlier this year. While the CPI/PPI have been quiet, it's not hard to imagine inflation creeping over 5% next year... without any economic downturn.

Returning to your "death" challenge... if a single utility lineman dies because an idiot plugged a generator into his home wiring system, you win. Y2K caused his death. When you reach millions (or billions), you are ready to wear a "Doomer" T shirt.

As for shortages... if the government allows the markets to function, there will be higher prices, but very few "shortages."

As for "without Y2K," your criteria could be easily met even if Y2K is a nonevent. Again... a sucker bet, Steve. But then again, you don't want to take my bet either.

Spain... feel free to take my bet. Thought so. (laughter)

Hawk aka "a" aka Smithers... before the rollover are you going to add an iota to the Y2K debate? Want to take my bet? Speaking of spineless. (chuckle) Put your money where your mouth is, if you have that much. No? Well, you picked the wrong bird.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 03, 1999.

Steve, I am a polly who would be pleased to accept a bet along the lines that you suggest if adjusted to NZ conditions. However the limits that you have placed are already less than what I believe the impact to be. What you have suggested is not even a BITR, but would be an improvement on normal conditions.

Lets look at your conditions (changed from Wissconsin to NZ) and see just where they sit right now, and what sort of limits would be moe reasonable.

-The unemployment rate in NZ will increase by at least a full percentage point by the 2nd quarter of 2000. The unemployment rate in NZ rises by more than a full percentage point between the first and second quarters every year due to seasonal workers being laid off. Make this 3 percentage points and I'll consider that it may be partly due to other reasons.

Company liquidations and forced bankruptcies will increase by at least 10% in NZ by the 2nd quarter of 2000, compared to the same time period in 1999. But we have just had an election which was won by a party which traditionally is anti business, so this range of backruptcies is likely anyway. Lets try for a 100% increase.

-The cost of goods will increase by at least 5% in NZ during the 1st quarter of 2000, led by increases in the cost of gas and heating oil 5% inflation is quite likely due to the latest round of oil price rises alone (we have just had a 13% increase in 10 weeks). Here we are in a country which has lived with 20% inflation in the recent past without Y2K, so lets put that figure at 10% per quarter for at least 2 consequetive quarters.

-Supply chain disruptions in NZ will cause shortages of thousands of items for several months into 2000 I'll take this one as is if you can tell me how we will decide the cause of any shortages.

-Somewhere in NZ, some people will be without either heat, power, or phones during the first week in January. This is normal. It is impossible to get many repair crews out during public holidays except to maintain essential emergency services, so change this to "at least one whole island in NZ will be without heat, power or phones due to Y2K during the entire first week in January" and I'll accept it as Y2K caused.

-There will be at least one fatality in NZ directly related to a Y2k failure during January of 2000. I'll accept this one as is also.

If these conditions are met or exceed on every count, then I'll happily donate $1000 to a charity of your chosing. But if they are not this bad, then my favourite charity in the "St John's Ambulance" foundation.

Malcolm

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), December 03, 1999.

Malcolm:

I would accept your terms, with the following modifications:

A 50% increase in the bankruptcy rate.

One whole island will be without heat, power, or phones for at least one entire day due to Y2k failure(s). A week is excessive.

Not sure how to resolve the "root cause of shortages". If you like, we can omit this as it would be difficult to quantify.

One final modification, which was as the challenge was originally stated: if any one of your conditions occurs, then Y2k is not a "non-event", and my charity gets the donation. If none do, Y2k will have been a BITR at worst, at least by your New Zealand standards (which I will accept as accurate), and yours does.

Agreed?

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 03, 1999.

Steve,

I do believe that we are quite close to an agreement on terms here. I will agree to your modifications on all counts except the final one. Perhaps we are both trying to be too one sided here, so I'd propose the following ammendment.

As there are 5 items (with the shortages issue being removed), If only 1 or 2 of them are met then my charity wins the bet, if 4 or 5 of them are met, then your charity wins, and if it is exactly 3 then we each donate $500 to charity.

One final issue. I suggest that we agree on a mediator for this, and on completion of the time (end of 2nd quarter), the loser pays the sum to the winners charity and posts the original receipt to the winner. A photocopy of the receipt to be posted to the mediator.

I am not sure if there is a branch of St John's Ambulance Service in Wisconsin, so if you are the loser, I would accept any similar charitable ambulance servie in your area as a worthy charity. I would trust that you would also nominate a charity that has a branch here in NZ, or something similar to what I have proposed.

I'll add that I believe you to be a real gentleman in making such an offer, and win or lose, some worthy cause will benefit.

Malcolm

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), December 03, 1999.

Malcolm:

Yes, we're close. However, I think that since the challenge was aimed at those who feel Y2k will be a "non-event" (or BITR, at worst), then it's safe to say that if any one of your conditions are met, then Y2k will not have been a NE/BITR. So, I stand by that condition.

Should you agree, I would be happy to agree to a mediator, and announce my charity, which I'm sure would have a New Zealand counterpart.

Thanks for your contributions to the forum, as I've found them very informative.

I truly want a worthy cause to benefit. Thanks for the kind words.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 03, 1999.

Steve,

Unfortunately I cannot agree to the idea of any single condition being met would mean that Y2K has been more than a BITR. I honestly do believe that any single item could occur, and it would still be a non event. For all of them to occur would be a BITR, and if things did get worse then perhaps some of the doomers may have been closer to the mark.

But lets not give up just yet. Take a spell and think about it for a day or two, and perhaps we can take note of what others may think would be an acceptable compromise.

Malcolm.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), December 03, 1999.

Malcolm:

I would respectfully disagree. I see no way how you could characterize Y2k as a non-event if even a single condition were to be met. So, we agree to disagree.

But, I will indeed give it some more thought, should no other candidates emerge for this "challenge".

I'm frankly amazed that no others have emerged to date, given that the vast majority of the population would seemingly qualify...

Again, anyone is free to cross-post this challenge on BIFFY or "DeBunky", etc...

Still waiting...

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 04, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I offered a bet a couple weeks ago. I recorded its location at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl#dancr but, for some reason that location isn't correct. Fortunately, I have it archived. So far, no takers. I'm going to set a December 15 deadline on it, since I'd need an opportunity to take advantage of the cash. Or, I may withdraw it earlier.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 07, 1999.

Poll after poll indicates that the majority feel Y2k will be a "non- event". To cite just one example, a September poll found that 63% of corporate executives expect Y2k to be a "non-event".

I'm a lowly grunt hack programmer, who admits to being clueless as to the outcome, who admits substantial gaps in knowledge to be able to forecast outcomes of such large, complex events as Y2k.

Surely, corporate executives, with their MBA's, fancy cars, mansions, stock options, teams of advisors, etc., are much more able than I to predict the outcome accurately.

Yet I, curmudgeon that I am, steadfastly (and foolishly?) predict that Y2k will not be a "non-event", and outline some simple barometers which, I believe, would be a fair measure of whether a "non-event" is about to unfold.

I think I understand the "majority view" fairly well. I firmly believe that the majority (especially those with much larger brains than mine) feel that the "3-day storm" is a worst-case scenario.

I again foolishly (?) triple-dog-dare anyone to accept my challenge to your clearly superior world view.

I will impose a deadline of 12/24/99 to hammer out the details. Take my money and give it to the charity of your choice. Please.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 08, 1999.

Yet I, curmudgeon that I am, steadfastly (and foolishly?) predict that Y2k will not be a "non-event", and outline some simple barometers which, I believe, would be a fair measure of whether a "non-event" is about to unfold.

LOL, except that your "simple barometers" measure events that can be completely unrelated to Y2K. "No phones, heat, or power" as a Y2K problem?? In the middle of winter??? IN WISCONSIN?????

ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO

Look, nobody's interested in your painfully obvious straw-man "dare" so you might as well give it up. You've chosen to argue that, in order for you to lose, nothing can happen. Nothing at all.

Hey, maybe I'll try it too. Okay, If ANYONE says to ANYONE ELSE something BAD having to do in ANY way with the term Y2K, then CLEARLY IT WAS *NOT* A NON-EVENT AND I WIN!!!!

WELL????? C'MON!!! WHY WON'T ANYONE TAKE THE BET!!! C'MON YOU COWARDS!!!!! I'M WAITING!!!!!!!

LOL

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 08, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

duh says: If ANYONE says to ANYONE ELSE something BAD having to do in ANY way with the term Y2K, then CLEARLY IT WAS *NOT* A NON-EVENT

That doesn't explain why nobody's taking my bet, which was issued over three weeks ago. In mine we would be looking at the pronouncements of not just anybody, but somebody specific. Clinton is clearly someone who would be inclined to not make any admissions that Y2K has caused a significant problem, unless it were perfectly obvious that it had. He would have to say this not just to anyone but to the people of the world via an announcement or a press conference. He would have to not merely utter "something bad" but an exact pre-defined phrase.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 08, 1999.

That doesn't explain why nobody's taking my bet, which was issued over three weeks ago.

Actually, it does.

In mine we would be looking at the pronouncements of not just anybody, but somebody specific.

LOL, "pronouncements" like:

"...is a federal disaster area...."

After all, there CAN'T be any federal disaster areas unless it's a Y2K PROBLEM, right??

Like I said, give it up. Nobody's interested in your straw man bets.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 08, 1999.

Once again, loss of power or phones would have to be directly caused by a Y2k failure, as I've stated now at least 3 times.

There are no "straw man" arguments here. If any of my predictions comes about, it will be due primarily to the effects of Y2k. Even given the length that companies go to deny any problems are (or will be) related to Y2k failures, large rises in unemployment rates and bankruptcies, etc., which happen in 1Q & 2Q of 2000 will be attributed largely to Y2k.

If you truly believe in a Y2k "non-event", as most people apparently do, these predictions of mine have no chance whatsoever of coming about, short of a declaration of war, perhaps. They are far outside statistically "normal" deviations.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 08, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

After all, there CAN'T be any federal disaster areas unless it's a Y2K PROBLEM, right??

I only said statements "such as" those, not necessarily those ones exactly. Tell us how you would word that to make it clear that the disaster was Y2K related. Do you have any problems with any of the other suggestions? I'm open to discussion.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 09, 1999.

This is a challenge I want to lose.

Great, then accept Malcom's terms.

In fact, I would be ecstatic to donate to charity should none of the predictions come to pass.

Then here's my proposal. If none of the predictions come to pass, donate the money to your favorite charity. Use whatever measurements you like to determine if your predictions came true or not. The only one that loses will be the charity and your own conscience. Then you can stop whining that nobody's taking you up on your silly straw-man bet and actually do something good for your community.

And, as I've shown with Malcolm, I'm willing to change the numbers or negotiate the terms to some extent.

Only to the extent that you will still have a good chance of winning.

Call it "straw man" arguments if you like. I respectfully disagree.

Believe what you want. But nobody will take you up on your idiotic straw-man bet as it stands. You can bet on that.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 09, 1999.

I only said statements "such as" those, not necessarily those ones exactly.

Wrong. You can't even remember the conditions of your own bet. I will remind you:

I need your money now. How about this bet. You send to my designee $1,000 cash now. I put a $2,500 check with any professional escrow agent of your choosing, instructing them to cash it and turn the money over to you on April Fools' Day, if Clinton is still alive and hasn't yet said any of certain pre-defined phrases which would be good indicators that something was drastically wrong.

Here are the phrases which I propose would be good indicators:

Nowhere do you say you will accept statements "such as" these, nor do you mention that you will will accept alternative phrases. Apparently you don't even remember the contents of your own web page. Only a fool would make a wager with someone who demonstrates such obvious incompetence.

Tell us how you would word that to make it clear that the disaster was Y2K related. Do you have any problems with any of the other suggestions? I'm open to discussion.

I'm not interested in assisting you with your absurd straw-man bet. You simply wanted an explanation of why nobody was taking you up on it and I gave you one. Still, I would say that if you limited your wager to ONE phrase that clearly demonstrated the seriousness of Y2K to the extent that you believe will occur, then you may find someone to take you up on your offer. Not me, though. I'd never make a bet with someone who draws up stupid straw-man arguments and then can't even remember them, LOL.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 09, 1999.

I do indeed want to lose this challenge, but only because Y2k turned out to be a non-event. If none of my conditions come about, it's safe to say that it was. Malcolm wanted it both ways, as many "optimists" do--Y2k can be bad, but not too bad, and still be a "non-event". Poppycock.

If no one accepts this challenge, and Y2k fizzles (as I truly hope), I will still happily donate to charity, as I ordinarily do. Only more than usual.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 09, 1999.

Malcolm wanted it both ways, as many "optimists" do--Y2k can be bad, but not too bad, and still be a "non-event". Poppycock.

LOL, you simply "respectfully disagreed" on the definition of "non- event" Now you're using words like "Poppycock." Is that how you "respectfully disagree" with people? ROTFLMAO

If no one accepts this challenge, and Y2k fizzles (as I truly hope), I will still happily donate to charity, as I ordinarily do. Only more than usual.

As I said, nobody will accept your absurd straw-man challenge, so I'm sure the charity you choose will greatly appreciate your donation.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 09, 1999.

duh:

Last chance. As I've stated, I have no desire to get into flame wars.

Enlighten us with your criteria. What measurable barometers would you cite as your conclusive "proof" of a "non-event"? What, in other words, is your definition, using objectively measurable data, of a "Y2k non-event"?

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 09, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Here's what I said, and you correctly quoted: Here are the phrases which I propose would be good indicators:

The thread is dead now, so the context is not clear, but my recollection is that this came out in the midst of several others that were being toyed with and bargained. If it wasn't clear that I was open to modifications, it should be now that I have stated that explicitly.

Let's say we strike the "disaster area" item for wording difficulty. Why do you say I should limit to just one condition as evidence that things were worse than a bump in the road? I was thinking a lot more could be added, but didn't have the time to think them up at that moment, so I quit with just a few. Wouldn't it be clearly a big problem if any one of these things happened?

If you're calling these "straw man" conditions, are you saying you think at least one of these things is likely to happen? That's interesting.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 09, 1999.

Last chance.

Last chance for what?? Am I being executed at dawn?

Enlighten us with your criteria.

Why? I'm not interested in your bet. Malcom was, though. Why don't you just take him up on it already?

What measurable barometers would you cite as your conclusive "proof" of a "non-event"? What, in other words, is your definition, using objectively measurable data, of a "Y2k non-event"?

For me, it's not a non-event if I need "preps" for more than a 3-day storm. That's probably not your definition, nor is it probably one that you're looking for, but then, I don't really care. If you want a more specific measurement more like yours, use Malcom's.

Hope this helps. I doubt it does, but hey, you asked.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 09, 1999.

The thread is dead now, so the context is not clear, but my recollection is that this came out in the midst of several others that were being toyed with and bargained. If it wasn't clear that I was open to modifications, it should be now that I have stated that explicitly.

I doubt it will help any at this point, but at least you've made it clear.

Let's say we strike the "disaster area" item for wording difficulty. Why do you say I should limit to just one condition as evidence that things were worse than a bump in the road?

Because it wouldn't give people the impression that this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take. That is assuming you really do want someone to take your bet, which so far seems dubious.

I was thinking a lot more could be added, but didn't have the time to think them up at that moment, so I quit with just a few. Wouldn't it be clearly a big problem if any one of these things happened?

Not necessarily.

If you're calling these "straw man" conditions, are you saying you think at least one of these things is likely to happen?

Only when you put words in my mouth. Otherwise, that's not what I'm saying.

That's interesting.

Yes, putting words in my mouth is certainly interesting. Not very productive though.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 09, 1999.

Still waiting for someone, anyone to accept this challenge.

Y2k is over. Everyone says so. Absolutely nothing will go wrong that can't be fixed in a few hours. OK, 3 days at the most.

Anyone who believes otherwise is clearly a fool.

Yet, no one wants to accept this challenge. I'm stunned.

The offer remains valid for the next 10 days.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 14, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

duh says: this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take

For someone so concerned about people putting words in their mouth (when I asked if something was what you meant), you sure do return the favor by telling me what I know. Why would I know nobody would take this bet? Is it because it is too likely that these things will in fact happen? If any of these things happens, I say we've got worse than a bump in the road.

Do you mean to say that these things are still less than a bump in the road? Does my asking you another such question equate to putting words in your mouth again? I chose items that I thought seemed likely to happen, and yet clearly would be worse than a bump. Now you tell me, which is it? These things won't happen or they're less than a bump? If you're saying they're less than a bump, while we think they're bad, then you will leave us alone about preparing and go away. If you think they just won't happen, then put your money where your mouth is.

Alternatively, explain what you mean by "straw man conditions," if not that you consider these items to be so likely that anyone betting against them would surely lose.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 14, 1999.

Still waiting for someone, anyone to accept this challenge.

Keep waiting. Nobody will ever accept your ridiculous straw man challenge. That was my bet, and so far, I'm winning.

Y2k is over. Everyone says so. Absolutely nothing will go wrong that can't be fixed in a few hours. OK, 3 days at the most.

Anyone who believes otherwise is clearly a fool.

If you say so.

Yet, no one wants to accept this challenge. I'm stunned.

If so, then you greatly underestimated the ability of people to see your straw man challenge for what it is. I, however, did not. I am not stunned in the least.

The offer remains valid for the next 10 days.

And it will remain unanswered for the next 10 days.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 14, 1999.

duh says: this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take

Wrong. This is what I wrote:

Because it wouldn't give people the impression that this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take.

Still, it's not surprising that you are unable to remember what I wrote, since you've already demonstrated that you do not remember what you wrote yourself on your own web page.

For someone so concerned about people putting words in their mouth (when I asked if something was what you meant), you sure do return the favor by telling me what I know.

Wrong again. I never told you what you knew. The text you mis-quoted above was an answer to the question of why I suggested you limit yourself to a single condition for your bet. The answer was that limiting yourself to a single condition would no longer give people the impression that this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take.

Why would I know nobody would take this bet?

I never said you knew nobody would take this bet. I said that limiting yourself to a single condition would no longer give people the impression that this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take.

Is it because it is too likely that these things will in fact happen?

I never said you knew nobody would take this bet. I said that limiting yourself to a single condition would no longer give people the impression that this was simply a ridiculous straw-man bet that you knew nobody would take.

Is there an echo in here? LOL

If any of these things happens, I say we've got worse than a bump in the road.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Do you mean to say that these things are still less than a bump in the road?

Perhaps.

I chose items that I thought seemed likely to happen, and yet clearly would be worse than a bump. Now you tell me, which is it? These things won't happen or they're less than a bump?

I'll go with "they're less than a bump."

If you're saying they're less than a bump, while we think they're bad, then you will leave us alone about preparing and go away.

Why would I do this? What does this have to do with "preparing?"

If you think they just won't happen, then put your money where your mouth is.

Why? Isn't it possible to have an opinion without necessarily putting money on it? You wanted to know why nobody was taking your bet. I simply explained that your bet was made up of ridiculous straw man conditions that nobody would take.

So far, nobody has taken your bet. And nobody will.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 14, 1999.

The "straw man" argument is pure nonsense, and here's why:

A full percentage point increase in unemployment by the 2nd quarter would be unprecedented, and far beyond any "normal" variations in the unemployment rate, regardless of how it's measured. Don't believe me? Show me when it's ever happened since such records were recorded (provide your reference). The fact is that the rate fluctuates by at most 0.2% monthly. Such a seemingly small increase, however, translates into hundreds of thousands of newly unemployed people. Anyone who thinks Y2k won't effect jobs, and who gives the matter any thought, will clearly see that a 1% increase sets the bar extremely high.

The same argument applies for the bankruptcy rates. I challenge anyone to find any time period since such statistics have been kept when the rate increased by as much as 10% from year to year. (Hint: Bet you can't.) Again, I have set the bar sufficiently high so as to be unprecedented.

As for the cost of goods: A 5% quarterly hike translates to (if my math is correct) a 22% annual rate of inflation, which would again be unprecedented in the US. Prove me wrong by citing your sources. I'll make the challenge even easier: I predict a 5% increase without factoring in the cost of oil and gas. I know that such indicators are indeed publicly released.

The other conditions need no further explanation other than to reiterate that any loss of life, or loss of power, or phones, or heat, would be as a direct result of a Y2k computer failure. If, for legal purposes, this isn't clearly known, I will give the utility in question the "benefit of the doubt".

In short, the "straw man" argument is pure nonsense. What it boils down to, in essence, is: I don't think Y2k will be a big deal, but I believe any of the above is possible even without Y2k. Sorry, but it simply doesn't hold water. Prove me wrong.

Again, I'm not interested in flame wars. I am interested in benefitting someone's charity. Interested parties only respond.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 15, 1999.

In short, the "straw man" argument is pure nonsense.

No, this "challenge" is pure nonsense.

What it boils down to, in essence, is: I don't think Y2k will be a big deal, but I believe any of the above is possible even without Y2k. Sorry, but it simply doesn't hold water. Prove me wrong.

Why? You were clearly "stunned" that nobody was accepting your bet. I explained to you that the reason nobody accepted your bet was because it was based on ridiculous straw man arguments that nobody would take. You apparently can't accept that possibility and are now demanding that I "prove" that these straw man events can occur without Y2K. How about YOU "prove" that NONE of these events can POSSIBLY occur without Y2K being the clear source of the problem? C'mon, "cite your sources!!" Prove me wrong!!!

You're simply offering more ridiculous challenges to supplement your original one. Big deal. If you haven't realized it by now, Steve, nobody cares about your challenges.

And apparently neither do you, as you mention:

Again, I'm not interested in flame wars. I am interested in benefitting someone's charity.

If that's what you're interested in, then just give money to someone's charity already and stop insisting that someone answer your ridiculous straw man challenges. Everyone will be much better off.

-- (duh@duh.duh), December 15, 1999.

I will revive this thread one final time. Only serious "BITR/NE" believers with a charitable spirit need respond. Deadline is midnight 12/24/99.

-- Steve (hartsman@ticon.net), December 24, 1999.