BB:

My argument was NOT with Milne the person, it was always with the simpleminded approach to a complex issue that he exemplified, and which you defend with admirable vigor. I find that your defense raises excellent questions, worthwhile to pursue should you choose.

[Well Flint my friend, we either prepared or we didn't ....now didn't we?]

OK, let me ask. If I'd done nothing but *claimed* I prepared, is that enough? If I'd bought one extra 6-pack of beer, is that enough? Yes, these sound like simple questions, but they aren't. Your binary position that "we either prepared or we didn't" clearly begs the question of just what constitutes "preparation" and what does not.

And I can see that by your own statement, you had some problem with this issue. You state "I deliberately chose not to say how much preparation I thought was required but only whether or not a person prepared." But clearly it was a pressing issue, debated a great length on this forum, as to how much (and what kind of) preparation was sufficient. People consistently mocked Koskinen's "3-day storm" recommendation, claiming that was absurd. deJager wrote that 3 days worth of preparation didn't count as preparation AT ALL.

Are you now saying that even 1 6-pack worth of preparation was "preparation", and therefore such a person falls into the "prepared" category? You have reduced preparation to "yes or no", and made the claim that this formulation works for you. But it ONLY works because you "deliberately chose" NOT to define what preparation is. And WITHOUT any even vague definition, your "yes or no" position is meaningless. To be meaningful, you MUST tell us what "yes" means.

[Seems black or white to me.]

But you can see that you have *forced* it to be black and white by "deliberately not saying" what you mean.

[your argument is with Milne not me.]

Not true. Albeert Einstein wrote that everything should be made as simple as possible, *but no simpler!* And you have oversimplified to the point of meaninglessness, while I have been equally guilty of piling on unnecessary complexity. There should be some middle ground here somewhere.

[Flint, Did anyone tell you you would make a good insurance salesman? But is all this wordiness necessary? I swear man, you just love to hear yourself talk don't you? I'm glad because not many others do. Your philosophical extrapolations go beyond the pale. They're not necessary. They just confuse everyone.]

It does seem to me that to make a complex point, you need a context, which can take time to create. When most people think they are keeping things simple, what they're really doing is omitting the frame of reference that enables the reader to understand where they're coming from. This was one of my constant problems with TB2K. People like Jack or Big Dog could reduce y2k to slogans, and those slogans made sense ONLY within the context of months worth of discussion emcompassing many thousands of negative posts. But most readers had plowed through enough to derive the necessary context, so it worked as a form of effective communication.

Conversely, people like Mutha and Y2K Pro made posts they didn't realize relied on the depth of tacit understanding that had been built over time on their native debunking fora. *Without* that context, these posters' efforts were quick and simple, but empty to the point where they appeared to most denizens here to be no more than nuisance troll attacks.

I strongly suspect that your "preparation, yes or no" simplicity, whether you realize it or not, relies VERY heavily on the long-standing, incredibly detailed debate about the *meaning* of preparation that took place here. Anyone who lived through a good part of that debate knows *exactly* what you mean, so you need to say no more. Your few words, at "face value", are a *reference* to that debate, and also a reference to the meaning you hold in your own mind. As I've been trying to say, the words themselves don't give much clue what you mean.

For my part, I've found by trial and error that when I keep things short, my point is invariably missed. Too much of the context wasn't there. Being long winded is a penalty that must be paid by anyone trying to present a viewpoint quite different from Established Doctrine. Every point made by anyone is a thread in a tapestry. If the tapestry already exists, the point is easy to make. A different viewpoint requires a whole new tapestry, lest the points become meaningless single threads.

[The fact that billions were being spent tell you anything Flint?]

Of course. The y2k issue was never a hoax -- it was very real. Preparation was unquestionably prudent in my opinion, and I prepared extensively just in case. But that doesn't mean it's sensible to reduce the entire issue to "threat, yes or no". The key issues were, how MUCH of a threat, and what KIND of threat. To prepare appropriately, you must try to answer these questions. And they can NOT be answered with Yes or No.

You yourself admit that you didn't move to the boonies, so clearly the question of how much preparation was enough crossed your mind. And if you sincerely felt that no or inadequate preparation might mean life or death, then the question of the *degree* of preparation was far from trivial. NOT a yes-or-no issue at all!

[We all know they started late and we all know they were lying about their fixes and weren't doing testing.]

Absolutely false. This was never more than TB2K Received Doctrine. Sure, we may have been more ignorant before the rollover, but with hindsight we can see that they did NOT start late, and they were NOT lying, and they WERE testing. And even before rollover, it was becoming increasingly clear that most started on time and were testing quite extensively. So what "we all know" was fundamentally incorrect. A few extremists kept *insisting* that they were late and lying and not testing, but I sincerely hope that these extremists didn't exclusively define what "we all know"! Why not use the hindsight time has given us to recognize this? Are you seriously determined to stick to what we now know were obvious falsehoods? Why?

[The gov. watchdogs, Horn and Bennett, were saying the government was not ready. They built a fifty million dollar bunker Flint my boy. That told me I should some kind of preparations. Your scurrilous slander against Ed and Cory sicken me.]

And using our hindsight, we can see that the bunker was an overreaction. WHY the government overreacted is another issue, but I can't rule out the notion that Ed and Cory may have made some small contribution to the overreaction. Nor do I think it's slander to point out that both Ed and Cory DID, without question, make money off of y2k warnings. This is a matter of public record. And as it turns out, their warnings weren't required. I'm willing to accept for the sake of discussion that Ed and Cory were genuinely and sincerely fooled and felt they were doing the right thing. But they DID make money doing so. I have no idea why it's "scurrilous slander" to observe *either* the public record, or the empirical quality of the information that was without question being SOLD to the public. Both are matters of established fact, regardless of how sickened you become when these facts are cited.

[Yes, you WERE either right or wrong about preparation.]

Until you define "preparation", this remains meaningless.

[It's easy when the hurricane turns into the North Atlantic to say, "Oh, those people were foolish for preparing." That's you Flint. Telling people they shouldn't have prepared for a hurricane after the people in the know were telling people EXACTLY to prepare for a hurricane.]

This is a misunderstanding, based on a false analogy. In reality, only a small minority of y2k-meteorologists could see the hurricane at all, even though those were the ONLY meteorologists some people chose to believe. However, there were a great many people saying that rain was possible. You could count on one hand those notables predicting a hurricane -- Gary North, Infomagic, Yourdon's worst case scenario, Milne. Generally, the remainder of the notable pessimists "viewed with concern" our lack of complete information, which they felt prohibited us from ruling out Big Problems of some speculative probability.

Your mention of "people in the know" is confusing, in light of your subsequent assertion that "nobody knew" what to expect. Somehow, these people who didn't know suddenly become "in the know" when they said what you preferred to hear. Curious how that works, eh? But fear not, I'll go into more detail later about the limits of knowledge.

And I'm getting damn tired of repeating that I *always* encouraged preparation, and NEVER said it was foolish. I continue to say that I believe those who prepared did the right thing. Your claim that I "told people they shouldn't have prepared" is a flat lie, sorry. I *strongly* encourage you to reflect on a case you must use lies to support.

[Some things are black or white in life Flint.]

Maybe so, but this was NOT one of them. If it were black and white, the entire debate, and the various discussions, news reports, everything would have been unnecessary. Your claim that it was black and white simply reflects a refusal on your part to see the reality. Seeing black and white is almost invariably a religious rather than analytical position.

[You either encouraged preparations or you didn't.]

So weak encouragement is exactly the same as strong encouragement, right? After all, both are encouragement and therefore they're the same thing, right? You have a couple of choices here -- you can claim different things are the same to FORCE them to fit your black and white thinking. Or you can see that weak and strong are different, in which case you're asking how MUCH encouragement is enough. A matter of degrees. "How much is enough?" is a watershed question, the point where you graduate from "right or wrong" elementary school into the real world of tradeoffs, risks, and probabilities.

[I always left it to others to decide how they wanted to prepare.]

But by doing so, you are only running away from the real issue. I ask again, if I bought one extra 6-pack of beer and called it "preparation", then is that good enough for you? If I had spent a year screaming that EVERYONE SHOULD BUY ONE EXTRA SIX-PACK AND NO MORE, then would I qualify as "encouraging" preparation? Can you see how your "yes or no" thinking is pretty damn useless in the real world?

[But take my words at face value if you want to be fair.]

I can only say that I have tried hard NOT to misrepresent what I interpreted that you meant. "Words at face value" is just a way of saying that the meaning you intended is what I should be addressing. That's what I'm trying to do, but I can't read your mind.

[Again, if you prepared you were right, if you didn't you were wrong. Sounds logical to me.]

Words repeated are not doubled in meaning. Your "logic" only works so long as you fail to define your terms. If I bought that extra six-pack, was I "right"? If I drank it on December 31 rather than on January 1, then did I become "wrong"?

More seriously, right and wrong are inappropriate for this purpose. The critical question all along was how to prepare wisely. And wise preparation not only requires some description, it requires some explanation of WHY one form or extent of preparation might be wiser than another. In turn, *this* requires a fairly detailed description of what you are preparing FOR. "Right" preparations depended entirely on your ability to predict the future accurately, which in turn depended on the quality of both your information and your analysis of that information.

[Has nothing to do with the complexity or variables.]

The entire context of y2k lay in the complexity and variables. Just waving your hand and assuming them away doesn't change a thing. Y2k was often called a "trillion variable problem", and that's what made it so very hard. Saying "preparation" (whatever you mean by that) "had nothing to do with the complexity or variables" is like saying that raising children is done "right or wrong" and has nothing to do with complexities like how they spend their time or what they're exposed to or how you treat them.

[I don't need to understand the physics of a hurricane to board up my windows and put some water aside.]

True enough. But some knowledge of weather, some ability to make your own evaluation, comes in real handy when one weatherman out of fifty claims there's a hurricane about to hit, and the other 49 claim there's no hurricane out there at all! (And that 1 weatherman sells window boards on the side). And you may have simplified the effort by deciding that ONLY the hurricane-seer was telling the truth, but clearly there were more intelligent decisions you could have made. You boarded up your windows to prepare for what turned out to be a sunny day. So it wasn't a question of knowing physics, it was a question of evaluating information. And to evaluate accurately, you DO need to dig in and analyze at great length. And if you find the effort confusing and criticize those why try to help, you run greater risk of error.

[Ok, some were closer to the truth about the consequences than others, but I think that was more by luck than by careful deduction.]

But can't you see that if you reduce the entire issue to yes-or-no, then you MUST consider those who got it more nearly correct to be purely lucky? Trust me, if you sit down and *make* that confusing effort to understand in detail, you tend to get MUCH closer to the truth MUCH more often. Try it. It ain't easy, but it ain't luck either. Was it Edison who said luck is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?

[The truth about y2k will always be that no one really knew how it was going to turn out.]

Ah, this is a key issue. There are extremely important subtleties lurking behind your "true or false" orientation here. It's true that nobody could know the *details* of how things would turn out, but that doesn't mean everyone was totally ignorant of the larger picture. Your "truth" is like saying nobody knows who will win the baseball game, and therefore nobody knows if the game of baseball even exists! After all, according to your formulation, we are forced to be either totally knowledgeable or totally ignorant, nothing in between.

As rollover approached, the number of indications, and the strength of those indications, that impacts would be manageable were overwhelming. Yes, you're quite right that "no one really knew" *precisely* what those impacts would be. But that does NOT mean that nobody could even hazard a guess as to overall severity. A very large amount of testing had been done (which you called a lie, but which in fact was very real). A lot of clocks had been turned ahead and symptoms noted. And a whole lot of this informative data were available for those who were interested, those not so determined that catastrophe was certain that they refused to listen (and called everyone a liar who tried to point these data out).

So the point is that our knowledge was limited, but nowhere near zero as you imply. The truth is that we REALLY DID know how things would turn out in terms of the overall magnitude of the threat, and in terms of our ability to deal with subsequent problems. We knew that the Iron Triangle would NOT fail in any meaninful way. All we were missing were the details. And even so, when the details came in we were suprised at how few there were. In other words, we knew the *upper* limit of what to expect, and that was easily manageable. We didn't know the lower limit, which was close to what we actually experienced.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth here. You seem to me to be saying that nobody knew everything, and therefore nobody knew *anything*. And that's way false. We knew *enough*, and that's the critical truth.

[I'm not a computer programmer or someone who was hired to find out the facts. I did hear Bennett say over and over, "What we know, is what we don't know." Nobody was saying much Flint. There wasn't enough facts or information to make a careful analysis.]

Depends on HOW careful you mean. Facts and information were seriously incomplete, I agree. But you should consider here -- you quote Bennett, who was one of the hawks. You quote NO doves. And even at that, Bennett didn't say things would be bad, he said he didn't know for sure. By and large, the TB2K position was that everything we didn't know would turn out bad -- and combined this with a careful rejection of the credibility of all good news. Outside the forum, many people were saying a whole lot that was attacked here. And those people had real information.

[The secrecy and lying were enough to encourage preparations.]

Who lied? I mean that seriously. Yes, the lawyers caused a lot of secrecy, yes people at both extremes released selective information, spin in all directions was rampant, but to my knowledge nobody deliberately issued ANY known false information. (as a footnote, you may have noticed that the FAA was the Poster Child for lying until it turned out that the air traffic control system worked fine just like they said. After that, I hope you noticed that NOBODY mentioned a WORD about the FAA ever again. Many, like you, still claim "they" were lying, but when the ONLY specific example they could come up with turned out to be telling the truth after all, they just stopped providing examples anymore).

OK, you chose to believe that those who gave out good news were lying, but that was YOUR choice, and it turned out to be the wrong choice. If your position here is that the wisdom of preparation hinged primarily on the a priori *assumption* that anyone who said otherwise was lying, then this is your problem, and is NOT generally applicable to everyone.

[Your logic above is fallacious.]

(rant mode on)

Your "analysis" is nonexistent. You continue to insist that the rainbow is either black or white. And since we couldn't *prove* it was all white, we had to act on the possibility that it was all black. You have taken an amazingly complicated issue and continued to reduce it to yes-or-no, black-or-white, true-or-false. This isn't logic, nor is it useful for understanding. It is the stuff of rigid opinions.

And *that's* the problem, not Milne. He was simply another example of the same kind of thinking. He didn't get y2k "100% dead wrong" by "bad luck" in any way. He got it so wrong because this kind of thinking prevented him from adapting, from modifying his position as the situation clarified, from considering alternative interpretations, from believing anyone who said anything that didn't fit his conviction. Indeed, it's very hard to be that wrong otherwise. You almost can't *help* learning unless you've actively taken steps to make it impossible.

The TB2K forum was primarily an advocacy forum, NOT an investigative body, for all the bad news that was so carefully collected. The approach was like a prosecution or defense attorney's. The attorney doesn't really care WHO committed the crime, that's not his job. His job is to convict the accused or to get him off. Whatever it takes. It means collecting ONLY the information that supports his case, and interpreting it favorably for his interest. It means finding some reason, *any* reason, why the opposition's information should not be credited. It means depicting the opposition as evil.

And in a courtroom venue, this is proper and appropriate. In that venue, the goal is to WIN the case. The whole y2k issue should have been a technical evaluation, not a legal case. The reason good news was rejected as lies, and optimistic posters attacked, wasn't because they were wrong, but because they *undermined the case* being built for catastrophe. The last thing the prosecutor wants to know is that the accused is innocent, because he might *lose the case*.

And to build your case for preparation, you have used legalistic tactics. You have waved away any complexity where it works against you. You have imposed dichotomies onto spectra (turned ranges of value into yes-or-no questions. Like changing "how tall are you" into "Are you tall, yes or no", without defining what "tall" means) where it has worked for you. You have incorrectly equated knowledge of details with knowledge of trends when it comes in handy for you. You have used personal attacks in response to arguments you cannot answer directly. You have deflected the issue with false analogies. And these are all fine tactics for defending a fixed position. Sadly, they militate against any realistic understanding of the actual situation.

(rant mode off)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000

Answers

Sounds like time to take this to private e-mail or a chatroom.

-- Bored (with@YOUR.ideas), February 23, 2000.

Flint

Maybe you should go into more detail next time. Time to go watch the paint dry.

[moved here by sysop from deleted duplicate thread.]

-- justwondering (justwondering@Ithoughtyouweregone.com), February 23, 2000.

Wow, you guys are quick. Strictly dismiss-before-reading, eh? There's a lot of meat in there for those who don't like their ideas presented in slogans and sound bites. Which I warned about in the title.

For those who prefer slogans, hey, you have LOTS of other threads full of them. Thought is strictly optional there.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000.

Flint, I thought we shitcanned you and your boring diatribes last month. What happened? Did somebody leave the gate open?

-- ZZZzzzzzzzz..... (flint@hotair.com), February 23, 2000.

"There's a lot of meat in there...", sorry I'm a vegetarian. Please give it up Flint. You don't hold a monopoly on truth...well maybe boredom. If I want to be intellectually stimulated while falling asleep I will go back to read Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, rather than Flint's Critique of Pure Dread.

-- justwondering (justwondering@giveitabreak.com), February 23, 2000.

Might be better to take it to email. Nobody gives a crap. It's not like we don't all know that it was not much of an event.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 23, 2000.

My eyes hurt again.

-- Ivan (workin@ntherailroadallthelivelong.day), February 23, 2000.

It's not that we're so quick, Flint, it's that there are SO many ants in an ant pile. All you have to do is nudge it with your foot and a bunch come running out to see if they can persuade you to kick another anthill.

-- Ant, waving pincers at (Flint@anthill.kicker), February 23, 2000.

Flinch, gas your piss-ant poison at some other colony. Go hang with some grasshoppers.

-- a bug's life (is@more.interesting), February 23, 2000.

Flint, what's the matter? Did all your sheep run away?

-- He's (like@bad.penny), February 23, 2000.

Seems to be a lot of offense taken to this post. Why? It's well thought out, and makes a number of good points. It's a little long, but nobody is making you read it.

-- E. H. Porter (E.H. Porter@just wondering.about it), February 23, 2000.

Wow, a bunch of people who can't focus on anything that takes more than three sentences or neurons. And all of them anonymous (though I would be too if I couldn't focus or think).

I repeat: I wrote in the title that if you don't like ideas, you'd find it long and boring. Sure enough. Hey, this thinkin' stuff ain't fer every wun, y'know.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000.

This is why, EH. Flint thinks it's fun kicking anthills and he likes to feel superior.

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/2048/3/1.html

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum Re: The irony of "DGI" (Ken Decker) Re: Still a tempest in a teapot (Ken Decker) Date: Feb 19, 22:48 From: Flint

What reasonable participants? None of these fora exist to discover the truth, they exist to create and promulgate one. Admit it, your underlying motivation was the same as mine -- to kick the anthill and watch the reactions. And you also recognized that reasonable analysis was the most effective boot to kick with. The CPR screaming attacks, for all they preached a different doctrine, were not qualitatively different from the TB2K approach in general.

But hell, you and I chimed in at least partially to feel superior in our own idiosyncratic way. It was fun. Surely we harbored no delusions of making converts.

-- Leave (the ants@peace.flint), February 23, 2000.

Back when this forum had a purpose, there were quite a few non-ants -- people who were intelligent, thoughtful, and worth discussing things with. The 'ants' were those who were capable of doing nothing more than taking thoughtless, nonresponsive potshots.

But there are a lot of new faces now, many of whom didn't live through the Great Debate. I thought it might be worthwhile raising some of the issues, in summary form. Who knows, maybe some of the new blood is also thoughtful and worthwhile? So far, though, only the ants have replied. Perhaps the forum's loss of purpose has also meant the loss of anyone capable of considering anything purposefully? So it would seem.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000.

Flintster:

I certainly am glad that you have the time to develop these ideas. I seldom have time to do more than make a few short comments. Still, having been here so long, the development of the community never ceases to interest me. We differ in one major area [or at least you sometimes leave this impression], I can still like and respect people who I totally disagree with. In addition, I feel no obsession to convince people that I am correct.

I am not going to attempt to give a detailed analysis of your statement [besides, I would agree with most of it].

Just one point. Where did I stand last year? Not as well preserved as your stance [just didnt have the time]. I could find out about my local concerns. You know; the iron triangle: Power, telephone and beer. At the state level, I had verifiable information that failures were exceedingly unlikely. Did I know what would happen? No way. It was impossible to find verifiable information about systems across the country and across the world. I just made the logical judgment that if there would be no failures in the systems that I could confirm then gross failures were unlikely.

Preparation: If you remember, on a question thread dealing with that subject, I stated that I probably spent $100 more than usual. We raise our own food [have for 25 y]. We usually have enough food to last until July [without shopping]. We already have most of the auxiliary equipment that people were spending big bucks to buy. We need it for our land management program.

I did find all of the negative reporting on this BB to be useful. It led me to test many things that I would have otherwise ignored. I learned a lot from those tests. The tests never confirmed the concerns reported; but useful and interesting, none-the-less. From recent posts, I know more about the design and function of the MD-80 series than I need to know.

A final point on preparation. A six pack of beer = preparation. Dont think so.

Sorry; debate between two folks who agree on too much is not possible [remember the sa

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 23, 2000.

Flintster:

By the say the sa meant salmon. One final example. I listened to what folks said about patches. I read the verbage coming from MS. I upgraded the Win 98 machines to SE and did nothing to the Macs and Unix based on simple analysis [applications]. I could have been wrong but I lucked-out. Folks that downloaded and installed all of those MS patches got a world of trouble on their doorstep.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 23, 2000.

Z:

Well, you raise an issue too close to me to answer without a whole lot of thought. I'm not sure if I insist on being right (hell, I wasn't all that close), but I really do enjoy detailed discussions that have some genuine thought behind them.

As I said on the other forum, I do try to provoke people to *think* about things, to analyze and explain, defend and modify and ponder. I consider this a good exercise, and it's been shown to ward off senility [grin]. It also helps (as I wrote above) to get things much more correct much more often.

I'm constantly amazed at (from my perspective, anyway) the stunning reluctance of most people here to delve deeply into anything. They pick some arbitrary opinion out of thin air, and "defend" it with attacks and dismissals while they "support" it with chants and slogans.

I put a whole day into the post that started this thread, and some of these yahoos simply dismiss it with insults, for SURE not having read what they dismiss, and seem blissfully unaware of the mental poverty they have condemned themselves to. Ants indeed. I don't expect any more from the forum dregs, but it's disheartening to find nobody BUT dregs. Are we witnessing the outcome of the TV generation, trained from birth to a 10-second attention span, who have never had occasion to learn that conclusions should follow beginnings and middles, and don't just appear out of nowhere just because conclusions are all the talking heads have ever given them?

Or is it just the recruitment function of an internet forum that attracts the mindless? Something has gone very wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 23, 2000.

Well, well, well, what do we have here? Flint, didn't you give us your big "goodbye forum" speech about 6 weeks ago? Still lurking, eh? Guess you just wanted the attention.

Maybe you weren't aware of the forum policy when you left. Once you say you are leaving, you are no longer permitted to post here. Adios!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), February 23, 2000.

Flint,

So good to read your posts. Glad to see your continued input to this forum. It certainly seems that 20/20 hindsight would indicate best Y2K preps to be moderate preparartion as in paying off debts, exiting stocks, and getting liquid.

I did this plus a few months of food, water, water filter, fuel, hard assets and defensive supplies.

I do not regret my execrcise in emergency preparedness.

What is your read on current scenario?

Personally, I still see a recession as best case outcome given current debt load (consumer and corporate), stock market over inflation (some due to Y2K cash infusion by FED but also due to over extended speculation), oil supply restrictions (Y2K or not?), and globaliziation (drive for more mega mergers increases job dislocation, raises prices, and lowers service). It seemed in last few weeks that the FED and the US Treasury were at odds over fiscal policy but it now seems that the FED is coming over to the Admin's position that some inflation may be best for today's economy.

Like you, I never felt a 9 or 10 on the DC Y2K scale was possible in the USA, but I still give an 8 "severe depression about a 10% probability. I am surprised that those other countries, who did no or little Y2K remediation, are not experincing worse impacts than the information available in the media and on the net.

Hope you continue to post and challenge our thinking. Thanks.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), February 23, 2000.

Flint made some excellent points. About lying: I have a newspaper headline regarding the Pentagon (?) lying about y2k readiness. Some government organization, I THINK it was the Pentagon, was caught lying. I'd have to hope I didn't burn the paper for heat...

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), February 23, 2000.

Flint, your problem was always "paralysis by analysis". Those of us who saw the potential danger of y2k knew we couldn't wait till December to prepare. We made our best guess early in '99 and prepared accordingly.

I'll keep this simple. Please don't mistake simplicity with shallowness. What your analysis of the complex nature of y2k failed to understand is the deeper dimension y2k unveiled. We have become dependent on a global Just In Time delivery system that relies heavily on computers. There are many things that threatens JIT and computers. Broken code was only one threat. There are others.... war, terrorism, computer hackers, natural disasters, biological-chemical-nuclear weapons, depression, and a full-scale banking/market crisis. The rollover did not remove these threats.

That is why for me, the issue y2k raised was not so much how y2k would hit. It was whether a person was prepared for a breakdown in the system, especially the iron triangle. Y2k showed me I was NOT prepared for a systemic breakdown of the JIT system my life had come to depend on....and so I prepared. I prepared not just for the rollover but for LIFE! I will always have water, fuel, heat, money, and food for six months. Now do you see why for me, the issue was always "preparation"? Those who had eyes to see, saw this deeper dimension, and made preparations for a possible systemic breakdown that always has the potential to hit. That is why those who got rid of their preps acted out of fear and not out of wisdom. They really didn't GI.

The system is fragile. Y2k taught me to prepare for a possible temporary breakdown of the system. The threats are still out there. Are you prepared? And allow me to requote the Word of the GOD you mock. "The wise person sees danger coming and makes preparations, the simple see danger coming, does nothing, and pays the consequences." -Proverbs 22:3 I see it coming, don't you?

Btw Flint, I hope you don't use the same "paralysis by analysis" to determine whether there is a God or not. I suspect you do. The greatest decision any human being will ever make is about God and preparing to meet God. Psalm 14:1 reads, "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." I sincerely hope that is not you. Ultimately, we will all leave this world. Being prepared in this world is nothing compared to being prepared for the next. The Prep Everyone Needs

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 24, 2000.

Opps!! Flint!

Life goes on!

Gas and lovemaking and sex are the same thing????

FART!!!!

Beans are wonderful!?

So is opinion!

FLINT! So sound ,so thoughtful,

-- Hatti (klavine@tco.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint:

I also noticed the "all about preparation" comment from BB in the Milne thread. I was a bit more confused, however, as I thought I'd had programming discussions with a BB. [or does this forum also have a bb?]

On to this preparation "issue". What really left me scratching my head through the past [almost] year I've been on this forum was the automatic dismissal of positive Y2k news using the defense that this news was discouraging preparation. Did you notice that? [grin]

Level of preparation never WAS an indicator of optimism or pessimism on the unfolding of Y2k. There were/are debunkers who have pantries that woudln't be exhausted in six months' time, and there were/are regulars from TB2000 who stated they had obtained supplies for two weeks to one month. Some folks have ALWAYS had huge pantries, and others saw Y2k as the impetus to begin more prudent purchasing methods, but if one posted positive news [or dared to debate the flaws seen in negative news], it was immediately ASSUMED that this poster had no food AND had intentions of relying on others to provide food. In addition, this poster might be accused of causing the deaths of millions.

As I said, this left me scratching my head. I've heard of the "power of the pen", but I thought the power of my keyboard was grossly exaggerated.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 24, 2000.

Hi, Flint,

I haven't yet had the time to go through your entire post, but after reading what I have and skimming the rest, I think you've made some excellent points.

My take on the preparation/non-preparation thing is that it's really just a manifestation -- the culmination, if you will -- of a thought process. The thought process (of course together with investigation, etc.) has to be given primacy here.

The most important thing is whether and to what extent we made the effort to understand the issue -- through research, reading opinions of every expert we could get our hands on, used reason and logic, continually checked our premises, made revisions accordingly, analyzed the risk, and acted or not acted in accordance with our conclusions.

We simply made rational (e.g., in accordance with the methods shown in my previous paragraph, but not limited to those) investment and insurance-related decisions -- which of course could include a decision not to act, as well.

Whether we were "right" or "wrong" (the superficial manifestation of which is our preparations or lack thereof) is a really a secondary point. The crucial point here is whether and to what extent we didn't blindly follow others or remain indifferent and we used that which separates us from the lower creatures -- our faculty of reason. In other words, you could say we used our humanity. And that is all that we could possibly ask of ourselves; a process and a course of action of which we can be proud.

If I may digress for a moment and comment on the "anthill" issue: Flint, this post did come across as a contemptuous, condescending sweeping generalization of the forum participants. And its implications were extremely presumptuous and untrue with regard to most of the forum participants whom I'm familiar with. And I'm sure you're aware that's one reason you're getting a pretty negative reaction to your presence here. And, although you elaborated a bit on it in this thread, it would probably be best, IMHO, if you started a new thread with a complete explanation of this.

Flint, I'm not trying to give you a hard time with this -- I'm just calling it as I see it, and hope you receive this"critique" as meant only with the best of intentions, and with all due respect.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

Who knows, maybe some of the new blood is also thoughtful and worthwhile?

Hey, flint. New blood here. I didn't find this forum until after the rollover, and I wish I had found it before.

I'm a programmer/analyst, specializing in Unix and NT systems. I worked directly with OS/390 mainframers, MVS and VMS folks, and others, directly on this problem, at two F500 companies and one smaller financial firm over the past several years.

I had contact with many other I.S. people in other companies regarding this issue - we had to maintain this contact, because the problem was bigger than our company, and in some ways we knew it was bigger than our economy.

We had a hard deadline. We were given money to dedicate to this project. Lots. We were given no avenue of failure - it simply had to be fixed.

By mid 1999, I think anyone directly involved was declaring victory, and for good reason - we had licked it. At that point, when we looked at the systems left to be remediated, we saw only the "also-rans" in the global economy. By late 1999, very few of those were even left.

In 1997 and 1998, anyone who said that the Y2K threat was legit was absolutely correct. This had an effect, the desired one. Anyone still working that angle after mid-1999 had a personal agenda, or was ignorant, or was mislead.

These are just words directly from the front in support of your post.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 24, 2000.

Hi, Bemused,

I'm puzzled with respect to your take on mid-1999 and forward. How could you know in advance that the combined effects of the embedded systems, global supply chains and the vulnerability of businesses to their supply chains, customers, infrastructure, etc. would be immaterial? Keep in mind that there had been surveys of small-medium sized businesses which gave the impression that massive numbers of them were unprepared with respect to both IT and embeddeds. And the small businesses make crucial components for the larger ones, etc. etc. etc.

Also keep in mind that I know very little about computer hardware and software.

Flint,

By the way, Bemused is very sharp; this is my impression from our discussions in The Great Deception thread. That is, in the theology/philosophy area, anyway.

Bemused,

So I'm pretty sure that if you can somehow get time, space, God and the infinite into this thread it should be a breeze for ya... :) Sorry, though, I can't vouch for ya in the computer area. I'm still working on the difference between a microprocessor and a club sandwich... :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

All right! Some good people reflect on what we've learned. Some responses here. I'll try not to talk forever [grin]. Not easy. I believe thoughtful posts deserve thoughtful replies, and quite a few thoughtful posts have appeared lately.

Helen:

You're right, some department in the Pentagon *was* caught claiming compliance for systems they never evaluated. I remember that too. From working in large organizations, I recognize the pressures to meet silly imposed deadlines, and the sometimes absurd steps that must be taken to do so. At one point last year, someone here (can't remember who) asked if anyone had ever "shipped a brick", literally meeting product ship dates when the product wasn't ready by putting a brick in a box and shipping it to get it on the books! Time requirements very commonly are set by those who have no clue what's required to meet them. That Pentagon department "shipped a brick" and got caught.

From my perspective, finding one isolated case of this and extrapolating that this was the norm and described ALL organizations wasn't supportable. While I readily agree that good PR is important, I can also see that being able to continue operations is even more important. I don't think it's misrepresenting this forum to say that the PR motivation was emphasized, while the motivation to remain functional was pretty much dismissed, leading to the conclusion that ALL progress/compliance reports were useless. So BB's assertion that "we know they were all lying" was a natural outgrowth of this orientation.

BB:

WAY high up on the list of misrepresentations that underlay the main thrust on this forum was the myth of the "fragility" of our systems. Domestically we've seen even local systems rebound readily from devastating floods, earthquakes and hurricanes. In the Far East, we saw a quick recovery from a computer virus that hit many thousands and did huge damage. Time after time, our systems have been subjected to major insults and adapted almost seamlessly.

And consider -- the majority of SME's in the US, and the majority of *all* organizations overseas, did little or no remediation. This lack of effort wasn't refuted even by the most optimistic. Starting over a year ago and continuing right up to the present, date bugs have been cropping up by the millions, and probably the hundreds of millions globally. Yet impacts from all those bugs have been both isolated and minor, quite easily within manageable levels.

The point is that all of this has, if nothing else, demonstrated conclusively and spectacularly that our systems are amazingly robust and resiliant. The very *opposite* of the fragility so often claimed. For that matter, we've been cooking along for hundreds of years despite all manner of bad luck and stupid mistakes.

So I admit I'm always stunned when people say (as they do often on TB2K) that the major thing people have "learned" is how fragile our systems are. It ought to be glaringly obvious that y2k has been yet another irrefutable demonstration of just the opposite. We ought (IMO) to be marveling at the LACK of fragility so clearly demonstrated, and looking for all of the many many reasons our systems can shrug off even large-scale problems so easily. Yet the "fragile systems" became so ingrained in the doomer doctrine that even in the face of clear and present, obvious and global evidence to the contrary, this doctrine marches on, supported only by faith. To me, this is an outstanding illustration of the tendency, when reality contradicts belief, to reject the reality and cling to the belief.

And, forgive me, but I cannot help laughing at the continued conviction that those who deny the reality in favor of the belief pride themselves on the notion that they "Get It". By the most simple observation, they Get It wrong! But again, dividing people into those who Get It and those who don't tends to prevent ANY change in doctrine, no matter how clearly contradicted by the world around them.

While I have no argument with your proverb as it stands, it addresses those who see danger and either respond or not. But this proverb *assumes* danger, clear to both. It does NOT speak to the wisdom of fabricating a danger that isn't there. Is there no proverb addressing the "wisdom" of overreacting to imaginary dangers? That would be much more appropriate. And it would have helped me since I too overreacted.

Bill:

I think your question calls for a bit of disentangling here, though I may be misunderstanding. But just to clear up that misunderstanding...

It was my understanding that we were trying to project future impacts, of any kind, as a *direct result* of computer software everywhere misinterpreting dates in some way. This is an extremely narrow, highly technical cause of the problems under discussion. After all, technical glitches of all varieties have been a daily fact of life for a long time now.

Before rollover, I spoke at some length (as always [grin]) of the difficulty of extracting the influence of date mishandling errors *specifically* from these daily screwups. This has become moot, partially because glitches have occurred with normal frequency and partially because date bugs seem to have a special flavor of symptoms, making it clear that they have been few and minor.

Today, I don't believe any reasonable person (and even some less reasonable people like Milne) can seriously claim that date mishandling errors any longer present a threat, and *may* never have posed much of a threat in the first place (though we'll never know). I believe it's clear that the kind of really serious (8-10 level) impacts we've examined require VERY large and pervasive forces to generate, and I think it's equally clear that date mishandling errors NEVER represented anywhere NEAR that kind of force. In retrospect we can see that date bugs were never more than a minor nuisance, and even beforehand we could see that there was never a shred of *empirical* evidence for big problems -- it was all speculation.

However, debt loads, bubbles, fiscal policies, inflation ARE large forces, capable of leading to far more than minor inconvenience. I'm personally not that worried, I admit. Things seem pretty normal to me. Sources of worry, while undeniably present, are *always* present, and "expert" predictions, while all over the map, don't seem distributed in any unusual pattern. I wouldn't be surprised by either continued prosperity or a major market correction -- either could happen, and the usual number of pundits could say "I told you so" either way.

Anyway, whatever befalls us, y2k is completely out of the picture now and might never have been IN the picture.

Anita:

Yes, the circularity always amused me as well. Preparation was required, therefore any post that didn't actively encourage it was made by either a fool or a troll. And since only fools and trolls didn't encourage preparation, therefore it was required. How many many times did I speak of the logic of using your conclusion as your premise? And how many times did I speak of my own overkill preparations, yet was assumed (and accused) of not preparing because my input didn't encourage them hard enough?

eve:

Well, I tried to inject what I saw as reason for over a year. I pointed out the careful selection of evidence and its careful interpretation. I pointed out (as Anita just did) the circular reasoning. I pointed out the "us against them" mentality that polarized the discussion. I pointed out repeatedly that ambiguous data allowed for more than the most pessimistic possible interpretation. And as I wrote on another thread, there were a LOT of "me too" pessimists here, who seemed (to me) to be trying to feel secure with an in-group or suck up to the moderators and be closer to "power". I encourage you to read (and think) about my last paragraphs in the opening post, about the contrast between advocacy and investigation. That pretty well sums it up.

The "anthill" comment reflects a mood swing, and describes a minority, but it does reflect one facet of my reactions to the reception I received here for so long. Hey, just LOOK at the comments on this thread by "bored", "justwondering", "ZZZzzzz", "haha", "Ivan", "ant", "bug's life", "bad penny", "Leave", and "Hawk". Not a single topical word among them, nothing but empty attacks.

eve, you've always been a thoughtful person and an independent thinker. If you don't feel contempt for that crowd, or don't feel superior to them, then you damn well *ought* to! They epitomize the childish and petty nastiness that (as Lewis wrote) tended to drive away curious and intelligent input. And there were indeed times when laughing at such retards was the only motivation that kept me going.

I always thought it was a shame that our moderators chose to target the "enemy" viewpoint rather than the content-free personal attacks. Had they removed the attacks, this forum would have been *vastly* improved, and quite possibly seminally useful. So sad that instead, the moderators seemed to *encourage* mindless attacks, provided they were attacking the "enemy".

Bemused:

Yeah, it was indeed becoming increasingly clear that there were no signs of impending Big Problems, either direct OR indirect. Yet the pattern of reactions to anyone who pointed that out on TB2K was essentially, "troll go home". The early responses to this thread illustrate the cast of mind found so commonly here.

My purpose now is to try to understand WHY people reacted this way. And yes, I recognize the incongruity of asking people who don't think to *think* about why they don't think. The closest I've been able to come is to identify a binary outlook. Us against them, all or nothing. And since it was impossible to prove y2k was nothing, it was therefore all. Binary thinking doesn't permit more than two mental cubbyholes.

I believe there was some validity to my comments about attention spans and sound bites and *starting* with simple conclusions expressable with slogans. It really isn't easy to change your conclusion when you started there and don't understand (and refuse to listen to) where it came from or what it's based on. Even harder when you know a posted change of mind will be met with spitwads from the kneejerks.

"Anyone still working that angle after mid-1999 had a personal agenda." Yes indeed. But how can one recognize this if one considers pointing it out to be "sickening slander"? I asked all the tech types here whose projects were doomed, and every one of them said *they* were OK, but didn't trust the other guy. In other words, there were even local sources indicating no big problems. So why were so many here so learn-proof? Why was all the positive information rejected with such vehemence?

The final irony is that the pessimists felt they were able to "Get It" because they, unlike the great unwashed out there, were *Open Minded*!!! As an exercise in determined self-deception, this forum was absolutely classic. Surely there's an opportunity to learn something very valuable about human nature here?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 24, 2000.

Eve:

Here is a clue. A club sandwich usually has mayo; unless it is a vegan version and then it has no taste.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint,

Thanks for your response. I've skimmed it, but I just wanted to let you know that I may not have a chance to think about it and reply until late tonight or tomorrow. You'll note I am responding to Z's post below, but only because that one's easier to address. Just don't tell Z that; he/she may be a little sensitive about it... :)

Hi, Z,

I really appreciate your assistance. Well, we've succeeded in eliminating the major type of club sandwich from the issue. The problem is that both microprocessors and vegan club sandwiches have no taste; so my dilemma still remains, but this time with only a subset of club sandwiches.

I'm excited, though, that we've narrowed the field and that I can now join the technical part of the discussion with at least a reasonable degree of self-confidence.

But I'm left somewhat haunted by the insinuation contained in your semi-tantalizing opening statement, "Here is a clue." Do you know more? :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

Eve [you old grass-snapper]:

My statement was what we call a joke. No offense intended. You can't offend me; many have tried and many have failed. Based on past experience, you have the sensitive nature. That's okay. Keep it up. I will try not to offend you in the future. Of course that may limit discussion.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Z,

No, no, no!! My comment about you was a joke for you, because I knew you would see it! I'm sorry if you took it the wrong way.

My whole post to you was a free-wheeling off-the-wall attempt at humor as well! It was all in fun. What did you take offense at? Just know that no offense whatsoever was intended; I really thought you were in on the whole goofy thing with me.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

Eve:

I have been here since BF [before Flint]. That means that I also date to BE [before Eve]. I would never take anything that you say to be offensive. Now that we have that out of the way, we can get back to business.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Eve

For my pinochle club a club sandwich is the sandwich all members like to eat. This varies as to whose house we are playing pinochle at.

Flint

I wish you would pick a more important or interesting subject, one that would be worth my time to completely read. this thread should be posted to a history forum. Being bored is not a good reason to post; having something of interest to present is a good reason.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint,

Maybe the systems aren't as fragile as we thought. BUT there are dangers like the ones I listed and you ignored. Terrorism and communism are very real dangers. I'll link you to a book that I feel is inspired by God's Spirit. This man knows God. He did not see major disruptions due to y2k. He does see major trouble ahead for this nation as do many other Christian leaders and prophets. A word to the wise... Link

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 24, 2000.

Mr. Pinochle:

If this thread doesn't interest you, fortunately you have many alternative choices available to you. I agree this thread is essentially historical, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's uninteresting or not worth your time. I personally believe history has a lot to teach those motivated to learn from it. And y2k history is especially informative because it has a lot to tell us about ourselves, our thoughts and our beliefs. If you find these things unimportant and boring, then of course your time is better spent elsewhere.

BB:

In my reply to Bill above, I was careful to distinguish dangers in general from y2k dangers specifically. Certainly I agree that the world is hardly a perfectly safe place for countless reasons. Fortunately, date bugs in software are not among them. This *was* a y2k forum, after all.

OK, David Wilkerson predicts a severe economic downturn this year, and clearly quantifies it via his recommendation of a 2-month supply of food and essential supplies. He may be right, though I'd give low odds and be willing to bet against him. On the record, the "inspiration of God's Spirit" has not been a reliable economic forecaster! So forgive me if I regard your "word to the wise" as a word to the gullible instead.

Still, economic downturns, some severe, have been facts of life for centuries. Unlike y2k, there's nothing either unique or special about them, though they are without question unpleasant. Some such event, sooner or later and of some minor or major level of severity, is a sure bet. So Wilkerson's advice is excellent on general principles. Insurance is a Good Idea in principle, and risky financial exposure (few assets, high debts, etc.) is something I consider poor practice.

So I prefer to keep out of debt, have as many options open all the time as possible, and do my best to keep out of harm's way. But beyond that, I see no sense in living in constant fear of just anything. Unlike those remaining here, I prefer to celebrate life and enjoy the good news, rather than dwell on every problem, danger or threat I can dream up. To me, those doing so are shriveled souls indeed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint

I do not find history or the history of Y2K boring. I do find an exchance of words with you boring because of how you choose to interpret my words. You and I do not speak a common language and that is by your choice. I have never understood people like you. You always choose a negative understanding of what other people say.

By doing this you attempt to put the other person on the defensive and explain themselves; thus creating a semantic discussion instead a discussion of ideas. This tactic is normal for most liberals and people who just want to argue. Well, I am not in the mood for arguing.

When Y2K was looming on the horizon I enjoyed many of your posts. Now you bore me. Come back when you have something to discuss and are willing to have a discussion without your arrogant assumption the everyone else is your inferior.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), February 24, 2000.

I'll second that Mr. Pinochle. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned." 1Cor.2:14ff.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 25, 2000.

Flint,

With respect to your assertion that the forum was primarily an advocacy forum and not an investigative body:

Please read and reflect on my response to Bemused above on the domino effect and embeddeds, and the inaction of small to medium sized businesses.

Then tell me some good news that existed that was ignored by the forum, and was of such significance that if taken seriously would have acted to substantially undercut the effects of the above, at least in the eyes of the forum participants.

You said,

"The truth is that we REALLY DID know how things would turn out in terms of the overall magnitude of the threat...We knew that the Iron Triangle would not fail in any meaningful way..."

Who knew (in advance), and how did they know this? Most of us now are confident that the potential problems I referred to in the second paragraph in fact turned out to be relatively insignificant. But how could anyone have known this in advance?

To be somewhat more concrete here, who could possibly have predicted what effects problems in the global supply chains might have had? Keep in mind that a foreign supplier of a key part for another key supplier for, say, the oil industry would have been vulnerable to its own country's infrastructure as well.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 25, 2000.

eve:

I'm puzzled with respect to your take on mid-1999 and forward. How could you know in advance that the combined effects of the embedded systems, global supply chains and the vulnerability of businesses to their supply chains, customers, infrastructure, etc. would be immaterial? Keep in mind that there had been surveys of small-medium sized businesses which gave the impression that massive numbers of them were unprepared with respect to both IT and embeddeds. And the small businesses make crucial components for the larger ones, etc. etc. etc.

My forte is RDBMS (databases), Systems programming, and operating system/network administration, not "embedded's", as they have come to be known, but I'll try to explain my 1999 take on that.

Basically, when a programmer is designing a system, there is a specific task in mind that he/she is trying to accomplish. The range of functionality in this system is directly proportional to the complexity of the task at hand, and is also inversely proportional to the amount of resources (memory, speed, storage, etc) that the programmer has to work with.

These facts of methodology suggest that in the vast majority of embeddeds, the devices will be 1) As simple as possible, but not simpler :^), and 2) Not dependant on extraneous functionality.

In other words, unless there was an actual reason why a year-date function needed to be in a chip, it wouldn't be there. For chips that needed the date functionality, it most likely would be for something relatively cosmetic, because these chips aren't printing bills, calculating shipping dates, that sort of thing - because those things are done by actual computers, obviously. For chips that needed the year-date and that date was crucial to the functionality of the chip, and that chip was critical to the functionality of the overall device/system, then you would have a problem - if that system was one of the ones left unremediated, or created before Y2K was a known issue.

Can you see how the "problem" embeddeds are now logically pared down to well, very few and far between?

It's hard to get a domino effect when you place the dominoes 30 feet apart.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 25, 2000.

Bold off, sorry.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 25, 2000.

eve:

"Then tell me some good news that existed that was ignored by the forum, and was of such significance that if taken seriously would have acted to substantially undercut the effects of the above, at least in the eyes of the forum participants."

I think I need to deal with this question extremely delicately. Let me first try to get what I consider a leading question back onto level ground, OK?

First, I'll concede outright that NO good news would have been sufficient "in the eyes of the forum participants". But this is like asking for "good" reasons for gun control "in the eyes of the NRA", or looking for an ugly child "in the eyes of its mother". And I concede I can't show you anything that could change the opinion of an advocate for the "other side". An advocate, as I wrote, is out to WIN, not to weigh and balance.

But anyway, start with power, and consider:

--item: Not one single engineer working on utility remediation testified to any significant or even minor *functional* problem. Yes, on the forum, we had people like RC claiming that someone they knew, knew someone else who "knew" that (for example) Cinergy was toast. And this anonymous, very indirect allegation was readily accepted. But you could scour the world and not find a single worried engineer working on utility remediation directly. Dan the Power Man even had his credibility confirmed independently, to no avail. Nobody wanted to hear it.

--item: NERC provided detailed reports, not only claiming but *showing* that not one SINGLE date bug had ever been found that would have tripped a plant. NERC's information was so solid, and so positive, that NERC came in for truly indicative treatment on this forum. They were lying. They were shills. Their practice drills were mislabeled here as "tests", and then mocked as being "fake tests". Their reports were shams. I invite you to go back into the archives and LOOK at the treatment TB2K meted out to NERC.

--item: It was repeatedly publicized that many utilities, and some whole regions, were deliberately operating with all clocks set ahead to 2000 or beyond, without problems. And as I recall, whenever this uncomfortable datam came up, it kind of vanished with almost no comment from anyone -- it simply could NOT be refuted. Every now and then, someone would claim that that "obviously" didn't count!

So to summarize about utilities here, the ONLY force weighing in on the pessimistic side, ever, was the idle speculation that some dates, somewhere, must be used by some embedded systems, simply because until every single one was tested with impossible thoroughness, we couldn't prove otherwise. And you're quite right. All those items I listed were solid, verifiable evidence. But only the idle (and totally inaccurate) speculations were considered "sufficient in the eyes of the forum".

Now, communications. On the one hand, it was possible (and done, and published) to test all common devices used in the communications network, and to look at embedded code for dates. On the other hand, it was theoretically impossible to perform a comprehensive realtime test. As an analogy, say the claim is made that a boat on the ocean will sail into a tree! Now, we can examine the ocean and note that there are NO trees, but that wasn't good enough. Until ALL possible routes that boat could take were examined, people on this forum refused to accept that a tree could not be hit! And since all possible routes couldn't be examined in a trillion years, it was concluded that they'd hit a tree!

And I suspect that even if we'd spent that trillion years, many on the forum would start claiming that it was only a *simulation* and didn't count. I emphasize again that when one is absolutely DETERMINED to believe something, NO information is sufficient to change their mind. In reality, it was well established and published that dates simply played no functional role in our communication equipment. You can look it up.

Finally, banking.

--Item: Did your bank post "y2k ready" signs? Most did. Did your bank send you repeated claims that they'd have no problems in your bank statements? Most did. All in all there were tens of millions of such inserts printed and mailed. And had any banks had truly serious date bug problems, these assurances would indeed have carried significant legal force.

--Item: Banking was followed very closely. The media were concerned since banking is so visible and critical. Banking is closely regulated, and FDIC couldn't find anything wrong. The banking industry was understandably concerned about public confidence, well aware that even if they had NO date bugs, they could be brought down by the loss of that confidence. So they published umpteen test results -- intrabank, interbank, international. Good, hard solid evidence. Of course, it was all called a sham here, smoke and mirrors from an evil conspiracy or whatever. But it was all real, documented, verifiable, and factual. It was REALLY THERE. Isn't that what you're asking for?

--Item: How closely did you follow Arnold Trembley? What, never heard of him? Imagine that. Arnold was a y2k remediator for Mastercard, who produced detailed monthly reports of their progress for a couple of years. This (IMO) was astounding, because Mastercard allowed Arnold to detail every single problem they had. And I mean detail, right down to the offending lines of code. By the time you finished Arnold's reports, you KNEW you weren't dealing with a whitewash, or with rumor or allegation. By the time (mid 1999) Arnold wrote that they'd essentially finished and couldn't find any more problems, you could not have asked for better inside information.

Yet Arnold's reports were almost never mentioned on TB2K, and ignored when they were mentioned. I was amused at the intricate "dance" between Arnold and Andy, who once worked for Visa. Andy had NO inside information at all, ranted about corrupt data, created absurd scenarios as to how bad data might propagate. He got LOTS of responses and agreement. Arnold was ignored.

There were countless published assurances by thousands of companies that they were "substantially compliant" and "expected no problems". These were dismissed on the grounds that it was pure public relations, and that nobody would admit to problems if they had them. Right?

Ironically, a great deal was made here of *public* admissions of problems by many of these same companies. GM and Chrysler provided detailed reports of security systems, time clock systems, and assembly lines just freezing up. Ralph Szygenda of GM called their problems "catastrophic". Remember? There was a whole Vanity Fair article about these admissions. Clearly, there was a willingness to admit problems, as well as to publish remediation budgets.

Yet once they fixed these problems and said so, *these* claims were dismissed as PR because "nobody would admit" the very same problems they had admitted when they had them! So the same sources considered reliable when they admitted problems suddenly started a "cover-up" when they pointed out that they'd *fixed* those problems.

Eve, a negative cannot be proved. It never was nor will be possible to "prove" that problems will NOT happen, it's only possible to observe that they DON'T happen when tested. It was of course never possible to *guarantee* that JIT wouldn't break down, or that supply chains wouldn't break, or that SMEs (mostly running packaged software) won't be able to survive an upgrade-on-failure strategy. In the real world, the best we can ever do is demonstrate that the *chances* of such misfortune are small enough to be acceptable.

We did that. And it was good enough for reasonable people, and not good enough for anyone unwilling to accept anything short of the impossible. But the major bases had been covered pretty thoroughly. We had enough solid, real-world positive returns to render systemic breakdowns vanishingly unlikely. But all the information I've listed (and much, much more) was never more than sufficient to demonstrate that your scenarios were highly improbable. We could never "know" for certain, anymore than you can "know" that you'll be alive tomorrow. I believe the TB2K error lay in the claim that because we cannot guarantee that you'll be alive tomorrow, and because death is possible, *therefore* you are certain to die. PROVE me wrong! Can't do it? Then you're doomed. See?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 25, 2000.

Flint,

First, I'll reformulate and restate my request:

"Then tell me some good news that existed that was ignored by the forum, and was of such significance that if taken seriously would have acted to substantially undercut the effects of the above (referencing the domino effect), at least in the eyes of reasonable, objective forum participants."

You've presented some good information with respect to individual industries. But, remember the case of GM a few years ago, which was brought to its knees because one or two suppliers of key parts went on strike?

Just to take a very narrow, vastly simplified view of the supply chain as an example: Banking could not exist without the oil industry, because banking is highly labor-intensive and people need gasoline to get to work. And oil, as well as spare parts (I assume) for the oil industry, come from all over the world.

And you didn't factor into your response the effects of vast numbers of unprepared small to medium sized businesses.

My point is that, regardless of successes in individual businesses and/or industries, because of the domino effect and the uncertainty, no one could possibly grasp, in any significant way, the overall picture.

Bemused,

Your response makes sense. But there were many reports, essays and testimony circulating at the time that showed a far more complicated picture with embeddeds than that which you describe. Too much for me to go into now, but maybe I'll get a chance soon to give some examples.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Hi, eve.

I'll answer as best I can.

[First, I'll reformulate and restate my request:

"...(referencing the domino effect), at least in the eyes of reasonable, objective forum participants."]

Eve, reasonable and objective participants simply did not exist. Nothing even close to such a wildly mythical beast existed. Your own continued chanting of the same tired catechism that "nobody could know" despite all we NOW know, and all everyone has said, is vivid proof that once a forum believer as taken a fixed position, God Himself could not persuade you otherwise. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but your intransigence by this time does NOT seem to call for facts, logic, reason, or detail. Your mind is MADE UP, and until people agree with you, NOTHING they say will satisfy you.

Just as a mental exercise, why don't you propose something that, if true, would persuade you that the Big Picture (or reasonably close, if not exact) COULD have been visible to a reasonable, objective person. What could that possibly have been?

At one point during the debate, I challenged a "banks are toast" person to provide what HE personally would consider adequate evidence that banks were NOT toast. And he finally wrote back and said that after considerable thought, he was NOT ABLE to come up with ANYTHING that would change his mind. Not test results, not 3rd party audits, not even him personally examining their code (since he wasn't a programmer). There was NO POSSIBLE source of evidence he would trust as witness to the health of the banks.

But that was OK (he wrote), because the banks WERE toast, and he was right, so he wasn't concerned that evidence of his being wrong COULD not exist, since he was so convinced it DID not exist.

Recently, I wrote to him and asked him if he were NOW satisfied that banks were OK, and he said yes, clearly they were. BUT, he said, before the fact it was NOT POSSIBLE to know this! There was too much UNCERTAINTY. But for him, that was a tenet of belief, NOT a matter of evidence by his own admission!

Eve, does this guy sound familiar to you? He equated his refusal to accept evidence, with the objective nonexistence of that evidence. You are doing the same. What can anyone say?

[You've presented some good information with respect to individual industries. But, remember the case of GM a few years ago, which was brought to its knees because one or two suppliers of key parts went on strike?]

Apples and oranges. (1) In the case of a strike, people don't see it coming for years; (2) The best way to solve a strike is with negotiation, living with the problem until successful. Had the supplier suffered (say) a meteor strike, you'd have found new suppliers popping up, redesigns to avoid missing parts, all manner of economic adaptation; (3) In a strike, people's intention is to CAUSE problems, with y2k the intention is to FIX problems. These goals lead in very different directions; (4) GM was hardly "brought to its knees". The option to bring the operation in-house is always there, and strikes often fail (remember the air traffic controllers?).

So what you're doing here is using a noncomparable situation. Sure, I agree that temporary shortages can cause temporary problems, and if there are *enough* shortages, the problems can get serious. But that simply circles you back where we started -- instead of asking whether enough shortages can cause big problems (the answer is obviously yes), you need to ask if there was sufficient *evidence* that there would be such shortages. And the answer to that is NO.

In other words, you are confusing the *plausibility" of your scenario, with the *probability* of it, and concluding that anything plausible is probable. It ain't so.

[Just to take a very narrow, vastly simplified view of the supply chain as an example: Banking could not exist without the oil industry, because banking is highly labor-intensive and people need gasoline to get to work. And oil, as well as spare parts (I assume) for the oil industry, come from all over the world.]

This is the notion I described by saying "even if EVERYONE is ready, it won't matter because nobody ELSE will be ready!" Yes, yes, a thousand times yes, you are absolutely correct that everything is tied to everything else in a zillion ways in a working economy. You are absolutely correct that there ARE domino effects. You seem to miss the point that they tend to be small and manageable effects for good reasons -- you have fallen into black and white thinking as usual.

THINK about what you wrote -- "banking could not exist without oil". As a theoretical statement, this is beyond dispute. In practice, it's absurd because you're turning "banking" and "oil" on and off like a lightswitch. Could banking as we know it survive an oil price increase? As the price of oil rose, how FAR would it need to rise before the weakest banks became unprofitable? What steps would be taken by investors and government as this trend continued? THESE are the kinds of issues an economy deals with, not the kindergarten image you paint.

You cannot seem to grasp that a free market economy is adaptive, resiliant, redundant, organic. Whole sectors don't just "break" and collapse. People have been finding useful and creative was to deal with problems bigger than y2k could ever have been for centuries.

So your view is "narrow, vastly simplified" NOT because it only addresses one small piece of the whole puzzle, but because it views ALL the puzzle pieces as monolithic and brittle. And they are anything but.

[And you didn't factor into your response the effects of vast numbers of unprepared small to medium sized businesses.]

Yes I did, but not in the simplistic way you seem to be demanding. You sound like Gary North, assuming that "unprepared" is a yes-or-no issue. And since SME's were known to have taken little action, then of course we must assume they will vanish in a puff of smoke, right?

But amazingly enough, SME's were NOT all run by ignoramuses. Instead, they knew what their options were, they knew what their exposure was, they compared the cost of remediation with the cost if their computers croaked and with the cost of alternatives should that happen, and they made cost-effective decisions. Imagine that!

So in a very real sense, these SME's WERE prepared. They were clearly not going to be taken by surprise, they'd thought it out and made good business decisions. And this WAS known beforehand, they said so. Even the SBA noted that the cost of remediation for a small business averaged less than $1000 and less than 3 hours. Averaged! And the majority of small businesses had nothing to remediate, because they didn't rely on software with date bugs that affected the way they USED that software. They knew this and said so. There were web sites detailing the y2k symtoms of all commonly used software, and SME's went there and learned.

The "vast unprepared" who were sure to croak was an exaggeration, and many SME's said so. Just because the "reasonable and objective" TB2K people chanted endlessly that they were clueless and doomed didn't make it so. The reality was there, it was visible. It really was.

[My point is that, regardless of successes in individual businesses and/or industries, because of the domino effect and the uncertainty, no one could possibly grasp, in any significant way, the overall picture.]

So this statement is false and self-serving. The domino effect was a scenario always based on a binary viewpoint -- that a given domino either "falls" or it does not. And such a simplistic description had great appeal to the simpleminded. But organizations are not dominos, they are like reeds, that bend in the wind that's always blowing (because things are always breaking, screwing up, going wrong).

Similarly, you have reduced "uncertainty" to either none or total. And since it sure as hell wasn't none, it must have been total. And since uncertainty was total, therefore "no one could possibly grasp, in any significant way" that problems were overwhelmingly likely to be minor and manageable. But in reality, rather than in the typical TB2K all-or-nothing viewpoint, uncertainty was steadily reduced as remediation continued and as more information became available.

No, testing wasn't impossibly comprehensive, but it was both adequate and positive. No, legally binding declarations of compliance weren't universal, but they were certainly ample. No, the oveerwhelming confidence of IT and embedded programmers everywhere wasn't universal, but it was STILL overwhelming. Yes, there were a few voices (most of them, admit it, selling services) who kept saying we did not know FOR SURE. And we didn't.

You continue to insist that anyone who didn't have every last detail in place could not grasp the overall picture. Many black-and-white thinkers share your outlook, and are forced to view the vast majority of people who expected few and minor problems as being "lucky".

The dominoes were a poor analogy, not reflecting the way things work in the real world. The uncertainty was real but minimal. The overall picture was damn clear, if not focused perfectly enough to meet your satisfaction. But reality is NEVER focused THAT clearly. Again, you demand the impossible and insist you're unwilling to be satisfied by anything less.

[Bemused,

Your response makes sense. But there were many reports, essays and testimony circulating at the time that showed a far more complicated picture with embeddeds than that which you describe. Too much for me to go into now, but maybe I'll get a chance soon to give some examples.]

Eve, those reports were in the tiny minority, and promulgated by people with a clear vested interest in saying so. TB2K tuned out all else, and gave those reports credibility all out of proportion. And if you READ those reports, they discuss what might be possible, and are careful NOT to mention the actual, empirical testing demonstrating that in practice, they did NOT happen!

You've shown an amazing inclination to dismiss what we learned in actual practice, in favor of your own view of what might have been in theory. And I won't argue that the "might have been" was both plausible and serious. But you choose to stop right there with the "might be", and pay no attention to the "but on examination, is NOT" part.

Eve, it's those examinations, those tests, those actual on-the-ground observations that constituted the big picture -- not the domino theories or the demands for impossible proofs, without which "uncertainty" is too great.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 26, 2000.

Flint,

I have much more that I could say on these issues, but for the moment I have to get something across to you of a different nature.

With your last post you started to bring this down to the personal level. Believe me, there are accusations and insinuations that I could hurl your way as well, but I don't believe in mud slinging.

The issues in our discussion interest me very much, but if you're going to morph into an "LOL" (the poster from the last thread we were in), I'll have to end this. I'm not sure if something I said touched a nerve with you or what, but if you're unable to remain focused solely on the issues, I have a few other interesting discussions going that I could be better spending my time in.

I'll be pretty busy the rest of the day and part of tomorrow, but I hope to get my response in to you on the substantive issues by sometime tomorrow.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 26, 2000.

Flint, if you were right, and as many countries/companies did literally NOTHING vis-a-vis Y2K remediation, one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) would have been mis-spent worldwide with the endorsement and support of the UN, World Bank, IMF, White House, DoD, Federal Reserve, corporations, etc.

So I'm afraid that it is black or white in that if many did not remediate that means that Y2K remediation wasn't needed and your have just revealed a one trillion dollar hoax.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), February 26, 2000.

George:

Where are you getting the 1 trillion dollar figure? I remember an estimate several years ago of 1 trillion dollars [which included the costs of litigation], but litigation these days seems to be AGAINST those who DID remediation, not those who didn't. In addition, the estimates of what remediation would cost versus what remediation actually DID cost have spiralled downward.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 27, 2000.

Anita,

(1) Y2K litigation costs are still Y2K costs, whichever way we slice them. Furthermore, litigation costs have yet to show their truly ugly heads. Let's not forget the 90-day forced "truce" imposed by Y2K legislation. When litigation figures are finally known (maybe months or years from now) the one trillion figure could actually turn out to be short.

(2) Kappelman, Caper Jones and others agree that US spending was above $200 billion. Considering that 75% of world code was/is outside the US, that accounts for several hundred billion more.

(3) Because of the sheer importance of Y2K, TPTB, plus every corporation in the world, every major industry in the world and, consequently every plant and SMB factory in the world, took the wise and mandatory decision to shutdown for 2-3 days minimum, many 4 days (Dec.30-31 thru Jan 3-4), a truly unprecedented event. Furthermore, powering up wasn't easy, and certainly not cheap. Out of spec production, lost production in still mills, refineries, etc., means low productivity, lost revenue, etc., etc. All of the above means at least 0.5% of worldwide GDP, probably much more. That's also several hundred billion dollars worth.

(4) Obviously enough, TPTB , including the CIA, the FBI, the US Congress and, of course, the White House, did NOT think that Y2K would necessarily be (a) "benign" and (b) not pervasive, which Flint has always been so sure of, despite the fact that he prepped up as much as he could.

(5) So if Flint is correct, this means that (a) every single one of worlwide PTB were wrong in their assessment capacity and in their decision making process or (b) Y2K was a one trillion dollar hoax sponsored and supported by them. Either (a) and/or (b) would mean that we are all in the hands of an unreliable bunch of two-bit pricks that shouldn't be respected, and that Flint has been basically right all along and has thus revealed to the whole world the largest, best- kept, most expensive conspiracy in the history of mankind. In that case, if proven true, congratulations Flint. I still think it's too early to affirm such thing simply because we do not yet know the etilogy not the epidemiology of Y2K, just like we didn't know it about AIDS in 1980 and all sorts of silly, damaging theories were set loose by seemingly competent, trustworthy medical doctors which confused the AIDS problem to painful depths.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), February 27, 2000.

George:

Excellent! This is exactly the kind of analysis I've been looking for, and (IMO) opens the door to a truly useful analytical discussion. Thank you. I'll try to respond to your points, which are good ones indeed.

[(1) Y2K litigation costs are still Y2K costs, whichever way we slice them. Furthermore, litigation costs have yet to show their truly ugly heads. Let's not forget the 90-day forced "truce" imposed by Y2K legislation. When litigation figures are finally known (maybe months or years from now) the one trillion figure could actually turn out to be short.]

While what you say is true in theory, surely you can see that the evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. By the accounts I've read, that 90-day truce was never accorded much utility by political/legal observers. And by observation, there hasn't been much to sue *about*, since there don't seem to be any important y2k problems, and few minor ones. And even if there ARE big lawsuits starting after 90 days, most of that estimated trillion was *settlements*, not just legal fees. There hasn't been anything of significance to settle.

Of course, the final tally (as you say) won't be in for some time. But waiting with bated breath for lawsuits falls into the same category as those who kept waiting for "delayed" date bugs to do great damage. There hasn't been (to my knowledge) a single mention anywhere of a lawsuit even being *prepared* by anyone.

To me, it seems that the litigation costs were estimated by applying some multiplier to the estimated damage costs of the y2k bugs. But y2k bugs have not been identified as even a contributing factor to the rather normal frequency of screwups we've seen. Using the popular hurricane metaphor, the legal costs were a function of the damange the hurricane did. But the hurricane *never hit*! So what's to sue about?

[(2) Kappelman, Caper Jones and others agree that US spending was above $200 billion. Considering that 75% of world code was/is outside the US, that accounts for several hundred billion more.]

Well, this strikes me as an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you yourself championed the claim that spending outside the US was pitiful, and remediation was not being done. NOW, on the other hand, you suddenly discover that they actually DID spend more than the US! Which one is it, George?

[(3) Because of the sheer importance of Y2K, TPTB, plus every corporation in the world, every major industry in the world and, consequently every plant and SMB factory in the world, took the wise and mandatory decision to shutdown for 2-3 days minimum, many 4 days (Dec.30-31 thru Jan 3-4), a truly unprecedented event. Furthermore, powering up wasn't easy, and certainly not cheap. Out of spec production, lost production in still mills, refineries, etc., means low productivity, lost revenue, etc., etc. All of the above means at least 0.5% of worldwide GDP, probably much more. That's also several hundred billion dollars worth.]

This argument would carry more force if it were more nearly accurate. According to what I've read, only a small minority of operations went offline during that period. Certainly everyone had power, so utilities didn't do this. I can assure you that the assembly lines where I work never slowed down. I have yet to read of a single shortage of *anything*, or price rise reflecting such shortage, as a result of a 3-day y2k-induced shutdown.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this, mind you. I'm saying I have NOT seen any data supporting this. Forgive me, but until you can provide some aggregate data showing this practice was both widespread and had ANY measureable impact on anything, I'll reserve judgment.

[(4) Obviously enough, TPTB , including the CIA, the FBI, the US Congress and, of course, the White House, did NOT think that Y2K would necessarily be (a) "benign" and (b) not pervasive, which Flint has always been so sure of, despite the fact that he prepped up as much as he could.]

I'm not sure what this statement refers to. If you are talking about insurance, then I agree with you. It was most assuredly not possible to guarantee that there would be NO problems, or even no significant problems. We could examine the odds (what I've been doing) and see that by *most* indications, those odds were low. But since they weren't zero, prudent precautions were called for. But be careful you don't consider all precaution expenses as being single-use and nonrecoverable. By very numerous accounts, a whole LOT of "remediation" expense went into the purchase of long-needed new hardware and software, or bringing ancient software revisions up to date.

Beyond this, I encourage you to read the many threads here where people are very happy with their preparations because they might well come in handy (or essential) in case of something else. Living prepared is a wise thing to do. Why would you consider preparations by corporations or government as being money down the rathole, rather than multi-purpose and potentially useful in the future?

[(5) So if Flint is correct, this means that (a) every single one of worlwide PTB were wrong in their assessment capacity and in their decision making process or (b) Y2K was a one trillion dollar hoax sponsored and supported by them.]

Here is where binary thinking undermines your analysis. There's no single villian. In retrospect, I think we've learned (especially from parts of the world that did almost nothing and had few problems) that date mishandling errors were overrated in terms of their potential damage. And my own example shows that contingency plans are not inconsistent with the correct assessment of low odds. Hey, you aren't likely to roll snake eyes, but you damn well better be able to pay up if you do -- it's not impossible.

I also think (not sure) that a good deal of the remediation effort was focused on where it would do the most good, and a good many really serious problems were headed off at the pass.

Finally, there's the question of just how incorrect an assessment must be before it becomes a "hoax". I think TPTB overestimated the problem, but did so sincerely and in recognition of the value of being prepared just in case. There was no hoax, IMO.

And by the way, clever attempt to sneak that trillion dollars back in there. Sorry, but y2k is unlikely to ever come anywhere close to a trillion, no matter how sneaky you are.

[Either (a) and/or (b) would mean that we are all in the hands of an unreliable bunch of two-bit pricks that shouldn't be respected, and that Flint has been basically right all along and has thus revealed to the whole world the largest, best- kept, most expensive conspiracy in the history of mankind.]

George, where is this BS coming from? What *everyone* was doing all along was making an educated guess. Over time, as more information came in, those who chose to do so became more educated. But complete knowledge was never in the cards. So we made our best estimates, and tried to err on the side of caution and prudence. And somehow this becomes a conspiracy?

In hindsight, TPTB called it pretty damn well. They recommended minimal preparations, didn't cause any panic, and took prudent precautions. For which you and others castigated them mercilessly beforehand as being both clueless and evil. And now they become "two- bit pricks" for getting it pretty close? Why?

What you have done is taken a wide spectrum of probability and divided it into two extremes -- either they were stupid for being wrong and sincere, or they were dishonest for getting it wrong and knowing better! And this despite the fact that they were pretty damn right, all in all!

George, my concern is to understand those who got it totally wrong despite all the indications to the contrary. I don't expect input from those who STILL refuse to believe they were wrong, since there's no thought there to solicit. I strongly suspect your ultimate cost estimate is way high, and maybe time will tell us. But I also suspect that the cost can never be quantified well even in theory, since so much of what was spent had multiple purposes, of which y2k was only one. However, considering the fact that y2k has had demonstrably no impact, all those upgrades can only make those who did them more productive. In practice, y2k has been like a giant spring cleaning of our code base everywhere. A huge benefit with little downside at all.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 27, 2000.

Flint,

Well, today has been crazier that I had planned; problems with my parents, who are ill. I'll really try hard to get back to you by sometime tomorrow; thanks for your patience.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 27, 2000.

Flint,

You said,

Eve, reasonable and objective (forum) participants did not exist.

This statement is obviously ridiculous.

You said,

Your own continued chanting of the same tired catechism that nobody could know, despite all we NOW know

Now youre comparing apples and oranges; the uncertainty of the past with our 20-20 hindsight and real-time experience of the present. Makes no sense.

You said,

Just as a mental exercise, why dont you propose something that, if true, would persuade you that the big picture (or reasonably close, if not exact) COULD have been visible to a reasonable, objective person. What could that possibly have been?

Independent Y2K-focused certified audits, reflecting a clean bill of health, for at least the vast majority of utilities, industries and governments in the civilized world.

You said,

I challenged a banks are toast person to provide what HE personally would consider adequate evidence that banks were NOT toast. And he finally wrote back and said that after considerable thought, he was NOT ABLE to come up with ANYTHING that would change his mind. Not test results, not 3rd party audits, not even him personally examining their code (since he wasnt a programmer). There was NO POSSIBLE source of evidence he would trust as witness to the health of the banks.

But that was OK (he wrote), because the banks WERE toast, and he was right, so he wasnt concerned that evidence of his being wrong COULD not exist. Since he was so convinced it DID not exist.

Recently, I wrote to him and asked him if he were NOW satisfied that banks were OK, and he said yes, clearly they were. BUT, he said, before the fact, it was NOT POSSIBLE to know this! There was too much UNCERTAINTY. But for him, that was a tenet of belief, NOT a matter of evidence by his own admission!

He equated his refusal to accept evidence, with the objective nonexistence of that evidence Im sure he saw it as evidence and accepted it. The problem is that it was insufficient. For example, one of his main concerns may have been with the oil industry not holding up, which would certainly bring the banks down, as Ive previously written. Or he could have been uncomfortable with the banks vulnerability concerning the numerous other suppliers, customers, communications industry, electric industry, other infrastructure components, and/or other business partners of the banks.

Regarding my mention of the strike at two of GMs suppliers that brought GM to its knees:

Your answer seemed to miss my point. I was simply trying to get across how vulnerable big companies were to their smaller suppliers. Part of your response discussed the possibility of a meteor strike on the supplier. You assumed GM would simply find another supplier, redesign, etc. Well, those responses assume a normal economy, which is not the premise here.

You said,

you need to ask if there was sufficient evidence that there would beshortages.

No, Flint, you have it precisely backwards. With Y2K, its been generally accepted that the vast majority of all computerized and/or mechanized businesses, utilities and governments had to take action to stave off Y2K problems (which, in turn, could have led to business failures). Given this, you needed to ask for specific evidence that they succeeded in their remediation efforts, in order to be satisfied that they actually had.

You said,

a free market economy is adaptive, resilient, redundant, organic. Whole sectors dont just break and collapse. People have been finding useful and creative ways to deal with problems bigger than Y2K could ever have been for centuries. You state later that businesses are more like reeds that bend in the wind, and not dominoes that either fall or dont.

The old Charlottes Web analogy is the refutation of this. If too many strands are broken, it all goes down, no matter what potential there might have been for recovery in a normal economy. And re the reed/domino comparison  youre oversimplifying here. The domino was used to illustrate a simple point  the connectivity aspect. In a way, a business is in fact like the reed; but given certain overwhelming conditions, the reed will die. Thats where Im coming from.

You then discuss my concerns about smallmedium sized businesses., the bulk of which, from surveys, did no remediation. You did part of this by private e-mail. Flint, could you post your comments here? That way, to the extent anyones following the conversation, theyll have the complete picture. After you do that, Ill respond more fully to that point.

For now, though, Ill just note that you said that many of the survey respondents were not computerized or made trivial use of them. Well, if thats true, the surveys were fraudulent, as they would have intentionally produced a false picture. And the surveys were widely known, so it seems someone somewhere would have called them on it. So, that ones very hard to buy. Maybe you have access to a source that backs up your contention. If so, Id like to see it.

Further, you seem to give scant attention to the embedded systems issue in your responses pertaining to the small-medium sized businesses.

You responded to a comment I made to Bemused about the complexity surrounding the issue of embeddeds by stating, in part that, those reports were in the tiny minority

What does that have to do with whether or not the points made were valid?

By the way, I agree with you that certain information was distributed without reference to authoritative sources; but that doesnt invalidate the others. In that vein, if you have access to essays or reports on embeddeds that were available prior to 1/1/2000, were authoritative, comprehensive, and showed the inconsequentiality of them (re Y2K), would you post that information?

Flint, theres much more I could have commented on here, but my time is limited these days, and I had to focus on certain aspects that I thought were especially important. But if you were hoping for a comment on something you wrote that I havent yet addressed, feel free to reintroduce it and Ill be more than happy to respond.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

Hi eve,

Thanks for responding. I'll try to comment as best I can here.

[Flint: Eve, reasonable and objective (forum) participants did not exist.

Eve: This statement is obviously ridiculous.]

Fascinating! I regard my statement as trivially obvious and self- evident. This might be a strong clue as to our disagreements.

[Im sure he saw it as evidence and accepted it. The problem is that it was insufficient.]

I guess I wasn't clear. He made the statement that, *in his opinion*, there was NO SUCH THING as sufficient evidence. That he could not specify ANYTHING that would satisfy him. No matter what source of evidence *he* could dream up, he could find some reason (that satisfied him) to reject it.

Now, you haven't quite done this. Instead, you say that "Independent Y2K-focused certified audits, reflecting a clean bill of health, for at least the vast majority of utilities, industries and governments in the civilized world" would have satisfied you.

From my perspective, your demand amounts to the same as his. During the long pre-rollover debate, I pointed out many times that the required "certified audit" industry did not exist and could not exist. Who would do these audits? Who would do the certifying? The only sufficient expertise in the code and equipment was to be found in the industries themselves. They did indeed perform internal audits, and published their test results and their progress reports. And they had a very strong vested interest in making sure everything continued to work properly.

Yes, it would have been wonderful if by some miracle someone who knew the code as well as those who wrote and maintain it, and knew the equipment as well as those who designed and built it, and who just happened to be sitting idle in VAST numbers waiting for their chance to perform "independent, certified audits" could have magically appeared and done the job. But in reality, this requirement for your satisfaction was impossible to meet. So even in theory, your requirement is just another way of saying that you could not have been satisfied no matter what. And that was my whole point.

[The old Charlottes Web analogy is the refutation of this. If too many strands are broken, it all goes down, no matter what potential there might have been for recovery in a normal economy...Given this, you needed to ask for specific evidence that they succeeded in their remediation efforts, in order to be satisfied that they actually had.]

Absolutely. This is the heart of the issue. Nobody will dispute that if enough strands are broken, the web will collapse -- this is a statement of definition.

In the real world, this nice theoretical picture decomposes into a dismal process of examining the entire web, strand by strand. We need to determine both the strength of every strand, and the stresses on each, to approximate the probability of "breakage" (in real life, the *degree* of deterioration) likely to be suffered by each strand. And this is a slow process of slogging legwork, being performed at millions of venues, and following the dirty and difficult process of assessment, evaluation, remediation and testing.

It's easy to pontificate about webs, and damn hard to try to integrate all of these zillions of details as they become available over time. Very few people were willing to make this incredible effort. MUCH easier to demand some miraculous worldwide application of "independent certified audits" and refuse to be satisfied with anything less.

We knew from NERC that investigators weren't finding functional problems. We knew from the banks that their tests were going well. Ditto from Wall Street. Arnold Trembley's Mastercard series was a gold mine.

And I'll cheerfully concede that much of our "evidence" was negative in nature -- we weren't "proving" that things WOULD work correctly, but instead we were *failing* to find that things would *not* work correctly. As an engineer, I'm well satisfied with such negative findings. As a theoretician, you can declare them inadequate. In my defense for being so easily satisfied, I can only point to what we see in hindsight. In advance, I considered *failure to prove* things would croak to be valid evidence, while you held out for proof things would NOT croak. Again as an engineer, I recognize that *in practice* your standard cannot be met. You cannot prove a logical negative, even in theory. We can easily prove a program has a bug. We can NEVER prove it does NOT have a bug. That's life, like it or not. All we can do is observe that the program works well enough to be useful.

[Well, if thats true, the surveys were fraudulent, as they would have intentionally produced a false picture.]

BINGO! Exactly so! But I need to emphasize that the surveys themselves weren't fraudulent, they were accurate. It was the *context* TB2K created for the survey results that was fraudulent. That context said that (1) All businesses need to remediate (false); (2) A fix on failure strategy wouldn't work for any business (false); (3) The resulting date bugs would *disable* those who failed to remediate (WAY false); (4) Up to 60% of SME's being *nonfunctional* would fatally cripple larger companies (true if the premises were even remotely accurate, which they were NOT); (5) Therefore, the web would collapse.

And you will surely note that those who *performed* these surveys, and didn't provide the correct context, were ALSO in the remediation business. Isn't that strange? What a coincidence!

[What does that have to do with whether or not the points made were valid?]

Good point, because we're dealing with theory vs. practice again. As I wrote earlier, if 49 out of 50 weathermen claim there's no hurricane, and the 50th says there is and ALSO sells plywood, what does that have to do with whether or not there's a hurricane? After all, that 50th weatherman MIGHT be right. You can believe whichever you WANT to believe. But if you choose to believe that 50th weatherman, surely it's legitimate for me to wonder WHY you made that particular choice. It sure as hell ain't a RANDOM choice, know what I mean?

Eve, absolute proof just ain't available about the future, and complete data, properly interpreted, is a pipe dream in the real world. We're dealing with probabilities here, not absolutes. Remember, I wrote earlier that you cannot PROVE you'll be alive tomorrow. But this inability to prove, in and of itself, doesn't change the ODDS that you'll be alive tomorrow.

We could never prove that the web would NOT collapse, nor could we deny that such a collapse is always possible in theory. All we could do was look at ALL the evidence that things looked pretty good, and observe the LACK of empirical indication that things looked bad, and come to the "most reasonable" conclusion that the threat, while real, was minimal. NOT zero, as you demand. Just minimal.

You say that "given certain overwhelming conditions, the reed will die." Yes, that's correct. The question was, DO WE FIND these "certain overwhelming conditions" or not? In practice, we didn't find anything even close. Which is why I spent over a year trying to refute what I saw as the systematic effort to misrepresent and fabricate the illusion of "overwhelming conditions" when such conditions didn't exist. I regard demands for proofs known to be impossible as inherently dishonest. The claim that knowledge that is good enough is somenow NOT good enough, we want absolutes, isn't supportable in honest debate.

(And as a footnote, I regarded the loonies on the debunker forum as being in this same boat -- they refused to be satisfied with anything less than proof that things WOULD fail. Neither "side" seemed able to deal with shades of grey, with the notion of manageable rates of error.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 28, 2000.

Hi, Flint,

Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply. Unfortunately, I'll be out of commission again for another day or so. But hang in there, guy! There's much more I'd like to say on this.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

Hi Flint,

Since my time is still rather limited right now, I'll concentrate on what I believe to be the major points. But, as always, add or reintroduce whatever suits your fancy -- I'll be glad to respond.

Regarding your statement that "reasonable and objective (forum) participants did not exist.": You said that this was "...trivially obvious and self-evident."

Well, since you were/are a forum participant, this must have been a tough thing for you to admit...:)

You then state, in effect, that my requirement for assurance (independent audits) is unreasonably high, as it couldn't be carried out in practice. And that this very fact means that nothing would have satisfied me.

First, I think that if there had been sufficient interest, it certainly could have been done. Remember your faith in the free market? Hmmm...it seems to be conspicuously absent here.

Second, even if it could not be done in practice, what's wrong with that? You simply admit that there's too much uncertainty to make a reasonable assessment.

You indicate that as an engineer you're satisfied with "failing to find that things would not work correctly." If you're alluding to your company as an example, that I would agree wholeheartedly! Of course you're satisfied, because it's internal! You can see firsthand that things are working. Or you could gain reasonable assurance that they would work, based on real-time simulations. And you're more likely to trust the information you get from others in your own company. So, there certainly are specific situations where this type of assessment is completely reasonable.

But compare the above with the lack of reasonable assurance regarding, say, the Saudi oil situation. No pun intended, but I think you can see that there's a world of difference here.

By the way, I'm not looking for proof that things are ok -- just reasonable assurance. This is the goal of most independent audits anyway -- at least in the financial arena. And you just extrapolate from there to this area.

We discussed your insinuation that because "pessimistic" reports about embeddeds were "in the tiny minority," that was cause to lend them less credibility. You responded with an example of 49 out of 50 weathermen claiming no hurricane and the 50th who predicts one also selling plywood.

Why didn't you use an example of the 50th simply being a world renowned expert on hurricanes? Or use an example of 20 out of 50 predicting the hurricane? Is it because you're trying to build a case? Oh yes, that's right -- you had observed above that you're not objective...I almost forgot. (Ok, Flint...I can be allowed one zinger, can't I? :))

You repeat in different ways throughout your reply that I'm looking for absolutes -- for proof. Nothing could be further from the truth. I said I would like to have seen independent audits -- which do not look for proof. They look to obtain reasonable assurance that things would be ok, based on tests of samples. In fact, I would even be satisfied for an even weaker type of assurance: That they tested and saw no evidence that things would not be ok.

So, please, Flint -- no more talk of "proof" or "absolutes." I'll just see it as a straw man or a red herring.

Talk to you soon...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 29, 2000.

Hi, Eve!

I think we're getting somewhere here.

[Regarding your statement that "reasonable and objective (forum) participants did not exist.": You said that this was "...trivially obvious and self-evident."

Well, since you were/are a forum participant, this must have been a tough thing for you to admit...:)]

Not really hard. We have all been expressing opinions on an opinion forum. I'm definitely NOT objective, I simply try to avoid taking positions I don't feel I can defend honestly.

[You then state, in effect, that my requirement for assurance (independent audits) is unreasonably high, as it couldn't be carried out in practice. And that this very fact means that nothing would have satisfied me. First, I think that if there had been sufficient interest, it certainly could have been done. Remember your faith in the free market? Hmmm...it seems to be conspicuously absent here. Second, even if it could not be done in practice, what's wrong with that? You simply admit that there's too much uncertainty to make a reasonable assessment.]

OK, the two of us clearly had different fundamental questions we wanted answered. And obviously when you ask very different questions, you tend to find very different answers. I'll present my viewpoint of the comparison I see:

YOUR goal was to find "reasonable assurance" that problems would be minor. From my perspective, you set the bar of "reasonable" so high that *maybe* the sun rising in the East would have scraped over, but neither death nor taxes would have cut the mustard. After all, we have no "reasonable assurance" (by your definition) that we won't cure death or eliminate taxes tomorrow, for all we know!

In contrast, MY goal was essentially statistical. I was trying to derive the range of scenarios I felt constituted the "best fit" for ALL of the data points I could find. And many if not most of those data points were negative data -- the sheer number of dogs that were NOT barking in the night. No market uncertainty, no geek migration, no whistle blowers, no shortages, no CEOs and CIOs headed for prepared retreats, no new notable observers joining the doomer camp, no impacts from the undeniable millions of lookahead date bugs, on and on. None of the doomers ever seemed to grasp that if we faced even half of what they expected, there would have been one HELL of a lot of signs pointing in that direction, all around us. There were NONE.

So OK, you say that the free market *could* have created a satisfactory "audit industry" if the demand had been there. I accept that this is true, but you should accept that maybe, just maybe there was a *reason* why no hint of any such demand existed. This lack is a data point. And in fact, the remediation houses that sprang up expecting to make a killing found very little demand themselves and did poorly. Another data point. Yeah, the TB2K "position" was that this poor showing meant that corporations had "given up" or had vastly underestimated their tasks. But such excuses had NO basis in reality, they were just silly efforts to maintain the wrong opinion. You had to be *really* determined to disbelieve your eyes to buy into such grasping at straws.

Anyway, the underlying question is how *much* uncertainty is too much. I mentioned those weak excuses above as an illustration of the lengths it was possible to go, to find "uncertainty" in your own mind, whether or not any shred of empirical evidence for it existed at all.

Most of the time, the Doomer interpretations weren't quite so silly, but they were very consistent. If you're determined enough to build a case as an advocate for uncertainty, as I said, neither death nor taxes are certain. You can find *some* reason they might vanish if you are both imaginative and determined enough. Advocates, by definition, work this way.

(at one time, only half in jest, I wrote that TB2K finally enabled me to understand the O.J.Simpson verdict. If he'd confessed, well, it was a forced confession. If someone had videotaped him doing it, the tape was doctored. If there'd been 500 witnesses, it was mass hypnosis! Once one's mind is made up, NO evidence is "reasonably certain" enough to change it. We've known since man was definably man that those looking for some reason to believe or doubt *anything* will find reason sufficient to satisfy them.)

[But compare the above with the lack of reasonable assurance regarding, say, the Saudi oil situation. No pun intended, but I think you can see that there's a world of difference here.]

Indeed. This is a wonderful illustration of the different answers our different questions gave us. What you saw was lack of independent certified audits. Given your underlying fear that anything not audited to your knowledge or satisfaction is *likely* to fail, you found cause for worry. From my perspective, this boils down to "I must assume everything will fail unless I see proof otherwise, and my standards of proof are nearly unreachable."

Now from my viewpoint, I saw no good reason to believe there were *likely* to be serious problems. I knew US oil interests are involved, and *they* were checking things carefully. I knew the Saudis had no plans for extended shutdowns. I knew the media were painfully aware of this situation, yet they could find nothing suspicious. I knew that behind the scenes the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia were intently interested, yet the US strategic reserve wasn't being augmented at abnormal rates. And so on.

And this is NOT just a matter of closing my eyes and assuming that no news is good news. If the Saudi oil situation was bad, even mildly bad (say a 20% capacity reduction possible), you can be DAMN sure there would have been some considerable ruckus, which TB2K would have trumpeted ad nauseum. People in the oil (or any other) industry don't solve their problems by ignoring the fact situation and wishing real real hard. They were looking for problems and NOT finding problems.

My assessment (before the fact) was a 10% chance of problems lasting up to a month, worldwide, with a possible reduction in US imports of up to 5% during that period worst case, solely as a result of the depredations of date bugs (and nothing to do with political climate or OPEC internal policy).

And this *was* one of my worst-case issues, since nearly all of our data points were negative, meaning LACK of any problems when if there HAD been serious problems, there'd have been no good way to keep it a secret. So I saw no reason to worry when I believed such reasons would have been very visible had they existed. You saw reason to worry because you couldn't find any "reasonable assurance" otherwise. Very different standards of "reason".

[By the way, I'm not looking for proof that things are ok -- just reasonable assurance. This is the goal of most independent audits anyway -- at least in the financial arena. And you just extrapolate from there to this area.]

Very interesting, highly informative. Financial audits are intended, at least in part, to unearth skulduggery, aren't they? People can keep very "creative" books, even one set for audit and one set for real life! But as a rule (with exceptions, I know) programmers are NOT trying to be devious. And engineers even less so -- simplicity is a strong virtue.

I'll admit cheerfully that my standard of evidence for estimating y2k bug impacts would have been hopelessly inappropriate for financial auditing. I admit assuming all along that people were trying to FIX problems, not HIDE them. It was clearly in their vested interest NOT to hide them.

Come to think about it a bit more, you raise a wonderful point here! The financial audit mindset would naturally demand independence, because those being audited are TRYING to hide things. No wonder so many people just assumed that self-reported compliance was no good -- the assumption was that companies WANTED their date bugs, because they want their bookkeeping tricks.

Say you can't find your car keys. You claim you looked in all your pockets, in your purse, etc. The TB2K mindset would equate this with you trying to hide something you didn't want found, so your claim would not be believed! In reality, date bugs were like those keys. You desperately WANT to find them, and your search was fully sincere. If you claim those keys are not in your pocket, we can be quite sure they aren't. We don't need an "independent" search to "validate" that you couldn't find what you were sincerely searching for. So you are extrapolating from a fundamentally false assumption! Wonderful!

[Why didn't you use an example of the 50th simply being a world renowned expert on hurricanes? Or use an example of 20 out of 50 predicting the hurricane? Is it because you're trying to build a case? Oh yes, that's right -- you had observed above that you're not objective...I almost forgot. (Ok, Flint...I can be allowed one zinger, can't I? :)) ]

Yes, but you'd only be partially correct here. There are thousands of authors of programming books, and 1 or 2 were y2k worrywarts. There are tens of thousands of religious authors, and 2 or 3 worried. There were at least 30 major Wall Street economists, and only one worried. The Iron Triangle industries have countless experts, and we had Rick Cowles and NO bankers or communications experts worried. And Cowles vanished when the results came in positive. So 1 out of 50 was very generous -- the actual ratio was one out of thousands. And many of those thousands were a LOT more renowned than the rather threadbare handful of pessimistic notables TB2K found.

And I encourage you to reflect on your "20 out of 50" impression, demonstrably wildly off base. Just where do you suppose you could have come up with such an impression? Could it have been that TB2K collected EVERY pessimist they could find, and ignored ALL the rest? We always knew, if we cared to admit it, that the vast majority of everyone in the world, even those directly involved in remediation, considered y2k no big deal.

And the incredible paucity of concerned, knowledgeable people was another critical data point for me. My reaction to the tiny handful of pessimistic notables TB2K could find was "What?! That's ALL? You gotta be *kidding*!" If the pessimists had been even 10% accurate, they'd have been recruiting spokespeople in huge droves, because bugs, and failures, and desperation would have been everywhere. The nearly universal attempt by these few pessimistic notables to make money from public fear was the cherry on top! MAJOR data points.

[You repeat in different ways throughout your reply that I'm looking for absolutes -- for proof. Nothing could be further from the truth.]

I trust that's a figure of speech. You spoke earlier of "overwhelming conditions" being likely enough to concern you. Evidence of such conditions was stunningly absent. Evidence *against* such conditions was abundant. If these indications together do not persuade you, then your standard of "reasonable assurances" is very hard to distinguish from "proof".

[I said I would like to have seen independent audits -- which do not look for proof. They look to obtain reasonable assurance that things would be ok, based on tests of samples. In fact, I would even be satisfied for an even weaker type of assurance: That they tested and saw no evidence that things would not be ok.]

Sigh. Rant mode on.

This sounds like rewriting history to me. I don't mean offense here, but this is directly contrary to your prior statements. There were literally tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of assurances issued. EVERY bank I know of did so. EVERY utility I know of did so. Even when the SEC required companies to publish their worst case scenario, almost without exception the "worst case" was the *other guy* screwing up, since the company reporting was in good shape and expected to be *responsible* for no y2k problems. There were THOUSANDS of them. "Y2K ready" stickers were on everything, and "y2k ready" signs posted in front of stores everywhere. We were buried under avalanches of these things to the point where people in general were very thoroughly sick of the entire issue.

For months, TB2K was clogged with scathing rejections of all those "self-serving" declarations and "faked" demonstrations and "bogus" test results. Those who posted them were called shills and morons and idiots and assholes and fools. Those who tried to fight back against this treatment were censored away. Don't you remember?

And NOW you say these would have satisfied you? Where WERE you? Successful test results were the stuff of daily routine throughout industry and government everywhere for months. And this was well known, except maybe to those hiding under the bed on TB2K. To NOT be aware of this tsunami of assurances, you needed to stick your fingers in your ears, clamp your eyes tight shut and scream. In other words, the TB2K norm.

Sorry for the rant, but sheesh. Saying you'd have been satisfied with data you had to work REAL REAL hard NOT to acknowledge is just too much.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 29, 2000.

Hi Flint,

You indicated that I set the bar of reasonable assurance too high. No, I didn't. Reasonable assurance is gained through the auditor's examination of samples of documentation, observation and inquiries such that an ordinary person reading the financial statements would, accordingly, have reasonable assurance that the financial statements reflect reality.

Keep in mind that examination of samples imply that there are going to be extrapolations to the population. And in practice, there are a reasonable range of sample sizes that the auditor can pick from, as he/she sets the confidence levels and acceptable risk of errors. Through this process there are certainly risks that the auditor will accept a sample as being representative of the population when it wasn't. Or the risk of errors in testing the sample itself, etc. etc.

This is why your examples of death and taxes are inapplicable.

I even went further and said I would accept what's called "negative assurance." This is exemplified by a statement in the auditor's report that might read something like the following:

"Based on our review, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that internal software and embedded systems, as well as the condition of key suppliers and customers will have significant adverse effects for the company."

Regarding your assertion that the company would have a lack of motive for hiding something: Of course there could be a motive. If the company suspected it was in trouble, they might try to keep it from stockholders and creditors, for starters.

Re your "rant mode" section: You completely misunderstood what I was trying to get across. When I said "they" tested and saw no evidence..., I meant the auditors. In connection with this, please refer to my "negative assurance" point above. Maybe I shouldn't have used the pronoun.

Large parts of the rest of your post I found to consist of unsubstantiated assertions, so I'm letting that go for now. But if you feel that I missed something you'd really like to settle, let me know.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

[Re your "rant mode" section: You completely misunderstood what I was trying to get across.]

Exactly the contrary, that *was* the point, your determination to deny it notwithstanding. The evidence was there. It was sufficient. It was satisfactory to all but a very tiny handful of unsatisfiable extremists. In practice, it proved itself accurate in spectacularly unambiguous terms. Your sense of "reasonable" has been demonstrated to be howlingly inappropriate. If you want to keep repeating "No it wasn't! No it wasn't! Reality was a *coincidence*!" then that's your privilege. There's no more I can say.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

Flint,

I see that you've ignored the substance of my points and resorted once again to your litany of baseless, and therefore meaningless, miscellaneous claims and assertions that have come to riddle your posts, and completely took over the most recent one.

It's probably best, therefore, if we just agree to disagree and let the readers -- if there are any left here -- judge for themselves.

I guess I'll see you on another thread, Flint.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

(Hamlet, by William Shakespeare):

ACT II --SCENE II A room in the castle.

LORD POLONIUS:This business is well ended.

My liege, and madam, to expostulate What majesty should be, what duty is, Why day is day, night night, and time is time, Were nothing but to waste night, day and time. Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief:

your noble son is mad: Mad call I it; for, to define true madness, What is't but to be nothing else but mad? But let that go.

QUEEN GERTRUDE: More matter, with less art.

LORD POLONIUS: Madam, I swear I use no art at all. That he is mad, 'tis true: 'tis true 'tis pity; And pity 'tis 'tis true: a foolish figure; But farewell it, for I will use no art.

Mad let us grant him, then: and now remains That we find out the cause of this effect, Or rather say, the cause of this defect, For this effect defective comes by cause: Thus it remains, and the remainder thus.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

I see that you've ignored the substance of my points and resorted once again to your litany of baseless, and therefore meaningless, miscellaneous claims and assertions that have come to riddle your posts, and completely took over the most recent one.

In the immortal words of the great man, Paul Milne:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Eve, it appears that with this post you are bringing this conversation down to the "personal level." and are morphing into a "LOL." I find that most puzzling considering you were quoted as saying:

Believe me, there are accusations and insinuations that I could hurl your way as well, but I don't believe in mud slinging.

But of course, that depends on your definition of "mud slinging" doesn't it? LOL. At least to your credit, you did manage to work the word "riddle" into this post, just as you did with:

You failed to recognize the ad hominem in your prior post, and your last post was riddled with even more.

Strange coincidence, though. Two different people on two different threads come to the exact same conclusion about your viewpoint on two different topics. And the threads come to the same abrupt end by the exact same person. Amazing!

One would almost think that perhaps you should consider the possibility that what we said has some merit. Nahhhh, couldn't be that!

Oh yes, and regarding a "litany of baseless, and therefore meaningless, miscellaneous claims and assertions," have you come up with any Paul Milne posts yet that you claim that I have ignored?

ROTFLMAO

It's probably best, therefore, if we just agree to disagree and let the readers -- if there are any left here -- judge for themselves.

Yes, that would indeed be best. LOL.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), March 01, 2000.

Side bet: LOL is really Flint after a couple leinenkugles. :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 01, 2000.

LOL:

No offense to Eve intended, but I DO believe that she sees a forum as a chatroom. I have no other explanation for her offering "Don't have time right now to do anything but scan, but I'll be back", etc. Half the folks here only post once or twice/week, but SHE feels the need to explain her inability to respond when she doesn't HAVE the time to read first.

In addition, [and again no offense to Eve], her lack of time to do the research necessary to UNDERSTAND the topics under discussion put her at a disadvantage.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

"Side bet: LOL is really Flint after a couple leinenkugles. :^)"

Bemused...

.....If you have any trouble covering the takers, I'll ante up to help you; I've suspected this for some time now... There simply can't be two people that long-winded on the same board.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), March 01, 2000.

Anita,

I note that you've made a few personal comments about me. If you'd like to make some points on one or more of the substantive issues, though, and keep it on that level, I'll be glad to discuss them with you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

Way to stay cool Eve....you win! :-)

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), March 01, 2000.

Eve:

The substantive issue is that you CHOOSE to flit in and out as though this forum were a chatroom. You choose NOT to do the reading required either of the posts HERE, or those necessary to back up your claims BEFORE you speak. You tend to act as though folks are waiting with abaited breath for your next thought.

That sounded harsh, I know, but I don't know quite how to say it any more nicely than I've already said.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 01, 2000.

Snort! HAW Haw haw! I'm not LOL, but HERE is how eve "addresses substantive issues", in her own analytical words:

"your litany of baseless, and therefore meaningless, miscellaneous claims and assertions"

Yep, there it is. In-depth analysis of literally dozens of carefully presented ideas, which she *admits* she hasn't taken the time to actually *read*, you understand. Why bother reading or understanding what you're addressing, when you have *substance*???

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 01, 2000.

Snort! HAW Haw haw! I'm not LOL

This, above all else, should demonstrate that I am not Flint. I NEVER snort or "haw haw." That is simply beneath my dignity. I only LOL, ROTFLMAO, and on rare occasions, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Also, though I have been known to down a few Leine's, I rather prefer microbrews.

And as to the accusation that I am "long-winded," I disagree. My attention span is simply too short to be "long-winded."

I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), March 02, 2000.

Anita,

I understand. The substantive issue with you is me. Let me know, though, as soon as you decide that you would like to discuss issues other than myself. If you have problem with something specific that Flint and I discussed, or practically anything else for that matter, just bring it up -- tell me the specifics in your own words.

From time to time we all reference others' opinions. But as you know, people can and do talk about things without feeling that they have to almost constantly point to what someone else may have said. So come on, Anita -- give it a try. You know -- condense, paraphrase, summarize, abstract. Convey some ideas in your own words. I'm sure you can do it.

Also, my parents are both ill, as I mentioned in a prior post on this thread. If you would like to look at that as an "excuse" for me "flitting" in and out, then that's your prerogative. I'm just disappointed that you feel you have to bring it down to this level.

And I didn't take your message as being harsh at all; I was only a little saddened at seeing another person who would rather focus on me than the issues.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

Flint,

I'd like to correct an error in what I said to you. In stead of "baseless assertions" I should have said "unsubstantiated assertions." I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

Oh yes. Now I remember what we were talking about.

Welcome, class, to eve 101. Please take your seats and listen carefully as we attempt to decipher the creature known only as the "eve."

I understand.

We open with a statement to set the "tone," in this case, one of calmness and understanding. It is also known as a "lie" or "falsehood." You will see this exhibited on several occasions.

The substantive issue with you is me. Let me know, though, as soon as you decide that you would like to discuss issues other than myself.

Here we see the "eve" setting the direction of the conversation, that being away from her and towards someone else. Conveniently absent is the notion that eve sees no problems with discussing other people, only that she feels that it is inappropriate for others to discuss eve. We call this "deflection."

If you have problem with something specific that Flint and I discussed, or practically anything else for that matter, just bring it up -- tell me the specifics in your own words.

Once again, the "eve" sets a false tone of openness and calmness in order to attract her prey. This is, of course, what is known as "bait."

From time to time we all reference others' opinions. But as you know, people can and do talk about things without feeling that they have to almost constantly point to what someone else may have said.

This is a combination of what appears to be nonsensical gibberish. It is unclear whether this is an attempt to appear intellectual, or simply an attempt to confuse the reader. It appears here that the "eve" is saying that she is upset at being quoted, as when we remind the reader that she has said:

I see that you've ignored the substance of my points and resorted once again to your litany of baseless, and therefore meaningless, miscellaneous claims and assertions that have come to riddle your posts, and completely took over the most recent one.

Apparently, she would prefer that she not be quoted as we have done above. Unfortunately, as Mick sang, "You Can't Always Get What You Want." (The reader is invited to hum this song throughout the remainder of this post.)

So come on, Anita -- give it a try. You know -- condense, paraphrase, summarize, abstract. Convey some ideas in your own words. I'm sure you can do it.

This contains some wonderfully condescending phrases that one would use when addressing a small child. The "eve" is quote fond of using such condescending phrases as "I'm sure you can do it." when addressing those that she feels are her inferiors.

Also, my parents are both ill, as I mentioned in a prior post on this thread.

Here, of course, is one of the "eve"s most impressive characteristics, the self-pitying comments. "My parents are both ill!" she cries, and this, of course, gives her the right to patronize and insult those she talks to with blatant personal attacks and unjustified accusations. (The reader has the option to hear violins at this point, although I prefer to continue listening to the Stones).

If you would like to look at that as an "excuse" for me "flitting" in and out, then that's your prerogative.

Here, of course, the "eve" continues to use the self-pity method to defend herself against an accusation that she appears to have deliberately misinterpreted. Conveniently ignored is the fact that the issue was that she was constantly reminding us where she was and what she was doing, as opposed to actually reading the posts and attempting to understand them before she launched into her tirades.

I'm just disappointed that you feel you have to bring it down to this level.

Once again, an excellent example of the use of condescending remarks. The reader is encouraged to visualize a 50's era mother-figure scolding her child, "I'm very disappointed in you, young lady!" Don't forget the waggling finger!!

Also note the continued insistence that it is never the "eve" which brings the conversation down to "this level." It is always the other person.

And I didn't take your message as being harsh at all; I was only a little saddened at seeing another person who would rather focus on me than the issues.

Here, of course, is "the final blow" which harkens back to the use of "deflection" earlier. The "eve" once again conveniently ignores the fact that she clearly enjoys focusing on the other person rather than the issues. This hypocritical nature is the key to understanding, the "eve".

Before class is dismissed, we should have a look at another one of the comments made by the "eve"

Flint, I'd like to correct an error in what I said to you. In stead of "baseless assertions" I should have said "unsubstantiated assertions." I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

Here we can see the "eve"s unusual attempt at humor. This comment is in the same vein as something like, "I didn't mean to call you a moron, eve. I meant to call you a stupid *hypocritical* moron. Sorry for the mixup!"

The reader has the option of laughing at the "eve"s attempt at humor. I will decline at this time, which says a lot for me.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), March 02, 2000.

To all except "LOL"

For a reason that is important to me, I am not posting, and will not ever post, anything directly to this person. But if you see something in his/her posts that you feel deserves a response from me, just put the issue in your post, without reference to the source, and I'll be happy to respond.

Also, I won't be posting a response to anyone who questions my decision, or in any way makes reference to this person in connection with me.

Keep in mind that this is the first time -- and I expect the last -- I've ever felt I had to take an action like this. Please try to respect my decision.

Thanks,

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

LOL... What does your post above focus on? eve? Doesn't this prove her point? Any good Y2K-related points/counterpoints in there? Have a Summit pale and chill.

Eve, for your part, you tend to allow yourself be affected by subtle personal subtexts in posts too much - when you point them out and respond to them in kind, it only stokes the issue to the point where the original argument gets lost. Consistantly ignore the personal jabs and they tend to wash away.

I'd like this thread to get off the Jerry Springer stage and back to flint's points, if there's any life left in that subthread.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 02, 2000.

To all except "LOL"

Uh oh, I read this post anyway. Am I in trouble now??

Oh, wait, this is her way of saying "I'm not talking to you, so there!! Nyah nyah!" Never mind.

For a reason that is important to me, I am not posting, and will not ever post, anything directly to this person.

"However, I will indirectly post, so that this person can see that I am talking about him, without actually talking to him. It's a common technique used in many civilized societies, although it is usually limited to the pre-teen members."

But if you see something in his/her posts that you feel deserves a response from me, just put the issue in your post, without reference to the source, and I'll be happy to respond.

LOL. To save time, here is the response you will get:

You have now taken this conversation to the personal level and are no longer interested in discussing the substantive issues so I will not be responding to any more posts from you.

Just in case you wanted a preview of what you'd be in for.

Also, I won't be posting a response to anyone who questions my decision, or in any way makes reference to this person in connection with me.

I guess that means that you probably can't LOL at her posts either. That's unfortunate. Some are pretty funny.

Keep in mind that this is the first time -- and I expect the last -- I've ever felt I had to take an action like this.

Wow, I'm an original. What an honor! LOL

Please try to respect my decision.

I'm sure they will, even though you never respect theirs.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), March 02, 2000.

LOL... What does your post above focus on? eve? Doesn't this prove her point? Any good Y2K-related points/counterpoints in there?

Sorry Bemused, you are correct. However, this post stopped being about Y2K long before I got here.

Have a Summit pale and chill.

Not my brew of choice, but I'll try to "chill." Thanks.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), March 02, 2000.

Bemused:

I have to go along with LOL on this one. Most of us are busy and can't post regularly. We don't expect others to be sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting for our responses. We post when we HAVE time, and READ before we post. AFAIK, Eve does quite well on the philosophy threads. Philosophy is kindof a TIMELESS topic. THIS thread is an offshoot of the Milne thread wherein his words on csy2k were discussed. Flint brought up the demeanor of this forum LAST YEAR. Was Eve HERE last year? AFAIK, she's a fairly new poster. So...SHE's using data from NOW [skimmed, of course] and comparing it to data Flint presented from LAST YEAR and arguing about it....WHEN SHE HAS THE TIME.

Eve: I'm sorry to hear about your folks being ill. We all have personal problems that interfere with our ability to post. HOWEVER, we don't CONCLUDE that our posts will be missed, nor do we conclude that other posters are interested in our time constraints.

Just out of curiosity, Eve, I copied portions of some of your "I don't have time" threads:

Hi, Flint, I haven't yet had the time to go through your entire post, but after reading what I have and skimming the rest, I think you've made some excellent points.

The most important thing is whether and to what extent we made the effort to understand the issue -- through research, reading opinions of every expert we could get our hands on, used reason and logic.....

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint, Thanks for your response. I've skimmed it, but I just wanted to let you know that I may not have a chance to think about it and reply until late tonight or tomorrow.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

Flint, Well, today has been crazier that I had planned; problems with my parents, who are ill. I'll really try hard to get back to you by sometime tomorrow; thanks for your patience.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 27, 2000.

Hi, Flint, Thanks for your thoughtful and civil reply. Unfortunately, I'll be out of commission again for another day or so. But hang in there, guy! There's much more I'd like to say on this.

- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 28, 2000.

Hi Flint, Since my time is still rather limited right now, I'll concentrate on what I believe to be the major points.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 29, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- on to another thread:

Hi Bill, I haven't yet read much of this thread (it does look interesting upon skimming), but I did notice that my name came up vis-a-vis Flint's. Because of this, to the extent anyone's interested, I invite y'all to read Flint's recent "Response to BB..." thread, in which he and I have a very long conversation. I thought it was interesting, as it examined in some depth many of the differences in our positions.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Lest you think I have NOTHING substantive to say, Eve, I'd like to remind you of what you said to Flint:

"The most important thing is whether and to what extent we made the effort to understand the issue -- through research, reading..."

Have you read the archives from last year, Eve? Do you UNDERSTAND the issue? The issue is NOT how posters respond TODAY. The issue is how posters responded LAST YEAR.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 02, 2000.

Hi Bemused,

I appreciate your input. I'll just say for now that my feelings about these things depend on the context. Sometimes I know that I've overreacted; the majority of the time I really don't think I do. But hey, I'm always open to learning more about myself. Maybe there's even a therapist out there somewhere who's reading this. If there is, do you think they might consider therapy by e-mail? :))

Well, enough of that; let's move on. You mentioned that you wanted to get back to "Flint's points." Which ones?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

Anita,

I'm really very flattered that you're trying to turn the topics of this thread into an "All About Eve," but let's try something brand new:

Since you seem to be very reluctant to start a substantive discussion on anything other than me, may I start one for us?

Would you list your ten most important documents that you think I haven't read and give a brief statement as to the ideas presented and a reason as to the why each one should have been considered? If ten is too much, do five. Or do as many as you want. Since this area seems to be of such importance to you, it shouldn't be too hard.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.

Eve:

I AM NOT trying to turn this thread into "All about Eve." YOU already DID THAT.

Would I consider posting 5 or 10 "documents" that I THINK you haven't read? Of course not. We already saw in the Milne post how you thought that 4 threads were not representative. I won't fall for THAT one. In addition, the onus is NOT on me to do YOUR research. The archives exist for anyone who wishes to review them.

May I ask WHEN you came to this forum exactly? Were you HERE in June, July, August, September of 1999? If not, have you READ the archives?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 02, 2000.

Anita,

I've been researching this issue in depth since July, 1998. The sources I used were varied and widespread.

For some reason you are unable or unwilling to talk about what you supposedly know, other than repeating that you know these issues and that you've read lots of things. Because of this, and because you've obviously poured quite a bit of energy into focusing on me instead of the issues, there's really no point in me continuing to try to converse with you.

You can certainly reply, but I've lost interest and I don't think I'll be checking this thread any longer.

Take care,

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.