Last night, apparently unable to make any valid arguments, the anonymous doomer "a@a.a" decided to post personal information about me on this thread:

The shoe on Hoffmeister's other foot

A month or two ago, during some e-mail, I had given that information to the "person" known as "lisa@work.now", asking her not to spread it. This, quite obviously, she was unwilling or unable to do. And no, I won't "hit back" by posting her information.

Now, quite obviously, I don't have a problem with posting anonymously, or semi-anonymously. But it is the height of hypocrisy for someone to hide behind an anonymous pseudonym, while at the same time posting personal information about another.

Par for the course, I suppose.

Anyway, for anyone interested:

Yes, my name is Ted Hoffman. I am an SAP consultant, as I have stated numerous times.

Yes, I am also the author of a book on SAP:

Writing SAP ABAP/4 Programming

(Note: I gave the Computer Literacy link instead of Amazon because it's cheaper there)

One of the main reasons I posted anonymously was to avoid any implications that I was attempting to personally gain from my views and postings regarding Y2k. Had I wished to increase publicity, or generate sales, I would have posted with my actual name and links to my book and resume, as others have done.

Instead, I tried to make my arguments and points stand by themselves. Whether or not I was successful, is obviously debatable.

The charge has been made that people such as myself were attempting to capitalize on the Fear as well. Afterall, many organizations implemented SAP to address Y2k problems.

The difference is great. As far as I know, SAP doesn't use scare tactics to make sales. SAP was implemented to address the problem, and stop larger scale problems from occurring.

For example, in whatever small capacity, had I wished to increase SAP sales, or my own personal profits, I would not have been posting optimistically. It would have been far better to paint a much bleaker picture, in order to "scare" up more business.

The difference is also in the message. SAP implementations addressed potential problems, in order to make the overall manageable. This is exactly the opposite of those spreading the Fear; their message was quite clear, that the effort was doomed from the start. One need only look at Gary North, for example. His motive, quite openly stated, was not to address the problem; he wanted Y2k to bring down the system. His means to that end was to continually promote Fear, and spread the message that efforts to address Y2k were doomed.

In any case, although I told "BigDog" I was hanging around here until the end of the month, I think the time has come to leave. I have no real desire to watch the aftermath of this forum, in whatever form it eventually ends up taking.

I don't make it a habit to debunk the various Paranoia fears that infest the internet. Y2k was different, in the sense that the problem itself was real, and fell into my area of expertise. I felt that I could provide useful information and a level of experience on the IT side of Y2k.

And, quite obviously, I felt a great deal of anger towards those in my profession that were propagating the Fear. In some cases, that anger turned to disgust, as some not only were propagating the Fear, but at the same time attempting to capitalize on the Fear they themselves generated.

But I have no desire to sit in the aftermath and debunk people jumping at shadows. I realize the need is great to validate at least some of the dire "analysis" here; have at it, folks. My purpose was never to deny that Y2k errors would occur; that fact was undeniable. The question was always the effects of those errors. Again, I'll leave it for people to decide for themselves just who was more accurate in their assessments.

Anyway, "BigDog", you got your wish. And I suppose "a@a.a" accomplished his goal in a fashion last night. It got me to question the utility of future postings.

Unless Yourdon for some reason responds to my Open Letter, this is it. And since "technical" difficulties seem to have removed that thread, I suppose that possibility is slim at best.

Later, y'all.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 05, 2000

Answers

Hoffmeister,

I've been lurking here for two years now and I'm going to miss your posts. You were one of the voices of reason on this forum.

It's really sad that Lisa had to betray you.

Good luck to you!

-- (Lurker@here.com), January 05, 2000.

absurd. Mr. Hoffmeister, despite your impressive credentials, Y2K is bigger than you or I, and your presence or lack thereof on this forum is simply irrelevant. Y2K will either BE or NOT BE. That is the question, and only TIME will tell - not Yourdon, or North, or InfoMagic, or YOU. Your "threat" to leave is only as good as today's headlines. If things start "heating up" you'll back here faster than a firing pin on a Colt 1911. It's too early to "debunk" anyone. Debunk thyself first.

-- Why Me (Doom@gloom.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoff (you ARE Hoff on this forum) -- don't know what "wish" you mean. You'll note on the very thread you link to, I said I enjoyed and APPRECIATED most of your threads, something I have said on other occasions.

Gee, can't remember you EVER saying that about me, eh? Have you? Once? Of course not. I spread "FUD" .... right?

I have also said repeatedly that I hoped you were right about Y2K, that I found your arguments about system replacement challenging, etc ... oh, I'm sorry, we "doomers" never give credence to the arguments of others, how silly of me. I'm one of the evil guys.

What is it YOU wanted from me?

My only beef with you on this forum has been your presumptions about Ed's state of mind and activities and your tired arguments about "Fear". Period.

You've already seen my comments on that thread about the way Decker treats people's choices for handles here.

If Lisa broke your confidentiality to "a", she was DEAD WRONG and owes you a major apology. I note that "a" did not reveal your name and, in fact, I wouldn't have either (sorry if I gave that impression in any way last night - as a matter of fact, I didn't email "a").

Actually, I HAVE seen your book!

Not only don't I have the slightest objection to your sticking around to analyze Y2K (and help "us" understand where we went wrong IF that proves to be the case over the coming MONTHS), I would welcome it (I'm not implying it's up to me, this is only IMO). Sorry, big brain, some of us are still weighing this.

Just cut out the mind-reading. By capitalizing "Paranoia" and "Fear" above, it's clear you're still riding your obsession.

I think Ed would have to be a total masochist to answer your endless "have you stopped beating your wife" questions.

Hoffmeister is a more interesting name, anyway ...... why the "hoff" part?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 05, 2000.

SHUT UP! YOU'RE ALL WRONG! ONLY I CAN SEE THE TRUE PATTERN! SHUT UP!

What were we talking about again? :)

Hopefully we won't see you back here, and I mean that in the nicest possible way; i.e. that there won't be enough significant occurrances to tempt you back.

All the best.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoffman = Hoffmeister. I knew it. I knew you didn't just pull the Hoff out of thin air.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Posting real information about someone is about as low as you can go. I can't believe anyone could do this.

-- (Disgusting@to.tattle), January 05, 2000.

Hoffmeister: If you are really leaving, then I wish you all the best. Between you, Flint, & Decker I always found the *point-counterpoint* balance that helped shape my views the last two years. I now have a nagging suspicion that I should have paid closer attention to all three of you, but I'm leaving it at just that (a nagging suspicion) until a few months have passed. I think the jury is still out. It is a dasterdly deed that has caused you to decide to go, but please do remember that you have made major contributions to many on this forum, and I, for one, appreciate the time and reseach you put in. God Bless.

on de rock

-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), January 05, 2000.

Lets see Ted...

Just checked the TBY2K Forum e-mail at: y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com for any notes from you notifying the Sysops that someone posted personal information so we could snip it.

Nada. Zip.

Then checked my public e-mail at sacredspaces@yahoo.com.

Again... nothing.

So, Ted Hoffman, I see youd rather stand on a forum soapbox and lambast us instead, per usual.

Would have been much simpler to stand up and be counted by using your real name, as some of us do, or as Ed Yourdon does, rather than hide behind an illusion. Was that a fear-based decision?

Oh well. How are SAP book sales going at Hershey, etc?

Bye. Thanks for the memories. Good luck in your new public life.

Diane

(BTW... The reason people flag us is because we can't possibly read all the threads. First I'd heard of this).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 05, 2000.

So "Hoff" your motivation was to sell books about SAP. Well you had your fifteen minutes of fame with Pravda on the Potomic and I'm sorry to see you go. Not really. After all these years of hearing your rants at csy2000 and enjoying the lower noise to signal ratio at TB2000 I finally delurked after you resurfaced here. Strange, your resurfacing was also about the time of the hacker attacks and troll disruptions. Anyways, I felt the need to lend support to the many informed and "not financially motivated" posters who reqular this forum and who were now under attack by you and your ilk. Thanks for the info "a@a.a", you have helped me to justify my decision. All along it was poor poor poor Hoff with the most "pure of intentions". I feel like throwing up on the floor. Good riddance Ted Hoffman! Next time you sell your book I hope you have alittle more integrity. Boy! I feel much better now.

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoffy:

I'm really sorry that you are leaving, especially under the circumstances of apparently having a confidence broken. I share your outrage; you had every right to expect things shared in confidence to stay confidential.

I'm sure that you interpreted my post correctly on the "Open Letter to Ed Yourdon" thread, but just to make sure: I was making the point of selling SAP for unneeded "Y2K compliance" ONLY as an example of the kind of liberties that one can take if one forgets the "fundamental axioms of Y2K" that I presented. I certainly did not want to imply that you literally tried to encourage SAP on the basis of Y2K fear-uncertainty-doubt. Of course, I don't believe that Ed Yourdon ever tried to capitalize on this, either.

I always regarded you as our best spokesperson that we ever had for the pollies. You presented great arguments, insights, and some good humor, too, in your generally respectful and civil posts. I think that everyone here should appreciate the obvious amount of work that you put into contributions.

I wish you would re-consider, at least stay just a couple of more weeks. That would probably help everyone get closure on Y2K. If you can't, we understand. In any case, good luck, Hoffy.

Respectfully,

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 05, 2000.

Ms. Squire,

I don't recall Hoff saying that the information was posted here. He just said that Lisa must have blabbed to others.

Also, what kind of a job do you have other than being the lap dog of Ed Yourdon? How much does he pay you? I'd like to read the book you had published.

-- (Can@you.read?), January 05, 2000.

"Apologize for being a doomer, Ed!"

"Apologize for tellin 'a' I wrote a book, Lisa!"

"Apologize for hurtin my ego, Diane!"

What a freaking baby.

-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 2000.

Ted,

Brian McLaughlin... now you. The people I enjoy reading the most are leaving the forum. In a few weeks, TB 2000 will finally become what so many wanted it to be... a place where pessimists can reassure each other the world really is ending (and it's all due to Y2K bugs.)

When we were not sure how Y2K would turn out, your well-reasoned arguments were lucid and on target. I particularly enjoyed your discussion with Steve Heller... and, for the record, your position about the magnitude of software changes in 1999 exceeding those "post- rollover" was never seriously challenged.

The real vindication of your position has not been Y2K itself, but the reaction of the pessimists. A few honest souls have come forward, but some of our regulars cling to the notion the world is really ending... we just don't know it yet. Given this behavior, I am not surprised by your departure... and realize your elegant arguments will increasingly fall upon deaf ears.

I do appreciate you coming "out of the closet"... I've always had a bit more respect for those folks who post under their real name, though I can understand your reasoning.

Since you are on the way out the door, if you don't mind, I'll spar with "Big Dog" a bit longer.

*****

I'm not sure Hoff every expected anything from you, "BD," but I think he disagreed strongly with your tenacious defense of Yourdon. You are just as guilty as anyone of presuming Yourdon's motives... the only difference is that you see everything Ed has done as noble and virtuous.

I can understand Hoff leaving... partly because I don't think you or some of the regular posters have any interest in an honest discussion of Y2K. Hoff's exceptional points were uniformly decried as the work of a "shill" or an "idiot." You've shown little interest in legitimate debate. Your tactic has been to mock or attack those who present a threat to your position... and avoid engaging on the serious issues. Remember, "It's Still Y2K, Stupid"? Remember "The Code is Broken" and "We Started Too Late"?

Hoff is leaving because he is NOT obsessed with Y2K... or with debating an issue with individuals who refuse to accept reality. Oh, we'll be sorting out Y2K for months, if not years. The worst case Y2K scenario, though, is an economic downturn... not nearly as exciting to prep for as the end of the world.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 2000.

Can@you.read

Hey swine. Why don't you go back over and play nicely at debunkers. The Rendon Group must be working overtime today.

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoffmeister,

As one who also chooses to post with an alias, I can certainly understand your indignation. And the people involved really should have taken a little more time to consider the implications, before acting.

But the question has to be asked: Why didn't you e-mail the sysops, and ask them to remove the offending info? Perhaps you assumed that the complaint would fall on deaf ears? Perhaps PARANOIA cuts both ways? Perhaps we're not the only ones, with a "meme" going on?

One thing I certainly hope goes by the wayside soon, are the frequent dysfunctional "pas de duex" that go on, between certain pollies and certain doomers. Come on, people, how many times can we replay scenes from "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Wolfe"? This lost it's entertainment value, a long time ago.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), January 05, 2000.

Huffie "Now, quite obviously, I don't have a problem with posting anonymously, or semi-anonymously. But it is the height of hypocrisy for someone to hide behind an anonymous pseudonym, while at the same time posting personal information about another."

You got as much as you gave. Tough s**t. If I may I shall rephrase that slightly.

It is the height of hypocrisy for someone to hide behind an anonymous pseudonym, while at the same time posting personal attacks against another's integrity and motivations.

You got as much as you gave.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

Ken; Hi, I thought you were gone.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

I have to say this... the biggest surprise of the rollover has been the "King of Spain." Spain, you actually sound intelligent, reasonable and (gasp!) gracious. Recent threads have solidified my estimation of regulars like Andy, "a," "Big Dog," and now, Diane Squire. My opinion of you, however, may have been quite wrong (mud wrestling fixation aside). No hard feelings, Spain, and may you always have front row seats.

Diane, quite the snippy post. Perhaps Ted shares the general sentiment about the current sysops with most "Pollies." You've shown almost no inclination to stop poor behavior when it comes from pessimists. This includes the now infamous "death pools," vicious personal attacks, and posts so off topic as to be other-worldy. Your attitude is clearly demonstrated in your jab about Hershey... as if Ted managed the installation himself. After thousands of posts, Diane, it is no surprise to any regular forum participant that you have an agenda. You could afford to take lessons in graciousness from the "King of Spain." (Wow... that was weird.)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 2000.

Ken

Are you the same Ken Decker that years ago lived in Pittsburgh and attended CMU?

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 05, 2000.

Is that a warm front coming through or is Ken on this thread?

-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 2000.

Ken; I did not realize you were tracking all the deleted posts and keeping tabs on the "fairness" of the deletion process. You must not have noticed the posts which I wrote that were deleted. Perhaps it is because I decided not to whine about deleted posts and to try to determine why precisely they were deleted, then modify them and repost. Basically my observation is has been that the posts which were deleted were exceptionally caustic or profane. So I cleaned up my act.

In defense of Dianne and Mike and the other sysops, they left that insulting anonymous attack posted by Huffie yesterday. Which post was an affront to appropriate civil behavior.

You have seemed to me to be reasonable for the most part, what is this? Will you defend Huffies open letter, which was patently nothing more than what I called it in that thread. A thread which it appears to me was FORCED into deletion by the actions of someone who was determined to break the html...

You might want to follow some of the links on this thread Ken.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

Hoff,

I too will be sad to see you go. You have been one of the few of the "loyal opposition" on this issue that has been able to articulate your position in an intelligent way and not just be an annoyance. Though you are clearly not above dwelling in some of the same inflammatory verbal muck many others have, you have been able to balance it with a logical and rational argument from time to time...and that is seeminly beyond SOME people on this forum.

Best of luck to you and I hope you reconsider,

John Ludi

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoffy -

sorry to hear that Lisa betrayed you. "Class" will out, eh?

I would add my voice to those asking that you reconsider and stay around awhile longer. Your contributions to the forum were excellent, none more so than your debate with Steve Heller. As Decker notes, noone was able to challenge seriously your postition that the worst of the errors were happening in 1999.

Finally I would concur with Decker's re-appraisal of the King of Spain.

King, I've said a few negative things about you in the past, but I gotta admit that you have been a decent guy since the rollover. I'd invite you up here to watch some of the local mud-wrestling, but it's been called off 'cuz the mud is frozen. Hows about April sometime?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

Hoff,

I'm sorry for the breach of confidence that you experienced.

And even though our opinions were far apart from one another in past discussions, I want to say that I always looked at you as being one of the voices of reason on the forum.

Please reconsider. I, for one, will miss your presence.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 05, 2000.

Just for the lousy record, I don't see anyone's motive as entirely noble and virtous, except for One.

I'd guess that Ed's Y2K work was seen by him as an integral and ongoing piece of his entire career. I would assume that he earned as much as he thought the market would bear. Along the way, he offered his time pro bono to this forum, as well as early versions of his book, and corresponded by email with hundreds of inquirers without charge. You could call that "part of business too" if you'd like, though I've known many, many "professionals" who wouldn't have done such without direct renumeration. Ed Yourdon didn't need to bother with ordinary, non-IT folks, I can tell you that.

As someone without a knack for making large sums of money (cf De Jaeger and, probably, Hoffmeister, for instruction on that - Hoff probably makes $1 to 2K a day on his SAP-stuff), I can only take a look at what is part of the public record.

Ed's writings, speaking and personal contacts are remarkably consistent and, indeed, uniformly "civil". I continue to challenge anyone (want to try it, Ken?) to make a fair reading of this man's total material and say that he was consciously and manipulating spreading FUD when he knew better in order to profit personally.

The EVIDENCE - his writings.

Yes, I've seen a few of his thousands of statements grabbed and twisted and the "NY Beirut" thing pulled to pieces - I'm talking about ALL the evidence, taken fairly and as a whole.

The irony here, with Decker at least, is that he extolls civility and decency, yet Ed is transparently a decent man. Yet this decent man is, simultaneously, the caricature that "Hoffmeister" paints him to be?

I'll say it again, "for shame."

"Hoffmeister's" attacks tell us incredibly more about himself than they do about "Ed Yourdon".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 05, 2000.

Sir,

Having been the recipient of that particular form of largesse, back when there were people of both camps with uncertain mental statusses and perhaps violent bents, I would have been MOST HAPPY to have removed the link you mentioned. As I am sure you are aware (you have used it) my posted e-mail is real, and my name is buried in the handle and e-mail, as you are also aware.

I would like to disagree with Diane, and ask that you hang around for a while longer, simply as a countervailing force. You and Ken, Flint and one or two others have been a welcome (at least to me) part of the discourse here.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 05, 2000.

Big Dog, You got that right!

Hey Ken! Are you the same Ken Decker that years ago lived in Pittsburgh and attended CMU?

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 05, 2000.

PA Engineer, no.

"a," is that sucking sound your (and Milne's) predictions going down the drain?

Michael, I do not track deleted posts. If you want to know what the sysops thought about Y2K, you can read some of their several thousand posts. Ed Yourdon handed the keys to forum over to longtime regulars who had a clearly defined "pessimist" outlook on Y2K. There were two standards for "unacceptable" behavior... one for pessimists and one for optimists. This double standard is clear to any honest, observant participant in the forum.

As for Hoff's post, it was a legitmate questioning of an acknowledged Y2K leader and pubished author. It was not profane. It challenged Yourdon's actions on Y2K... a public criticism of a public figure. Agree with it or not, it is a legitimate topic for discussion. As noted on the thread, I do not agree with Hoff's assessment, but I defend his right to express his views, particularly as they relate directly to Y2K.

For the record, when Yourdon "bowed out" of Y2K six months before the rollover, I questioned his actions. And I took heat for questioning the forum's patron saint. There are no "sacred cows" in an open debate, Michael.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 2000.

Ken, you'd better not say anything negative about the sysops even if it's obviously true, they'll censor you.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 05, 2000.

Hoff -

You continue to fail to realize that not every software problem can be addressed by a SAP installation. The Dept of Defense, the IRS, the state agencies, etc all have home-grown code, much of which remains unremediated. Your narrow mindedness annoys the hell out of me.

Scram, vamoose, get out.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

>You continue to fail to realize that not every software problem can >be addressed by a SAP installation. The Dept of Defense, the IRS, >the state agencies, etc all have home-grown code, much of which >remains unremediated. Your narrow mindedness annoys the hell out of >me.

Hoffman never claimed that every software problem can be remediated by SAP. Furthermore, he was anonymous in an attempt NOT to promote sap or himself. I don't understand your post.

-- Realist (don't@want.spam), January 05, 2000.

He has a million years installing SAP systems for corporations. I have fourteen years on government systems. I know what I know about the lack of a sense of responsibility, ineptitude, etc of government employees. He works for Fortune 500 corporations who can afford the best and have all kinds of money to throw around. He only sees his side of the elephant, but he acts as if he can see the whole picture. That's extremely arrogant.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Ken; You are correct. There are no sacred cows in an open debate. My issue was not with Huffie's taking Yourdon to task. He has clearly been wrong in many areas. My issue with Huffie was clearly stated. I called him a coward for hiding behind a veil of anonymity while insulting a gentleman's character. I stand by that. It is one thing to attack a person's ideas while hiding behind a mask and another all together to attack his character while hiding behind a mask. As a matter of fact the us of the term 'sacred cow' fits. Huffie wanted to remain a protected sacred cow while he trashed someones integrity.

Huff got exactly as much as he gave, pure and simple. If he is not now man enough to engage in the debate, without his mask. It speaks yet another time to the character I questioned on that thread, doesn't it.

I said I could not condone such uncivil behavior. I can't and I wont.

Huff has made many good arguments in this forum. He will be missed. If on the other hand he chooses to leave because he is outed. That is his choice, atleast he will no longer be slamming another persons character in public while hiding in the dark.

Ken, If you wish to condone such behavior that is equally your choice. Help yourself.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

Ken; on the deletions. I note that you and many who disagreed with much here are still posting regularily. I do note that in certain recent threads I have asked the sysops to allow certain posts to remain. There are people who are simply not allowed to post at all to the forum and I take slight issue with that. Generally such folks have behaved in a manner intended to disrupt the USE of the forum. It is my sincerest hope that the sysops will now develop a more 'post' oriented deletion criteria because can honestly say I have seen quite good posts deleted because of who wrote them and I feel that is wrong BUT then I have not engaged in activities which had the effect of (whether deliberatly or not) disrupting the USE of the board.

I personally hope those folks are allowed the opportunity to start posting again when the dust settles.

Just thought you might want the reassurance that I can see the middle ground and usually claim it for myself. :)

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

Congratulations on the book. Good luck with it. It won't affect my work, so it (right now) is not on a "must have" list....but I'll will recall fondly our jousting. 'Twas interesting.

Note: With it's publication, you, like Ed Y. and others who have published refrences about the potential for year 2000 disruptions, have become "they" - the "experts" whom others will listen to.

Your comments, observations, and recommendations about SAP processes and requirements may cause you the same criticism that their recommendations about mitigating the effect of y2k-induced failures caused them.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 05, 2000.

For the same lousy record, I hold people to the same standard.... Yourdon combined commentary on Y2K with commerce on Y2K. I do not begrudge anyone the right to enter the marketplace. When Ed started "selling" Y2K, it was a natural conflict of interest to his "telling" Y2K. Nothing personal against Ed. He's always been quite civil, but a standard is a standard. If a reporter worked part-time for Yourdon, and then wrote a story about Yourdon, I'd have the same issue.

As for Yourdon's consistency, he has been a consistently careful writer. He's avoided the inflammatory rhetoric of folks like Milne and he's left himself many "outs." Having read most of what Yourdon has written on Y2K, my assessment... he was trying to have it both ways. He seemed concerned about Y2K, but when it came to crunch time (like the Senate hearing or the past six months), he hedged his bets.

I cannot know the motives of Ed Yourdon, but an unbiased reading suggests he had legitimate Y2K concerns. While this is a guess, I think he was also concerned about his future if we managed a BITR. Were I a staunch pessimist, I might have been a bit disappointed in Ed Yourdon.

Michael, there's not enough time in the day to challenge every anonymous attacker on this forum. The vast majority of my foes have been anonymous. And none have ever agreed to meet me face to face, even if I am buying the drinks. You can rail against Hoff, but in fairness, you better allocate some time for all the other anonymous attack dogs. My position on censorship has been clear from day one. If the immoderate moderators feel so compelled, it should be based on content, not authorship. Period.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 05, 2000.

My interpretation of Ed's actions is that he identified a need and then he attempted to fill the need. Apparently Hoff feels that Ed created a need and then attempted to fill it. If Hoff had actually read TimeBomb 2000, then he would see that Ed points to a number of other sellers, such as Walton Foods, etc. In the first edition of the book, which is the one I read, there is no mention of MLM. That is why I feel Hoffs repeated attacks are unwarranted. He hasn't been here for the whole ride and doesn't know what he's talking about.

Of course, when a guy makes $125 an hour, he gets to thinking he's an expert on everything I guess.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Ken; Take a bow. Your absolutly correct. I realize there are many anons. Let one of the take a shot at your character (you after all are adult enough to stand in the open field) and I shall speak as fervently upon your behalf as I did on Ed's. Neither of you needs me to speak for him, I realize that. I just would.

If on the other hand anons trash one anothers character, what difference does it make. This shadow says that shadow is a thief, so what?

:)

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 05, 2000.

Hoff, As I said on another thread, I enjoyed your contributions, and I am sure that some others here who weren't afraid to hear from someone with a different opinion post on y2k based on their knowledge. The successful transition thus far bears the real truth, you were right there in trying to tell it long ago.

In contrast, Diane who in her post above demonstrates that she hasn't enough self-esteem to thank someone for their many (and accurate) contributions to the forum, since she disagreed with the "good news", is still claiming that TB2000 came down because of robot "attacks", lol. (Of course she contributed to the infamous "how do I archive" discussion that brought the thing down, and low self-esteem will not let her even come close to admitting it).

Diane, in case you didn't notice, Hoff was right, and most of your nonsense was wrong. Get over it. Life goes on.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), January 05, 2000.

Answer to charges: here; I've mailed Hoff the URL for comment.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 05, 2000.

Factfinder (sic!) writes:

Diane...is still claiming that TB2000 came down because of robot "attacks", lol.

Point of order here -- that "claim" was first made by Philip Greenspun. Not Diane. Unless he solicited her opinion first, which I seriously doubt.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

Hoffmeister,

I am very sorry to learn you are leaving the board. I would like to thank you for your consistently reasonable contributions. Your essay entitled "We've been HAD!" was a definitive, brilliant analysis. It is telling that after you submitted that essay last autumn, those who should have had the courage or at least the ability to allow mental fluidity free play instead hid behind the mantra "It's too late to debate Y2k any further." I found this ruse frankly disturbing, especially coming from the pens of so-called "leaders" like Mr. Yourdon, who is being praised here as a model of civility. In my mind, civility implies the ability to accept new information as well as alter or amend one's position in the face of it. A rigid adherence to preconceived positions is neither civil nor responsible.

As for those who delight in attacking Hoffmeister for posting anonymously, I remind all readers that some of our best literature has come from anonymous pens. Ideas stand on their own merit, regardless of authorship. That is the beauty of thought -- it shines alone, whole in itself, with or without the "legitimacy" of name, occupation, reputation, etc. After all, we know virtually nothing about Shakespeare the man. If he were posting here, he would be attacked because he did not submit his resume!

Hoffmeister, your thoughts and analyses were beautiful in themselves. Thanks again for contributing so substantially and intelligently to this debate.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

Celia; you have a lovely pen and a delightfull way with words. It is unfortunate that you do not understand the difference between anonymous literature and anonymous slander.

Celia, the difference is simple. One is a contribution to society. The other is an insult.

Good day, madam.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 06, 2000.

Mr. Erskine,

I read Hoffmeister's open letter to Mr. Yourdon, and did not find it slanderous. I suppose we can agree to disagree about the meaning of the word.

I and others asked Mr. Yourdon to amend his more extreme speculative outlines last fall when information seemed to be pointing toward successful remediation on a large scale. Mr. Yourdon owned that "it was too late" to debate Y2k any longer. It seemed irresponsible then, and, in light of the frank remorse expressed by some here about sinking valuable funds into excessive preps, seems even more irresponsible today.

Unlike many, I hold the rather old-fashioned notion that authors ought to consider the possible ethical consequences of their publications upon readers. Clearly, Mr. Yourdon's books and essays directly influenced the thinking of many who visited this forum. Given that so many here wrote openly of their "indebtedness" to Mr. Yourdon long before January, he might have considered his stewardship even more unflinchingly.

Ultimately, I do not fault Mr. Yourdon for decisions others made; those decisions were personal and private. Yet I do fault Mr. Yourdon and other Y2k experts for failing to look at the broad picture with an open mind. If they had chosen to be receptive to new information and rationally based, decisive arguments (as provided by Hoffmeister and others), they might have amended their conclusions, and thus steered "nonexpert" readers in a different direction.

In that sense, I believe Hoffmeister was perfectly justified in challenging Mr. Yourdon to personal accountability as author, expert, and originator of and contributor to this forum. Such challenge, in my mind, does not constitute slander.

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.