From Russ Kelly's site, I bring you this article on being wrong about Y2K. The Y2K Computer Bug -- Update February 2000

by Ben Best

THE Y2K COMPUTER BUG -- THE YAWN OF A NEW MILLENNIUM

This is my last update of my original Y2K essay written in May 1999 dealing with the Y2K computer bug. That essay provides essential background for this update and should be read first. My September 1999 update and December 1999 update are also background for this essay.

After months of reading nearly a dozen books as well as countless articles, websites and newspaper stories -- after months of straining to know the truth about the Y2K computer bug with as much objectivity as I could muster -- after months of hands-on Y2K remediation at my workplace -- and after months of sounding the alarm far & wide -- I must acknowledge that I was SPECTACULARLY WRONG.

I am delighted & relieved that there was no Y2K computer bug disaster. The result of such a disaster could have been devastating to life, liberty, wealth & progress -- as well as to life-extension and cryonics. At the same time I am distraught that I could have sought the truth so aggressively and been so wrong. I am disturbed at the prospect that I may have upset people -- causing them to spend time, money & effort preparing for an hallucination. And I am shamefaced at having discredited myself to those who trusted & believed me. I had felt at times like Paul Revere and at times like Chicken Little. Now I am Chicken Little with egg on his face.

But life goes on -- especially for those who ardently want life to go on -- and on and on... I groan, "Oh No, Not Another Learning Experience" (to quote a button). And then, hopefully, do learn to be smarter about distinguishing real problems from illusory ones -- and about making the right preparations for the problems that are real.

THE Y2K BUG-BITE WAS A MERE NIBBLE

Although not widely publicized, there were quite a number of Y2K computer problems, but most have been glitches that have been quietly fixed without public fanfare -- much like the computer glitches that occur chronically in everyday life.

There were problems with heart monitoring equipment and defibrillators reported in Sweden & Malaysia. E-mail systems failed in Qinghai branches of the People's Bank of China and in Russia's press service. Machines processing credit-card transactions in many Chinese banks failed on January 1st.

The first baby born in Denmark in January was registered as being 100 years old. The IRS sent demands for payment by 1900 to many taxpayers. Ten percent of cash registers in Greece printed receipts with the year 1900.

Computer controls on prison cell doors failed in British Columbia. Computerized prison records in Italy gave incorrect dates for birthdays, trial-dates and release-dates.

Highland Community Bank in Chicago was unable to electronically transfer Medicare funds. The Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago reported a Y2K failure associated with the transfer of $700,000 in tax payments. Three mission-critical systems failed at the Federal Housing Administration. 100,000 people in Sweden were unable to access their bank accounts over the Internet.

Emergency phones on the Adirondack Northway in New York went dead because they weren't Y2K compliant. Cash register/inventory systems were so malfunctional at many Washington State liquor stores that some stores were forced to temporarily close. Hundreds of slot machines failed at racetracks in Delaware.

Y2K computer problems at the Hong Kong Futures Exchange forced manual compiling of options prices, whereas more serious problems forced Pakistan's stock exchange to close on January 4th.

A hydroelectric plant in Kazakhstan has been forced into manual control due to Y2K problems encountered on January 1st. Manual operations are also in place for an income tax system in Gambia which was not Y2K compliant. Y2K bugs affected aluminum manufacturing in Korea & Venezuela.

Problems described as somewhat serious were failures to process data from US miliary reconnaissance satellites and a problem at the main US uranium storage site for nuclear missiles. Both problems occurred at midnight GMT and both problems were dealt-with within four hours -- although the satellite photos for the few hours after midnight were irretrievably lost.

A survey of 1,750 technology workers by CMP Media (a publisher of high-tech trade publications) revealed that 25& 37; of organizations experienced Y2K computer problems, more than half of which were serious enough to cause a brief interruption of service. Peculiarly, hotels & restaurants have reported the largest adverse effects of any industry.

Problems in the nuclear power industry are difficult to cover up because the reporting requirements are very stringent. In the United States, only one nuclear plant was shut down due to a possible Y2K-related incident. Seven Y2K-related non-critical nuclear power plant incidents were reported in total for the US. Japan reported 5-10 minor nuclear power Y2K problems, such as failing radiation monitors and temperature gauges. One similar problem was reported in Korea and for two of Spain's nine nuclear reactors. But in the countries where the worst nuclear power problems were feared -- Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere in Eastern Europe -- there were few reported problems. Prior to rollover officials in those countries had anticipated no problems because their equipment was too old to contain the kind of computer-controlled automation that could lead to disaster. In retrospect, these claims appear to have been reasonable.

I myself dealt with three Y2K-associated problems in the first week after the Y2K rollover. One was due to a user running a job too early in order to preclude a Y2K problem, one was a true Y2K glitch that was nothing more than an inconvenience and one is a puzzle that has neither recurred nor been explained. Three weeks later another problem appeared when I discovered we had been failing to get some data because of a Y2K bug (which was easily fixed). The bugs which I had found & eliminated early in 1999 in the Y2K lab would have been much more serious.

A review of many worldwide Y2K glitches can be found at

"www.iy2kcc.org/Glitches2000.htm".

ANTICIPATING DISASTER

There was no shortage of compelling evidence that disaster might occur, much of which I have previously reported in depth -- and will not attempt to repeat. Last Spring MCLEAN'S magazine (19-April-1999, page 44) published a Gartner Group world map which showed best & worst prepared countries as having 10-15& 37; to over 50& 37; (respectively) companies & government agencies experiencing critical Y2K system failures. The May 1999 issue of CONSUMER REPORTS (page 23-27) gave warnings about possible failures of power, water, phones, cash and food-supply.

The 29-November-1999 issue of TIME magazine (page 49, Canadian Edition) repeated warnings from the CIA concerning Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, India and Indonesia. The US State Department had not only issued travel warnings about China and other countries, but had authorized embassy employees to leave Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine due to concerns about health & safety associated with "potential disruptions to energy supplies". The State Department did not lift its travel warnings for those four countries until the end of the first week of January.

In December the Japanese people were warned by their own Prime Minister to stock-up on food, water, flashlights, etc. -- just in case. The national Y2K co-ordinator of Paraguay had predicted widespread power outages, water shutdowns and phone disruptions. Nigeria officials warned that up to 80& 37; of the country's computers and most of its banks were not ready for Y2K. Lawrence Gershwin, the top US intelligence officer for science & technology stated that the intelligence community expected there would be "calls on the U.S. military to intervene in humanitarian crises".

According to one survey, 40& 37; of all companies postponed purchasing some computer equipment until after Y2K. IBM attributed an 11& 37; drop in fourth quarter income to a Y2K freeze on purchasing mainframes.

Del Monte Foods reported a 3& 37; increase in sale of canned goods, and Ely Lilly reported $90 million in pharmaceutical sales associated with stockpiling. Peanut butter sales were up 2-3& 37;, although with this and many other products, it is hard to prove that Y2K stockpiling was the explanation.

At Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, top Russian & American military leaders established the Center for Year 2000 Strategic Stability to ensure that no accidental missile launchings occurred on the rollover. The military officials assured the public that there was no chance of such an event occurring, and that the Center was just "insurance". But insurance only makes sense against an event that could possibly occur.

The city government of Toronto, Canada (where I live) employed 450 people to remediate computer systems against Y2K, and 300 people were working on New Year's Eve to monitor the systems. At the bank where I work, approximately a third of the computer staff -- including me -- were told to be at work on New Year's Eve or New Year's Day, and most of the rest of the staff was expected to be on-call. The freeze on release of new applications extended to February 15th.

Among the general public, however, the much-feared possibility of panic never materialized. The stock market continued to climb until the last trading day in December. Citibank officials stated that cash withdrawals did not exceed those that would be expected for a long holiday weekend. Instead, the media went apoplectic about the possibility of terrorist attacks -- which never materialized. Hoax & hype?

WHY THERE WAS NO Y2K COMPUTER-BUG DISASTER

The most important issues about the Y2K computer bug -- along with all the other potential problems in life -- were/are: "What is the truth?" and "How can the truth be known?". Concerning the Y2K computer bug, there was an appalling silence on these questions from academic scientists -- to whom we usually look for answers. That in itself raises questions about the way academic science actually works to produce relevant knowledge.

Prior to the Y2K rollover there was a bewildering mass of conflicting evidence over what would happen. After the event it is still difficult to discern what actually did happen, but many false claims have fallen-away and a few gems come shining through. I have not given-up on attempting to evaluate the evidence.

By far, the largest amount of money was spent doing remediation in countries with the greatest amount of modern computerization -- the countries most vulnerable to a problem (implying that much of the computerization in the former Soviet Union was not modern). Nonetheless, several times as much money was spent in Canada for Y2K remediation as was spent in Italy. Italy has nearly twice as many people and an economy nearly twice the size as Canada's, yet Italy has not suffered noticeably more problems. An even greater contrast is seen in the $4 million spent by the Russian military as compared with the $4 billion spent by the American miliary in Y2K preparation. As another example, British Telecommunications PLC and South Korea bought similar telephone hardware in the 1980s. BT spent millions on preparation whereas South Korea spent much less -- and did not suffer (noticeably) more. (But this is only one system -- it would be dangerous to overgeneralize.)

In my mind, the real wild-card of the Y2K computer bug problem lay in embedded systems -- computer chips controlling industrial machinery, infrastructure switches and weapons systems.

My efforts to get at the truth about this problem were maddeningly frustrating. Now I can point to two URLs (one post-Y2K) which provide the most sensible explanations about why there was no embedded systems disaster.

As is indicated in an analysis of the problem posted at the National Institute of Standards and Technology website www.nist.gov/y2k/embeddedarticle.htm, the most serious embedded chip problem involves control systems calculating a time interval on two sides of the rollover, eg, 01/01/00 00:05 minus 31/12/99 23:55. If 00 was recognized as 2000 (as on newer chips) the calculation would be correct, but otherwise there could be a problem. There could also be problems where an embedded system passed an incorrect date to another system.

One solution to the interval-calculation problem would be to not have equipment running during the rollover. This was done in the case of ATMs in China, plants manufacturing hazardous chemicals in the US and trains & subways worldwide. Another solution would be to ensure that the most critical systems had newer chips controlling them. Problems would not be anticipated in countries and companies using pre-1990s equipment that did not use microprocessor embedded controlling chips or in post-1996 equipment.

The most insightful analysis of the embedded chip issue can be found at www.albany.net/~dmills/fallback/chapt5.htm. If I had read, understood and believed this piece before the Y2K rollover I would have had a very different perception of possible problems.

In general, process control systems are divided between highly separated regulating devices and protection devices. Regulating devices typically calculate elapsed time by number of ticks (like clock ticks) rather than by date-subtraction calculation. Most power blackouts are due to protection devices which respond to problems such as excessive current -- not to date-sensitive functions.

In response to critics claiming that the billions of dollars spent on Y2K remediation was wasted, the US State Department's Chief Information Officer made the statement: "We should be careful not to confuse the lack of catastrophic disruptions with unnecessary preparations by the federal government." Y2K guru Peter de Jager said, "There was never any doubt, right from the beginning that, if we had any success at all in fixing Y2K, then the critics, true to form and supported with the impunity of 20/20 hindsight, would claim that the problem never existed in the first place."

John Koskinen, Clinton's chief Y2K Officer, gave three reasons why Y2K problems were minimal world-wide: (1) the most extensive date-sensitive computerization was found in the countries & industries that spent the most money on remediation, (2) standardized software was more common than customized software for smaller countries & businesses, and (3) those that started late on remediation were able to benefit with lessons & software from those that started early. Two or three years before the rollover there were fears that elevators might malfunction. But after a year of testing it was established conclusively that elevators were not at risk.

Much has been written about the benefits of massive Y2K remediation work associated with forcing organizations to inventory & upgrade their entire hardware & software systems. But rationalizing the benefits of misperceptions is a poor substitute for accurate perception as the basis of rational control.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES

People commonly believe only what they want to believe and think-about only what they want to think-about. Many of those who believed that there would be a Y2K computer-bug crisis were those who wanted there to be a crisis, either because they wanted to see damage done to a civilization they hate or because they wanted to believe that they were making preparations that would give them an "edge" over others. Most people did not want to believe that there would be a problem, and often preferred to bury their head in the sand about the matter. If I raised the question of Y2K problems, I would be told "I don't want to hear about it." These approaches to dealing with potential problems are bound to lead to disaster for anyone who lives long enough.

Most of us have enough problems & interests so that the intrusion of a new problem into our lives may be greeted with irritation. This was my first response to the Y2K computer bug. But "gloom & doom" is not a criterion for accepting or rejecting truth. People on the Titanic, in Pompeii or in Pol Pot's Cambodia ignored "gloom & doom" warnings at the cost of their lives. If we are not open to believing both the positives & negatives of life, we cannot successfully cope with reality. Too many people refuse to face the reality of death. Too often, people respond to warnings of danger by shooting the messenger. False alarms, of course, are a nuisance.

I have tried to look into my own psychology to find answers as to why I would have so grossly misperceived the Y2K computer bug problem. I don't have to probe too deeply to find evidence of my being an anxiety-ridden worry-wart. I grew up believing that a nuclear war was inevitable and later came to believe that ballooning government debt would lead to depression -- if not economic collapse. As potential disasters came and went uneventfully, I became more skeptical.

Claims of environmental or population disasters have not terrified me -- although these problems gnaw on me like a dull ache.

In the face of so much conflicting evidence about the Y2K computer bug, psychological bias has a potential to play a significant role in the way evidence is evaluated. There were many assurances by government and corporate authorities that there would be no problem. The vast majority of the population took these assurances at face-value and believed them. I am distrustful of authority and believed that such assurances were motivated by self-interest and by a fuzzy understanding of technical systems on the part of management.

Nonetheless, I gave too much credence to statements by corporate consultants who had a vested interest in remediating the problem. In the last days of December, the most widely quoted of these consultants -- the Gartner Corporation (with little to gain by further alarmism) -- began saying problems would be minimal. I remained skeptical. I wasn't alone. An estimated 80& 37; of Fortune 500 corporations established command centers to monitor the Y2K rollover.

These are not organizations that frivolously waste resources.

There were editorializing journalists who wouldn't know the difference between a computer program and a medical diagnosis claiming that the Y2K bug was all hoax & hype. Such people gloat that they were "right" -- but how can they be right about something they have no understanding-of, simply on the basis of outcome?

Results are important, but they are not really "the only thing". A person who spends a lot of money gambling is not proven shrewd by the fact that he or she happens to have a big win. The ancient Greek philosopher Democritus is given credit for his claim that matter is composed of small, indivisible "atomos" particles -- in contrast to Plato & Aristotle who said that matter is infinitely divisible. But Democritus had no evidence for his belief, so it is silly to give him credit for something less consistent with experience than divisibility.

People who are right for shallow reasons do not deserve more credit than those with deeper understanding who make mistakes.

Nonetheless, if understanding does not minimize mistakes, something is being misunderstood.

Some IT (Information Technology) professionals have been feeling like housewives -- whose considerable accomplishments in doing their work went unnoticed because it was so successful.

Only if the work had not been done would the severity of the problem have been appreciated. But because there was no serious problem, much of the public believes there was never a problem and that the Y2K computer bug was a hoax.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

It is very difficult to establish proof that severe problems were prevented rather than would never have occurred in the first place. Why did not the 30& 37; of small-to-medium size businesses with no preparation for Y2K not suffer more? How could a problem of such magnitude have been so perfectly fixed that there was not a single major disaster somewhere in the world? Technological malfunctions and disasters occur daily in normal life on this planet.

The Y2K computer bug ended-up looking like the world's greatest refutation of Murphy's Law. It seemed that so many things could have gone wrong.

It is easy to latch-on to an explanation such as "hoax", "hype", "problem-fixed", etc., but it is not so easy to find an explanation that fits all the facts. I am still left with the disquieting feeling that I cannot understand the Y2K computer bug problem or why events transpired as they did.

As I said in my initial Y2K essay (May 1999), "The Y2K problem can be very frustrating for someone in search of hard facts".

I plagerized this from Russ Kelly's wesite-Cherri http://www.benbest.com/computer/y2kfeb.html

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 13, 2000

Answers

The first four paragraphs would have sufficed.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), April 13, 2000.

OK, I was wrong too.

However, it escapes me why an apology should be required.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Unc

I guess you had to have participated in all the Polly/Doomer name calling, mud slinging, back biting and other sillyness to feel the need to demand or issue an apology.

Here, maybe this will help.

I'm so sorry if I misled anyone about the possible outcomes of Y2K.

I hope that assuages any hurt feelings out there.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), April 13, 2000.

Because Unc these people are like those football guys who after high school can only talk about their last "big game". Their last hoorah. They can't move on. There is nothing new for them they lived for that moment.

It's almost like the inverse of doomer mentality. All we could see was the potential problem and how bad it could be and all they can see is the problem that wasn't and how horrible our being wrong about it was.

I'll take Invar anyday.

-- Big Fat Sally (Dynamite@withalaser.beam), April 13, 2000.

Lol Unc!

Love means never having to say you're sorry. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 13, 2000.

An apology for uncouth behavior towards others I can understand. Still not sure why the simple act of being wrong needs one.

Because Unc these people are like those football guys who after high school can only talk about their last "big game". Their last hoorah. They can't move on. There is nothing new for them they lived for that moment.

It's almost like the inverse of doomer mentality. All we could see was the potential problem and how bad it could be and all they can see is the problem that wasn't and how horrible our being wrong about it was.

Ummm....does that mean that being right requires an apology too? Now I'm really confused!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Unk, you crack me up...

I was ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, WRONG.

And I am one happy SOB that I WAS wrong. Makes me re-evaluate the human condition.

chewin' on a treat...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

This feels like a support group, and Decker and Y2K Pro should be invited to watch.

Hi people, my name is Chris. I was wrong and a lemming, but I don't feel I should apologize for my lack of knowledge, and some people brutalize me for it. I got my panties in a twist out of fear at times, and I acted on my fears with preps. *Everyone cheers and pats Chris on the back*

Thanks guys for hearing me.

P.S. I didn't read the entire cut/paste from Cherri, only one thing leaped at my eyes and that was enough for me to deem the author completely worthy as male human being:

"Some IT (Information Technology) professionals have been feeling like housewives -- whose considerable accomplishments in doing their work went unnoticed because it was so successful."

[/sarcasm]

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.

I think people on both sides of the issue are sometimes confusing "apology" with "admission of being in error." Some people appear to use the terms interchangably.

I don't think anyone should have to apologize for "being wrong" about Y2K, but it's nice to see those who did make erroneous predictions actually admit that they did so. It shows a strength of character.

Some people are only hoping to see apologies from those who constantly ridiculed, belittled, insulted, threatened, and censored the pollies simply because they had a different viewpoint. Personally, I don't believe that such apologies will ever be forthcoming.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 13, 2000.

Hmmmm...

I don't recall constantly belittling anyone or otherwise behaving unpleasantly. If I did do so, I most humbly apologize. One thing I valued about Old TB2K (at least in its early days) was the civility of the discourse. That changed, unfortunately, and we were all the poorer for it.

I do not apologize at all for prepping for level 2-3 impacts. It was very, very educational and I gained a number of valuable skills and insights.

Baseball season started this week. Joy!

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), April 13, 2000.

Hmmm,

Nor should any apologies be forthcoming. The doomers that ridiculed were trying to shake up the pollies enough to get them to prepare. The pollies were "right." But consider that they, too, had the same limited information, yet felt, thought, believed, that Y2K would be a BITR. Remember, Y2K optimists were no more clairvoyant than doomers. Though much debate ensued, this was NOT about an academic debate. There were real risks invonved. Most prepper/doomers felt it was better to be "wrong" and prepared than to be "wrong" and unprepared. Smart preppers were ready to face a "1" as well as a "10." Most rational doomers that I know are happy to be "wrong" about Y2K.

The pollies were still "wrong" to put their families at risk, based upon the real threat of risks and limited information.

But, I won't bother to ask for an apology...

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Nopolly:

Discussions were held by the "pollies" both on TB2000 and Debunkers. Absolutely NOWHERE did ANY of the pollies suggest that folks shouldn't prepare for what they felt possible. YOU suggest this. WE did NOT . The "pollies" were accused of being responsible for the death of MILLIONS simply by stating that they'd seen remediation successfully completed at a number of locations.

Anti-prep was a misnomer at the time, and I REALLY hate to see the term used NOW .

-- Anita (Anita_s3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Nor should any apologies be forthcoming. The doomers that ridiculed were trying to shake up the pollies enough to get them to prepare.

LOL, this is too much! So, ridiculing and belittling pollies was meant to get them to prepare?? Did it work? Did you actually believe that if you call someone enough names, tell them how stupid they are, tell them to "go back to Debunkers" enough, scream that they should be DELETED enough, that the pollies will suddenly think "Gee, maybe they're RIGHT!! I'd better prepare right now!!!"?

Of course not. You were upset because someone was upsetting the applecart. You didn't give a crap about the "pollies" and whether they "prepared" as long as they didn't keep challenging your ideas on TB2000. Flint said countless times that he was ALREADY prepared, yet he was constantly ridiculed and insulted. It had nothing at all to do with "getting them to prepare" and everything to do with "getting them to shut up and go away."

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 13, 2000.

Hi Anita!

OK, I won't say that you were anti-prep, but then, I suppose that means we agree and just won't admit it.

I also dislike labels, but they're convenient sometimes. You see, I "prepared" for a "1" by not doing anything that would be harmful if Y2K turned out that way; so I was "right" in that respect. I also "prepared" for as much disruption as I could affort, without jepordizing anything, should Y2K be a BITR. I see that as a "win-win" or at least "win-no lose" situation.

I continue to maintain that if anyone were faced with the "facts" (or lack thereof) that we were aware of, and decided to stake the lives of themselves and their families upon a belief that Y2K disruptions were IMPOSSIBLE (or nearly so) ...then, they were with a hopeless optimist, or were irresponsible in their actions.

Have a nice day.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Hmmm...

I can only speak for myself, that I wasn't very big on the name calling and all the animosity that went back and forth. It was a strange time, and everyone was under alot of stress. I think things have calmed down a bit.

Yes, I will grant you that the motives of many doomers, myself included on one occasion, were not quite a pure as trying to make you "see the light," but I cannot think of a rational person that would have wished for a "10" combined with an unprepared population.

If you or any other pollies want to gloat, go ahead...I'll just have to retreat to EZ Board.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

There's no need for retreat, just don't expect your statements to go unchallenged. :-) Besides, there's plenty of "non-gloating" here to read as well.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 13, 2000.

Hmmm...

Ok, I've been gone awhile, and don't quite know what I'm jumping into here.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Getting back to Ben Best's essay, he makes a point about preparation that I've been trying to say MUCH more poorly for some time:

"Rationalizing the benefits of misperceptions is a poor substitute for accurate perception as the basis of rational control."

So many ex-doomers today are saying, essentially, that since preparation is a good thing in general, therefore they weren't really wrong about y2k simply because they prepared. Ben Best has countered this self-serving rationalization with enviable succinctness.

Best goes on to say "if understanding does not minimize mistakes, something is being misunderstood." The doomers, by worldwide observation, and like Best himself, badly misunderstood the situation. They did so with an agressive and belligerant intolerance one has only to consider these split fora to observe still in action today. Best, in contrast, is refreshingly honest. He's able to admit he was spectacularly wrong because he approached y2k from the start with a strong bias toward being an "anxiety-ridden worry-wart."

And that's what makes this a "real apology." The fault, ultimately, didn't lie with the idiot pollies or the ambiguous facts. It was with a pre-existing inclination to see what he chose to see. He writes "If we are not open to believing both the positives & negatives of life, we cannot successfully cope with reality. He and his fellow doomers were NOT OPEN to the positives. A blueprint for misunderstanding, made all the more impermeable by the rigid conviction that they "got it".

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 13, 2000.

I'm still a nine.

-- Uncle Fred (dogboy45@bigfoot.com), April 13, 2000.

Nopolly:

I'm not looking for apologies from anyone. As I told Ken on another thread, I'd never heard of these people BEFORE Y2k, and I STILL don't know who they are today. None of us are so significant that mountains would move at the sound of our voice.

I agree with you that anyone in his right mind would prepare for his family IF the evidence indicated this the right path. Flint and others saw the evidence in 1997. I saw some evidence in 1998. Other "pollies" saw some evidence as early as 1996. Some folks waited, and some folks jumped in with both feet to ensure they were ready. *I* already had as much as I was going to have BEFORE I entered TB2000 in June of 1999. By that time, the evidence was growing exponentially that problems wouldn't be significant. I STILL have 1 oil lamp and 2 kerosene lamps in my closet, some bottles of lamp oil and 2 gallons of kerosene. I have a one-burner camp- stove and 2 gallons of camp fuel. [I USE the OTHER oil lamp.]

Knowing this, how can you justify saying that pollies didn't think about their families? One has only to look back in the archives to see that some folks who spoke out the loudest AGAINST the pollies had fewer stores than the pollies they harrassed. If pantry-size were an indication of Y2k concern, Paul Davis would have won hands-down.

It was NEVER about irresponsibility. I had to laugh on SEVERAL occasions where Flint was told "Just don't try coming to MY house begging for mercy." There was NO logic being used in that statement, as Flint had 6 months worth of supplies and the poster making the statement had perhaps 2 weeks worth. [Then again, maybe there WAS logic, in that someone with only 2 weeks worth WOULD fear having those supplies taken if they felt a year was the recommendation.]

I'm not picking on you, Nopolly. I just never understood it at the time, and I STILL don't understand it. You just happened to be the one to pluck the off-key string on my guitar today.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

"I'm still a nine."

Uncle Fred, I'm afraid this support group can't give you the help you need. Better seek professional help ;-) (Tongue in cheek)

Flint,

"Best, in contrast, is refreshingly honest. He's able to admit he was spectacularly wrong because he approached y2k from the start with a strong bias toward being an "anxiety-ridden worry-wart." And that's what makes this a "real apology."

I and others understand completely what you mean, but too many others don't or won't or can't. For the same reasons that this virulant "polly vs doomer" war took place to begin with. The flamings and arguments were futil then, and it remains so today. If Decker and Y2K Pro could understand what you're saying, they probably would not keep starting new threads on this subject, and if more pessimists could easily admit they *understood* wrong...well, everyone would be happy.

This ofcourse is only speaking about those who worried about Y2K itself, and not everything else wrong in the world. There are the general pessimists, and the Y2K pessimists. I think they are 2 distinctly different animals.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.

Chris:

"There are the general pessimists, and the Y2K pessimists. I think they are 2 distinctly different animals."

Quite. In fact, I just wrote a fairly long post to that effect, on Nadine's thread to Decker. Nobody paid it the slightest attention, but you might look at it, since you raise the same point here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 13, 2000.

Anita probably would of prepared but the task seemed to overwhelming whith her daughter and daughters boyfriend and other friends of the daughter whom she just couldn't say no to. Then her mother and livein and the rest of the neighborhood If she couldn't prepare for everybody the why even prepare at all?

The Anitas of this world will be the most tragic loss. They could almost *see* and, tragically, will but then it will be too late.

Anita I've been gone for a while and may have missed it have you found a satisfactory job yet?

-- swampthing (in@the.swamp), April 13, 2000.

No Polly,

I think the problem is in the labels. I personally know some folks claiming to be pollys who had fall backs that Tim May would've drooled at.

I think something weird happened, and I can understand the 'pollies' perception of the dreaded 'true believers' before the rollover. Ironically I think they contributed massively to the polarization by deciding to take the 'mission' on to prevent panic by reason or by the kind of sniping that we continue to see on this board from 'the other side'.

The sniping only contributed tension to folks already feeling vulnerable and challenged to make evaluations and decisions on subjects that were out of their field of expertise.

I am bothered by the us & them mindset that seems to be the legacy here. Look, most of us were there. I think we can all profit from reflection.

Though maybe I should be the one gloating. I got my greatest wish on one of the 'what do you hope for threads' at the end of the year. I wanted to continue my reign as the eccentric auntie. I am happy to report that I am undefeated {and wrong about the rollover}.

-- flora (***@__._), April 13, 2000.

swampthing. Anita can't even find time to take a bath, much less find a job.

-- (holding@my .nose), April 13, 2000.

So many ex-doomers today are saying, essentially, that since preparation is a good thing in general, therefore they weren't really wrong about y2k simply because they prepared.

Preparation is a good thing in general. I was wrong about Y2K. And even though I was wrong about Y2K my misjudgement of Y2K was also a positive thing. I now see more clearly the benefits of being prepared, and I have gained insight and learned lessons about myself that I never would have if I had dismissed Y2K from the start.

But I was still wrong about Y2K.

It was an honest mistake, and I'll be damned if I feel that I owe anyone an apology for that.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

deedah, you're dumb.

Which is smarter? Your money in the bank gathering interest?? Or is it better sitting in your closet gathering dust?

I forgot! Your older and uglier than dirt! Sure, you want to be "prepared". (You should be! I heard your uglier than a dirt sandwich.) We all know it's true! It's true!

-- (deedah @ diddly.dumb), April 13, 2000.

Flint, feeling under-apreciated? ;-) Seriously, I had read your post and it was well thought out. The point I made above and that you raised first might have been lost in your long post. You touched several points there.

Flora, there were definitely many people who felt like you, me included. The old "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" type of attitude. None of us wanted to give up our cozy secure lifestyle, and many joined the click of doomer/optimists who loved humor of all kind, the (in)famous FRLians. I think we lunatic FRLians deserve some recognition for attempting to foster a better atmosphere, or at least providing a refuge for (in)sanity in the middle of the mealstrom of conflicts, flames and confusion.

*standing on my chair* Long live the FRL!

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.

In the United States, only one nuclear plant was shut down due to a possible Y2K-related incident. Seven Y2K-related non-critical nuclear power plant incidents were reported in total for the US.

Well, darn it Ben, nice apology, but you make the same mistakes in it you made in the first place with your lousy assessment of Y2k, you mix fact with fiction.

There were seven y2k related minor glitches reported (through the nuke industry and the presidential commission). But NO "US nuclear plant was shut down due to a possible Y2K-related incident". This was sheer speculation, I know the plant that had the shutdown (have been there several times, but not working there now) before the actual rollover and I have seen the root cause report, it was nothing to do with a computer, and it was NOT y2k. The only people that speculated that were the tin foil hat wearing types, such as you Ben :)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 13, 2000.

Flora,

"I wanted to continue my reign as the eccentric auntie."

You have my vote for chuckle of the day,as moi is the eccentric uncle,still LMAO: )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 13, 2000.

The doomers that ridiculed were trying to shake up the pollies enough to get them to prepare.

Then you never read the things that were said to me. They had nothing to do with trying to educate me to the dangers of Y2K, they were rude and many were nothing but pure hatred and derogatory statements directed toward me.

The pollies were "right." But consider that they, too, had the same limited information, yet felt, thought, believed, that Y2K would be a BITR.

That is NOT true. The powers that be on TB2000 did all they could to limit information to their readers that would have helped show where the situation was not as bad as they proclaimed it would be. Those who chose to limit the information they got about Y2K did so by choice, they were given the opportunity to view more extensive information that would have shown them that there would be few, if any problems. Pollies did not view the limited information as you seem to think, they gathered information from each other, from people who worked in the different fields of concern, and researched the information from the sources of concern. We shared this information with each other and tried to share it on TB2000. We KNEW that Y2K would not be much, if any problem to our lives and family. We did not limit our minds to one view, we used our minds to evaluate a much larger amount of visible information that was freely available. I myself have a Y2K maillist where large amounts of information was shared and discussed. It still exists.

You claim we were putting our loved ones in danger by not listening to a group of people who chose to believe a scenario, much of was nothing more than opinion and speculation.

Remember, Y2K optimists were no more clairvoyant than doomers.

Y2K optimists did not use clairvoyance to come to their conclusions, they used concrete facts based on knowledgeable firsthand experience and free discussions with others with the same depth of knowledge in other areas of concern. It had nothing to do with guessing or betting on their view, it has all to do with the mental ability to evaluate information without bias.

Though much debate ensued, this was NOT about an academic debate. There were real risks involved. Most prepper/doomers felt it was better to be "wrong" and prepared than to be "wrong" and unprepared. Smart preppers were ready to face a "1" as well as a "10." Most rational doomers that I know are happy to be "wrong" about Y2K.

The pollies were still "wrong" to put their families at risk, based upon the real threat of risks and limited information.

You are wrong. We knew that the threat was not real. The information against Y2K being a threat was not limited as you claim. The only limit on information proving there was no threat was the limit individuals put on themselves and in TB2000, the limits imposed by the posters who did not want the facts to be provided there. We did not in any way endanger our families. We made clear knowledgeable decisions on clear available information and with some of us, personal knowledge of the facts that proved there was no threat.

There was no mystery there about what would and would not happen. The fact that power would not be lost had been made clear almost a year before the rollover. The only people who did not believe that were doing so by their own choice not to believe or by having put their beliefs in the hands of others, basically trusting others who they had been convinced were experts.

Pollies did not blindly believe so called or self proclaimed "experts". Especially those who had no background, knowledge or experience in the area they were supposed to be "expert" in.

You will find that "pollies" have the tendency to do their own thinking as opposed to the doomers who allow others to do their thinking for them.

But, I won't bother to ask for an apology...

You don't deserve one. You are still under a lot of the false assumptions which caused you to believe Y2K doom in the first place.

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

I neither expect or want an apology for being right about Y2K from those who were wrong. I understand the multitude of different of different circumstances and reasons for people being wrong about Y2K, especially since I was subject to the same "brainwashing" that my generation was subjected to that made us vulnerable to the possibility of TEOTWAWKI in some form or other.

I believe I am owed an apology from those who verbally abused me when I tried to provide factual information for others to consider.

I must say that some have already done so.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 14, 2000.

I don't.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 14, 2000.

Thanks hmmmm

How do you do that?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 14, 2000.

Just add a (/font) tag to your post, but replace the parentheses with angle brackets (if I tried to type them, they wouldn't show up in the post). That turns off the font color.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 14, 2000.

Yep, thats the kind of remarks I got over at TB2000

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 14, 2000.

Excuse me please while I test.

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 14, 2000.

Excuse me one more time please.

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 14, 2000.

Debra are you passing gas?

-- swampthing (in@the.swamp), April 14, 2000.

"If we are not open to believing both the positives & negatives of life, we cannot successfully cope with reality." -Best

and

"...psychological bias has a potential to play a significant role in the way evidence is evaluated." -Best

The two mindsets of doomer/pessimist and polly/optimist are easy for me to understand. They are black and white. It's the shades of gray that I am having a difficult time understanding and where I think most of the confusion comes into play.

I've always considered myself an optimist. I looked at both the positive and negative information on y2k. I prepared for 6 months. Does that make me a pessimistic optimist or an optimistic pessimist?

As this debate develops I feel we will all have to grasp the nuance that divides polly from doomer.

-- Debra (somewhereinthe@middle.com), April 14, 2000.

swampthing-

No that was my chair!

-- Debra (whatcani@say?.com), April 14, 2000.

Gilda, are you out there? What do you think?

Were most of us "half-assed doomers" or "half-assed pollies?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 14, 2000.

"One thing I valued about Old TB2K (at least in its early days) was the civility of the discourse."

That most certainly wasn't the case when I started posting there. I was ridiculed for my honest opinion from the get-go.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 14, 2000.

Swampthing:

I haven't seen THAT moniker in a VERY long time. How long HAVE you been away? Glad to see you found the new forum. I remember that "Where does one draw the line?" post. The oldest daughter is now living at home again and attending college. Her old roommates still scrounge their couch for loose change for Taco Bell. MY SO's daughter and her son moved out in January. Thanks for reminding me to include the can of prunes in my mom's grocery bag today.

The market just recently began opening up again for old mainframe types. Many of us have been studying other subsets of the technology field, but we're still better off getting a job with existing skills that will provide an opportunity to put the new skills to use in the real world. There are LOTS of folks looking for work, and oftentimes before we respond to a job the job is filled. The one good thing that comes from all this competition is that we're now being asked to take extensive technical exams before being submitted to a client. In addition, the client goes on to give us MORE technical exams. I'll have an exam by one client next Tuesday. They already know I scored high on the exam from the recruiting firm, but I have no problem testing again for their comfort. If 10 other folks don't score as high, and I take that bath, there COULD be a job there. If not, I move on to the next opportunity.

One downside to the Y2k remediation is that lots of firms either hired folks from outside the country or sent the work outside the country. Most of the folks hired to do the work here are STILL here. Firms who chose to outsource to other countries are STILL outsourcing to other countries. So, we have a lot of American programmers unemployed while the U.S. continues to increase import quotas for technical folks.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 14, 2000.

Debra:

There IS another nuance to this that I see. Doomers were all over the scale....anywhere from 1 to 10; while pollies said in effect, "Why are we even considering such a scale?" When I went through my change from doomer to ex-doomer in the second half of 1999, it was not just that I ramped myself down on the scale from an 8 down to a 1-3 or so; in my head I chopped off the top of the scale entirely. Over a 5 - that no longer existed for me because I was ditching the assumptions behind the scale in the first place.

Us doomers really took that 1 to 10 seriously. But to the polly/debunkers, the 1-10 was really no more than an artifical construct that came from someone's head. Can't recall for sure if it was Gary North or Ed Yourdon who came up with that scale, although I think it must have been North. It became so "official" - sanctioned by its use on the Y2k Expert's (Russ Kelly's) web site, that it just became part of the common parlance of Y2k. It was just assumed that a 10, while remote, was in the realm of real possibility that people were thinking about. "Y2k will not be TEOTWAWKI!" said Senator Bennett in Feb. 1999. That he was even SAYING such a thing, showed what a massive perception problem was afoot.

So in short, being a doomer had IMO a lot to do with the assumptions one holds. Does this seem true from your POV?- I would be very interested to know. Didn't you say you were on TB2000 up to the rollover and if so, how did you feel about the possibility of a 10 (even though you were in the middle)? What did you think about the issues of fragility of the infrastructure, and the interconnectedness? It seems to me (assumptions coming from me, now) that doomers remained in the "Nobody knows, so prepare" mode, with these assumptions intact -wherever they were on the scale, and whatever the extent of their preparations.

I can say, for me, the big shift came when I was forced to question the assumptions, which I did mainly not because of what anyone said.... or else it was the combined effect of the debunkers, Mitch Ratcliffe, others, chipping away at the doom view, and good news coming along, which sounded like I might be able to trust it. But when the trigger dates did not pan out, things started to really add up. "Society is NOT like a line of dominos... the first woodpecker to come along will NOT destroy civilization...." therefore I pretty well knew, that even if shit happened, that it would be manageable and I could stop obsessing that my life was going to fall apart. It was not a sudden shift but about over 2 months, Y2k just lost the urgency for me.

Now maybe this is a subtle distinction, but it feels like an important one, to me. I really am not out to talk about right and wrong, since, like you, I am more interested in the mindset behind all of it... since I know I went through quite an evolution, myself.

(It is funny to me now, to think back to when I was in my in-between stage of taking in the positive news, and becoming willing to stop feeling doom, yet still, stubborn as I am, I was determined to get to a certain point with my "preps," just in case it turned out I were still wrong about not needing them so much. In May-June 99 I actually would come to the internet (TB2000 specifically) to get my dose of fear to motivate me to keep going with my preps, should I start feeling too optimistic and stop wanting to prepare any more. The forum really was pretty effective with their "sweatshop prep motivation mission" that way :^)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), April 14, 2000.

Cherri,

This has been a stimulating thread. Thanks for starting it.

Anita and all,

I still don't think we disagree that much. Didn't mean to push the wrong button. You speak as if TB2000 was our only source of information and we "doomers" were somehow brainwashed through Diane's censorship. Not true. I take all "facts" with the proverbial "grain of salt." Don't you think some of us saw what was happening, and took that into consideration? I searched for additional information from .gov sources, industry, DeJager's site, anywhere I could find it. At no time did ANYONE give a rock-solid GUARANTEE that nothing catestrophic would happen. Believe me, Kosky sighed a HUGE sigh of relief in early January.

Flint,

You are a pompus windbag. In effect, you are saying we see what we are looking for. Not true in many cases, including Y2K. I will not elaborate, because my time is too valuable to waste.

All,

I think we should once and for all leave this debate behind. In every situation that can go two ways and there are choices, some choose one path, some the other. One path turns out correctly, the other does not. We doomers traveled the path of the alternate reality. So what, who cares? We hedged our bets; ya win some, ya loose some. But what was my loss? A pantry full of food? Less money in the stock market (looks like a good thing today)? A supply of prescription medication? New camping equipment I'd wanted anyway? Continuation of electricity, banking, telecommunications? These are what I have today...am I missing something? How did I lose here? How was I "wrong?"

Thanks for listening :)

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), April 14, 2000.

There were "pollys" who predicted there would be "doomers" who would go postal after rollover when Y2K turned out to be a dud. Are they going to apologize?

-- Apology is a (two@way.street), April 14, 2000.

Debbie, you made a significant point here:

". In May-June 99 I actually would come to the internet (TB2000 specifically) to get my dose of fear to motivate me to keep going with my preps, should I start feeling too optimistic and stop wanting to prepare any more. The forum really was pretty effective with their "sweatshop prep motivation mission" that way :^) "

I used to look at it as a 'reinoculation', to hedge my bets.

No Polly:

"I think we should once and for all leave this debate behind. "

I know you're not the only one, though I'm having a hard time understanding that position. It took lots of us a great deal of time and effort to build up to this point. Why does it bother others if we continue to deconstruct the experience, and explore facets of the process until we come to an understanding an a sense of resolve?

-- flora (***@__._), April 14, 2000.

There were "pollys" who predicted there would be "doomers" who would go postal after rollover when Y2K turned out to be a dud. Are they going to apologize?

-- Apology is a (two@way.street), April 14, 2000.

A little too early to say that prediction won't come true, and I'm not sure that it hasn't already. Seems to me there were a couple of stories before the rollover that may qualify for this category.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 14, 2000.

Buddy is sort of right. If I remember correctly, Doc Paulie thinks that Columbine was Y2k related.

-- Nobody (needs@to.apologize), April 14, 2000.

Ha, ha, Debra! Your eyes and chair remarks were FUNNY!

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 14, 2000.

Debbie-

I had heard very little about y2k until I got my computer in August of 1999. I missed much of the fun.

After reading many of the issues (it took me a long time to even figure out what TEOTWAWKI, GI and DGI meant)I felt I had to make a quick decision about preparing because there was not much time left. I decided I was going to.

As I was beginning to prepare a Sept(?) trigger date went by with nothing happening. I noticed it but like you I was "determined to get to a certain point with my preps".

It's like I turned off my thinking to turn on my doing. When my doing was done I turned that off and turned my thinking back on.

Now when I looked at what was going on I felt better about things (although I never obsessed that my life would be falling apart). I remember wondering if I only felt that way because I now had the preps.

I could never believe it would be TEOTWAWKI and I didn't think we would lose electric or phones. I thought maybe some frustrating, inconvient disruptions. Put it on a scale? Maybe a blinking 2 or 3. Don't forget I didn't become involved until late. I had the benefit of some of the good news.

My question is why I felt I needed to turn off my thinking to act on this issue. And yet I'm coming to the conclusion that that was the only thing I could do. Six months preps for inconvient disruptions! WHAT was I thinking. And WHY? (hint-ey,gn,mh,etc)

Sorry that was confusing. It's because I'm confused.

BTW...I wasn't on TB up to the rollover. I visited a few times but all I ever saw was a bunch of foul language. Guess I didn't stay long enough to get to know all of you.

-- Debra (idothereforidon't@think.com), April 14, 2000.