Sorry folks. I know I promised to stop posting, but yes, one Michael Erskine has managed to get under my skin.

Michael, reading through some of your posts here you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I stopped posting because I was "outted".

No, Michael, I did not. If that were the case, I would have e-mailed Chuck to have the thread removed. And I would not have posted a final response myself, confirming the information.

Yes, it pissed me off that Lisa divulged the information to "a".

Yes, the absurdity of "a" posting the information while hiding behind his own alias made be angrier still.

But truly, Michael, all it did was make me evaluate the purpose of future posts.

No, Michael, I left because "it" is over. No, not Y2k errors. Nobody ever said there would be no Y2k errors.

But any possible large-scale impact vanished about noon EST on December 31st.

The possibility of failing infrastructure was always the linchpin of the doomer scenarios. You can play around with "data corruption" and a "thousand cuts" all you like. But even Yourdon in all his essays eventually had to fall back on the big "IF"s: what would happen IF the power failed, IF telecommunications failed.

Well, it didn't. Yes, systems will have errors. Yes, some of them probably are Y2k-related.

But I'm not interested in continuing with those jumping every time a shadow moves. Take the recent FAA problem, for example. Think for a second, folks. Just how would switching to "backup" systems be an option if it was Y2k? Wasn't the illustrious Cory Hamasaki lecturing just a few months ago that this option would not be available now?

In any case, Michael, your "righteous indignation" that has been pouring forth would be quite funny, if it weren't so hypocritical. Tell me, Michael, if as you said to Ken Decker:

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.

Where were you, then, when "a" and others were posting trash about Decker?

Where were you when the multitude of anonymous posters here accused Clinton, Koskinen, Jane Garvey, Peter de Jager, and virtually any person of responsibility, everything from liars to crooks to plotting the takeover of the US?

Gee Michael, I missed your virulent defenses. Must have been those posts I skipped, eh?

Outside of that, you seem unable to offer any true rebuttal to what I posted in the letter to Yourdon. Maybe you could try here? I'll stick around for this thread.

Some of your other ramblings are truly priceless:

SAP is SO important that I was actually able to find a site about it on the web! As Flint stated, it is a productivity tool. It has had mixed successes and failures and will never rival real research into Computer Science

Care to discuss SAP, Michael? Though your cluelessness is expressed earlier on the same thread, where you state:

I don't even have a clue as to what this SAP crap is...

Yes, this seems to be a common trait among the clueless. Offering opinions and statements about subjects they know nothing about.

I'm all ears, Michael. Have at it. If you want a go, I'm here. But it's not sniping when you think someone's left anymore.

Ted Hoffman

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

Can we please change the name of this forum to "Hoffs Petty Gripes 2000"?

-- Petty Officer Gripe (whine@cheese.com), January 06, 2000.

Gee, Hoff, I liked you better when you weren't such a whiner. Why don't you crawl back to your whiney hole and disappear?

-- pk (keating@dagny.com), January 06, 2000.

Hof;

Why all this yelling and name calling at Lisa and a. If you did not want anyone to know this, YOU should not have told anyone in Boks room or anywhere else. It is your loose lips that sunk your own ship. If you can't keep it a secret, why do you expect someone else to? Sounds like a real double standard to me.

-- You (AretheOn@LettheCatOuta.bag), January 06, 2000.

Hoff, to lump the y2k problem into a pass/fail category based on whether or not electric power stayed on is naive at best and professionally arrogant at worst. Can you not see that there are many levels of potential disruption that may and most likely will still ensue? If data processing errors cause a severe strain on the accuracy, efficiency and confidence of the information infrastructure, at a time when the worlds markets are riddled with debt and speculation, can you not see how this will probably unleash an economic calamity?

Are you so cocksure of your opinion that eventual problems with the world's energy, agriculture, governments, military and banking establishments will not occur that you can't wait a month until the long term clearing processes and such are verified?

Why crow like a rooster about what a slimeball Ed Yourdon is when he was very clear in stating his 'most likely prognostication' of a year of disruption followed by 10 years of depression? We are only 6 days into the four digit date standard Hoff. It may not be a problem for SAP, but for the rest of the world's antiquated and unremediated code, the journey has just begun.

As for the book thing, I'm sorry it got you outted. I debated long and hard over expressing that information and would not have done so if you would have debated the Yourdon issue more fairly.

-- a (a@a.a), January 06, 2000.

Hoffmeister and others posting their personal problems with others here: PLEASE GO AWAY and let the rest of us come here to find what we are looking for: information about which way things are going, and thus, what we may expect for our futures? You can use e-mail to duke it out privately! Please do not clutter this forum with your endless debates and personal vendettas.

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

"Hoffmeister and others posting their personal problems with others here: PLEASE GO AWAY..." -- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

I agree Elaine. This kind of post isn't simply unproductive, it's a waste of bandwidth. I never really understood what motivated Hoff and others like him to spend so much time and energy here in the pre-Y2K world... After the fact makes even less sense.

Mr. Hoffman, I'm certain that you're able to make a contribution here of greater value than this particular thread. Given that your identity has been revealed I would think it would behoove you to edit your output in a more controlled and professional way. Take the high road from here on out.... it will reflect better on you.

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), January 06, 2000.

You

Actually, I haven't resorted to name-calling.

And no, I didn't divulge this in Bok's chat room. I sent an e- mail to Lisa, while we were in the chat room. I still have a copy, if you'd like to see it.

Elaine

Michael has been all over this board in the last two days, spewing his crap about me. Funny, did I just miss your requests of him to take it private?

a

Hoff, to lump the y2k problem into a pass/fail category based on whether or not electric power stayed on is naive at best and professionally arrogant at worst. Can you not see that there are many levels of potential disruption that may and most likely will still ensue? If data processing errors cause a severe strain on the accuracy, efficiency and confidence of the information infrastructure, at a time when the worlds markets are riddled with debt and speculation, can you not see how this will probably unleash an economic calamity?

Sorry, "a", just don't buy it. We've been "riddled" with larger numbers of more severe errors in the past year.

I'm not a market analyst. The stock market could very possibly take a dive. But I'm not going to spend the hours I have the past year and a half researching and posting on this stuff. I got involved in Y2k because of the IT issues, and the BS spouted about society collapsing. Just not going to stick around as the techno-phobic play this out for all it's worth.

Are you so cocksure of your opinion that eventual problems with the world's energy, agriculture, governments, military and banking establishments will not occur that you can't wait a month until the long term clearing processes and such are verified?

The short answer is yes. Other than embedded systems, I saw no real threat to the world's energy, etc. The rest will work it's way out. The only possible TEOTWAWKI scenario involving IT that I gave any credibility to was massive, simultaneous failures at rollover. It just didn't happen.

And again, yes errors will occur, throughout the year. Never denied this. But to beat a dead horse, errors occur all the time.

Why crow like a rooster about what a slimeball Ed Yourdon is when he was very clear in stating his 'most likely prognostication' of a year of disruption followed by 10 years of depression? We are only 6 days into the four digit date standard Hoff. It may not be a problem for SAP, but for the rest of the world's antiquated and unremediated code, the journey has just begun.

Yes, "a". And his "most likely scenario" in his book was "the blackout that lasts for a couple days; a less likely scenario, but one we feel should not be ignored, is the one-month blackout. Why? Because it could take that long to fix whatever Y2000 problems are discovered in the hours after midnight on December 31, 1999; and it could take that long to restart the system."

His "Year of Disruptions, Decade of Depression" also predicted that, following the rollover, we'd be "living in an environment much like the Third World countries some of us have visited".

It also contained many, many more examples of his failure to understand the potential effects of computer errors. They've been repeated ad nauseum, so I won't here.

As late as September, he was still falling back to this failing infrastructure to support his statements.

Yet, following the rollover, he maintains that "no one" expected blackouts?

Sorry, "a", but what I see is continued rationalizations, and misguided attempts to fit the evidence to his thesis, instead of the other way around.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 06, 2000.

Mr. Hoffman;

I started to scan your post but decided against even that. I want to give you an honest and measured response and to be fair to you in all measure BECAUSE I have been baiting you for two days.

Hoff, You are correct. It is improper for an anonymous poster to attack someone's integrity or to post personal information about another person from the cloak of anonymity.

I owe you an apology for insulting your character. I should have only addressed the content of your posts. I am pleased to see you have the strength to come back and stand in that open field and demand an apology. Consider it tendered.

I am sorry that I upset you, nodoubt it was difficult to suffer the sorts of insults I was slinging in silence. I am sorry that I felt it was something you had earned.

I still believe that what you did was beneath you. I take this opportunity to call for you to make the appropriate apology to the gentleman whom you insulted.

Perhaps this example will make that task easier. I hope so. It is not easy to humble oneself in a public forum, using your real name and personals. I am doing it here.

Will you?

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

Standby folks, methinks were in for a long one... ;-)

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

a, so when does your ten year depression start?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 06, 2000.

No, Michael, no long quote.

Play your baiting games to your hearts content. It was my fault for falling to your level; for that, I do aplogize.

As for my letter to Yourdon, no, I do not apologize. I have never kept my opinion of Ed Yourdon's involvement in Y2k hidden. It has remained unchanged. To date, I haven't seen you or anyone else dispute the contents of the post. Should you wish to do so, feel free. I'm here.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 06, 2000.

Hoffmeister--Suggest you read Dale Way's pre and post rollover comments. Suggest, as well, that you forego the adolescent need to leave no thought, however trivial and annoying, unexpressed.

-- Blew5M (gaf@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

Hoff, honestly, I think you're wasting your time on this one. If you wait until you post without finding personal attacks, you'll be on this forum for years. Until rollover, it was "acceptable" on this forum to attack the optimists using every slur imaginable. Now we have folks like "a" acting wide-eyed and innocent. "Gosh, Mr. Hoff, you and the other 'pollies' sure seem mad. Golly gee, I just don't understand."

Please.

Remember the movie "Animal House." Towards the end, Blutarsky delivers a passionate speech that includes a reference to the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor. He exclaims, "It's not over until we say it's over!"

The serious pessimists have the same attitude (and grasp of history). Y2K will not be "over" until they say it's over. Now, I know what you may be thinking. We've made it well past the window for "end of the world" scenarios and the Y2K as "apocalypse" debate should be over. Lo, and behold, "a" and friends ALWAYS predicted an "economic impact" scenario for Y2K. Paul Milne was really speaking metaphorically about "millions of deaths." He really meant millions of people will lose their jobs. Wait a few more months and the prediction will change to "millions of people will not enjoy their jobs."

Some forum pessimists will wait and magnify every negative impact, and imagine Y2K linkages. If we do suffer a recession this year, they will cry victory. It is truly ironic that I was attacked as a polly for ten months for predicting the same recession. You have made your points, Hoff. I imagine staying will offer little satisfaction.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 2000.

Well honestly Mr. Hoffman, my argument was against the contents of the post all along. You clearly indicate that you believe Mr. Yourdon to have acted as a profiteer and a liar. There is nobody who has not read what you wrote and the tone in which you wrote it. I did to you precisely what you have been doing to Mr. Yourdon all along.

I have made my apology.

Grow up. Go back to work. Write a book, perhaps a philosophical work about titled, "Truth and Rationalization" or maybe "Know thyself"

Good day, I have more pressing things to do than to debate with children.

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

Ken, you're right. I was wrong to succumb to Erskine's childish baiting. And his "response" is pretty much what I expected. Live and learn.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), January 06, 2000.

It just occurred to me that there's no debunking to be done anymore.

We went from 90% speculation and 10% failure reporting to the converse.

Hmmmmm.. what can we do now to entertain the optimists.........

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 06, 2000.

Hokie; Just popped in from the stringing wire, had a thought (hmmm), You are the professional in this realm. You analysis please? No, hedging and no namby pamby, hit me right were it hurts.

Michael -- someone page hokie if he doesn't find this.

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

Ken,

"Remember the movie "Animal House." Towards the end, Blutarsky delivers a passionate speech that includes a reference to the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor. He exclaims, "It's not over until we say it's over!" The serious pessimists have the same attitude (and grasp of history). Y2K will not be "over" until they say it's over."

(Ahem). Clearly, you're enjoying lampooning the doomer worldview with your comic generalizations, but you appear to be doing this out of a sense of bitterness rather than level-headed thought.

Though I personally rated the potentials at 0-10 (my credo is that * anything* is possible), because I allowed the upper end of the scale I belong in your "serious pessimist" column. I remain there for the time being, not because of a flawed sense of history as you imply, but instead due to a deep respect for and wariness about complex systems.

I'm baffled as to why my concerns about this issue (which are actually centered around the well being of my loved ones and community) should be a subject of your derision. Perhaps your comments are rooted in in the hurt you've felt rained on you by the local doomers. Dragging around these "hurt feelings" is detrimental to clear thinking as you might witness on both sides of this debate.

We're all spinning our wheels when we get distracted from the subject of this forum, so, to advance that I'll ask you a relavant question: Do complex systems behave in a simple way? While anything is possible, I'd say that history would suggest that they generally don't. From your previous statements (many of which seem a little reactionary) one might conclude that you would disagree with this. Perhaps I've judged you incorrectly, but I sense that your real thoughts on this might be at odds with the anti-doomer stance you often take.

There's an old surfer motto which says "Don't turn your back on the ocean"...In this situation it might be paraphrased to read "Don't turn your back on a complex system". Agree or disagree?

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), January 06, 2000.

Hoff,
Clinton IS a liar.

-- J (Y2J@home. com), January 06, 2000.

Choir,

Yes, you recognize humor. My wit is not driven by bitterness, but the apparent inability of some pessimists to understand reasonable discourse. They do understand teasing, though they do not like it much.

You presumption of how I define "serious" pessimist is incorrect. My personal scale included a full range of possibilities included the Four Riders of the Apocalypse. In my book, a "serious" pessimist is one who was convinced the most likely outcome of Y2K was a social and economic meltdown. For the sake of our discussion, let's call those who STILL think Y2K will cause the end of the world "ultra-serious" pessimists.

As for derision, I do not recall heaping any upon you. Had you simply asked my definition of serious pessimist first, you might avoid tarring yourself with my brush. Quite frankly, you are free to care about your loved ones however you see fit. You have the economic right to buy whatever you can afford. Prepare as you wish. This forum is not about how you feel personally about Y2K, but about an honest debate of the most likely outcomes... or I continue to hope.

I have been attacked by some serious pessimists... but I've never a moment's sleep over the matter. The attacks are far more indicative of their character than mine.

As for clarity of thought, my posts have been clear, lucid and sound. Fortunately, they have also been proven mostly correct... at least so far. In my many posts, I address the issues of complex systems, and why "go, no-go" analysis fails in analyzing Y2K. As for your question, the behavior of complex systems depends on the system. Let's use the weather as an example. The reason we cannot predict the weather accurately (beyond about 72 hours) is the complexity of the system. While complex, most weather falls within a certain range of outcomes. Generally, it's warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. I'd say weather is a complex system with rather simple outcomes, come rain or shine. If you prefer another example, the human body is a remarkably complex system that functions within narrow parameters.

Your blanket statement about complex systems suggests you have not studied chaos theory. The economy is a complex system, though one with a historically wider range of possible outcomes... from boom to great depression (or lower). Like many complex systems, capitalism has self-balancing mechanisms within the system. This is why I rue the Federal Reserve bail-out of the LTCM. We often err when we tinker with complex systems we do not completely understand. There is an elegant order to chaos not many appreciate. Your view of the world sees the entropic possibilities. I see the balance with the system.

In short, I have no trouble standing with my back to the ocean. Of course, I have enough sense to know where to stand.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 07, 2000.

Ken, Ted:

Are you quite finished?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but whenever you seem to have quite a bit of time on your hands (by evidence of your voluminous verbosity), the temperature here raises to unseasonable levels. I once attributed this phenomenon to global warming, but now I'm not convinced.

I'd really like to have at least some semblance of winter weather; makes spring all the more enjoyable.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 07, 2000.

Ken,

" I have been attacked by some serious pessimists... but I've never a moment's sleep over the matter."

Perhaps you haven't lost any sleep, but you seem to carry a chip on your shoulder...your posts give that impression, IMHO.

"As for clarity of thought, my posts have been clear, lucid and sound."

See above. Despite your selp-perception, that view is not universally held. Your recent open letter to Ed Yourdon is an example. I don't mean this as a jibe (haven't got time for that sort of thing) but your message is getting lost in your attempts at stinging wit. You would fare better (if you care) if you took a more neutral tone.

"Your blanket statement about complex systems suggests you have not studied chaos theory."

I made a blanket statement? While I haven't "studied" chaos theory (and the implication is that you have) I understand the basic principles and it seems to me that you've oversimplified things a little. Whilst there may be a common range of parameters that one may expect to see in a complex system, my uneducated impression is that there are also extremes in these ranges with the introduction of uncommon forces. For example, slowly corroding computer code could result in utterly unexpected events or embedded system (heh, call me sentimental) could develop eccentric behaviors months after the CDC. I'm not referring to "on-off" events, but rather bizzare reactions. While this possibility appears less likely as time goes by, it seems a bit premature to be concluding that all is well. "In short, I have no trouble standing with my back to the ocean. Of course, I have enough sense to know where to stand."

Obviously, you're not "in the water" as it were, because there is no safe place to stand there. Ask an experienced surfer.

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), January 07, 2000.

a@a.a 198.253.33.21 needs to come clean after being such an asshole

-- payback is a bitch (you@re.welcome), January 07, 2000.