Well, Im back from a work-related trip out of state with my husband, which I desperately needed as a way to let down from the fatigue and stress buildup of the last few months. (Not Y2K stress, but the family illness stress.) My mother and I have also pretty much handled the nasty but necessary initial dealings with Social Security, banks, lawyers, insurance, etc., which follow the passing of a family member, as well as...well, Im sure youre all aware of that stuff, having been there yourselves.

Im not really sure if I should post these thoughts here or not. While everyone put forth a terrific effort to stay "on topic" over these last months, I think its safe to say we were all very aware that the Y2K issue was a lot broader than just its potential effects on electric power. The essays of mine posted on other sites were with that broad based view in mind, thus I didnt think they were appropriate here. But this was my Y2K "home" for many months, so here is where my post-rollover musings go. (Rick, Ill try to mention electric utilities somewhere, just for old times sake!)

Did I think there was a high level of risk and that there would be a variety of failures at rollover? You bet. Was I wrong? Absolutely. Did I end up being elated but confusedly more "in the dark" on January 1st even with the lights on? Yes.

New Years Eve, when my husband and I returned home from my fathers funeral and the family gathering afterward, several areas had already passed into the New Year, but we turned the television on to follow the remaining time zones. Factfinder should be smiling when I relate that my husband heard me earnestly saying, "Factfinder, be right. Be right!" as the rollovers occurred. The hubby started chuckling, later saying it was a cross between a prayer and rooting for a sports team. And while I once said here that I would be "frolicking" in joy over a no-problem rollover, it turned out that I was just too exhausted at the time to frolic and I settled for an inner gratefulness.

Watching the news the next day is when Rod Serlings voice and the old "Twilight Zone" theme song began a refrain at the back of my mind. No failures at ALL? No water problems, not even traffic light pattern disruptions? A-OK around the whole globe? That was beyond the opinions of even educated optimists, and certainly went beyond government predictions. I was willing, able, and hoping to admit there turned out to be much, much less initial disruption than I personally had thought there would be, but I wasnt willing, and flat out didnt, believe that somehow I had totally misread all the government and industry statements saying there would "inevitably" be _some_ amount of disruption.

While preparedness advocates and those of us who believed disruptions would be great would inevitably come under fire, the fact of the matter is that _everyone_ who postulated even a very minimal range of global rollover failures was wrong. Same with everyone who postulated there would be a difference between the "remediated" U.S. and "lesser prepared" nations. Wrong on various levels, from the White House, to the Halls of Congress, to the United Nations, to the Gartner Group, to industry pundits, to me.

So what happened?

While all I basically wanted to do for the last couple of weeks was sleep, I did spend some time thinking about what basic premise errors might account for a global no-problem rollover. The failure of "failures" to materialize, especially in other nations around the globe, has initiated a lot of confusion, and I dont mean just among those on the preparedness side of the fence. Even though the Y2K issue has been pronounced "over" by television announcers, the puzzlement and search for acceptable answers will continue to reverberate outside the media, particularly among groups of IT people.

In that search for answers, the first basic premise -- that the computer date flaw was a valid problem -- was the first premise I saw come under attack. If the everyone-everywhere-got-it-all-done-in-time explanation settled on by some of the media is the true case, then I AM living in an alternate universe. Money and time spent on remediation, regardless of Mr. Koskinens and others' affirmations, cannot account for the global uniformity of rollover ease, as it is at odds with the non-uniformity of global remediation efforts. Even our non-investigative media folks were quick to initially pick up on that disparity, and I didnt miss the irony of John Koskinen having to defend U.S. remediation expenses and affirm that the Y2K problem was real, dangerous, and had needed to be addressed prior to rollover. That basic premise we all were operating under is now being questioned and challenged in various circles. I did get to read one article that had a statement by a Small Business Association of Australia spokesman in which it was claimed, "From the Federal Government down, people have been conned."

I can understand the feeling, but I personally cannot accept a "Hoax" premise, since people I trust implicitly were eye witnesses to serious systems crashes when date-rollover tests were conducted prior to remediation. Also, the concept that there was never a problem to begin with is at odds with previous IT and business experiences, and prior documented date failures. Separating the hardware/embedded sides potentially more visible failures from the software/business applications does give room for some logical possibilities, however. On the hardware/embedded side, there was from the outset much controversy, and it would appear that the "never a problem to begin with" rationale is an operable one. Or at least a, "never a critical problem anywhere to begin with" statement might work as an explanation for the global uniformity of transition ease. However, that concept seems to also have engendered some anger and frustration, expressed as a "THEY (government and industry) should have known," sentiment.

Certainly, we had posters here who affirmed a no-problem scenario, at least as far as electric power being viable. One e-mailer to me postulated that the "good news" did not percolate up, or that legal concerns mandated a "waffling" posture which only aggravated an already broad-based distrust of government and Public Relations statements. Ive formulated a somewhat different view. It stems from other underlying premises, which, as far as I know, still remain unchallenged. Those premises are, "There are no standards" and "Individual systems may be uniquely disparate", which was engendered from the accepted concept that an individual programmer, or team of programmers, or vendor, could have produced, or introduced, at one time or another, something unique within their own venue. These premises contributed greatly to the endemic and oft-cited "Nobody Knows" statements. Yet undoubtedly, there were individuals or teams of remediators, who did have early awareness, and enough time, money and expertise to fully examine their systems. They took the time, used the money and expertise and KNEW. After all the detailed examination, those folks knew what worked and what didnt, and HOW the not-working would have played out  for THEM.

Where the basic premises of no-standards and uniqueness come into play, is that complete confidence was sorely lacking that specific knowledge would, or could be, translated to automatically apply to everyone else. Whether the embedded no-serious-problem messages did not go up the chain of command, or whether an individual group of engineers in a company knew their systems would not fail in any severe manner, becomes a moot point if they or their superiors were also convinced that separate businesses' systems might be individually disparate enough that that results could not necessarily be applied across the board. And I think its very clear that nearly everyone, from top to bottom, from the Senate to the consultants, were convinced of this. Does the following paraphrase sound familiar? "Yep, were sure this component/software works over rollover, unless you added programming of your own, or unless you hooked it up in a manner not consistent with our companys recommended protocols, or unless youre using it on or with a system which is outside this vendors responsibility to ascertain compliance, in which case there are no guarantees. Yada, yada, yada, and best to test everything yourself." Various types of "We dont have all the information wed like" statements were very common and we all know that concerns about "the other guy" were voiced loudly and frequently in every infrastructure area, across the board, from beginning to end.

Certainly there was information sharing, especially as time pressure mounted. The EPRI embeddeds database is one example, but only a small percentage of utilities hefted up the fee to access this confidential data. Unfortunately, in our "Information Age", the availability of quality information turns out to depend more on ability to pay and legal non-disclosure agreements than any public or government need-to-know. That aside, the premise of individually disparate, non-uniform systems, as well as disparate technical staffing, varying from business to business, would, and I believe did, promulgate some doubt about the practicality of information sharing in the first place. When companies were used to information-holding, not sharing, and when it was specified that their situation _might_ be unique, with the best case practice being to test everything themselves, you have a breeding ground for doubt. If you couple these facts with the too-short time frame many businesses found themselves in, where comprehensive testing probably was not possible for everything, its not surprising that serious concerns existed both within organizations and without, regardless of any individual remediators specific knowledge.

With hindsight its very easy to say, "I should have believed so-and-so (Factfinder, Cl, Dan, etc.). The fact remains, however, that at the same time these folks were posting their findings, I was receiving e-mail from others in the electric industry who expressed grave doubts about industry viability at rollover. And this mail included Y2K project managers at large utilities, as well as those working on Y2K projects as part of a team in smaller enterprises. Some expressed cautious optimism, but all expressed the opinion that a lights-on rollover was by no means guaranteed, and "over there"? Well, who knows about Russia or Italy or Hungary? Some had been making family preparations for over a year, after concluding that the risk level warranted it. Some had just finished their own project within a handful of days prior to rollover. These e-mailers signed their names, and while I will always keep their anonymity until they tell me otherwise, it is true that there was not a consensus among those in the industry that all would be well. Add this to NERCs were-only-as-strong-as-the-weakest-link statement, and I have to say that I would undoubtedly again come down on the side of advocating prudent preparedness if I had to do it all over again.

At the opposite ends of the spectrum of any issue, there are always either excesses or indifference. Certainly the Year 2000 date problem was no exception. However, despite news stories of Y2K preparations which have been deemed excessive and/or regretted, the people I know or have been in contact with who undertook risk-management preparations, did so in moderation and in a planned manner they felt would enhance their overall family safety in the long run. I think that is the case with the majority of Y2K preparers, but unfortunately there was never a word or acronym that fit the moderation of most of those concerned about disruption risk, so "Doomer" was a label sometimes inappropriately hung upon all. I can honestly say that no one in my circle of acquaintances, regardless of the extent of their preparations, is sorry, nor do they plan on returning their generators, selling their wood stoves, or getting rid of other supplies except for rotating stored food stuffs. This has actually surprised me somewhat, human nature being as variable as it is. Perhaps it has to do with the cold area I live in. The high temperature yesterday was 2 degrees. It was minus 17 degrees here last night. Maybe they just like the feeling of being prepared, I don't know.

I should probably stop here, as this is plenty long enough already, but I want to get the thoughts out and have done with it. This is the point where anyone should stop reading if they hold the opinion that if the electricity is flowing and the embedded systems are not a problem, then there can no longer be a Y2K crisis of any import. We all have access to various kinds of information and we all process it in our own ways. While I would love to be able to say, "Its over!" and avoid potential derision from those with a different perspective, it would be plain dishonest of me to do so.

I dont think it can be determined yet that Y2K problems are over and done with. Ill relate a true story which will help explain why I hold to that opinion. Some parts of this story will be a composite and paraphrased in my own words, because of the ever-present confidentiality concerns. While I was traveling with my husband this last week, we had dinners and lunches with various groups of IT folks, representing large international mfg. and other enterprises. Ive also heard from friends in IT sections of certain companies. These people had been as diverse in their opinions of what would happen re Y2K as any other group of people. There were the pessimists, the optimists, and those in between. Here is a time-line representation of situations I heard about:

Day 1 - Minor problems, nothing of any concern. Much relief. Puzzlement among even the optimists at the ease of global rollover. Nagging worry, but business-as-usual, no time to indulge in intellectual pondering.

Days 2 to 6 - More putting out of small "fires", mostly cosmetic problems, growing conviction that a fix-on-failure of any remediation errors (or lack of remediation due to not starting soon enough) would be able to be accomplished.

Day 7 A.M. - Ran an end-of-year report, just one of several needing to be done. Lets just say that it was the IT emotional equivalent of someone anticipating being served a nice steak with baked potato who got creamed liver on moldy toast cubes instead.

Day 7 P.M. - Financial systems crashed. Seized up. Quick trips outside to the smokers corner, or grab the Maalox out of the bottom desk drawer. Call the wife and tell her you wont be home until.well, until you get there. Work around the clock and into the weekend.

Day 9 - Systems up, the hunt for multiple data corruption sources continuing in earnest.

A couple of days later some of the optimists, whom my husband and I had initially expected would be giving us a well-deserved "I told you so", instead come out with the shocker of, "You may be right. Weve got major problems. Weve looked at stuff coming up and the data is a mess. We know theres problems that have slipped through the work weve been doing to date, too. We dont even want to think about the next couple months." They were upset and tense. They related that they no longer had confidence that they could handle the problems. I would rather have had the "I told you so."

Does this mean those problems wont be handled? No. Does it mean that all companies are having similar problems? No. For all I know these businesses are the only ones in the country or around the globe which are approaching a potential crisis situation, although I have my doubts about that.

What it does mean is that in these few situations, I do know the problems are NOT being divulged outside the company. For that matter, the problems arent even being run up the chain of command except for "were dealing with a few things". The only time these data problems will likely see the light of a corporate boardroom will be the day after the IT staff admits to itself that the situation has gotten out of their control. There will be no warning; the good fight will go on until the systems and data are wrestled into order, or until a corporate crisis is already in full flower.

I am not going to be able to breathe a sigh of relief about the end of the millennial date problem for awhile yet. If various state and government disbursements go out the beginning of the next couple of months without any broad based problems, Ill relax a lot. If the vast majority of workers get their W-2s by the end of January, as expected, and they can file their income taxes, Ill rest easier. If they get any returns due them in the normal amount of time, even better. If gas prices dont skyrocket, happiness will win the day. If my mother, who has not heard one thing from Medicare for the last two months re my fathers earliest hospital bills, let alone the more recent ones, gets those statements accurately and in the near future, Ill be glad. If the outrageous electric bill she got is adjusted on the next statement, that will be wonderful, because I wont have to calm her out of a teary panic again. If there are no delays in life insurance payments, well be very grateful. If my sister (single parent), who was supposed to begin a much-needed job with a local school district, but cannot because their "computer systems are messed up right now" actually gets to begin work soon, the whole family will be happy. If none of my friends or acquaintances have to come home from their jobs on a "temporary" lay-off because the computer systems are "down", Ill be ecstatic. Ill also be pleased not to have to wait at another railroad crossing for a long time, because the bars are down across the road and the lights are flashing. This happened to us on our way home from the trip. We finally backtracked, trying to find another way around, and instead came to a crossing where traffic was piled up but policemen were directing cars around the barriers. "Theres no train coming. Just a computer problem with the switches." Inconvenience only, that, unless the train schedulers are also having trouble knowing whats what.

I have never really understood the idea that the only consequences of Y2K problems which would be bad, had to be on a "Doom" level. The consequences are already "bad" for my sister, and will be bad for anyone caught in a computer-caused tangle now or in future that affects their income and which takes them by surprise and unprepared. An inconvenience to one person can be a disaster to someone else, as has been reiterated on this forum many times in the past, and remains true. What I want is for all the post-rollover computer "glitches" to go away  soon, and for no other more serious ones to pop up. I hope thats what happens, but there are too many "ifs" at the moment for my peace of mind. As long as I know that there have been unpleasant insider surprises and frenetic fix-on-failure work is ongoing in some places, I cannot help but wonder if the same thing is happening in other places.

Time will tell. Maybe some of our questions about Y2K will never be satisfactorily answered. Maybe weve developed and distributed a technology that can no longer be broadly understood or definitively predicted by anyone. Or maybe its not as complex or unique-to-company as we thought it was. There are a lot of maybes. I am deeply grateful my prediction of a broad range and type of failure was wrong. Im hoping my prediction of many failures will be equally wrong, or at least if true in the software world, that Ill never know it because FOF worked. Well all incorporate the issue into our lifetime learning experiences and continue to deal with whatever tomorrow hands us in the best way we can. There are concepts I remain sure of, though, some of which are best summed up by a line I wrote in whats been termed the "Balderdash" essay:

Y2K or no Y2K, it is not "fear mongering" to warn that good times and prosperity do not go on forever. It is not advocating "hoarding" to advise having more than one weeks supplies on hand, it is not foolhardy to recommend reducing or eliminating debt, it is not "scare tactics" to point out that modern economies are not depression-proof, it is not blasphemous to acknowledge the stock market is still as susceptible to a downward plunge as it has always been, and it is neither silly nor crazy to take seriously any global problem which has the potential to cause harm for a great many.

Now Im going to go get some more sleep. Being away from my own bed gets more unpleasant every year. (Yeah, a sign of old age, I know.) Live and learn, I like that saying. At least learning is not dependent on youth, and I hope to be able to continue doing it until I draw my last breath. Peace and illumination to all of us -- and good night.

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000

Answers

Thanks for your comments Bonnie, I found them very warm and interesting reading as usual.

Your information regarding utility participation may be "technically" correct if you count all the thousands of municipal and county utility departements, but for a more acturate picture of the participation, please note that almost all major utilities are members of EPRI and these companies represented most of the US generation.

"The fact remains, however, that at the same time these folks were posting their findings, I was receiving e-mail from others in the electric industry who expressed grave doubts about industry viability at rollover. And this mail included Y2K project managers at large utilities, as well as those working on Y2K projects as part of a team in smaller enterprises."

Bonnie, maybe I'm reading the paragraph above wrong, for I do not believe that you would claim that a Y2K Project manager a large utility had "grave doubts about industry viability". No one inside the industry never made such a claim to us inside the industry, why would they go outside? There was no technical basis for such fears as the rollever has demonstrated, it was hard to find examples of ANY really serious Y2K bugs in plant systems, and I can't see how a Y2K Project manager at a large utility would make such "fearful" comments, every single y2k project insider told me that they were finding NO significant problems that would have impacted power generation. The EPRI database info mirrored that with very few exceptions. Please clarify!

Regarding your husbands comments, tell him thanks for the thoughts, we were always all in this together, and I apologize for not being more polite in some of my posts to his sweet (but sometimes fiesty, lol) wife! Rest assured that I was glad to see no problems at the rollover, as I am sure CL, Dan the Power Man, Malcom, and all those working inside the industry were.

Are you interested if I had any doubts as the rollever approached? Lets just say my mind was focused on more important things, like my wife...:) Did you tell your husband that the lights did indeed go out in New Zealand on Malcom??? LOL.

Best wishes and have a great new year!

-- Anonymous, January 19, 2000

Excellent - Bonnie - Bravo

Factfinder,

You said:

"every single y2k project insider told me that they were finding NO significant problems that would have impacted power generation"

Did you ever post a similar succinct comment like this before?

Generally, guesstimating, how many people and what percent of the power grid in the country does this represent?

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

I track the commodities market some, and the price of crude oil went up for all of 1999, except for the last month or so, when the grids around the world stayed up, the price of oil turned sharply down for the first week or so after y2k - as expected with that news. However, on 10 Jan the price of March crude oil turned sharply up, very unexpectedly in my opinion, if there was no y2k and no problems, it went up from $24 and is now approaching $30 per barrel, in less than 10 days. WOW. I have not researched it yet, but I wonder if there is something people are not telling us? Did y2k hit the refineries and we don't know about it because they are hiding it? I don't know, but it certainly is strange.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Factfinder, if your most recent post hadnt exemplified a basic crux about viewpoints over the Y2K issue the last year and a half, I wouldnt be writing this. I know this is going be hard for you, maybe youd better sit down or hold onto something, but Im here to tell you that not every engineer in the electric utility industry thinks in the same way you do, nor did they all consider the EPRI database as an oracle from the electric god.

Believe it or not, some poor benighted souls within utilities actually thought much of the industry got too late a start for their comfort. They actually thought more long-term, broad-based comprehensive testing was needed  more than they believed was happening. They honestly had concerns about loads; they really thought there had not been enough predictive modeling done for disruptive scenarios; they didnt think all those piddly "little" power producers scattered all over the country could just be discounted in the grand scheme of things; they had doubts about the reliability of local telecommunications; they were less than sanguine about the idea of successful "manual" operation by their peers; they had concerns that some angry arab or malcontented militia member might decide to lob a few hand grenades at a control center; they werent comfortable that systems were being installed so close to rollover; they believed not every utility in the country had been, or was, taking the issue as seriously as they deemed it should be, and they did not think the information they had was enough to get over their personal threshold level for a no- problem conclusion.

As shocking as it might be to you, even if they could access the EPRI database anytime they wanted, these folks concluded that there was still an above-normal risk level and decided they did not want to gamble their familys well-being, even if some of them deemed that risk level was only slightly elevated. So they arranged for an alternate heat source, some food stocks, and some cash in hand, to varying degrees, according to their individual assessments. I know, I know, letting those emotional concerns for family override a good engineering nuts and bolts mentality puts a real black mark on their credentials and sensibility. Maybe it will help if you just think of them as the backward cousins of the engineering fraternity, or skeletons in the engineering family closet. Maybe in their youth they had their future engineering mindset damaged because a misguided grandfather or aunt or uncle had once taught them some outdated notions like, "Better to be safe than sorry." Maybe there was some innate character flaw that enabled them to internalize those old aphorisms.

While you can choose to believe otherwise, or shake your head over whatever defect made these people think in their odd ways, they do exist in the industry, like it or not. Whether right or wrong in their outlooks, engineers are people, born like all the rest of us outside the industry. They are not machine-molded and programmed and they all dont assess things in the same way, including industry viability. Maybe you didnt meet them, or maybe they didnt express their concerns to you personally, but by golly, theyre there.

Now, to get to some facts where you may feel more comfortable, the total paid access-membership of the EPRI Year 2000 Embedded Systems Project database, as of September 13, 1999, was 114. (This included "Agreements finalized and or In Process".) I might have missed one or two in the list comparisons I did, but only 80 of those EPRI Embedded Project members were utilities which reported to NERC, according to NERCs Dec. 23, 1999 posted readiness list. And I included in that 80 the six Canadian utilities. Other Embedded Project membership comprised foreign utilities such as Hong Kong Electric Holdings, Israel Electric, and Fortum of Finland, or companies such as Chevron, Shell Oil, Lucent Technologies, and Newmont Gold Company. Neat trick, that, a gold company ponying up the fee and signing the confidentiality agreement to get access to inside info. Pretty smart, if Id had an extra..what was it? 75 or 80 thousand lying around, I would have done the same. But I digress.

The 80 NERC-reporting utilities doesnt even reach the 50% level for the "about 200 bulk power producers and control centers" that reported directly to NERC, and its less than a third of the 302 organizations NERC listed as reporting directly to them in that Dec. readiness list. So Im not sure where you got the idea that "almost all" major American utilities paid to access this database. Its true that almost all major utilities are general members of the EPRI organization, but the Year 2000 Database required separate agreements and fee. At least this is so, according to the information EPRI had at their web site last year. I also know there was mention in some NERC or regional meeting minutes of trying to get a bulk deal or lowered fees for access to the EPRI database, but that did not pan out. If I thought it mattered at this point, Id hunt out the links, but Ive already archived stuff and Ive been packing up the piles of hard copy info into boxes. Im about to find out what the rug around my desk actually looks like after all these months. But right now Im gonna put the boots on to crunch through the snow and go meet my mother for lunch. There is life away from this computer and Im going to make the most of it! You keep on keeping the lights on, for which Im grateful, and dont forget to have some fun and relaxation along the way this new year.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Bonnie, You stated in your first post: "I was receiving e-mail from others in the electric industry who expressed grave doubts about industry viability at rollover. And this mail included Y2K project managers at large utilities, as well as those working on Y2K projects as part of a team in smaller enterprises."

I stated in my reply: I do not believe that you would claim that a Y2K Project manager a large utility had "grave doubts about industry viability".

I take it by your indirect reply that no Y2K project managers of large utilities actually emailed you and "expressed grave doubts about industry viability at rollover", which was what I asked. Am I correct in this?

Regards,

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Bonnie, thank you very much for posting your thoughts--that is exactly what I had in mind when I made the request on a previous thread.

Again, I am sorry to hear about the death of your father. I lost an in-law and an uncle recently...it is quite sad when these things happen.

FWIW, a big chunk of the EPRI data was made public through Koskinen back in November...this includes test processes, plans, dates to test, and numerous test results. It is a whopping 600 pages, and I'd appreciate it if someone could post the link. It gives a comprehensive look at testing embedded systems in the power industry, and those of you with the intestinal fortitude or curiosity might want to peruse it.

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Factfinder - No, you are not correct. And while I never quote exactly from any mail I receive, without permission, grave doubts is an accurate paraphrase encompassing the thoughts of the majority of those who wrote me, for reasons I have already listed in the second post. Or would you prefer very-serious-doubts? How about much-less- than-positive-all-would-be-well? As I mentioned, there were some who were cautiously optimistic, but none were sure the rollover would be uneventful.

Just can't get your mind around it, can you? That there were a few industry people who didn't see things the same way you did? Doesn't matter now, you and a lot of other industry folks were right and all those who were concerned breathed a big sigh of relief and were glad. Doubts put to rest and the lights are on. All's well that ends well, Data would be shouting, "Yeeesss!", Roy Rogers would give forth with a "Yippee Ki Ay!" and I imagine even the Pope likely said a "Thank God".

-- Anonymous, January 20, 2000

Hi Bonnie,

I've read much of what you've written these many months. Before I send you a private email, I can assure you of one thing.

I'm Catholic and I'm quite certain the Pope was giving thanks!

Also, I was not aware that your father had passed, and I am most sorry to hear about it.

I'll get off to that email now...

:)

-- Anonymous, January 21, 2000

Bonnie, thanks for the great thread above. I have to agree with you on the thoughts of utility insiders. Because of the late starts and huge sizes of the remediation jobs by Detroit Edison and the TVA, utility engineers here (Michigan) were very concerned about their ability to provide power to their customers after the rollover, and I think that they were probably as surprised as some of the rest of us that every thing worked so well. As for my family, we've had the smoothest three weeks of home schooling that we've had for months, mostly due to the fact that we haven't had to leave the house on errands. We've shopped at Mom's Basement General Store since Jan. 1, and it's been great.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2000

Bonnie, I may have been "right" technically, but socially "I was wrong", and still have a hard time getting it right. Yes, I need to accept that you heard different opinions from gasp, inside the industry...there. I feel better.

Sorry to hear about your father passing away, I know the bond of a father and a daughter...

God Bless, David ("FactFinder")

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2000

David (FactFinder)

Well, it's nice to see a real name attached to a post now. For some reason I prefer that. It puts a "human" element into it, rather than feeling like the post comes from some wizard behind a curtain. And I'm glad to relented to Bonnie about some insiders expressing real concerns. Of course there were some. Perhaps they were being more cautious or concerned than most of their peers but they did exist.

-- Anonymous, January 22, 2000

Wow--David. Nice name. Of course, I could be somewhat prejudiced, since we have three of them at our house. (That's what happens when you adopt older kids with established names!) Seems like a kinder, gentler name than "FactFinder". Glad to meet you at last!

-- Anonymous, January 25, 2000