On this forum, prior to the use of terms like DGI-"Don't Get It" and it's various spin offs (e.g., DWGI-"Don't Want to Get It", CGI-"Can't Get It", even TSTGI-"Too Stupid To Get It"), someone who categorically maintained that the Y2K Computer Problem would have little or no impact was said to be in "Y2K denial". This term was liberally applied (often by me) to anyone who could not understand what was considered to be OBVIOUS: That beginning on or about January 1, 2000 a significant amount of our computer technology would fail or become unlreliable, en masse, potentially causing societal chaos from which there might or might not exist a short term recovery.

It is now mid-January 2000, with the Y2K glitches that have occurred to date (see, for example, www.inforamp.net/~jwhitley/Y2KNEWS.HTM) barely even worth addressing. "Innocuous" to society at large would seem to be as good a description as any.

Yet, still, there are those who are claiming that the Y2K Computer Problem is yet ready to come down full force. There is Feb 29, the leap day that the computer code doesn't know about. Or the buffers in those embedded chips, that will start overflowing any-day-real-soon-now. Etc., etc.

There is a term that I think is applicable to those who don't grasp that the Y2K Computer Problem has turned out to be a big nothing. It is called being in "Y2K denial".

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 16, 2000

Answers

Maybe. I still think there will continue to be a lot of glitches and hassles for a while to come. At the rollover, I was more concerned about the combination of embedded systems, bad weather, cyberterrorism, real terrorism, and all the religions in the world who chose not to get along.

Now the focus is shifting to geopolitical topics like balance of power alliances, oil, and bubble.com in the U.S. market.

wanna wrestle? There! I asked you first for a change

-- nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Oh, King of Spain....I want to mudwrestle you in a pigsty and smell the wonderful aaaaaarrrrroooommmmmmaaaaa!

-- susie Q (susieq@aol.com), January 16, 2000.

AND THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS, JANUARY,17,2000

ANYONE WANNA SPAM WRESTLE?

-- Walter C. (Dehydrated@Water.com), January 16, 2000.

oops....January 16,2000

-- Walter C. (Dehydrated@Water.com), January 16, 2000.

Let's wait and see. Time will tell.

-- snikpoh (snikpoh@ecentral.com), January 16, 2000.

I'm an DGI because I still don't get it.

I am not in y2k denial. I have moved on, so to speak. But I am watching.

Call me a y2k agnostic. I just don't know (I have Socratic y2k wisdom?)

Maybe oil is telling us something - maybe it isn't. That is as mysterious as y2k itself, at least for the moment. Rationally, oil should have fallen. Now it was reported by gov't (I'ld have to dig for a moment to find the link) that we are currently in a 4% shortfall position (approximately '74 shortfall). I can't explain it.

Time will tell.

-- Me (me@me.me), January 16, 2000.

Ooops. Make that, "I'm an SDGI because I still don't get it."

-- Me (me@me.me), January 16, 2000.

Monsenior King Of Spain will cease his diatribe of wanting to mud wrestle. When he meets up with the old "lineman's Bull Dog Nelson" hold. (But wait! He might be wanting to mud wrestle because he did encounter the "lineman's Bull Dog Nelson". Some,it is said develope a taste for that sort of thing.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), January 16, 2000.

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

If you'll look at any of the old polls showing how folks here rated the outcome they most expected, you'll see that most of us were NOT predicting a 10. We may have PREPARED for a 10, because we thought there was some small chance that it could happen, but at the same time we thought that the most likely outcome was much better.

Most of us recognize that if any of the iron triangle went down and stayed down for very long, we would easily slip into a 10. The fact that we were not expecting a high probability of a 10 shows that most of us didn't believe that the problems with utilities would be great.

When people like us used the pejorative term "DGI," it didn't mean "somebody who is in denial about the fact that there WILL be immediate severe utility problems." We obviously didn't mean this, since most of us didn't believe this ourselves.

Now YOU may have believed that, and YOU may have used DGI to mean anybody who thought Y2K would be even the slightest bit less severe than you thought it would be. That doesn't mean the rest of us did.

I'm on the doomy side even still, but never did call my brother a DGI, even though I don't think he stocked up on anything until December '99! He "got it" alright, but I think he was just immobilized. (If you ever saw me describe a brother as a DGI, it was another brother.)

It may be obvious to you that nothing is going to happen, but it is not all that obvious to me. I am not constantly pushing back the dates as is often accused. My assessment does change on an hourly basis... but if you read my old posts (or just take my word on it), I never thought it was likely that we'd know by this early quite where we stood. And I think the polls show that most of us here thought the same way.

It's really pretty annoying to have someone who supposedly "Got It" in a big way, to judge by how upset you'd get at people who didn't "Get It" to your satisfaction, now turn around and bite the other direction. Don't forget, we're talking about potential problems, here. I'm reminded of the behavior of ex-smokers, and how they're often the most vigilant anti-smokers. It's as if they're determined to not be around smoke, for fear that they'll start smoking again.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 16, 2000.

HI kos.

How about GIW (Got it wrong) or DGIR? (Did Get it Right).

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 16, 2000.

I'm a WANKER...

would

always

never

know

enough

remediation

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 16, 2000.

KOS

But the problem always seemed so obvious to me. I could never get an incorrect letter in a DOS command, why should I expect to be able to get an incorrect digit.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), January 16, 2000.

KOS,

Do you mud wrestle??

(It sure beats bull fighting.)

-- Maureen (Maureenls@worldnet.att.net), January 16, 2000.

Gawd! Come on folks, SOMETIMES even I ask a serious question!!!

Dancr, you are missing the point that I am trying to make. "Y2K denial", as I used it, applied to people who dismissed the scenario of a Y2K meltdown as being completely infeasible, regardless of the low (but non-zero) probability that most of us acknowledged. (Thus, such people generally did NOTHING to prepare.) I claim that there appear to be people who now dismiss the possibility that Y2K is simply a non-event in much the same manner. Hence the new applicability of the term, "Y2K denial".

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 16, 2000.

Link

http://news.excite.com/news/r/000105/13/y2k-canada-prophet

Y2K bug prophet warns next few weeks crucial

Updated 1:57 PM ET January 5, 2000

By Natalie James

TORONTO (Reuters) - One of the world's most quoted Y2K computer bug prophets, Peter de Jager, says all is not over despite the almost total absence of Y2K glitches as the start of the year 2000 came and went.

"Have you received your paycheck? Have you received your Visa bill? Have you received your electrical bill?" said de Jager, the Canadian technology expert widely credited with helping to sound the alarm to the world on the so-called Y2K problem.

"None of these business processes have occurred yet. So, for anyone to suggest we're through Y2K is making the assumption that none of these business processes are going to be affected. That's an extremely naive assumption," de Jager told Reuters in an interview Tuesday.

De Jager was one of the most widely quoted Y2K experts who warned of possible widespread power blackouts, nuclear disaster and other catastrophes that could develop unless computers were modified to distinguish 2000 from 1900.

The next few weeks will be crucial to see the back of the Y2K threat, de Jager warned.

"If there are any problems they'll become apparent over the next few weeks," he said.

"When we come through mid-Febuary we can all start putting (the Y2K problem) behind us and leave the rest of the clean-up to the computer people," he predicted.

But with Y2K now more myth than menace, De Jager's predictions are raising questions that his warnings of potential disaster were sometimes overblown and possibly self-serving.

De Jager charged C$7,500 ($5,200) a time as a sought-after public speaker. His web site, www.year2000.com, operating with Houston-based Internet marketing company, Tenagra Corp. has also been profitable, attracting enough advertising to cover its annual expenses of $600,000.

An unidentified bidder recently offered $10 million to buy the site which offered information on the millennium bug, after it was put up for sale on the Internet auction site eBay Inc.

De Jager spent six years traveling the world to warn businesses and governments of the potential for disaster as the new millennium dawned.

He was among the first to realize that a method of recording dates in computer software could cause chaos as clocks struck midnight on January 1, 2000 because of old shortcuts that recorded the year with two digits only. Unless fixed, he warned that this could disrupt everything from airlines to health care to telephones.

His predictions caused the likes of Chase Manhattan Bank to spend $600 million on Y2K preparations, but de Jager admits some companies did spend too much in attempts to safeguard their operations against Y2K-related problems.

"When you try to fix a problem like this, you tend to go at it with a shotgun approach rather than a laser. In other words, you try to fix everything in sight even though you're not sure it's broken," he said.

And what of the legions of computer experts who cashed in on Y2K hysteria? "They're all highly employable. Y2K is nothing but a computer problem. They've solved that so now they can work on other computer projects. They are not obsolete just because Y2K is done." he said.

"As for me, it's time to take a break," said de Jager.

-- (Wait@and.see), January 16, 2000.

It's called 'questioning your inner voice'. I did it before the rollover and I've done it since. With something as unknown as Y2K, the few 'facts' we had available to us left many of us to rely upon our inner voice as a barometer in addition to the available information on hand. Some of the information and facts have changed but the barometer continues to read 'caution'. Quite a dilemma for those of us with barometers that have a track record of accuracy. "You must find peace with your barOmeter grasshopper"

Was the information bad or was my barometer wrong? Did one reading create the other's failure? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Will we be able to accept that we may never have the answers? Stay tuned for what's coming up next. (BTW, your mud is getting cold old buddy)

The roller-coaster ride goes on. Many are sick of riding it and have jumped off at the first sign that it is slowing. After 18 months, I don't blame them at all.

None of this changes the information that *had* been available from a wealth of different, reputable sources or the reasons why I took action to avoid the possible outcomes to begin with. It doesn't change my view of how the public or our gov handled these possibilities. The pollys bet it all and got lucky, and I'm *elated* for them because they were NOT prepared to loose. I'll never be so reckless and certainly don't intend to apologize or explain my actions. Anyone who can't understand that SDGI. I've looked behind the curtain and won't ever be able to go back. DGIs will never GI, DWGIs never will desire the truth, happyfaced Pollys fall the hardest and immediately hide their skinned knees, and I will always be prepared to provide for myself and those I care for. This makes me the only FREE person in the list. -totally awesome, man-

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 16, 2000.

Wrong.

Acknowledging how well things have gone so far but wanting to wait until the news comes in on big iron (which WON'T be known to US for one to three months, hence May 1 as a date) and what it manages, the major supply chains, is sensible and has nothing to do with denial. It's not as if May 1, 2000 is May 1, 2010.

Maybe you need to look at how YOU anticipated Y2K but you shouldn't assume that holds true for everyone. I had sound reasons for this BEFORE rollover that had nothing to do with what might happen in January (except that, obviously, negative impacts early-on would have been alarming big-time).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 16, 2000.

The only thing that has changed, KOS, is YOU.

You've become a polly.

Pathetic.

-- Mark (Marko@wentrel.net), January 16, 2000.

LL, you've missed the point...

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 16, 2000.

Y2K Pro. You've always felt smug, so what is new? Consider that your smugness is covering over another, less pleasant feeling...

KoS, Yes, things seem good. But the entire scenario hasn't played itself out. We haven't had end of month processing, etc. Yours in the the claypits.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 16, 2000.

King sir, I owe you an apology! Of all of the so-called doomer position posters that I have read over the past year or so, you have turned out to be a most pleasant surprise. Your flippant comments and caustic retorts have been replaced with the insight of someone that is capable of deep thought and possesses the tools to express them. I will admit to admiring your newfound rational approach but I would like to think that my admiration for your words would stand up regardless of your position. Now, I will watch with great anticipation as your former colleagues descend upon you for your turncoat position swing. How bout that folks, an intellect hiding in royal splendor! A toast to you KOS!

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 16, 2000.

KOS, what you suggesting? Should we stop monitoring Y2K? No one is being forced to participate in this forum. I have no idea how it will play out, but I intend to follow it until May 1. What do you think about Dale Way's Papers? Have you seen any indication that he was wrong?

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Dale Way's Paper

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001fqh

-- (Be@aware.wait), January 16, 2000.

I don't feel KOS is a turncoat to this forum. He staked out his position early on due to how he felt the situation might play out. And he prepped accordingly. He is merely stating that his perception has modified. To modify your perception of Y2K is not to deny a problem exisited or that further problems can't occur. But to deny that the situation thus far has not been as bad as some feared is a form of denial. That, in my opion, is all he is trying to say. By the way, I'm a doomer but I appauld his honesty.

-- tory (tory@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

y2k gave me such a fright, I counted cans every night. Fixed I was on just one thing, To live to wrestle with the King. And now he says he was kidding??? :)

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), January 16, 2000.

Tory, I do not personally consider KOS to be a turncoat. I was suggesting that the more inflexible of the forum doomers would look at it that way. KOS and a handful of others have earned the respect and admiration of many for their rational approach to Y2K, as it is. To the rest of you who will not step away from Y2K, as you wish it to be, you are pathetic.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 16, 2000.

There is a line in the Disney movie "Dumbo" sung by the crows:

"I done seen 'bout everything when I seen a elephant fly."

Now, I've seen everything when the King of Spain is lambasted as an ignorant Polly on this forum.

Come on folks, get off the man's back. He has re-evaluated his positions based on evidence that differs with his previously held beliefs. It's called rational thinking. He seems fairly good at it, so watch and learn, huh?

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 16, 2000.

Paul -- Funny, most of the posts on this thread either agree with KOS or are neutral - as has generally always been the case when things are debated here.

I'm certainly not on his back, but I think my question to him was a fair one. Perhaps KOS didn't acknowledge positive possibilities for Y2K BEFORE rollover and now feels he missed something. I don't feel that way myself.

He states categorically that Y2K is over. I disagree. And I do so for technical reasons that I explained many times over the past year, so I won't do it again. That might well make me an idiot but it has nothing to do with "denial."

Come May 1 or so, if anyone around wants to talk and IF Y2K impacts remain quiescent, we can have (perhaps) some interesting conversations about the last two years. Or perhaps not, given the approach to Y2K as though it were a football game.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 16, 2000.

Pollys. Sheeese. Can't live with 'em but could survive without 'em.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 16, 2000.

I'm giving it till June, before I make any declarations of whether it is over. Simple as that. Happy that it is progressing so relatively benignly so far.

-- Firemouse (firemouse@fcmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Gawd!!! (Going into a Nixon stance:) I AM NOT A CROO-- UH, POLLY!!!!

Let me make the point that I am TRYING to make even simpler. Prior to the rollover, one of the arguments that certain pollies (one in particular who's last name began with an H and appeared to be of Germanic origin) advanced was the following: Since no significant Y2K failures were occuring in 1999, this constituted evidence that there would likewise be no significant Y2K failures in 2000. I found this argument, especially considering that the Y2K Computer Problem per se was practically defined as the inability of computers to handle dates in the Year 2000, to be completely ludicrous. As a matter of fact, I STILL find it to be a ludicrous argument.

But, as Paul Neuhardt notes above, things have CHANGED. We are, in fact, now IN the year 2000. Thus, one might advance the NEW argument that a lack of significant failures thus far in 2000 might lead one to conclude that there will CONTINUE to be a lack of significant Y2K failures.

I am well aware of how short the time is to date, and I myself stand by my claim that we need a full fiscal quarter -- i.e., through March 31, 2000 -- to completely assess the impact of Y2K problems. I have also read through Way's treatise. However, I think that any reasonable person should be willing to ACKNOWLEDGE that that there now exists the possible, if not likely, scenario that Y2K is a DUD. And, quite frankly, I would consider anyone who is not ready to acknowledge such a possibility based on the evidence of the past sixteen days to be in a state of Y2K DENIAL.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 16, 2000.

BD.

It would appear that you and some of your fellow doomers are suffering from the dreaded EDS (Extended Date Syndrome). For you there can be no closure to Y2K and another date threshold must loom in your distorted view of the future. Other than the dire predictions of so called experts what are you seeing that the rest of the rational human race is missing? I suggest that you are delusional and may be in need of counseling, by May 2nd at the latest. If you want to be a Big Dog, you need to get off the porch.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 16, 2000.

What is it with you happy-face dipwads who persist in your group effort to save the innocent masses from the dreaded doomer virus that approximately 1% of the nation's population suffers from? WTF?

I suggest you seek professional help for your 'stalking problem'. You're emotionally ill. -shudder-

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 16, 2000.

Look -- whoever you are ....

I had closure with Y2K when my preps were complete in late November.

Don't confuse patience (something utterly lacking in our culture) with delusion. LAST YEAR (you know, last "millenium", so long ago), we had rational discussions about why it would take several months before we could make a rational analysis of Y2K impacts. There were many reasons but the simplest boiled down to this:

1. It will take one to four months before internal problems (if there are any, indeed) go "visible" in organizations and later still in supply chains.

2. For obvious reasons, entities with problems aren't going to report them until they have BECOME visible to public.

This is hardly rocket science, just routine technical common sense, particularly about big iron. I agree with KOS that Y2K has a chance of being a (wonderful) dud but I personally still see it as devolving to an 8.5.

If you'd like to counsel me on May 2, feel free. Until then, I'll be enjoying my work, family, garden, livestock and golf game. Thinking of getting a new set of Pings .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 16, 2000.

WOW!! KOS, I am impressed (so much so I will even use upper and lower case for a sentence or two)!! That is the most I think I have ever seen you write. WOW. actually, I think I like the shallow mudwrestler guy--not quite so argumentative. although maybe you wouldn't be all that fun to wrestle--you would probably just hold my head under until i said UNCLE.

actually i am a skeptic. i prepped because i was concerned that the mid to worst case scenarios might happen. i am thrilled we got the best case scenario. now i am remaining uncommitted to your "no problem" position for another month or so until i see for a fact that Y2K is over.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 16, 2000.

I appreciate everyone's responses (especially from the chicks that like to mudwrestle!). Don't miss the new related thread by Steve Heller:

"Being Wrong about Y2K"
hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002KmS

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 16, 2000.

Will Continue, you must be joking when you state that 1% of the worlds (or U.S.) population shares your delusional doomer paranoia. Fortunately, you are but a handful of oddball space cadets and your overall impact on society is meaningless. Still, its hard to ignore your kind of stubborn stupidity when so blatantly displayed. Now, dont you have some hair to do?

And Big Dog, youre still predicting an 8.5 and shopping for Pings? Mind if the rest of us play through?

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 16, 2000.

Look --- You can play in our foursome if you'd like. The golf course in my town is Y2K-compliant.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 16, 2000.

Touchi

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 16, 2000.

Yo, KoS

You continue to go up in my estimation. Thanks for a well thought out post.

(Canadian mud-wrestling is still delayed until April. Minus 5F up here tonight. Brass monkeys now have had all appendages forzen off.)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

forzen.....frozen.....it's still bloody cold however you spell it....

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Although the news so far about Y2K has been excellent, let's not forget something Senator Bennett said last year:

http://cnn.com/SPECIALS/weblinks/hln/y2k/part1/index.html

[snip]

Companies shouldn't expect all Y2K problems to show up on January 1.

According to Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), "It's going to take several months for the whole thing to play out. And if we are in trouble, it will have to cascade and build over a period of several months and we won't really know until March or April of 2000."

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 17, 2000.

KOS- Do you like to jello-wrestle?? Please specify favorite flavor for future reference...

-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), January 17, 2000.

Oh goody, it's "the fat, balding, used car salesman from Shreveport" who was apparently kicked out of Thehairclubformen@webtv.net.

Look's opinion means so very much to me. I think I'll sign away my first born child on the bottom line of a student loan and invest the next four years of my life towards a profession where I could make half as much money per hour..........

-hanky flipper-

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 17, 2000.

Don't worry, Will. The pollies will get their due soon enough.

-- Phil (philN@trepmide.org), January 17, 2000.

So, when will we be "getting our due?" Been waiting two years now.

-- Uber Pollie (pollie@ihren.haus.de), November 30, 2001.