Dear Mr. Yourdon,

Many of the regulars have read your "Rodney Dangerfield" essay. If I might summarize your key points... During the past few years, you gave us your informed opinion on Y2K. You provided information about preparation AND you told folks they were responsible for making their own decisions. Oh, and you are a little befuddled by the anger.

Can we get back to Y2K?

What now?

Is there still a "high" probability of your ten-year depression scenario? How about a giving us a number? Mr. Yardeni kept the "chance of depression" pegged at five percent during all of 1999. He recently adjusted his global recession prediction from 70% to 30%. What are your numbers?

I know you'll be tempted to reply, "I just don't know." With all due respect, Ed, you didn't "know" last year and you wrote a book... and did a video... and testified in front of the Senate. You have written reams of prose about Y2K with far less data available than we have today. Now, we have the results of the ACTUAL rollover. We are T+8 and counting.

This may not seem fair, but you are a leader on this forum. Is it time to "stand down" the apocalypse watch? Should people who left for "bug out" locations return home? Is your worst-case scenario now an economic downturn... a recession? a depression?

I know another tempting answer is, "It's too soon to tell." Let me again refer you to last year when you were speculating on rollover on far less data. The initial results are in... and the "glitches" filtering in seem largely fixable. You should have at least enough to make some intitial observations.

Having read a rather large amount of your work, let me ask you to adopt a slightly different style. Please do not spend pages carefully qualifying your remarks, using an anchoring metaphor, providing copious source data, etc.

Can we just have some straight talk? What is your worst-case scenario as of today? Are you surprised thus far? Do you now feel some of your predictions were wrong (or perhaps over-stated?) Were development metrics really applicable to remediation?

We all know we'll have Y2K-related glitches for some time to come... but seriously, Ed, is it "death by a thousand cuts" or just a really bad day shaving?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000

Answers

Oh great. Now Double Decker is going to go for the Title.

Ok, here it is, First: "With all due respect, Ed, you didn't "know" last year and you..." blah, blah, etc and so forth...

And Ken, what proof do you have that Ed did NOT know last year?

Well, <<>> (I borrowed that), let's see it.

Question Two (to come)

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

Hey Ken any idea when the Rendon contracts expire? Just Curious

-- JustCurious (JustCurious@giveitabreak.com), January 08, 2000.

Ed.

This looks like a trap to me. If you say "NO PROBLEM" and my lights go out, I will really be pissed. Remember Murphy's Law.

billy d

-- billy d (billyd@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Move Over, Rodney Dangerfield -- You've Got Company

http://www.yourdon.com/index2.html

-- (Just@helpin.out), January 08, 2000.

Ken: Been reading your posts for some time now and I just have to say, you are more annoying than anything y2k could ever be. What I do to prepare me and my family for anything and how I discern what events may transpire in my life that deserves preparation(taking a shower is a form of preparation - AND is is true that someone at sometime in my life told me that cleaniest is next to godliest)it is not the ONLY reason I choose to bath, BUT is my business and my decision. If you are what people call a POLLY - I assure you, I never want to be one of YOU - Drop it!!!!You are not funny - nor are you witty-you are however stupid!!! Ed Yourdon has more class in his little finger than you will ever have.

-- karen leblanc (kgl54@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Snooze,

Since Ed was writing about a future event, he could not "know," he could only speculate. TB 2000 was a long series of "what if" scenarios.

Given Ed's vast experience, we can call it informed speculation. (If Ed does have a crystal ball, I strongly suggest a visit to the repair shop.) I'm just asking Ed to give us some straight talk on Y2K. Given the fact we passed the last critical date over a week ago, I don't think this is asking too much.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

We have numerous long threads blessing Yourdon, all proving that the followers of failed prophets redouble there fanatacism after the failure. But why? What drives these people?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2000.

Ed:

(Ken, save your response to my first para, I've seen it already, but you may care to comment on the rest of my observations and opinion WRT to Yourdon, embeds, and small business and I would be interested in what you have to say)

Johathan Swift wrote:

"When a true genius in appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Given this, it appears you can be considered a true genius and it is my pleasure to respect you as one. I am (was) a doomer and prepped to handle almost anything that would get thrown at me at my location in a big city for 6 months. I have you to thank for that and I don't regret having done it (I'm now finally ready for earthquakes). I have learned a lot, and are now seriouly considering a move to a small town (I'm an amateur astronomer and have always dreamed of being in the country where you can actually see the stars).

I find your current responses to what we are seeing post y2k very thin and lacking substance. You seem bent on still trying to convince people you were correct and did nothing wrong. I think this approach is going to get you into more trouble over time. I think you do not help your case or your reputation at this point by reiterating the arguments from the pre y2k era, now. Doing so is to assume they were correct, but the problem is that the very strong perception is that they are wrong because of the "evidence". So I believe you will never convince anyone that they are correct now, even if you are (which I am not saying you are).

You suggest a postmortem as logical thing to do. I agree and I have requested the same of others here and submitted my own hypothesis about why we were wrong in our original assessments, but as I stated above, you're bent on proving you were/are correct at this point. This is not a postmortem.

Obviously new approach is needed, one that questions everything we did to get to our original assesments to begin with, if we wish to truly undertake a postmortem and learn from the experiance so as not to repeat it again.

For example, I submit the facts about the number of small/mid size businesses that prepared was correct, but the interpretation of the facts is incorrect.

And similary with respect to emebeds, I think the whole issue was fundementally misjudged from top to bottom, and that is truely amazing. I am not so presumptious to assume that only I can determine this and I am sure many have said this before y2k and after y2k, but I find the lack of serious rebuttle by the "doomers" to this actually rather revealing.

Somebody was obviously not paying attention to the information that was available pre-y2k. A lot of somebodies I would say. Where did the interpretation of the pre-y2k assessments of the situation break down and why?

With resepect to just thesse 2 examples, the Emeds and the the small businesses, I have explained my thoughts about why I now think they were a non issue at length in the following two threads and refer you to them for your comments.

Why nothing was ever going to happen with the embeds

Serious Question on Embeddeds

WRT to the small businesses and their ripple effects, Here is my take on the small and mid size business situation:

Hyatt: Y2K will not be a one time event...

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 08, 2000.

Forget it Karen. From day one that kenny cockroach has been posting to this board, he is consistently arrogant, snide, condescending,hateful,petty;just an all-around a**-hole in all ways. Time after time, he promises to leave this board but never does. Will someone please find out the name of the town council members where he is supposed to be employed as town manager???? Perhaps they should be informed as to how little kenny spends so much of his time. All in all, he is a very tacky, little man. I hope Ed doesn't honor him with any answer...he certainly doesn't deserve it.

-- LongTimeLurker (LongTimeLurker@lurk.com), January 08, 2000.

"cleaniest is next to godliest"

Is this statement an example of FUBAR?

-- (I'm@pol.ly), January 08, 2000.

Y2K bug prophet warns next few weeks crucial

-- (says@a.Canadian), January 08, 2000.

Karen,

I'm not sure you have actually "read" my posts. I have absolutely no interest in what you or your family does. As a libertarian, I think you should be free to exercise your rights. My request to Ed Yourdon has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with you, your family, or your personal preparation. I am asking Ed Yourdon, noted author of "Time Bomb 2000" to give us some straight talk on Y2K now that we have survived rollover. Ed does not have to respond... nor do you. I am sorry if this request inteferes with some kind of "hero worship" of Yourdon. If he finds my request offensive, I will apologize... but I'll still ask for some straight talk.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

I thought you said you were leaving this forum nearly a week ago Decker, you lying piece of crap. Please do the world a favor and find another hobby.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 08, 2000.

Wow a rerun of the Flint and Decker show. Now waiting to see if the the third star shows up. Are you out there Ted?

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Ken if you will do some simple long-division (you remember grade school right?). Your Eight Days (which are not all business days, no were they subject to normal work scheduling due to the New Year Holiday) divided by some term of time will equal a fraction. The fraction represents the elapsed time compared to the whole term. Some may choose 365 days to look at the medium term effects of y2k. Others have suggested 3,650 days to look at the long term effects. For quick-and-dirty snap-shot looks with plans to revise, some have suggested 90 days.

There is a point out there in front of us where we will have a better set of data to decide upon. It hasn't arrived yet.

Your T+8/365 = 2.2%

That's hardly a niggle to object to.

Why I'll bet if we could see the latest report from your bank, that we would see you don't settle for such a paltry percentage on your CD's.

Or would you prefer to argue that 365 days is an objectionably long term?

How long did this massive programs take to congeal from beginning to end and how long do faults take to be noticed and cause enough trouble to be reported in the press or the jungle telegraph?

I don't think that even as short a time as six months is an unreasonable time period for medium range look-sees.

For me personally, I intend to review the apparent circumstances on or about April 10th thru April 20th. Unless there is ample evidence one way or another prior to that date. Or if there is evidence of extenuating causes to extend my review time. I will be the judge of that, for myself.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

"I am asking Ed Yourdon, noted author of "Time Bomb 2000" to give us some straight talk on Y2K now that we have survived rollover."

You're subtly implying Ed Yourdon predicted we would not survive rollover. And you wonder why some people think you're a shill, Ken. How about some straight talk out of you.

-- Y2K was never about the end (of@the.world), January 08, 2000.

and I thought I had been behaving like a pompas ass. Just like I told the children while they were growing up... don't get too cocky because no matter how good you are someone will come along that is better than you, at whatever it happens to be...

Decker, don't you have a town to manage?

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/chat_990212yourdon.html

Feb. 1999 chat with Ed Yourdon: 'Y2K: Are You Prepared?'

-- (for@the.record), January 08, 2000.

snooze:

From reports so far, there were countless date bugs being encountered in these 8 days. Geeks have been patching them furiously as they crop up, and in many shops it's probably using up most of their time. But I'm not sure how this repair process is making things worse. Do you feel that it's the bugs that haven't become visible yet that will eventually snowball? How large a snowball will it take to cause problems for the man in the street?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2000.

Decker just likes to exercise his fingers to keep his wrist action smooth.

-- Decker speaks (hot@ir.abounds), January 08, 2000.

Most thinking folks who see a double-decker thread skim it and mentally lob it in the waste paper bin.

Do give it a rest you pompous asshole, all you're doing is reinforcing what a prat you are.

Karen was right about class, you can't buy it and you can't conjure it up with a thesaurus.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 08, 2000.

To Mr. Decker and all the other pollies who continue to complain about Ed and others.

Since YOU did not take their advice, what in the hell do YOU have to complain about.

JS

-- JS (joewstout@iswt.com), January 08, 2000.

The cockroach splurts again!

-- eeewwwwwwwwwww (ken@still.gross), January 08, 2000.

Will someone actually read my post?

I'm asking Ed Yourdon to talk about Y2K, something he has done for the past two years. Am I the only one who's interested in what Yourdon has to say now? It's interesting my rather polite request generated such a venomous response. Maybe the serious pessimists are worried Ed will call Y2K, "game over."

As for the rabble, I'll leave this forum when I'm damn good and ready and I will not respond to petty threats.

If you read my post, I'm not suggesting Ed predicted the "end of the world." His writings and statements (including the "third world" analogy and the "Beirut" statement are a matter of the public record. Your math, Snooze, does not apply. Rollover problems do not wait until December 31, 2000, to manifest themselves. The Gartner Group predicted 25% of problems would occur in 1999. We had a smooth year. The embedded chip problems were supposed to occur on rollover. It went with few problems. During the first week of 2000, it has been relatively calm. Y2K problems are not evenly distributed, with 1/365 occuring on January 1st.

Michael, first, the spelling is "pompous." Second, I'm asking for Ed's opinion... and he can reply or not. Third, it's Saturday.

Andy... how's Prudent Bear?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

Get lost scumbag. You're just trying to get Ed to say more so that you can store it in your files as a "prediction" and come back later and rub it in his face if it doesn't happen. You seem to get off on this type of behavior, and it is clear that you need mental help to work on your ego insecurity problems. Why not make this a new year resolution and get started now.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 08, 2000.

Flint, those are some big unknowns. I'm hoping that a lot of in-house work is succeeding in keeping systems stable. I'm also hoping we will hear something more definite soon. We'll just have to wait. Maybe Koskinen will go to the Bahamas for a few and a secretary will screw up and issue an unreviewed report.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

Just for the record, Ed, would you mind adding your comments to this thread?

I'm curious: Why are *you* still checking this forum?

And to all the rest of the High Priests of TB2000 (Andy, RC, Flint, Decker, Spider, SH, Walter, Uncle Bob, Old GIT, Ludi, A&L, North, Ron, and so on (appologies to those missed), and don't get uppity about my description of you lot, I say it with a twinkle in my eye) why not let your guard down for a few lines and provide us some insights into who you are as people (paraphrasing from the seminal line from Deep Impact, "you were once people before Y2K").

I think we can all agree on one thing (pollies and doomers alike) we are here are we not, so for the record lets at least lets call a truce in the thread and all learn bloody well why we are all here.

So, just one rule, please no mudslinging in the thread please, light banter only if you must say something about the other side. Please check your M1 tanks, AK47's, Super Soakers, pee shooters etc. at the door. You can pick them up when you leave and continue your battles elsewhere on TB2000. Ok?

-- Interested Spectator (is@the_ring.side), January 08, 2000.

"Maybe the serious pessimists are worried Ed will call Y2K, "game over."

Ken I wish he could. And I'm sure if he did he would elaborate as to the reasons. You know the "supporting stuff"?

Not the "Gee we're all doin great here in .GOV on our remediation", etc.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

Mr. Decker:

I'm sure you have read the February, 1999, interview with Ed.

I consider that to be a very reasoned and reasonable statement of where Ed stood (and stands); it's quite moderate, in my opinion. Even you said before the rollover that remediation was necessary.

I don't think you want a verbal response; no, I think you want Mr. Yourdon's blood. You are kind of a mean person, I'm sorry to say.

And imperfect though I am, and desiring to be a better person, I would NEVER want to be perfect, as you apparently are.

You have a facility with words; please use them to better the world - - O.K.?

I'd like to know what percentage of people are SORRY they have prepared what they have; it seems to me that not many are. Of course, some are e-mailing Ed with their gripes, and it would be great if you would do the same.

I don't think Ed needs to bow down to you and do your will.

Not only that, but I am getting the distinct impression that you have never made a mistake. (Not that Ed has on Y2k.) Ed's interview does omit some of the admitted (he admitted it!) hyperbole that characterized some of his early statements. ('NYC-Beirut';'Pigs Will Fly', etc.)

It's not that most people who post here want to give Ed a 'pass'; We consider him a friend who doesn't necessarily know everything, but we like him anyway.

If you are this much of a stickler with your friends and acquaintances, how long do they stay around?

He has chosen to answer in his own way. After all, it's my understanding that HE'S paying for this forum ( with some help from Phillip Greenspun and MIT.)

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), January 08, 2000.

Ken, you are about to lose your bubble.com stock options. You keep this up and we will lose the battle. Remember "Perception Management" is our business and not confrontation. Get back to work and don't blow our cover.

PS. Still having problems with your girlfriend?

-- Rendonite (Rendonite@rendon.org), January 08, 2000.

Connie,

Ed and I just exchanged opinions on another thread. We have spoken to one another on this forum several times... and the exchanges are usually quite civil. Personally, I'd be delighted to have Ed give us his unvarnished opinion of Y2K thus far. Might I disagree? Of course, but I think Ed's honest opinion could help "refocus" the forum and quell some of the bitterness. I'm asking Ed for an opinion, not a kidney.

As for mistakes, I've made my share... and I'm willing to accept full responsibility for my actions. Unlike many on this forum, I've apologized (more than once)... and I've always been willing to make amends if approached in a civil manner.

I will admit, I've never approached the forum as a social club... but as a hard search for the facts on Y2K. This isn't about not "liking" Ed, but about bringing closure to a long debate. And I think only Ed Yourdon can provide that sense of closure to this forum.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

Hawk,

Of all the people on this forum, you are the one I'd most like to meet. I bet you are a real pussycat in person and not really the hardass you project. [tweeking your cheek]

-- (I'm@pol.ly), January 08, 2000.

Ken..."As for the rabble..."

And you wonder why people are offended by you.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 08, 2000.

KD: "Many of the regulars have read your "Rodney Dangerfield" essay. If I might summarize your key points... During the past few years, you gave us your informed opinion on Y2K. You provided information about preparation AND you told folks they were responsible for making their own decisions. Oh, and you are a little befuddled by the anger.

ME: Kenny this comes off a bit condesending. Perhaps you don't intend it to be that way or perhaps you just don't realize that it comes off that way?

KD: "Is there still a "high" probability of your ten-year depression scenario? How about a giving us a number? Mr. Yardeni kept the "chance of depression" pegged at five percent during all of 1999. He recently adjusted his global recession prediction from 70% to30%. What are your numbers?"

ME: Perhaps the gentleman has decided to leave further economic predictions to economists.

KD: "I know you'll be tempted to reply, "I just don't know." With all due respect, Ed, you didn't "know" last year and you wrote a book... and did a video... and testified in front of the Senate. You have written reams of prose about Y2K with far less data available than we have today. Now, we have the results of the ACTUAL rollover. We are T+8 and counting."

ME: Again you soung a bit condesending. My imagination, eh? Perhaps you will just write his answer for him. Why don't you go ahead and take care of the light work?

KD: "This may not seem fair, but you are a leader on this forum. Is it time to "stand down" the apocalypse watch? Should people who left for "bug out" locations return home? Is your worst-case scenario now an economic downturn... a recession? a depression?"

ME: It is not fair, Ken. Do you really want an answer to this question? What is your real motivation, Ken? You have already established your position, have you not. Decide for yourself, or are you preparing a paper for your town council justifying some project for this year?

KD: "I know another tempting answer is, "It's too soon to tell." Let me again refer you to last year when you were speculating on rollover on far less data. The initial results are in... and the "glitches" filtering in seem largely fixable. You should have at least enough to make some intitial observations."

ME: It is TOO SOON TO TELL. The rest seems designed to insult and belittle.

KD: "Having read a rather large amount of your work, let me ask you to adopt a slightly different style. Please do not spend pages carefully qualifying your remarks, using an anchoring metaphor, providing copious source data, etc."

ME: Written any books lately, Ken? Purely scientific papers tend to be somewhat booring. Anchoring metaphors are very valuable tools when choosen carefully. Copious source data is considered desirable in any documentary or research work. Have you ever written anything, anywhere else besides here? Ever take an argumentative writing course? KD: "Can we just have some straight talk?"

ME: Sure Ken, straight from the hip, You are making a complete ass of yourself.

KD: "What is your worst-case scenario as of today? Are you surprised thus far?"

ME: Both questions have been addressed. Perhaps your motiviation here is not really to obtain answers but to humiliate another human being.

KD: "Do you now feel some of your predictions were wrong (or perhaps over-stated?) Were development metrics really applicable to remediation?"

ME: Both questions have already been addressed, and at the risk of repeating myself... see above...

KD: "We all know we'll have Y2K-related glitches for some time to come... but seriously, Ed, is it "death by a thousand cuts" or just a really bad day shaving?"

ME: Snide AND condesending... Ken, the point of the bit of writing is not to seek answers, it is to insult and castigate. Moreover since you are associated with a township, you might consider the fact that whether you desire it or not, your views are being associated with that township. Now I want to remind you that some polly/troll folks were not beneath flooding the mail box of the President at MIT with hate mail concerning TB2000. Your a** is out in the wind here. Continue at your own risk.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

LOL!

Visualize this:(best rendered if imagining a whiny, sing-songy voice)

[paraphrased]....."I'm not going anywhere and you can't make me! I'm going to hold my breath until Ed answers me! Nobody likes me! I'm smar-ter than you are! Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me! Ed won't talk to me, he's being real mean".....

Honestly, Decker. My grandchildren don't whine like you do. They know it makes them sound ridiculous, and no one will take them seriously.

You really *do* like to hear yourself talk, don't you? Just for the 'sport' of it.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

To Mr. Decker and all the other pollies who continue to complain about Ed and others.

Since YOU did not take their advice, what in the hell do YOU have to complain about.

The alarmists who promoted misinformation to some of the more hysteria prone members of society caused a climate in which many dishonest individuals managed to profit from "said hysteria". Not all of the bilked individuals and companies were true doomers, they just got caught up in the hype.

A lot of people where harmed by it, maybe enough to where someone is going to have to pay for those lies. More than likely it won't be the "Y2K" prophet/profits, but there very well may be legal action taken against companies that knowingly bilked people for preparations against problems that they knew were non-existent.

Yep - I am complaining. I have never respected people who were the modern day equivalent of snake oil salesmen, no matter what the hoax was they were promoting. I'm complaining that they were allowed to do sell the books filled with lies. I am complaining about the dimwits who followed. And I am complaining about the same dimwits who irresponsibly dragged innocent people into the hysteria.

Now - how about that straight talk?

-- H.H. (dontscrewme_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

Michael,

Now I undestand why Hoffman lost patience with you. First, this thread is meant for Ed Yourdon. Why not let him decide him respond? When Ed started talking about the possibility of a ten-year depression, he chose to enter the world of economics. If he no longer expects this "depression" or if he has decided to hang up his hat as an economic prognosticator, fine. It's a question only Ed can answer.

As for my "tempting" answers, I wanted Yourdon to give us "straight talk" on Y2K... not just a convenient "I don't know" or "It's too soon to tell." He still can avail himself of either position, but I am staking out my response in advance.

You are correct, Michael, that Yourdon does not owe me anything... and perhaps he does not owe this forum anything. It's a request, not a demand. If Yourdon decides not to respond, I'll simply drop the issue. Since he has been a leading voice in the Y2K discussion, I think most people who have followed this debate are curious about his opinion. I'm surprised no one else has asked.

The "too soon to tell" is your opinion, Michael... not a fact etched in stone. According to Gartner, we should be "over the hump" in identifying and fixing Y2K problems. If you have data to suggest otherwise, make your case... but spare me passing off your personal opinion as the Final Word. And why not find out what Ed thinks?

Ed can write his response in any style he sees fit. I just think he could make the same point far more succinctly. His thoughts on Y2K are important to this forum... and I think something simple and direct will be easily understood. Ed also has a habit of carefully qualifying his statements. I'm just a bit fatigued with the "may/might/seems" approach.

Your other questions about my writing are just simplistic baiting. Sorry, Michael. Other forum members are far more skilled in getting my "goat." You don't know me, Michael, or my motivations, or my favorite pizza toppings. You are writing my essay from a biased perspective and creating a tone that does not exist. Ed and I have spoken before... and we seem to manage rather well. Actually, he's been one of the nicest people on the forum to argue with.

As for what I do in my spare time, my private life is my private life. I appreciate the warning, but I work hard and do a fine job. I'm not worried about an anonymous email claiming I'm a really bad person because I engaged in an online Y2K debate.

I want closure on Y2K, Michael. It's almost over, at least for me. I wanted Ed's take before I posted. With or without it, I'm almost done.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Date: 1999, Mar 28

From: Mr. Decker

Dear Reader,

I dropped by Ed Yourdon's forum and left two posts. The first was a "food for thought" post about how vulnerable the average family is to "marauders." The second post was simply a compilation of other posts I had written here about the free market, Y2K, Gary North, etc.

The response was mixed. Some readers found the posts of some interest. The rest ranged from accusations that I was a "killer" to a "moron" to an "idiot." A few attempted lengthy replies, however, there was very little of interest, particularly in economic thought.

As I noted in one post, Y2K has passed into an article of faith for some individuals. I see little point in continuing a dialogue with those who could not be convinced. I hope someone decides to continue this board until well into 2000. I plan to visit this site and Ed Yourdon's after the millennium to count those who still think the sky is falling.

Regards,

Mr. Decker

-- Go (back@far.enough), January 08, 2000.

Ken; I submit that your query, your simple 'civil' question, your humble request is nothing but an attempt to insult and humble Mr. Yourdon.

If you would kindly deny it. I would be gratefull.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

Decker (double decker, as Ady would say) -- you are annoying, tiresome, condescending, smug... Give it up. Go away.

-- A (A@AisA.com), January 08, 2000.

It is an honest question... and I think Ed will understand completely. If I have offended Ed in the asking, I will apologize.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

No KENNY IT IS A FREAKIN' DISHONEST QUESTION....

Here is why I made the submission that you are simply being an ass and not actually seeking any new knowledge or truth.

From another thread:

KD: "Without doubt there are glitches throughout the system, but it will take far worse than annoying computer problems to tip the U.S. into a ten-year depression... unless you wish to offer a compelling argument to the contrary."

ME: Ken, this is a simple assertion without 'compelling argument' to support it. It seems to me you need to practice what you preach. You have the high moral ground (or appear to be trying to grab it). Therefore the onus is on you. Support this claim...

Ken; you certainly seem to have the anwser to your questions well in hand. Why don't you just admit that your purpose is to prove the unproveable, that you think you always had a better understanding of the issue than Mr. Yourdon.

Then we can all kiss your a** and get on with enjoying the forum... I for one am quite ready to do that if it will cause your speedy departure into more usefull pursuits.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

Here's straight talk:

LUSENET

-- Scale of Justice (forg@t.not), January 08, 2000.

One other thing...

For those who remember what happened to Huffie...

You just got as much as you gave.

BWAHHAHAHAHAHA BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The difference is between you and huffie was he was not mature enought to recognize that fact. In your case the problem is simple stupidity.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

Ken: I recall that you continually predicted a recession after roll-over. Well....where the hell is it? What time will it arrive? Are you weaseling out of your written predictions? Why? Explain yourself! NOW! Don't tell us that "it's too soon to tell"...you lying worm!! I'm sure that people acted on your prediction to their detriment....probably sold their stocks and went into T-bills instead. You are RESPONSIBLE for their loss!! You slimy, no good worm!

-- Regular Visitor (RegularVisitor@lurk.com), January 08, 2000.

....a small boy, face red with agitation, cries out....

"M-m-m-mommy.....Ed won't play with me! Make him, Mommy! Make him play with me!"

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Wilfred,

This was your attempt at a mature response? No wonder it was easy to sell you on Y2K.

-- H.H. (dontscrewme_2000@yahoo.com), January 08, 2000.

HH... You might want to pick the actions you defend more carefully. Ken just got himself into a jam by lying about his intentions.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

HH,

Your reading comprehension skills need honing, dear.

LOL

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Is HH Ted Hoffmans replacement?

-- Martin Thompson (Martin@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Dr. Yourdon:

Decker's rhetorical nonsense is without merit.

Thank you, on behalf of myself and friends, for all that you have contributed in addressing the year 2000 set of problems.

Anyone that wishes the fortune to be told should simply call a fortune teller.

Regards,

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@xout.erols.com), January 08, 2000.

Not enough HTML for HH to be Hoff. Also not enough links.

Speaking of Hoff, Erskine, you've described him as a young whippersnapper? How young? Twenties?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 08, 2000.

Actually lisa, I think he stated that himself. If recollection serves he counted his years at 37 (but I might be mistaken). I have stopped reading Mr. Hoffman's writings and he seems to have stopped posting. Hopefully I will be able to say the same about Decker by tomorrow.

Either we are in for a very long post or Decker has decided there is no reason to argue with a caustic old man who calls a spade a shovel.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

Ken Decker:

I know your question is directed at Ed. But I'm interested to know how any libertarian could act surprised about E.Y. being befuddled about people being angry at him. How could anyone who ever read his town newspaper, or watched TV news, or talked to neighbors during 1999 be mad at Ed Yourdon for predicting something that 99.99% of the world population was not worried about. Although I was a moderate doomer, anyone who never seriously entertained the possibility that we might be wrong to believe something so far away from mainstream thinking would have to have SERIOUS PROBLEMS for which Ed Yourdon could not possibly be responsible.

I think you may have called Ed a failed prophet, or something like that. Any emotional problems that any doomer may have, relative to Ed Yourdon, are because they would ASSUME that ANYONE is a prophet.

-- Bill Byars (billbyars@softwaresmith.com), January 08, 2000.

I can see why Ed might be wary about answering Ken's questions about the situation now and prognostications for the future. He said he's come to see why politicians choose their words with extreme care.

Why not give him a chance to catch his breath?

I can see where IT people would want some explanation (but hasn't he already given it, ad infinitum?)

If I'm not mistaken, this forum started as a Y2k Prep forum, not really a forum for technological questions, so liking Ed was part of it, or we wouldn't have come here. I have enjoyed learning from people of all abilities and backgrounds, however.

I just think that for the short time since the rollover, Ed has said all he needs to, to a Y2k Prep audience.

Respectfully (Honest, Ken)

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), January 08, 2000.

The thing that really puzzles me is why so many of you respond to Decker's nonsense.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.

Michael, you are a tiresome fellow. Of course, I don't think we'll see a ten-year depression. My predictions have remained relatively constant since late 1998. If so inclined, I'll outline my argument and the underlying economics. This said, I'm still interested in Yourdon's view. This may startle you, but it's possible to continue discussing an issue... even after you form an opinion. You might try it, Michael. Now, you are moving in a familiar manner... calling me stupid and dishonest. Keep working on it, Michael. You'll become one of the forum bullies yet.

To other matters, I predicted the recession between 2Q and 3Q of this year. If it doesn't happen... I'll admit my failure. Unlike Ed, I made very specific predictions, so it will be rather easy to measure the outcome.

Bill, because I have libertarian ideas hardly proves anyone else does. We live in a society where "blame" has been raised to an art form. Ed should not be held responsible for the actions of others. On the other hand, Ed should realize people will a book like TB 2000 quite literally. Reading this forum should have been enough to convince Ed not everyone was rowing with both oars in the water.

Connie, Ed can take as long as he wants... and I may well not be here for his final assessment. Perhaps someone will email me the essay.

As for the forum, it started as a general discussion area for anything concerning Y2K, except for actually "fixing" the problem. There is a whole "prep" forum... though I've never visited.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

Ken; I would not understand your argument on the underlying economics so don't wast it upon me. I will take your word for the fact that you understand economics better than I.

I am not startled that one can continue discussing an issue even after they form an opinion. But Ken, it takes two open minds to conduct a discussion. I was hoping to find one in you.

Stupid and dishonest, looks like perhaps only dishonest applys. I see you are able to write well enough therefore stupid might have been a bit too strong a word. Transparent probably would have been a better choice. So let it stand, "transparent and dishonest", which still seems to equate to stupid.

Become one of the forum bullies... no Ken I have a bit of a way to go before I achieve your high stature.

Recession in 2Q or 3Q, perhaps or perhaps 1Q. Unlike Ed, you claim to be an economist and therefore should be capable of more specific predictions. If someone who can debate the economics of the issue wishes, let them. Unlike you, I don't presume to be an expert in every area.

You presume to preach to another on how to behave and are unable to deal with it when someone does the same to you... as follows:

"Bill, because I have libertarian ideas hardly proves anyone else does. We live in a society where "blame" has been raised to an art form. Ed should not be held responsible for the actions of others. On the other hand, Ed should realize people will a book like TB 2000 quite literally."

You do not engage in insult as follows:

"Reading this forum should have been enough to convince Ed not everyone was rowing with both oars in the water."

Now, Ken I am not sure how to word this so I will be blunt. Who other than yourself really gives a rats behind whether you are here tomorrow? Ed doesn't ever have to speak again on the issue, NO matter whether you want him to or not, Ken. The point is YOU are not NEARLY as IMPORTANT or so MUCH BRIGHTER than the rest of us as YOU seem to think you are. The world DOES NOT revolve around Ken Decker, "economist cum Computer Scientist cum Electrical Engineer cum Systems Engineer".

Ken, just start acting like a normal person and you won't subject yourself to these embarrassments. You obviously wrote a letter about wanting "straight talk." But were unprepared to engage in "straight talk" and when you got "straight talk" as it seems "straight talk" wearied you.

So sorry Ken, you weary me as well but I can keep acting like you as long as you can keep acting like yourself. Try just being polite and not "cute". How dare you claim one man is hedging while you do precisely the same thing. You would have done well in the intelligence community, you are a natural gamer. Unfortunatly I am unsure whether you realize you are playing games. If you do, you have the gift. If you don't, you have a problem. Which is it, Ken.

Do you have a problem?

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 08, 2000.

I think a lot of us are feeling lied to on any number of subjects. Maybe it would be nice if the people predicting marshall law were to come back and apologize for being wrong. Someone should tell Bruce Beach to get out of his underground bus. Anyway, once Ed has time to form an opinion, I don't doubt that he'll post it. Although it seems like a long time, in fact it has only been a week since rollover.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 08, 2000.

Michael, During the past 10 months I have seen a handful of forum bullies try to drive off the more optimistic posters including Flint and Ted Hoffman. If you follow the standard form, you might want to accuse me of being a gov't shill next. Oh, don't forget a derogatory nickname. Your rhetoric gets weaker and more confused with each post, so I guess you'll soon be moving into personal attacks without the burden of any logic or facts basis. Don't worry. You're not alone.

As to economics, predicting any downturn in the business cycle is a ticklish business. Were I perfect, I could retire a very wealthy man. I am not, nor am I an expert in IT... as I have admitted on many occasions. On its surface, Y2K was a technical problem. The impact, however, is a question of economics.

I stand by my earlier comments. You may find the conversations about international banking cabals, chemtrails, the New World Order, "death pools," conspiracies, etc., all very rational. I do not. There are some disturbed people involved in the Y2K debate... on both sides. Wishing "death" to those we do not agree with is not a sign of emotional stability.

The rest of your post is simply a mess. Play with your own marbles, Michael. Give up on the pop psychology and let Ed Yourdon decide what he wants to do with my request. I think Ed can make his own decision without your assistance.

Finally, don't ask for politeness after you accuse a man of lying. You'll find most people less than accommodating.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 08, 2000.

I think I've discovered, on another thread, what the problem is. (The thread is 'In Response to Ed Yourdon' started by Ken.

Ken, dear, you are the age of my youngest son! Just turned 37, right? (Happy Birthday!) My oldest child is 44.

You are a barefoot boy with cheek! And I don't mean to be insulting.

You are a very intelligent, well-educated boy. Some day, you are going to be well-respected. You need some of the rough edges worn off first, though. To be lecturing a man of Ed Yourdon's experience and training and maturity is irritating and it makes obvious your immaturity.

It seems to me that Ed has been humble in stating his opinions. And he doesn't have whole lot to be humble about!

Concerning his statements about the economy, he stated that his daughter, who IS an economist, did the writing on that subject in his book. If I'm not mistaken, she works for a large firm in NYC. Do you have the training, education, and experience of Jennifer Yourdon?

I hope you won't go away, just quit nagging Ed. And thank you for clarifying that this forum is not the Y2k prep one. I just discovered this place November 13,'99. It's been educational, though.

Affectionately,

-- Connie iversen (hive@gte.net), January 08, 2000.

I amuse myself picturing Ken trying to pull his shtick in a saloon, in 1849 Colorado or California.

Hell, he'd probably engross them idiots as much as he does us.

Proposing a new emoticon: that which depicts the TB participant with his head cocked sideways, eyebrows furrowed, as one would react to a Labrador that appeared on one's doorstep replete with gills and a dorsal fin, to boot.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 09, 2000.

Connie... if only age had more to do with wisdom.

I defer to Ed's IT experience, but TB 2000 ventured well outside of specific programming issues. Jennifer Yourdon has taken some master's classes at Trinity in economics and works on Wall Street. My experience has already been bandied about the forum, but I hope this doesn't devolve into a contest of who has the longer resume. Ed has me on the software experience, but he's never managed a municipal water or sewer system. I hope we can both benefit by an exchange of ideas, opinions and information.

If you actually read my post, I'm not "lecturing" Ed... I'm asking him to respond to a few questions. While you may find my age amusing, ma'am, I'm 37, not 17. I've earned the respect of those who matter most to me... my family, my friends, my colleagues... and the men who served in uniform with me.

Have you ever handed a widow a tightly folded American flag? Have you ever ordered a good friend to go into harm's way? Have you ever been on foreign soil wondering if you'd ever see home again? Maturity, ma'am, is a product of more than years.

If you more about me than my age, you might form a different opinion. Wisdom tells us not to draw conclusions too quickly...

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 09, 2000.

Connie, every time Decker runs out of defenses, he resorts to patriotism. He was in the Navy and I sure would like to know what foxhole he was talking about when he said he was glad he didn't share one with whoever it was he was downing at the time. If he was such a patriot, he would have spent a career in the Navy instead of just a few years. Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. True patriots don't wield patriotism like a baseball bat.

-- Get (a@grip.decker), January 09, 2000.

Ken and WJC have that same I-will-win-at-all-costs psyche.

-- birds? (of@feather.hmm), January 09, 2000.

Mr. Decker;

I had forgotten you were one of those me who could order others into harm's way. We will discuss you illustrious military history and what it purchases you momentarily.

No Ken I have not accused you of lying. I have caught you lying to yourself. You pretend that you are innocently seeking truth while you have already made up your mind. Your words have betrayed you and now you desperatly seek some out from the responsibility your words have levied upon a weak back. There is none. Just as the moving hand has written... so have written the typing fingers. You have asked answer to a question you had already decided... unfotunatly the technique was poor and the execution was worse. You are hanged by your own ...

Your problem, Mr. Decker, is precisely as I have stated. You are playing a game. I said that you have a natural talent for gaming but now you are in over your head. That is because you did not actually realize it was a game other's might play as well as yourself. That mistake was made because of personal conceit and a satisfaction with self which goes into the realm of narcissism. Yes, you may say it takes one to know one. I will agree. My point was precisely that I know I am playing a game, do you? If you don't then you have a problem. If you do then you are simply manipulative and deceptive as am I. Which is your poison Decker, manipulative and deceptive or simply transparent and dishonest? It is too late for other options.

I want to address this conceit which seems rampant in those who have served. Since I served myself, I feel it is within my right. Mr. Decker, if you do not believe that service was an honor and a priviledge, you learned nothing when you served. You make high noises about "What it feels like to give the folded flag..." without knowing a damn thing about what it feels like to have the flag of your father on the mantle. I would spit an epithet at this point but I will not waste it upon one who will call to his defense the feelings he had while giving that folded flag to the loved one who lost.

Decker, to know what it feels like to order others into harms way is nothing compared to knowing what it is to receive and execute those orders. Any pissant can order others into harms way. Only the courageous can accept those orders and raise their right hand in salute. Those were the ones who came home in a body bag while you were feeling sorry for yourself at having to carry that folded flag to some mother or wife. You are a real hero, Decker.

I expect if we took a pole right here and now we would find a thousand man years of service not counting your own pitance, but there is only one man in the room crying I served! I served. So get off your high horse a moment and realize you are not the only worthy human on this earth. Your conceit sickens me. That you can not see it for what it is engenders a morsel of pity but not much, after all you are a hero who served. You are tough and can take it.

I served Decker... I served eleven years. I was a Korean Linguist. I was one of those who saluted those orders from men like yourself. My step-father served, Decker, he was fifteen when he illegally enlisted to fight in WWII. Two years later they found out and sent him home. That man, after two years of a kind of fighting you could only imagine in your worst nightmare, asked his parents to sign for him so he could go back in at the age of 17 for the last year of WWII. He was an Airborne Ranger. He spent a tour in Korea during that war. He spent two years in Viet-Nam. He died in 1993... agent orange causes leukemia. You would not have made a pimple on that gentleman's ass Decker, not on your very best day. My father also served Decker. He was ninteen when he signed up. He served in Korea during that war. He was a POW for a while. You would not have made a pimple on that gentleman's ass either Decker. My Grandfather served... WWI. I won't bore you with the details of that war Decker except to remind you that was the war in which chemical weapons made their appearance. I won't restate the obvious about pimples and asses.

Decker, there is only one last thing I have to say to someone I disrespect as much as one who would hide behind his service as an excuse for bad behavior in a public forum, your service means absolutly nothing to me... not one damn thing... Decker YOUR SERVICE IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE, your behavior is the issue. How hard is that for you to understand?

Want to play another game, Decker?

-- And that from a disabled veteran

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 09, 2000.

Get; my betters, would not have weilded it thus. Let that be my apology. I have had the priviledge to know and shake the hands of veterans of many wars. If any deserve your kindness, it is those who fought in Korea. It was an absolutly miserable war and I thank God I an not nearly old enough to have served in that one.

My father spoke of horrible things from time to time, only to me, but horrible cold, horrible battle, and horrible guilt (human wave attacks were common in that war) as he was a machine gunner.

My step-father never spoke of war. It was not what was done.

My grandfather never told me had been a soldier at all until I found an old picture of him in uniform.

My father-in-law is a veteran of Pearl Harbor, one of the very few left. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of his friends from that war. Get; they would be pleased to know you, don't let this smug and pompass ass belittle you. His own feelings are more important to him than those of others.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 09, 2000.

Kens Theme song: "Oh, Lord it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way."

Alternate: "I am so beautiful, to me. Can't you see."

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 09, 2000.

Ken, you seem to have built an elaborate but untenable construct here.

Ed Yourdon gave us his best perspective. I think there's reason to believe it issued forth from his experience and honest evaluation of the matter. It was in the context of many unknowables.

Now that there *are* some knowables, you are faulting him for not having known them. You rail against him for being "careful" in his previous wording, or equivocating. Isn't that how mature perspectives are delivered? Aren't they delivered with a professional sense that any given perspective is subject to variables and are not all-of-a- one galvanized certitude?

Here's the odd rub: You, fault him for previously sharing his perspective in a modified fashion. Now you are asking him not only to share his perspective, but to do so in terms of certitude.

If he decides it is unnecessary for him to share his perspective in such a way on events unfolding, then you think you have established that his sharing perspective in the past was a mistake. Not so. Not in the slightest.

I would like to point out: Sharing perspective "then" is quite different from sharing it now. NOW there is hard empirical evidence from which people can draw their own informed assessments on an ongoing basis. THEN there didn't exist that kind of opportunity for assessment. The safety of people was at stake. In the absence of that opportunity for assessment, Ed Yourdon courageously put his perspective out on the line.

Why don't you speak plainly and tell us why you think he would do that.

-- (resolved@this.point), January 09, 2000.

Mr. Decker,

You are 37 years old, born in 1962. Since you say you ordered men into harm's way, you must have been commissioned, therefore at least age 22. This would have been in 1984. Unless you served 7 years or more and served during the Gulf War in 1991, I am at a loss to figure out which "war" it was in which you ordered men into harm's way, since the Viet Nam conflict ended in 1975. Please enlighten us as to when and where you served and ordered your Navy subordinates into battle.

-- Beached Whale (beached_whale@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

Michael,

If only your clarity of though were matched by your endurance.

I have bought nothing with my service, except the right to be buried by my comrades. Your accusation of my "lying" is based entirely on your perception of my words... a perception tainted by bias and anger. My opinion about the outcome of Y2K has been a matter of record on this forum for months. In fact, I've been much more specific than Ed Yourdon. Now, in essence, I'm asking Ed if he's reconsidering his position now that we have had a successful rollover. It's legitimate question, and I asked Yourdon, not you.

I also refuse to play your "do you only beat your wife on Sunday" games.

As far as my military service, you know nothing about me. Your assumptions simply reflect a bitter bias. When Connie wants to call me "boy," she might want to pause a moment. First, she has no idea if I am white or black. Second, I think her thesis that age = worth of respect is badly flawed. Again, Michael, you feel compelled to poke your nose into my exchange with someone else.

It's not like you are the only person who has served or lost family members to war. As for your father(s), I have no idea who they were. I am getting a much better idea of who your are.... Find something else to do, Michael, before you further tar yourself by attacking a man you know nothing about.

Resolved,

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I'm not faulting Yourdon. I'm asking him a few questions. And I'm asking him to give us his best guess... with a reduction of the "lawyer" language qualifying every remark. Perhaps he can just provide a small-print disclaimer on the bottom of the essay? And I'm not asking for "certitude." Any view of the future is a "best guess."

I have spoken plainly, Resolved... but you are not listening plainly. I have no idea if Ed will ever make a "post-Y2K" statement. It doesn't hurt to ask....

Beached... I have a rule... I will only talk about my military service in person. You or Erskine can avail yourself of the opportunity. Just call ahead so I can make the time.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 09, 2000.

Yourdon explained his position a couple of days ago clearly enough for anyone except for a conceited person to understand. Which explains why Decker is still asking.

When it suits him to use his service to put-down others, it's on the table. When it doesn't you have to go to his house and talk to him yourself, buy your plane ticket today.

Its plain enough all right.

-- reality check (decker@hypocrite.com), January 09, 2000.

Mr. Decker;

"Beached... I have a rule... I will only talk about my military service in person. You or Erskine can avail yourself of the opportunity. Just call ahead so I can make the time."

Oh yeah? Then what's this?

"Have you ever handed a widow a tightly folded American flag? Have you ever ordered a good friend to go into harm's way? Have you ever been on foreign soil wondering if you'd ever see home again? Maturity, ma'am, is a product of more than years."

At every opportunity you spout your military service on a public forum to bolster your inadequate arguments. May I suggest in the future that if you do not want to continue the discussion of your military service in a public forum that you not bring it up in the first place.

So, your argument for privacy having been blasted, on what "foreign soil" did your Navy career require you to "order a good friend to go into harm's way?" I've always been under the assumption, however wrong, that Navy personnel served on board floating vessels, never getting mud on their boots.

And the only Navy personnel in the positon to "order a good friend to go into harm's way" are the Captain of the ship and those in command of his fleet. Are we now to call you Captain or Admiral Decker instead of Ensign Decker?

This is as private as you're going to get, since you yourself raised the point initially in this public forum.

-- Beached Whale (beached_whale@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

So Yourdon nor North's predictions came true, thank God: Now how about picking on somebody else. Nostradamus nor Edgar Cacy's preditictions have not happened either. If they had we would be islands in the sea or in the midst of wars etc. Thank God that man's predictions fail, only those of God can be accepted as true. The prophecies of God do not fail regardless of what we may think of Him personally. Man is fails, and always will, but he does the best he can with what he has, and personally I think that is damn good. So stop and smell the roses and stop all the bickering

-- Notforlong (Fsur439@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

http://www.carr.org/hampstead/newsletter/page2.html

"... Of course, as a young man I wanted to see everyplace but home. The U.S. Navy cooperated and sent me throughout the Western Pacific. The Navy also helped me finish my bachelor's degree at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash. After graduating, I spent six years in youth services in Spokane. While working full-time, I managed to complete a master's degree in public administration. My graduate degree opened the door to a job in transportation management. After a couple of years tackling tough transportation problems in Washington State, I moved to Maryland. Once settled, I began work as the operations manager of a large privatized agency in Anne Arundel County. After three years down "south," Hampstead's advertisement for a town manager seemed the ideal opportunity..."

-- See it (on@the.web), January 09, 2000.

"...... It's legitimate question, and I asked Yourdon, not you...."

Really?

If that was your true intent, why did you choose this very public forum? Why not just email the man? He has a very good track record of conducting correspondance by email, and I'll just bet he would have answered yours. But that would have defeated your intent, would it not?

And then this..."Beached... I have a rule... I will only talk about my military service in person. You or Erskine can avail yourself of the opportunity. Just call ahead so I can make the time."

Really, Decker?

Then why have you made us aware of it, many times, in the past? You've played the 'service card' more than once, to the utter disgust of plenty.

You would be laughable if you weren't so pathetic in your attempts at righteousness. You are pitiful, more than anything else.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

cockroach the USER

-- arrogance revealed (Navy@used.as.stepping.stone), January 09, 2000.

Hey, Wilferd;

Go, Kansas! (K-State, that is) (Big Grin)

We-uns in the midwest seem to be able to spot these inconsistencies and lies, huh?

-- Beached Whale (beached_whale@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

Ken,

You said,

"I wanted Yourdon to give us straight talk on Y2K, not just a convenient 'I don't know' or 'It's too soon to tell'."

Well, if he really doesn't know or if he really does think it's too soon to tell, and this is in essence what he communicates, how can you possibly get straighter talk than that?

For God's sake, Ken, this is so utterly obvious that I have to believe that either I misread what you said or took it out of context.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.

Ken,

...unless of course you believe him to be lying. If so, give us the evidence.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.

Beached, it depends on whether it's football or basketball. ; )

Rock chalk, Jayhawk! [g]

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

Ken's resume:

"The Navy cooperated and sent me throughout the Western Pacific" (that means he went from Alameda to Treasure Island-in San Francisco bay!)

"...spent 6 years in youth services" (that means he couldn't find a job)

"...a job in transportation management"(he was a dispatcher for a trucking line)

Gee Kenny, you always said you were an economist. What gives???

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomdweller.net), January 09, 2000.

Ken;

My points have been made, you are in denial about the uncivility of your behavior and smugness of your attitude.

I don't expect some Navy Quatermaster to understand this but I will explain it carefully. Ground forces wear camoflauge rank insignia in combat zones because the don't want the leadership to be killed by snipers. For that reason it is customary not to salute in a combat zone.

Decker, I salute you and I would in a combat zone as well. I would not share a graveyard with you "comrad".

We are done here Decker. You are never going to get your question answered. You will never regain the respect of those following this thread. Tactically you have shot youself seriously thru the knee here.

Why not make your last post on this thread and start another one, mayhaps you won't make an ass of yourself again, atleast not a complete one.

Decker your inability to address the issues brought to your attention and the way that you simply feign innocence stinks of a politician. Why don't you run for office? With all that heroic military service, burying your comrads, and all the wounds you imagined doing that service, you are a shoe in. Just claim you suffer.

Decker one day you may have the good fortune to run across one of the fellows/ladies I worked with when I served. If you do give him/her the the sob story about how hard you had it burying your comrads. He/She will gladly retrain your thinking at no charge. Be carefull though if it is one of the women, she is liable to decide since you never used 'em you probably don't need 'em.

You are a waste of time.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 09, 2000.

Michael:

You seem to be reduced to venting your spleen with irrational fulminations against the only optimists polite enough to be permitted to post here. Your errors, whatever they may be, are NOT the fault of those allowed to try to inform you otherwise. You now appear to detest Decker for his style and Hoff for his links.

You really need to get a grip and review the first rule of holes -- when you're in one, stop digging. I mean this sincerely, since you're better than this. Decker and Hoff are not your enemies, despite all your efforts to turn them into enemies in your own imagination.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.

Connie, Decker commented: "When Connie wants to call me 'boy,' she might want to pause a moment. First, she has no idea if I am white or black. Second, I think her thesis that age = worth of respect is badly flawed."

I looked back at your post, Connie. Sure enough, I remembered correctly. You said to Decker: "You are a very intelligent, well-educated boy. Some day, you are going to be well-respected. You need some of the rough edges worn off first, though. To be lecturing a man of Ed Yourdon's experience and training and maturity is irritating and it makes obvious your immaturity."

You made it clear you were talking about "boy" as an immature male and not using the noun as a slur against an African-American male. The remark stuck in my mind because my son is only a couple of years younger. and has a few of those rough edges you mention(though they are fast waning.) And of course Decker acknowledges your obvious meaning when he says, "Second, I think her thesis that age = worth (sic) of respect is badly flawed." Note the use of the word "thesis."

By the way, Connie, I have no idea if you are white or black. . .

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 09, 2000.

OG,

HAHAHa! Yes, it was apparent from Ken's post that he ASS U ME'd that Connie was not black. You are a sharp one, OG! And, didn't Ken once twist your words to force an accusation of anti-semitism against you?

Michael,

IMO, you have soundly and completely kicked holes in all of Ken's self-serving motives for this thread.

-- (quietregular@here.today), January 09, 2000.

Flint, you should know better than to interject rationality into a debate with an irrational person. It only annoys them.

Catfish, when you have the money to hire me, I'll send you a resume. The bio I wrote for the Town newsletter is modest, but accurate. It does not mention my grad work in economics, nor the specifics of my professional career, nor the details of my military service. Since you think I'm a "Yuppie scum," why bother?

Michael, you are a "paper tiger," another Internet bully with an axe to grind. You have no idea who I am, but you've reached conclusion after conclusion... all flawed because of your anger and bitterness.

I think the only reason you'd salute me in a combat zone... is that you lack the spine to do the job yourself. You now join the select rank of cowards who insinuate the death of another... because of a petty disagreement. This is your measure as man? As a soldier? Are you tender feelings so hurt your only recourse is slur after slur culminating in your suggestion that you'd facilitate my death? If you're going to threaten me, Micheal, be a man about it.

Old Git... insensitive as always. Calling any adult male you do not know a "boy" is dangerous. How do you think a 37-year-old African- American man might feel? Do you think the "intent" makes calling him "boy" acceptable? I cannot say I am surprised.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 09, 2000.

Oh, my! May I apologise? I am in no way racist. Yes, I meant a callow youth. But even that was rude. I really LIKE Ken. I don't like to see him piled up on, either. I guess I identify with the underdog; not that ANY of these very able people need my help. I think I just like to express my opinion. They all seem perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, and their egos all seem to be well intact.

I don't see why we can't disagree on something without being insulting, but I fell for it, also.

I am sorry, Ken, for saying what I did; and Ed, you're probably thinking that with some of the friends you have, you don't need enemies.

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), January 09, 2000.

Hey Deck....when you're past 70.....a 37 year old male of any color is a boy. Just ask my Mom. (G)

Get off your high horse and stick to the topic and quit trying to twist a perfectly legitimate statement about your youth into a racial slur. This speaks volumes about your untenable and indefensible behavior, that Michael has so graphically spelled out.

And why not answer the Beached Whale about that "private" military service you continue to post so publicly. (Wink, wink) Or perhaps you regret having brought that "one" up again.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), January 09, 2000.

Hey Deck! Why NOT answer Beached Whale:::: where were you when you supposedly ordered a friend into battle?? Just exactly what hostile foreign soil were you talking about??? I think you are lying(yes,yes...I know you don't care what I think)! Hey, everybody, did you know that Libby, Montana has a web site.... www.libbymontana.com Maybe someone there can give us some insight as to why Decker is the ass that he has turned out to be.

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomdweller.net), January 09, 2000.

I believe this is how he will answer the lingering questions on this thread.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

Wilferd:

These aren't "lingering questions", these are simply personal attacks without basis, being made by smallminded people trying with pathetic desperation to blame someone else, anyone else, for their own errors.

Ken Decker has made it as clear as the reality around you (if you open your eyes) that y2k is over, so on-topic debate and discussion has become moot. Why waste valuable time on the pissants?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.

Flint, you wrote:

"These aren't "lingering questions", these are simply personal attacks without basis, being made by smallminded people trying with pathetic desperation to blame someone else, anyone else, for their own errors.

Ken Decker has made it as clear as the reality around you (if you open your eyes) that y2k is over, so on-topic debate and discussion has become moot. Why waste valuable time on the pissants?"

Well, Flint, I guess that leaves me out of the first group of folks you are talking about. I can't think of one error we've made. Not one! And since I've never really been a 'follower', it would be unlike me to 'blame' someone else for my actions. Since I never expected a "heart attack" at rollover, I wasn't too surprised. I do see some tumors forming, however, and am watching to see if a cancer of sorts (more of what we were expecting) develops.

No, Flint, there *are* lingering questions - well, not really - that have been left unanswered. Questions that even you, Flint, would require any other poster to account for, if it was anyone other than Decker. He raised these issues himself during the course of yet another of his smug, condescending missives; what is it about him that causes you to suspend your logic? Really, on the face of it, it anyone was a 'follower', it would be you, Flint, following Decker.

But it appears you are trying to do just that -- follow in Decker's footsteps. Wasting 'valuable time on pissants' and all that...

I have to tell you, though, you gave me the biggest laugh I've had all day when you said that Decker has made it clear that y2k is over and on-topic debate and discussion is moot. LOL! Flint, do you also need him to tell you when to visit the restroom?

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

Wilferd:

You need to be more coherent. You say there are lingering questions that really arent, and mention none. Uh huh. Pessimistic predictions were all resoundingly wrong (even mine), and you just can't find any mistakes. Uh huh. The world is humming along smoothly and I'm following Decker because you refuse to accept reality. Uh huh.

Ah well. Ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.

Ken,

...still waiting for a reply...

Wake me when you get here...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 09, 2000.

So, Ken the economist cum 'sewage plant manager' doesn't want to talk about his war hero days? He's the ONLY ONE ON THIS FORUM WHO EVER BRINGS UP HIS FRICKIN WAR HERO DAYS!!!!

BWHAHAHHAHA-EEEEEEWWWUUUPPPPUUCCCCK!

That was funny...until it made me puke. But good luck with your new career in your ah, 'shit treatment plant' Ken.

And catfish joe, How do you know 'transportation management' mean he was a dispatcher? I mean really, he could have made it all the way to 'flagman'. LOL

Connie, Ken's playing of the race card over the 'boy' thing was just as ill-conceived and lacking class as his earlier attempt at slandering Paul Milne's DC post where he referenced the Martin Luther King quote.

BTW Ken...in a special way, I am quite fond of you as well, despite your annoying arrogance. This forum has become quite a source of entertainment after all, and you have been both an excellent sport and specimen. Hope you check in from time to time.

-- Patton would be proud (@ .), January 09, 2000.

Wow, this is a long thread. Where do you people find the time?

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 09, 2000.

Care to answer that one for yourself, jose?

The real problem with Decker leaving is it will reveal how rude and nasty Flint has been and is towards all the stupid doomers who can't be educated by him.

-- Reality Check (Jose@can.you.see), January 09, 2000.

Flint says: ....."You need to be more coherent. You say there are lingering questions that really arent, and mention none. Uh huh. Pessimistic predictions were all resoundingly wrong (even mine), and you just can't find any mistakes. Uh huh. The world is humming along smoothly and I'm following Decker because you refuse to accept reality. Uh huh.

Ah well. Ignorance can be cured but stupid is forever.".......

Flint dear, the questions are about Decker's professed service in the military, questions he oh-so-conveniently chooses to ignore. Questions that perhaps might allow a small error in judgement on his part (bragging and using his military service as a 'trump card') to erupt in much the same way a small snag in a pair of pantyhose can turn into a massive, ever widening run, rendering the hose completely useless. Most of the ladies here will know exactly what I'm talking about; perhaps you do, too. But then, Flint, I'm sure you knew exactly what questions I was talking about; obviously, you're the one with the 'brain', and you told me yourself I am stupid.

No, you didn't mention mistakes, Flint, you mentioned 'errors' and inferred that some folks made errors in their prep levels and are looking for someone to blame. Mr. Wilferd and I haven't made any errors that we can think of, and wouldn't think to blame someone else if we had.

As for predictions, well, I don't believe I made any, at least publically on this forum. I have long felt that it is very plausible to consider that the 'gears' of our economic and social 'machinery' could grind to a slow halt over a period of time, in part due to code glitches, embedded chips, economic reasons...more like a cancer than a heart attack.

Flint, is this really you posting? Usually you do a much better job.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

Wilferd:

I consider an economic downturn very likely, and the current market makes me very nervous. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. I have no idea when (or even if) things will turn around economically.

Personally, I consider y2k as an economic trigger to be extremely implausible, and less so every day. The error rate just isn't there, and would need to be hundreds of times more serious than it has been to introduce any real economic inefficiency. You are welcome to disagree.

I'm not sure why Decker chose to mention his service background several times, except possibly as an example of strength of character, to contrast with the lack of character demonstrated by the rather spiteful personal attacks he endured.

In any case, I personally agree with Decker that y2k is over, and Elvis has left the building. All that remains are a few diehards shouting for More! and spitting on those who point to Elvis' bus heading away down the road. You are free to feel differently, of course.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.

Flint,

I'll know the fat lady has really sung when you pull the plug on this place. I have enjoyed your posts. Although I have never met you, Hoff or Decker, I'm going to miss you.

Recovering Doomer

-- (I'm@pol.ly), January 09, 2000.

Mr. Flint;

"I'm not sure why Decker chose to mention his service background several times, except possibly as an example of strength of character, to contrast with the lack of character demonstrated by the rather spiteful personal attacks he endured."

Being one of those whom you are referring to as having made the "rather spiteful personal attacks" I am sure, I'd like to respond. My "RPSA" were not made from any personal need to attack Ken Decker the person, but KD the exaggerating, boastful, arrogant young whippersnapper that he is. His flaunting of a probably non-existant or in the least very boring Navy career (didn't one person find, or at least claim, he was a Quartermaster?) in our faces brought the "attacks" upon himself. They were more to clarify that he stretched the military career, thus raising questions to his entire claims of personal achievement/status/believability/credulity in the Y2K matter.

I am sorry he picked up his toys and went home. He could have admitted AS HE WANTED ED YOURDON TO DO, that he was wrong, and shouldn't have stretched the truth in such a way as to be easily found out by those who have served, and whose families have served, for generations in the service of our country. Instead, he bowed out, gracefully I will admit, in his new-topic farewell.

I for one will miss him; he was a worthy adversary in the normal debate; his one weakness was not being able to separate the truth from his imagination, and that was what brought him down.

As to my being a pissant? I've always considered myself a grasshopper, in the insect world at least, and a Beached Whale in the mammalian world. Ask for an explanation if you will, but I do not reveal personal matters in debate just to strengthen my argument.

-- Beached Whale (beached_whale@hotmail.com), January 09, 2000.

Flint, you say "I'm not sure why Decker chose to mention his service background several times, except possibly as an example of strength of character. . . ." But that's just the ironic point. There appears to be grave doubt about Decker's strength-of-character statements above: "Have you ever handed a widow a tightly folded American flag? Have you ever ordered a good friend to go into harm's way? Have you ever been on foreign soil wondering if you'd ever see home again?" Combined with the remark about the foxhole, and other similar references, it gives the impression that Decker fought in some conflict, had the unpleasant but necessary duty of ordering friends into battle, and gave flags to the widows of those he'd ordered to die. That's not what it says, but the strong IMPRESSION is there.

According to his own bio, he was a sailor roughly from 1980 to 1984 and was on cruise in the Western Pacific. Well, my husband's Navy service overlaps that period and he flew combat missions in the Caribbean and Mediterranean in 1983. As far as I know, Grenada and Lebanon were the only Navy hot spots between 1980 and 1984. And, again as far as I know, the Navy pilot from my husband's group shot down over Lebanon was the only Navy KIA at that time--but let's not forget all the Marines who were blown up in their barracks while my husband was serving in the Med. And if Decker was in the Western Pacific during that period, well, that's a ways off from those hostilities. It raises serious questions, Flint, especially to this wife of a courageous man who never "wields his patriotism like a baseball bat." Decker has refused to clear up the inconsistencies, thereby adding more doubt to his claims. To clear up the doubt, all he has to do is name the hostile action he so often has referred to as a testament to his strength of character and his part in it.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 09, 2000.

Old Git:

I agree that Ken often came across as pompous. I don't know about his military experience, because I didn't ask. I don't speak about my own much either, although I did see a lot of action all too first-hand. But I think Ken's major sin was swimming against the local current, and doing so strongly, politely (on the whole) and reasonably. My observation has been that nothing starts the loonies frothing more than being contrasted with thoughtful and informed rationality.

In any case, personal grudges should never have been the focus of anyone on this group. I fell victim to making personal attacks myself all too often, but I did make an effort to avoid making people the focus, rather than the software. It's been an interesting time, and I will miss it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 09, 2000.

Decker doesn't even know if he was raised on a farm or a ranch. Palease.

What's left to discuss? Nada. He probably wears his mother's wigs. Very twisted.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 09, 2000.

To answer any questions about Ken's military service, consider the following:

Have you ever handed a widow a tightly folded American flag?

One time, while on leave in Pearl, me and my buddies were drinking at a little bar along the wharf. My recolections are a bit hazy, due to the heavy imbibing of exotic concoctions with little umbrellas in coconuts. I don't normally drink to excess, but it was the Fourth of July, and we were having a great time. A dear old widowed woman next to me asked if I would be so kind as to hand her one of the little American flags that lined the bar, as she wanted one to wave at the fireworks display later that nite. So I folded it tightly and handed it to her.

Have you ever ordered a good friend to go into harm's way?

About four months after that incident we were once again at sea in the USS Garbage Scow, a special purpose naval vessel used to empty porta pottys on remote US bases. My buddy, Dicky Dickerson and I had the duty of cleaning the holds used to store the evacuated wastes. However, hold number six had a faulty valve and was not emptying properly. The valve needed to be opened by hand, so, since I outranked Dicky, I ordered him down into the shit to open it.

Have you ever been on foreign soil wondering if you'd ever see home again?

One time me and Dicky got stranded in a foreign house of ill repute, Dicky suddenly realised that we were very late returning from leave, and I was sure that the ship had set sail without us. While I hurriedly dressed, Dicky ran for a cab. I was so worried.

No, I'm not Decker, but these are,

-- Good Excuses For (Ken@to.use), January 09, 2000.

I'm a widow and I've always liked those little umbrellas myself. Remember the little green, plastic mermaids? Now those were cute.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 09, 2000.

wow, what a waste of a thread, I was right about you all sucking up to ed and paula..etc... Nite ed I a'int gotta do no speeches. You cool. Nite Sandy

-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), January 10, 2000.

Flint; My intention was not to turn those gentlemen into enemys. It was to turn them into gentlemen. They both refused the opportunity.

Flint; I have listened to folks gloat many times in my life. I have even done it myself on this thread. I am tired of it AND I choose to do something about it when I detect it. You have had a couple of staunch and strong allies in Hoff and Decker. They both claim they are gone. I doubt that I personally will notice any real difference except that the level of insult will drop momentarily.

Flint; you and Cherri remain. Flint you seem to be intelligent enough and knowledgable enough that you might be able to refrain from posting insults to the gentleman whom you so honored before you discovered him to be human. Let us hope that is the case. Cherri has always been to o civil to conduct herself in such a manner. Such are the differences between testosterone saturation and estrogen saturation. Thank God for the difference.

I will also note that I much prefer out right insult and derision over someone who sugar coats that insult for the sole purpose of later using that sugar coating to deny the original intention. Both Hoff and Decker were doing that.

It is very easy for us all to be dragged into argument an insult. It is not easy for anyone to admit they are wrong. It is very tempting to blame another when one discovers they are wrong. A carefull read of this thread will show you that the majority of us are guilty of those sorts of errors on a daily basis. Wisdom is the ability to recognize it when you are doing it and courage is the ability to admit it when another person discovers you are doing it and calls you on it.

Decker and Hoff and to a lesser extent you and Cherri are taking particular delight in gloating. You folks are no longer here for altruistic reasons, hell you may have never been here for altruistic reasons. As you have said, 0+8days, it is over. You folks are here because you like the feeling of being able to say "I told you so. I was right and you were wrong, na na na na". You may try to fool yourself into believing you are here for some other reason but please don't expect me to buy into that foolishness.

I on the other hand am here for only one reason. You see I don't need this board to remain informed. I can do my own trend analysis. I can figure out for myself whether the remaining y2k issues are serious or benign. I long ago understood they were real.

You will note that I have essentially NOT been arguing y2k but urging people not to rush into judgement, to collect facts, to speak only to their areas of expertise.

My arguments with Decker and Hoffman were issues of character. No doubt about it. Once one person attacks another person's character they are subject to the same scrutiny. Now I have attacked both Decker's character and Hoffman's. That means I am subject to the same scrutiny. Help yourself if you are so inclined.

If on the other hand you and others are interested in civil discourse sans name calling, labels, and insult, you will find me quite accomodating. You see Flint, I am interested in your professional opinion, not your personal opinion. Your personal opinion means nothing to me. Your professional opinion on the other hand is formed from your education and experience, a thing totally unique to you, and intrinsically valuable.

Share the valuable part and I will thank you for the sharing. I would have said as much to Hoff and Decker but they were not listening.

-- Michael Erskine (Osiris@urbanna.net), January 10, 2000.

ya know...ya...know... this is all funy. don't you all got some thing better to do? I read some of this...but not much

-- ant (rstyree@overland.net), January 10, 2000.

Paul Milne hasn't been the same since that tour in Nam.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 10, 2000.

To Ken, for whom the elderly and the apartment dweller were always acceptable collateral damage if y2k turned out badly, you will never have my respect.

-- Had It (with@this.troll), January 10, 2000.