I've had my fun. I've made my point, such as it was. I reckon the chances are good that this particular shtick has gone about as far as it can (or should) go, and I should not push my luck any further on making fun of cpr for now.

I know it is time to throttle back when threads start having my name in them, and I get fan mail and love letters. This forum should not be about me any more than it should be about cpr.

Besides, he's mad as a wet hen and might try something ugly if I pour another bucket over him.

I never expected he would change a thing he's doing because of me. When has he ever changed due to anything or anyone that opposed him? His habits are clear and undeviating. cpr is cpr, and thus will he ever be.

I just had to have my piece of him. he was such an inviting target. I could not resist. Now he will have it in for me for life. I expect he will make that known for a very long time. I have acquired a nickname. It took some experimenting, but he seems to have settled on Fawning Dog.

cpr needs no nickname. All he needs is a reputation. I hope I have helped to settle his reputation into a nice, wide, comfortable groove where it can roll along for a good long time. Downhill.

So gone will be the antic Brian, for the time being at least. The forum could use a bit of rest from him. It's a hard pace to play the jackanapes. And to watch.

Catch you all, later. I'm not leaving, just ready to act my age again.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 30, 2000

Answers

"This forum should not be about me any more than it should be about cpr."

This forum has always been about you. I nominate that we change the forum's name to Brian Bomb 2000.

-- You are kookier than cpr (yes@you.are), June 30, 2000.

Welcome to "Troll World", Brian.

-- -- -- (ants@kicker.com), June 30, 2000.

Ant kicker, why are alling Brian a troll when he has announced he is going to stop it?

-- Prothemeus (d@dd.d), June 30, 2000.

I do not have it "in" for anyone. SO ..DON'T START SMEARING ME IN THAT REGARD........or you will get to meet my Lawyers.

NONE of you remaining DENIERS/avoiders/"change the subject" LEFT- OVERS ....matter one single bit.... in the ****Real World***.

WHAT MATTERS ....IS THAT YOU WILL NOT **GIVE CRUTCHES** TO THOSE MENTALLY LAMED BY :........

ED "35 YR. EXPERT" YOUR-TOASTED, GARY "DUCT TAPE" NORTH, MIKE "I'M SO CONCERNED FOR YOU SO BUY SOMETHING ALREADY" HYATT,

....JIM "I'M NAVAL RETENTIVE AND HAVE SECRET PAPERS TO PROVE IT" LORD, ..

..MIKE "I MADE $400,000 IN 6 MONTHS ON THE NET AND SO CAN YOU" ADAMS...

...DON "BUY MY GOLD COINS BECAUSE I'M THE BIGGEST DRIED FOOD VENDOR IN Y2K" McELVANEY......

.....AND JOSEPH "MY FAUCET GETS TURNED ON BY ANY MENTION OF CLINTSTONE AND CIGARS" FARAH....

....PAT "THE END IS COMING SO EVEN THOUGH I KNOW Y2K WON'T BE MUCH,,I'LL KEEP PANICKING MY FLOCK" ROBERTSON.

.....GREG "ITS GONNA BE TERRIBLE BUT MY SOYBEANS WILL SAVE THE DAY" CATON......

....ELANE "I'M NOBODY BUT CALL ME TO FIX YOUR SYSTEMS" CORE- DUMB....

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 30, 2000.

gotta admit, the Jim Lord one was pretty funny!LMAO

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), June 30, 2000.

cpr,

"meet my Lawyers"? Please.

I have noticed that the higher crude prices go, the more you seem to post about all of the damage Yourdon, North, Hyatt, et al, have caused. Is there any correlation?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), June 30, 2000.

Brian you are joking right? You say you had to get a piece of CPR? I must have missed something. CPR snacks on little ones like you so go off and lick your wounds.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 30, 2000.

Brian--

You say you are not leaving. I hope that is true. Thanks for your entertaining campaign against this cyber-bully.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 30, 2000.

Charlie:

"WHAT MATTERS ....IS THAT YOU WILL NOT **GIVE CRUTCHES** TO THOSE MENTALLY LAMED BY :........"

I STILL purport that these folks heard what they WANTED to hear, Charlie, and the mere fact that 99% of the population didn't fall for it says SOMETHING, dontcha think? Who are the folks who buy the snake-oil? The folks who HAVE the disease already and look for a quick fix, right?

You want everyone on this forum to feel guilty because SOME folks were duped by charlatans. I refuse to feel guilty. I believe strongly in self-responsibility. I taught this to my children. This argument about "so weak in mind as to be swayed into doing something out of character" just didn't wash in my household. If folks didn't think for themselves and followed others blindly into situations they didn't like, they have no one to blame but themselves. I can't and WON'T be drawn into YOUR evangelical desires to lead others to believe "These devils made them do it."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

...either way, the world at large will "little note nor long remember" what's been said on a couple of obscure Internet bulletin boards. Anyone seriously wanting to play "Elmer Gantry" is going to need a much larger congregation.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 30, 2000.

>> I must have missed something. <<

Your words. Not mine.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 30, 2000.

I'm there:

That's exactly the point. If Charlie doesn't mind my saying so, I recall an E-mail from him wherein he feared that folks would take their money out of the banks. I responded with something suggesting that he should query folks in real life. Very few were taking their money out of the banks, and most folks responded to all the bank "hoopla" with comments like, "Why do they send me this Y2k readiness stuff all the time? I don't fear Y2k."

In this sense, the folks alarming the banks, etc. were the folks who THEMSELVES grew alarmed by the statements made by a FEW. These folks consisted of BOTH alarmists and debunkers. [Devil made them do it.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

You know, Anita, that brings to mind something that I only considered almost in hindsight.

There was a time (1997/1998 I think) where my greatest "fear" was that those people who WERE worried about the banks would, in fact, convince the "many" of that worry/fear/whatever.

This year sometime, I realized that virtually my entire Y2K "experience/world" was ON THE INTERNET.....not IRL. I did, for way too long, "judge" the scope and breadth of "fear" by what I saw in places like TB2K I, North's site and fora, even the MSNBC site for a time.

What I failed to realize/grasp (admit?) was that this "Internet experience" was NOT indicative of the general public (big DUH). Had I realized that sooner (more specifically, had I listened to a couple of people who actually tried to tell me that, and I think you were one of them [g]), well, I probably wouldn't be here right now (in many ways).

I can't help but wonder how many of us (doesn't matter what label you attach) made the same mistake.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 30, 2000.

Patricia:

I don't think Charlie realizes just how guilty HE is. HE's the one who passed all the internet "hoopla" on to the press. On the one hand he wants to take pride in that effort, but on the other hand, he admits that Y2k should never have gone beyond the technical folks involved in the remediation. One can't have it both ways.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

Brian,

Your short-lived posting spree was entertaining to read, what else can you ask for?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2000.

Brian,

Reuben is a Y2K zealot; he just works a different side of the street than the "doomers." Unfortunately, he also seems to lack any sense of humor. Very, very few people cared what Yourdon, North, Lord et al said last year. Even fewer listened to Reuben. Many of the same people who fell for the Y2K survivalist schtick will fall again. So it goes. Caveat emptor.

You have an evangelical streak yourself, Brian, but far better table manners. Life is short and so is summer. Your best prediction yet was your call on the dog days of summer. Enjoy the sun, the fun and the company of lovely companions. And chuckle at the vision of CPR as a modern Marx... sweating away in the library, cursing his carbuncles and the Y2K doomsayers.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 30, 2000.

>> WHAT MATTERS ....IS THAT YOU WILL NOT **GIVE CRUTCHES** TO THOSE MENTALLY LAMED BY [... list of lamers snipped ...] <<

Now this is a rather odd assertion.

When I look at the list of threads that were posted in the month immediately prior to cpr's latest eruption, not one of them that I can recall was promoting arguments:

- to justify Y2K doomerism after the fact, or

- to deflect blame from cpr's list of evil-doers by justifying their actions, or

- to claim that doomerism did not happen, or

- to claim that doomers were not mistaken in their conclusions before the CDC, or

- to mislead lurkers into thinking Y2K was still an issue.

If any threads on the subject of Y2K were active at all, they were started by our good friend Andy Ray, whose expression of perpetual bemusement at Y2K has rigidified into the kind of mask one connects with rigor mortis.

In other words, we were so far from "giving crutches" to Y2K doomers as not to be discussing the topic at all. So, there must have been some other motivation that prompted cpr to initiate the topic.

As near as I can make out, based on cpr's own announcements about what he thinks he is doing, and why, he appears to think he is doing some kind of good by reintroducing the topic of Y2K into our midst with such fervor. I will not search through all his many postings in order to quote him.

I will paraphrase, based on my best understanding. Where my paraphrases are incorrect, I am perfectly willing to be corrected by the only person who can state with certainty what cpr's motives are: cpr himself.

cpr appears to hold the (somewhat justified) belief that this forum is infested with ex-doomers. I, myself, could justly be classified with that group, and I am here. I know of others.

cpr also appears to believe that the ex-doomers here are not sufficiently repentent. He seems to think that we have sinned against some principle he holds dear, that we have damaged ourselves and others in serious and material ways, and that we must not be allowed to get away with this crime.

There is only one problem with this view. He cannot prove we, as individuals, damaged any other specific individuals than oursleves. It is not officially recognized as a crime to do silly things that hurt oneself. He does not even acknowledge that doomers were erratic in the amount of damage they did, and that some of us did no more than get out of debt, or buy a couple hundred dollars worth of canned food. Hardly crimes, or even very foolish. Even to mention such possibilities as this is criminal, in that it gives crutches to the mentally lamed, by letting believe they did nothing that cannot be dismissed as trivial. cpr knows better. There was nothing trivial about Y2K delusion. It was a huge, costly mistake, a conspriracy of evil-doers, a preventable tragedy.

What is passing strange to me is that cpr has this itching, crawling, naked certainty that we are all guilty of something more than acting silly. He knows it deep in his heart.

Lives were wrecked! Money was wasted! Fear was mongered! Marriages ruined! Food was wasted! Children terrorized! The whole system endangered! Bomb plots were laid! Terrorists were comforted! Awful things were done or contemplated!

Somehow, in cpr's eyes, we have proved ourselves to be menaces to the public peace, criminals in spirit if not in actual fact. There is one problem. He is at a complete loss as to how to neutralize this menace, while at the same time feeling something must be done.

Lord knows, cpr is trying to do something. At times, he thinks that his goal is to have us confess our sins. But, that is not a satisfactory solution, because:

1) Our confessions do not go far enough. We think we did not commit the crimes he is sure we committed. If we confess to silliness, or buying too much food, or willful intellectual blindness, but we do not admit to all the high crimes he is sure that accumulated as a result of these weaknesses, then we cannot earn absolution through true repentance. We simply do not appreciate the magnitude of our crimes. He must repeatedly remind us.

2) If someone, such as myself, actually confesses to these high crimes, cpr is in a bind. Unlike God, he cannot tell true repentance from false. Because he cannot, in good conscience, grant absolution to a false confession, and no confession can be trusted, then even if he succeeds in obtaining the apperarance of what he wants, he literally can never be satisfied that he got the substance.

3) It is too piecemeal. since cpr cannot know when he has neutralized every menacing doomer by browbeating them into confession and contrition, he cannot know when he is finished. Again, the goal of getting us to confess and repent becomes unobtainable, due to the imperfection of cpr's klnowledge and the perfection of his requirements.

cpr has also experimented with the idea that he is preserving doomer folly for the future use of academics, who will be only too glad for the wealth of material. In this particular pipedream, the Y2K-debunking academics will write erudite tomes, and this research will lead somehow to a golden future where a Y2K-like doomer mentality becomes increasingly difficult for future Gary Norths to propagate. A grateful world can thank cpr for his heroic role in this, even if it never knows how much they owe him.

The trouble with this justification is that posting the material to this forum in no way preserves it any more than it is already preserved. It just copies it from one location on the Greenspun server to another. cpr would do much better putting it all on CD-ROM and offering it to any hopeful academic for free.

The upshot, as far as I can see, is that cpr may have some good end he envisions. He sees fairly clearly that a substantial number of people were deluded about the seriousness of Y2K, and were mislead (in some cases) into unwise acts they would not have otherwise contemplated. He sees clearly that some people used Y2K to further their own agendas or for personal profit. He grasps something there.

What he cannot see is that, beyond the minor personal satisfaction of having seen into the process of Y2K delusion more quickly and completely than some, there is nothing much more for him to do, or any great and enduring use he can apply this insight to. His one great insight has outlived its use. It had a limited shelf life. It expired. It is now no more than curious footnote in history.

That is cpr's problem in a nutshell. He sees great crimes that must be redressed, great menace that must be neutralized, a great crusade for truth and the future. Others see a dead bug.

There is, in ancient literature, a classic definition of delusion. The deluded man ducks his head when he passes through the gates of Rome, so as not to hit his head. cpr, you see much clearly, except the size of what you see. In your vision of the world, my saying this is wrong, because it gives comfort to criminals and willfully misleads the deluded into misjudging their delusion and the size of the harm they have done. So, you don't have to listen to it.

Does it ever seem queer to you that you seem to be almost alone in this estimation? That for every one who agrees with you, 15 or 20 say you are nuts?

Do you understand how astonishing it is, when you dismiss this fact with the wave of your hand and insist that anyone who is against you is deluded, by definition?

Do you understand how completely this echoes the dismissal doomers gave when they encountered information that did not chime with their preconceptions, by saying that any information that disagreed with them was a desperate lie by the powers that be, by definition?

Just some food for thought. Chew well before swallowing.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 30, 2000.

Obvious Conclusion #1: The Internet has a ways to go before it can be considered a sole (or primary) source for news.

Obvious Corrolary #1: Every forum has a self-selected membership, and birds of a feather (for whatever reason) do tend to flock together.

Obvious Conclusion #2: As in a good restaurant, presentation counts. If someone comes off as a screaming, raving lunatic, they'll be ignored more often than not -- whatever truth there may be in the underlying message.

Obvious Corrolary #2: If you're smooth enough, you can convince people that the sky is green.

(The easy ones I can churn out immediately. The difficult ones may take a little longer.)

P.S. Good post, Brian.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 30, 2000.

Brian: Thanks for the belly laughs the other day, it made me feel much better! Like Decker said, enjoy the summer, ahhhhhhh!

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), June 30, 2000.

cpr seems to have two problems -- he doesn't build his case, but jumps straight to the conclusion. And he doesn't state his conclusion, he snorts, screams, and brays his conclusion. Which is uncomfortable even for those who know how he got there (which cpr left out).

The problem is, long exposition requires an attention span not often found in a public that reads on average less than a single book a year, and raised on TV's 15-second sound bites. Y2K tended to get terrible media coverage because it required knowledge and background, it provided terrible photo-ops, it was too technical. Educating people would have taken 5 MINUTES, totally unacceptable. Even a newspaper story can't hope to hold someone's attention that long. You gotta get in, scream for a few seconds, and time for an ad.

But hell, why not? Those who don't want to hear it won't read exposition anyway. Well, because those who *might* want to hear it are worth making the effort to reach. cpr's approach is guaranteed to reach nobody.

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

>> he doesn't build his case, but jumps straight to the conclusion. <<

I am sure you well understand, flint, the inherent weakness of this approach.

A good case is constructed out of many, many pieces of evidence. These pieces, together, support the conclusion. It is called "evidence" because it is what makes the underpinning of one's conclusion evident to others. Without them, the conclusion must levitate in midair, on faith alone.

The other weakness in this approach is that no one can test the strength of the edifice on which your conclusion stands. cpr claims to admire science and scientific thinking. Refusing to show evidence is the sine qua none of unscientific thinking. This leads to errors that are not suceptible of correction. Remember the math test's admonition to "show your work"?

One of cpr's most consistant errors is to quote at length some individual's writing (Mr. X) and then asserting that Mr. X's words or actions exemplify a group of individuals other than the one quoted. He believes this method has some kind of validity.

He is prone to locutions such as 'doomers like you made these types of egregious mistakes' and then quoting some anonymous dweeb off the web to establish that someone did in fact make that mistake, then demanding that I take responsibility for making this kind of mistake. But he never elucidates how the doomer who made the mistake was in any signifigant way like me at all.

This is similar to taking any fairly heterogenous group, like athletes, establishing that I am an athlete, then quoting John Rocker to establish 'what athletes think'. It is ridiculous. It is cpr's stock in trade.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 30, 2000.

Brian:

This thread is dead, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm curious about one thing. We both read the following statement:

"WHAT MATTERS ....IS THAT YOU WILL NOT **GIVE CRUTCHES** TO THOSE MENTALLY LAMED BY :........".

*I* saw it to imply that I wasn't sympathetic to folks who had ruined their lives due to the words of a few. YOU saw it quite differently. In fact, I think you saw quite the opposite from what I saw.

I admit that the writing was obtuse, and that questioning the definition of the writing does nothing to detract from my argument or yours. I'm simply curious regarding how we came to see the statement from two different angles.

If I were to approach it from your side, I'd have to state that very few folks were "mentally lamed" from the words of the folks presented. These folks were either already "mentally lame" [kindof has a ring to it, dontcha think?] or practiced prudence in accord with unknowns. The degree of prudence is none of my concern, nor should it be a concern of anyone else.

FIVE people died as a result of Y2k fear-mongering. Heh. If we were to include the fetus in womb, this loss ranks right up there with the Taco Bell killer who was executed on death-row yesterday here in Texas. This killing in Taco Bell was the act of one person. The list of persons mentioned here would lead us to believe that effects would be so significant on society as to be noticed. Were they? No. Is it because society is indifferent? No. It's because the effects were negligible that the effects weren't noticed.

Who cares if you bought 200 cans of tuna? *I* don't. Who cares if someone's spouse divorced them after XX years of marriage? *I* don't. I've been through divorce myself, and it takes far less than a fear of Y2k to break up a marriage. Who cares if one person aborted their baby because they feared Y2k? *I* don't. Abortions are done every day for lesser reasons. Who cares if one person committed suicide due to Y2k fear? *I* don't. Texas has now killed 136 people on death row during Bush's term as governor. That's 6 people more than Kevorkian. Did Y2k fear have anything to do with it? No.

How'd we read the same thing and respond from two different angles?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.

>> I'm simply curious regarding how we came to see the statement from two different angles. <<

Well, it natural to read "YOU" as referring to oneself, isn't it?

Yes, it was sloppy writing. cpr is a very sloppy writer with some bad pronoun-referrant problems. He often blurs the distinction between "you" singular and "you" plural. He seems not to distinguish well between singular doomer individuals and doomers as a group.

But the context of cpr's statement about 'YOU GIVING CRUTCHES' as I saw it was that it immediately followed a reference to "you will meet my Lawyers". The "you" in that first statement obviously referred to me. So, I took the next "YOU" as referring to, well, ME!

Once I had leapt to the conclusion that the "YOU" referred to me, it was a lead pipe cinch that the "GIVING CRUTCHES" was a ,i>wrongaction cpr disapproved of, since cpr will, ipso facto, never attribute a positive action to someone who disagrees with him, if he can avoid it.

From there it was a small step to resolving the ambiguity into the meaning I ascribed to it. That he was doing important work by making sure I did not aid those who were lamed by the evil Y2K coven by giving them the means (crutches) to hobble about and deny their lameness.

You, on the other hand, took "YOU" to mean yourself -- as a generic member of the "DENIERS/avoiders/"change the subject" LEFT-OVERS", with which you (no doubt) identify yourself as a member of cpr's cast of weird characters.

In your mental landscape, giving crutches has other meanings. It is not simply a matter of aid and comfort, but symbolizes aid that is well-meant but ultimately holds a person back, since crutches are inferior to legs, and encouraging a person to use them may have the consequence of making them depend on them.

Once you applied this alternate symbolism, the rest of your resolution of cpr's ambiguity was a short, easy step.

In case you cared.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 01, 2000.

What the Hell does Kevorkian have to do with how really lost Chuck is???????... I know charlie has gone South, and is totally out of it, but really !!!!!!!

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 01, 2000.

{Future Shock, I think you missed your cue}

We're all gonna die.

-- flora (***@__._), July 01, 2000.

Brian,

Pickin ticks is just part of havin a stray dog around. If you can't run it off and you don't want to shoot it you're pretty much stuck with just pickin ticks.

I enjoy your stuff.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 01, 2000.

Anita said,

I STILL purport that these folks heard what they WANTED to hear, Charlie, and the mere fact that 99% of the population didn't fall for it says SOMETHING, dontcha think? Who are the folks who buy the snake- oil? The folks who HAVE the disease already and look for a quick fix, right?

Few were buying the Y2k pile? The very folks who should have known better----IT Types----bought the thing, to the tune of BILLIONS. Did ya forget already? May not have been listening directly to Garee, but where in the heck do you think Garee got his "material"?

Course much of the $$$ was well spent, but let us not kid ourselves, a major percentage was flushed chasing ghosts, by many who knew better but were caught-up in all the noise.

As far as the public at large, most did what they always do, follow the crowd. They followed the spin that Y2k worriers were fringe lunatics. Public did not make a rational decision edgewise. Look, if IT types were even concerned, about what we now know completely, was basically nothing, what hope did the average-joe have? We dodged a bullet, simple as that. There was indeed some panic the last days of 1999. Merely talk to anyone who works in a grocery store about it if you yourself were not in a store on Dec 29-30 of last year. Ask them if they witnessed a "crazed rush".

-- passerby (amazed@thisboard.com), July 01, 2000.

Brian:

Um...so we both simply saw the same thing from our subjective viewpoints?

Netghost: Charlie's been trying to make a big deal out of Y2k FUD [as in all these folks died, lost relationships, committed suicide, etc.] The grand total of deaths due to Y2k amounted to 5 [Charlie's five.] I actually think he missed that guy that drove from Pennsylvania to Las Vegas [or something like that] and offed himself after a crime binge.

My point in bringing up the others was to emphasize how all the folks on Charlie's list didn't affect the population as much as a few who had nothing to do with Y2k at all. The controversies regarding the death penalty and euthanasia will continue long after Y2k is dead as a subject.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

Passerby:

Sorry, but I WAS part of the IT community, and I heard absolutely NOTHING IRL. My SO is part of the IT community and HE heard nothing in real life. I queried co-workers in IT and THEY didn't see any problem. The only problems existed on the internet.

I DID go the stores during the last days of December. The aisles were stacked with goods and folks were behaving normally.

If YOU lived in panickville, I suggest you plainly state where folks were snookered.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

Anita,

How many New Year's eve bashes were cancelled? Why? How many stayed home, "just in case"? Over what?

Here is a remaining news story on what some were doing the last days of 1999 in some grocery outlets...STORES: CONSUMERS NOT BUYING HYPE. Go to the link and read. If Y2k was an internet only event, what were these people going on? Classic story this, a story wrote to dispel an actual event, huh? May not have been the majority, but enough to prompt this newstory, lol. Why was this even a news story? Hint**to tell other potential "stocker-uppers" to remain calm, stores are open and shelves are full. But why would enough be worried the Chicago Tribune felt it necessary to even cover it? Because alot of folks had concerns, in the stores and watching them. This was because of what? an internet legend? on a medium but a handful are even privy to? Again, if this shopping was biz as usual, why even cover it? I thought most thought Y2k rather silly. According to YOU, most had not even heard of it, beyond dismissing it as nonsense.

To answer your IT retort. Will only say again, a ton of REAL MONEY was spent in the REAL WORLD over what you think lived only as some internet chatter. You could not be more wrong. No question the internet played a significant part in Y2k, probably the most significant, but to ignore fora beyond indicates to me someone who really does not GI, or wants to.

You yourself have said you could give a flying yahoo what others think, so I wonder why you even post here to be honest. Why did you bother moderating a Y2k webboard at MSN if it was nothing but bs on a new medium, this internet? Why spend time yaking about cyberfiction?

-- passerby (amazed@thisboard.com), July 01, 2000.

Anita,

Here is an internet group and their feelings about Y2k. Taken in early September 1999.43 percent think banks will not be able to access funds. That is over 4300 folks out of 10,000 who basically expected a banking crisis. Course all these 10,000 only exist on the internet and survive thru peapod.com, They never venture outside their houses and the 100's of millions the banking industry and Koskinen&co spent assuring non-internet folks was yet more cyber- based fiction, cause it only existed on the internet.

Read here how many outside of cyberspace tossed actual money at what anyone knows was a webbased urban legend.

Deerfield-based Baxter International Inc. spent $120 million on Y2K fixes

Fighting the bug, which was to have reared its head when computers failed to recognize dates with the year 2000, drained more than $2 billion from local businesses and more than $200 million from Illinois governmental agencies.

The federal government estimates that $100 billion was spent across the U.S. Some estimates put the global Y2K-fighting tab at $600 billion.

Chicago spent $55 million to prevent any Y2K computer problems

At O'Hare, the $9 million spent on Y2K inspections and overhauls...

Now were all these people just listening to Garee and Eddie? on the net?

-- passerby (amazed@this.board), July 01, 2000.

Link to the survey above, (first paragraph).

Sorry bout that.

-- passerby (amazed@my.mistake), July 01, 2000.

Anita,

One last one for ya...click

The United States, easily the most technology-dependent nation on the planet, spent roughly half the worlds total repair costs, or about $365 in America for each citizen.

-- passerby (amazed@anita.net), July 01, 2000.

passerby,

Anita was talking about Y2K *doom* -- the idea that Y2K bugs would cause problems requiring that you store food, fuel, water and other supplies, or would cause the banking system to collapse, or etc., etc.

The tired, "look at how much money was spent on it!" argument failed before the rollover at several points, and it still fails now. For one: no one can provide firm figures. In fact, one of your articles from above quotes the now-discredited "600 billion" number, which was pulled out of thin air by Gartner Group (if I recall correctly), and which was then changed by THEM, when it was recognized at inaccurate.

For another, we know that the figures which APPEAR to be the most accurate (even that's in the air) show that only about 1/10th-1/5th of IT budgets were spent on Y2K.

Following these links and reading your posts is a trip through memory lane, because all of the usual disconnects are there. Typical case:

- The Red Cross would say, "yes, there COULD be some disruptions; prepare the same as you would for a 3-day storm."

- The survival vendors would take that headline and scream, "see? SEE? Even the government admits that there WILL (no long 'could') be problems!!! You'd better buy our kits to be safe, because Clinton is a KNOWN liar, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

... sucker play complete.

My experience matches Anita's, though I was more in the industrial control side than IT. The only panicked people I met were online. Everyone I talked to in person from Alabama Power, for example, laughed out loud at the concept that Y2K was going to knock them off. One guy told me, "we've got our computers in Florida set ahead to run in 2000 *NOW*, any they're fine."

(And yes, to anticipate your next complaint, people like me tried to pass these things on, both here and elsewhere. Gary North and Mike Hyatt would dismiss and spin reports like these into doom on their Web sites; the people in CSY2K and TB2000 would blow the poster away and accuse him/her of wanting to "kill people," ANOTHER etc., etc., ad nauseum.)

And I'll add this. My experience duplicated Anita's in another respect. Here in Birmingham, Y2K *was* taken seriously by a good percentage of the population, and there were *STILL* no shortages, panic buying, ONE FINAL etc., etc., ad nauseum.

There were a few ultra-hardcore doomers who disappeared into their bunkers on New Year's Eve ... and they reappeared early the next day with VERY red faces. :)

As for your other points: trying to counter your argument now requires the same following of convoluted logic that I swore I was through with just before the rollover. But I will give you one free piece of advice: the news media gets things WRONG. All the time. They sensationalize. They misquote. They misunderstand.

(And worst of all, they DELIBERATELY choose the most inflammatory quotes because that sells papers and airtime.)

(I should know, I work in the business.[g])

I'll say this in your defense: if you want to blame anyone, blame the media who wrote the articles that you've linked to above. They're not entirely to blame, but hey; if it makes you feel better ...

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), July 01, 2000.

(And yes, to anticipate your next complaint, people like me tried to pass these things on, both here and elsewhere. Gary North and Mike Hyatt would dismiss and spin reports like these into doom on their Web sites; the people in CSY2K and TB2000 would blow the poster away and accuse him/her of wanting to "kill people," ANOTHER etc., etc., ad nauseum.)

And the IT industry sat on its' collective butts and did what to refute the CRAP? Friend you have NO CLUE. What you and Anita miss and seem intent on focusing on is the small fry, the naive carriers of the IT message that Y2k exists, and you should do something, cause it BADD. In fact, the LAW commands you Mr.CEO address what we insiders know is crap, but also understand is good for our end of the biz. The bean hoarders are not what Y2k was about. They were the messengers of the FUD produced, directed, and silently promoted by some in the IT industry and condone by the majority in the IT industry.

How is it possible an Ed Yourdon goes unanswered except by a few loud volunteers on polly webboards? How is it possible a Koskinen can sit and talk outright Bullshit, not once calling a Garre or Eddie on their shit? And you want us to buy this thing was about a few lunatics who freaked and hung-out at TB2000 and similar? Where are the posts by Joe Expert from IBM on these webboards? Lack of these is TELLING, and something the IT apologists like yourself and Anita think can be washed under the history bridge by continually bashing IDIOTS like Gary North, Jim Lord, Ed Yourdon, Lane Core, Steve Heller, Paula Gordon, Cory Hamasaki and all the other loonies referenced ad nausem.

Why did companies give a sh*t about their suppliers Y2k compliancy if this thing was just alot of bs from a few fringe lunatics? How is it possible these internet worryworts had such reach? these tech- ignorant farmers and hairdressers?

Debate the spending forever. Truth is SOME amount was spent based largely on BS spread by who? Sissyman? KOS? *Sigh*? Course to follow the pile one has to conclude the effort was so successful, the success rate was well into 99.99% effective in squashing the Y2k menace, even by those who didn't do squat. Is that too "convoluted" for ya? Course in hindsight much of whatever amounts were flushed "sounded" like sound business practice, never fear based knee- jerk reaction. Thta existed only on TB2000 and the Garree North web forums.

-- passerby (truelyamazing@this.board), July 01, 2000.

Hi Stephen,

I think you've misread passerby's point if I may butt in here - it's not about whether or not the information out there about Y2k was accurate or not (we know what happens to secondhand, thirdhand, etc. information); but the fact that it was out there bigtime.

Anita is asserting that not only was Y2k a BITR in fact, but the noise about it was also nothing, it was taking place nowhere, and affected no one in any way, except a tiny cadre of internet addicts who were already looking for something to lose sleep over (cannot agree here).

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), July 01, 2000.

Debbie,

Sorry to butt in on your butt in, but, IMHO I have to agree with Anita and Stephen. The only people making noise about Y2K were these people who were looking for doom and would only believe those who could reinforce or inflame their mindset.

Most people that went ooverboard on Y2K fear used the internet as their primary information source. It is my belief that they would search night and day until they found the most awful theories imaginable which actually at some level made them happy or filled the internal need for doom to be hanging over their heads.

When such people entered the real world to spread their gospel they were met with indifference generally. If someone took the time to answer specific concerns or provide proof that their concerns were unfounded then you were accused of covering up as part of a conspiracy. Or at the very least you were deemed as Not Getting It which in turn made them feel very SPECIAL because they Got It. In order to keep there beliefs alive they went back to the internet to hobnob with the other GI's. Really the overall behavior of those that were ensnared in the Doom was that of a very, very paranoid and antisocial person.

When I first stumbled onto TimeBomb 2000 my first reaction was "Wow, where are all these nuts located at and how close are they to me?" It kills me to say this but the most "logical" statement made at one point was made by Lady Logic when she speculated that the biggest threat to anyone was from the people that lived on that Board. After I got used to the "atmosphere" I hung around because some of the discussions were fairly funny. Maybe it's just my weird sense of humor.

Anyway my point is that most of the noise appeared to be a limited internet phenomana. True there were spectacular media stories at times but I agree with Anita that these were sometimes just as much the fault of the "pollies" as the "doomers". I think that a person that was deeply involved as a debunker, such as CPR, became too close or immersed in the internet discussion and believed that these people might spread their fear with more success than they were actually capable of. This is not intended as a criticism of CPR but rather just an outsiders observation/opinion. I don't think movements of this kind can spread very far in the general public. It is like a nuclear reaction trying to occur without enough of the necessary material to sustain the reaction. In this case the necessary material would be people with the proper mindset to swallow the theory. Once you get off the internet fora you quickly run out paranoid, anti-government conspiricists so the movement fizzles.

As a further point, I find it interesting to now analyze the personalities involved in the debate. I believe that on another thread there was a discussion on how faith, in whatever, was a driving point for people on both sides of the issue. I think that this aspect of the personalities of the debaters and the influence it had on their motivations or passions for the issue would be worth some further discussion.

-- Monkey Spanker (spanking@way.com), July 02, 2000.

If passerby isn't Doc Paulie, it's certainly someone with the exact same argument: IT people [particularly those who KNEW about remediation] didn't spend enough time disputing the arguments of the hairdressers and pigfarmers on the internet.

MOST folks in IT who worked on remediation saw it as simply another project. I'm familiar with perhaps a dozen who spent the time discussing it on the internet. I could stretch that to two dozen, I suppose. Most IT folks are estranged from public comments and fears. I'd go so far as to suggest that most CEO's are as well. Lawyers and PR folks handle the public. IT folks simply handle the work they're given.

As a contractor, I had periods between jobs. I met folks on the MSNBC Technology Forum who wanted to share remediation information in a new forum, and I joined them. I didn't MODERATE that forum. I simply tried to separate the truths from the fictions. Once the remediation information was imparted to those who needed it, the forum should have folded. It didn't. Non-technical folks came in who had heard "rumors" about Y2k. I was under no commitment to correct misinformation, but I did, because I had the time and because these folks honestly wanted correct information. The techs who had moved along to other projects left. There's only so much time in a day, and the purpose of the forum had run its course.

ABSENCE is TELLING? Yes...it is. Why was no one discussing Y2k on the IBM newsgroups? Cory posted there a total of something like 11 times and was pretty much run off as a know-nothing. Folks who go to the IBM newsgroups want to discuss problems they're experiencing in the hope that someone else has the experience and the answer. They don't want to discuss hypotheticals. In contrast, csy2k and the other Y2k fora became STRICTLY discussions of hypotheticals.

A few folks have the time for this, but the majority of folks do not. It doesn't even matter what field one is in.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 02, 2000.

hairdressers and pigfarmers

Anita, this might be the absolute funniest comment Ive read on this forum. Took me 4-5 minutes before I stopped laughing. Thanks for the grins!! Old Will could qualify as a pigdresser and hairfarmer.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 02, 2000.

Opps, Anita seems to have forgotten about them dam SEC disclosure requirements. All the money spent on them flashy brochures and the like assuring the hairdressers and crystal readers that they indeed are ready to carry-on. All done to answer a few worried webboard posters. She forgot about lending requirements asking for Y2k status from potential and existing borrowers of size.

Who does Anita think pushed for disclosure and sharing legislation? All the people around who laughed Y2k off as a farce? Those be everyone not at a TB2000 following the reasoning here. If Y2k was indeed this massive yawner claimed, why the legislation? the brochures, Presidental committees, Senate hearings and committees, and ad campaigns by Kia, Chevrolet, Nike, and ESPN to name but a few feeding off the widespread Y2k attention?

If the techies were yawning, why didn't they bother to explain to others around why they need not worry so? Because the truth is, most in the trench techies had as much clue as Paul Milne. Face-it, most coders are overpaid digital flower arrangers. They do not have anything close to a big picture view. Their Bosses, the CIO types, milked Y2k for all they could because who beyond them, were in their position and had the best view? They liked Ed Yourdon spewing forth the Y2k gloom mantra! They sat on their collective butts and did squat as this whole exercise profitted THEM.

Was it to Michael Dell's advantage to say upgrading to new systems was foolish? Did IBM and Oracle recommend NOT investing in "compliant" versions of software goodies? Did anyone really say full date expansion was basically bullcockey? Did EDS tell their clients much of what they were charging for was overkill at best?

Steve Heller said it best,,,nobody beyond these boards gives a rat ass he blew and spewed Y2k crapola. This speaks volumes. Fact is, a Heller reflected many in IT, they have no clue, literally. He also did better than a 100 PR newstories could do, spew doubt using the monkier he "knows about what he speaks". Clear now to all, he don't, not even close does he get it or ever did. And this is Mister C++. Debate his qualifications forever, the man is a NAME in a major programming language. Ed Yourdon WAS(and still is *hint) a big name. Many Y2k noisemakers were names. Hell up till Eddie's MLM scheme was exposed, even local SAP expert Hoffmeister was not sure about Ed Yourdon. Was Ed Yardeni a nobody? Did his employer ever suggest he "quit it"? why not?

Most here are so sick of y2k they want to start spewing literally. Why? Because they are tired of hearing it was THEM who is to blame, the little people. Folks were worried because the folks who knew better sat silent(great strategy), and a fair number among their peers were screaming bloody murder from rooftops about impending Y2k doom. This is the truth, the jist of an Anita post above. Another truth, and the one needing airing, is the very real fact many insiders WANTED Y2k to become a BIG DEAL. If one believes blame can be laid at the feet of GN and Eddie, and a few thousand "preparers", one is being a good dupe and doing the excellent work of the real scumbags of Y2k. Follow a Peter de Jager and you begin to find the trail.

Y2k was DEBUNKED over FOUR YEARS ago, completely as to what it really was all about. Rac ket and Ruse, by Nicholas Zvegintzov spelled it out in a nutshell. This NOT even debatable. What is debatable, is why little if any attention is ever paid to the real hucksters of Y2k? How is it that a Gartner does not have to answer? a Capers "I have the studies" Jones? Ed Yardeni? a Peter "one day I woke-up and we licked Y2k" de Jager? It was to the point where an Extremist Revisionist(Gary North) had links sitting on websites run by major IT outfits and Governmental Agencies. Course only because Garree had them "good links" and all, total and utter CRAP is what that is. The links existed cause many needed the insane view of Y2k to help along the scam of the century.

Y2k is about corporate and governmental failure. Failure to heed the advice inherent in a ClueTrain Manifesto. Failure of management to be ontop and knowledgable about a core business area.

Y2k would have blown away and died long ago if a fraction of the pr effort had been spent DIRECTLY answering the public's concerns where it counted and existed, on the INTERNET. Not using some tired old strategy which does not work no mo like press releases and flashy brochures that litter parking lots, but in person, in real time.

Unfortunately, many around had other intentions than sharing real data concerning Y2k risk.

-- passerby (amazing@this.board), July 02, 2000.

. I don't think movements of this kind can spread very far in the general public.

Oh no, Y2k was this off the radar issue, ya it sure was...NOT.

Following the yawner argument, how was it possible a few nuts were able to get the ear of not only the President of the United States, but a good portion of the United Nation member states?

What saved Y2k from becoming a full blown crisis is two-fold.

One, most around have no clue or interest in technology's inner workings. Lack of interest alone did more to quell fears than anything. Most people are not interested and ignored the arguments. To those who gave it a glance, they sided with the belief the experts knew all this and trusted in them.

Two, most around are not active internet users. Thus they never got anything but Y2k is real, being addressed, and to keep copies of their bank statements. This was the sanitized spin from the authorities. Coupled with the messages worriers were UFO nutcases, and the PR campaign amongst non-internet-savy folks was largely successful. Not completely, but largely.

Now amongst this backdrop, you think Y2k didn't spread?

-- passerby (completelyamazed@this.poster), July 02, 2000.

Once you get off the internet fora you quickly run out paranoid, anti-government conspiricists so the movement fizzles.

If you buy this one, you truely do need to get out more often. Most do not even vote cause they have given-up fighting the hoax that is our political system. Freaking Ross Perot rode the wave to almost a quarter of the vote a decade ago, and you think most around are quite happy with the Gov?

Short of a massive economic collapse, this country is ripe for overthrown.

World Net Daily is in the top10 of visited internet locations and what would you describe them as? Balanced?

Get a clue friend.

-- passerby (amazed@gain.here), July 02, 2000.

Brian McLaughlin is proof that there is trailer trash in Canada.

-- yes, it's true (brians@fascist.too), July 03, 2000.

<% msgbox("Brian is a fucking loser doomzie! He couldn't poor piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel!") %>

-- Jus... (having@more.and.more.fun), July 03, 2000.