The Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) sent an Open Letter to Congress on June 9, 1999 expressing the perspective of that organization concerning the seriousness of Y2K. The letter includes a description of Y2K and the embedded systems crisis as "non-solvable" and as a "crisis". It also states that the crisis has not begun to get the attention it deserves. (A copy of the Open Letter can be seen at ( http://www.ieeeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.html.)

This is from http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/

**************************

This is SERIOUS folks. I might not be listened to (despite my 24 years experience) but you BETTER listen to the IEEE. Navy report, is IMHO, circumstantial evidence compared to this. This is the bloody dagger with fingerprints on it. AND it is available on the web. I have been waiting for a long time for them to confirm this - they now have.

Listen DGI's , Polly's or whatever. DONT take my word for it, DONT take Gary North's word for it. DONT take CNN's word for it. TAKE THE WORD OF THE ENGINEERS WHO BUILT THE SYSTEMS AND THEIR PROFESSIONAL BODY. (emphasis mine...)

I know someone out there will rationalise and deny this, but I beleive that of you ignore THIS EVIDENCE that NOTHING will convince you of the gravity of the situation short of a miracle.

This is the last time I am going to waste my breath on Pollys. Anyone who is SERIOUS about Y2K, drop me an e-mail and I will send some documentation [soon] as how to alter your worldview with respect to the Y2K risk. I have been preparing for 18 months, and I have a wealth of experience but I do not have a financial 'hidden agenda'.

Whatever your worldview, thank you for taking the time to read this.

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 26, 1999

Answers Rob, as I recall, this was already discussed on this forum. The position of the pollyannas, as best as I can remember, was that it was written by lawyers and thus had to seem rather scary, rather than the Brimming With Good News document it would otherwise have been. (As Dave Berry would say, I am not making this up.)

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 26, 1999.

---

Jack - Sorry if I am preaching to the converted, but I know many GI's and Polly's lurk & post here. I have since posting seen a few other references to Paula Gordon's work here, so I am probably laying down the issue with a trowel.

All I will say in my defence is that I have been a steadfast 8 for the past 18 months, and I was convinced that I would remain that for the rest of the duration. As an engineer by profession, I respect the IEEE as they have NEVER cired wolf and have ALWAYS expounded an issue with clarity, objectivity and professionalism. A statement like this from them is irrefutable. It is akin to a car mechanic at the main dealer telling you that the engibe of your car is shot. You may try in vain to get a second opinion, but any engineer worth his salt is going to tell you the same. Anyone who tells you about the suspension, the seating or the headlights has an alternative agenda.

I apologise for my rantings ..... I am very angry at the moment about all the LIES that are banded about concerning Y2K. As Paul Milne has said, this will KILL people.

Thanks Jack, and my apologies to the group if I've wasted bandwith flaming - but I had to get it out somehow !!!!

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 26, 1999.

Mr. Somerville's fallacy was not unique - it was part of the meme. Parrotting this drivel was the key to acceptance by other Doomers, and Mr. Somerville was accepted.

More flotsam in the gene pool - thankfully discredited (along with all Doomers) by their fallacious predictions of Y2k doom. ;)

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000

Answers

How many times have you been married,Andy Ray?Why are you still blathering about Y2K?Have you ever impressed anyone else as much as you seem to impress yourself?Is Narcissus your middle name?Do you actualy think you're convincing anyone of anything except what a pedantic jerk you are.How long do you intend to sit around posting "HA HA I was right and others were wrong!!I'm so validated and ever so smart!!" Just an other insecure nerd listening to the sound of his electronic voice.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 30, 2000.

I, for one, am entertained by these posts. Not all of us were here for that "laughfest" which was TB2000 last year.

I love reading the posts, thought not necessarily the commentary. I do not care what Andy Ray's motive is. I find these qoutes interesting.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 30, 2000.

"flotsam in the gene pool". Is that like jetsam in the Stephen Poole?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 30, 2000.

It's odd that Andy Ray continually goes after individuals such as Rob Somerville or Michael Taylor and yet fails to criticize in a like manner those who were in a position to affect public Y2K policy, such as the IEEE.

I suspect Andy Ray is writing a term paper about Y2K 'memetics.' If that's true, then it might make for better copy if he can imply that he was one of only a few researchers who knew about the Internet forum that was the source of the world's worry about Y2K -- but it wouldn't be intellectually honest. The reports to Congress by the CIA and other organizations on the status of Y2K worldwide were far more influential on Y2K concerns/worries than whatever an individual such as Rob Somerville had to say about it.

-- The opinion (of@another.individual), May 30, 2000.

You go Andy! Do not worry about mental midgets like Zoobie. This fool has shown his/her/its lack of reasoning many times over. Could be Invar on drugs.

-- Willy (from@old.Philly), May 30, 2000.

Andy Ray is writing a book.

-- I know what you did last summer (he@sure.is), May 30, 2000.

zombie,

Are you the same person who contributed the following accuracies to the debate? "Poole is a worthless disgusting piece of Polly filth for making a joke out of other's suffering. I look forward to the day when we can watch him die painfully because he was too stupid to prepare. -- (gilbert@trentor.org)" "I plan on doing most of my bartering with polyanna's.Strictly high profit,high gougeable items,t.p.,cough syrup (generic),anti diahreah (worth their weight in dark matter if the sh*t comes down)fever breakers,and of course TAMPONS!!!!a great deal of G.I.'s talk about their preparations without ever mentioning tampons,and there is a huge dependancy of just in time tampons.My wife has purchased several of the washable,reusable menstrual cup,"the keeper"they were 35 bucks.If possible problems run longterm,these will be essential,there's more about them on the y2k women site,one of the best prep sites.zoob. -- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 25, 1999. 2000

Your ignorance is showing. And the meme died over a year ago (isn't this the one-year anniversary of the now infamous "Sayonara Y2k" essay by Eg Yourdon?)

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 30, 2000.

Andy Ray is like the little brat that doesn't want to wear a raincoat to school. "Yes, you need a rain coat JUST IN CASE it rains", says his mother. "But it WON'T rain!!!", says the little twerp. "I don't care WHAT the weather channel says, I KNOW that it won't rain!"

Sure enough, it doesn't rain. "I KNEW it wouldn't rain! I TOLD you it wouldn't rain!", cries our hero.

So here it is, years later, and Andy Ray is STILL pouting. Now, what's this "meme" stuff again?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 30, 2000.

WD-40:

Your story would be much more entertaining were it not for the fact that nearly everyone was predicting clear weather, and most of those predicting rain were *selling* raincoats. Andy Ray may be vindictive, but you should have your facts correct when you attack him. Otherwise, you look foolish even without his efforts.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 30, 2000.

As if I should apologize for commiting my meager resorces into insuring my family's safty and well being,or being a capitalist for that matter.I was quite genuinely worried last year so I prepaired the best I could on a students income.Why is andy ray still gobbering on about people's millenialist angst unless he is either emotionaly retarded or a congenital idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of magnanimity.People were scared,they made adult decisions,all is now good.Some looked silly and some are determined to remain smarmy smug and arrogantly condescending. Grow up and get over yourself already,Andy Ray.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 30, 2000.

Flint:

I am not sure how you would define "most", but I would say that IEEE sure carries a lot of weight when it comes to embedded systems. Yes, they were wrong -- just as the weather channel can be wrong -- just as YOU were wrong when YOU predicted significant but manageable Y2K disruptions. But given the calls for alarm by weighty sources like IEEE, preparation for what could have occurred made good sense.

And no one really knew what was going to happen with Y2K. Least of all, the little twerp with the green teal fetish.

I challenge Andy Ray: Explain to us exactly HOW you knew that the IEEE was wrong, how FEMA was wrong, how Koskinen was wrong, how private industry was wrong. You can't, and you know it. You are like the child in my example -- you knew because ... because you just KNEW because you just WANTED everything to turn out all right.

Go ahead, Andy Ray, explain to us exactly how you knew Y2K was going to be a painless event.

-- WD-40 (wd40@nosqueak.not), May 30, 2000.

WD-40:

One of us seems to be missing the point. Maybe it's me. I'll readily agree there were some weighty opinions to the effect that there was a non-zero, and perhaps significant, probability of manageable disruptions. And I'm not quite sure what to make of Dale Way coming out NOW and saying he was lying (which is what it amounts to).

But nonetheless, there's a qualitative difference, in my mind, between reasonable concerns and unreasonable panic. I had quite a bit to say about that IEEE presentation to Congress, if you go back and look. Bottom line was, by that time I wasn't concerned. Andy Ray quotes Jack (remember Jack?) mocking those of us who saw through it. By last June, we knew better if we wanted to. It *really was* a legal brief intended to encourage legal protections for the electronics industry just in case. It carefully spoke in generalities at a time when enough device testing had been done to KNOW what any potentially serious problems might be.

And be honest -- the pessimists were past masters at dismissing ANY good news in which they could sniff any putative vested interest. Yet here we had a case of normal *lobbying*, and you're telling me the pessimists suddenly 'forgot' what a vested interest was? And you want us to take this amazing selective amnesia seriously?

Finally, I agree that I bought into the hysteria more than I should have. There was so much smoke around this forum that I could never quite abandon the notion that there might be a fire somewhere. But that doesn't mean I should start attacking those who point out that I was wrong. I WAS wrong. They were right. But this doesn't bother me; being wrong is how you learn, if you can admit it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 30, 2000.

Flint:

MY point is: How "reasonable" was it to expect the average (non-technical background) person, investigating Y2K, to "see through" the IEEE's open letter to Congress? Do you really expect the everyday person to say, "This is OBVIOUSLY a crock, designed by lawyers"? Or is it more reasonable to say, "This is very worrisome and disturbing, and it is reasonable for me to think about Y2K preparation"?

Of course, we know NOW that Y2K was a non-event, but I ask you, Flint: Was the IEEE document of June 1999 one that might lead a reasonable person to believe that personal Y2K preparation might be prudent?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 30, 2000.

Flint,

I agree,from start to finish.

Maybe Andy needs to feel vindicated,I don't know,if he wants to spend his time languishing over this tired and worn out topic,have at it chief.Preach to the choir all you want,but the church is empty,all those that have fessed up to being wrong are here the others,for all practical purposes are scattered to the four corners of the earth or are over on SLEZ *still* hoping.

I am one of the 'non-technical background' types that got it wrong and I readily admit it,but at least I and others have voices and opinions on a myriad of other things going on in the world,Andy has but one monotone voice,he has become a meme of sorts in his own right.

Inasmuch as the pre Y2K folks were stuck in chaos and calamity,Andy is stuck back in the time warp called Y2K today some five months later.If it helps Andy cop a nut,build a esteem or just likes talking to himself then it's a free country,have at it.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 30, 2000.

No, capnfun, I think we should extend to Andy Ray the opportunity to share with us exactly how he "knew" Y2K was going to turn out a dud. Hardy anybody else believed this; witness the Y2K "crisis centers" unveiled at the last minute by various governments (including the $50M one in Washington, D.C.).

If Andy Ray can explain to the world exactly how he knew it wouldn't rain -- oops -- I mean, that Y2K would be a dud, then we can all learn the great lesson and be able to apply it next time. (Snicker.)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 30, 2000.

{{{{{{{{{{{{{Capn}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Wanna rain wrestle??????

LOL, and you 'should' have mail.... :-)

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 30, 2000.

You know me!!! rasslin' is my forte darlin' throw in a little rain to make those BIG PUDDLES and wala,FUN>FUN>FUN : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), May 30, 2000.

Fools.

Flint is right.

Dale Way spent years selling a "Rain Coat" named "DB Star" an analysis tool for UNIX based big box software that was to be used in the first stage of Y2k remediation, the "inventory" stage.

He was just another one of the Vested Interests and in his case, that was not disclosed later on when he pushed that "letter to Congress".

But the fact is the Letter was not what the Doom Idiots claimed it was. It was a CYA for the IEEE people and a pressure letter to get the Y2k legislation passed. It was not an "analysis" of Y2k impacts.

Way made a fool of himself in Y2k and now that is clear in his "Y2k was overblown" statement that Fact Finder found.

-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), May 31, 2000.

It's been said before, but, having no shame, I'll say it again: :-)

Yep, Y2K was a non-event, and we didn't need to do a lick for preparation.

OTOH, it DID get me to stock up on some non-perishable foodstuffs, h2o, and candles, etc. that will be useful should any true emergency occur. Prior to Y2K a certain "someone" (who will remain nameless) wasn't as prepared as he felt he should be. Now he is, and will stay that way.

So thanks Y2K doomers, if for no other reason for getting one person to pull their head out long enough to look out for their family.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 31, 2000.

Zoobie:

You sound like a fellow dissapointed you didn't get the chance to "gouge" people. So what did you and the wife DO with all those extra "keepers" you bought? Giggle...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

wd,

I stated previously - last year, even - the reasons for my beliefs that Y2k would be a non-event. I made two challenges to the Hysterium after Lian explained that there were lots of computer industry specialists (who were doomers) aboard. Those challenges went unanswered.

You can examine the (lack of) evidence for yourself at One system, with an example; and One Chip.

The responses proved some things. Doomers were afraid for fear's sake, and fear's sake alone. And, they had no technical basis for their "beliefs." In this sense, the Doomer Meme was more of a religion than a science - and remains so today, for people such as yourself who wish to justify your hatred of the people now historically-proven correct and absolve yourself of all responsibility in the matter of your continued vitriol. I wish you well in this endeavor - really, I do.

As I repeatedly explained prior to the non-event, I am a scientist - in the sense that I apply the scientific method when attempting to ascertain the most accurate conclusion in any given scenario. I also have a background in applied statistics. Anyone with a background in applied statistics will tell you the field is counter- intuitive by nature. The typical inexperienced person begins by asking questions akin to "How can you know the process is producing 1,700 bad parts per million when you only tested 1,000 parts?" Now is not the time and this is not the place for an abstract on applied statistics - but suffice it to say that one can know the condition of 999,000 untested parts if one does one's homework.

These facts were wasted on memetic doomers, as they will likely be wasted on you. If you had the capability to understand - nay, the willingness to see the trees in the forest, you would likely have done so. After many debates with doomers, I came away assured that they (you) feel they (you) have been somehow "wronged" by "the system," and desire (or prefer) for it (and millions of people, if necessary) to suffer because of your pettiness.

The reason some continue to post "Get over it" in response to my remindings is simple and obvious: it is a phrase they are most familiar with, as they have heard it often.

This will likely not satisfy you as an answer, because it is logical and makes the most sense and you are a doomer. You could take this opportunity to re-examine your motives for not accepting facts and an accurate analysis of them. It may, perhaps, help steer you clear of incorrect assessments in the future.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Andy Ray,

Just keep on posting all you want to. No one has the right to demand you stop. Who are they to tell anyone what they can write about? It was bad enough when a person would post a factual calm post on TB2000 that showed the fallacy of some beliefs of potential failures and they would get replies that were full of hate and venom. It appears some considered that acceptable, but now we are supposed to pretend they never happened.

Seems some people find it convenient to change the rules as they go along so as to reflect what they want to see at the time.

The odd thing is, so many so called experts" who were totally wrong are now whining about "How could we have been so wrong?" Why didn't we know the results would be this way? Why? Why? WHY???

But when you try to show them why, they make the same mistake they did then, they refuse to SEE why. They continue to believe it is some deep mystery that caused them to come to the conclusions they did. They have closed minds and are unwilling to listen and think. That is what brought them to the wrong conclusion in the first place, ut have they learned from it? No. They continue to look for the answers in the wrong places. They got their beliefs strictly from listening to the OPINIONS of others, they did not look for or listen to facts.

If people do not want to read what you write then they can pass up your posts. They should not demand that "I" miss out on reading them. I choose to read them and ask that you continue to post them. By demanding you stop, and attempting to belittle you for posting, they are attempting to censor you. This is not TB2000, this is "TB2K spinoff uncensored". If they do not like it, especially if your posts bring up feelings of chagrin over their past beliefs and actions, then that is their personal problem.

So post away, those who don't want to see them don't have to look at them, unless for some reason they don't want other people to see them which has to make you have to wonder what they are afraid of?

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 31, 2000.

WD-40:

[Of course, we know NOW that Y2K was a non-event, but I ask you, Flint: Was the IEEE document of June 1999 one that might lead a reasonable person to believe that personal Y2K preparation might be prudent?]

A good question. I'll try again, no guarantees here...

1) There is the issue of lobbying. If you're claiming that the average citizen believes that everyone who pleads their case before Congress is doing so out of sheer altruism and there's nothing political about it, I can't agree. Most people really do understand that politics is political.

2) Let's agree here that reasons for concern were legitimate. The issue here isn't a yes or no question, it's a matter of reasonable *degree* of concern. NOT "was there ANY reason to pay attention to y2k?", but rather "was there justifiable cause to become hysterical about y2k?" To me, the repeated mantra that an (at best) weakly supported drastic overreaction was OK because it motivated some people to take precautions they should have been taking all along, misses the point. People making this claim are doing nothing more than grasping at any rationalization they can find for what would otherwise be abject foolishness, to avoid facing themselves.

3) You are treating the IEEE lobbying effort in isolation, to the exclusion of everything else. At best, that effort was just one of literally thousands of data points. It raised legitimate concerns, BUT those concerns were being answered by millions of separate remediation efforts. You are asking that we BOTH (a) Take the IEEE testimony out of its lobbying context; and (b) Take it out of the overall y2k context as well.

I'm suspicious of this "single villain" orientation. Placed back into BOTH contexts, it loses most of its force from the first (a lobbying effort), and vanishes nearly without a ripple into the second. So I believe those who cling so tightly to this single data point are also doing so as a self-defense mechanism, to help them avoid noticing that they completely misinterpreted what is by now a self-evident big picture.

Other than those with a direct financial interest in the target legislation, the only people who paid any attention at all to that testimony were those trying desperately to find some ammunition to support their fears, that didn't evaporate on close examination. The spike dates had mostly come and gone. The positive test results were pouring in. The predicted problems had resoundingly shown NO sign of ever happening. So this IEEE testimony was a Godsend, since by then the doomie contingent had been reduced mostly to name calling, serious misinformation tactics, and general refusal to surrender a hopeless but firmly entrenched position.

And even if you took that testimony at face value and ignored everything else, it STILL wasn't enough to support the general hysteria around here. Dale Way was selling his own y2k utility, and the IEEE was saying in other places (like EE Times) that y2k would end up being a net benefit! Let's have some perspective here, painful as you might find it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.

Andy Ray--

I don't object to your posting posts from last year's TB2000. They are rather interesting and remind me of how glad I am that the y2k issue is dead.

What I do object to is the superior tone of your vindicated remarks. And I question if you even know who you are posting too. The only name I recognized in the above posts is Sysman. Most of the people you would tweak are gone from here or are at EZBoard. I know you are persona non grata at EZBoard but that doesn't mean you need to dump your didactisism here.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

Geez, Lars. didactisism? I had to check the dictionary for that one. [Could it be the chocolate?]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Anita---

It's true, chocolate has a powerful hold on me. At Halloween I lay in wait and steal it from lil kids who are trick n treating. At Easter I eat chocolate bunny ears first. And now I am using words like didacticism, which sound vaguely obscene. Oh God forfend!

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 31, 2000.

Andy Ray:

Thank you for your detailed response; I followed the two links that you provided. I was surprised to see that at one time, presumably before you got sucked into this "meme" nonsense, you actually seemed to be able to write both in a rational and coherent manner. (Not having one's senses bombarded by your outrageous green also helps.)

The common denominator in both your links was the following: Since noone could produce a verifiable instance of an embedded processor that would fail due to Y2K, you therefore assumed such an embedded processor did not exist. Thus, even though highly respected scientific bodies such as IEEE were warning that indeed such problems likely DID exist, you dismissed it completely based on your very limited "sampling" strategy.

That is a very weak method to employ, especially in view of the substantial penalty if in error. Put aside this "meme" stuff, and just accept that many doomers were not willing to bet their lives on your sampling argument versus IEEE's position on Y2K and embedded systems. Especially since the penalty for being wrong was relatively minor (see Flint's recounting of his preparedness "mistakes", above).

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 31, 2000.

WD-40:

You are a determined soul, aren't you. You've decided that the IEEE lobbying effort was God's Objective Truth, and nothing can get you even to wonder a little bit.

At the time of that effort, there were web sites (which we used in practice) listing literally hundreds of suspect devices. Even discounting the very large number of real time clocks that worked according to spec, but might be *misused* by careless programmers, there were numerous devices with known errors that were identified by manufacturer and model number. We're not talking about nonrandom sampling here, we're talking about what amounted to a *census* of devices.

And how could the IEEE not know this when their own website was part of this informating clearinghouse? You continue to take this lobbying effort completely out of context. Why? As I said, nobody paid much attention to it. It's not a smoking gun.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.

Since noone could produce a verifiable instance of an embedded processor that would fail due to Y2K, you therefore assumed such an embedded processor did not exist.

wd,

Thank you for the compliment. My writing style has remained as constant as the need to fear a catastrophic Y2k, but doomers tend to miss the constant in life - or perhaps dis-miss it.

At the risk of mis-quoting Flint, you are missing the point. I will attempt to only use small words to explain:

I assumed nothing. I happen to own a company or two. They depend upon technology to varying degrees. As a business-owner, I was initially concerned that something bad was going to happen to my businesses 000101.

Some of these very same technology-dependent companies are in fact technology companies - employing engineers that sit around all day and do nothing but test things and think things up. I asked some people who asked some people to ask some of these engineers to test a random sample of the systems they have deployed for Y2k non- compliance. I asked them to further check with suppliers, such as Motorola and Allen-Bradley, to see which ICs and systems they (Motorola and A-B) were most concerned about. I then asked them to check a random sample of deployed systems employing these highly suspect devices.

The engineers did as they were asked, and found one system that misreported the date on 000101 when the clock was rolled forward for testing. One.

Now,

   here's one of those facts I have been politely attempting to convey to you: I knew what I was talking about. I did not guess, and I was not lucky. I knew. You need to accept that with about one-fifth the memetic fervor with which you gobbled up each and every lie produced by Ed Yourdon, as he fed your pathetic fears and strengthened your guilt/inferiority complex. And you need to deal with the fact that you were and remain wrong about Y2k.

The reason I consider you an idiot is becuase you have demonstrated a propensity for idiocy - first in falling for the meme, but moreso in now defending it. It is not my fault that you were wrong, and it is not my fault that you are an idiot. It is yours. Deal with it.

Thus, even though highly respected scientific bodies such as IEEE were warning that indeed such problems likely DID exist, you dismissed it completely based on your very limited "sampling" strategy.

In a word: Yes.

Rather than re-state, I will simply cut and paste. If you cannot figure this out the second time you read it - please re-read the above for a lucid description as to why:

As I repeatedly explained prior to the non-event, I am a scientist - in the sense that I apply the scientific method when attempting to ascertain the most accurate conclusion in any given scenario. I also have a background in applied statistics. Anyone with a background in applied statistics will tell you the field is counter- intuitive by nature. The typical inexperienced person begins by asking questions akin to "How can you know the process is producing 1,700 bad parts per million when you only tested 1,000 parts?" Now is not the time and this is not the place for an abstract on applied statistics - but suffice it to say that one can know the condition of 999,000 untested parts if one does one's homework.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.

Flint and Andy Ray:

Both of you have stated that you are technically astute, and thus based on your own experience and investigation, concluded that the IEEE open letter to Congress of 6/9/99 was baseless. (Andy Ray, I'm going to put aside your "meme" fixation for now, as I would like to try to have a rational discussion with you.)

Gentlemen, let us assume that you have no special knowledge of medicine -- i.e., you are just like the average person, able to apply a bandaid, nurse a cold, etc., but essentially will consult a doctor for anything more serious.

Now, suppose that you learn that the American Medical Association (AMA) has sent an open letter to Congress, warning that the upcoming flu season could easily be the worst ever seen, due to a strain of flu that appears to be unprecedented. The AMA urges in no uncertain terms that everyone get their flu shot, or face possibly dire consequences.

Meanwhile, on an Internet discussion forum, you note some people are discouraging getting flu shots. They point out that the AMA's letter may be more for legal reasons rather than medical ones. They claim that not a single person is yet known to have died or be seriously ill due to this new flu strain. There are suggestions that the head of the AMA may have a financial interest in flu shots.

What would you do? (Again, Andy Ray, for purposes of a rational discussion, please omit the M-word. Thank you.)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 31, 2000.

WD-40:

Good start. Let's take what you've written and extend it, since your analogy is fine as far as it goes.

[Meanwhile, on an Internet discussion forum, you note some people are discouraging getting flu shots. They point out that the AMA's letter may be more for legal reasons rather than medical ones. They claim that not a single person is yet known to have died or be seriously ill due to this new flu strain. There are suggestions that the head of the AMA may have a financial interest in flu shots.]

Furthermore, you find multiple other discussion groups on the internet, composed almost entirely of doctors. When you ask them about this flu, they unanimously claim it's nothing special and you need not worry (i.e., did you ever go to the IBM newsgroups? The COBOL groups? The UNIX groups? The embedded systems groups?)

However, on the one forum in question, what you notice is that the claim is NOT being made that you shouldn't get a flu shot. Instead, it's being claimed that this new flu strain (which has yet to kill or injure anyone) shows NO sign of meeting the claims of its most vocal proponents -- that it will kill off half or more of the world's human population, and that your most reasonable course of action is to live in a bubble well away from civilization. And that furthermore, anyone who suggests that such extreme protection is unlikely to be required is a "flooey", someone who (by usage) combines genetic idiocy, mendacious intent, and bad breath!

Meanwhile, reports have been cropping up by the hundreds, for months, from doctors everywhere that their own test results demonstrate this flu to be contained and harmless, although getting a flu shot never hurts and nothing more should be required.

Finally, you notice that the AMA itself isn't making this extraordinary claim. Their own literature dismisses this flu as more likely to be beneficial than detrimental to national health. All you have is a single claim, by a single person, made before Congress in support of a bill to protect doctors generally from malpractice suits just in case someone actually *does* get seriously ill.

So we're not saying those who got flu shots were daft. We're saying that this single statement, taken out of context, is hardly sufficient support for the extreme reactions so common here. Taken IN context, it's nearly insignificant, to the point where the ONLY people who took it seriously were those who had ALREADY bought into what Yourdon so aptly called the "y2k craze", and who were desperate for ammunition in what was already a lost war.

And as I'm sure you know, I regarded those who did NOT get flu shots as taking an unnecessary risk.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.

Thank you, Flint.

Note that probably a non-medical person would NOT be inclined to search through the applicable literature, take note of published research by specialists, ask questions directly on web sites devoted to highly technical dicussions regarding medicine, etc. That is why I put in that qualification, just to make that point -- the average person simply is not going to do this level of research, and perhaps could not, given the level of sophistication required.

You made my other point beautifully: The RISK factor. Of course, get the flu shot. No matter how low the odds are of the flu having the feared effect, the stakes dictate that it is foolhardy not to prepare for the possibility that the AMA position is on target.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), May 31, 2000.

Flint,

I'm a computer elleterete, and found this forum (TB2K) based on EYs "expertise" in the computing field. For me when a reputable organization like the IEEE comes out and says "maybe there's a worry", and FEMA says some precaution is advisable, for me that means "prepare".

Hindsight is great, but I wouldn't expect a Joe Punchclock like me to even know what questions to *ask* a unix programmer other than "do you think there could be trouble"? I do know our computer guys were sitting around work New Year's Eve "just in case", so why shouldn't I be ready "just in case"? After all, my family's pretty important to me.

Like I posted earlier though, even though Y2K was nothing, it DID benefit me in that now I'm ready for whatever comes along, so I don't really have any complaints (on this thread at least :-)).

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2000.

wd,

Flint elegantly answered your analogous question - he is a much better writer than I.

I see one problem with your initial analogy - computer failures are not life-threatening. They are merely inconveniences. Whereas influenza kills people every year, computer failures do not and have not. But no matter.

It was obvious to many that those "crying wolf" did not know what they were talking about. I received more email responses to One Chip and One System than any other postings. They were from people who were ignorant (not an insult - merely a description) of the intricacies of modern technology - as you claim you were/are. They realised from the posts I knew what I was talking about, and at least questioned the meme.

To bring your scenario into the present, I would ask this:
Would you go to any doctor that claimed your influenza strain would wipe out civilisation? Would you take your children or elderly to them? Wouldn't you rather believe they were "quacks?" They are, after all, highly trained specialists with years of experience. Wouldn't you, in hindsight, suspect they had some other motive for making their incorrect assessment in the first place, and then for refusing to recant in the face of growing evidence?

Further, how would you respond to the medically-ignorant friends of the historically-proven incorrect doctors that claim - even after it's obvious to all how wrong they were - that the doctors were right? Especially if you were a medical professional yourself and had known and stated all along that the strain of influenza was being overblown?

Further still, what if the errant doctors claimed that though this outbreak killed no one, one was on the way that would kill everyone? Suppose they set up a private forum on the internet that celebrated each and every toe-stubbing as "evidence" the new strain is on it's way - combined with the "logic" that because no deaths were reported in the "outbreak," there must be some sort of cover-up and conspiracy to hide the "truth." Then, meet their defenders and supporters - who still maintain the doctors were correct.

Were people who did not know any better wrong to prepare? No. Was anyone stupid to have prepared? No. Was there ever any reason to prepare? No. Who bears the responsibility for misinformation? Those who knew but said nothing. Is it too late for them to now come out and state they knew or suspected Y2k would be a non-event? Decidedly yes. Will I continue to remind them and others of their folly? Yes. For how long? Indefinitely. Why? In the hopes of diverting such malfeasance in the future.

In short, defense of the idiocy that wasted billions of USD is similarly wasted. Yourdon and his memetic supporters were and remain wrong. And yet he and you and they continue to defend the fear they spread - and there is simply no defense for it.

There was no need to prepare for a catastrophic Y2k - ever.

And now, the historically-proven incorrect and their following riff-raff are attempting to re-write their own personal histories in the matter. This is why I am re-posting their pre-non-event words. And this is why I am reminding everyone who reads these words of the fascist actions of a collection of unbalanced idiots, masquerading as information technology specialists and "internet researchers." Hopefully, this will deter those who so desparately want bad things to happen from crying "the sky is falling" in the future.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

WD-40:

I'll address your point once again, this time specifically.

The IEEE letter to Congress wasn't widely reported in the national media. Outside of the TB2K forum it was a non-event, in direct contrast to the very large effort (perhaps over a billion dollars) mounted by organizations throughout the country to reassure their customers. I know I received "don't worry, we're fine" notices from my bank, my creditors, my utilities. I saw "Y2K OK" signs on products and in front of stores everywhere.

So what I've been trying to say is that those acutely aware of the (otherwise ignored) IEEE letter, other than IEEE and related organizations with a vested interest in the proposed bill, were those common citizens who were readers of that forum.

And there were several prolific posters to that forum who DID do the research, who pointed out that y2k concerns among computer professionals elsewhere were minimal, who pointed out lack of spike date impacts, and who carefully (and daily!) deconstructed the arrant misinformation being spewed by the far-fringe pessimists. Of course, those posters were vilified daily for their efforts. But the information was there to be understood or discredited as suited your orientation.

So your hypothetical "concerned citizen" happens to be someone who was intimately familiar with the IEEE letter, oblivious to the billion dollar PR campaign, dismissive of the considerable efforts of the optimistic posters, yet unpersuaded by any of the forum hysteria.

I submit that this person did not exist. Outside the bill's vested interests, those concerned by (and even aware of!) the IEEE letter were y2k aficionados, vigorously involved in a debate. The pessimists saw it as a weapon, to be used as a club. The optimists tried to neutralize it by emphasizing the lobbying context. NOBODY considered that letter in isolation. It was just another minor arrow in the quivers of those whose minds were already made up, and it changed nobody's.

In any case, I never tried to argue that there was NO cause for concern. I always argued against using highly biased interpretations of a highly biased selection of material to exaggerate the danger beyond any recognition. Like Andy Ray, my target wasn't caution or prudence, it was *extremism*.

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

The problem with your One Chip thread, Andy Ray, is that it wasn't "chips" at risk but embedded systems. That's why end-to-end testing, though not always possible, was a highly recommended practice.

It was systems that were at risk, not chips. You could not have known ahead of time how a variety of systems all of the world would process the dates that came from some chips. Chips don't fail. The problem was that a system might receive a "00" date from a chip and the system then interpret that date as being 99 years before '99.

The embedded systems issue wasn't the only issue of concern. It was also things like whether Medicare, the Postal Service and the IRS would get their Y2k work not related to embedded systems done in time.

-- (chips@vs.systems), June 01, 2000.

If Hind-sight were Fore-sight, we would all be rolling in the dough. Anybody wanna bid on pounds of Congressional Testimony stating "they didn't know what the hell would happen?" Ms. Arrogant Cheri shows up again to speak of closed minds. Ms. Cheri, the "closed minds" were the ones who not contemplate nor comprehend that life as we know it could change. Did you really see the faces of Kovoso? Have you ever taken a cold shower in the middle of winter, because the gas ran out, and there was no money to pay for a refill? Probably the answer is "nope", you have been too busy riding around that little dog in your front seat, who substitutes as a real life connection. Flint, again I repeat, it was not one sole testimony, it was testimony, one after another, replete with web sites which only substatiated my personal knowledge of Government programs which were always months behind anticipated delivery dates, not to mention the bugs that existed, once the delayed program was delivered. To those who may have forgotten "Floyd", we were ordered to evacuate. We left the east coast of Florida and headed west, only to find "no rooms at the inn" of any motel. I grabbed the $80 dollar wind up radio I had bought, over the objection of my "never knew any hardship" husband. Wouldn't you know it, while we tried to listen to weather forecasts over the car radio, it bummed out, so I whipped out my handy-dandy wind up radio, and the stations came in, clear and strong. I felt pretty smug, for a brief time. I still feel smug. Faced with the same conflicting information, I would not do anything differently. Heave Ho that rice, and throw in a few bags of beans for balance.......

-- My Story (andsticking@toit.com), June 01, 2000.

Ah yes, the old one chip thread.

Andy never did accept any of the examples, because none of them would fit all of his qualfications.

For example, the Motorola site lists dozens of RTC chips that are not Y2K compliant. The site also has an in depth discussion of the methodology used in testing.

So the Motorola example satisfied 3 of Andy's 4 requirements. But since it doesn't supply a list of systems where the chips are used, he dismissed it, as if it didn't exist.

Typical polly thinking.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Flint, your claim that the IEEE letter was not widely reported in by the news media, and therefore in real life did not really get any attention, is a very poor and very obvious attempt to evade my question. In point of fact, you should have stuck with your original response -- that based on the RISK factor, preparation made sense. In view of how well YOU were prepared for Y2K, had it turned out to be as you believed -- i.e., that there might have been sporadic serious disruptions -- your original answer is quite consistent.

Andy Ray, I see that it is fruitless attempting to separate out your "memetic" beliefs, even temporarily, even for a well constructed hypothetical example as I outlined. OK, let's back up a little, and attempt to understand what you are saying. Let me ask you this: Does Flint suffer from an "infectious meme"? After all, he believed that Y2K was going to produce sporadic disruptions, albeit nothing approaching a "doomsday" scenario. Does this imply that Flint only had a mild memetic condition, while others had a more seriously defective meme? Are you also attempting to "cure" (for lack of a better word) Flint from his memetic condition?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 01, 2000.

wd,

It is not possible to separate a doomer from the meme. There is ample evidence of this fact above, as the attempts at defending of the indefensible and justifying the unjustifiable continue - presumably to salve wounded egos. If it succeeds, by all means continue.

Flint and I have never completely agreed about Y2k. He believed, as you point out, it was prudent to prepare for the possibility of failures. I believed their would be no noticable failures, and therefore there was no need to prepare. There were other differences, as well.

Flint is a thinker, however - which differentiates him from you. It is obvious from his writings that he is familiar with the practise of critical thinking - as it is obvious from yours that you are not. And, he has demonstrated the courage to post before and after the non- event using the same "handle" and email address. And, doomer or no, I respect that - and that goes for Sysman, too.

Does Flint suffer from an "infectious meme?" Apparently not. His writings do not attempt to justify or defend his prior statements and reported actions. His writings about his error are explanatory, not exculpatory. Flint doesn't (like Lame Core) blame others for his decisions. Flint hasn't (like Ed Yourdon) surrounded himself with "fans" - blocking out (forcefully) all dissenters. Flint didn't (like Liane J. Liar) run away and hide.

So no, Flint does not appear to suffer from an infectious meme. You do, though. Your attempts to divert and hide and defend and justify serve as evidence of the fact. That is why I have called you (and now call you again) an idiot.

Ignorance is forgivable - stupidity is not. And it is stupid to defend a historically-proven lie - though most losers in life attempt this hopeless strategy. You are stupid for doing so. It is to be expected from a doomer. Perhaps you'll be correct about something in the future - not that anyone will listen...especially after your Y2k performance. But, again, if it helps salve your wounded ego, continue.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

OK, Andy Ray, let me see if I get this:

1) Prior to the rollover, Flint fully believed that Y2K would cause serious, observable disruptions, though not to the extent that others did. As we now can all see, Flint (as well as the more "extreme" others) was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, since obviously NOTHING happened (just as you forecast).

2) Prior to the rollover, Flint stated repeatedly that he was well prepared for any societal breakdowns, including being well armed and well stocked with food, ammunition, etc. Thus, Flint's level of preparedness was at least on par with all but the most extreme of doomers.

3) HOWEVER, because you judge Flint to be a "thinker" who has never tried to "defend" his pre-rollover antics -- but has never apologized for them, either -- you pronounce him to be free of the dreaded meme. Others, however, whose only "crime" was to expect more serious Y2K problems than did Flint, some of whom have apologized, are still infected with the meme. (Plus, unlike Flint, you deem them to be "idiots".)

Gee, Andy Ray, seems a little inconsistent, somehow....

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 02, 2000.

wd,

My reasoning is only inconsistent in the minded of a still-deluded doomer - such as yourself. You are applying the same sort of "thinking" that (mis-)led you down the wrong path about Y2k. Had you applied a smidgen of the critical thinking that Flint has demostrated (and continues to demonstrate), you would not have to cower behind another newly created alias to continue to defend the meme - you could have kept your old one.

It's as obvious as the fact that the meme is dead, and that Y2k was a farce - and doomers continue to deny facts. Nothing's changed, except your credibility - which you have irretrievably lost. Pity.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Andy Ray:

Since you are a scientist, and believe in looking at events with cold objectivity, I ask you to re-examine your clearly inconsistent application of your "meme" label on some (every Y2Ker except Flint) versus not applying it to others (actually, just Flint). Your refuse to see that by your own description above, if Flint is not meme infected, then noone is, since he technically meets your criteria.

Which brings me to the following conjecture, which I ask that you consider as a scientist would: When you first posted on Yourdon's Time Bomb 2000 forum, attempting to share your scientific findings regarding the erroneous beliefs of the Y2Kers, what was their reaction? You were treated as a joke. You were ridiculed. You were scorned. Your effeminate ways were mocked and laughed at. You were even banned, not even allowed to put forth your ideas for consideration.

But there was one Y2Ker who did not scorn you, did not mock you, but was willing to converse with you. (But, alas, is happily married, which must have really ruined your day.) His name is Flint. When noone else would look at you as anything other than a pesky pansy with a penchant for green, Flint was the only one who befriended you.

Regardless, however, Flint was one of THEM. He believed that Y2K might cause a power outage or two, a communications loss here or there, and a recession/depression lasting years. HE WAS AND IS MEME INFECTED.

For you to deny this simple truth is to compromise your scientific integrity, and is intellectually dishonest.

Last time, Andy Ray: WILL YOU ADMIT THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT YOUR MAN FLINT?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 02, 2000.

WD-40:

I cheerfully owned up to Andy Ray's meme on another thread (see "the meme and I"). But I did try to evaluate contributions on their merits, their logic, their consistency. And flat assertions of no problems held no more weight for me than flat assertions of doom.

In any case, I've been trying to talk to you. Making wisecracks about my marriage does NOT indicate a willingness to converse. You're still in attack mode. Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint:

YOU may have owned up to accepting that you are under the control of an infectious meme, but Andy Ray has NOT. Until he admits this truth, his claims of being on a crusade to educate and redeem meme-infected doomers is nothing but a vindictive sham.

(I said that you were happily married, because that is what you have previously stated. Sorry if I offended you.)

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 02, 2000.

Andy Ray:

With even Flint himself now agreeing that he is under the control of the notorious doomer meme, will YOU concede this also? Or will you simply continue with your vindictive sham for purely personal reasons?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 03, 2000.

Andy Ray?....

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

WD40,

I think ya need to investigate the subject of Memetics a little. Start by reading Aaron Lynch's "the Millennium Contagion:Is Your Mental Software Year 2000 Compliant?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 04, 2000.

Doc:

I think that you are a frothing wacko.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

-- WD-40

So, do you now have the courgae to tell us what handle you used BEFORE the roll-over?

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), June 04, 2000.

Tell you what, if Andy Ray will admit that Flint is just as much "meme infected" as any of the so-called "doomers", I'll reveal one of the two handles that I used on TB2000 last year. (Holding the other one for future bargaining.)

Deal?...

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

WD-40:

Sucker's game, coward. Of course there is an entire spectrum involved here. You, for example, hew to a fixed position in defiance of all reality, refuse to think about anything, and then demand that Andy Ray equate a sapling with a sequoia. And if he doesn't perform as you specify (knowing that doing so would be a flat lie), you get to continue to hide. Typical.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Flint, Typical of what/who?

-- (WTF@over.dot), June 04, 2000.

Flint, you obviously are not yourself, you are irrational, undoubtedly your meme is in control. Let me try an Internet exhorcisim...

OUT, OUT YOU DAMNED MEME! IN THE NAME OF AL-D'S ZIANET DOGS!!!!!!!!

Flint all better now?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

I'm so very sorry I was ever even born

-- Registered Member (Official@Apology.Committee), June 04, 2000.

LOL, WD-40

-- (I forgot who@I.was), June 04, 2000.

WTF:

Most of this 'meme' stuff sounds to me like an affectation, another term whose meaning depends on who's using it a bit too much.

But I can see that much of the y2k debate was between those who fought to achieve understanding and those who fought to *prevent* understanding. WD-40 clearly belongs in this second category -- someone whose mind was firmly made up and sealed tight against all contrary observations, however obvious.

WD-40 stands revealed as a poster child for those who *would* not accept they were wrong before nothing happened, and *will* not accept that any other viewpoint had merit *despite* all experience. And, of course, dares not reveal all the pre-rollover nonsense they spouted.

So he's typical of those who have chosen to change their name rather than change their tune. If Andy Ray is trying to say that these people have rendered themselves learn-proof, he's dead on. As we've seen.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 2000.

Now, THAT is the REAL Flint. Glad it worked.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 04, 2000.

Hey, Hey, Andy Ray,

Will You Admit The Truth Today?

No, Not That You Are Gay And Post In Green,

(For That Has Been Plainly Seen)

But Rather That Flint Has An Infectious Doomer Meme

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 05, 2000.

Andy Ray?....................

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 05, 2000.

"And, he has demonstrated the courage to post before and after the non- event using the same "handle" and email address. And, doomer or no, I respect that - and that goes for Sysman, too."

Gee Andy, thanks, I'm touched. Really. It's nice of you to say that.

But I don't have anything to hide from. Yea, I was wrong about Y2K, but so what? I wasn't alone. I just started a thread about the IBM and Red Cross warning. They were wrong. IEEE was wrong. The .gov was wrong. The doomers were wrong.

I just don't understand what you are trying to do here Andy. You dig up a dozen quotes from the old forum, and make a big deal out of it. And you don't even bother with some of the "evil" ones, that Y2K Pro likes to collect. I often wondered how many of those were from people who's major concern wasn't Y2K, if you know what I mean. But, isn't that also a problem on any active public forum?

Sure, we had the 10s on TB2000. But most of us were just concerned for our family and friends. At least it started out that way, from what I see in the archive. I arrived in Feb '99 and I never did make it to a 7.

Sure, I was vocal. Is that my problem Andy, do you consider me an activist? After all, I did make over 3,000 posts on TB. I did post dozens of links to articles on Y2K. Is that why you felt the need to start a thread, asking if I was still Tick Tock... ing?

I'm honored Andy.

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.