KOS: I suppose that Y2K was a hoax in a mannner of speaking. It was a hoax to the extent that it was viewed as TEOTWAWKI. It wasn't a hoax in that there were things that had to be fixed but, they didn't have to be fixed to prevent TEOTWAWKI - they had to be fixed to prevnt a loss of business and profits. Even if nothing had been fixed, things still would have worked. They might have been slower, cost more, and not been on time, but we would have muddled through.

Business hates uncertainty so the fixes were to provide some certainty that the survival of the business wasn't threatened. Beyond that, a lot of the decisions were that things would get fixed as they broke - just like everyday in the real world. Somehow, this date problem got blown up into something that could cause real, huge, unsolvable problems. None of us who were working on Y2K thought that even a small number of big problems was likely and we did our best to communicate this. As Ken has written, most people chose to believe us. In your case, you didn't. Why? That's the question I still can't get my arms around. What was so different between the pessimists and the rest of the world? I still feel this goes much deeper than Y2K and it's going to happen again, someday, and maybe without such relatively innocuous results.

-- Jim Cooke ("mailto:JJCooke@yahoo.com"), September 29, 2000. ===========

Jim posed this question to me a couple of days ago, on another thread, and I have been trying to compose a good answer. It really is a very good question, if somewhat oversimplified. For me, at least, it is not really all that easy to answer, but I will try. Perhaps others can contribute.

[NOTE: Sadly, the thread on which this was originally posted has gotten off of the original subject, and additionally suffers intolerable moral decay. It is beneath my royal dignity to contribute to a discussion where political correctness is not observed. -- Kingperson of Spain]

The expression, "I always believe you, even if I don't think that you are always right" comes to mind. Anyone who has worked on a project of any size has seen the symptoms of a project that started too late to reach a short deadline (grossly simplified):

STEP 1. The lowest levels, under much duress from the mid-levels who were under much duress from the upper-levels, assure the mid-levels that everything is fine, and on-track.

STEP 2. Based on STEP 1, the mid-levels assure the upper-levels that everything is fine, and on-track.

STEP 3. Based on STEP 2, the upper-levels assure everyone else that everything is fine, and on-track.

STEP 4. The project, at the last minute, turns out NOT to be fine and NOT on-track.

STEP 5. People are yelled at, replaced (maybe even fired), a new deadline is set, and steps 1-4 are repeated a few times until, finally, convergence to a satisfactorily completed project is attained.

This game is played frequently in the real world. Everyone depends on everyone else coming through on time, yet knows that chances are quite good that the project wont be ready. The fallback is always that the project deadline can be RE-SET TO A LATER TIME.

Y2K was different, in that the deadline was ABSOLUTELY a fixed-point in time. The effect of massively parallel projects coming to incomplete fruition at the same exact time was the big unknown. Generally, the pollies tended to believe that the effects were reasonably bounded -- slowdowns, loss of business, loss of efficiency, inconveniences, etc., but nothing more. Doomers tended to believe that nobody knew what the hell the end result might be -- power grid shutdown, contaminated water, food riots, martial law declarations, etc.

That is my take. I hope others will be able to help out with Jims excellent, thought provoking question. (And, lets all be politically correct when we answer, now.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 02, 2000

Answers

KOS: I guess that it depends on your starting point. A few people like North, Yourdon and the like declared that because some computers could not tell the difference between 1900 and 2000, the entire structure of civiliztion would collapse. Now, what kind of proof did you demand for this assertion?

I was a polly. It seemed to be a fundamentally absurd proposition to me -- like most of the other "end of the world" stuff I've seen in my life -- and before I believed even a part of it, I wanted to see some hard evidence that there was some truth to it. I never saw any, and spent a nice roll over in Cozumel, Mexico.

The doomers, on the other hand, seemed to come from the opposite side of this perspective. They assumed that these dire warnings were true (or at least a cause for concern) unless someone could absolutely prove to the contrary. Why was that? I've heard a lot of nut cases in my day predict a lot of bad things (none of which have come true), without feeling that I needed to see their ravings disproved before I'd disbelieve them.

I guess the question is, as we say in law, "where does the burden of proof lie." As I think you, yourself, have said before -- the doomers had a propensity toward believing end of the world stuff; the pollys did not.

And, of course, the doomers will eventually be correct. The world as we know it will end eventually. And, if you predict this doom every day, at every crisis, you will eventually grab the proverbial brass ring.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), October 02, 2000.

E.H.:

You hit the nail on the head -- it all came down to the "burden of proof", and who had it. Pollies often thought the burden was completely on the doomers; doomers often thought it entirely on the pollies; others saw it as a joint endeavor.

I always put the burden of proof entirely on the pollies (surprise!). One of the doomer analogies advanced on ye olde TB2K regarding burden of proof and Y2K was the following: Think of Y2K as you would a bomb threat. When someone phones and claims to have planted a bomb in a public building, what do we do? Do we demand proof before we do anything? If the caller hangs up annonymously, do we dismiss the call?

No, even though we know the odds are slim that there really is a bomb, we clear the building until we PROVE that there is no bomb. (Or, that there is, and de-fuse it.) Because (... all together now ...), it's not the ODDS it's the (... yell it, people! ...) STAKES!!!

And remember, the penalty for clearing out a bombless building is small, just like the penalty for prepping for an eventless Y2K was small. The penalties get very severe, however, when the converse situations turn out to be true.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 02, 2000.

Ye, of Little Faith, I may (and was) wrong, but I made it a point to read every testimony, they admitted they were all fools. They said "they did not know what would happen". I read it, all, from one profession to another. I was born at night, but it wasn't, last night. I carry the Flicker and the Faith of those, who came before me. We seem to be, protected, from Fools. At least my house stands, and I have ac and heat.

-- Papa (was@rollingstone.com), October 02, 2000.

One of my favorite pastimes on the old TB was reading stupid doomer analogies. One of my favorites was the Canyon Full Of Marbles analogy. I think Yourdon himself came up with that one, but I don't remember. The idea was that fixing ordinary computer problems was like polishing a bowl full of marbles where you can take each one out and polish it easily. Y2K, on the other hand, was like the Grand Canyon filled with marbles. Not all of them needed polishing, but you had to look through EVERY ONE OF THEM to find the ones that did. And you started looking too late. And the deadline was fixed. Yadda yadda yadda.

Of course, this analogy was absurd. More realistically, you had literally hundreds of thousands of people who already knew where most of the marbles were finding them and polishing them. And, of course, many didn't even need to be polished before the deadline.

I've never heard the bomb threat analogy, but it is also inaccurate. In reality Y2K was like a building with multiple bombs, some big, some small, and there were hundreds of thousands of bomb squad personnel finding and defusing each one.

When the squad would find a bomb and defuse it, doomers would shout "A BOMB!! IT'S A BOMB!!" and hide under their desks.

When the squad would find no bomb and give the "all-clear" for a particular room, doomers would shout "LIAR!! SHILL!!" and hide under their desks.

In reality, the squad was successfully defusing all the major bombs well in advance. What was left was hundreds of firecrackers. And they pretty much got most of them too. Anything that they missed would make a scary noise, but not much else.

And the key point to this analogy is that people live in these bomb-filled buildings EVERY DAY and never even notice the bomb squad personnel running in and out, defusing bombs.

So, evacuating the building really wasn't necessary because, in the end, it really was the odds.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 02, 2000.

I've always thought Creeper was the biggest retard in the world. Now I'm not sure anymore.

-- (more@worthless.threads), October 02, 2000.

Yessssss....... !!!!... KOS, you hit it right on the head.. the penalty for a bad guess ( and addmit it... it was a guess :-) would have been a life and death one... why the vocal Pollies can't see this really makes me wonder... are they just dumb?... or are they the type that would build in a flood plain, below the all time highs, and hope it will never be that high again?.. ( seen it too many times :-)

Or are they the really the stupid type that believe that nothing bad can ever happen to them?... ( Flint... if you don't like my spelling, or message, grammer...... try to figer out which finger I have up :-)

Looking back on Y2k, it was an un-event...... But from a non-tech veiw point, and with the Gov. doing a CYA thing, and bid biz doing the same thing... what the fuck can a common person do?... LOL..... CYA !!!!!!!!!

CPR, Flint, Kenney< Hoff..... give it up !!!!!!... we were all right in our own indivigual way......

for gods sake... peace....

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), October 03, 2000.

[Looking back on Y2k, it was an un-event...... But from a non-tech veiw point, and with the Gov. doing a CYA thing, and bid biz doing the same thing... what the fuck can a common person do?... LOL..... CYA !!!!!!!!!]

Yet looking back, we can see that government pronouncements were, in general, MORE pessimistic than the non-event warranted, while business assurances were summarily rejected UNLESS they admitted having problems they'd solved. Such admissions were carefully culled, exaggeraged, and then misrepresented as being typical, while the solutions were, of course, disregarded.

What the common people did was recognize that the issue was real but being dealt with and not particularly threatening. Common people believed and accepted what they were being told by government and business, which turned out to be essentially accurate. The self- reinforcing paranoia netghost illustrates was UNcommon, and completely mistaken.

The only remaining question is, can such people learn from their mistakes? And once again the answer is, not until they can recognize those mistakes. Which remains quite beyond the dimmer bulbs, though pessimists with a bit more wattage have done some useful introspection.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 03, 2000.

Netty,

You still can't spell worth shit.

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@sper.com), October 03, 2000.

Sigh...... And your point is ?... Small minds always have small points.... Dumb fuck... !!!!!!

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), October 03, 2000.

God it's good to have you back.

I've missed you soooooooooo much!

-- Friendly Ghost (heain'tc@sper.com), October 03, 2000.

Why didnt the doomers believe the Powers That Be regarding Y2K?

Well, first of all, I was under the impression before the rollover that Y2K was something that had to be fixed (also known as "the code is broken"). Starting from that point of view, the next question was how much of it was going to be fixed before Jan. 2000. I knew a lot of it had been fixed before January, but it also seemed as if some of it might not be fixed in time, especially overseas. Here's a good description of that mindset.

http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm

The mechanics involved in making any one of these systems capable of correctly processing the Year 2000 date were fairly straightforward, but the scope of the work -- identifying, fixing, and testing millions of systems and data exchange points in a global economy -- was daunting.

Since no one knew with certainty the true extent of the problem or had any experience in dealing with anything like it, initial cost estimates for Y2K-related repairs varied widely. The range was illustrated by a frequently cited estimate of $300 to $600 billion for the worldwide cost. Many predicted that the final price tag for the United States Government alone would top $30 billion. Given the relatively unknown size of the task and the ballooning cost estimates, it is easy to understand why many serious people in the mid- and late-1990s who had looked at the situation maintained there was no way the work could be finished in time.

Several obstacles appeared to support the view of those who said it was too late to avoid disaster. There was the natural tendency to procrastinate. In the mid-1990s, with several years until the millennium and the possibility that someone would invent a "magic bullet," some were comfortable putting the work off into the future. There was also the perception that Y2K was solely an information technology issue, not a core management problem. As a result, in many organizations, Y2K was just another project battling for scarce financial and management resources on the IT side of the ledger.

-- Why I followed Y2K till the (end@of.1999), October 03, 2000.

(cont.)

In the private sector, information bottlenecks were widespread. Anti-trust issues and a natural tendency to compete for advantage made working together on Y2K difficult, if not inconceivable, for many companies. Moreover, the threat of lawsuits had companies worried that they would be held liable for anything they said about the Y2K compliance of products or devices they used, or their test processes and results. Legal considerations also prevented companies from saying anything about their own readiness for the date change. Thus, their business partners -- as well as the general public -- assumed the worst.

When the Council began its work in early 1998, the Federal Government was struggling to fix its systems. The consensus among many was that the Government wouldn't make it. In particular, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Defense Department had an extraordinary amount of work to do in a relatively short period of time. Some people were predicting that government agency failures alone would send the U.S. economy into a deep recession.

Internationally, much of the world seemed to be paying little attention to making sure that information systems would be ready for the date change. A 1998 World Bank study found that three-fourths of the world's countries lacked even basic plans for addressing the Y2K problem. In some cases, countries were aware of Y2K but lacked the resources and technical expertise to deal with it. Furthermore, information sharing among nations was limited, hampering the efforts of those who might have benefited from a neighbor's advice on remediating systems.

I was never convinced before the rollover that everything had been fixed. I knew enough had been fixed that TEOWTAWKI wasn't likely, but the possibility of shortages that might last for a few months and economic repercussions that might last years still seemed plausible to me.

There was a big push last year to convince Americans that power grids weren't going to collapse. I knew that. It was other aspects of Y2K that kept me concerned and looking for signs that SME's, local governments and foreign countries had fixed everything they needed to fix. It wasn't just food I was worried about. I also had a working bicycle in case oil imports were disrupted for one reason or another.

-- Why I followed Y2K till the (end@of.1999), October 03, 2000.

The marbles in the Grand Canyon analogy was started by Jim Lord and expanded by Gary North.

http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/2494

-- if anyone (is@actually.curious), October 03, 2000.

As I recall, Americans and the rest of the world looked at one anothers' reaction to the problem with deep confusion. Americans were surprised or dismayed at the cavalier attitude the rest of the world took toward y2k, while they in turn regarded the intensive media coverage the issue got in the US (from their perspective) as borderline hysterical, with a sizeable lunatic fringe not only concerned about possible problems, but actually frightened.

This gulf of attitudes was occasionally noted as a datum, but never really integrated or understood. Americans understood that here, *everything* is computerized, that computerization is regarded as an absolute necessity, and that when "the computer is down", work almost everywhere stops on a dime. Typically, we projected this same environment onto the rest of the world, although in most of the world computerization is regarded as a luxury, and far from the most important luxury at that. Computers themselves were their very own culture gap.

Also, I suspect a case of the normal American subconscious conviction that only Americans really understood the threat and therefore attacked it vigorously. Foreigners, being mentally handicapped, mostly found the awareness phase more of a challenge than they could handle, and *that's* why their response was so hopelessly inappropriate until it turned out they were all lucky anyway,

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 03, 2000.

Americans understood that here, *everything* is computerized, that computerization is regarded as an absolute necessity, and that when "the computer is down", work almost everywhere stops on a dime. Typically, we projected this same environment onto the rest of the world, although in most of the world computerization is regarded as a luxury, and far from the most important luxury at that. Computers themselves were their very own culture gap.

Excellent point, Flint. It's one of the reasons why, in retrospect, foreign countries had as few problems as they did. >

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/09year .html?AltaVistaRefId=LmY_WEFnnnnuntly_W

Link

But the simplest if most embarrassing explanation is that the some public and private analysts who testified before Congress and were widely quoted overestimated the world's dependence on computer technology. Most countries had much less to do to prepare because they are far less computerized than the United States. The computers they do have are much less likely to be tied together in complex systems and are often so old that they run much simpler software, according to Louis Marcoccio, Year 2000 research director for the Gartner Group, a technology consulting firm.

At a briefing last week on why Pentagon analysts overestimated the risks in many countries, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre said, "If we had a failing, it may be that we extrapolated to the rest of the world the kind of business practices that we have developed here."

-- (Y2k@in.retrospect), October 03, 2000.

Once again I feel that Flint is downplaying the importance of computers abroad, as he is so wont to do:

"....in most of the world computerization is regarded as a luxury, and far from the most important luxury at that..."

I don't want to go into great detail, but just make a couple of simple points.

1. A bank is a bank.

2. Some of the developing countries have by this time established modern sectors that are quite impressive. This is true not only in Asia, but also Latin America. Computerization is vital in these sectors.

Even India, certainly still a severely underdeveloped country, has a modern sector which in some ways is really hopping. What is happening in the city of Bangalore right now is most interesting.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 03, 2000.

"The only remaining question is, can such people learn from their mistakes? And once again the answer is, not until they can recognize those mistakes. Which remains quite beyond the dimmer bulbs, though pessimists with a bit more wattage have done some useful introspection." -- Flint

Flint's comment is a great example of binary thinking. Since the pollies called it "right", and the doomers called it "wrong", the assumption is that the doomers' logic was flawed and contained mistakes. Mistakes that should be learned from and applied to avoid falling into a similar pitfall "next time".

I am not so sure. I think all of us were making guesses, some educated and others not so educated, but guesses nevertheless. This was more than an idle bet placed at a gaming table, where being "right" versus being "wrong" is literally measured by how many chips you rake in after the wheel is spun. This is about placing a bet so that you minimize your risk, so that regardless of whether you turn out to be "right" or "wrong", you still come out OK.

Those who did not prepare, because they "correctly" saw nothing to prepare for, came out on top, but it was at maximum risk. Those who prepared, because they "incorrectly" saw something to prepare for, came out on the bottom, but it was at minimum risk. Fortunately, everyone came out OK.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 03, 2000.

This is about placing a bet so that you minimize your risk, so that regardless of whether you turn out to be "right" or "wrong", you still come out OK.

But if that were really true, you would choose never to drive your car, seeing as there is a risk that you will get into an accident and die. In fact, it is more likely that you would get in a car accident than suffer some Y2K-related problem requiring extensive "preps." Yet, you choose not to "minimize risk" in this case and drive around anyway.

Life is fraught with risk every day. If you were to truly minimize risk in everything you do, you would never leave the house. And even then, you are at risk. The only way to survive is to realize the one Great Truth about risk:

It's not the stakes, it's the odds.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

hmm:

OK, then always play the odds, no matter what. If you can convince yourself that the odds are better than 50-50, go for it, hang the consequences, no matter how severe.

Not me, thank you. Too much at ... stake.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 03, 2000.

I should try to remember this: "The Law of Reality"

Never get into fights with ugly people, they have nothing to lose. (Especially when the form of critical thinking they insist I adapt is proprietary to them.)

FIRST AND FOREMOST,, Y2K COSTS TOTALLED ONLY 8-11% OF I.T. BUDGETS DEPENDING ON WHICH COLLECTION OF DATA YOU CHOOSE: GIGA, GARTNER, THE USA, KAPPELMAN ETC.

WHY didn't the Doomzies and Pessimists (D&Ps) believe? THEY NEVER WANTED TO.

I have a post from TB I Doomzie (1998) still available: "Why don't they believe us? Why do my relatives joke about me buying an extra chord of wood?" (OVER A YEAR BEFORE Y2k? WHO WOULDN'T LAUGH.)

The REAL QUESTION WAS: "who would ever believe this BS after reading EY's "book" with the "scenarios" or Websters clone of that using the DC Y2k poll and "metrics" ".

Here KOspin gives classic "spin" and twist. Because it IGNORES THE FIXED DEADLINES OF THE "CRITICAL DATES", the FIXED DEADLINES OF THE ACCOUNTING PACKAGES, THE FINDINGS THAT THE UTILITIES HAD FOUND **FEW OR NO*** PROBLEMS WITH THEIR EMBEDDED SYSTEMS(some after spending millions to check.....((and don't bother asking me for the sources of that,,,if you followed Y2k at all you know them)) ).

Y2K was different, in that the deadline was ABSOLUTELY a fixed- point in time. The effect of massively parallel projects coming to incomplete fruition at the same exact time was the big unknown. Generally, the pollies tended to believe that the effects were reasonably bounded -- slowdowns, loss of business, loss of efficiency, inconveniences, etc., but nothing more. Doomers tended to believe that nobody knew what the hell the end result might be -- power grid shutdown, contaminated water, food riots, martial law declarations, etc.

HERE is the simple statment of the NONSENSE....."nobody knows SO.....we might as well prepare for the Disaster".

HOGWASH. Left out was the D&Pers DENIAL of every success, dismissal of the exposures of the Hoaxes and Frauds and on a more technical level, IGNORING,,,,,the passing of the "critical dates" without major failures .....of ANY KIND.

The D&Pers should ask themselves .......why didn't ANYONE (90% with 5 to 7% undecided) in the general population believe what THEY believed about Y2k Impacts.

IT WAS SIMPLE.....the general population NEVER believed the outlandish claims from start to finish of the Y2k D&Pers about a coming disaster because .......they WERE .......outlandish claims and.......extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof which they never had.....NEVER........EVER.

-- Doomzies-Be-Them (DoomzieDeBunking@TB2000uNCola.com), October 03, 2000.

EXAMPLE: TIME AND AGAIN, I POSTED THAT A MAJOR INSURANCE COMPANY SPENT ONLY $78 MILLION ON Y2K AND EXPENSED IT INTO 2002. THEY WERE A $16 BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY. $78 MILLION WAS ......PETTY CASH TO THAT COMPANY.

THEY WERE FINISHED AND REPORTED TO THE SEC BY WINTER OF 1998.

WHY DOES THAT COMPANY MATTER?............IT WAS ROLEIGH MARTIN'S OWN EMPLOYER AND AS A "DATA BASE ENGINEER", HE **HAD TO HAVE KNOWN THAT**.STILL HE DISTRIBUTED HIS RE-POSTS OF THE D&P BS.

How about HYATT"s former employer? They reported they were Y2k ready and had spent peanuts on that. They were the classic SME (small and midrange co). DID HYATT EVER MENTION THAT WHILE DEMANDING TO THE END THAT PEOPLE "PREPARE" (preferably by buying his dried food)??

**NEVER**.

YOURDON. ........IF YOURDON WAS AN I.T. EXPERT and an insider, he HAD TO HAVE KNOWN OF THE PROGRESS THAT WAS DONE AND THE "general opinion" INSIDE CORPS. about Y2k. HE ***REPEATED** his early 1998 views to the end.

NO MATTER HOW MANY OF THE PROPOSED Y2k PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPENED OR "CRITICAL DATES" PASSED OR MYTHS WERE DEBUNKED OR DEMANDS FOR CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF "EMBEDDED FAILURES" WENT UNMET,,,,,,,,THE DOOM AND PESSIMISM SQUADS,...............IGNORED IT ALL.........

TO THIS DAY

Above you find the standard "repeats" of the Y2k Holy Scriptures. "Not the odds, its the stakes", "prepare for the worst and hope for the best", "it was prudent because it cost so little" (tell that to the Banking Industry that had to spend $100 million in P.R. material to prevent any runs by the Y2k Panic (which never materialized anyway much to Gary Duct Tape's sadness).

MORE "rationalizations" and "generalizations".

FIRST, my favorite, the idiot "Marbles in the Grand Canyon". Faced with actually having to clean all the marbles with a fixed deadline, anyone directing the project would hire sub-contractors with Pressure Washers, others with bull dozers and set up a proper production system for the mechanized, even automated cleaning of the marbles. That would never occur to a Lord Dumbo because he didn't want the possibility that ANY "enormous problem" could be fixed to enter his Sheeples' heads.

They did not want to. Faced with ANY evidence of success in Y2k work, they simply denied it mattered because of "all the rest that has to be done". PROOF? SIMPLE: time after time after the "critical dates" passed with NO EVIDENCE of "failures", the D&Ps simply 'changed the subject'.

The ultimate was the passing of the day which Yourdon claimed could not happen unless "pigs could fly". When the squadrons of Flying Piggies flew over head, the D&Pers never looked up. (Too complicated.)

THEN the CHANTING OF the Big Puppy and his playmate the SissyBoy would be picked up by the D&Pers:

"..........ITS NOT Y2K YET. THAT'S WHY ITS CALLED THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM. AND BY THE WAY, THE PURPOSE OF THIS FORUM IS TO HELP PEOPLE PREPARE, SO WHY ARE YOU HERE?"

ASKING THEM, "WHAT ARE YOU PREPARING FOR?" ENDED UP IN ENDLESS REPEATING OF THE FOUNDING "MANTRAS" OF THE Y2K KULT FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE 'SENATE REPORT', FEMA, EVEN THE FALSE PROPHET DUCT TAPE.

-- Doomzies-Be-Them (DoomzieDeBunking@TB2000uNCola.com), October 03, 2000.

OK, then always play the odds, no matter what. If you can convince yourself that the odds are better than 50-50, go for it, hang the consequences, no matter how severe.

It's appropriate that we're in the fall season, since this straw man of yours would make a fine scarecrow.

I never said anything about "going for it" if the odds were "better than 50-50." Indeed, if I felt there was a 50-50 chance of Y2K disruptions requiring extensive preps, I would have prepped. As it was, I felt the chances were far slimmer than that, certainly less likely than my getting into a car accident on the way to CostCo or Sam's Club or whatever.

As I said, if you really felt that it was always the stakes and never the odds, you'd never leave the house. In reality, you make decisions based on odds every day, whether you like it or not.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

BUT......some DID learn:

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/1588/1/1.html

Date: Oct 22, 02:45

From: Robert

Seriously, if not for cpr and a few other level headed and concerned people here i would most likely be living in a mobile home on high ground in the desert by now :).

When i first heard gary north talking about y2k on a net radio show(i am in australia) i have to admit i was scared silly.then i made the mistake of going to his site!

With a wife and 3 kids to think about i started making preperations..the usual,food water fuel..and was seriously considering moving.

Please understand that there is not alot of talk about y2k here,the media hardly ever mentions it so i was very uninformed, just ripe for garys scare tactics.

After visiting garys links i was more ready than ever to sell up and get out of town..just in case.By chance i lost garys url from my favourites menu so i did a search for gary north..thats how i found this forum,at first i thought you were all stupid or something, i mean i figured gary was like the messiah or something and you guys were just attacking him for fun.

boy,was i wrong!

After reading more and more posts and checking out the post's and links provided by cpr i started to realise(slowly at first) that i had been sucked in by this religious fanatic north.

And after visiting some of the survival sites on the net ..the patriots..hmmm..i realised how big and scary this whole thing is.its not y2k we have to be wary of so much as its the doomers and the threat that they and their leaders like north pose on society.

So, in closing (and i know i have rambled on a bit)..i would like to sinceirly thank cpr for saving me and my family from the millenium madness :).

I do expect some bumps in the road with y2k but i am confident that the few weeks of supplys i allready have bought will be more than enough to ride out any hiccups.

thanks again mate.

Robert

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), October 03, 2000.

Peter:

There you go again. Computerization=banks. Nothing else matters, right? Yet we read repeatedly about the major remediation that was being done in banks, about interbank testing, international settlements testing, etc. It was clear to anyone not doggedly determined to believe otherwise, that banking was NOT going to be the source of whatever ailments required preparations.

We are trying to address the question of how pervasively computerization has penetrated an economy, to assess overall risk faced by that economy. And you select easily the most computerized (and remediated and tested) element of almost every economy, ignore the rest, and claim that *I* present an unbalanced picture. Uh huh.

KOS:

I have to laugh. Consistently, the optimists have been claiming the truth was out there, everyone saw it who wasn't blind by choice, and that it took real determination and imagination to fabricate the y2k boogyman in the face of NO problems at ANY time.

And consistently, the pessimists claim that it was a pure guess, like roulette, that sufficient information was not to be had, and that the optimists simply guessed right, showing more luck than brains.

I never had more information than you did. I spent a couple of years here NOT being an optimist, but rather pointing out the essential dishonesty of the Doomy position. How many times did I nail a "Heads I win, tails you lose" argument? How many times did I point out that the Doomer position was based on a self-serving interpretation of carefully selected information?

I never had to do any research at all to see that your *method* was not honest, not consistent, not rational, not logical, and not based on the information available to you. Rather, your information was nothing but a reflection of your foregone conclusions.

This is NOT luck, KOS. The risk was in your imagination, and required the application of every known rule of disinformation to maintain.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 03, 2000.

Flint:

You have totally misinterpreted my point. When I talk about the modern sector of an economy, I am not just talking about banking. I am talking about manufacturing and the other activities that comprise a modern economy.

Only my first point ("A bank is a bank") is just about banking.

Regarding banking, you act as if the great amount of good news about the banking sector that we got for the United States was coming in for the entire world. It was not.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 03, 2000.

KOS, you point to how some projects are run but not all. Mine are not run that way. This is not the method taught by PMI (Project Management Institute). I pointed out long ago on the old forum that Y2K was not a project but a maintenance effort. I remember Hardliner trying to counter that with some garbage that the rest of the doomers ate up. To answer the question, doomers wanted (really wanted) to believe in the end.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 03, 2000.

Gawd. Let me give you the short summary:

There was a lot of uncertainty. Some people, like me, decided to play it safe. Others didn't. We all came through Y2K just fine. End of story.

(Well, except for CPR, who stupidly and needlessly threw his realtor biz down the tubes, losing $200K in the process, so that he could fight the "***DOOMZIES***" full-time, and now has nothing whatsoever to show for it. I mean, hey, at least I've got a low grocery bill as I chomp through my stored food. I wonder if that Australian dude knew about CPR's response to Y2K? I'm sure that would have really impressed him!)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 03, 2000.

Peter:

What can I possibly say? I've spoken at some length about different attitudes toward y2k in different parts of the world. Most of the world had no particularly deep concern about y2k -- it was a maintenance task performed as part of business as usual. They didn't publicize their maintenance any more than your employer or my employer publicizes ours.

Imagine the headlines -- "No Serious Bugs Strike Manufacturing Sector for 30,000th Straight Day!" Peter, that's not how the news is reported. No news is good news. That's a cliche, a truism about news reporting since the first broadside.

So you're right, we didn't get any "good news" from the rest of the world. We didn't get any bad news either. Business as usual is NOT news of ANY kind. I don't see you running around in circles screaming because foreign newspapers are *failing to report* that the aliens are *not* landing. Yet you became extremely concerned because foreign sources were *failing to report* that their banks and manufacturers were *not* suffering any unusual problems. How very inconsistent of you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 03, 2000.

What the "experts" knew about Y2K as of November, 1999.

http://www.businesstoday.com/techpages/y2kchronic11051999.htm

U.S. Y2K adviser terms glitch chronic

Reuters

Friday, November 5, 1999

President Clinton's chief adviser on the Year 2000 technology glitch warned the nation Thursday that Jan. 1 would not mark the end of Y2K- related concerns.

At the same time, a working group led by the Treasury Department voiced concerns about the Y2K readiness of key public and private institutions and the infrastructure of many countries including China, India, Russia.

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets cited concerns about small- to medium-sized enterprises worldwide, including in the United States, and about ``the financial sector in several small European markets'' that it did not name.

``One risk is the potential for a 'domino' systemic effect brought about by significant disruptions to these groups because of the Y2K rollover,'' said the working group, which consists of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Many of the countries that are least prepared for the Year 2000 are important energy exporters, said the report, prepared at the request of Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee.

ENERGY EXPORTERS THREATENED

``Any significant disruptions from the century date changeover that impact (the energy) industry locally could have a negative impact on the U.S. and global economies,'' the report said.

It cited Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Turkmenistan, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Angola, and Colombia as among energy exporters that ``may experience disruptions tied to Year 2000.''

John Koskinen, Clinton's Y2K czar, told Congress that one of the most troubling Y2K myths ``is the notion that January 1 is a seminal date on which everything, or nothing, Y2K-related will occur.''

In testimony to a joint hearing of House of Representatives subcommittees, Koskinen said Y2K problems ``can happen any time a computer that is not Y2K-compliant comes into contact with a Year 2000 date -- before or after January 1.''

Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 conversion, said experts would have to monitor automated systems ``well into the new year for flaws in billing and financial cycles and possible slow degradations in service.''

``So I think it is important for the public to know that January 1 is just one of the important dates in the life of the Y2K issue,'' he said.

Koskinen said basic U.S. infrastructure was ready for Jan. 1, when unprepared computers could crash if they misread the last two zeros in the date field and mistake 2000 for 1900.

U.S. PERFECTION IMPOSSIBLE

But not every system will be fixed in time, ``and no amount of testing can ensure perfection,'' he said. He noted that a few federal agencies encountered glitches -- even in systems that had been fixed and tested -- when fiscal 2000 began on Oct. 1.

``We also expect failures in sectors where large numbers of organizations were late in starting or, even more troubling, are taking a wait-and-see approach,'' Koskinen said.

In separate testimony before the House panels, J. Patrick Campbell, chief operating officer of the Nasdaq stock market, disclosed plans for a public relations blitz designed to prevent any panic sell-offs as 2000 approaches.

The securities industry is taking out ads in major daily newspapers -- including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times -- in the next few weeks to ``separate Y2K fact from fiction,'' he said.

The text of the ad call on investors to ``stay invested for the long term,'' adding: ``We believe the market will continue to reward prudent investors with the patience to stick to sound investments over time.''

-- What (was@known.then), October 03, 2000.

Gawd. Let me give you the short summary:

There was a lot of uncertainty. Some people, like me, decided to play it safe. Others didn't. We all came through Y2K just fine. End of story.

Here's a different summary. Some people saw a lot of uncertainty. Other people didn't. Those who saw uncertainty "played it safe." Those who didn't had nothing to "play it safe" for. We all came through Y2K just fine. End of story.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

I put this on another thread but it fits here too.

In the US, an indifference toward scientific understanding is almost considered a badge of honor. - Norman Augustine (Science, Mar. 13, 1998)

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

Why didnt the doomers believe the Powers That Be regarding Y2K?

The two rules of government:

1) Never tell the people the truth about anything. They can't handle it. Spin, twist and dodge, but NEVER tell the truth.

2) If the public ever stumbles upon the truth, refer to rule 1.

Nuff said.

-- no one here (-@-.-), October 03, 2000.

There was a lot of uncertainty. Some people, like me, decided to play it safe. Others didn't.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If Y2K had really been the looming disaster it was hyped to be, would hoarding food and supplies be the correct response? I think not.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 03, 2000.

KOS, why did you post the question when you knew the answer all along?

There was a lot of uncertainty. Well duh! The future IS uncertain. How profound of you your royal highness!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 03, 2000.

Flint, as I and others have pointed out countless times, what we got from Reuters et. al. regarding many countries was not no news about Y2K, but seemingly very bad news.

And also your continual theme that computers just aren't all that important in the developing world is just plain wrong. The developing world is a continuum ranging from countries where nothing much matters to countries where I think they are close to graduating out of the "developing" category. You can't legitimately make the kind of blanket statements that you make.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 03, 2000.

A typical cautionary news item about Y2K and a developing country from May of 1999.

Indonesian banks eye survival, not bug

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

-- (Y2K@in.1999), October 03, 2000.

What an interesting thread.

I'd just like to add a small clarification regarding the theme of risk vs. stakes on the old board. I felt that way myself.

however

The idea was not that all risks are the same or that all are unknowable. The parallel with the risk of driving a car is weak. We have a good idea how to quantify that risk due to lots of history. That risk-assesment approach was hard to apply to Y2K due to many of the reasons mentioned in the Y2K Committee's final report quoted above.

What I (and many others) said was: "If you can't calculate the risks, act upon the stakes." I wasn't able to make a reliable estimate of the possible impact on my family, so I took reasonable precautions a year in advance.

Could I have estimated the risk better at that early date? Hard to say. I'm as capable of self delusion as anyone else. And I've seen enough government and corporate deceit to make me suspicious of soothing pronouncements. I was very influenced, (perhaps too much so), by the Perception Management aspect of Y2K described these items here, and here. And this surprisingly ambivelent editorial by one of those apparently familiar with the "spin" campaign also troubled me.

In any case, I recomend the editorial mentioned above. Here's an illustrative quote:

"...I ask you to read the thoughtful essays in this special edition of iMP at your own peril. Not because you will be subjected to horrific scenes of an apocalyptic millennial nightmare wrought by our dependence on an invisible technology. Not because you will know what will happen when the clocks strike midnight across the world this New Year's Eve. But because you won't know. Because the fault will lie not in our stars, but in ourselves. This collection of essays aims to focus on what Y2K says about us, as individuals, as a society, and as a small world of unmet neighbors. Some of your insights gained may be difficult to accept. "...

Mrs. Calabash says "Hi", King. ;-)

-- (Lewis@Narnia.GeneralDelivery), October 03, 2000.

What I (and many others) said was: "If you can't calculate the risks, act upon the stakes."

The only version of the phrase that I ever saw was the short version, "It's not the odds, it's the STAKES." What's really interesting, though, is that this didn't become a popular catchphrase until late 1999, when most or all of the so-called "critical dates" had passed without incident and many businesses and industries were reporting Y2K compliance. Indeed, it was becoming more and more clear at the time what the odds really were.

I wasn't able to make a reliable estimate of the possible impact on my family, so I took reasonable precautions a year in advance.

And that's fine, however other people were able to make a reliable estimate of the possible impact and, as a result of their estimate, calculated that the risks were low enough as to be inconsequential. So inconsequential, in fact, that a parallel to "driving a car" made perfect sense.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

{ Lewis - Good to see you surfacing }

-- flora (***@__._), October 03, 2000.

To Flint:

I gathered from one of your posts some months ago that your views on the developing world were shaped to some degree by time you had spent there. What country (countries) and when was it?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 03, 2000.

And that's fine, however other people were able to make a reliable estimate of the possible impact and, as a result of their estimate, calculated that the risks were low enough as to be inconsequential.

That may have been true about the possibility of TEOTWAWKI in the United States because the chances of the power grid going down and staying down were very small after the work we knew had been done by late 1999. On the other hand, the idea that there might be some significant problems in the U.S. or abroad that could have an impact never went away before the rollover.

-- Risk management (planning@was.prudent), October 03, 2000.

On the other hand, the idea that there might be some significant problems in the U.S. or abroad that could have an impact never went away before the rollover.

The "idea" never went away and still hasn't gone away. However, some have calculated that the odds of this "idea" becoming reality were so small as to be inconsequential.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 03, 2000.

Y2K as of December, 1999.

http://www.computeruser.com/newstoday/99/12/21/news15.html

Factories To Halt For Y2K

By Martin Stone, Newsbytes.

December 21, 1999

Many manufacturing plants worldwide will temporarily halt or scale back operations on New Year's Eve as a final safeguard against potential Year 2000 computer glitches, according to a news report today.

An article in the Wall Street Journal said that although US industries have spent an estimated $5 billion testing and making their computers compliant, mills and plants dealing with explosive chemicals and super-hot metals can be among the most dangerous places when something goes wrong.

The Journal quotes D. John Armstrong, a U.S. Steel Group Executive [NYSE:X] as saying, "We aren't worried, but we want to be sure. That's why U.S. Steel will suspend operations at its steelmaking facilities before midnight Dec. 31 and resume them sometime the next day."

According to the report, U.S. Steel's Mon Valley Works' blast furnace and some other related machinery will be shut down eight hours before the end of 1999. Crews will empty hot metal out of the furnace, and then inject steam to suspend the melting operation. The furnace must remain hot throughout or it will be damaged, the report said.

Some Japanese steelmakers, such as Nippon Steel Corp. {OTC:NISTF], Kobe Steel Ltd. [OTC:KBSTY], and Kawasaki Steel Corp., also reportedly have plans to halt several of their blast furnaces before midnight.

The Journal noted that this New Year's Day poses a particular burden on companies that operate 24 hours a day because shut-downs could damage millions of dollars' worth of equipment.

The report stated that International Paper Co. [NYSE:IP] will continue operations although some US lines may be slowed down, but the company will "lock down" its two huge mills in Kwidzyn, Poland, and Svetogorsk, Russia, due to Year 2000 uncertainties.

Many industries said their greatest concern is with suppliers, such as power companies and water providers, the report said.

Railroads that supply materials and goods to the plants and mills are also taking precautions. Union Pacific Corp. [NYSE:UNP], will stop trains New Year's Eve while the company tests the signal systems in each of its three time zones. Once verified, Union Pacific said it will resume operations starting with commuter trains in Chicago, followed by Amtrak trains, then freights. Norfolk Southern Corp. [NYSE:NSC] reported that it plans to suspend all freight trains before midnight on Dec. 31 and early New Year's Day, resuming normal operations by 7 a.m. on Jan. 2.

Reported by Newsbytes.com

-- Y2K as (of@December.1999), October 03, 2000.

I don't mean to split hairs, hmmm, but you may have misunderstood me. "If you can't calculate the risks, act upon the stakes." simply describes the approach to Y2K I and many others used from very early on. The first time I remember seeing it widely used as a "catch- phrase" was around the time of Ed Yourdon's Senate testimony (July 1999?)

I agree that there were more positive data available in the second half of last year, but to be truthful, I found much of it hard to believe in light of very dire assesments of those same entities from only a year (or less), earlier.

It reminded me of that Gary Larson cartoon of a scientist before a blackboard. He has just written a very complex equation across the top, then a very lengthy solution across the bottom. In the middle he has written "and then a miracle happens". His watching colleagues helpfully suggest that he work on the second part a little. 8-)

And the assessments of the readiness of foreign countries never did get very complete. (We apparently hadn't the slightest idea how China would fare, for example.)

I never really thought that TEOTWAKI was a real possibility unless Y2K sparked enough instability to cause War. Many assumed that "hidden interdependencies will cause cascading catastrophic failures", but if one assumes there are hidden interdependencies, mustn't there also be hidden redundancies? I did feel that economic and social disruption were a very real possibility. So did the powers that be. (I'd love to know how much the Perception Management cost.)

Hi flora, hope you've been well.

-- (Lewis@Narnia.GeneralDelivery), October 03, 2000.

"I agree that there were more positive data available in the second half of last year, but to be truthful, I found much of it hard to believe in light of very dire assesments of those same entities from only a year (or less), earlier. "

Divine Bovine, King! I have inadvertently strayed back on topic!

a Thousand Pardons...

-- (Lewis@yada.yada), October 03, 2000.

Lewis:

Gawd!! I remember Mrs. Calabash -- six feet tall, 200 pounds of solid muscle, the 36" ruler of solid oak that she wielded as a club, the brutality of it all!... Oh, wait, you mean Mrs. Calabash of Jim Lord's Navy Report fame. Sorry, I was thinking back to my 3rd grade class.

Anyway, am happy to see your terrific contributions! Welcome.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 03, 2000.

Is that the same Mrs. Calabash that Jimmey Durrante use to refer to?

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

I'm late on this thread, but better late than never. I'm not here to debate, but just insert my 2 bit of relatively newly found common sense.

The only remaining question is, can such people learn from their mistakes? And once again the answer is, not until they can recognize those mistakes. Which remains quite beyond the dimmer bulbs, though pessimists with a bit more wattage have done some useful introspection." -- Flint

Flint's comment is a great example of binary thinking. Since the pollies called it "right", and the doomers called it "wrong", the assumption is that the doomers' logic was flawed and contained mistakes. Mistakes that should be learned from and applied to avoid falling into a similar pitfall "next time".KoS

Flints statement is right on the mark, KoS, because he did not specifically mention doomers or pollies. His statement is not binary thinking because Flint has stated before (I believe, correct me if Im wrong Flint) that some pollies called the turnover right for the wrong reasons (dumb luck). That implies hes encompassing a lot of shades of gray in the spectrum between black/white, pollies/doomers. And Hmms argument is that the pollies who called it right for the  right- reasons knew it was about the odds, not the stakes, when those odds were overwhelmingly demonstrative that catastrophes would not happen. As pointed out many times before, those facts were there, we just didn't see them or chose to ignore them. I was a doomer until the end, hiding under my desk, because I did not UNDERSTAND and GRASP what the pollies who called it right for the right reasons were driving at. I was blinded by the OVERPOWERING argument for the STAKES that took place on TB2K. I was making excuses left and right and distorted logic to DELUDE myself that that argument was right, and that nobody could know (when in reality some people knew and tried to get through to us).

When I finally calmed down and got out from under my desk, I started listening carefully (and pondering!) to Flint, Ken and many other pollies who called it right or close to right (yes even CPR!). Ive been doing this for the past 9 months. Now I see the same circular logic and thinking in die-hard doomers that got us wrong to begin with. If were to learn why we felt Y2K would be more than a BITR and were so far out wrong in general, then we must clear out minds and let go of this same circular logic, and try a new way of thinking. And be willing to listen to those who were right. For that to happen though, one must also be willing to let go of ones friggin EGO. That means starting by admitting I was wrong and not find excuses or repeat same circular logic as excuses. But some people have an ego to PROTECT, because dismantling it that far would CRUSH them. AND some people who were right about Y2K also have that SAME friggin ego to protect when trying to get through to them on other issues. They are LUCKY to be right on y2k on THIS forum, they at least have that to HANG ON TO for their friggin egos.

Ive let go of my ego, and I feel MUCH smarter than last year. Flint doesnt have to point me out as an example of a y2k doomer with a bit more wattage, I KNOW Im smarter. Because I LEARN from my MISTAKES.

And I didnt even sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 03, 2000.

Why didnt the doomers believe the Powers That Be regarding Y2K?

I never was what I would call a 'doomer' but I'll answer this question because I did think some amount of preps or planning for y2k was a good idea.

In January of 1999, between the October 1998 House report on y2k and the first Senate report on y2k, I happened to read an article about possible plans by the government to use a public-relations firm to calm the public about y2k.

This was at a time when the news about y2k wasn't encouraging yet.

I also was calling the old TB2000 forum in January 1999. That January, a large group of y2k 'optimists' suddenly started posting messages on TB2000, often anonymously. They didn't really have good news about progress on y2k, but they did ask many questions about whether Ed Yourdon was a y2k expert or whether those posting on the forum had computer backgrounds.

The flame wars started soon after that. The January 1999 newcomers had a very different opinion about the need for y2k awareness from the other people on the forum that had already been calling it for 12 months.

The Wired article about the PR firm, and also the new flame wars, made me realize I was going to have to dig deep and look for as much information about y2k from reliable sources as I could find if I really wanted to get an idea on what was happening. Press releases turned into news articles were not my idea of the best information I could find. I based some of what I thought were potential problems not on what the government said in press releases for the general public, but on what government officials said to other government officials during hearings in 1999.

I also looked at not only what corporations said in their SEC filings, but also at the kind of contingency plans they were making. The outlook on y2k was noticeably better at the end of 1999 than the beginning of it, but uncertainty lingered about y2k's potential impact on the economy and global supply chains. The Senate's second report in September 1999 was more optimistic about y2k than the first, but on the other hand it didn't encourage the kind of complacency about y2k encouraged by y2k debunkers on the Net.

I have my theories about the reasons y2k's outcome was as uneventful as it was, but I don't think any of us are ever going to be able to know for certain. But I think it's safe to say the answer to why the rollover went so well falls somewhere on a continuum between "what really needed to be fixed did get fixed" and "it really didn't even need to be fixed."

The rub is trying to figure out on which side of the continuum the answer is closest.

-- Aye, (that's@the.rub), October 04, 2000.

One of those URLs up above doesn't work. Go here if you're curious about what the first Senate report said in February 1999.

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/report/index.html

-- Aye, (that's@the.rub), October 04, 2000.

smarty:

Regardless of whether Flint actually used the terminology of doomers and pollies, the fact is that he espouses binary thinking -- you were either right or you were wrong regarding Y2K. Either you expected a bump-in-the-road or less, and were RIGHT, or you expected something more, and were WRONG. Actually, I dont mind the use of this over simplified terminology per se, and for that matter I dont mind owning up to (happily) being WRONG about Y2K.

What I object to is equating this either-or/right-wrong mentality to the issue of Y2K personal preparation. I dont know how to make it any simpler:

1) There was a lot of conflicting information, EVEN DURING 1999, on what to expect from the Y2K computer glitch. Much of it, especially as we got closer to the deadline, tended to be good news, but much of it also pointed to bad news. (If someone wants to waste yet more thread space by posting the same old tired Senate reports, Navy Report, news articles regarding Y2K Crisis Centers, IEEE paper regarding embedded systems, National Guard maneuvers, etc., etc., go ahead. But honestly, we have seen it all before, numerous times, and it will add little of substance to this thread.)

2) Recognizing that there was much disagreement among those supposedly in the know, and that there COULD be problems, it made sense to take action while one could. Stocking up items that you would be using anyway, while supplies were plentiful, was logical, rational and prudent. It would allow you to avoid contending with others in the event of scarcity. It would allow you to help others. It was a way of playing it safe. It was an insurance policy. It minimized your risk.

3) Nobody knew what was going to happen. Nobody. Everyone took a guess, based on what they knew or thought they knew and placed their bets. In effect, some people bet EVERYTHING they had that Y2K was going to be a small event, and came out ahead. Some people, like me, placed a RELATIVELY SMALL bet that Y2K was going to turn out to be a big event, and lost. (Thus the expression often heard in 1999, I can afford to be wrong about Y2K -- can you?.)

Just what have you really learned, that you would apply differently, so as to not again make a mistake? Do you now feel that, given a complex technical issue with conflicting authoritative reports as to what extent there might be serious consequences to you and your family, you would be able to reach the right conclusion, and be able to bet everything accordingly? Doesnt it make more sense to simply follow a course that will always assure that you will come out in good shape, regardless of how bad (or good) things turn out?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

Aye:

Our postings crossed; at the time that I wrote mine, I didn't know anyone was going to dredge up the Senate reports (though I somehow knew someone was probably going to). Anyway, you certainly verified some of the points I was trying to make in my post to smarty.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

Hi Engineer, yes, I was referring to Jimmy Durante's Mrs. Calabash. It was an offhand comment I put in one of the Navy report posts. You had to be there...;-)

Aye wrote:

"...In January of 1999, between the October 1998 House report on y2k and the first Senate report on y2k, I happened to read an article about possible plans by the government to use a public-relations firm to calm the public about y2k.

This was at a time when the news about y2k wasn't encouraging yet.

I also was calling the old TB2000 forum in January 1999. That January, a large group of y2k 'optimists' suddenly started posting messages on TB2000, often anonymously. They didn't really have good news about progress on y2k, but they did ask many questions about whether Ed Yourdon was a y2k expert or whether those posting on the forum had computer backgrounds. "...

January....Interesting timing. Yes, I sound like a raving conpiracy theorist, but go back and read the links I posted above describing the Rendon group and how they do business. (You may feel a powerful urge to wash your hands afterwards...)

I don't think any of the "pollies" who regularly (and bravely) posted under their own names were on anyone's payroll, but there alot of pseudonymous optimist posts suddenly starting around then.

And thanks for the link to the Wired article, folks. I don't how, but I don't think I ever saw that before.) I spent a fair amount of time trying to find out about the Working Group's activities, but never did. I have no talent as a Cracker.....

Everyone dealt with Y2K according to their level of comfort. If your world view made you more likely to expect problems, you took precautions. If you think the Good Guys always win in the end, you didn't. Each perspective could not fully appreciate the other's point of view.

I've been thinking about an analogous hypothetical situation, but I'm not sure if it's a fair comparison. I don't think this is at all original, but bear with me. Comments welcome.

A small group of qualified independent astronomers announce that they have discovered an incoming hitherto unknown comet. They say it will pass Earth within the orbit of the moon in about 14 months. (MUCH to close for comfort.) Another perhaps larger group of "established" astronomers and NASA say it will miss us by many millions of miles. They each roll out cubic yards of analyis and documentation which almost no one outside that community can understand.

How should a reasonable person react at the time of the announcement? Is there a "right" way?

-- (Lewis@Narnia.GeneralDelivery), October 04, 2000.

"Why didn't the doomers believe the Powers That Be regarding Y2K?"

I was a Y2K doomer. (wow -- sounds like a fifties' sci-fi movie title -- don't it?)

For me, "The Powers That Be" were really "People I Honestly Thought Were 'In The Know' Based On My Extremely Limited Time To Learn and Understand The Situation, and Whose Opinions Were All Over The Map."

In THIS context, I became a doomer precisely BECAUSE I estimated the opinions of "The Powers That Be (as defined above)," as more or less reasonable to various degrees, taking into consideration other contextual factors, such as their reputation (e.g., the IEEE, in my view, was reputable), whether their position made sense to me, my knowledge (e.g., of economics), etc.

And I don't think I had a predisposition for "doomerism" because I'd not only never been a doomer before or since, but an optimist for most of my life -- so it's practically impossible for me to accept that as a psychological factor in my case.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

"Why didnt the doomers believe the Powers That Be regarding Y2K?"

Because they all part of the conspiracy ya know.

Does a Doomer learn? Course not, now some of them are lining up behind that famous Polly Harry Browne, go figure.

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

KOS:

I'm starting to doubt that communication is even possible between us.

First, this was never a right/wrong issue. I agree that there was conflicting information (but the *amount* of conflict was systematically exaggerated by the inherently dishonest doomer method of analysis). I agree nobody can guarantee the future. I agree that it made sense to take steps to ameliorate any temporary shortages or scrambled records. I agree that at best we could only estimate ("guess") the amount of y2k impact we might experience.

But this does NOT mean that our guesses were totally uninformed, based on ZERO data, and therefore any guess was as good as any other! Let's say there were 500 beans in the jar. Guessing 600 is pretty good. If you're conservative, a guess of 1000 beans "will always assure that you will come out in good shape." But the doomies pre- rollover were consistently attacking anyone who "guessed" there were fewer than a MILLION beans in there. Predicted impacts had been elevated to absurd levels.

And sure enough, here you are *refusing* to recognize any distinction between reasonably cautious and WAY OVERBOARD PARANOID. You write "Nobody knew what was going to happen. Nobody. Everyone took a guess..." and this is true. What we've been trying as hard as we can to get through to you is that this "guess" was, in reality, a very well-informed guess, *provided* you chose to inform yourself.

Instead, from my perspective, you and many like you chose to "inform" yourselves by sticking your fingers in your ears, scrunching your eyes tight shut, and screaming about shills and coverups. And when nothing happens, then you get all disingenuos and say "Gee, nobody knew." Nobody could know the exact details, and nobody would have been astonished by a decent smattering of date bug screwups either. But a guess of 600 beans isn't "the same" as a guess of 6,000,000 beans simply because both are "guesses" and both are "wrong".

Lewis:

I probably couldn't understand your astronomers' techinical data either. However, I'd be a bit suspicious if all of the close-approach astronomers just happen to be selling comet survival material. I'd be even MORE suspicious if they predicted the comet would be clearly visible to the naked eye a year before it struck, and then changed their tune and claimed it was invisible but would STILL strike after nobody could see it. And I'd be terminally suspicious by the time a whole army of skywatchers could see nothing, and the ONLY "support" for the original group devolved into "nobody can PROVE there's no invisible comet coming."

At the time of the "original announcement" I took it seriously and prepared diligently. After that, it became a question of whether we could learn as the data poured in. Most could, and lost interest. A few grasped the original announcement as gospel and defended it against the emerging reality with blind fervor. And as KOS is busy illustrating, some of these people are rewriting history.

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

"I'm starting to doubt that communication is even possible between us." -- Flint

What do you mean by that?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 04, 2000.

"Just what have you really learned, that you would apply differently, so as to not again make a mistake? Do you now feel that, given a complex technical issue with conflicting authoritative reports as to what extent there might be serious consequences to you and your family, you would be able to reach the right conclusion, and be able to bet everything accordingly? Doesnt it make more sense to simply follow a course that will always assure that you will come out in good shape, regardless of how bad (or good) things turn out?"--KoS

As I said, I didn't come here to get into yet another long debate, I've done that in the past about y2k already. Just wanted to point out that your circular logic is what prevents you from understanding what Flint is driving at. Like "nobody knew".

What we perceive as the unknown causes fear in us. Fear clouds judgement. Clouded judgement prevents us from percieving -reality-. See the loop?

I learned that I thrived on the FUD at TB2K, instead of balancing my (wasted) internet time on "polly" forums as well. My (weak?) excuse for that is that I didn't find an appropriate one, DeBunkie et al were not my cup of tea to find rational balance. Simply put, Ed Yourdon appeared more rational and professional (and his forum by extention) than CPR's. Way more. In looking back, when I pried myself away from TB2K for 2 weeks or more, I came back refreshed and much less fearful, able to view the debates with a more impartial eye. But after a few days of returning, I went from 3-4 or less to 7-8 again. And all this time I thought I was immune to subliminal suggestivity (if that's a term.)

I read the same things you did, the government reports, the IEEE, DeJager, Yardeni, Gartner, etc. etc. DeJager made good sense when he turned around and said the bug was tamed and there were no reason to prepare for more than a BITR. But the paranoids on TB2K, who were smart and could write sensically but still they were paranoid, drew me in their paranoia and I started to doubt DeJager. I started to believe what those paranoids (which I didn't see as paranoid then), that DeJager had to be silenced and paid by the gov. etc. Paranoia is insiduous, I found out. So it's not been a total waste, I've had a good learning experience. I hope I've learned enough not to repeat those thinking mistakes. Life's too short to waste it on doom and gloom, no matter how wealthy one is and can spare on preps.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 04, 2000.

A small group of qualified independent astronomers announce that they have discovered an incoming hitherto unknown comet. They say it will pass Earth within the orbit of the moon in about 14 months. (MUCH to close for comfort.) Another perhaps larger group of "established" astronomers and NASA say it will miss us by many millions of miles. They each roll out cubic yards of analyis and documentation which almost no one outside that community can understand.

How should a reasonable person react at the time of the announcement? Is there a "right" way?

-- (Lewis@Narnia.GeneralDelivery)

Lewis, This is hardly a fair analogy as the result of a comet impact (of the size that this would be) would be either total disaster which no-one can do anything about, or a total non event. Y2K however had a whole range of possible effects depending on just who you chose to believe. There was little evidence that there would be any major disruption due to Y2K failures, and generally where Y2K issues were identified they were also fixed. The main concerns I had were the systems or applications that we had not identified, and their possible effects. To relate to your comet analogy these issues are like the earth passing through a shower of small meteorites rather than being hit by one large comet. Some meteorites may impact with the earth, but most are harmless.

Therefore in your comet scenario, a reasonable person would not react at all, other than possibly try to assess which side had the correct calculations. They can do this rather easily by waiting two months, as twelve months prior to the point of passage the trajectory has had a further two months of tracking and analysis, and at a point exactly one revolution (365.24 days) from passage it will possible to determine much more accurately if an impact is likely.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), October 04, 2000.

smarty:

It wasn't all that subliminal. You write "I read the same things you did, the government reports, the IEEE, DeJager, Yardeni, Gartner, etc. etc."

But think back about this for a moment. Just which government reports did you read? The thumpingly repetitive reports that government remediation was on schedule, and 99% complete? THOSE reports were mentioned only when an evil polly brought them up, and then roundly dismissed as lies and spin. Indeed, TB2K treatment of the government was a farce -- ALL the good news was lies, while EVERY concern that something bad might happen was repeated ad nauseum as "proof" that things would be bad. After all, *the government* said so, so how can you doubt it?

The only mention of IEEE I saw here concerned Dale Way's lobbying effort on behalf of legal protection for the industry. I'm willing to bet you didn't read ANYTHING else from the IEEE, for the simple reason that they had nothing else pessimistic to say, and everything optimistic they said wasn't considered worth bringing to the forum.

Literally DOZENS of economists addressed y2k, and only ONE of them saw cause for alarm. And sure enough, he is the ONLY economist you mention. Was any other economist mentioned on the forum? Of course not -- the rest were all "clueless", so why bother with them.

Of course, Gartner was making a good deal of its living remediating code, and deJager was making his ENTIRE living giving y2k speeches. Would you expect these people to be objective? Nearly every commentator considered noteworthy on TB2K was selling books or remediation services or survival gear, yet the only conflict of interest the doomies ever saw was the allegation that optimists must somehow be secretly on the payroll of the evil government (i.e., NOT the "reliable" government that saw potential problems).

The big picture was emphatically the enemy on the forum. Even the little picture became increasingly narrow as time passed and one dire prediction after another fell by the wayside and news reports from everywhere became overwhelmingly positive and the y2k radar screens remained dead blank. And so even today we have noted pessimists like Peter Errington saying "How could we possibly know?" and KOS saying "It was nothing but a guess."

The humor may be sublime, but the forum technique was as obvious as a pie in the face.

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

Flint says about me: "Even today we have noted pessimists like Peter Errington saying "how could we possibly know..."

Now Flint, do you think that is remotely fair? Someone who hasn't been following our recent discussions could conclude that I said that about TEOTWAWKI, or about remediation in the United States.

(OTOH, I'm sure that King of Spain joins me in thanking you for at least recognizing that our humor is indeed sublime.)

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 05, 2000.

Flint, give me some credit too here, I was dumb but not THAT dumb. I wasn't locked inside TB2K, with only the doomer pundit's views for "news and analysis". I went to IEEE's website, and every websites mentioned, both by pollies and doomers. I did my own independant research, as flawed as it was. I deleted my y2k bookmark folder this summer, it was a mile long.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 05, 2000.

No, smarty, from Flint's perspective it appears that you were a ***DOOMZIE***, under the spell of a CULT with it's ***DOOMZIE MIS- LEADERS***, with no capability whatsoever to make your own independent assessment and decisions. You were BRAINWASHED with FEAR- UNCERTAINTY-DOUBT.

Flint sounds more like CPR every day. He refuses to address any actual points of fact, just babbles about how doomers refused to listen and continue to refuse to listen. Yeah, Flint, real communicative.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 05, 2000.

Sorry KoS, this time around I think you're the one who refuses to listen.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 05, 2000.

smarty:

By your own admission, the bias was extreme. You said you didn't bother with (or even find?) the debunker websites, so the links you followed were provided HERE, which was as far from a representative sample as you could find anywhere outside of Gary North.

And some people here (I won't mention KOS) have testified that they pretty much ignored North's editorials and went straight to his links, so they were "objective" and read the actual source material. They never notice, even when it's pointed out, that North collected the most pessimistic links he could find anywhere. Even deJager's year2000.com news clippings site was running about 3-1 in favor of positive reports. Guess which one North chose to link to?

No, I'm not saying that you or Peter or Spain was being taken in by lies. These pessimistic stories provided eminently plausible speculations, and there really were a zillion date bugs that really did need to be repaired. But to get a balanced picture, you need to assign appropriate weight to ALL aspects. Dwelling exclusively on the negative (far in the minority) while rejecting or ignoring all the positive (in the large majority) is going to lead you WAY astray, *no matter how real* the negative bits are.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 05, 2000.

No, smarty, from Flint's perspective it appears that you were a ***DOOMZIE***, under the spell of a CULT with it's ***DOOMZIE MIS- LEADERS***, with no capability whatsoever to make your own independent assessment and decisions. You were BRAINWASHED with FEAR- UNCERTAINTY-DOUBT.

Flint sounds more like CPR every day.

Well, he certainly would if he actually said any of those things you attribute to him above. He hasn't, though. You just put those words in his mouth. That makes your statement just another straw man.

He refuses to address any actual points of fact, just babbles about how doomers refused to listen and continue to refuse to listen.

Perhaps you should point out the points of fact he supposedly "refuses to address." What I've seen so far indicates that he's responded to all of the points he addressed. Which ones did he miss?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 05, 2000.

that he's responded to all of the points he addressed.

Ooops, I meant to say that he's responded to all of the points you addressed.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 05, 2000.

Yup, when one of the doomers is caught putting words in someone else's mouth (so to speak) that's usually about where the thread ends. It was a common tactic in the old group last year, when we had those impartial censors to delete any objections. Hell, a lot of the time, they were the ones doing it.

It's pretty simple. Doomers predected TEOTWAWKI due to date related computer failures. TEOTWAWKI didn't happen. Doomers were wrong. They either evaluate why they got it wrong and learn from it, or they keep getting it wrong. So far, that seems to be the road that they have chosen.

No skin off my nose. In fact, when I'm bored, it's kinda fun to watch.

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), October 06, 2000.