CPR seems to think that I'm the only one who ever disagrees with him on this forum, and that therefore everyone who disagrees with him is another of my "thousand screen names". For this reason, I'm asking anyone else who has criticized or disagreed with him to sign in on this thread so that the moderator can verify, if necessary, that they are not all me.

-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 21, 2000

Answers

FOOLISH CONSISTENCIES ARE THE HOBGOBLINS OF LITTLE MINDS, MR. HELLER.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33419,00.html

What They Said with Dread
by Declan McCullagh

8:55 a.m. Jan. 4, 2000 PST

PLAGUE: "Plague will follow shortly. Most of the inhabitants of the northern cities will die within a matter of a few weeks, from cold, disease, fires started in an attempt to keep warm, or random violence. This is bad enough, of course, to qualify as a disaster ranking with the Black Plague, if not the extinction of the dinosaurs."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, July 1999

WORSE THAN OTHER MODERN DISASTERS: "The Year-2000 phenomenon is clearly such a jolt, and we believe that it will be much more pervasive and serious than most of the [disasters] we've experienced in modern history."
--Ed and Jennifer Yourdon in Time Bomb 2000

EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE: "We must also prepare ourselves for the very real possibility that the outcome of this situation might well be the total extinction of the entire human race. It really could be worse than I am predicting and I really am being optimistic. First, I would like to assure you that I am not some kind of nut anxiously waiting for the end of the world...."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, November 1998

DEPRESSION IN THE UNITED STATES: "Economic slowdown... unemployment rises... interruptions in utilities... common use of heaters, cook stoves... increase in layoffs... some neighborhoods form purchasing associations... [probability of this outcome or worse] is 65 percent."
--Consultant Bruce Webster, The Y2K Survival Guide

HIDING GUNS: "[You should cache] most of your arms and supplies, while this is still possible and legal. Preferably, you should have several smaller caches known only to you and to a highly trusted backup... someone who will pass the supplies on to your family or group if anything happens to you... you need to convert most of your spare cash and paper investments into gold and/or silver coins."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, January 1998

CAN'T BUY FOOD BY JUNE 1999: "Problem is if only 1 percent of the people are preparing now and the supply chain is overburdened, adding only another 1 percent will crush it. Come May-June of '99 your chances of buying any long-term foods will be minimal. So then people will start stocking canned goods and dog food. Not guaranteed, but there is a distinct possibility that we could start seeing food shortages at the local grocery stores by July-Aug '99 as everyone starts buying ten extra cans of food a week...."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, November 1998

IT'S OVER: "The problem will not be fixed. Everyone in authority will deny that time has run out to get this fixed, right up until December 31, 1999... I'm saying that it's over. Right now. It cannot be fixed. Whatever it does, the Millennium Bug will bite us."
--Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, early 1997

GREAT DEPRESSION: "I think it is going to be very bad. In fact, the best possible case for which there is any hope is another Great Depression."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, July 1999

MARTIAL LAW: "As 1999 progresses, as the global economy continues to decline and as more and more of the early Y2K failures occur, there will be some sudden, critical failure which will trigger a social crisis... Whatever the cause, governments all over the world will seize on this as an excuse to put their plans for martial law into effect, hoping to have some kind of emergency administration in place before their existing systems are wiped out by Y2K."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, January 1998

'A VERY BAD FIRE:' "The Y2K 'fire' has not broken out yet, though we'll begin seeing the first few flames in 1999, possibly as early as January 1, 1999. But like many of my Y2K colleagues, I can already smell the smoke, and I believe, deeply and sincerely, that it's going to be a very bad fire indeed."
--Consultant Ed Yourdon, March 1998

STOCK MARKET CRASHED: "The stock market crashed and there was a run on the banks... We've been only too aware that the fractional reserve banking system was unwise and insecure... The safest place in the whole universe right now is not in the center of the securest compound money can buy. It is in the center of God's will."
--Authors Michael Hyatt and George Grant, in novel Y2K: The Day the World Shut Down

NEW YORK WILL RESEMBLE BEIRUT: "I recently sold our New York City apartment and bought a house in a small town in New Mexico... I've often joked that I expect New York to resemble Beirut if even a subset of the Y2K infrastructure problems actually materialize -- but it's really not a joke... Y2K is sufficiently worrisome, in my opinion, that I'll make sure my family isn't there when the clock rolls over to Jan 1, 2000."
--Consultant Ed Yourdon, July 1998

COMPLETE COLLAPSE: "We're looking at a complete collapse of the government's systems and partial collapse (50 percent) of private industry's computer systems. Analogous to the dissociation of the former Soviet Union. 10-20 percent of the military will resign when they aren't paid for months. Rioting, looting, and burning in the usual places... DJI down 5000 points in 6 months, hyper inflation for a couple years...."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, republished by Gary North, March 1998

NIGHTMARE: "At 12 midnight on January 1, 2000... most of the world's mainframe computers will either shut down or begin spewing out bad data. Most of the world's desktop computers will also start spewing out bad data. Tens of millions -- possibly hundreds of millions -- of pre-programmed computer chips will begin to shut down the systems they automatically control. This will create a nightmare for every area of life, in every region of the industrialized world."
--Christian Reconstructionist Gary North, early 1997

A DECADE OF DEPRESSION: "We're going to suffer a year of technological disruptions, followed by a decade of depression... We're likely to be living in an environment much like the Third World countries some of us have visited, where nothing works particularly well."
--Consultant Ed Yourdon, February 1999

CERTAIN SNAFUS: "The systems will break, this is a certainty. It is uncertain whether the consequence is rioting, looting. Mad Max and Escape from New York or Little House on the Prairie."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, November 1998

SCARED WITLESS: "I have been studying Y2K in every way possible to me since October of 1997. On a daily basis. How many hours? I don't want to know. In that time I have become convinced that we are going to get blasted. Big time blasted. Infomagic blasted. I have learned enough to get real damn scared, scared motionless like a rabbit facing a snake."
--Consultant Cory Hamasaki's newsletter, November 1998

CONSULTANTS OUT OF WORK: "My day-to-day work will suffer an increasing number of interruptions, glitches, delays, inconveniences, and disruptions during the second half of 1999; and I'm expecting that they'll be sufficiently pervasive after January 1, 2000 that my income will drop to zero during the first six months of the new year."
--Consultant Ed Yourdon, February 1999
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33419,00.html

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000.

Steve:

I've disagreed with Charlie on so many occasions that neither he nor I can count them anymore. I will give him ONE thing, however, that I've never been able to give YOU. He doesn't respond to posts to which he disagrees with the "appeal to sympathy" that made you infamous, IMHO. He never appeals to the audience to "back up" his appraisals. Your posts ALWAYS contained statements such as "and anyone with half a brain would see this also." I'm too lazy to look up examples, but I'm sure someone will get around to your posts eventually.

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

No, he replies with reams of irrelevant nonsense liberally laced with foul language and threats to turn "conspirators" in to the authorities. If you think that's better, you're welcome to your opinion.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

Would Heller like to explain his relationship with Mr. Yourdon?

>"http://www.yourdon.com/articles/Heller .html" Content- Location: >"http://www.yourdon.com/articles/Heller .html" Ed Yourdon's >foreword to Steve Heller's Who's Afraid of C++? > > > Note: Steve Heller's Who's Afraid of C++? (Academic Press, 1996, ISBN: >0-12-339097-4) can also be found in my list of recommended computer books. >See also Steve Heller's home page for more information on what he's up to. >"" book! I have to admit that when Steve Heller prevailed upon me to read >his manuscript and prepare a preface for this book, I had serious >misgivings. Steve is a talented, articulate fellow, and I've enjoyed >corresponding with him on the Internet for the past few years - ever since >he gleefully pointed out in one of his earlier books (Efficient C/C++ >Programming) that I had made the outrageously shortsighted comment in my >1975 textbook, Techniques of Program Structure and Design"" Still, I >dreaded the task of reading his entry-level programming book: almost every >one I've read during my career has either been deadly boring, or childishly >condescending, or both. Imagine my surprise, then, when I discovered that >Who's Afraid of C++ was not only a good book, but an exciting one. Because >I'm writing these words in mid-February 1996, you won't be impressed when I >tell you that it's the best computer book that I've read in 1996 - so let >me put it more strongly: this is the best technical book I've read since >Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance appeared in the late 1970s. >Before I explain this rather bizarre analogy, let me address the central >theme of Who's Afraid of C++: learning a new programming language. Anyone >who has gone through this process knows that it isn't easy. True, there are >languages like LOGO and Basic that can be taught to novices within short >periods of time; one of my most enjoyable experiences in the computer field >was teaching LOGO to a group of 6- and 7- year old children during a >two-week summer class n Fire Island. But languages like C++ - the subject >of Heller's book - are far more difficult, not only for novices but for >veterans of other programming languages. Ask any COBOL programmer whether >he found it difficult to absorb the intricate syntax and arcane vocabulary >of C++ and you're likely to get a groan. But for many of us, C++ has >become a prerequisite to continued employment in the software industry. >Groan though they may, more and more COBOL programmers are making the >transition - for the simple reason that mainframe applications are being >replaced by PC and client-server apps, and a lot of them are written in >C++. Even if the main part of an application is written in a simpler >language like Visual Basic, it's likely that some portions (e.g., the VBX >components) will have to be programmed in C or C++. I often joke that C++ >is the assembly language of the 90s, but I sometimes forget to remind my >friends that assembly language was the first language I learned, and I >would have been very nervous trying to program in any higher-level language >if I didn't have a good idea of what was going on at the level of hardware >registers and memory addresses. Does this mean that all of today's veteran >programmers will be required to learn C++? Well, perhaps not: after all, >vast numbers of programmers have"" Judging from the employment ads in the >newspapers, you can get a job today if you speak Visual Basic, >PowerBuilder, or Smalltalk; but your odds of getting (or keeping) a >programming job are usually much"""" language for building today's >industrial-strength applications. I got an inkling of the nature of this >sea-change in programming languages in late 1995, at a panel session >discussing IBM's newly-released version of object-oriented COBOL. It's an >exciting, powerful new language, and I think that one could make a strong >argument that OO-COBOL is a more logical migration path for today's legacy >COBOL programmers and vintage-1972 application programs any other >alternative. Nevertheless, when I asked the audience of some 100 people - >all of whom were COBOL fans of one kind or another - whether they would >advise their children to learn COBOL if their children intended to pursue a >programming profession, less than 5 percent raised their hands. I didn't >have the opportunity to see how many would have recommended C++, but it's >virtually certain that the number of raised hands would have been far >higher. """" to Web pages. As I write this foreword, it's too early to tell >whether Java really will revolutionize the Internet to the degree promised >by its supporters, but there is one thing for sure: Java is a subset of >C++, and if you've learned C++, it will be a lot easier to learn Java. "" >Similarly, one can assume that an existing knowledge of C++ will make it >easier to learn Java - but since one of the most important aspects of Java >is what it eliminates from the C++ language (e.g., pointers), there is a >certain amount of un-learning required here as well. All of this is >particularly relevant for the novice programmer, who typically has no prior >programming experience, and who barely has the time and patience to learn >one"" language known as JavaScript. But we need a reality check here. For >the time being, it's safe to assume that there will be a lot of programs >that do not run on the Web. As of late 1995, the number of personal >computers was estimated to be in the range of 200-300 million worldwide, >but the number of Internet users has been pegged at the far lower figure of >30 million. Each of the 300 million PC's is a candidate for C++ programming >(not to mention all the mainframes and mid-size machines). As for the >Internet: well, if you express the number of Internet users as a fraction >of the human race, it still rounds to zero. In any case, if Java does >become a dominant language in the next few years, I'm confident that Steve >Heller will be able to produce a modified version of Who's Afraid of C++ >with the same dramatic success. None of this explains why an utter novice >who does not intend to become a professional computer programmer should >necessarily learn to program in C++, or why she should learn to program in >any language. There has been a great deal of debate about this since PC's >first invaded the mainstream of society a dozen years ago; colleges, high >schools, and even some elementary schools have adopted - and then sometimes >abandoned - a policy that students should learn computer programming for >the same reason they learn biology or chemistry or geometry. Indeed, one >could argue that the odds are far higher that you'll need to write a small >computer program (or at least have a decent understanding of the logic >behind an existing program) in your day-to-day life than the odds of being >forced to prove the Pythagorean Theorem or dissect a frog or recite the >chemical composition of aspirin. But I'm not going to pursue this >argument; after 30+ years in the software industry, I'm biased, and I >suspect that professional educators are equally biased. And it really >doesn't matter; regardless of the opinion of advocates and opponents of >compulsory programming courses, the practical reality for the adults or >college students who are the likely readers of Steve Heller's book is that >it's a personal choice. And this is a key point: quite aside from the >technical intricacies of syntax and structure, learning a programming >language is an intensely personal experience. It's often agonizing, it's >sometimes tedious (especially if you don't have the proper tools!), and >it's occasionally fun. On very rare occasions - perhaps only once a year, >and sometimes only once or twice in one's career - it's more than fun: it's >exhilarating, it's a rush, it's a shot of pure adrenaline. For some, it's >almost a religious experience. And religious experiences, no matter how >much we talk about them or write about them, are ultimately personal >experiences. In the case of programming, that personal experience is also >solitary in most cases, for it occurs at 3 in the morning when you're >exhausted and frazzled and at your wit's end, and about to give up - and >the program you've been sweating over finally gets up on its hind legs and >runs. It's the personal nature of the programming experience that makes >Steve Heller's book such an unexpected and powerful masterpiece. As you'll >see from the outset, it was not a solitary experience, but an ongoing >dialogue between mentor and student - not a make-believe student, but a >real one. Perhaps it's a bit unfair comparing X to Robert Pirsig's Zen and >the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, for Mr. Heller and his student appear >not to suffer the same degree of psychic trauma as the characters in Mr. >Pirsig's book. But the personal drama is intense nonetheless, and it would >be interesting to read even If you had no interest in the technical subject >matter. Assuming that you do"" book. For those devoid of any emotion or >interest in personal relationships, it's possible to skip over this part of >the book and focus entirely on the technical stuff. It's all there, and >it's all accurate, and it's all well-written. But there are other computer >books of that ilk (even though very few at the introductory level), and the >problem is that your mind begins to wander, about halfway through each >chapter; by the end of the chapter, you can't even remember what the topic >was. Such a fate is not likely with Steve Heller's book. One last note: >everything I've written here identifies Steve Heller as the sole author of >Who's Afraid of C++"" is definitely more than a student; by the end of the >book, she has become a full-fledged collaborator and approaches the status >of co-author. I congratulate Steve for having written a superb piece of >technical work, but I have some personal words of admiration for Susan: I >offer you my congratulations for having the energy, the intellect, the >tenacity, and the passion to bring this collaboration to its fruition. You >did a helluva job - and it promises to be a long collaboration indeed, >stretching far beyond the final page of the book. As my friends in New York >City often like to say about such developments; Mazel tov! Ed Yourdon > New York City > February 1996

-- Reality Checker (reality@checker.con), June 21, 2000.

Sure. I mentioned a book of his in one of mine, and he thought it was funny. So I imposed on him to write a foreword for another book of mine. I've met him once in person, a couple of years ago. We have no financial connection, and never have had any.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

This was not "funny".

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5631

1999-07-31 12:41:51 Long before any Nov. 1999 Statement from the IEE

Subject: 

Steve Heller Asks: When the Engineers Die in the Cities, Who Will Rebuild? Answer: People Who Took Out Books.

 Link:

http://www.kiyoinc.com/WRP127 .HTM

Comment: 

Steve Heller coined the term, "iron triangle" -- electricity, telephones, and either banking or water systems.

Here he outlines what he thinks will happen. It's bad.

He suggests buying CD-ROMs and other books for putting together broken pieces of the economy on a local basis.

For those who have figured out what life in the city will be like next year, but who are bothered by guilt feelings about abandoning neighbors in the city, here is your psychological solution: "I shall return . . . with tools." Call this "Y2K MacArthur."

Basically, this is the scene in Wells' The Time Machine, when the time traveller returns for his books. Or the scene in Lucifer's Hammer, where the scientist puts the books into baggies and buries them in the septic pipe, where the destroyers would not look (my favorite scene in the book).

How Things Work would be on my list.

This week, I have been putting 15,000 books on shelves in a library that looks like a barn. I need more "how to" titles. Heller is correct. This is what the Remnant must do for the future.

Assuage your guilt for leaving. Take something with you of limited value today: books on small-scale production. Bring back something of value after the crash. See his page:

http://www.koyo te.com/users/stheller/y2klib.htm

If Infomagic's scenario turns out to be correct, you need this book for comfort: How the Irish Saved Civilization, the story of Irish missions and literacy in the Dark Ages. (For a brief review, click here.) It will provide your marching orders.

As General Oliver P. Smith (Frank Lovejoy) said -- recreated in the 1952 Korean War movie, Retreat, Hell! -- "We're not retreating. We're just attacking from a different direction."

This is in DC WEATHER REPORT (#127).

* * * * * * * * * * *

I think it is going to be very bad. In fact, the best possible case for which there is any hope is another Great Depression. Why do I say this?

Ironically, my main argument for a terrible outcome is based on one of the primary Pollyanna arguments: "They'll work around it. They always do."

The key here is not "it", which we all agree is shorthand for "whatever problems arise because of Y2K failures". No, the key is who "they" are: the engineers who keep our industrial infrastructure running. Yes , they *do* work around it on a regular basis; in fact, that happens every day.

But what would happen if these engineers were not available? Who would work around these problems then? I think the answer is obvious: no one. And what would happen to our civilization in that case? The answer to that is just as obvious: it would cease to function until and unless it were rebuilt.

The reason I'm so concerned about a long-term outage of the infrastructure is that I don't believe that most of the engineers will survive very long after rollover.

To see why I'm so concerned about this, let's start with what I expect to happen soon after rollover. On January first, there'll be a spike of errors in process control systems that will cause widespread power outages, communication outages, and other immediate effects. However, some power companies will manage to keep the power on in many places, and many people will breathe a sigh of relief.

Unfortunately, this relief will turn out to be premature. Over the next several weeks, breaks in the supply chains to the power companies, primarily fuel supplies, will result in a gradual degradation of the infrastructure. Water treatment plants will run out of supplies, hospitals will stop functioning properly due to lack of drugs and other supplies, and this will be repeated in every industry. The economy will grind to a halt.

But the most serious problem, in the north at least, will be frozen pipes. If the power's off for more than a few days in the middle of winter in Detroit, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other northern tier cities, they'll be devastated by frozen water pipes and sewer line backups. Plague will follow shortly. Most of the inhabitants of the northern cities will die within a matter of a few weeks, from cold, disease, fires started in an attempt to keep warm, or random v iolence.

This is bad enough, of course, to qualify as a disaster ranking with the Black Plague, if not the extinction of the dinosaurs. But wait, there's more: Most of the engineers that could actually rebuild the infrastructure, or work around the problems in the remaining infrastructure, live in the cities. If we lose too many of them, we may end up in the sort of devolutionary spiral postulated by Infomagic.

Obviously, there's nothing you or I can do to get the engineers to move out of the cities to someplace safer; the information about how bad it might be is widely available on the Internet, not least via this newsletter. If they haven't fig ured out yet, it's not likely they will.

However, there may be something that we can do to prevent the devolutionary spiral from going all the way down. We can preserve the information on how to restart our industrial infrastructure from a level of technology that does not require working computers.

Of course, this is a gigantic undertaking, but I think it's possible. Ironically, it is partly the availability of small, cheap, fast computers with large storage capacities that makes this even remotely feasible. In particular, laptop com puters that have CD-ROM players can provide access to a gargantuan amount of information while being rechargeable from a small solar panel.

For example, I have recently purchased the entire run of QST magazine, the official journal of the American Radio Relay League, from 1915 to 1994, on a set of about 35 CD-ROMs. I bought this set not because of an academic or hobbyist inter est in the history of amateur radio, but because it contains thousands of articles on how to put together an amateur radio station without recourse to commercially built transceivers.

Why is this important? Because I think it is entirely possible that we will lose our manufacturing capability for electronic products. By "our manufacturing capability", I specifically mean not only U.S. manufacturing, but foreign manufacturing. Since most amateur radio equipment, for example, comes from Japan, even if the United States somehow miraculously gets through Y2K without serious damage, a Japanese Y2K disaster could still interrupt our supplies of that equipment. In su ch a case, knowing how to build and repair amateur radio equipment is likely to be absolutely vital.

Why do I consider amateur radio so important? Because if the experts on any topic who do manage to survive a Y2K disaster are going to be maximally useful, we will need some way to consult them even if they aren't in our immediate vicinity. If infrastructure-dependent communications and transportation are seriously disrupted for any length of time, as I believe they will be, amateur radio will be the only reliable means of communication over any distances farther than you can walk.

Of course, there are many other areas of knowledge that we will have to preserve. One example is the construction and use of metalworking machinery. There is a series of books called "Build Your Own Metal Working Shop from Scrap" , which begins with a charcoal foundry with which you make your own aluminum castings. This series of books is available from "Lindsay Publications"

(http://lindsaybks.com/HomeP age.html),

which also publishes a lot of old, out of copyright, books on practical subjects from the pre-computer era. According to the Popular Mechanics WWW page on this publisher

(http://homearts.com /pm/diybuzz/04bookb1.htm),

"You've got all the pieces here to jump-start a smaller version of the industrial revolution: first make some charcoal, use it to melt and forge metal, build some precise but simple machine tools, use the tools to build bigger and bet ter machine tools, make products for export and domestic consumption, use the hard currency to upgrade industry and infrastructure, and away you go. Come to think of it, we could use some of this right here in the United States."

So that's the good news. If enough people have this kind of knowledge, no matter how badly our infrastructure falls apart, we'll be able to put it back together again eventually. Of course, we have to survive the collapse first, so make su re that you have your food, water, heat, and other necessities taken care of. But once you've done that, you should do your part in trying to preserve the tools that we can use to start everything up again. And get that amateur radio station set up (http://www.koyote. com/users/stheller/ham.htm) so you can share your knowledge with others!

-- Reality Checker (reality@checker.con), June 21, 2000.

Steve:

When EZboard was opened, we had a discussion or two [I regret calling you the leader of the Hellerite cult; not usually my style]. You strongly supported the folks going to EZboard. These are the folks that now spend their time talking about overthrowing the government, shooting police and soldiers, the destruction of the world by the near term asteroid or comet and things that are ever weirder. They think that the government is trying to kill them with things sprayed from airplanes or with vaccines. It goes on and on.

In my mind, I associate you with these ideas. And you want me to criticize CPR. Not likely. However unfair, I associate you with what I consider the lunatic fringe. Im sure that others do too. Even Ed doesn't post there anymore.

Best wish

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2000.

Z: Please try to read what I wrote. I'm not asking anyone to criticize or disagree with CPR. I'm asking people who have criticized or disagreed with him to post here so that it will be obvious that I'm not the only one so doing, as he has implied is the case.

Reality Checker:

I guess I should have known better than to expect anything but attacks on me that have nothing to do with the topic. CPR's motto has always been that the best defense is a good offense, and I see his "1000 screen names" are hard at work.

The notion that Ed Yourdon's mentioning something I wrote is evidence of some deep "conspiracy" between us is laughable. But I guess nothing is too ridiculous for those who are trying to hang onto their fleeting moment of "fame".

As for his writing a foreword for one of my books: That was in 1996, long before I had considered any potential problems caused by Y2K. Therefore, that "connection" is equally absurd as "evidence" for our "conspiracy". But I don't expect the "professional debunkers" to understand that, as they love conspiracy theories.

Oh, one more thing I forgot. I wrote some articles for his newsletter, for which I was paid a grand total of ... $0. I guess that makes me one of the "Y2K exploiters", right?

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

Geeze Steve,

What a whiner, I didn't whine like this when you attacked me in "Cherri, put up or shut up". Even though you did not understand what you were asking me, I answered you correctly but you continued to go on and on in your attempt to show I did not know what I was talking about.

I didn't ask others to side with me against you, I took your abuse and kept on going.

Why? Because you have no effect on me and I

know I am smarter than you are. You have some problem with what others say about you, you act like you should somehow be immune from criticism. Why? You do it to others but can't take it yourself. Grow up ya big baby!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 21, 2000.

Thinking back I don't believe I've ever argued a y2k issue with cpr or anybody else. Still, think you can count me a *yes* in your poll.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 21, 2000.

Cherri:

Once I understood your statements, which took a lot of work due to their lack of clarity, I immediately agreed with what you had said and stopped the argument. In other words, when I discovered I was wrong, I admitted it. Unfortunately, some others don't seem to be able to do the same. CPR is one of the poster children for "Infallibility Syndrome", but I'm sure he's not the only one.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

At least CPR is a catalyst.

L.L. was better at it.

-- -- -- (ants@kicker.com), June 21, 2000.

Steve:

I'm asking people who have criticized or disagreed with him

Just making a civil point. Any criticism that I have made of CPR in the past is less relevant than my observation of your actions; IMHO. It seems to me that you have a lot to answer for. Cherri is correct.

You should explain yourself before you worry about CPR. You shouldn't come to this place for assistance after your past evaluation of the people here. Fortunately, they don't know what you said, since I had 20 or so posts disappear on EZboard, due to a software glitch [as described by Chuck].

From Paul Milne:

BWAHAHAHA, etc

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 21, 2000.

Well lookie here! Scumbag Heller makes an appearance to moan about CPR. Steve, you are the most pathetic of all of the Y2K doomers and only a moron like you would have the nerve to show your ugly puss on this forum. We all saw your wonderful picture, kinda like the unabomber with aids. Take your sniveling back to the House of Yourdon. You wouldnt make a decent pimple on CPRs ass.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 21, 2000.

You wouldnt make a decent pimple on CPRs ass.

I'm happy to leave that role to you, which you fill so admirably.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

I am hardly "infallable". I don't have your "resume".

I do have one thing to fall back on in the future.

I was RIGHT about Y2k IMPACTS.

And YOU, Mr. Heller, were "WRONG WITH EXCUSES SO DON"T BLAME ME".

FUCKING WHIMP.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000.

I am hardly "infallable". I don't have your "resume".

That's the understatement of the millennium (so far). I do have one thing to fall back on in the future. I was RIGHT about Y2k IMPACTS.

As I had hypothesized, the reason you are clinging to this one right position is that it is all you have. Thank you for verifying that. But you know what? Since you like to emphasize by using CAPS, let me write this in all caps: NO ONE CARES ABOUT Y2K ANY MORE. YOUR 15 MINUTES OF "FAME" IS OVER. The historians may be interested ... in 100 years. Except for them, and until then, NO ONE CARES. YOU'RE JUST A HAS-BEEN (or NEVER-WAS, to be more precise) WHINING ABOUT HIS "DAYS OF GLORY". Nothing is more boring than that.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

I care! For too many months I listened to this fucking idiot Heller tell the world what a marvelous expert he was and trash anyone that opposed his delusional concepts. Now this moron still hangs around trying to make a case for his stupidity. The only thing that is over, you fucked-up freak show, is your credibility if in fact you ever had any. I took a lot of verbal abuse from punk losers like you and as long as you rear your ugly head Im cappin a round. Get It?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 21, 2000.

"rational": You're right; I should have been more precise. No one WITH A WORKING BRAIN AND/OR A LIFE CARES ABOUT Y2K ANY MORE. Sorry for any confusion.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 22, 2000.

That's right, Steve. All the people with working brains are busy bitching and whining on Internet bulletin boards, aren't they?

-- Little Steven (and.the.disciples@of.doom.com), June 22, 2000.

I too should have been more precise. Its not Y2K that I care about. Its the reoccurring presence of low-lifes like you Heller that gets my attention. Your time is long gone, so be it.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 22, 2000.

You seem to think I care about Y2K. I don't. It's over. However, I do like to amuse myself pointing out the idiocies of the "debunkers" who are still raving about conspiracies, when I don't have anything more interesting to do, which is rare. CPR takes this VERY SERIOUSLY, because it's all he has, as he has admitted. I don't take it seriously at all; it's just a sideshow, with freaks to laugh at.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 22, 2000.

"No one WITH A WORKING BRAIN AND/OR A LIFE CARES ABOUT Y2K ANY MORE."

Heh. Here's that "appeal to the audience" thing I was discussing. Anyone who disagrees MUST confess that they either don't have a working brain or confess that they have no life. Steve leaves them no room to disagree otherwise. Of course the sincerity is lost because he said the same thing prior to Y2k when folks posted that nothing much would happen. The phrase simply changed. It once was:

"No one with a working brain and/or a life would consider the Y2k problem fixable."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

This is silly, but GREAT!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 22, 2000.

What you would typically expect of Heller. Gutless to the end. Another hypocritical spin doctor of Y2K who cried foul on everyone else while he was one of the ones churning out deceitful information. Like the others, he won't take any responsibility for his actions.

Chickenshit.

CJS

-- CJS (cjs044@aol.com), June 22, 2000.

Who, me?

You are kidding, right?

LOL...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 22, 2000.

Oh, one more thing I forgot. I wrote some articles for his newsletter, for which I was paid a grand total of ... $0.

Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), June 21, 2000.

Grossly overpaid!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 22, 2000.

Have I ever disagreed with CPR? Yes, on certain points.

As for you though Heller, from what I've seen, I disagree with your entire approach to Y2K and life in general.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 22, 2000.

Sorry, I stand with Steve on this one. Regardless of how Y2K turned out, he gave me some valuable insights. Obviously, this is not the thread to go into them.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), June 22, 2000.

"Obviously, this is not the thread to go into them."

So what the fuck are you doing stinking up this thread?

Heller you have some balls coming back here and attacking Mr. Reuben. You are the IDIOT in the idiot, whores, drunks and drug addict thread. You were WRONG last year and you were instrumental in influencing innocent people into spending more money on preps because YOU claimed to be an expert. Ha! The only thing you are "expert" at is making a fool of yourself. It's a good thing you live out in the middle of no-damn-where, because if anybody actually had to live by you, your life would be short-lived I'm sure.

YOU are enough to piss off Mother Theresa! YOU are enough to piss off the Pope! YOU are an ignorant asshole who probably can't find a job and that's why you're back here hassling Mr. Reuben.

Is your nursey wife still taking care of you? Is she still paying your bills and wiping the drool off your face?

-- (Red Cross@is always.here), June 22, 2000.

Red Cross:

Gee, you don't sound like the Red Cross to me.

-- Oxy (Oxsys@aol.com), June 22, 2000.

Mr. Helter,

I believe CPR was correct about the impact of Y2k on society, and you were wrong.

VIndicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 23, 2000.