Can the date on this be correct (1997)?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
From bks Sun Aug 31 12:30:28 PDT 1997 Newsgroups: comp.human-factors Subject: Re: [Y2K]"Year 2000: Techno-Ambush" Organization: DNA + Sunlight--bks
In article <email@example.com>, Robert S. Mangus, Jr.
wrote: > Please distribute appropriately?! ... I'm looking for any >RATIONAL REBUTTAL to the assertions I put forth in this missive.
Seen from the vantage point of 1 February 2000, the Y2K hysteria will make for some good laughs. This will be the most over-hyped least-eventful cyber-phenomenon since Windows 95 was welcomed with a yawn. In the next two years there will be more bugs and inconveniences introduced by frantic efforts to ward off this impending disaster [sic] than the actual roll-over will cause.
-- Bradley K. Sherman (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2000
bks: Please do not post when drunk. Thank you.
-- King of Spain (email@example.com), January 03, 2000.
I'd like to point something out to you. This isn't CSY2k and you're blatant trolling for what ever it is you're searching for can easily be made mute with a simple "delete".
If you want to say something, I suggest you simply SAY IT and make your point. However, your attempt to make this a place to conduct a personal gloating war can't be tolerated.
Shape up or go play at CSY2k.
-- Sysop (Home@TB2k.com), January 03, 2000.
You're going to delete my perfect call on Y2k? I even hyperlinked the message to deja.com so that it is self-authenticating! Just trying to establish my credentials, because every time I post here, a lot of anonymous folks throw cyber-tomatoes.
-- Bradley K. Sherman (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2000.
No Sherman, you misunderstood.
If you have a point to make then make it. You just made your intentions much clearer in the last post you made as in "perfect call".
Please, however, don't use this forum to push buttons and create more tension than that which we already have to deal with. I don't think you want to be put in the same company as some of the trolls who spam this board.
-- Sysop (Home@TB2k.com), January 03, 2000.
Congrats Bradley. Let me buy you a coke or something and don't forget to read my post above or on csy2k entitled "So Long Seekers (The Longer-The Better)
-- Peace Farmer (email@example.com), January 03, 2000.
Yes, 'Sherm'; that date is correct!
At the time I wrote/posted that missive, government, military and utilities had not begun to take Y2K seriously. (Detroit Edison [DTE] didn't complete their "inventory" until JULY, 1999!)
The first "serious" U.S. Senate hearings didn't occur until 1998. Take a look at the history of the "GartnerGroup" (!) reports and Senate testimony.
As I was then (1997) entering my third major Y2K project (BCBSM!), I could _see_ that Y2K wasn't being taken seriously in the corporate world, also. GartnerGroup reports (3Q1999!) that at least 1/3'd of the Fortune 500 had "done nothing."
Now that the Telecomm and Power Grid appear to have "work arounds" to avoid immediate "collapse," the Y2K meltdown won't reach critical mass "climax" until around March or April (per published GartnerGroup charts). (That is, assuming Telecomm and the Power Grid continue holding their own.)
If the Y2K "Duct Tape" (TM) holding [U.S.] Military, Telecomm, Power Grid, Finance, Health Care and Sanitation (e.g., Water, Sewerage) services together holds, then the potential for a complete societal catastrophe may be avoided.
Folks on this forum arguing against the effects of cumulative, distributed (undiscovered or belatedly discovered) Y2K data/date computed corruption do not know what they are talking about.
In most socio-environments, a 1% error rate may be tolerable; don't tell that to a bankster, however. (I've been paid good money for uncounted hours "searching"--until FOUND--unaccounted-for iterations of "puny" penny ($0.01!) discrepancies!) It's all about accountability and confidence in fundamental underpinnings of _ANY_ culture, health and welfare.
So ... Before you leap to your "Y2K's-OK" horse, make sure there's a saddle --and that it's tightly strapped-- and ...
Don't discount Y2K "glitches" before they're cumulatively 'hatched.'
Regards, Bob Mangus
* * *
-- Robert Mangus (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2000.
Your "PERFECT call on Y2K"? Geeze, you stink of arrogance.
Next, you'll be claiming you gave Al Gore the idea for the internet.
The vast majority of experts (of which you are not) agree that the numbers are not yet in, therefore, the damage cannot be assessed for months. You know it's true. Go back and play grab-ass with Alan on CSY2K, you tub.
-- Andy Anderson (email@example.com), January 03, 2000.
Whatever, just get your news servers working will you?
-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 03, 2000.
Your "credentials" precede you, jerk.
But you already knew that.
What next? I'm surprised you didn't have Don Scott hanging on your arm as you minced into the forum.
-- Ron Schwarz (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 03, 2000.
bks's problem is that he has never really accepted the legitimacy of year 2000 rollover problems. He thinks it's all a big fairy tale.
I'm starting to wonder if he is just a fairy tail.
-- snooze button (email@example.com), January 04, 2000.
Rock on, BKS!!!
-- Homer Fangbean (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 05, 2000.