The Washington Post has been doing a series of articles regarding the worrisome state of electric power in the U.S.A. As I have been reading the series, I can't help but keep in mind the Y2K-like implications that apparently caused concern by quite a few people in the late '90s. Undoubtedly, different people reading the stuff are probably reacting in a similar way today.

Hopefully, since Y2K is now a past (non-)event, people have learned something from it, especially when it comes to going off on wacky tangents regarding a technical problem that is not well understood except by the experts. Still, I thought it would be instructive to present one of the articles (it has the links to the others), and then offer a simple multiple choice test.

The article that appeared in yesterday's edition is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42384-2001Aug21.html

Now, let's apply our Y2K "lessons learned" with to following test. Good luck!



The article that you have just read points out troublesome problems with our electric power service that could possibly one day affect you. For example, what if our electricity could not be sustained in the same economical and reliable way that it is currently? Here are some questions to consider.


Q1: What is your first impression of what you have just read?

a) I'm sure that this problem, like so many others, is getting the attention that it deserves from the knowledgeable, qualified people in the industry. They have it under control and will continue to, though possibly this problem may result in more costs to consumers, subsidization using tax revenue, etc., than in previous years.

b) This article is sugar coating the problem, and basically is lying. The truth is that we will soon have no electric power whatsoever. Our division of labor will break down completely, throwing us back to a pre-historic existence much like the Dark Ages. Only those who flee to the mountains and build fortresses powered by generators and windmills, and are armed to the teeth, will survive the Dark Ages to come.

c) This article is perpetuating a hoax, and is basically lying. The truth is that there is no problem whatsoever. The only people who believe that there is a problem are merely under the influence of a bad meme that has taken control of them, and the "Dark Ages" meme needs to be de-bunked.


Q2: Suppose that you wanted to research the issue further, yet realized that you did not have the technical background to evaluate it. What would you do?

a) I would do independent research, using the Internet as but one of many tools, and educate myself to at least gain a working knowledge of the subject at hand. I would consult with recognized experts in the field.

b) I would go to an Internet web site sponsored by someone who has predicted that this problem will end the world as we know it. I would then discuss with other "Dark Agers" how to prepare for this unstoppable calamity. I would also buy products sponsored by the web site.

c) I would go to an Internet web site sponsored by someone who believes that the problem is really a hoax. I would then discuss with other "Dark Age 'Debunkers'" how to prepare for the unstoppable calamity of the Dark Agers shooting up the world once they see that the power stays on. I would also buy products sponsored by the web site.


Q3: Once you completed your research on the issue, what would you then do?

a) I would act responsibly to urge my elected officials to consider the importance of the issue, if in fact there is any need to.

b) Viewing any so-called expert as merely a propaganda puppet that is covering up the real unfixable problem, I would prepare for Armageddon. I would encourage all other "Dark Agers" to do likewise, via our Internet web site. I would shout, scream, and use profanity if necessary should anyone express an opposing view on the web site. After all, lives are at stake here, and I am out to save every one of them that I can. If this comes across as a cult, so be it. It really is not.

c) Viewing any so-called expert as merely a meme controlled puppet, I would prepare for the rampage that will surely happen when the "Dark Agers" discover that it was all a hoax. I would shout, scream, and use profanity if necessary should anyone express an opposing view on the web site. After all, lives are at stake here, and I am out to save every one of them that I can. If this comes across as a cult, so be it. It really is not.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Answers

Read all the links on this page. Get back to us in a few years. We have a resident occasional poster named "The Engineer" who knows a few things about The Grid and Power Transmission. Before you can understand what he writes, you must complete the work assigned.
TTFN

LINK

http://www.epri.com/corporate/discover_epri/roadmap/index.h tml

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

I completed the "assignment" about 20 years ago, mostly by osmosis since I was a Manufacturer's Rep. to the Power Utility Industry. And yes, I owned the Company. That was quite helpful in identifying the absurd nonsense that was posted by self appointed experts on Potential Y2k Power problems. It was also supplemented by direct correspondence with Utility Managers. And NO, it is none of your business who they are.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Maybe they should have left things the way they were in the first place. Local power companies providing power for their region. If they forecast a shortage, they build new local power plants.

Now we have many new industries, created strictly as middlemen, who have no vberhead and pull in total profit (at the expense of consumers), just by managing the buying and selling and distribution of power.

deregulation has caused more problems and cost more money then leaving things alone could ever have.

It appears there was good logic and commone sense in regulation the industry in the first place.

They did it to prevent these problems and to prevent the profiteeing we see today.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

What was the purpose of this thread other than as a showcase for your somewhat arrogant self-righteousness?

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Nick:

I think there is a point, even if it's presented with a rather heavy hand. I've also felt, as TK apparently does, that the y2k tag teams shared all but the details of their convictions. What both sides had in common was extremism, determination, an inability to recognize probabilities or exceptions, and a bit of a messiah complex in bringing the word to a largely imaginary audience. Certainly both sides used the same technique of selecting only the most favorable material to their cause, interpreted in the most favorable light, and presenting the result as the only possible (and totally obvious) reality.

What TK seems to miss is that date bugs really existed, and that being blissfully unaware of the entire massive undertaking doesn't mean that it didn't exist or that the efforts made by so many were somehow moot or irrelevant. Some of us really did see tests fail, and really faced drop-deadlines. The meltdown of civilization may have been a pipedream of the disaffected from the start, but the prospect of a period of annoying screwups and downtime were real, and never could be entirely ruled out (although their possible scope was, toward the end, reduced to at most sporadic incidents, according to wide-scale but never perfectly complete testing).

TK's "ordinary reasonable and prudent man" in his questions basically discovers the problem, learns as much his technical background permits, and accepts that those responsible for ownership of the problem are behaving responsibly simply because they say they are and their word has been adequate in the past. This is the functional equivalent of never even hearing about the problem -- TK's ideal man takes no personal action of any kind (except maybe writing to his Congressman). And after the fact, knowing nothing of import happened, this sort of Olympian disinterest appears entirely rational in hindsight. Hindsight is wonderful for that sort of thing, eh?

I've met quite a few people who decided to take small steps (like buying ahead or copying important documents) to help smoothe out certain types of glitches. To these people, unlike the CPR's or Milne's out there, the future wasn't a guaranteed certainty to be preached far and wide. It was a case of some data scrambling looking rather more likely than usual. And for those people, seeing nothing much happen was a relief, not a shock and not a vindication. Life simply went on, and the insurance taken out wasn't regretted, anymore than I regret my car insurance when a year passes without filing a claim.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Well,TK, you missed a few things. Q1A: The article said that things were under control, BUT it also indicated that excallation would bring problems and life would not be BAU. There would be blackouts, how many and for how long was unknown. It would not be under the controlof the experts.

Q3A: Yes, pass it on to the PTB. But would stop there? Wouldn't you also contact your local utility and ask them what their plans were? Wouldn't you plan to live without electricity and make some preparations?

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Flint,

the insurance taken out wasn't regretted, anymore than I regret my car insurance when a year passes without filing a claim.

Ah, the old insurance analogy, which was NEVER applicable to Y2K. There is a measurable risk that your house could burn or that your car might be involved in an accident. By the admission of the leading doomers themselves, the possibility of problems from Y2K were "impossible" to specify in any detail.

The reason I know this, and am being pedantic, is because I was a licensed insurance agent for several years in NC. As part of my training for the license, I learned what insurance was and, more importantly, precisely what could constitute an "insurable risk."

You can't buy insurance (well ... not REPUTABLE insurance, anyway) against meteorite strikes, the possibility that the laws of thermodynamics might spontaneously be reversed as you read this, or millions of other things. Why? Because the risk is incalculable (or is so high as to be ludicrous of contemplation).

You CANNOT insure against an incalculable risk by definition. Robin Messing put it in plain English back in 1999: you cannot logically prepare for something unless you KNOW what it is you're preparing FOR.

But even if you bend (mangle) (contort) the definitions to make something like Y2K an "insurable risk," there's another important point that the "insurance analogy" folks never seemed to grasp: no reputable insurance agent will sell you a $1,000,000 policy on a $100,000 home. The fact is, the *level* of preparation advocated by the hardcore Doomlits was worse than that.

-- Anonymous, August 23, 2001

Flint,

. . . heavy hand." ROTFLMAOWTIME.

Who is she (TK) to assume that she should be teaching us lessons? Who died and made her God?

One of the biggest lessons of Y2K is personal responsibility. She is not responsible for any of us, nor are we answerable for anything she does. She is not empowered to demand that we answer her or cater to her vanity.

Those of us who learned something from Y2K have learned it and moved on. No amount of smarmy role playing by Y2K non-participants is going to change opinions or lessons learnedpost facto.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

What both sides had in common was extremism, determination, an inability to recognize probabilities or exceptions, and a bit of a messiah complex in bringing the word to a largely imaginary audience.

Extremism on the part of the pollys? LOL! That's a good one. The polly's were simply speaking for the average techie who knew what the real story was. Most pollys were directly involved in Y2K projects. How is it extreme to try to explain what we knew from experience?

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Extremism on the part of the pollys? LOL! That's a good one. The polly's were simply speaking for the average techie who knew what the real story was. Most pollys were directly involved in Y2K projects. How is it extreme to try to explain what we knew from experience?

Well, the claim that the "average techie" was absolutely certain that there would be no problems whatsoever that were worth preparing (or, using Flint's analogy, taking out insurance), certainly doesn't hold up. Mixing in nutball "thought contagionation" dogma also didn't speak for the "average techie".

(Note to Nick: I'm a guy, just for the record.)

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

"thought contagionation"

I love how you keep using a term that doesn't exist and then calling others nutball. You're a bigger fool than you think you are.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

It's not my fault, Buddy. It's a really bad meme that makes me act this way! Make it go away! Pleeeeeeaase!!!

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Stephen:

In a purely pedantic sense, you are correct. IF the threat were entirely incalculable or undefinable, then insurance would make no sense. Ken Decker was also correct saying that individuals could not "insure" against the total breakdown of civilization.

Now, moving from the pedantic back to the real, we find that people had a fairly good handle (based on actual real-life testing) of the kinds of failure date bugs *typically* introduced. If you should happen to read the *rest* of the paragraph from which you extracted *part of* a single sentence, you will see that I was not talking about the doomers. I was talking about those people who read about the test results in the newspaper, or saw them on 60 minutes, Oprah, etc. In fact, I was very careful to distinguish these people from the extremists.

Do you remember people urging us to make copies of important records? Do you remember Koskinen and others telling us to prepare as though we faced a possible 3-day storm? To keep more than $5 in cash handy? THESE were the cautions that reached the public at large, the people who never heard of our little screaming match off in a dark corner of the internet.

In fact, these are sensible precautions against a fairly wide variety of possible ramifications of almost any temporary interruption of the smoothe operation of our high-tech culture. This is the level of generic preparation against misfortune that cautious people have always had.

Maybe you are too confused by labels to read words. Instead of "y2k" the dreaded end of life as we know it, try to think in terms of inconveniences. Things like your driver's licence expiring and DMV's computer is down so you need to make a second visit. Your monthly mortgage form not arriving, followed by a dunning letter because you didn't pay, and you have to get this straightened out. You know, not the end of the world, but a generally raised level of aggravation and wasted time. There were things that could be done to minimize such things if you made the effort to do them. Some people did. They didn't regret it.

Buddy:

I need to clarify a bit more, I see. I'm working hard here to draw what I see as a qualitative distinction between those who were aware of the issue but expected completely manageable problems, and those who were (and still are) ranting that the entire issue was a fraud from the beginning. It was not -- there were real bugs, and lots of them.

Maybe we should term these people "realist/optimists" on the one hand, and "messianic pollyannas" on the other. Maybe Peter deJager would be a good model -- initially very concerned, he decided a year ahead of time that the matter had been overblown, that it was well within the scope of code maintenance efforts generally, and that it had been addressed to the point where we could rule out all but sporadic and local glitches (but which nonetheless might affect YOU in some way).

CPR and Doc Paulie and the like are heaping credit upon themselves for accomplishing deeds they didn't accomplish (nor needed to), based on knowledge and understanding they didn't have. They are also visibly consumed with their need to attack anyone who they believe exploited the issue for personal gain. Extremists, Buddy.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

CPR and Doc Paulie and the like are heaping credit upon themselves for accomplishing deeds they didn't accomplish (nor needed to), based on knowledge and understanding they didn't have.

Well said, Flint! As is becoming more and more obvious.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

Flint IS and will always be CLUELESS. He fools ya since he is such a crafted author. Problem is, he never really says anything beyond the obvious. He never is able to make or take a stand on anything since to do so would threaten the stability of his eggsheel ego. Far easier for a Flint to label others who DO FREAKING KNOW shit as wackos and extremists. By doing so he can convince himself and others while the kooks maybe right sometimes, it is because of blind luck and not a thorough investigation of all the facts.

Here is some Flint History yet to be rewritten..........Why The Flint Bashing? June 26, 1999

By all indications I can see, y2k is going to cause a mind- boggling array of problems.

I admit I can't see the future. I can only guess. My philosophy is that clear thinking leads to better guesses.

On this same thread Mister FlintC, supposed "middle of the roader and rational man at the center of a Polly-Doomer war" is found defining the differences between gloomers and doomers. Flint did this because Flint, while not a full fledged Milne, still was expecting a big Y2k mess based on the piles of information Flint claims would convince anybody of sane mind, of the same. Anyone claiming Y2k would be a fat zero was of course a nutball equal in stance to a Paul Milne. Course since Flint is the know-it-all no other possible explanation is available why he would not know beyond another being "lucky".

Understand, Flint was seen as a Polly by the typical doomer. Fact is, Flint was one of them, a doomer. Course Flinty never expected to need a rusty hubcap for drinking his dog piss out of like Milne, but like Milne, Flinty was unable thru massive brain mobilization to place Y2k factoids into proper perspective, although he tries to this day to do so.

There is a place beyond knowledge. The hope is one day Flint will tire of his running and allow it to catch-up to him.

-- Anonymous, August 24, 2001

CPR and Doc Paulie and the like are heaping credit upon themselves for accomplishing deeds they didn't accomplish (nor needed to), based on knowledge and understanding they didn't have. They are also visibly consumed with their need to attack anyone who they believe exploited the issue for personal gain. Extremists, Buddy.

I disagree completely. If it is extremist to counteract the spreading of misinformation, rumor, distrust, and, in the case of folks like Milne, downright sedition, then call me one too. If it is extremist to not accept the ill-informed opinions of the "doomers" as equally valid points of view such as a middle-of-the-roader like you, Flint, did, then call me one too. If it is extremist to debunk the irresponsible opinions of people like Yourdon, Hamasaki, and others calling themselves "computer experts" who were "insiders" who knew "society was going down" who then went beyond their so- called "expertise" and advised people to hole up in their own private bunker utopias, then call me one too.

I'd be growing tired of this subject nearly two years after the fact if it weren't for the fact that folks like TK and now Flint, as I see it, are trying to revise history. The fact of the matter is that many in the "doomer" crowd for whatever reasons influenced others in what I considered to be a negative way, and I felt it was worthwhile to try to call them on it. If that makes me an extremist, then so be it.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Buddy:

I think you might be reading me wrong.

From my viewpoint, there seemed a goodly amount of legitimate smoke, from which it wasn't unreasonable to conclude that there probably was some fire somewhere.

After all, big bucks were being expended on countless remediation projects, some of them major. Interviews (on TV and in newspapers) with key people in those projects weren't uniformly rosy -- they really did have problems. There really were enterprises where little was done that, at least outwardly, didn't look too different from those where a great deal was being done and was found to be necessary. Date bugs were unquestionably real, pervasive, and potentially disruptive even if only in a minor way. Even those directly involved in remediation could not say for sure.

For me, this was all legitimate smoke. I am NOT talking about the profiteers out to make a fast buck off of all the fear they could generate. You can ALWAYS find such people at extreme religious sites, at the goldbug sites, at the likes of Prudent Bear, etc. There are always paranoid people, and there are always the Chicken Littles who prey on them. I don't regard those as legitimate.

Yes, looking back we can see that whatever fire really existed was manageable, and was managed. But this isn't the same as what our resident extremists are saying. They are saying that there never was any problem, that the remediation efforts were a waste of money, that all of the publicity given to the issue by the media (many of whom never even heard of North, Yourdon, or Hamasaki) was either cynical hype to sell product, or was the side-effect of the evil profiteers and the media were victims out of their own ignorance.

So I think there is a distinct, qualitative dividing line between the general optimist/realists and the nutcase pollyannas. As another example, the optimist/realist says that you are unlikely to suffer a tire blowout that causes you to lose control of your car, and that predicting a blowout is *certain* simply because it is *possible* is misunderstanding probabilities. The nutcase pollyanna claims there's no such thing as a tire, that anyone who claims there is is lying for profit, that their in-depth knowledge informs them that tires themselves are hoaxes, and that if you disagree you are a fool.

I freely admit I overestimated the scope of the problem and/or underestimated our ability to solve it, so I expected more impact than actually happened. But using the lack of impact as "proof" that no problem ever existed at all is like using your safe arrival at your distination as "proof" that there's no such thing as tires. It just doesn't work that way.

Droolie is essentially claiming that he called heads, it came up heads, and this proves tails did not exist in the first place. He has simplified the reality beyond all recognition for motivations having nothing to do with personal safety and, as far as I can tell, everything to do with personal insecurity or some such. A potential event does NOT become a "hoax" simply because the odds are low.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

There is documentation(if asked I will dig it up), showing Y2k was a known back as far as the early 1970's. It is also well known that the Social Security Administration began to have problems with Y2k type issues back in the late 1980's. One of the most publicised Y2k incidents happened in 1996 when certain Credit Card terminals began rejecting cards because they were unable to read expiration dates starting with 00. That incident alone did more to expand Y2k awareness than anything else.

Y2k has been a known for years, decades for those the most intimate with the issue like IBM. It was trackable for any who really wanted the facts and could read the trends, a manageable and not really threatening problem for the vasy majority. Some had major issues, most did not, but most bought the hype that they "might", or the "other guy" might have problems.

What types like Flint do not understand is MOST of the claims by the DOOM crowd were happening, and had happened for DECADES! Without having that understanding going for you, the impending Y2k catastrophe flew. Flint assumes a Polly is like an ostrich and rejects all that. A Polly knows all that and understands what to make of it. The facts were saying Y2k is really no societal threat based on 3 decades of history.

We had Y2k problems, we had a growing trend of Y2k issues, we had confusion, we had deliberate misstatements of fact by major companies, we had footdragging, and most of the rest of the NOISE heard from the worryworts. I did not just IGNORE all this, quite the opposite in fact. What all that is, is REALITY, the ways things are with MOST of LIFE. Nothing new about Corporations or Government being less than forthcoming, it is EXPECTED.

The world does not operate at COMPUTING levels of efficiency. In fact, while miracles of efficiency, computers themselves really not all they are cracked-up to be either. The world BARELY gets by now. The levels of waste, inefficiency, incompetence, and pure ignorance is truely amazing. It is a wonder anything gets done frankly.

Y2k thrown into "what is", was like tossing a snowflake on a hot stove. REAL--- absolutely no question Y2k existed and will so for many more decades to come. Point being, so what? what made Y2k that damn different than any other computing issue?

Many reasons, mostly though it had to do with it being fixed to the Millennium. It is also was an easy read by lay people. It also happened at a time when technology is introducing incredible advances throughout society and with it unprecedented levels of fear and the uncertainty. Technology is destabilizing, people have concerns, fears. Adding the instant communication and fast breeding meme complex that the Internet is, and you end-up with a Y2k issue.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Doc:

By and large I agree with all you say this time. My only objection is that I'm not really referring to the internet phenomenon per se. I'm referring to the mass media presentation -- the TWO 60 Minute episodes on the issue, the entire Sunday Papers devoted to it around the country, the very existence of Koskinen's department, the people appearing on Oprah, Larry King etc. urging awareness that the problem, while not necessarily *worrisome* you understand, was real and some prudent precautions couldn't hurt, and so on. And toward the end, the signs showing up all over with everyone claiming they were compliant, or "ready", or whatever. No internet necessary.

We all experience computer screwups fairly regularly -- incorrect bills, lost records, downtime. I recently tried to buy an appliance at Lowe's, and could not because the computer said they had one in stock and they did not. So they couldn't sell me what they didn't have, and couldn't order another because the computer wouldn't let them -- it thought they had one!

When these occurrences are infrequent or easy to work around, we laugh about them. Yet we were being told by reputable observers that there was a *chance*, probability fairly good, that this kind of thing would experience a temporary dramatic increase. Perhaps nothing to get real excited about, but something to be *aware* of, remember? Something you could fend off by buying what you wanted ahead if possible, by cloning key records, by not tempting fate (for example by traveling).

And none of this had anything to do with the profiteers, who undeniably existed (and against whose profiteering your and cpr's personal efforts were irrelevant). Yes, there are paranoids and their inevitable predators. You are quite correct about that. And I agree that "Y2K" the myth, the great slobbering meltdown monster, was utterly imaginary. I spent a couple of YEARS try to SHOW why it was imaginary.

Byt y2k the potential, temporary increase in glitch rates, THAT was neither myth nor hoax. Similar glitches assail us during normal times with depressing regularity. It didn't take a whole lot of imagination to picture them getting worse for a while, perhaps reaching a level of active annoyance and inconvenience. Even I don't believe (as you seem to imply) that we're on the ragged edge all the time or that it's amazing we muddle through at all. If you believe this, surely you can imagine that some common-mode computer problem might make things temporarily worse. Viruses actually do this now and again.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

Oldie but goodie...http://stand77.c om/wwwboard/messages/1124.html

Updated link to source document...http://www.us.cgey.com/news/current_news.asp?ID=109

Unlike some of my fellow Pollies, I stand as one who places the real blame for the Y2k circus on Vendors, and segments of the IT industry who saw an easy way to make some dough. FUD sells and Y2k was as good as it gets.

I was very vocal about Peter de Jager. I have information on my website exposing connections IDG had which I feel helped the Y2k Hype grow. North and Flipper were the public clowns of Y2k. Along with the liberal wackos like Paula Gordon, Tom Atlee and co, it was a hoot to bash these yo-yos day after day. It was also great fun to "play", even from afar, with the Andy and Milne types. I do not apologize in the least and would do it again. If misunderstood by some, well that is the way it is. One is not required to operate on the internet as if everyone is an AOL user who "surfs" a few minutes a week. Most of us are power-users and understand how this deal works. If one does not get CPR, too freaking bad I say. No kidding the style is LOUD, so what? Guy ain't selling housewares, K? Every frequented webboard has the assorted characters Debunking Y2k had in some shape or form.

Beyond all the games the truth is many of us supposed Pollies, did know with great certainty Y2k was about PR and not computing issues. Y2k to this day is not ONE THING, it never was. Dating issues, code issues, interface issues have existed from the beginning and will always. Mistake made was to think Y2k something unique, it was not.

-- Anonymous, August 25, 2001

I was going to say that I disagree with Flint saying that cpr and Doc think...

that the remediation efforts were a waste of money

but it's a moot point now.

I pretty much agree with what both of you just said.

Thanks.

-buddy

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

No Buddy. The cutting edge that separates the de-bunkers is something that Flint is incapable of learning. WE were deadly serious. He and his like kind, merely want to "discuss".

The true colors of the person came out when he admitted to "kicking anthills". That is easy to do when you are another Pizzant.

It is typical of Flint to simply construct ANY argument for the "sake of discussion" and try to get his little falsehoods and his own personal opinions accepted as valid. His objective is to simply "argue". WHO CARES? He is as silly as Paula Gordon.

Best said: FLINT is an Attention Seeking GNAT who Nit Picks out of an obsessive need to "win". DO NOT EVER INVITE HIM TO YOUR FAMILY THANKSGIVING or you will be insured of warring camps by the end of the day each side supporting or against "Flint". It is FACT, that NORTH and HYATT spread SEDITION AND MIS-TRUST about everything except their world view. That ODOR permeates every rendition of TB 2000 since and we have seen nothing from there or Yourdon or anywhere evidence that these people even believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Do you ever see posts about how great the US is? NO, only the usual tactics of the Fringe: "we have *lost* what we had and must get it back and we must do something to prevent loosing more "TO THEM"" (where "them" is a host of all or any of the purported enemies of "what once was"). IT WAS BULL SHIT. AND Flint and Decker should have stated that and done what MUTHA and "Chicken Little" and Hoff and many more did: Stated that and LEFT.

Flint like Decker and Anita, were and are entertaining themselves just as a stool sitter at a local tavern does for an evening. BOTH became the "Straw Men" for the Doom Zombies Chickens to pick away at OR CHANGE THE SUBJECT. (mostly the latter because "thread termination" effectively prevented the Zombies from looking back on any whole argument set. Paul Davis outlined the whole "thread manipulation" scheme on Biffy and it was true both at TB and HyattSKI's house of BS.)

You and I and the other people who were concerned about the constant, neverending stream of Propaganda and now the continued efforts to "re- write History" show how utterly clueless Flint was about anything except the embedded things he was working on and a few other issues he knew "a little" about. He like Decker, got his material from online sources and then injected their own world view and A PRIORI "thoughts". Flint continues to do it. He will never understand that the UTTER CONTEMPT I HAVE FOR THE DOOM ZOMBIES AND THE SPREADERS OF THE Y2k MANURE disguised as "fact" up to and including the so- called "official papers" of even the US Y2k groups. It only took about 1 reading to get people to question the NIST "embedded" BS from Nov. 1999.

WORSE, since he dismisses the Fruit Loops as "non-influential", the damage that Yourdon, North, Hyatt, Lord Dumbo, Adams, Roleigh Twit, Little Ricky Cowles and many, many more did in SPREADING THE MANURE, he simply "re-writes History" to content his VERY LIMITED VIEW. That is why he is a tech. It was EASY for him to content himself that HE, The Great Debater WON on TB2000 Ver. 1.0. The same was true for Decker. BIG DEAL.

Its merely an example of "IN THE VALLEY OF THE BLIND, THE ONE EYED MAN IS KING". At TB2000, he failed to notice ALL THE FORMERLY SIGHTED, who had their eyes poked out by the EXTREMISTS. What few remember is that in the 2nd week of December, 1999, the SHITHEADS at "The Center For Y2k and Society" aka; the Center for Wasted Grant money came out with a list of places whose WATER SUPPLY they thought would be impacted.

It was such crap the Press immediately rejected it. Why was it released at the same time "The Center" was asking people to take their other "prep materials" at no cost?

They had to show something for the $5 to 10 Million Dollars in GRANT money that they had wasted. (After paying the "Staff" which included the Loony Tune Mark Frautsche who both disgraced himself as a Professional Scientist and lost his WIFE because of his Y2k stance. )

And just as Jim Lord and "Dr." DooDoo Carmichael had infected Frautsche with the y2k hysteria, Frautsche passed that along and prolonged the SEEMINGLY ENDLESS STREAM OF BS FROM "Dr." Paula Gordon and the SILLY GICC.

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

OFF

-- Anonymous, August 26, 2001

Gawd! It only gets funnier: CPR's latest lame explanation as to how he lost $400K due to his Y2K concerns...

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

What a joke. I didn't "lose" it. I just didn't that because I was concentrating on EXPOSING THE BS ARTISTS OF Y2k.

King of Spam was just one of the Doomzies with nothing left in his life now.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

When I said, "I pretty much agree with what both of you just said."

I meant the last Flint post, not the one prior where he continued to say cpr and Doc were extremists.

For what it's worth.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

When I said, "I pretty much agree with what both of you just said."

I meant the last Flint post, not the one prior where he continued to say cpr and Doc were extremists.

For what it's worth.


Well, of course, we knew that, Buddy. Your loyalty is simply beyond any question.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

TK,

My loyalty can be bought. Make me an offer.

LOL!

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

My loyalty can be bought. Make me an offer.


Well, having just made a first pass through that amazing link provided above by "400K FOR Y2K", I think I have just the thing for you, Buddy...

How about this great offer: Quit your job and become a full fleged, full time, Y2K de-bunker! Just like your hero did!!

(OK, back to work. The back at that link for some more good reading. I love Mondays like this one.)

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

---

HEY, TK, (Lennie) tell us about the rabbit known as XSLT and how to build tables with it. You should be able to whip out something newer than Freshman Fortran from the 1970s.

OR CAN YOU?

"The Big Lie" in action. CPR is trying to confuse folks by huffin and puffin. Smokey in heare....

-- vvavoom (v@v.com), August 25, 2001.

---

No, TK, it's a valid question. You called CPR for using pseudocode (something that I do all the time when explaining programming concepts to others) and implied that he doesn't understand these concepts. I happen to know that he does.

(In fact, he knows MORE than I do about some of the latest widgets. I'm more of an embedded, hardware, assembler-and-C/C++ type of code hacker. If you need a VxD that'll let your hardware board talk to your program, or an embedded chip that'll control some sort of industrial process, I'm your man.)

When you call someone out like that, you are starting a Weenie-Wag contest by default.[g] Therefore, it's legitimate for Charlie to ask you to show how much YOU know, especially given that you insist on insisting that there were no real "experts" at Doc's or BIFFY.

Your comments here have been interesting, but taken as a whole, are more illuminating. You presented yourself initially as someone who'd never heard of the Great Y2K Debate until recently. And yet, as these threads have proceeded, you have let drop certain terms and have used peculiar wording unique to that debate -- as though you were, in fact, involved in it at the time.

Therefore, methinks that my original assessment, that you're a bored troll who's killing time (and not coincidentally getting a buzz off of provoking Charlie[g]), is probably near the mark.

Hey, absolutely nothing wrong with that; the Web is rife with it. Shoot, I myself have done it. But don't be surprised if I lump you with Netghost, DavePC and a few other names from the past over at Doc's Joint. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), August 26, 2001.

---

SMP, watch this thread "die" now. I think I will cut and paste a few of the posts and hassle the hassler with them.

-- cpr (buytexas@hotmail.com), August 26, 2001.

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

Gee, funny how cpr just posted a snatch from that thread, completely leaving out my response to Stephen Poole's comments. Must have been completely unintentional and accidental. Not.

Anyhoo, here is the full story:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=006BSO

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001

No wonder TK wastes our time. He is lost. I found out why on this link. There is a virtual disconnect as you will see.

LINK

-- Anonymous, August 27, 2001