I was a former semi-active participant and very active lurker on the TimeBomb 2000 forum. I had pretty much bought into a level 5 or worse breakdown until Stephen, Paul, Cherri and others started to interject some sanity and question the doomers assumptions and conclusions. I think the turning point for me was when Paul Davis started going head-to-head with some of the chief doomers and simply used logic and experience to expose the unfounded fears. Little by little that really helped me to snap out of it!! I gradually downgraded my anticipations to a 1 and really enjoyed New Year's Eve instead of hiding in fear.

I just wanted to convey my thanks to all who helped to shine some light into that dark corner of the world. You probably helped a lot of us to wake-up and smell the coffee and you took a lot of grief in the process.

I decided to check back to the latest iteration of the TimeBomb forum that they have going and was utterly dumbfounded that they are still tracking Y2K bugs and failures and preparing for the end to occur any day now. It truly is amazing how easily fear and paranoia can become a trap.

Anyway, take care everyone.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Answers

Y2K was nothing but a lot of scaremongering by loonies and scammers. Just like this "Code Red" stuff that the tabloids are having a field day with.

David, sounds like you have seen the light and won't ever again be a victim of this kind of Internet paranoia (e.g., "NWO" crap) that seems to be so prevalent. Have a great day, Sir!

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2001

Good stuff David. Thanks.

If the "loonies and scammers" hadn't included our State Department, the Department of Commerce, the Naval War College and the brit's Parliment I could have bailed sooner. As the "key" '99 dates ticked off life got back to simple.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

... our State Department, the Department of Commerce, the Naval War College and the brit's Parliment ...


These are responsible government agencies, my friend, with the expertise to evaluate things like computer software viruses. It is what our tax dollars (or pounds) pay for. They are not loonies, they are not scammers.

The real "loonies and scammers" misunderstand, misinterpret, and misquote to promote their spins, which they weave all over the Internet. They have no professional qualifications whatsoever to evaluate anything!

Carlos, do you see the difference? Have a great day, Sir.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

No TK, Carlos has a VERY GOOD POINT.

Here is what you might consider. If these folks were the pillars of intelligence you think they are, why did they spend BILLIONS chasing ghosts? No question some things had to be addressed. Also no question a ton of taxdollars was flushed. But in the end, Y2k was the HOAX of the Century no matter how you add it up.

Even a non-techie dingbat like me figured that out.

But don't let me confuse you. If you want to believe Disneys'Goofy and Dumbo conspiring, and that your Federal Government run like a Swiss Timepiece, have at it.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

No TK, Carlos has a VERY GOOD POINT.

Here is what you might consider. If these folks were the pillars of intelligence you think they are, why did they spend BILLIONS chasing ghosts? No question some things had to be addressed. Also no question a ton of taxdollars was flushed. But in the end, Y2k was the HOAX of the Century no matter how you add it up.

OK, I obviously am not as well acquainted with all the aspects of the Y2K Bug as some here are. The point that I am trying to impress upon Carlos is that we have experts, funded by our tax dollars, who act responsibly by investigating and fixing things like this. (Much like we are seeing with the current "Code Red" alert, with free patches being offered for Microsoft 2000 and NT.) If you want to believe that the Government was deliberately concocting the Y2K Menace as some kind of elaborate hoax to deprive us of our right to liberty and pursuit of happiness, be my guest. But I put such an idea in the same arena as "The Government invented the AIDS virus" and other Internet nonsense.

Even a non-techie dingbat like me figured that out.

And that is my point, quite frankly: You are not qualified to figure out anything that is technical, and are in no position to be advising people like Carlos (or me). Personally, I'd rather listen to the responsible people that we charge with doing the job, then the Internet Peanut Gallery and it's goofy ideas on how to survive the latest NWO plots.


But don't let me confuse you. If you want to believe Disneys'Goofy and Dumbo conspiring, and that your Federal Government run like a Swiss Timepiece, have at it.

Of course, the Federal Government is not run perfectly, of course tax dollars get wasted, of course, of course, of course. But to conclude that there is some grandiose global conspiracy, being controlled by an evil, powerful elite, which comes up with fake emergencies such as Y2K and Code Red, is downright insane.


Doc, let me try to put it in a nutshell: There was a Y2K computer bug, it got fixed, it was no biggie. There is a "Code Red" computer virus, it is getting fixed, it also will prove to be no biggie. (And it's great to see Microsoft and the Govt working this as a team.)

Doc, I'm sure you have heard the saying, "You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you." But, reality check: They really are not out to get you. Have a good day.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

it got fixed

Nope but I can understand why you think it did. TK, it was a HOAX buddy, as in overblown nonsense, extrapolated donkey donuts. It wasn't fixed cause there weren't a whole lot that needed fixin in the first place.

Y2k explained for dummies

My comment on the Code Red deal? Sure...Fix is to REBOOT, and get the latest MS patch(there is a new one)to avoid this pain in the future (wink wink)! Course this presents a problem to many who are not set- up to reboot whenever they feel like it, so the "crisis". Course THE problem ain't Code Red, it is companies with shortsighted IT policies and infrastructure which does not allow simple rebooting when needed without organizing entire departments of people. Small number, but big enough to make an issue and help dollars flow into IT departments once again.

Code Red is about stupidity. It is about unbalanced and unstable IT infrastructure. The same issue which existed before CR, and will for years after. Some gamble, some lose, so what.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

OK, Doc, I followed your link to your assessment regarding the Y2K bug, and how it was over-hyped/over-blown/over-done, etc., etc. Curiously, I got the impression that you were blaming lower ranking IT types rather than the Government (much less the NWO) for the whole thing, at least at the time.

I also perused the entire "Y2K Debunking" web site. In my entire life, I have never seen such hysterical worrying about anything. At first, I thought that the web site was being fearful of the Y2K "Menace", then I realized that the web site was devoted to people who were fearful of what the Government might do about the Y2K "Menace". What were you people expecting, that the NWO was going to round you up into camps or something?

The following I also found of interest in the "FAQ" section:

Who owns and runs this thing?

Doc Paulie

Who runs this thing? You do, the participants, without you there is little reason for any of this. There are no banner ads on this board. If you feel you would like to contribute to help pay for this board, BUYING SOMETHING thru my associate link at amazon.com is the way. Here is the link. Simply enter a topic and search for books, cds etc. If you buy from amazon, might as well help support this board with a small % of the sale.

Oh, yeah, what would fearmongering be without the almighty $? Thanks anyway, Doc, but I don't think anyone needed your stuff to save them from a problem that was well under control. Nice try, though.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Oh shit the secret is OUT!!!

Doc Paulie is nothing but one of them profiteers he is always whining about!!!

Man you brought me to tears TK, good one!

BTW, during the height of the hoopla, you would be amazed who lurked at the old Debunkers. I learned more about the world from reading my log files than anything else prior. WE made a difference, no question.

Now run along and find a board more in tune with your naivete.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

BTW, during the height of the hoopla, you would be amazed who lurked at the old Debunkers. I learned more about the world from reading my log files than anything else prior. WE made a difference, no question.


OK, now you are trying to be funny, right? What "hoopla" are you talking about?! What "difference" could you possibly have made? Y2K was a computer glitch (yeah, I know, we are talking "technical" here) that Government and Industry spent money on to fix. OK, maybe too much money, maybe you are right. Maybe way too much, heck if I know.

But hey, Y2K worries didn't cost me any worry or sleep, because I knew that the right people were on the job, taking care of business so that I wouldn't have to worry about it. Much less believing silly NWO plot garbage on web sites encouraging the hapless to "BUY SOMETHING".

C'mon, Doc, give us a break!

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Doc, Y2K wasn't a hoax. It was real. The effects were not as dire as some FUD cretins would have you believe. FUD was the reason the gov and businesses spent so much money, more than needed to fix the simple problem. Thanks to fast Eddy.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

TK, I believe you have misread the purpose of the "Debunking Y2K" web board, and you may not have seen the other similar boards. The people posting there were debunking the myths being circulated by the Y2K-worriers, they were not the worriers themselves as you seem to think.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Maria I would have a tad more respect for your views if I knew they were not simply ways for you to pass the time at your lame job.

Do you even own a personal computer? If you have one back at your cave, do you ever use it? Decker had the same habit, posting only from work. What is the deal with you people? I know this webboard is rather boring, but TV ain't that great either.

BTW, Y2k was a HOAX. Dating issues in certain software programs are not. Understand the difference? I didn't think so.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

Hey, don't get on Maria just because she has a job that permits a little gooftime. Jealousy doesn't become you.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2001

"Understand the difference?" Yeah, just semantics.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2001

Carlos, I appreciate your words, but I expect Doc to be rude to me. He never has a kind word.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2001

Just want to add my two cents here.

I want to thank everyone involved as well, especially Mutha Nachu (whoever she was). I was alot like Doc (before he developed his mean streak!) I researched y2k for myself and talked with real professionals; it boiled down to a load of crap being spewed by fear mongering jackoffs so they could turn a profit. It really was that simple. Y2k? easy to fix, get on with life. THEN I found the Stinkbomb2000 turd that was popped outta fastEddie's ass onto the greenspun forum. What a joke! People who were trying to calm fears about y2k were being villified! I thought I could stay quiet, but I fell in love with Mutha's sarcastic humor, and when she got attacked full blown and the censorship started, I had to speak up. I was one of the first targets for Diane and the censorship group....that was all I needed to confirm that this was indeed all a scam by fastEddie. I was framed for posts I had never made....well, you know the rest. Water under the bridge and all that.

It amazes me to think that in just one short year (allowing for ample time to prove y2k a hoax after rollover) people are already getting a screwed up picture of what really happened. God help us when the Unix date issue arrives. The snakeoil salespeople will rise again, no doubt. Who will be the "debunkers" of that era?

I haveto believe that there will be a few caring people who will want to give of their time to help calm fears of those less informed. May they take a page from those who volunteered for "calm mongering fear rejectionist" duty!

And to everyone who took the heat and kept on keepin' on....GOOD JOB.

(Especially you, Mutha, if you are reading this.....)

The Artist Formerly Known as Super Polly

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2001

You, Mutha, Maria and Jimmy Bagga D. had the right attitude and the one that the doom zombies couldn't take.....humiliation of a weird point of view. They were a joke, a ludicrous assembly of life's losers with a doom attitude. A community of sickies gathered to rejoice that THEY and they alone...... "GOT IT". When rejected by all others, it simply never occurred to such losers that they were totally wrong and perhaps,,,,,,,just maybe......they should "modify" their views. After, they had the nerve to justify their "to the end y2k Doom" stances by blaming "the Senate Report", or NIST or some such thing that they themselves couldn't even read and comprehend at the level of FUDGE they were written in.

ALL of them besides being losers were "intellectually totally dishonest" and it figures that a Polemist wannabee preacher like Russ Big Dog or Dense Crystal Reader like Squires would police their thoughts for them aided by a Twit of a Woman like "FM" who never understood Y2k Doomerism as A HOAX.

The ringleaders and Yourdon's pr people steered the whole deal (as Jimmy B-D pointed out) by constantly trying to use the tricks of the debaters "personal attack", "unqualified expert" and the rest. When a Ted Hoffman or Maria or even Cherri and Poole appeared, they would simply "change the subject". Cumulatively, I have to think that a lot of people finally got the message that TB was a propaganda machine to sell Toasty's books, food supplies and the whole concept of extremist "preparations". They even began to set up the alternate conspiracy using "the Oil Crisis" as proof that they had been correct. It never bothered them that the same controllers in Oil were used in many industries and they could find no evidence in Chemicals, Drugs, manufacturing etc. to back up their Stupidities.

Those who called for "reasoned debate" were totally dense. People with extremist views are best left to "talk amoungst themselves" for eventually they fall out on assorted issues. They are the unseemly types who gather in the booth at the end of some dim barroom to moan and groan about "the way things were and should be" (according to them). They are NOT "normal" functioning members of society. Were there ever posts to TB or any of the North or Hyatt boards like "when I was getting my kids off to school, I heard on the news" or "when coming back from PTA, I started to think........". No most of the posts were REGURGITATIONS OF REGURGITATIONS OF "I found this on the net" spread by LOONS like Roleigh Marting and assorted lists.

The only way to convey how the Middle Roaders felt towards the Doomsters was HUMILIATION by EXPOSURE of their weird views and contradictions. Even Poole's Satire and the "Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot" page did not go far enough.

Now, in the long time since we see the same routine start in assorted issues. From "security" on one side to "privacy" on the other. Well, you can't have both at the level the extremists want.

HYATT in particular has re-surfaced with his whole web site now devoted to "privacy" even to the point of his advocating that you create an "alternate identity". He is amoung the worst of the true Hypocrites of Y2k along with Yourdon. Gary North now is beating on the "perils" of the current economic system and points to the dot com slide as "proof" we are all doomed. But he has tempered it to make it look "prudent". Like all his news letter efforts before, he is waiting for the right issue to "push the panic button" for his fans and go into his full "Scary Gary Duct Tape" Mode.

-- Anonymous, August 03, 2001

SUPER,

When I get a prior authorization from PacifiCare to bill an otherwise not covered drug the authorization is good till 2039. That's how that largest Medicare funded HMO solved its Y2K billing problem.

Long as they pay I don't care but it's worth a thought.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

CEEP, is this a swan song or or are we likely to hear your acceptance speech again? You were the MAN. You were the MAN. You were the MAN. You were the MAN.

Workin on a lot in Canton Ohio near them baseball dudes. If the price is right it and I can get the zoning for a mausoleum we got your immortality covered.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Carlos,

You were the MAN

He WAS the man. He was the center that we each radiated out of. he was the catalyst that brought us together and encouraged us to continue.

David, I am glad to hear we helped you see clearly. My sole purpose for going TB2K was to give others the information they needed (and were not getting) to calm their fears. I'm glad it had that effect. Cheers.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

carlos I ain't even going to 'splain it to you....yet again. You know damn well that there have ALWAYS been computer problems, there will ALWAYS BE computer problems....we work around them ALL THE TIME. If you havn't figured that out by now, there is NO HOPE for you....and I really could care less.

You were a jackass before rollover and it sounds like you really want to keep that title. terrific.

Stay scared you little piss-ant,

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

Super Polly, it doesn't look as if Carlos is still scared about Y2K, but you still seem to be scared about 'doomers'.

-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001

NEVER 'scared'. "PISSED OFF" that they treated good people so badly. "really" pissed off that when proven wrong, 99% slithered off, back under whatever rock they came from, never to say sh*t about how they could have treated others better. They were all losers, still are, will forever BE LOSERS. Like Mutha used to say, "they have to live with themselves now". I add, "...and the way they treated others who were COMPLETELY CORRECT"

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

They were all losers, still are, will forever BE LOSERS.


So, let's see now....

I guess you, Sir, must be a winner. All because you ... believed that the world would not come to an end on Jan 1 2000.

Gee, and all along, I thought that the Y2K computer glitch was a technical thingy that simply got fixed by those in the business of fixing these things. But, nope, turns out that it was no more than a "bar bet": One guy thinks his team is going to win, the other guy thinks his team is going to win, and the guy who loses is the idiot.

Well, hey, three cheers for the Y2K Optimist Team. Man, it must be just great being you.... Have a good day, "winner".

-- Anonymous, August 06, 2001

Look you fucking Dingbat, it was never an either/or BAR BET. We were outnumbered HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS to one, consider that if possible for you. A FULL FREAKING YEAR ahead of time we told any who would listen that Y2k would be a predictable DUD. The GOONS predicted everything from TEOTWAWKI, to significant and mild disruptions. We had NOTHING, period!!!! No this or that, absolutely a flat ZERO(get it? what was to bet over? getting it yet?). GOONS btw who spanned the spectrum from outright nuts to US Senators and CEOs of major corporations.

BILLIONS were flushed because of MASS HYSTERIA, online and off. Not for a second do I think we Debunkers had much of an impact. How would one measure such a thing anyhow? I do however know we did change SOME peoples minds, victory alone. This thread was started by a guy who was helped and was thankful.

Y2k was NOT even about freaking computers. It was about the Millennium, a new and powerful medium, and showing most have not learned a damn thing in generations. Satisfaction enough to know I am not one of those toadstools.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

TK, you don't understand because it was definitely a you-had-to-be-there kind of experience. Lots of people spent big bucks on rice and beans, toiletpaper, and solar ovens and all kinds of shit. Some spent their life savings to move to the mountains in shelters. Fast Eddie himself moved from the big apple to New Mexico. They now have to rebuild their lives. So yes, they lost lots including some self respect, taken in by FUD. That however doesn't translate to us being winners; ya know, life sometimes isn't black or white. It does translate to right and wrong. We were right; they were wrong.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

This thread was started by a guy who was helped and was thankful.

If the guy had simply let the responsible people in "the know" handle it, he would have come out just as well if not better. I mean, when your entire view of the world consists of the Internet and takes on the form of tangled NWO plots and conspiracies, things do get pretty murky.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Now you're sounding like a debunker TK.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

TK, the bonehead who thinks I am the Amazon.com profiteer is now talking perspective? A person who sees a few links on my website and concludes I am in-it-for-the-dough. Not even funny it is ridiculous.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

TK,

Here's a little perspective that might help to understand how so many people got sucked into believing the worst for Y2K.

Many of us, myself included, worked long and hard on IT teams fixing Y2K bugs in our software. Many spent the better part of a year or two doing nothing but fixing and testing. Our management and customers all demanded that we not only have it fixed, but that we PROVE that we fixed it and that we have war rooms set-up with round the clock teams to be ready just in case.

We had a lot of time to think about this and a lot of pressure getting ready for it from a business standpoint. And there's no doubt about it, our software would have stopped working on that day if it wasn't fixed. We tested it and it failed miserably. It took a lot of work to clean it up.

So you might say that we in the IT industry had a pretty pessimistic view of the potential for wide-spread problems based on what we were seeing in our own little worlds. I personally know of hundreds of IT professionals who were pretty worried about it and the more they thought about it, the worse they thought it could be.

But that is strictly from a software point of view. The real mystery was what would the "embedded chip" do on the turnover? We flat out didn't know. That's not our area of expertise and we really don't now many who can legitimately be called an expert in those areas, so we went looking for some expert opinions, turning to the web for advice (which is where ALL IT professionals ALWAYS look for information and opinions).

Well, experts were rather scarce there too and the few that spoke publically said they really weren't sure what would happen. I personally spoke with a power plant engineer (a friend of a friend) who when his Y2K team tested his plant, it failed - just shut down. I'm sure there are many such anecdotal stories (some true, some not) that fueled the concerns that big problems could be on the way.

The embedded chip was the real source of concern. Our very infrastructure depended on it (or so we're told). So if they go, we're in for big problems.

Then add to the mix some voices like Yardeni and the government disaster recovery plans (which were very much on alert and preparing for some bad things to happen) and you suddenly start panicking. It's not long before you trip over TimeBomb 2000 and the fear gets fueled into a raging fire.

My point in saying all of this is to let you know that this was in no way just an internet scare isolated to a few scaremongers. It was VERY widespread in the IT industry with most of us convinced that problems were going to occur. We were pretty convinced that we'd be spending a year or more fixing Y2K software bugs that we missed in testing. What we didn't know was whether or not the chips would fail. That is the crux of the matter. Since the chips didn't fail and we on the software side did such a marvelous job remediating the software bugs ahead of time, the rollover went well. End of story for most people.

To this day, most IT people I encounter never did visit TB2K or get caught up in the doomer mentality, but they still shake their heads in wonder like a person who just barely dodged the bullet. Y2K was very real for most IT folks.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Thank you for that, Mr. Bowerman.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

My point in saying all of this is to let you know that this was in no way just an internet scare isolated to a few scaremongers. It was VERY widespread in the IT industry with most of us convinced that problems were going to occur. We were pretty convinced that we'd be spending a year or more fixing Y2K software bugs that we missed in testing. What we didn't know was whether or not the chips would fail. That is the crux of the matter. Since the chips didn't fail and we on the software side did such a marvelous job remediating the software bugs ahead of time, the rollover went well. End of story for most people.

To this day, most IT people I encounter never did visit TB2K or get caught up in the doomer mentality, but they still shake their heads in wonder like a person who just barely dodged the bullet. Y2K was very real for most IT folks.

Well, then let me ask you this, David: Just what was the worst case, here? If indeed these "chips" had failed, if there were a lot of software bugs that had gotten missed, what kind of problems would people have faced? Would they have been widespread enough to impact everyone at once, suddenly, right as the clock struck midnight on Jan 1 2000?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

TK,

I don't think it would have happened "all at once" at the strike of midnight based on software alone. Many of the bugs that were missed were triggered throughout 1999 as programs used year 2000 as a factor in their processes. But the worst of software problems would have occurred on the turnover due mostly to operating system issues (had they not been resolved). Testing verified that. My company had to stop testing OUR software soon after we got started because the Unix operating system it was sitting on shut down when we rolled it forward to 1.1.2000.

Software issues would have the potential to really cut into or shut- down any automated business process both commercial and government. I suspect that biggest concerns were with government benefit programs (medicare, welfare, etc.) and the banking industry and how long money would be tied up due to glitches.

I don't know what truly would have happened if chips were actually vulnerable to Y2K since that's not my area. Maybe someone else could comment as to what theoretically could occur. The theory was that electricity, gas, water, etc would all stop because the chips necessary to distribute them would shut-down. I really don't know if that's what would have happened though.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Well, let me ask this of all the technical people here (i.e., take a hike, Doc):

Just what were the probabilities, here? Was there, say, maybe a 10% chance that banks and other important businesses might be screwed up for a while? Was there maybe a 30% chance that Yardeni's economic "slowdown" could have happened? Was there really some significant chance that electric power could have been affected?

Honestly, it still seems pretty far-fetched, to me. Especially in view of the fact that nothing really happened. Surely, if Y2K had been all that big and bad, somebody somewhere would have had such things occur...

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Decker; err, TK:

Well, let me ask this of all the technical people here (i.e., take a hike, Doc):

Just what were the probabilities, here? Was there, say, maybe a 10% chance that banks and other important businesses might be screwed up for a while? Was there maybe a 30% chance that Yardeni's economic "slowdown" could have happened? Was there really some significant chance that electric power could have been affected?

Well, I for one didn't know the answer to that question on a world wide basis. Evidently Ed did. I did know the answer for the places that I had to work. I found out by talking to the appropriate people. You know the ones doing the technical work. That would be Missouri, Washington and Oregon. As I reported on the original board [to much negative response], the chance of electrical, energy or transportation problems from Y2K was very near 0 %; taking normal problems as a baseline. I didn't have anyway of finding out about banking problems; but they really made no sense. Embedded systems were also a non-starter on a technical basis.

Now, about your god-like reverence for IT people. No way, my friend. Mine can't even keep Outlook working. I doubt that they are stupid; I think that they are working with a flawed system.

By-the-by, How goes it.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

"Especially in view of the fact that nothing really happened."

Hindsight IS 20-20, isn't it!

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Just to ward off any possible confusion: I referenced "Ken Decker" on another topic on this board, because his description of Doc Paulie's "Y2K debunker" board seemed to fit to a "T" what I saw on my visit there. I mean, there are many ways to describe what appears to be a stinkhole of delusional madness laced with profanity, but I thought his summary was excellent.

Too bad that some of the people here continue to wallow in their "Reuben Delusion".

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

Ken:

You aren't fooling anyone here with the TK handle, anymore than you did with the otherones.

Welcome back.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2001

TK,

These are responsible government agencies, my friend, with the expertise to evaluate things like computer software viruses. It is what our tax dollars (or pounds) pay for. They are not loonies, they are not scammers.

(Strangled laughter.) The government is UTTERLY clueless about computer viruses and software bugs. Utterly, absolutely, breathtakingly CLUELESS.

Always have been, and as long as government jobs pay only a fraction of the equivalent in the private sector, they always will be.

During the Y2K debate, I had people ask me how the Senate, CIA and National Guard could have issued Y2K reports that claimed the possibility of severe disruptions. I gave them the same answer I just gave you.

You mentioned Code Red above; what you seem to have missed is that a good deal of the concern over Code Red was generated by THE GOVERNMENT.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Read Poole's post a couple of times TK. What is it telling you? The exact reason you think NWO types nutso. How could the FEDS, the disorganized mess that they are, be plotting to even fill a pothole, let alone takeover the world?

Problem is, this does not stop some in Government and close to it, from thinking they can. The danger is over supporting and funding a system DESIGNED to basically do nothing beyond a few strategic tasks, basically the common defense.

Is this the Government we have? Why not? because special interests have found it profitable to promote Government as the answer to a good many problems. Doesn't matter it largely creates these "problems" and then proceeds to offer solutions. Promoting Government also allows a few a direct route into the taxpayers pocket to fund their escapades and lay the risk on the same taxpayer. Many of these types then have the nerve to claim it is their twin brothers the Hand-out Social Engineering Crowd(Liberals)who are ruining the country. Fact is, too much freaking broken Government whatever it is doing beyond what it was mandated long ago to do, is the condition screwing the country. Hand-outs to Coca Cola are really no different than to a welfare momma of four when ya boil it all down.

Globalism is dangerous because it uses systems not designed for said. It denies individuality. It denies culture. It lumps all into some Utopian brainfart. This mentality has caused more Wars that you can shake a stick at. It is destabilizing to all hell. Fundamentally it flys right in the face of human nature which does not want to be anything but a selfish pig. Truth is, even that has been whored as something terrible. Maybe so, but if you want to be a pig, I may offer an alternative, but will repect your right to be a pig if that is what you think is best. Reality is many of the abborant behaviors seen are compensations from an overloaded society full of rules to drive us INSANE. The society is INSANE.

Globalists are a threat not because they are smart, but because they are supremely stupid.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

TK is Ken Decker? seriously doubt it.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Well, let's see if I can disassemble one of Doc Droolie's "points" here:

1) In hindsight, we notice that actual computer malfunctions due to mishandling dates were essentially trivial to nonexistent. Even with the media on hair-trigger mode to report *anything* that looked like a date problem, they couldn't find anything significant. And the media WERE focused, because they'd taken positions that regarded potential problems seriously, and needed some post-facto justification. They found none.

2) Sure, there were plenty of date bugs in the software. Remediators consistently said so, and none ever said otherwise. Even Droolie won't claim y2k was a hoax because these bugs were lies or fakes. They were real, and demonstrably had serious consequences if not fixed -- when tested, unremediated systems shut down, thud! In many cases, perhaps IT swat teams could have done quick and dirty workarounds to get things up quickly, and bought the time to do things right without there being any actual business disruptions. Perhaps not. But the bugs were many and real.

3) So it wasn't the bugs themselves that were the hoax, it was the implied (or explicit) claim that the problem was simply too large to be addressed effectively. The "hoax" lay not in the bugs, but in the wild exaggeration of their virulence. In reality, it was nothing more than a large but eminently manageable maintenance project. In total scope, it posed MUCH less of a threat than the average e-mail virus.

4) Now, how much of this was solidly knowable ahead of time? After all, software tends to be highly proprietary and highly idiosyncratic. It's also ubiquitous, in everything from mainframes to toasters. There is no single expert or possible clearinghouse of information about all of it. IT people (with genuine expertise) had reason for concern, based on their own experience. On what basis can a Doc Droolie, technically illiterate, conclude ahead of time that y2k is a hoax? Certainly he can't use anything resembling an understanding of the technical issues, and this is a technical issue!

Is an accurate prediction sufficient demonstration of understanding? I think it falls somewhat short of sufficient. It's a good indicator, but that's all. I think we can regard some of the more worried programmers as pessimists whose own shops were in unusually bad shape, and who projected from there. And certainly as trigger dates passed uneventfully and positive test results flowed in, it was reasonable to decide we faced little if anything serious. Before that, any prognosis was guesswork -- by anyone.

Declaring y2k a hoax from hindsight is a policy position. Basically, it's a claim that the exaggeration of impacts was deliberately and knowingly foisted off on an ignorant public by people who knew there was no real threat, but manufactured one for fun and profit. This claim simply ignores the fact that nobody was or really could be in a position to know there was no real threat until at least sometime in mid-1999.

It was a false alarm from hindsight. But it was not a hoax -- it was a matter of some level of concern for everyone, and this concern was legitimate until the results started coming in. Before the results came in, knowledgeable and experienced people were often finding big technical problems. But ignorant people were indeed making bar bets, and winning the bet doesn't make them less ignorant.

Now, why claim a legitimate concern was a hoax? Well, off we go into NWO paranoia...

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

So Flint is unable to read trends. No surprise he only sees HINDS from his perspective.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Doc:

TK is Ken Decker? seriously doubt it.

You could be correct because IP addresses do lie. eg, I can make mine 000.000.000.00; but I don't bother.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Oh, that reminds me . . . Flint's arguments on TB2K were always among the most convincing for me :-)

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2001

Flint, your Y2K-in-hindsight analysis above, is probably the most rational, reasonable and convincing that I have seen thus far. I think most of us non-technical types would tend to believe that systems shutting down ("thud!") would be disasterous -- but the reality, I guess, is that techies deal with this every day.

There was one aspect of your assessment that I noted, and will quote from:


This claim [that the Y2K bug could be seen to be a dud well in advance] simply ignores the fact that nobody was or really could be in a position to know there was no real threat until at least sometime in mid-1999.

That is a rather bold statement. It implies, in effect, that the "doomers" who were preparing for The End, or at least some big bad times, may have had some good cause to be doing so prior to the facts becoming known.

It also brings up the following sobering possibility: If at some point (say, mid-1999) the news of expected Y2K problems had turned out to be bad rather than good, then presumably everyone would have started trying to get ready all at once -- which would have probably been disasterous in itself (e.g., everyone trying to get money from banks because their accounts might be scrambled).


Special note to the really paranoid people here: I am not Ken Decker. I am not a clone of Ken Decker that the NWO has manufactured. I am someone else who does not work for the NWO. (Though I always keep my options open, do they pay good?) Thank you, you may now return to your normal, routine, nutty paranoia.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

TK:

You raise a good point, but I don't know how clearly any answer can be resolved. It's a real challenge to evaluate a past that did not happen, especially in any detail! But I'll try anyway...

First, I pick mid-1999 kind of arbitrarily. If things had really been serious, I'm fairly confident that this condition would have surfaced at least 6 months earlier. I pick mid-1999 as a point where it became (IMAO) clear enough that Bad Things could *not* happen any longer.

What kept the concern at least simmering (TV and newspaper stories were fairly frequent, etc.) was the logical impossibility of proving a negative. But the scope of possibility was narrowing all along. Spike dates had no impact. Testing found no serious problems. Corporations were declaring themselves "substantially compliant" in legally binding language. The *direct* evidence favoring smooth sailing was sufficient by mid-1999.

But let's presume the problems were genuine and serious and beyond our ability to manage effectively. One of my observations was that, while we could not PROVE such bugs weren't hiding in our code, nonetheless there was a *very* large pack of dogs *none* of which was barking during the night. No CEO's or CIO's or programmers were bailing. The market was continuing to rise, quite rapidly. Stock options were not being cashed in. Retreat communities were finding no takers. Some notables (remember Peter deJager?) had left the ranks of the "very worried", leaving few if any who did not stand to make some income from the situation. More importantly, no new notables were joining the lists of the pessimistic. As we got into 1999 and the first of the "1-year lookahead" code and saw nothing remotely resembling economic impact (indeed, very few screwups, and those quite temporary), most people quite understandably went into "react mode" -- i.e. when I see something worrisome happen, THEN I'll worry.

So what I'm saying here is, I believe if the problem had in fact been severe, the indications would have been cropping up with distressing frequency probably back well into 1998. Plenty of time for everyone to do something to at least get ready for some outages or shortages of some items.

Some people became aware of the problem quite early. I was one of them. Before (at the very earliest) the middle of 1998, what was available to anyone examining the problem was only concern and speculation. Perhaps some of the wilder speculation could be dismissed on general principles, but the concerns were very real. Doc Droolie notwithstanding, companies and government don't pour significant resources into hoaxes, nor do the media continue allocating time and space to them. Now, whether you decided to take precautions just in case (which hopefully didn't burn any bridges), or decided to wait and see, was up to you. But I insist that at least the potential for problems was a legitimate concern.

It might be conceptually useful to regard the "doomer and polly" terminology as growing increasingly distinct from "pessimist and optimist." What with the media attention, the SEC filings, the viewpoint expressed on COBOL and embedded newsgroups, the "heads I win, tails you lose" logic on which the doomers more and more relied, "doomers" became those people who *insisted* that Bad Things were coming despite nothing more in the way of evidence than remediation budgets actually being spent.

Acordingly, doomers were obliged to take the unalterable position that all claims of progress were lies, that all successful tests were faked, that the very real impacts were somehow being covered up, that the media were in on the coverup bigtime, and that every indication of any kind supported their position, however much special pleading was required. If Koskinen expressed concern, it was because concern was necessary. If he expressed confidence, well, he was *paid to lie* as part of his job. If companies spent big bucks fixing it, it proved the problem was beyond hope. If they did not, it proved they were clueless, making the problem even MORE beyond hope. And so on ad nauseum.

Now, if you wanted to claim that those who had significant reactions to a perceived threat (myself among them) were illustrative much more of a personality type than of a real threat, I won't disagree with you. Perhaps those people (we?) just reflected a combination of excessive caution, willingness to expect the worst, possibly a sense of adventure (preparing was kind of fun). There was enough media attention that a lot of people at least bought some extra canned food and the like.

So from my (rather self-serving) perspective, the "doomer" label applies to those whose conviction of coming doom was impervious to any and all indications to the contrary. These were the people for whom y2k meltdown reflected *hope* rather than despair. When nothing went wrong that should have been going wrong in many ways all around us, those who dreaded any meltdown began to relax (and eat their preparations). I believe it was those who had a vision of a future in which they'd no longer be trapped at the bottom, and whose preparations would enable their coming heroic leadership, who could not (and still cannot) let go of their dreams of armageddon.

So the "doomers" were what was left when the real world had provided enough evidence to satisfy the pessimists that their original concerns were unfounded. Evidence is irrelevant to the true doomer.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

I wear my nuttiness as a badge of Honor. Sadly TK seems to have taken a liking to Our Boy Flint. Well you know what attracts the flys.

Tk, Flint is what is called an Intellectual. Being so, Flint has displaced a good amount of his common sense along the way. This would explain why he posted next to the likes of Paul Milne.

Flint's blunder was at a much deeper level than the average "doomer". Unlike most, Flint IS a programmer. In fact, at the Bios level, at the computer guts level. Despite Flint's experience, which should have been showing him how silly believing an ordinary programming glitch capable of societal impact, he ignored his experience and sided with folks many bottles short of even a 6 pack.

Y2k was different many will claim. OK fine, assume it was. But how really different was it? Where was the evidence any computer abnormality creating widespread problems? I would submit, and did, that Y2k was really no different than say the Michelangelo virus hoopla eight years earlier. That Y2k was just another computing issue, but because of the Millennium, the growing use of the internet, and the easily understandable nature of this "bug" by lay people, Y2k was somehow different.

Y2k was real. Believing it was anything out of the ordinary silly. Believing any computer glitch capable of things requiring "preps" on the part of the public is downright looney and an indication a Hoax is afoot.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Despite himself, Droolie makes my points fairly clear.

To him, y2k was a matter of "belief". Evidence be damned, you either believed in a problem or you believed otherwise. Droolie believed otherwise, devoutly. And did so without a shred of evidence one way or another, not that he could have understood the evidence if he'd seen the code itself. He had the True Faith.

But then, how about all those remediation billions? How about all those news stories? How about all the drills, all the testing, all the precautions being taken? Was *everyone* being fooled by a "hoax"? Or was there, at least until proven otherwise, some plausible reason why some level of prudent caution might help and couldn't hurt?

Droolie's answer is completely religious -- he *believed* there was no problem, and ipso facto everyone who expressed the slightest caution was a heretic and a fool.

But isn't it true that we are encouraged by those in the know to keep backup copies of our important records? Aren't we advised to examine our bank statements, credit card bills and other computer-generated documents as a sanity check? Don't we read periodically about how some "computer failure" caused one problem or another? When many sources are saying that we have the *potential* for such glitches to increase in frequency by orders of magnitude for some real, known, test-proven reason, are we "loonies" for taking extra (but reasonable) precautions? Especially precautions like buying ahead what we'll buy anyway, on sale?

Well, such questions are probably beside the point, in this context. After all, they're based on evidence, making them Droolie-irrelevant. I suppose the fact that the large majority of my posts were aimed at demonstrating the fallicies of doomer logic is also irrelevant to Droolie, since it also constitutes evidence. Droolie guessed right, and is now taking all the credit he can shower upon himself for having "seen through" what those with appropriate experience could not.

Meanwhile, flipping a coin and guessing correctly is not a reflection of common sense. Common sense is basing your opinion on the evidence, and changing your opinion when the evidence changes. Now, about the NWO again...

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Flint,

shut-up already, you're boring. Go back to TB2000 and play with your buddies. Them be the dolts who are buying your crap disguised as rational prose.

I know your fat ego cannot handle the fact little-olde dumbass ME was correct and You, mountain of analysis was wrong. How long ya gunna continue rationalizing away this fact? How many times you gunna rewrite my already made-up handle?

Where was the BEEF indicating a growing Y2k menance Flint? In 1989 or 1999? It was there no question. The SSA had plenty and dealt with it like it is their job to. In 1996 still more glitches appeared as many Credit Cards were being rejected. The Banking industry adjusted and did their job as well. WOW and this requires massive societal mobilization?

You want to prepare for emergencies? who is stopping you?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Flint: IMO, you were one of the "normal" people in this "war". You questioned the logic of the folks on TB2k, AND you said, "No, thank you" when Charlie recruited you as a permanent debunker. Decker may have said, "Yes" at some point, but he bailed at another point [and for good reason.]

I entered this "war" mid-1999. My experiences had been DOING remediation and discussing remediation with other remediators. We shared information in a fun-filled way [and were totally incognizant of the fear being produced by the Gary North, Hyatt, Yourdon fora.] THEN these folks started wandering into OUR territory. Most were Christians fearing the end-times. In retrospect, I REALLLY think that the Christians were duped more than anyone. THEN there were the folks that simply don't get out much. They're not necessarily Christians, but they maybe home-school and live in a rural area and count on the internet for much of their information. THAT was followed by the folks trying to sell stuff to people feeding off the fear.

It WAS interesting to watch, and even interesting to engage. How did YOU get involved in the internet discussions, Flint? I already know that Charlie and Doc had read Gary North's site and got scared. Did you do the same? Did you start out at Yourdon's forum, and [if so], what led you there?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Doc: I may have the same question of YOU as I had of Flint: How is it that you came to even READ Gary North's site? How is it that you came to BELIEVE [for a time, at least] what was said there and THEN learned that it was bunk and you should spend your time debunking it?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

ANITA, you are an ASS.

I PRECEDED GARY NORTH AND CERTAINLY YOURDON IN Y2K BY ALMOST A YEAR. HE SURFACED IN SPRING OF 1997 ON de JAGER'S LIST. NORTH "TAUGHT" YOURDON AND BRAGGED ABOUT THAT http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm ) .

I WAS NEVER, NEVER AFRAID OF ANYTHING AND I REMAIN THAT WAY TODAY. I VIEWED NORTH AS A THREAT TO CIVIL ORDER AND DECIDED TO EXPOSE HIM BEFORE YOU EVEN KNEW WHO HE WAS AND JUST AS HIS SITE WAS GOING UP.

MANY OF THE OTHER "RELIGIOSOS" OF Y2K INCLUDING PAT ROBERTSON, FALWELL AND D. JAMES KENNEDY PICKED UP 'Y2K FUD" FROM NORTH AND TRIED TO RUN WITH IT. THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE OF ALL WAS......ROBERTSON BECAUSE de JAGER HIMSELF TOLD ROBERTSON THAT "Y2K IS OVER AS A THREAT" IN SUMMER, 1998 AND SO DID ROBERTSON'S D.C. INSIDERS. ROBERTSON CHOSE TO LEAVE HIS Y2K SITE IN PLACE AND MILK IT FOR FUD. *****NOTE THAT FALWELL RETRACTED AS SOON AS HE WAS CONVINCED "Y2K WAS OVER" (SPRING, 1999). NORTH, YOURDON, HYATT AND McELVANEY KEPT THE SCAM GOING FOR THE CHRISTIAN "TRUE BELIEVERS". GOD WILL HAVE TO FORGIVE THEM FOR THAT BECAUSE IT IS FOR SURE THAT THEY ALL KNEW AND CHOOSE NOT TO REVERSE. HYPOCRITES AND **LIARS** ALL.

Gary North got information from ME about Y2k in 1996 and in 1997 a group of us in DAMA even had dinner with him. He then proceeded to do the North BS and 6,400 posts later finally admitted he was wrong.

MY EMAIL TO NORTH and response from Gary in 1996 is re-created on Paul Thibodeaux's site on Christian Reconstruction. http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm

MORE THAN 1/2 THE INFORMATION ON THAT SITE ABOUT NORTH AND Y2K CAME FROM ME.

I WILL OPPOSE ........ANYTHING.......NORTH AND HIS ASSHOLE JERK FELLOW TRAVELLERS LIKE HYATT AND JIM LORD AND DON McELVANEY **EVER** TRY TO PROPAGATE AND SUGGEST YOU DO THE SAME. I VIEW THE A.G. ASHCROFT AS A "CAPTIVE" OF THOSE PEOPLE AND THEIR STUPID 100 YEAR OLD MENTALITY. BUSH SHOULD NEVER HAVE APPOINTED HIM AND SHOULD IN FACT GET RID OF HIM ASAP.

GET IT STRAIGHT: DON TAYLOR, PATRICIA SCOTTO AND I ALL AGREED IN 1997 THAT NORTH HAD TO BE EXPOSED.

PRIOR TO THAT,,,,,,,,I PERSONALLY EXPOSED HIM ON DE JAGER'S WEB LIST TO 12,000 PEOPLE IN A POST CALL "TELL US, DR. NORTH, WHO ARE YOU". THAT POST WAS OVER 29,000 Bs LONG.

LATER WHEN HIS BUDDY THE VIOLENT ANTI-ABORTIONIST JOSEPH FOREMAN, PARTNER ON Y2KCHAOS TRIED TO "DEBATE" ON THE Y2K LEGAL LIST, I EXPOSED THAT TURD TO 10,000 LAWYERS.

ONE BY ONE, WE TOOK ON ALL THE **Y2K FUD MEISTERS** AND EXPOSED THEM BY FEEDING THEIR "LATEST" TO THE PRESS. THE ONE FEED THAT MOST MOST EFFECTIVE WAS IN DEC.1999 WHEN ADAMS AT "Y2K NEWSWIRE" DARED HIS "MASS PROTEST" AGAINST THE MEDIA. WEEKS BEFORE, I HAD EMAILED 100 NEWS PEOPLE WITH COPIES OF HIS EXACT PLANS. THE WASHINGTON POST WAS THE FIRST TO REACT WHEN THE "PROTEST" STARTED AND HAD THE NET SERVER BLOCK EMAILS FROM ADAMS AND HIS SERVERS.

THE SAME HAPPENED IN 12 OTHER CITIES. BY THEN, EVEN THE PRESS THOUGHT "Y2K WAS BULLSHIT".

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

I expected nothing short of what you posted, Charlie. IMO, you REALLY DO want to consider yourself a hero in the Y2k arena. Once you stated that the Debunker forum was frequently read by journalists, *I* chose not to be associated with someone whose idea of discourse was to respond consistently with "Fuck you sideways." Perhaps that's YOUR way of impressing the press, but it sure as hell wasn't MY way.

It doesn't matter how long ago you learned of Y2k. You WERE afraid. You were afraid that folks would run on banks, etc. You were afraid of this in mid-1999. Why? You'd never worked on remediation personally, and I never understood why a guy who sells real-estate in Texas had such an interest in this. Yeah, sure...you joined DAMA. ANYBODY can do that, just as anyone could have signed up for those 10 people [or whatever] who hypothesized on Y2k results.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Anita:

I'm not sure exactly how I got involved. I guess I just kind of blundered onto the topic back in the days when we were just beginning the "awareness" phase, and despite Droolie's overweening pride that his coin flip came up right, all *knowledgeable* people knew was that there was indeed a very large problem, tractability unknown pending evaluation and remediation.

And trying to read all of the many conflicting indications and derive something consistent and sensible was fun, so I stuck around. It was (and still is) fascinating watching the extremists babble (in Droolie's case) or scream incoherently (in Charlie's case). From my perspective, neither the doomers nor the debunkers (with some rational exceptions on both sides) paid the slightest attention to what was really happening. They had all made up their minds indelibly before the results came in, and reality never did need apply. The clue is, whose mind changed as information became available?

I was fairly sure the embedded systems were not going to pose any real problems, because that's not where engineers put date-handling logic. And the early key foghorns (Yourdon, Hamasaki, deJager, etc.) were all mainframers. No credible voices ever expressed concern about microcontrollers.

Nonetheless, as I wrote, code is both idiosyncratic and proprietary. There are few standards, and many poor programmers. So I wasn't willing to gamble from the beginning that nothing would go wrong simply because it had never done so before. I needed some actual feedback. When it came in, I decided the threat was mild at best.

As you know, my enemies are those who scrunch their eyes tight shut, jam their fingers in their ears and scream. It really doesn't matter to me what they're screaming. I'm allergic to that mode of "analysis".

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Flint: you can go to your tea parties and practice your "debating techniques" like Decker. FACT: Doc Paulie, weird as he can be, was able to dig up information that was not in circulation from SEC reports in Nov. 1998 and flat out make the statement that Y2k was "over" and "a joke". For a non-tech to make that statement was interesting and he supplied me with the AT&T plus other telecomm results to back up his opinion. Later, in Jan. 1999, when the yo- yo "Y2k Weatherman" then working at one of the Telecomms as a minor Y2k Project Manager declared that his company was finished and that most of the other were too, he was attacked by Steve Heller directly as a "pollyanna". I know because I was in the room as was Jim Morris (author of a Y2k Prep Book) and Ken Czajak, one of the Yourdon "Cutter Consortium Y2k "Experts"".

The point is if Laypeople like DP could deduce that the threat was OVER by Winter 1998, WHY DID YOU CONTINUE TO SIT ON THE FENCE OR APPEASE THE FEAR NUTS? ANS: YOU NEEDED SOMEONE TO "DEBATE WITH" TO FILL YOUR EMPTY HOURS.

I DON'T. I live in the real world were people like Gary North and Ed Yourdon are called ASSHOLES TO THEIR FACE because THEY ARE. When it becomes necessary to do it "politely", I will leave that to people with more patience with JERKS than I have. That you may rest assure, INCLUDES YOU.

Dealing with people like that is not done by "posting your thoughts to the net". It is done EFFECTIVELY behind the scenes in private where highly placed and influential people, armed with the information about such Extremists, can plan counter measures properly. That was what JOHN KOSKINEN's JOB WAS: appease the extremists and disarm their arguments for any intemperate measures (such as Martial Law) and let Private Industry take care of itself. Along the way, because of people like Paula Gordon lined up with some Academics in D.C., money was WASTED but in general, Y2k became a NON- EVENT.

IT BECAME A NON-EVENT because IT WAS MANAGED PROPERLY. NOT BECAUSE "FLINT" posted to the newsgroups (all of which were monitored by people trained to understand what was going on).

While Koskinen's office was late in acting, it probably had misjudged the extent of the Y2k FEAR movement and the ability of the Net to keep the FUD going long after it was clear (via things like the Senate Report) that most of the Y2k concerns had been addressed. In addition, the US Y2k Office did not have the information from enough of Private Industry (thanks to the Legal CYA Statements) to FLAT OUT SAY: "NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT". The mantra everywhere from 1998 was : "We will be OK, but we don''t know about X, or Y or Z."

POLITE BEHAVIOR IS FOR POLITE SOCIETY. NOT FOR A BUNCH OF LOONIES YOU WOULD CROSS THE STREET TO AVOID.

Gary North in particular, for his SEDITION AGAINST THE UNITED STATES should be treated as the SCUM HE IS: a profiteer and trafficker in FEAR and FUD. 1 1/2 year after pretending to be the "Leader" of the Y2k Alarmists, Yourdon still has not explained WHY NOTHING HAPPENED. HE, just like NORTH have "changed the subject".

As for Anita, .......I HARDLY consider myself a hero and I repeat what I said from 1996 on, that were it not for credibility, I would NEVER have identified myself online. Not only that, in every post that went to the legitimate lists, my direct phone line was after my "sig". I got calls in the middle of the night, death threats (3) and never,,,,,,,,NEVER......once a call from any legitimate opponent except for Gary North. The rest including such types as Leon Kappelman were total Chicken shits on a par with the anonymous callers and online posters. So brave was "St. Leon" that he had list serve managers at CPSR and Y2k UK CENSOR both Poole and myself. But where is he and his buddy Hall now? Nowhere. They are unwelcome in Corporate and even State I.T. circles for their pre-Rollover attempts to fan hysteria NEEDLESSLY.

I DID WHAT I DID AND THE DOC PAULIES, DON TAYLORS, PATRICIA AND MANY MORE DID WHAT ***NORMAL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DONE IF........they cared enough.

YOU AND FLINT DID WHAT YOU DID.............TO FUCKING "ENTERTAIN YOURSELVES".

ESAD.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

ESAD. I'd expected this earlier, but you didn't disappoint me. Do you REALLY think this has any impact on me? You have tried to take over THIS forum [much in the way you took over DP's forum.]

If anyone doesn't agree with YOU, THEY should leave or ESAD.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

All right you stupid Mother Fucker. YOU eat shit and DIE! You couldn't possibly have known what would happen. YOU do NOT have a OUIJI board! You just GUESSED right and you're riding it for all it's worth. Those of us who responsible for Y2K on mainframes were sweating it every step of the way!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Those of us who responsible for Y2K on mainframes were sweating it every step of the way!

TOTAL BULLSHIT. PART OF THE JOB WAS TESTING. IF YOU DID THE JOB YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

WE WERE OUT OF THE WOODS RE: Y2K BY SPRING, 1999. ONLY YOURDON KEPT UP THE BULL SHIT TO THE END BECAUSE "HE KNEW WHAT HE KNEW". THAT "ESSAY" WAS POSTED LESS THAN 10 DAYS FROM THE ROLLOVER. TOTAL DISGRACE.

EVEN BRUCE WEBSTER, FORMER DOOMER ADDRESSED A MEETING IN DALLAS IN OCT. 1999 AND STATED THAT HE WAS NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS BUT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEPRESSION AFTERWARDS. SINCE HE HAS ***NO ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL CREDENTIALS*** NOBODY PAID ATTENTION TO THE REST OF HIS BULL SHIT.

MY 'GUESSING' WAS MADE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME BASED ON REPORTS THAT COULD BE VERIFIED AND QUANTITATED. EXPLAIN WHY 9/12 "EXPERTS' ON THE KELLY SITE.........GUESSED WRONG.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

AS FOR "MAINFRAMES" YOU BULL SHIT ARTIST: IBM, THE LARGEST FORCE IN THE MAINFRAME ARENA HAD **CLOSED ITS Y2K PRACTICE**, STOPPED MARKETING FOR NEW CUSTOMERS AND REWORKED TWO "CODE FACTORIES FOR TESTING" BY LATE 1998. MOST OTHER "TESTING SHOPS" WERE GONZO BY SUMMER AND ONE HAD GONE BANKRUPT BEFORE 1/1/2000 AFTER THE STOCK CRASHED FROM 45 TO UNDER 1.

IN FACT, THE "de JAGER" INDEX OF Y2K VENDOR STOCKS WENT STRAIGHT DOWN FROM THE TIME IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN EARLY 1998. THAT ALONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD "MAINFRAMERS" THAT THE PROBLEM WAS OVER. THERE WAS **NO WORK FOR THE VENDORS**.

ONE BY ONE..........ALL THE "MYTHS" OF Y2K WERE DE-BUNKED. AND ALL OF THE "CRITICAL DATES" PASSED WITHOUT "INCIDENT". YOURDON EVEN CALLED THE JULY 1ST, 1999 CRITICAL AND NOTHING FUCKING HAPPENED.

IT WAS ALL **HYPE*. AND IN THE END.......ONLY THE PUBLIC AND A FEW NUT JOBS AND TECHNICALLY IGNORANT WERE STILL CALLING FOR "EMERGENCY MEASURES".

NOT ENOUGH TIME

NOT ENOUGH PROGRAMMERS (ESPECIALLY COBOL)

NOT ENOUGH MONEY

EMBEDDED CHIPS

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

You couldn't possibly have known what would happen.Why? Because you didn't? There ere and are those of us who understood and knew for a fact what was going to happen. Why did we know? Because we understood the systems, knew what was involved in fixing them, and understood what did nto need fixing. And understood that a lot of what was being advocated as necessary was in fact NOT necessary.

Some people understood the problem and prevented it happening in the first place-lots of people who were knowledgable decades before the problem came to a head.

YOU do NOT have a OUIJI board!

Didn't need one, had brains that we used.

You just GUESSED right and you're riding it for all it's worth. No guesses, a lot of research, common sense and knowledge.

Those of us who responsible for Y2K on mainframes were sweating it every step of the way! Responsable for WHAT part of mainframes? Hardware? Software? DATA PROCESSING????. hatever area you were involved in, the only way you could have been that worried is if you failed to understand/comprehend your work.

The embedded chips farce was pretty easy to check out and debunk. If you knew what you were doing. Just not many who did.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2001

Responsable for WHAT part of mainframes? >>>> What part of code don't you understand? I write COBOL. It makes me sick that stupid people like you who have absolutely no reading skills claim to have known everything was going to be okay.

hatever area you were involved in, the only way you could have been that worried is if you failed to understand/comprehend your work.>>>>> You're damn lucky I'm as good at my job as I am. I am good, but I'm only human. So are the other people who worked on it! We went through testing a couple of times in-house and out, and there was still no way to know if everything was kosher at the rollover. I'll have you know we still had several glitches 1-1- 00. I was able to fix them within minutes though. There never could have been a "disaster" because either I or one of my coworkers could have fixed anything within a reasonable amount of time - but that is hindsight - a point you and upchuck seem to miss.

You must get off putting yourselves on pedestals like that.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

Holy Christopher, I kept wondering where "The Reuben Delusion" came from. I just figured it out:

Charles Reuben = cpr = foul mouth + nutty "meme" nonsense

A guy with a real estate license trying to convince the world that he saved it from Y2K "FUD".

He and the Doc. What a pair....

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

Life beyond the filtered "normie" world you know so well, deal with it.

This is OUR house, don't like it? then fuck-off.

-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

CPR, you said (in response to something Anita said):

>>I WAS NEVER, NEVER AFRAID OF ANYTHING AND I REMAIN THAT WAY TODAY<<

How do you reconcile that to your rating of 8.0 in June 1998 from Russ Kelly's site (http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html)

"Charles Reuben. Ranking of problem:
June 1998- 8.0
August 1998- 7.2
October 1998- 7.0
December 1998- 7.0
January 1999- 6.7
February 1999- 6.7
March 1999- 5.5
April 1999- 3.5 to 4.5
May 1999- 2.0 to 3.5
June 1999- 1.5 to 2.5
July 1999- 1.0 to 2.0
August 1999- 1.0 to 1.5
September 1999- 0.9999
October 1999- 0.75
November 1999- 0.5
December 1999- 0.5.

Other people at 8.0 in June 1998 were:
Ed Yourdon
Harlan Smith
Alan Simpson
Scott Olmsted
The Y2K Weatherman

Cory was at 7.0

I recall reading something just before the Rollover where someone discussed how you had started out as a pessimist, but that you moved into the optimist category.



-- Anonymous, August 10, 2001

Johnny,

CPR has actually discussed this before. It's possible to be a pessimist about *computer problems* without being *afraid*. Think for a moment: does CPR strike you as the kind of guy who'd hide in his basement? :)

(The very image boggles.[g])

Jonathan,

I remember now that you'd said something in early '99 about basically being the "lone wolf" out on Maui; I wish I'd known you sooner. (Moral support, dontcha know.[g])

Here in the Bible belt, the problem was amplified by straight-up Christian millenialism. When I questioned the belief that computers would cause the collapse of civilization, I was considered a "liberal" or "unbeliever" by many. Go figure.

It was an interesting time, that's for sure. And since the rollover, I've noticed that the argument has changed (save for poor Paula Gordon and her scattering of followers): now there are a few who insist that people like you and I couldn't really and truly have "known" that there would be no significant problems.

We guessed. We happened to "win" (and I've never felt that way, incidentally), but it was just "luck." On and on.

I didn't have to do quite as much research as you because I'd been involved in debunking computer myths prior to Y2K -- mostly relating to viruses and worms (ie, so-called "malware"). I knew already that computers blew up all the time, sometimes spectacularly, and that any organization that really depended on computers already had contingencies in place.

But I still decided that I owed it my readers to check out things; I talked to my bank, I talked to Alabama Power, and folks like that. I was told the same thing as you -- watch this carefully, now! In bold: that the REAL reason why they'd stop granting interviews to Y2K Doomsters was because they were tired of being preached to.

And sure enough, in the early days, they'd grant such a meeting, only to have the Doomer lecture them for hours about the "dangers" of Y2K; the company people would leave shaking their heads, and the Doomer would leave convinced that they were "in denial."

How do you combat that? You chose patient reason; I chose 'yumor. :)

To everyone:

For those who care, I'll give a bit more of a hint on Jonathan's last name: look into Hugh Latimer, circa the Reformation era. :)

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

I'm still wondering why "average" people would/should spend their time "debunking" the fringe groups. Flint and I have already been admonished by Charlie as, essentially, not having "pure" motives in our discourses on Y2k. OTOH, I've seen others confess to the experience simply being "fun" without admonishment.

Y2k is OVER for me. I worked long and hard on fixing the problems, and THAT was my contribution to society. I don't feel a need to fixate on characters involved in the experience. IF they find people who believe them, so be it. It's not like Y2k was UNLIKE any other scam that thousands of people fall for every day.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

I'm still wondering why "average" people would/should spend their time "debunking" the fringe groups. The answer is under "Hall of Integrity"

Ralph Nader
Consumer Crusader

That's what life was all about: the struggle for decency and fairness and opportunity and justice. We were taught that a long time ago, that that's what's important in life. It doesn't mean you don't go out and play ball or ride a bicycle or have fun. It means that the reason why you can sit there in a living room in a nice town, is because there were people before you who paid some attention to reducing or eliminating injustice in society, and we have the same obligation to do that for our and future generations. We were taught that indirectly by our parents and our friends as small children.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001

The attitude of some of the people who post here and many on the assorted TBs is like the people who lowered their windows shades and ignored the screams of Kitty Genovese some 40 years ago as she was stabbed to death 40 times.

"Its not my job.....I don't care." "someone" will take care of it.

From 1607 to 1776 to 1812 to 1941 that "someone" is US.

As they say, "Lead, Follow or Get the Fuck out of the Way". Just as it took only a handful of FUD Meisters to start Y2k, it took only a few to stand up and say "The Fear Makers are BS Artists and here is why". EVEN THE U.S. Government wouldn't do that nor would the State make statements that they were Y2k Ready much less Y2k Compliant.

It took the exposure of the MYTHS of the BS sent to the Press to END Y2k as an "issue" and by Fall, 1999 it was over. Only TB2000, Gary Duct Tape and Hyatt kept the BS going. Most of the early Christian FUD Makers had exited.

There are people WHO DE-BUNK MANY ASSORTED ISSUES. The MOST FAMOUS IN SCIENCE ARE IN "CSICOP" and the Skeptical Inquirer. But there are more.

While I can't agree with Ralph Nader on most issues, it would not bother me to see him in the White House vs. the Al Gores of the world.

THE ONLY THING FOR THE **TRIUMPH OF EVIL*** IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING. HITLER WAS THE ULTIMATE SAD TRUTH OF THAT.

FOR THOSE WHO DID NOTHING WHEN THE THUGS CAME FOR THE JEWS, GYPSIES AND GAYS........THERE CAME A DAY WHEN LATER WHEN THE THUGS CAME FOR THE CATHOLICS AND THE LIBERAL ANTI-NAZI PROTESTANTS. AND THEN CAME THE DAY THE CAME FOR ALL THE REST WHO OPPOSED.

Now the same loonie birds of the Left and Right Fringe have started to resurface secure in the knowledge that few will remember how they mislead before.

There is another reason that is ignore by people like Anita who simply thing that de=bunking scam artists or fringe loonies is "not my job". Frankly IT IS. It is the responsibility of Citizenship to stand up and say "that is NOT RIGHT and you will not do that anymore".

Just last week there was a major bust of financial managers who were working the "Conservative Christian" Circles holding financial planning meetings replete with prayer, bible reading and hymns.

TWO FREAKING BILLION DOLLARS WAS LOST BY THESE MIS-MANAGERS WHO LIVED IN MILLION DOLLAR HOMES PAID FOR WITH THE MONEY THEY BILKED.

-- Anonymous, August 11, 2001