I've just sent this short essay out to my local weekly newspaper.

--------------------- DOOMER'S LAST THOUGHTS

Hi. Remember me? I was, maybe, Butte county's most visible Y2K "doom and gloomer." All I can say, now, nearly half a year past the meltdown date, is, Wow, were we suprised. On the other hand, the "pollies" (short for pollyanna), who thought nothing would happen, were not entirely right, either.

The suprise we felt, we doomers --from laypeople to certified computer and business experts to governmental authorities, was a good demonstration of "O'Brien's Principle of Belief."

The Principle bears my name because I thought of it. I don't claim that it's entirely original, but still, it bears repeating:

All people, everywhere, all the time, have a belief about the world. At some point in our lives we each decide that the world-- what's around us-- is: a) supporting and loving, b) fearsome and poisonous, or c) empty.

This belief determines our actions, though we're almost always unconscious of our root belief, just the same as we're almost always unaware of the air we breath, or of the workings of our internal organs.

This belief process begins at birth and is shaped, throughout our lives, by big people who control the world. Yes, this sounds like dumbass pop-psychology, laughably simplistic, but think of the complexities of this: Big people control where you live, what you eat, what language you speak, much of what you think and do, and, of course, whether you live or die. For an infant, this is obviously true; for most adults, it means that freedom is mostly an illusion.

Pollies or doomer, we all gather evidence to prove the truth and reality of what we believe. That which fails to confirm one's belief is rejected as evidence: It is judged to be flawed and/or delusional.

How obvious it seems now, almost half a year past doomsday: The information from the expert gloom 'n' doomers --evidence that seemed probable and accurate to us lay-doomers, and to other experts-- reflected the software of belief rather than the actual mechanics of the computers and the infrastructure.

Who were the losers? Doomers who invested their money, time and energy into preparing for the non-event, or the majority of Americans who did nothing, or very little, to prepare for Y2K disruptions, and so saved themselves money, time and worry?

Rephrase the question: Would you say that our government, police, military, and multinational corporations, came out the winners? They prepared in significant ways, perhaps because they operated from a different belief from most Americans.

An essay by Meg Davis, forwarded to me by state Senator John Vasconcellos, discusses the changes in our political-military-economic infrastructure brought about in response to the Y2K deadline. Here are a just a few:

Our police forces are "heavily armed and trained to prevent major riots during power outages." Police agencies can also call in the military "for use against the civilian population when major rioting occurs, or terrorism or drug dealing is suspected."

Could this same level of preparedness be used to prevent, say, political demonstrations, or other signs of social turmoil that could present the threat of riots? Is it difficult to imagine the L.A.P.D., for example, accusing a political radical of drug-dealing in order to bring in the troops? (The military, you may remember, practiced "Urban Warrior" excercises, war games in American cities.)

The Federal Government in Washington, D.C. has a new, 50 million dollar, state-of-the art Y2K communications bunker, and "every major city" was reported to have built or refurbished a bunker. In the event of nuclear war, or a bio-chemical terrorist attack, our leaders will have a safe place to go; pollies, doomers, and their children, will fend for themselves.

Y2K preparations also included more Executive Orders, which will allow a future President of the United States to "suspend the Constitution, nationalize all industry, confiscate all property, and direct the military WITHOUT input from Congress, simply by declaring a 'national emergency.'"

The above examples are but a few "facts" in the wake of Y2K. Are they evidence of something truly sinister (the One World Government conspiracy)? Or are the facts merely evidence of conspiratorial paranoia (right/left wing wackos)? Interpretation depends on what you believe about the world, about the leaders of government and industry who are looking at the future and deciding what is best for the rest of us.

My hunch is that the majority of Americans, for one reason or another, are not spending much time thinking about the big people who are making the decisions that will determine what life will look like in the future.

I believe that our American life will be changing, perhaps rapidly, perhaps soon. A "cyber-warfare Pearl Harbor," as reported by 60 Minutes, April 9; a bio-chemical attack: "likely," as President Clinton called it last year; or a suitcase nuke (FBI Director Louis Freeh, last year, confirmed their presence in the U.S.) detonated in a U.S. city could precipitate a major change in the political climate.

What if our economy takes a major dive and the getting-by-middle class, and the have-nots, fall into the chasm between themselves and the rich and ultra-rich? Would the grumbling turn into public demonstrations of discontent?

The WTO protests in Seattle, and the IMF protests in Washington D.C. bring up memories and images of war protesters and civil rights marchers. Are we entering a new era of protest? What happens if a large number of ordinary citizens decides that what is best for the rest of us has little to do with what the big people have decided is best?

Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, as one theory has it, because he was beginning to unite people of all races, combining the momentum of the civil rights movement with the anti-Vietnam War protest, and bringing focus to economic justice. King's belief about the world, and how it could be, was not welcomed by certain big people.

Imagine an America in the turmoil of change, again. In that future, police dogs and firehoses may be unnecessary for crowd control. Take a look at Dr. Nick Begich's book, "Earth Rising, The Revolution," (Earthpulse Press, 2000) to get an idea of the technological advances in surveillance and means of controlling people.

All of this, of course, is the kind of thing that causes people to ask, "Why should I worry about that? What's the use?"

There's a difference between being worried and being aware. A safe driver is one who follows the rules of the road, pays attention to the other cars, stays alert, and so forth. The driver who is constantly afraid, and the driver whose mind is full of chatter about the boss, the money, the project, and so forth, are not necessarily doomed to crash, but they are more at risk. And they put other drivers at risk, too.

The Great Y2K Non-event. Doomers and Pollies. We all lost on this one. The driver still knows what's best for us passengers. Some of us are enjoying the scenery; some of us are chattering in our heads, and to others, about the paycheck; some of us are worried because the driver appears to be under the influence and going way too fast.

We all lost out, because we lost an opportunity for many more passengers to have become aware, to have entered a discussion about where we are headed, and who's best qualified to be taking us there. What did we get? Monica. What will we get? The excitement of the two-party system.

Fasten your seatbelt, folks. Or maybe you believe you'll do okay without it, even if we crash?

-- johno (jobriy2k@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000

Answers

Oh, man! Y2K bombed on me. What can I worry about next? Suitcase nukes, biochem attacks, and, oh yeah, those dang hackers!

Most people looked at Y2K and decided that it wasn't that big a deal. You were wrong. Most people are still living their lives, preparing as best they can for any reasonable eventuality while not having it put their lives on hold. You're still stuck on doom and gloom. You're wrong again.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

"There is a difference between being worried and being aware."

It was true of Y2k and it is true of many of the better threads on this forum.

Sometimes there is a very fine line between awareness and worry. Just as with the difference between worry and fear.

-- tc (tc@webtv.net), April 20, 2000.

This essay is an excellent example of why "doomers" were wrong about Y2K. O'Brien's preconceived notions about the world drove his analysis of Y2K. While not validated by a scientific analysis, I contend the vast majority of Y2K "doomers" were pessimistic about modern society well before the Y2K problem emerged.

On one level, this might seem to confirm O'Brien's hypothesis. I disagree. One might contend the folks who "guessed" right on Y2K were just damn lucky. On the other hand, they may have done a better job of analyzing the available data. In my opinion, those who participated in the debate and "got it right" were those who were able to stay objective and rational.

Had I been able to refute Ted Hoffman's argument, I may have been a "doomer" myself. Objectively, I could not defeat his argument or counter the weight of reliable evidence suggesting there would not be a Y2K catastrophe. Nor could I adopt the contortion of logic that required major institutions to "prove" there would be absolutely no problems. Nor I could discount the data provided by credible sources because of tissue-thin conspiracy theories or unproven speculation.

In making my decision about Y2K, I was NOT controlled by the "big people." During the entire debate, I enjoyed the freedom to say exactly what I wanted on several Internet fora while living in a house of my choosing, smoking excellent cigars, etc. I am free to engage in any behavior, including criminal acts. Certainly, our society has many people who do not share my sense of constraint and do all sorts of nasty things.

Moving on, O'Brien's hypothesis seems to eliminate the possibility anyone might ever change their mind. (Perhaps O'Brien has never been involved in the movement of furniture under the careful direction of one's signficant other.)

The genuine thinkers in our society are always seeking information... and always challenging our own opinions and beliefs. This is part of intellectual honesty. A real test of integrity is the willingness to change own's mind... rather than simply closing it.

Like so many Y2K pessimists, O'Brien glides from philosphy to the dark shadow cast by the "big people" (and a spate of thinking errors).

Any well-armed, organized force poses a threat to the Republic. Our forefathers thought of this long before Mr. O'Brien. As a counterbalance, we exist under the rule of law and enjoy protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It is admitted a ticklish situation. I do not think it wise to simply disband all of our military and law enforcement agencies. Since we've managed some two centuries without a military coup d'etat, I'm inclined to cut them a bit of slack in return for a national defense and police protection.

As for the Y2K "bunker," I doubt these supposed bunkers would provide adequate protection in the event of a nuclear war or a release of biological and/or chemical weapons. First, use of any bunker would require adequate notice. Second, I doubt many (if any) of the facilities would withstand a direct strike or provide perfect filtration of biological or chemical agents. Unless the "big people" want to rule over a dead planet, I think the incentive is to avoid the use of weapons of massive destruction.

All of O'Brien's theory rests on this notion of "big people" who have some kind of integrated agenda, and it ain't nice. (Why don't the paranoid ever dream up benevolent "big people?") O'Brien also contends we have no "real" freedom. As such, why does he bothers to write? Have the "big people" simply allowed him to go unpunished? Is this some kind of slick trick? Perhaps he's really a "big person" who is just making the paranoid fringe sound silly so we all lower our guard? Maybe his message is full of subliminal cues to make us buy more Coke?

You can see where the logic of paranoia leads....

The real danger to America is a lack of critical thinking. O'Brien is right in saying we have serious issues that warrant serious discussion. Unfortunately, I do not see where his essay moves us forward.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 20, 2000.

"Unfortunately, I do not see where his essay moves us forward."

When I read what you write Ken the only movement I get is the urge for a bowel movement.

-- thanks for keeping (keeping@me.regular), April 20, 2000.

Ken:

You certainly have your share of admirers :^)

What's amazing to me is that, after the smooth transition into 2000, so many have decided this is only a sign of further worries ahead rather than being the least bit thankful for the world not coming to an end. After reading these types of analysis over and over from the doomer perspective, it's hard to shake the notion that a significant number of the most vocal actually wanted something bad to happen.

What a tumultuous life they must lead.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

Jim quit patting Ken on the back on every thread!

-- You (polly@come.lately), April 20, 2000.

Someday, Jim, this could all be yours....

The not-so-private-secret of many of the "doomers" is a desire to erase modern society. I have a casual theory that many of the Y2K pessimists feel they have been slighted. These folks think there must be something world with the world because they are obviously intelligent and should be doing better. Just a thought.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 20, 2000.

You:

Actually, I've always been a polly so I can hardly be classified as a polly come lately.

I'm always happy to give a pat on the back to those I feel demonstrate the ability to think and write persuasively. I'd even give you a pat on the back if you could demonstrate those qualities. Unfortunately, single sentences usually devoted to bowel movements don't meet the criteria.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

Decker said: "Someday, Jim, this could all be yours..."

I say: What? The curtains?

But seriously, Ken also said

"A real test of integrity is the willingness to change own's mind... rather than simply closing it."

Decker, I do not always agree with you, but this sentence is an absolute gem, and is the best decription I could use to describe myself. I can and do change my mind; a closed mind is a very sad thing and has been proudly on display on various threads the last few days.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 20, 2000.

Ken, you said

In my opinion, those who participated in the debate and "got it right" were those who were able to stay objective and rational.

and

Objectively, I could not defeat his [Ted Hoffman's] argument or counter the weight of reliable evidence suggesting there would not be a Y2K catastrophe.

Personally, I expected severe disruption from Y2K. Clearly, I did not "get it right." But I think to associate objectivity and rationality with those who did get it right, is to overestimate "the weight of reliable evidence."

I can think of very few individuals or institutions who did not have a vested interest behind what they voiced concerning Y2K. For example, corporations had an incentive to report that their remediation was going well, whether it was or not. On the flip side, the disclaimers many made about the ultimate success of their remediation, quite possibly were insisted upon by their attorneys.

Our government spent a considerable amount of money preparing for a Y2K catastrophe. But it's unclear to what extent that indicated pessimism, the desire to be prepared even for the very remote, or a propensity to go through taxpayers' money like water.

Considering all the vested interests involved, there was hardly any publicly available evidence that met my standard of "reliable." I didn't conclude that the "unreliable" evidence was wrong, but that it was insufficient.

So with this dearth of what I considered reliable evidence from outside, I drew mostly upon my own work experience in software development, while trying to build an abstract picture of the interdependencies within our society. The picture that formed in my mind bore much resemblence to that later shared by Dale Way.

I also took into account the reasoned arguments made by all sides on the old TB2000 forum. I pored over Ted Hoffman's model for estimating Y2K related failures, and while I did not agree with certain fundamental aspects of his analysis, my horizons were opened (and my doomer outlook moderated somewhat) by having gone through it. From the general lack of substantive comments posted about it (other than my own), I surmise that very few on the forum read it carefully, which I thought was unfortunate.

I judged that the odds of Y2K being a catastrophe were sufficient to warrant preparing for that possibility. I approached preparation not to maintain my current lifestyle (or anything near) in the event of catastrophe, but rather as a way to provide the basics if necessary. The amount I spent on preps was in no way a financial strain. The possibility of "losing the money" didn't bother me any more than losing the money I choose to spend on extra automobile liability coverage. I realize that I was fortunate to have been able to readily afford the preps I wished to make.

I certainly agree that on the old TB2000 forum, the doomers who discussed Y2K rationally were often drowned out by those who were not so inclined.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 20, 2000.

David,

First, I disagree with your analysis of the incentives. Second, incentives do not assure a given outcome.

You see an incentive to lie about Y2K. I see other incentives to tell the truth. If a company discovered "serious" Y2K problems, what does it gain by concealing them? A few months of profits before rollover... then what? Obviously, a failure of major computer systems would limit the firms operational abilities. Customers may wait for delivery for a while... but not forever. The "best case" scenario might be filing for bankruptcy protection. Even this would not protect the board or management from liability. Flagrant dishonesty would likely result in civil and criminal penalties... all for a few months of profit. Even if the company managed to fix-on- failure, how many customers or vendors would trust the firm after being lied to?

In a major firm do you really think management could keep serious Y2K problems a total secret? Businesses (and public agencies) are extremely "leaky." If we had seen hundreds or thousands of whistleblowers... I might have started worrying. But there were no credible whistleblowers on Y2K. None.

There were no indications of insider trading. Don't you think top management would sell stock options if they saw their company headed over the cliff? I watched insider trading for three quarters and didn't see any particular trends.

If companies were falling behind in Y2K efforts, don't you think the Y2K remediation firms would have shown a profit? Firms specializing in Y2K were taking a beating all of 1999. Huge salaries for COBOL programmers? Never happened.

It's not enough to say there is an incentive to lie. You have to dig around for corroborating evidence. Now, you may not trust a bank reporting on Y2K readiness... but how about the FDIC? The Federal Reserve? Did you trust your local power company? The NERC? Did they just start lying about Y2K, or have they always lied to us?

To me, the doomer argument was always full of holes. At the very best, you could simply say there wasn't enough data to satisfy you personally so you chose to "prep." Fine. I respect your position. Now explain to me how my position of "moderate preps" was tantamount to killing innocents?

Just curious....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 20, 2000.

On preparation (optimist's version)

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qf3

-- (Past@nd.present), April 21, 2000.

rant on

Plain truth is the Doomer(mentality) was not only wrong, they were not even close. Backpeddle forever and it will never change the truth they can never face it seems. Who in the hell was 100% Y2k ready/compliant?(like that matters or was ever definable) How did Russia make it? Italy? Africa? Them dam oil platforms with those chips 666 miles under the North Sea? Jim Lord's Gonzo Utilities? Ed Yourdon's Beirut located on a long island? Gary North's Banking collapse? Beach's secondary Cuckoo-Cuckoo Clocks? Crouch-Echlin? the Nukes? the Elevators? the Leonids? GPS?

Doomers ZERO, not this or that, ZIPPO as in Zilch. Face it, many of you bought revolutionary crapola dressed in a Y2k techno trigger from some pretty historically dumb people. Folks who are really nothing more than pretty good at selling time-wasting mental garbage to losers.

Fed by the new medium, anything short of using the word circus, misses describing what Y2k was. How many issues NOW could be used to sell "preps"? Y2k was unique, sexy, timely, and made sense for many new to technology plain and simple. It had sizzle and was sold with a date certain. The FUDsters have now retreated back into the many time- tested "hooks" they use to snag the disillusioned, the pissed-off blue/collar Joe who has "had-it-up-to-here" with whatever it is they are fed-up with this week. Oh the injustice! It is THEM... and WE/I must prepare to fight-resist-transform-return-revolt-reboot from the EVIL Gumbits and their plan to exterminate "our kind". In other words....we are too dam lazy and ignorant to bother keeping-up and would rather sit and bitch about how THEY are eating our lunch. The Hypocrite-take-action Freedom Fighters who cannot even manage to hit a no-brainer like y2k cause all the "authorities that can't be trusted", said Y2k would/could/might be real terrible and make you realllly sad had us all confused and all, pleeze give it up already.

The SURVIVALISTS carried the day, yes the SURVIVALISTS. Not the run for the hills bitchers and whiners, the folks who play the cards dealt, they be largely what is referred to as Sheeple by the all- knowing inner circle of Get-Its/ Yourdonites and other assorted Gifted Ones. Them idiots who put-up with all the BS we alls can see like the nose on our face but they are too dam stupid to see it, why else would they be suckered? asumming of course they care or are the suckers we like to believe them to be.

Again, forget about thinking Y2k posed anything even approaching societal meltdown, it NEVER held such potential. If it had, we would have a zillion more indications of such, NOW. We do not even have ONE single example it brought a single company of size down, so forget the utter BS we faced something requiring even Senate Hearings. Yes, the Gumbit is stupid and thunk Y2k worthy of hearings, shame on them (Hearings/Pacifiers were for all the worry-worts BTW). One was expected to believe a government so disorganized could break things so perfectly that a couple of missing computer digits would spell, at the minimum, days or weeks of civil unrest, shortages, and you know the rest of the sale-pitch. Takes a day to reach a gumbit type at the correct phone extension, but Y2k would do the impossible, bring the house down in an orderly systematic manner at the stroke of midnight Jan 1, 00.

It matters not one bag of beans what Clinton is doing. Where the Cuban kid ends-up, not one. Like any of this matters to you? really? All is mental fudge-packing as to avoid getting on with the business that is you. All is chatter, not supposed to be a center of one's existence. Constant lesson from my seat, but little else is more important than staying in one's center, unaffected by the NOISE.

rant off

-- Stephen Roy Brown (fannybubbles@usa.net), April 21, 2000.

Doc Paulie

-- (h@i.j), April 21, 2000.

Ken,
I said, "On the flip side, the disclaimers many made about the ultimate success of their remediation, quite possibly were insisted upon by their attorneys." In other words, even companies who may have been justifiably confident in their remediation efforts, were obliged for legal reasons to express doubt in writing. This illustrates how some incentives tended to exaggerate noncompliance.

My saying, "I didn't conclude that the 'unreliable' evidence was wrong, but that it was insufficient," was acknowledging that incentives do not assure a given outcome.

My initial reply was prompted by your having said, "In my opinion, those who participated in the debate and 'got it right' were those who were able to stay objective and rational," which seemed to imply that those who "got it wrong" were not being objective or rational. If you meant to refer specifically to the particularly vocal and strident doomers, who believed that your "position of 'moderate preps' was tantamount to killing innocents," then I don't think we have a dispute.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 21, 2000.

There was certainly a great deal of extrapolation done regarding Y2k in the past several years. If company A was behind in remediation and had made no formal statement regarding progress, it was assumed that ALL companies who had made no formal statement were in the same position. Personally, I never worked for a private firm that made ANY statements about remediation.

IMO, Doc Paulie did the best job in evaluating the situation early on. He was able to look at statistics stating that early testing results indicated that unremediated systems were experiencing failure rates at roughly the same level as remediated systems. From this data, he extrapolated that we could have done NOTHING and never experienced the collapse some found inevitable based on extrapolations of THEIR data.

I never felt comfortable with these across-the-board extrapolations. I didn't like Hamasaki extrapolating on HIS limited experience to prophesize the outcome. I felt that many of the projects I'd seen successfully remediated would have downright failed had they not been remediated. I refused to extrapolate on the successes I'd seen to draw conclusions on the remediation effort overall. This unwillingness to extrapolate, combined with an inherent lack of desire to evangelize was seen as a lack of conviction.

I hadn't actually realized this until Cavscout, I think, pointed this out on the last day of the Debunker forum. He said he'd read the arguments presented by the pollies, but they were unconvincing [or something like that.] In contrast, folks who spoke out in no uncertain terms WERE convincing, even if they didn't know AT ALL what they were talking about.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 21, 2000.

Have to agree with what Ken said; those were also my questions throughout most of 1999, and I have yet to see anyone of the "pessimistic persuasion" answer even one of them. David, you did not address these questions in your answer.

Further, and JMHO, you made at least one "fatal flaw" in your analysis of how bad you thought Y2K would be: You took your "software development" expertise and extrapolated that out to every other industry, based on virtually no information whatsoever. Same really big mistake that Ed Yourdon and the other "fear leaders" made; because you (and they) didn't have or didn't understand or didn't believe certain information, you assumed that It Would Be Really Bad. But I'll ask again because you didn't answer Ken: What exactly was the "incentive" to lie?

I have another question that no one has ever been able to answer. Why would you think that the people you have basicaly trusted all along to do their jobs (i.e., power, water, telecomm, finances, etc.) would suddenly become morons and not be able to perform their duties because of a date change? (And for those of you sitting there yelling at your screen that you never trusted these people, I reply: BULLSHIT. You flip on a light switch and what.....? Right, you expect the light to come on. You pick up your phone receiver and what.....? Right, you expect a dial tone. Yadda, yadda yadda..... News flash: That's trust.)

I also see with the anonymous posts in between that it's OK for some to point out people's (read: pollys') previous words, but let Y2KPro do it, and oh my God, it's a Mortal Sin. (And if I had to bet, I'd say that they were/are two of the more vocal "Pro-Bashers". Call it a Psychic Doomer Moment#153.)

Ken writes: "...Now explain to me how my position of "moderate preps" was tantamount to killing innocents?"

To which Anonymous Hypocrite #1 replies:

On preparation (optimist's version)

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qf3

-- (Past@nd.present), April 21, 2000.

So tell us, "Past@nd.present", what's the problem you're having with the two examples? One thing you (as in "you doomers") refused to accept (for the most part) was that those whom you liberally (and quite viciously) labeled "pollies" never had a problem with prudent preparation and stated this on any number of occasions. Of course, it didn't fit your "vision" of the Damn Evil Pollies, so you simply ignored that. Yet, one of the single best common-sense "preparation advice posts" I ever saw was by (hold on to your seat) none other than the dreaded cpr. Obviously, that went right over your collective heads. What a surprise.

And then we have Anonymous Poster #2 who writes in response to Stephen Roy Brown -- completely off-topic, of course, but when you're a doomer, the rules state that you don't actually have to address the topic, you merely address/attack the poster to gain your Doomer Brownie Points:

Doc Paulie (link: http://www.stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/6432.html)

-- (h@i.j), April 21, 2000.

Again, addresses not one word of SRB's current post, simply points out an old post under his then-pseudonym (a post, BTW, which was absolutely on-target).

Hypocrites and cowards (not to mention some of the greatest disconnects and conjured-up conspiracies the world has ever seen). Hope you're enjoying your, um, "life" cowering in a corner waiting for Doom to happen. Seems to me you got not only what you asked for, but exactly what you deserved.

As to the original post by "johno", there is so much wrong with it, I don't know where to begin. You state that "All people, everywhere, all the time, have a belief about the world. At some point in our lives we each decide that the world-- what's around us-- is: a) supporting and loving, b) fearsome and poisonous, or c) empty."

To which I respond, please do not speak for *me*. I do not subscribe to your simple theory of "how I see the world". My beliefs, and I suspect most others' as well, are much more complex than a multiple-choice answer. The problem you seem to be having (as is evidenced by the rest of your essay) is that you only and/or mostly see the world as either (b) or (c). If that's the case, you will never be happy; you will never accept anything on faith; you will never be content with the world or with your life. Consequently, you will never be able to grow, either personally or spiritually.

And that is probably a textbook definition of "doom".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 21, 2000.

Can we stop psycho analyzing doomers and pollies already? I was a semi-doomer I guess you could call it. I prepared for about a month and had some extra for my neighbors. Does that make me a phycho weirdo? I didn't understand computers and still don't so when I stumbled upon y2k and read Yourdon and Hamasaki(whatever happened to him anyway?) I was afraid. I read what Flint and Decker had to say and y2k pro too. I didn't know who to believe so I did a little preparing. Do you honestly think that the government or business would have told us to prepare seriously if it was going to be bad. I didn't. There was no way they could have or there would have been a panic was my reasoning. I think that is how alot of people felt that did do some research. Your average citizen I don't believed read much about it or just didn't care or thought that the government would take care of it so they didn't have to think about it. I guess some of us just thought about the posibilities too much.

-- Missy (glad@it's.over), April 21, 2000.

Actually Patricia, I thought the doom zombies link was excellent! I always liked how Doc addressed y2k, and that post pretty well sums up the whole deal.

Leave to a doomer to shoot themselves in the foot every single time!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Super Polly/Fool (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), April 21, 2000.

Missy, your point about psychoanalysis is well taken. On the other hand, the psychoanalysis here is free. 8^)

Patricia, I surmised that Ken's questions arose from a misunderstanding of what I said, hence my reply sought to clear up the latter rather than to address the former. But if it pleases you...

Same really big mistake that Ed Yourdon and the other "fear leaders" made; because you (and they) didn't have or didn't understand or didn't believe certain information, you assumed that It Would Be Really Bad. (bold added)

Nope. Here's what I wrote (bold added): "I judged that the odds of Y2K being a catastrophe were sufficient to warrant preparing for that possibility." I also wrote: "The possibility of 'losing the money' didn't bother me any more than losing the money I choose to spend on extra automobile liability coverage."

Another difference between the more strident doomers and myself was that I refrained from trying to persuade others to share my view.

Why would you think that the people you have basicaly trusted all along to do their jobs (i.e., power, water, telecomm, finances, etc.) would suddenly become morons and not be able to perform their duties because of a date change?

Is there not a significant difference between an ordinary date change and a century date change. Since this has been probed in great depth on the old TB2000 threads, I will just say that many computer systems that were judged infeasible to remediate for the century date change, were replaced, and that is not a trivial exercise.

What exactly was the "incentive" to lie?

I am surprised by peoples' shock at the idea that a government entity, a corporation or an industry trade group might have an incentive to lie to the public. I am reminded of the tobacco industry CEOs' testimony that nicotine is not addictive.

A government entity or a corporation would benefit from suppressing information about lack of readiness for Y2K, if its responsibility for subsequent failures could be plausibly denied. The upper managers in the former could look forward to rewards and promotions for a job well done. The corporation could expect greater profits than if it had divulged problems and provided ammunition for lawsuits.

But deliberate lying isn't the only way for the truth to remain hidden. When people at the working level sound the alarm, that message may get filtered or distorted before it can reach upper management.

Perhaps there was little or no significant bad Y2K news to hide. That's great. But the presumption that no institution would have sought to suppress a significant Y2K problem, is in conflict with how institutions behave in general.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 21, 2000.

Sorry, David, but these are your exact words (bold emphasis mine):

"So with this dearth of what I considered reliable evidence from outside, I drew mostly upon my own work experience in software development, while trying to build an abstract picture of the interdependencies within our society.

So where did I misunderstand you?

You go on to state:

"A government entity or a corporation would benefit from suppressing information about lack of readiness for Y2K, if its responsibility for subsequent failures could be plausibly denied. The upper managers in the former could look forward to rewards and promotions for a job well done. The corporation could expect greater profits than if it had divulged problems and provided ammunition for lawsuits.

If you re-read what Ken wrote above, is this not, according to the most prominent "doom scenario" of "it's all going away", virtually impossible? And therein lies one of the greatest disconnects in the doomer "argument". Why is it so hard for you to believe that it is in a business' best interest to stay in business? Are you not a "businessman"? Do you not wish to remain in business? Well, why wouldn't you believe that applies to most businesses as well?

Then we get to what I see as the crux of your post:

"But deliberate lying isn't the only way for the truth to remain hidden. When people at the working level sound the alarm, that message may get filtered or distorted before it can reach upper management.

Perhaps there was little or no significant bad Y2K news to hide. That's great. But the presumption that no institution would have sought to suppress a significant Y2K problem, is in conflict with how institutions behave in general.

Ah, yes. The ever-present "cover-up". First of all, if there were such significant problems, again I refer you to what Ken wrote -- where were the whistle-blowers? Not one plausible, identifiable, verifiable whistle-blower emerged before, during or after the fact. Which leads me to my next dilemma in the prevailing doomer "argument": If the problems are so massive, how the hell can you hide them? And a corollary: If there are indeed problems (as there are every day of every week of every month of every year.....), but they don't affect the general public and consequently the general public (read: You) never hears about them, how can you consider it either a problem or a cover-up? Do you regularly hear about all the little glitches that affect IT and business in general on a daily basis? No, you don't. You only hear about the larger ones; the ones that actually affect someone.

It goes back to what I said before. Simply because you didn't have or didn't understand certain information, you assumed it either wasn't there or was a lie. Up and down the "supply chain", companies were sharing information. Why is it so hard to believe that they actually had their proverbial acts together? (And I'm not so naive as to believe that everything's perfect now or ever was or ever will be. Once again, there are problems every day of every week of every month of every year, and yet we manage to work with and around them. Go figure.)

Maybe I do have more faith than you do and I'm not as skeptical as I'd like to believe. But look at the world around you -- it kind of works, doesn't it? We kind of still plug on and actually manage to get stuff done. According to the doomer thought process, this alone is impossible.

Why do you feel the need to defend a position which has been clearly proven wrong (and continues to be proven wrong each and every day the world continues to exist)?

It seems to me that even with the non-event that was and is the rollover, some of you still don't get it (as was evidenced on Andy Ray's "book burning" thread by the poster who suggested it be held at Andy's house because we'd need something to keep us warm next winter -- you can't make this up). And frankly, that boggles the mind.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 21, 2000.

Wow, I truly hope that this is the last of doomer thoughts (as the title indicates). I don't think I can bear any more illogical, nonsense about their belief system. When you make quotes like: "The Federal Government in Washington, D.C. has a new, 50 million dollar, state-of-the art Y2K communications bunker, and "every major city" was reported to have built or refurbished a bunker" or mention Executive Orders and military exercises, I need to run to the toilet quick.

You guys have no clue about these kinds of activities, yet you interpret it as doom. Where did $50M come from? Just another fabrication of the doomer mind. No johno, only the doomers lost on this one. They not only lost hard earned money and time but also their logical thought processes (assuming they had it to start).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 21, 2000.

You took your "software development" expertise and extrapolated that out to every other industry, based on virtually no information whatsoever.

Patricia, you speak of "software development" as if it's an industry unto itself, with no impact upon banking, telecommunications, energy, etc. Much of the Y2K remediation that was done fell under the category "software development."

If you meant that there are severe limits to extrapolating from one's expertise to a broader context, I agree. What I was doing was constructing a model for a "worst" case scenario. And no, it didn't assume that every industry would collapse. Sporadic local or regional problems in just one industry could have posed a severe hardship.

I felt it prudent to be prepared for a worst case scenario, since my experience and intuition suggested that I couldn't rule it out, and also since I could carry out these preps without hardship. My intuition turned out to have been incorrect, but I do not regret having prepared, just as I do not regret buying extra auto liability coverage that does not get used.

If you re-read what Ken wrote above, is this not, according to the most prominent "doom scenario" of "it's all going away", virtually impossible?

Yes, in the sense that if everything "went away," profits would be the least worry. But if a corporation thought its efforts at Y2K remediation were in jeopardy, I think it could have only hurt to have divulged this before the rollover. If their remediation turned out fine, their disclosures would have needlessly exposed them to potential blame for things that weren't even their fault, but the fault of other parties such as their suppliers.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that it is in a business' best interest to stay in business?

Where did I suggest otherwise? I was saying only that it can be in a business's interest to hide plausibly deniable problems from the public.

Ah, yes. The ever-present "cover-up". First of all, if there were such significant problems, again I refer you to what Ken wrote -- where were the whistle-blowers?

Somehow, my attempt to communicate my thinking prior to the rollover has been misconstrued as a retrospective look at the rollover.

If the problems are so massive, how the hell can you hide them?

Why do you feel the need to defend a position which has been clearly proven wrong (and continues to be proven wrong each and every day the world continues to exist)?

Again, you seem to presume that my perspective has not changed since the rollover. If you meant those comments to apply to the chronic doomers, fine, but I think some clarification would have been appropriate.

Why is it so hard to believe that they actually had their proverbial acts together?

Evidently, they did, and I'm glad. But I thought the situation was far from clear prior to rollover. The Y2K remediation task facing software projects across industries was monumental. (I have no experience with embedded chip remediation, so I can't address that.) Software projects are notoriously difficult to manage effectively. In my experience, when software projects succeed, it's due largely to the extraordinary commitment of those actually doing the work.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 21, 2000.

Patricia and David:

I should think it's become pretty clear by now that corporations in fact *were* withholding some information from us, and otherwise being less than forthright about their status. It ought to be clear by now that they were in much better shape than the legal system permitted them to proclaim (except in hazy terms). There are entirely too many precedents for corporations to be held liable for things that admittedly they had no control over, simply because they have the deep pockets to pay the needy victims of circumstances.

Beyond this, the "interconnectedness of things" may have been absurdly misrepresented by doomers with respect to cascading bugs, but it holds true enough in a legal sense. YOU are responsible for proximate damage, even if the root cause was a bug in *someone else's* software. Few companies, if any, rely on NO externally developed software, to which they lack any source or ownership, so how could they vouch for it? And the large majority of companies really had almost no insight into the status of their suppliers.

Finally, it's impossible to prove that software has no bugs. You can demonstrate incredible diligence, but a guarantee of NO problems is simply not accurate.

For all of these reasons, companies were constrained to carefully unbinding wording in their public assurances. They "expected no difficulties", they "were confident their systems would work", they "felt they were substantially compliant", and other such weaseling. Many took the "safe" path of making no declarations of any kind.

Add it all together, and you can see (and we HAVE seen) that companies were in FAR better shape than their total public releases laid claim to.

What characterizes the Doomer mentality is that they chose to interpret this lack of information and careful wording as indicating that things were *much worse* than was claimed, rather than much better. Anyone who believed otherwise was a shill, etc. Even as good news poured in, spike dates fizzled, and the little remaining "bad news" remained speculative and unsupported, the visions of "possible worst case" remained as severe as ever. This took real zealous determination.

So the verifiable information was always insufficient. It's how you decided to fill in the gaps that's telling.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 21, 2000.

A"dd it all together, and you can see (and we HAVE seen) that companies were in FAR better shape than their total public releases laid claim to."

Flint, almost ALL companies that I saw press releases for stated to the public that they were ready for y2k. What part of ready anyone understand? All the major power companies flatly stated that they expected no problems, that the lights would stay on. What's confusing about that????

Not sure where you get the FAR better from, unless you are referring to financial reporting that was often shrouded in CYA legaleze instead of the press releases you referred to.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 21, 2000.

Factfinder:

That's a part of it. There was a lot of legalese, a lot of expressed concerns about the other guy based on lack of solid information. There was a lack of solid information (as opposed to press releases) in general. Many companies never said anything. Most of the world was a black box. Hindsight is great, but before the fact we needed to read a lot of tea leaves to fill in the blanks. Too much was blank. Optimists and pessimists tended to fill in the blanks based on their personal worldviews, arriving at very different conclusions, but the blanks were real.

I argued repeatedly that large disruptions were being ruled out. An awful lot of things would have had to be happening that weren't at all, if the doomers at the high end of the scale were correct. But I never felt that I personally was safe from the gremlins of scrambled records, annoying delays, particular shortages, or Murphy's Law. These things have happened to all of us at one time or another even without what promised to be a real but temporary surge of glitches.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 21, 2000.

I debated whether or not I should post again because this is simply going around in circles (beating the dead horse, whatever). But.....I have a couple of questions and a couple of thoughts:

Flint, my point has been this all along: Did anyone ever get a 100% guarantee from anyone prior to the rollover? So why did anyone expect one for the rollover? And that was a major issue with the doom set. The wording that was prevalent on Y2K "statements" is pretty close to the wording one gets at any time ("legalese" included). Is anyone safe now "from the gremlins of scrambled records, annoying delays, particular shortages, or Murphy's Law"? Nope. No one was before Y2K became an "issue" either (which you did allude to). Yet because of a date change that happened to end in three zeroes, it was blown completely out of proportion.

Yes, David, it was simply a "date change". It was the human factor that injected and then amplified The Century Date Change, not the computers. All the computers "know" is the information that's programmed into them. To a certain degree, Y2K remediation can be likened to the types of projects required for expanding phone numbers or zip codes. But comparing Y2K remediation projects to "most software projects" is (aside from being yet another mistake made by a somewhat more famous "software project expert") incorrect, like comparing apples and oranges. I have worked (in a project management capacity) on both types of projects, and the programming work is nothing alike. The concepts and the methodologies may be the same, but the actual work is vastly different. I believe (but have no concrete figures) that the percentage of "replace" versus "remediate" was quite small when measured against the whole, and thus should have been the worry.

(And yes, I did lump you together with the "chronic doomers", but the way I read your postings was that if you had to do it all over again, you'd do exactly the same thing, react in exactly the same way. You have echoed every typical doom argument in your posts, from the auto insurance comparison to the perceived cover-ups of information; these arguments have seemingly become the justification for over-reaction by some. If I have misread you, I apologize. This was never about prudent preparation for unforeseen problems in any circumstance, not just Y2K. If Y2K was the catalyst, so be it.)

What I really can't believe is that anyone believes there's anything to debate (myself included). The year 2000 problem should have remained where it belonged -- as a business/technical problem. The Y2K issue should never have been; it only existed because it was brought into the public debate by some less-than-honorable sorts who thought they could make money off people's fears. I hope they remember that "what goes around, comes around".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 22, 2000.

Patricia you condesending whore. If you knew that Y2K wasn't going to be bad, why weren't you posting that information at TimeBomb. Excuse me for being terse with you, but don't you feel you had a moral obligation to be telling us? As far as I'm concerned, you should have been spamming posts making Lady Logic look like a piker. Now you have the nerve to show up here and act like you are the smartest I.T. professional in the world. You act like we should be patting you on the back for being so smart of something. Ultimately, all you are doing is proving what an empty heart you have.

I'm sick of your yap.

-- (Burt @nd .Ernie), April 22, 2000.

Patricia:

Yes, in hindsight no doubt you are correct. And I'd love to be permitted to bet on horse races *after* the race, too.

In fact, there was no question there were a lot of date bugs. There was no question that some of those bugs would have caused very real if temporary problems if not fixed. There was no question that we could not possibly find and fix them all. There was of course a lot of evidence that due diligence was being applied in some places to eliminate nearly all of them, but there was also evidence that in some places nearly nothing was being done, and as for the rest we had no data.

Yes, it's foolish to ask for guarantees we know are impossible in principle. But if the only bug in the world is that MY employer cannot process paychecks for a month, I've got problems. If you are now claiming that you had full confidence that of all the anticipated date bugs, NONE of them would have any such effect on you, then I can't agree with you. We could reasonably expect a temporary increase in glitches, because date bugs were known to exist. We had sufficient information to reduce the "impact range" a great deal, but that range was still wide enough to permit a variety of inconveniences. So Murphy had plenty of scope even discounting the fantasies of the pessimists completely.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 2000.

Dear Burt @ Ernie,

Patricia you condesending whore.

Ah yes. If one has no actual argument, one resorts to the personal attack. Once again, you have proved my point about "doomers". Thank you. This opening "statement" of yours indicates your complete lack of credibility, as well as your hypocrisy. You call me a "condescending whore" and then in the very next paragraph discuss "moral obligation"?

If you knew that Y2K wasn't going to be bad, why weren't you posting that information at TimeBomb.

For what purpose? Why was it necessary that *I* post at Timebomb? You had the benefit (yes, benefit) of people like Maria, Hoffmeister, Anita, and others and look what you did to them. Would I have been treated any differently? More specifically, would you have lent any more credence to my words than you did theirs?

Excuse me for being terse with you, but don't you feel you had a moral obligation to be telling us?

My "moral obligation" is frankly none of your damn business. No, my "moral obligation" was not to post to Timebomb. I further feel no "moral obligation" to explain myself to the likes of an anonymous poster.

As far as I'm concerned, you should have been spamming posts making Lady Logic look like a piker. Now you have the nerve to show up here and act like you are the smartest I.T. professional in the world. You act like we should be patting you on the back for being so smart of something. Ultimately, all you are doing is proving what an empty heart you have.

I'm sick of your yap.

-- (Burt @nd .Ernie), April 22, 2000.

It's honestly not on my list of Things to Worry About Today what you think I should have done or should be doing. Who the hell are you? What the hell did you do on New Year's Eve? Cower in the basement next to your beans and rice waiting for those Damn Evil Pollies to come beating down your door?

If you feel that I am acting like "the smartest IT person in the world", that is simply a reflection of the fact that I do know what I'm talking about and is also not a point of concern for me (but obviously is for you). Get off your high horse and admit your mistake. Then move on as most adults have the propensity to do. And for crying out loud, identify yourself. One of the lowest forms of life is the anonymous Internet poster who, because of his own failings in life, mindlessly attacks people .

And if you're "sick of [my] yap", don't read my posts.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 22, 2000.

Flint, I'm not sure why you're bringing "hindsight" into this. Everything I've said here (with perhaps one or two exceptions) is exactly what I've been saying almost all along, so I can't see where you'd think I was spouting "hindsight". (I have been in this debate longer than any of you realize -- since 1996 -- but I stayed behind the proverbial scenes until mid-1999.) As I said to David, maybe I have more faith and am less skeptical than I'd like to think, but that's the way it is.

You wrote: "If you are now claiming that you had full confidence that of all the anticipated date bugs, NONE of them would have any such effect on you, then I can't agree with you."

Where did I say this? Like most others, I thought there would probably be some scattered problems (yes, that even affected *me*) and I stated as such on many (many) occasions. Basically, all you've described in your reply is Business As Usual; things that happen every day of every week.....blah blah blah. And so what? Like glitches and problems and shortages and etc. haven't happened before and/or won't happen again? Has the world come to an end yet? Have Americans stopped driving because the price of gasoline has skyrocketed?

Point is (and I've said this before as well) we deal with this stuff all the time. But because the year ended in Three Zeroes, some mystical importance was attached by certain people. In the IT world, a programming problem is just that -- a programming problem; which is what The Year 2000 Problem was all about (not the Y2K issue; and I've already explained the difference there).

You're still talking about data and what we knew and what we didn't know. I'll ask again: What difference did it or would it have made? (And I asked this as well many, many times before the rollover.) You took it on faith that stuff worked before the rollover, but again, you had to have guarantees and definitive proof that it would work after the rollover. What were you going to do with the "data" or the "guarantees" or the "proof"? Were you going to believe "them"? Or would you have simply discounted it as "lies, conspiracies, cover-ups, spin" (as so many did)?

The doom set screamed for command centers, "they" aren't spending enough money, etc. But the minute anyone opened a "command center" and/or spent more money, what was the doom cry? "SEE!?!?!? It's going to be BAD -- they MUST know something....." They screamed for "data", "more information", but the minute any such data or information was released, well, you know the rest.

I can't help but wonder if living in NYC as long as I did and consequently having somewhat of a "tolerant" attitude toward everyday annoyances had a lot to do with the way my Y2K attitude was shaped. I'm constantly amazed by what is tolerated in NYC that isn't even a consideration anywhere outside the city -- and that is becoming more obvious to me every day here in Las Vegas.

I don't want to get personal, but you're playing way too many sides of the proverbial fence for me to keep up. What exactly are you debating here? Outside of your clinging to this data issue, we seem to be in agreement. Or did I miss something?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 22, 2000.

Patricia:

Maybe it's just in the way we express ourselves, I don't know. The "three zeroes" wasn't mystical at all. Code really did behave abnormally when the default window expired. Nothing magical about it, and nothing good either. Repairs were needed.

As to the inherent resiliance of our systems, I agree with you. But you seem to be claiming that the expiration of the 2-digit date window was absolutely ordinary, and that the very large number of rollover bugs would not exceed either the severity or the frequency of what business experiences as usual. And if you ARE saying this, I disagree with you. We knew we'd experience an abnormally high error rate as date bugs were added to normal daily bugs. In fact, there were some problems, and many geeks worked very long hours for quite some time, both remediating and fixing on failure.

Yes, we had every indication, as I wrote ad nauseum, that date bugs would be mostly manageable. Indeed, as 1999 passed I lost all my previous worry and started consuming my preparations. If there ever had been any systemic danger, it was clearly headed off. I'm just trying to say that there was, IMO, real reason to be concerned about a higher incidence of problems than we actually experienced. The probability of such a higher incidence, everything considered, was quite high. If you are it was not, you're wrong.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 2000.

Flint, I'm not saying there were or would have been no problems. In my project experience, we came across a number of them. What I am saying is that yes, it was blown way out of proportion by a certain set of people, whether it be for their own means, or due to their inherent mistrust of whatever, etc.

Where I disagree with you is on how severe it "might have been". And it goes back to both my "faith vs. skepticism" and what IT and systems people and engineers and the like go through every single day. Further, if you look at total Y2K remediation spending vs. total IT budget, where are the numbers to back up your suggestion that it would have/could have been that bad (i.e., where were the dollars that were spent on the work)? I don't see that the spending was there. And yes, there was a point in time when I didn't believe that spending had anything to do with it, but I was wrong and adjusted accordingly.

Hell, if you remove the "replacements" that were made in the name of Y2K, the Y2K spending total drops even lower. (And again, from my personal experience, I know there were "replacements" made that weren't actually necessary; just to get the latest toys in there.) Perhaps it's a mistake in extrapolating my experience out, (I certainly wouldn't be the first to do so [;-)]) but I did have some experience with a variety of different industries. Additionally, I did have the benefit of contacts in those industries in which I had no first-hand experience.

No, everyone did not have such benefits, but to go back a couple of posts, when those who did have the experience and/or first-hand knowledge of "what was going on" reported on same, what was the result? Bottom line is that people are going to believe what they are going to believe, facts be damned. We're all guilty of that at some point or another, but there were/are those that just took it (and continue to take it) to an unnecessary extreme.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 22, 2000.

Patricia:

We're very close then. I admit I expected isolated, sporadic and temporary screwups of newsworthy magnitude, at least locally. There weren't as many of these as I expected, but I never felt they could be ruled out, the granularity of our information simply didn't permit that.

The extremists were living in fantasyland, and of course they also banned me for saying so, and to prevent me from pointing it out to them later, hiding away where they could safely pretend they never said any such thing. Discussing them isn't a matter of looking at what information was available, but more a matter of abnormal psychology, the far tip of the bell curve of kidding themselves.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 22, 2000.

Where did $50M come from? Just another fabrication of the doomer mind.

Maria, go here for a Federal Computer Week article concerning the $50 million Year 2000 Information Coordination Center.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002q2e

-- News you (may@have.missed), April 22, 2000.

Vote for Patricia!

News, well which is it $50M or $40M? And how did johno know it's state of the art communications? Thanks for the link. Patricia made the point: first you clammer that more needs to be done, the gov does more and then you use it as proof that the end is near. Circular as they come. When I made this same point 4Qtr last year only Flint saw the flawed reasoning. Ashton and Leska, the Casacadia couple, and the rest of the doomers jumped all over me on that one.

Bert, Ernie, you wouldn't listen to logic. You ignored (and still do) all attempts for learning about Y2K.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 24, 2000.