http://pub38.ezboard.com/fdownstreamventurespetroleummarkets.showMessage?topicID=2672.topic
"..........Thats a good one. None of these problems are Y2k related.
If you dont agree with that last statement, prove it wrong and not with
sociology professors.
Why would anyone want to "punish" anyone who had a difference in understanding or opinion concerning what happened and what is happening? Why would anyone want to "punish" anyone for seeking the truth?
Registered User
(5/7/01 BR>Reply
Paula,
Its time to put up or shut up.
I've seen the challenge posted before and I've yet to see a viable retort: Give us the name of one knowledgable electronics engineer or similar individual with suitable expertise that can cite specifics or cite one incident that has been undisputably tied to Y2K. If you cant do this its time to give up the cause and go away. Your posts and experts above are downright pathetic. You post these long 'examples' of embedded or other y2k probs, most of which are pre-rollover. The rest are 1st quarter 2000. Show the followup that ties these probs to y2k!!!! Then we also have posted above a Professor of Social and Organizational Living that prob knows as much about embedded systems as I do, and a Nucleus Magazine article that makes no mention of Y2k. Seventeen months after the rollover, this is the best you can do???? Its all getting rather tedious.
The oil industry has had a spate of incidents caused primarily from running refining conversion units too hard & too long. I think our resident Oilpatch Hand used the analogy of running a car at 120 miles an hour for extended period. Thats a good one. None of these problems are Y2k related. If you dont agree with that last statement, prove it wrong and not with sociology professors. Its time to put up or shut up.
Ms. Gorden, "un-named" and "off-the-record" are becoming pretty damn old. Is it not time for these two sources' retirement? I find it hard to believe that not one soul has the courage to stand-up for what is right. That not one individual is willing to risk all, and speak the truth, if in fact there exists a real problem. This is especially so where people are possibly being injured, financially and otherwise.
The only evidence I would present in support of your contention is an excerpt from the final report of the Senate Special Committee On The Year 2000 Technology Problem. In their final report: Y2K Aftermath - Crisis Averted, Appendix II, Examples Of Y2K Glitches, the opening paragraph states:
"The full extent of Y2K problems will probably never be known because only a small fraction of the actual occurrences will be reported. There is no incentive for corporations or countries of the world to openly report computer problems. As with any internal problems, organizations will likely simply fix them and continue their operations unbeknownst to the general public. The problems listed below were compiled from a variety of public and private sources including news services. While the sources are considered to be reliable, the Committee was not able to verify each incident or specifically attribute it to Y2K."
Enough said.
JT8D.
To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them...--George Mason.
Registered User
(10:39:32 pm)
BR>Thanks so much for your very interesting comments. I had missed the quote from the Senate Committee Report. It is right in alignment with the statement I cited in my last posting above from the International Energy Agency's report of May 1999.
I think in our litigious society that it is quite understandable that few would come forward and risk losing their livelihood and their accumulated wealth for the sake of the truth, especially when so many people seem so totally disinterested in knowing what happened or what is happening now. Coming forward in today's climate opens a person to ridicule as well. There are few who would willingly open themselves to such treatment.
There is a possibility that information may be forthcoming in conjunction with litigation involving whistleblowers, although I know of know of no such case that focuses in a direct way on Y2K-related matters. The problem with whistleblowing cases is, however, is that the whistleblowers can get be so thoroughly discredited that what they say may be dismissed by the press as well as the public.
Another possibility is someone in government could conceivably come forward. The problem there is that no one that I have been able to identify in the Federal government has the expertise, continuing interest in the subject matter, and/or incentive to even explore the matter, let alone come forward. Certainly, no one that I know of in the Federal government is currently tasked to follow up on Y2K issues. Indeed, it has become politically incorrect to broach the subject in many quarters that I am aware of.
If there are those reading this that know otherwise, I hope that you will provide me contact information.
Thanks again,
Regards,
Paula Gordon
pgordon@erols.com
-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001