Peter DeJager's current state of mind"Failure as Evidence of Effort" articlegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
"Failure as Evidence of Effort" by Peter DeJager on his Year2000 website.http://www.year2000.com/archive/NFy2kfailure.html Several years ago, even as recent as nine months ago, if asked to describe a worst case scenario for the effect of Y2K, it wasn't difficult to paint a gloomy picture. Not all companies had begun their Y2K project. Governments were still debating as to whether or not it was a 'real' problem and many did not know how big the task was and could not, not honestly at least, provide reasonable estimates for when they'd be able to deliver compliant systems.
Describing, even highlighting and obsessing on the consequences of inaction, seemed the only possible way to spur people to action. Kevin Schick, once of the Gartner Group, used to describe this as a 'bet your business proposition.' He was right. It was, still is, a problem with some especially nasty consequences if we don't do the job right.
It's important to note, though, that some people had (still have) a problem with a strategy of consequences. But, if we (those of us ringing the alarm bell) had not brought 'dire consequences of inaction' to management's and the media's attention, then most would have acted far too late. The evidence of this statement is found in the words of executives who admit publicly they should have started earlier.
At every step of this project, the technical difficulties we faced paled in comparison to the simple fact that we were not yet working on the problem. Y2K is not a two digit year problem. Y2K is a problem because we chose not to work on the two digit problem. Lack of effort, not date ambiguity, was always the issue.
By highlighting the negative consequences of inaction, we hoped to avoid them. The goal was to get a sleeping giant to awaken. If sticking needles into his eyelids, putting itching powder in his shorts and setting his toes on fire was what was required, then that's what we did. It worked. The giant woke up. This is described as 'fear tactics' by some critics. So be it. Guilty as charged. Sue us for delivering a nasty message and achieving a worthy goal.
If we had continued to do nothing to fix the problem, we'd have faced several hundred million computer problems ranging from the inconsequential to the extremely catastrophic, all occurring in a very short period of time. No matter how many of us caught the sky as it fell, we'd be standing knee deep in techno-rubble.
And make no mistake about it, the sky would have fallen and us 'Chicken Little types' would have been totally and unfortunately vindicated. Companies have spent billions of dollars already to fix a problem which the media, five years ago, described as hype and hysteria.
Sorry media folks. Here's a news flash--it was and still is real. Sad thing is, there are still people today who want to brush this aside as a non-event. The good news; we no longer have to wait five or six years to see if we were right... it's now down to mere months before the fat lady sings.
Actually, the fat lady has already sung her swan song. The companies working on this are working to fix known problems, not to prove the 'Chicken Littles' right. More importantly perhaps, 1999 already brought a small crop of Y2K-related problems. The good news, which we hope will repeat itself time and time again, is that all the reported problems were fixed within a single day.
The bad news, and there is bad news, is that in waking up the giant, we also scared the wits out of the general population. General perception has transformed worst-case scenarios based upon lack of effort into inevitable, unavoidable consequences. Any good news which does arise is cast aside as merely a positive spin. Bad news is accepted at face value. But good news, no matter what supporting evidence is offered, is discounted, ignored and discarded.
There are some bizarre stories/predictions going around. 'We could lose power in America for ever!' is a personal favourite. Another keeper is the notion that the worldwide power grid is at risk! The 'world wide power grid?' That's a new one to me no such thing exists. Never the less, people who know no better are alarmed by these predictions/claims no matter how ridiculous they are.
Another beauty is the one about the single computer (labeled appropriately 'The Beast' a not so subtle biblical reference) which controls all currency transactions worldwide...which has a Y2K problem and cannot be fixed! Again, no such device.
And there are the reports this whole problem is a conspiracy of the world governments so they can sneak in a new world order under martial law. It's a strange, strange world out there, Y2K made it even stranger. As Heinlein said, these are the Crazy Years.
Much of this tripe is being served up by folks who have their own agendas of fear and panic. People who for years have either predicted nuclear wars, 100's of millions of deaths due to AIDs or the collapse of the banking system. (p.s. Just for the record, in case you weren't paying attention, none of these predictions came to pass.) These are charlatans of the highest order. They know exactly what they are doing and are literally, by their own words, trying to bring down society.
These folks are not folks who have misread the news and incorrectly painted too bleak a future. These folks are using Y2K very cleverly and deliberately to create a state of panic. A pity the media cannot distinguish between those warning of a technical problem and offering solutions and those preaching old testament prophecies.
This stuff aside. There are legitimate concerns. All is not well with the world. Not enough was done to avoid all Y2K problems. Many companies and most governments have still not taken this thing seriously. They pay lip service to the problem and utter platitudes which only serve to raise the concern of those who are honestly trying to understand the problem and create reasonable contingency plans for themselves, their families and their communities.
In the midst of all this confusion, companies have taken action. It's difficult to prove what they've done. The lawyers are 'advising' them to say nothing. It's impossible to prove they'll be compliant on the day. It is however possible, because it has the taste of bad news, to prove that action has taken place, that some attention is being paid to this problem and that we are making progress.
How? By focusing on failure. Failure which is solid evidence of sincere effort. Here are just a few hard examples of Y2K effort.
In the summer of 1998, Statistics Canada replaced a non-compliant system based in British Columbia. In doing so, they encountered the inevitable teething problems resulting in longer than normal delays to the registrations of births, deaths, and marriages.
Also in 1998, Dublin City, Ireland replaced their traffic control system because of Y2K problems and the result was a day of traffic gridlock again because the implementation did not go as smoothly as expected.
Palace produce sued Tec America Inc. because their system was incapable of handling credit cards with an expiration date past 01/99. They won their case and were awarded $250,000 in damages.
Reports of the SEC charging some companies for not disclosing Y2K risks in their annual reports is good news of a sort. It means that the watchdogs are out and starting to bare their teeth at companies treating this problem lightly.
The same goes for news of banks who are being rapped on the knuckles by the regulators for not doing enough to solve the problem. That we are now learning about these laggards is good news. A suggestion to the depositors of these banks? Move your money to a bank which is taking the time to protect your investment.
All of this news, even though it is news of failures, problems and snafu's, is evidence that these organizations are actively working on Y2K. It's also important to remember that the media is much more likely to report a problem than they are to report that the bank down the street has successfully and without incident replaced their credit card system. Competence is not news incompetence is.
And finally, the DOD was caught lying about systems they claimed compliant. Consider what went on in the background to catch them in this lie. It's proof that not only is work being done to fix our systems but there are people making sure that when you say the work is done, it is actually done.
At times, foolishness, like the lies from DOD, gets me down, but I am comforted by the fact they were caught in the act. It means we're now paying attention to the problem even if there are some idiots who believe they can lie their way into compliancy. The code knows. Unless fixed, it will fail. No pretense can stop it.
When speaking to anyone who claims action on Y2K, one question and one question alone can offer proof they're really working on the problem. Ask them what they found which would fail and what they've done to fix, replace, or work around that failure. If you haven't found a Y2K failure, then either you're not working on the problem, or haven't looked hard enough.
There will, on rare occasions, be exceptions to this rule, but they'll be few and far between. Failure is evidence of effort.
Yours truly, Peter de Jager Dec. 14, 1998
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 14, 1999
We owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. de Jager for sounding the early warning about the dangers of Y2K. His call to action spurred much of the preparation that has occurred.Having dispensed with my recognition of Mr. de Jager's contributions, I can now unequivocally say that he is a first rate scumbag. His current position isn't at all consistent with what he has stated in the past. Either he was lying to us before (as he tries to imply in this article) or he has compromised his principles now and is downplaying the possible effects of Y2K.
Either way, de Jager is untrustworthy; pay attention to him at your own risk.
-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.
Instant corroboration is always gratifying. First, here's the statement:"The bad news, and there is bad news, is that in waking up the giant, we also scared the wits out of the general population. General perception has transformed worst-case scenarios based upon lack of effort into inevitable, unavoidable consequences. Any good news which does arise is cast aside as merely a positive spin. Bad news is accepted at face value. But good news, no matter what supporting evidence is offered, is discounted, ignored and discarded. "
And now, here's the proof:
"I can now unequivocally say that he is a first rate scumbag. His current position isn't at all consistent with what he has stated in the past. Either he was lying to us before (as he tries to imply in this article) or he has compromised his principles now and is downplaying the possible effects of Y2K. "
De Jager's (and others') warnings have caused quite a few people to paint themselves into a mental corner, it seems. There's an old saying that nobody is more devout than a convert. Be careful that y2k doesn't morph from a serious concern to a religious dogma, lest this happen to you as well.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 14, 1999.
"There's an old saying that nobody is more devout than a convert. Be careful that y2k doesn't morph from a serious concern to a religious dogma, lest this happen to you as well."Too late. I get from reading these discussions that for a lot of people, Y2K has already morphed into a religion.
Think of if: Y2K is big; it's mysterious; it's full of unknowns; it has the potential to change your life totally or even to kill you & everyone else; & best of all, your neighbors don't believe it exists.
One set of experts swears it's not a problem & you're a fool for paying attention; another set of experts swears it's the end of your world & you're a fool to ignore it.
It fills true believers with fear & tremblling. It invades your mind, your wallet, your home, your relationships, your dreams at night. Assuming it actually does exist, it will arrive at a specified time & wreck havoc throughout the world.
Is this a religion, or what?
-- true believer (not@aol.com), January 14, 1999.
Flint,You apparently totally missed the point of my posting. But having read some of your posts, I can easily see how it would have escaped you. So I will restate it in two syllable (or less) words for you and the other Pollyannas out there.
"De Jager says he lied about how bad Y2K really was to get firms (couldn't say businesses, too many syllables) to work on it. Now he says things will be much better because they are finally awake and working on the problem. Bottom line: de Jager was either lying to us THEN or he's lying to us NOW. The key word is LYING. A LIAR cannot be trusted." (two syllable limitation now turned "off").
The really bad news about Y2K, according to the new and improved Peter de Jager, is that in waking up the sleeping giants, he also scared us poor helpless morons into thinking that the world REALLY is coming to an end.
Just for your information, Flint, I've painted MYSELF into this "mental corner" based on over a year's worth of personal research and working every day with the Y2K problem. NOT based on the predictions of de Jager, Yourdon, North, Hamasaki, or any other "expert." So until you know a little bit more about me, why don't you hold off on the value judgments.
-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.
Most of us who became aware of y2k in 97 had two main sources of information: De Jager and North. Then Yourdon and Cowles and Westergaard. Of all these originals De Jager is the only one who has turned pollyanna. Just as I didn't get it on y2k through one person, neither will I abandon my serious preparations because of one person.Recently Michael Hyatt was asked if he thought things were better or worse since he first wrote his book. He said it is worse. I've read his book and been to his site. He is not a fear monger.
It seems to me that De Jager along with Sen. Bennett along with Koskinen are part of y2kspeak. It is a way of talking that calms people down and keeps them from running on the banks.
The main reason I don't take De Jager seriously is because he is flat out lying. Germany has only ten percent of its utilities even working on y2k. The nations are waaaaay behind. Who is he kidding? Flint, you can believe him if you want. I don't even go to his site anymore. I know Nabi has been around for a while. I remember when he came on board North's old forum back in 97. He is reading De Jager right.
And here we are on Ed's forum. I don't hear him going optimistic. He has my ear. He knows the facts better than De Jager. I don't see him talking and writing that things are getting fixed.
Yes there will be fixes and success stories in the software area. But remember the embedded chips don't roll over until jan 1. Until then BEWARE THE PROPHETS OF GOOD NEWS.
B
-- bb (b@b.b), January 14, 1999.
I don't trust public figures like DeJager and Yardeni anymore as much as I used to last year. I'm worried that they've been aproached by the government to temper down their stances. It's certainly not farfetched if you consider the implications these people's statements have with the economy. I instead rely more on not so well known experts, who are on par with them.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 14, 1999.
[translations are in brackets]You apparently totally missed the point of my posting.
[you must be really stupid]
But having read some of your posts, I can easily see how it would have escaped you.
[I feel better when I insult people]
So I will restate it in two syllable (or less) words for you and the other Pollyannas out there.
[Now I feel really good. Boy, am I impressing folks now!]
"De Jager says he lied about how bad Y2K really was to get firms (couldn't say businesses, too many syllables) to work on it.
[de Jager is really stupid too]
Now he says things will be much better because they are finally awake and working on the problem.
[This is obviously stupid too. Working on things never makes them better. At least, that's *my* experience working on them]
Bottom line: de Jager was either lying to us THEN or he's lying to us NOW. The key word is LYING. A LIAR cannot be trusted."
[anyone who disagrees with me is either a liar or stupid. In de Jager's case, it's both. I'm feeling better all the time]
(two syllable limitation now turned "off").
[And better. Insults sure sound good when I write them]
The really bad news about Y2K, according to the new and improved Peter de Jager, is that in waking up the sleeping giants, he also scared us poor helpless morons into thinking that the world REALLY is coming to an end.
[and put that mirror away! I'm trying to be *serious* here]
Just for your information, Flint, I've painted MYSELF into this "mental corner" based on over a year's worth of personal research and working every day with the Y2K problem.
[I'm an expert, dammit. My opinion is the Truth!]
NOT based on the predictions of de Jager, Yourdon, North, Hamasaki, or any other "expert." So until you know a little bit more about me, why don't you hold off on the value judgments.
-----
OK, tell us a little about yourself? Where did you learn such masterful intolerance? Why do you think that calling people liars and scumbags supports your position? Can you honestly recognize good news? I've only seen you reject it, and badmouth those who don't, but as you say, I don't know you beyond what you post here.
de Jager makes a good point about what's usually called publication bias -- we read the stories written about the things that go wrong, and we can't read the stories never written about the things that didn't go wrong. We have some good reason to believe that a *lot* more went wrong than we ever read about, but those things were most likely fixed quickly and quietly (and there are probably many little date-related fires being put out fairly steadily now). But the successes get no ink, and are vastly underrepresented in the data pool.
de Jager says things were much worse (and they were), but they're now improving (and they are). For noticing this progression, you label him a liar. When situations change, do you think it's a lie to notice this, or just to point it out?
When peoples' observations are at odds with your convictions, you can recheck your own observations and modify your opinions accordingly, or you can call the observers liars and scumbags and maintain your convictions intact. Which one you choose defines your character.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 14, 1999.
De Jagger has definately sent a confusing message with that article. When you're using failures as a reason for optimism, you're either an idiot or you have an agenda. Three people lost their legs this week clearing mine fields, that's great! It means they're making progress. That logic just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I was a big fan of Sen. Bennett but he seems to have been overcome with optimism. I have no problem with optimism, but there just isn't enough progress being made. It looks like quite a few people are being "turned" by something. I would wager that it is political pressure.
-- d (d@dgi.com), January 14, 1999.
Flint,I'm certainly glad you were able to translate what I was saying in my last post. I am obviously communication impaired (and an a$$hole to boot, apparently). Thanks for so thoroughly pointing that out. My post has nothing to do with intolerance. In my work, I see Y2K successes; but I also see willful Y2K ignorance. Ignorance that will cost this country greatly in the very near future.
I direct you back to a passage from the esteemed Mr. de Jager's article:
"By highlighting the negative consequences of inaction, we hoped to avoid them. The goal was to get a sleeping giant to awaken. If sticking needles into his eyelids, putting itching powder in his shorts and setting his toes on fire was what was required, then that's what we did. It worked. The giant woke up. This is described as 'fear tactics' by some critics. So be it. Guilty as charged. Sue us for delivering a nasty message and achieving a worthy goal."
De Jager admits that he LIED and exaggerated in order to motivate companies to fix their code. Am I missing something here? Is he now trustworthy because his "lies" have worked? Or were his "lies" the truth, and his new line the lie?
Oh, and the honorable Mr. de Jager has this to say about those who don't agree with his new "there will be problems but we will make it through OK" stance on Y2K:
"Much of this tripe is being served up by folks who have their own agendas of fear and panic. People who for years have either predicted nuclear wars, 100's of millions of deaths due to AIDs or the collapse of the banking system. (p.s. Just for the record, in case you weren't paying attention, none of these predictions came to pass.) These are charlatans of the highest order. They know exactly what they are doing and are literally, by their own words, trying to bring down society.
I guess I'm an a$$hole for saying that de Jager is a scumbag, but he's an honorable man because he's outting all the fear mongers who want the world to end? Give me a break!
Flint, if the facts bear out my estimation of Y2K, I'm out of a very nice job that handsomely supports my family. But in the eyes of someone like you, I guess I'm one of the doomsayers de Jager speaks of that wants the world to end? Do you really think I want the friggin' world to end?!
Unlike the Pollyannas, who deal in "feelings" (feel free to include or exclude yourself in this category), I have OBJECTIVELY looked at the facts and come to a logical conclusion based on what I have read and what I have seen personally. My conclusions are not based on what I desperately hope will happen. If you think that makes me, or Ed Yourdon, or Cory Hamasaki, or anyone else HAPPY about our conclusions, then you are as morally bankrupt as de Jager has become.
Nabi (the a$$hole) Davidson
-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.
"If we had continued to do nothing to fix the problem, we'd have faced several hundred million computer problems ranging from the inconsequential to the extremely catastrophic, all occurring in a very short period of time. No matter how many of us caught the sky as it fell, we'd be standing knee deep in techno-rubble."And then:
"Failure which is solid evidence of sincere effort. Here are just a few hard examples of Y2K effort."
followed by:
THREE, count 'em, THREE! examples of failures which were then fixed, and another 3 examples of lying about compliance or status of repairs. Yes, lots of sincere effort going on out there. I don't argue with that. But read the first quote again!!!
"....we'd have faced several hundred million computer problems ranging from the inconsequential to the extremely catastrophic,..."
Somehow, if he had suggested that there were several thousand examples of failures over the past year or so, I *might* be a bit receptive to his arguement. Yes, he did say these were just a "few hard examples"...I had heard of each of them before, but I haven't heard of many others...certainly not of hundreds or thousands.
Why haven't the fear-mongers, doomsdayers and media "hyped" all the "bad news" of these other "failures"??? I would challenge Mr. De Jager to post a MUCH larger list of "hard examples".
Sheeeeesh! I'm gettin soooooooooo sick of all this.......
Sheila
-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), January 14, 1999.
This is what I know to be true. No one knows the total story about the code,embeddeds,GPS and alot of other y2k related items. However we do know that alot of sharp people like Cory Hamasaki and Ed Yourdon and others are saying things don't look good. You know I have talked to Cory and I can't see that he has an ax to grind also Ed and Cory are some of the top Programmers in the world! There are two problems that I am concerned about right now and they are (1)The problem is so systemic or inter connected that failures in one area cause failures in another! (2) According to CBS NEWS Russia and China will loose 66% of their critical systems, that should about take care of them! You know when people get hungry and they have bombs bad things can and will happen. Also I talked to a guy from Tech Solutions in Chicago IL, and he told me that the thing that bothered him the most, was that he was getting a thousand calls a day from people who wanted to get started fixing their systems "oops were out of time"! All I know is that when we get to y2k, I can not wish I had done more if things are really bad. I have already lost one child and I will not risk my family over the small cost that it will take to prepare for this problem! Because in the end they are worth everything! We will soon know all the answers and we only have to wait 351 days. Take care friends Tman.
-- Tman (Tman@can't we all get along.com), January 15, 1999.
Ok this is what I know to be true. No one knows the total story about the code,embeddeds,GPS and alot of other y2k related items. However we do know that alot of sharp people like Cory Hamasaki and Ed Yourdon and others are saying things don't look good. You know I have talked to Cory and I can't see that he has an ax to grind also Ed and Cory are some of the top Programmers in the world! There are two problems that I am concerned about right now and they are (1)The problem is so systemic or inter connected that failures in one area cause failures in another! (2) According to CBS NEWS Russia and China will loose 66% of their critical systems, that should about take care of them! You know when people get hungry and they have bombs bad things can and will happen. Also I talked to a guy from Tech Solutions in Chicago IL, and he told me that the thing that bothered him the most, was that he was getting a thousand calls a day from people who wanted to get started fixing their systems "oops were out of time"! All I know is that when we get to y2k, I can not wish I had done more if things are really bad. I have already lost one child and I will not risk my family over the small cost that it will take to prepare for this problem! Because in the end they are worth everything! We will soon know all the answers and we only have to wait 351 days. Take care friends Tman.
-- Tman (Tman@get along.com), January 15, 1999.
Flint - Nabi's been around a long time and has every right to negatively criticise De Jager - I happen to agree wholeheartedly with Nabi having seen DJ backpeddle like a circus clown and also buy and stock a cabin (he calls it a holiday home) in the Canadian woods - Nabi's calling it as he sees it and is right on the money.Now Flint - instead of spewing out this constant rhetoric and analysing the psychology of y2k why don't you do us all a favour and cite a bunch of url's that back up your happy face view of the whole sorry mess.
You do yourself a disservice with your constant angst - get over it. Give us all some positive facts - back up the "position" *you've* painted yourself into.
And no more psychology 101 - puhleeeeze!
Andy
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."
Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 15, 1999.
Peter de Jager obviously now believes that getting as many systems remediated as possible is THE #1 goal. He knows that panic is inevitable, but wants to delay it as long as possible. It's an arguable position.But de Jager has crossed a line. He's now discrediting the Y2K preparation movement by drawing attention to that certain minority of preppers that are extremists and always have been.
De Jager has to be smart enough to know that these extremists who make up a minority of those who need to be prepared (all of us!) could not, by themselves, cause a panic. The only thing that will start a panic are things like...major problems with the IRS during tax season, or news about missed remediation deadlines at nuclear power plants.
And this kind of news would have to be carried on the evening news and on the front page of newspapers to cause panic. No, what Peter de Jager is doing now is a pre-emptive attack on the credibility of normal people who will understandably grow concerned about real failures in 1999 and missed deadlines in 1999.
It's one thing for him to tone down his alarmist statements about Y2K to delay the start of a panic that is inevitable anyway. It's another thing for him to delay the panic by calling into question the the character of those now getting concerned about Y2K by emphasizing the motives of a few, who can't even start panic by themselves.
Mr. de Jager, if you ever by chance read this, I have defended you a number of times on this forum, because I know that as soon as the public "gets it," the stock market will crash. I don't see how a stock market crash can be avoided, though--only delayed. The Y2K crisis has its own natural timetable for unfolding. Deliberately delaying it by unnecessary personal attacks is a low blow.
I thought I'd never say this, but Peter de Jager HAS crossed a line he shouldn't have.
-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), January 15, 1999.
This thread has nothing to do with good or bad news about Y2K. It's solely about De Jager's hypocrisy. Period. What a joke for him to belittle us (that's what he talking about, folks) because we chose to take Y2K as seriously as those, uh, "firms" he scared. You, see, "firms" can take Y2K seriously as a crisis, but not "people".Oh, but now, De Jager feels bad because he scared us, the fanatical survivalist morons. We're going to bring the system down, because our panic is going to panic the other morons in the world.
It could be De Jager has been turned, but why give him that much credit? To make 1M in 2000 and 1M in 2001 (he thinks), he must start turning himself, "positioning himself", with the big boys.
How pathetic. The quoted article is simply indefensible.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 15, 1999.
"The goal was to get a sleeping giant to awaken. If sticking needles into his eyelids, putting itching powder in his shorts and setting his toes on fire was what was required, then that's what we did. It worked. The giant woke up. This is described as 'fear tactics' by some critics. So be it. Guilty as charged. Sue us for delivering a nasty message and achieving a worthy goal."--DeJagerI have this mental picture of DeJager's Giant:
He has been frantically working hard to wake the Giant when he gleemed the specter of the Monster; he was putting pepper up his nose, pinpricking his eyelids all the time screaming at the top of his lungs. The Giant finally stirred, sat up and looked around in a sleepy daze. Then DeJager realized that he was held in the palm of the Monster, and if the Giant had a good look at it, he'd go berzerk and crush him in his attempt to crush the Monster. So he's now singing a lulaby to keep the Giant in a sleepy daze, trying to get him to raise his massive hand to knock the Monster on the head. The danger is that the Giant will fall flat on his back, resuming his happy dream.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 15, 1999.
Look, de Jager is a world class Liar and flip-flop artist. ANd, you will notice that every time on eof them appears, Flint defends them. On no basis in reality, though.de Jager does not address the FACTS. EVER. He has radically waffled in mid stream. At first he was saying that not enough companies had started and this was a disaster. THEN, awareness rose and a lot more DID start. But de Jager STOPPED. He has unequivocably equated awareness with successful remediation.
The facts speak loud and clearly otherwise.
You can always tell when someone like de Jager waffles. He stops addressing issues and begins addressing motives. It odes not matter in the least if Gary Notrth were the Devil himself and maliciuosly wanted to see the world crash and burn. What he WANTS is 100% irrelevant. But people like de Jager say that it colors his thinking. this is nonsense. North MUST support his conclusions with the FACTS. If the facts are NOT there in support of the conclusions NO MATTER what his motives, then his conclusion fall BY THEMSELVES.
But the conclusions do not fall. Why? Because the ONLY way to show that a conclusion is invalid is to show that the premises are false or that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
In North's case, the premises are TRUE and demonstrably proven true by the evidence. And, the conclusions DO follow logically from the premises.
The only way that a detractor , like Flint, can prevail is to do on eof those things. Refute the truth of the premise or show the illogic from the premise. Flint has done NEITHER at any time. And neither has de Jager.
The very firat sign of a bad counter argument is an attack upon the motives. The motives are 100% meaningless. The arguments stand or fall 100% independently of the holder's motives no matter how pernicious or no matter how amny times in then past a prediction failed to come true.
If you look at de Jager's STATED goal, you will se that he has achieved it. And that was to raise awareness to a point where one could believe that a successful remediation could occur. He reached it. Then from that point on he completely and wholly wonked out.
"By highlighting the negative consequences of inaction, we hoped to avoid them. The goal was to get a sleeping giant to awaken. If sticking needles into his eyelids, putting itching powder in his shorts and setting his toes on fire was what was required, then that's what we did. It worked. The giant woke up. This is described as 'fear tactics' by some critics. So be it. Guilty as charged. Sue us for delivering a nasty message and achieving a worthy goal. "
After that point was obtained, he no longer assessed the situation correctly. This is AMPLY pointed out by his very next sentence, and I will show you why, becuase of this de Jager has COMPLETLY missed the boat.
"If we had continued to do nothing to fix the problem, we'd have faced several hundred million computer problems ranging from the inconsequential to the extremely catastrophic, all occurring in a very short period of time."
This is categorically DEAD Wrong.
The issue was never "if we did nothing' we would fail. That is an absolute GIVEN, that is that if nothing was done we would fail. Because he mistakes the REAL issue, he falls flat on his face. The REAL issue is "If we fail to do ENOUGH" we will fail.
When you make the issue to be that if we do 'nothing' we will fail, then 'anything' at all seems a good thing. And that is what happened to de Jager. he confuses doing 'something' with actually getting it done. This Flies in the face of the evidence that not anywhere even remotely enough is getting done.
Now how do we know that this is true of de Jager? from his own words, of course.
"And make no mistake about it, the sky would have fallen and us 'Chicken Little types' would have been totally and unfortunately vindicated. Companies have spent billions of dollars already to fix a problem which the media, five years ago, described as hype and hysteria."
Notice that he is speaking in the past tense. Speaking as if the remediation has already succeeded. "it 'would' have happened".He ACTUALY believes that enough has been done. Since he believes that enough HAS been done, he assails the motives of the doomers because since hw 'knows' enough has been done, then the only thing propelling them could be bad motives.
This is laughable nonsense. Notice that I am NOT attacking his motives. i am telling you what he is DOING. i don't know his motives, nor care, They are irrelevant. but, he is 100% wrong in his assessment of the situation because he BEAGN with the wrong premise. And that premise was that if 'NOTHING' was done we would fail. The implicit premise is that if 'something' is done that it willl be enough. And I argue strenuously that on the basis of the facts not even remotely enough has been done. This is borne out OVERWHELMINGLY by the facts.
He is wrong. his premise is flawed. His conclusion fails.
How does he support himself in this? Normally you would present FACTS that clearly show that enough *is* being done. But, what does he do. Again, he attacks the 'doomers'.
"These folks are not folks who have misread the news and incorrectly painted too bleak a future."
This is a mere assertion. It is backed up with NO facts at all. he is empty hande and he knows it. That leaves him no alternative in his comments.
"Actually, the fat lady has already sung her swan song. The companies working on this are working to fix known problems, not to prove the 'Chicken Littles' right. '
Notice, again. he talks in the past tense. The fat lady already is out of the picture? Why? because companies are working on it. that is wholly irrelevant. 'working' on it is not synonymous with success except in de Jager's mind. But, it goes hand in hand with his flawed premise and continues to bolster the flawed conclusion that he derives from it.
To say that they are doing something does NOT, inanyway address that thay are doing enough. Again, he fails miserably to do ANYTHING but ASSERT that they are.
The FACTS do not square with his assertion. What is so terribly humorous is that he proves this with HIS OWN words when he continues to repeatedly contradict himself.
"In the midst of all this confusion, companies have taken action. It's difficult to prove what they've done. "
Yet he has ASSERTED that enough HAS been done, and in the same breath he asserts that he has no idea what they have actually done.
Look, de Jager is a world class denialist. Not a denialist that there is a Y2k problem, but a denies that not enough has been done in the FACE of the facts. He is a denialist in no other sense than any mainstream Pollyanna. He is a Meta level Pollyanna. He chortles at those who deny that Y2K is an issue and commits the identical error that they do.
Just as the garden variety pollyanna badly assesses the facts and disregards Y2K As an issue in the first place, De Jager miss-assesses the FACTS concerning how much has actually been done.
He is quite simply dead wrong. The average person is EASILY mislead by untue premises and poor logical inferences. The very basis of the ENTIRETY of de Jager's position is that people are making an 'effort'. He cites the 'effort' put forth by the DoD. We know that they are making an effort because they failed, in part, IN that effort. he also cites other examples of 'effort'. We know that their is 'effort' going on. That is NOT the issue. The isue is ENOUGH effort going on. The answer is manifestly no.
de Jager says that 'Failure is evidence of effort.'
The problem is that 'effort' is not evidence of success. he doesn't understand that. And it is exactly why he is utterly unreliable as a judge of what is actually going on.
-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 15, 1999.
Once again, I quote a crucial point from de Jager's excellent book:An enterprise starting in 1997 is likely to get through only about 80% of its applications; if it waits until 1999, only 30%. And even conceding that only 30% of the applications may be critical to the business of the enterprise, that 30% is probably attached by data to another 40% of the other applications that wont make the transition in time. At best, the organization will be crippled; at worst, it will no longer exist.
-Peter de Jager, Managing 00: Surviving the Year 2000 Computing Crisis
I don't believe these numbers have changed. Perhaps de Jager does?
-- Steve Hartsman (hartsman@ticon.net), January 15, 1999.
Hoisted. Game's up. The perfect, if rotten (thanks, De Jager) end to this thread. Awesome, Steve.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), January 15, 1999.
Nabi: After about 2 years of immersing myself in this mess, I don't think my expections are very different from yours. But at the risk of blundering into psychology (which apparently programmers and engineers would prefer to believe doesn't even exist), I believe that your epithets cloud yourthinking.I read your de Jager quote several times, and could not find a lie. You yourself don't deny that the situation was bad, and nobody was saying much about it. de Jager started doing all he could to raise the alarm. He makes this claim, and I agree with it -- he really did do that. Nowhere does he say that he deliberately *exaggerated or misrepresented* the problems. And really, he could hardly have done so, since the problems were (and may still be) catastrophic.
Now he points out that a really widescale effort is being made to repair these problems. No lie there, it really is being made. I don't see that he's trying to take all the credit for this, nor does he deserve it. But he did a lot.
Now, de Jager makes the claim that these efforts are having a genuine impact on the situation -- we see reports of progress constantly, and we're now debating the veracity of these reports. Is de Jager exaggerating this impact? I don't know, and I don't believe you know either. I'm willing, maybe naively, to take his word for it that a healthy chunk of what would have been serious has been headed off at the pass. You may disagree with de Jager's assessment, and believe we haven't and won't make nearly as much progress as he believes, and you may be right (and I admit I'd agree with you -- a lot of progress has been made, but not enough). But your disagreement (and mine) doesn't make de Jager a liar. He may be wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's *deliberately* wrong.
Forgive me if I laugh at your claim of objectivity. God is objective, and we are human. I don't doubt your sincerity, and only a few nutballs are looking forward to the collapse of the 'evil, immoral' system. But as for objectivity, see my reply to Andy below. And tell me which of these people is 'objective'. Hehehe
Andy: We're all calling it as we see it. I could make the assertion that those who see it my way are right on the money. Doesn't make it true.
Your challenge to back up my position is disingenuous. At the risk of offending Shiela, who is unsatisfied with anything less than an exhaustive encyclopedia of spin-free detail, consider the NERC report.
In csy2k, that report has been debated into the ground, and *nobody* has changed their opinions an iota. On one side, you have Howard Belasco, Robert Egan, and Bradley Sherman trumpeting the good news of substantial real progress and the near-guarantee of continued power generation. On the other side, you have the usual Milne-North-and- clones shouting that the NERC report is a pathetic whitewash, and NERC's conclusions don't match their data, which is itself suspect because of self-reporting and non-reporting.
NOW: Is the NERC report good news or bad news? It's obvious -- the NERC report is good, solid support for whatever conviction they *already held* before they ever read it! And the same phenomenon applies to *every* report that comes out. Closed minds on both sides, each using their own polarized filters to see exactly what they expect to see, no matter what the reports actually say. (I do note that the insults and name calling are pretty much confined to the doomists, though).
So I challenge you right back. Could you, Andy, honestly read the NERC report and change your mind? Could it have possibly helped you decide that maybe things weren't that bad after all? Or were you just like all the other analysts, and discovered that the NERC report only reinforced your opinion, *no matter* what that opinion happened to be?
Again, I'm not a professional communicator, and I shoot myself in the foot a lot. I'm not trying to say things will be good or bad (and right now things don't look good to me). But y2k really is a war, and as usual truth is the first casualty.
Flint (resident jerk and ignoramus)
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 15, 1999.
[There's enough of substance in what Paul Milne writes here to merit a response. Note -- this post is for insomniacs only. My comments in brackets]Look, de Jager is a world class Liar and flip-flop artist. ANd, you will notice that every time on eof them appears, Flint defends them. On no basis in reality, though.
[ignoring the effort at guilt by association (isn't this one of the 25 rules of disinformation?), we have two immediate problems here. First, de Jager has told no lies, and second, applying a pejorative like 'flip-flop artist' to anyone who changes their mind is another of those 25 rules of disinformation. de Jager's current assessment, and hence his predictions, may be way off base, but hey, Milne's predictions have *all* been way off base. But Milne isn't a liar and neither is de Jager. Neither is omnicient]
de Jager does not address the FACTS. EVER.
[de Jager writes that some people have become unable or unwilling to recognize good news, and reject it all. Milne is living proof. Oops, a FACT]
He has radically waffled in mid stream.
[Nope. He's kept himself informed, and things are changing. If you announce that the horses are leaving the gate, and later announce that they are heading into the home stretch, it's because both statements were true (to the best of your knowledge) at the time. It doesn't mean that the race announcer has become a liar, or that he waffled radically in mid stream.]
At first he was saying that not enough companies had started and this was a disaster. THEN, awareness rose and a lot more DID start.
[Both of these statements are true. Oops, more FACTS. Could Milne have lied to us, saying de Jager presents no facts? Never!]
But de Jager STOPPED. He has unequivocably equated awareness with successful remediation.
[After several readings, I can't find anything like this. de Jager says y2k 'was, and still is, real' Note the use of both past and present tense, by the way. If anyone can find even a hint that de Jager has confused awareness with remediation, please let Milne know, it'll make his argument more honest. de Jager recognizes that awareness must precede remediation, as a necessary component of the entire process. This recognition makes him neither a liar nor a waffler.]
The facts speak loud and clearly otherwise.
[And these facts are...?]
You can always tell when someone like de Jager waffles.
[because Milne never tires of telling you. de Jager has always said that it's bad but it can be solved. Now he says it's being solved, but we're still not there yet. OK, not unreasonable, though I don't share his enthusiasm for all the progress we've made.]
He stops addressing issues and begins addressing motives. It odes not matter in the least if Gary Notrth were the Devil himself and maliciuosly wanted to see the world crash and burn. What he WANTS is 100% irrelevant. But people like de Jager say that it colors his thinking. this is nonsense. North MUST support his conclusions with the FACTS. If the facts are NOT there in support of the conclusions NO MATTER what his motives, then his conclusion fall BY THEMSELVES.
[Arrant nonsense. Motives drive everything we do. They dictate both what North chooses to present, and how he chooses to interpret it. Anybody here could take every 'fact' North has posted and apply a positive spin, however unreasonable, concluding that y2k is hype. North chooses a negative spin, as unreasonable as necessary, concluding that y2k is TEOTW. And motive doesn't matter? Far from 'supporting his conclusions with the FACTS', North is systematically distorting and misrepresenting his material to fit his motives. Even the most pessimistic inhabitants of this forum recognize that North is a spin doctor. I cannot believe that Milne can't see this. I can easily believe that Milne doesn't *want* to see this. And motive doesn't matter? Give me a break.]
But the conclusions do not fall.
[actually, many of them are a real stretch. How many times has North taken a report entitled something like 'Bank claims they're ready' and huffed and puffed trying to turn this into bad news? For Milne it's much easier; he simply says they're lying and therefore there was no good news after all. But this isn't a conclusion based on the facts, it's an assertion based on a conclusion, driven by a motive.]
Why? Because the ONLY way to show that a conclusion is invalid is to show that the premises are false or that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
[Can't argue with that at all. But watch what happens...]
In North's case, the premises are TRUE
[Nope. The material he uses consists of opinions, surveys, guesses, worries, speculations, press releases, personal testimony, you name it. These aren't premises. These are grist.]
and demonstrably proven true by the evidence.
[the future will provide the only possible demonstration of predictions. It ain't demonstrable until it happens or it doesn't. It hasn't happened yet.]
And, the conclusions DO follow logically from the premises.
[The conclusions follow inevitably from the motivations. Different thing. North's shtick hasn't changed a bit since he set up his site.]
The only way that a detractor , like Flint, can prevail is to do on eof those things. Refute the truth of the premise or show the illogic from the premise. Flint has done NEITHER at any time. And neither has de Jager.
[What does 'prevail' mean in this context? All I said was that I didn't think de Jager was lying even though I don't agree with some of what he says. de Jager is in no way constructing some syllogism in which false premises lead to a false conclusion. He's calling it as he sees it today.]
The very firat sign of a bad counter argument is an attack upon the motives. The motives are 100% meaningless.
[Motives, when you think about it, are fundamental to how we derive meaning from anything in life. As Charles Darwin said, 'How can any observation be of service unless it is for, or against, some view?']
The arguments stand or fall 100% independently of the holder's motives no matter how pernicious or no matter how amny times in then past a prediction failed to come true.
[Again, this isn't about whether arguments stand or fall, whatever that means. This is about what the future will bring. I don't believe North's efforts will have much influence on future events, not for lack of trying but for lack of audience, and lack of credibility even within the audience he has. But I sincerely apologize if my efforts to pry open closed minds have dissuaded anyone from preparing. Preparation is a must, people.]
If you look at de Jager's STATED goal, you will se that he has achieved it. And that was to raise awareness to a point where one could believe that a successful remediation could occur. He reached it. Then from that point on he completely and wholly wonked out.
[I agree that de Jager has become superfluous as a major player in this game. He may still have something to offer, but he mostly looks like a figurehead to me by now.]
"By highlighting the negative consequences of inaction, we hoped to avoid them. The goal was to get a sleeping giant to awaken. If sticking needles into his eyelids, putting itching powder in his shorts and setting his toes on fire was what was required, then that's what we did. It worked. The giant woke up. This is described as 'fear tactics' by some critics. So be it. Guilty as charged. Sue us for delivering a nasty message and achieving a worthy goal. "
After that point was obtained, he no longer assessed the situation correctly. This is AMPLY pointed out by his very next sentence, and I will show you why, becuase of this de Jager has COMPLETLY missed the boat.
"If we had continued to do nothing to fix the problem, we'd have faced several hundred million computer problems ranging from the inconsequential to the extremely catastrophic, all occurring in a very short period of time." [Can't argue with this either]
This is categorically DEAD Wrong.
The issue was never "if we did nothing' we would fail. That is an absolute GIVEN, that is that if nothing was done we would fail. Because he mistakes the REAL issue, he falls flat on his face. The REAL issue is "If we fail to do ENOUGH" we will fail.
[Both are true. We'd surely have failed if we did nothing. We'll just as surely fail if we don't do enough. Will we do enough? de Jager (and many other informed people) believe we will, while many equally knowledgeable people think we won't. Time won't even tell us this. Time will tell us pretty much what *did* happen, and we can argue endlessly about what *might* have happened had we started earlier, or never started at all.]
When you make the issue to be that if we do 'nothing' we will fail, then 'anything' at all seems a good thing. And that is what happened to de Jager. he confuses doing 'something' with actually getting it done. This Flies in the face of the evidence that not anywhere even remotely enough is getting done.
[Oversimplification must be another of those 25 rules. Milne sets up a straw man. de Jager never 'confuses doing 'something' with actually getting it done.' He points out that it is getting done. It is. The question of whether enough is getting done is wide open right now. The information available to us today plain, flat doesn't answer it. Nobody has even defined what they mean by 'enough'. I confidently predict serious, unknowable problems. Does my confidence mean anything? How bad is 'serious'?]
Now how do we know that this is true of de Jager? from his own words, of course.
"And make no mistake about it, the sky would have fallen and us 'Chicken Little types' would have been totally and unfortunately vindicated. Companies have spent billions of dollars already to fix a problem which the media, five years ago, described as hype and hysteria."
Notice that he is speaking in the past tense.
[Sounds like past conditional to me. Our languages have tense difficulties handling future events as seen from the hypothetical perspective of the farther future.]
Speaking as if the remediation has already succeeded.
[some of it has. We'll have to agree to disagree about how much is enough.]
"it 'would' have happened".He ACTUALY believes that enough has been done.
[Yes, apparently he does. I agree with Milne that de Jager implies that if rollover happened tomorrow, we'd be OK. This is nonsense.]
Since he believes that enough HAS been done, he assails the motives of the doomers because since hw 'knows' enough has been done, then the only thing propelling them could be bad motives.
[Only partially. de Jager explicitly says that not all doomers have wicked agendas. Some, he says, are simply blind to good news, and reject it or misinterpret it away. And he's right on both counts. Milne is on record as looking forward to the downfall of a culture he abhors. Could this philosophy motivate Milne to reject all positive news? Do motivations matter?]
This is laughable nonsense. Notice that I am NOT attacking his motives. i am telling you what he is DOING. i don't know his motives, nor care, They are irrelevant. but, he is 100% wrong in his assessment of the situation because he BEAGN with the wrong premise. And that premise was that if 'NOTHING' was done we would fail. The implicit premise is that if 'something' is done that it willl be enough. And I argue strenuously that on the basis of the facts not even remotely enough has been done. This is borne out OVERWHELMINGLY by the facts.
[Someone has a reading comprehension problem here. His current assessment is based on the steady stream of information flowing in from remediation efforts everywhere. His assessment is NOT based on a false implicit premise that Mr. Milne tries to shove into his mouth. And if the facts are so overwhelming, why is there such a divergence of opinions even in this forum, where awareness is very high, and every piece of news is chewed on at length? Why don't we all agree?]
He is wrong. his premise is flawed. His conclusion fails.
[He is predicting. He may be wrong, we'll know all too soon. Then we'll know whose analysis of the available material proves the more accurate.]
How does he support himself in this? Normally you would present FACTS that clearly show that enough *is* being done. But, what does he do. Again, he attacks the 'doomers'.
[The purpose of his article was to show that much of what we read is the result, directly or indirectly, of the remediation efforts themselves. This seems a bit weak to me, but that was his purpose. Attacking him for failing to achieve what he never set out to do is a debating trick. This is not the stuff of honest argument.]
"These folks are not folks who have misread the news and incorrectly painted too bleak a future."
This is a mere assertion. It is backed up with NO facts at all. he is empty hande and he knows it. That leaves him no alternative in his comments.
[Far be it from Mr. Milne to make an assertion, heaven forbid! de Jager could easily have spent many chapters supporting this assertion in detail, derailing the thrust of the point he is trying to make. That doesn't mean what he says is false.]
"Actually, the fat lady has already sung her swan song. The companies working on this are working to fix known problems, not to prove the 'Chicken Littles' right. '
Notice, again. he talks in the past tense. The fat lady already is out of the picture? Why? because companies are working on it. that is wholly irrelevant. 'working' on it is not synonymous with success except in de Jager's mind. But, it goes hand in hand with his flawed premise and continues to bolster the flawed conclusion that he derives from it.
[I come perilously close to agreement with Milne on this point. The fat lady is still warming up. 'Working on it' is a process, and success is a condition. de Jager never equates these, he simply argues that as the process continues, the dangers diminish. Fair enough. The question of whether the dangers have or will have diminished far enough, fast enough, is still open. ]
To say that they are doing something does NOT, inanyway address that thay are doing enough. Again, he fails miserably to do ANYTHING but ASSERT that they are.
[And Milne asserts that they are not. They could throw 'facts' at one another all day, and each could easily show that the other's facts were problematic and full of holes. Both would be right, and neither would accept the other's arguments. Sigh.]
The FACTS do not square with his assertion. What is so terribly humorous is that he proves this with HIS OWN words when he continues to repeatedly contradict himself.
[No he doesn't. He repeatedly contradicts Paul Milne.]
"In the midst of all this confusion, companies have taken action. It's difficult to prove what they've done. "
Yet he has ASSERTED that enough HAS been done, and in the same breath he asserts that he has no idea what they have actually done.
[This sounds like a clear misinterpretation to me. de Jager does NOT say he has no idea what they've done, he says they've done enough and he can't prove it. That information is guarded by lawyers, it's treated as a trade secret, it's not for public consumption. Often enough, the geeks honestly disagree with those to whom they report. We're left to take de Jager's word for it that they've done enough and aren't saying.]
Look, de Jager is a world class denialist. Not a denialist that there is a Y2k problem, but a denies that not enough has been done in the FACE of the facts.
[Look, de Jager is saying that enough has been done, *as supported* by the facts. It all depends on what you consider a fact, which facts you think are important, and how you choose to interpret them. And this doesn't change no matter how many times you shout that you have a corner on the truth, or how loud you shout it, or how many names you can dream up to call anyone who disagrees.]
He is a denialist in no other sense than any mainstream Pollyanna. He is a Meta level Pollyanna. He chortles at those who deny that Y2K is an issue and commits the identical error that they do.
[Paul, this is beneath you. If de Jager decided that y2k wasn't an issue, he'd lose his million a year in speaking fees. Yes, he has little patience with those who claim that y2k is an insurmountable issue, and deny all of the many facts that indicate otherwise. You have little patience with those who fail to understand that all good news is lies. How could they be so blind, you've told them so many times?]
Just as the garden variety pollyanna badly assesses the facts and disregards Y2K As an issue in the first place, De Jager miss-assesses the FACTS concerning how much has actually been done.
[The only problem I have with this is the misuse of the word 'facts'. We have opinions, surveys, speculations, budgets, schedules, the whole inconsistant litany. Lumping all of this together into 'facts' is not intellectually feasible. Milne uses the word 'facts' as a bludgeon, to beat anyone over the head who disagrees with his outlook. Too bad the bludgeon is actually made of smoke and mirrors.]
He is quite simply dead wrong.
[you wouldn't be making an assertion here, would you?]
The average person is EASILY mislead by untue premises and poor logical inferences.
[Fortunately, we all grew up in Lake Wobegon, and we're all above average.]
The very basis of the ENTIRETY of de Jager's position is that people are making an 'effort'.
[A good point here, perhaps getting at the foundation of de Jager's position. It's true that efforts fail. It's also true that success requires effort.]
He cites the 'effort' put forth by the DoD. We know that they are making an effort because they failed, in part, IN that effort. he also cites other examples of 'effort'. We know that their is 'effort' going on. That is NOT the issue. The isue is ENOUGH effort going on. The answer is manifestly no.
[The answer is manifestly that you disagree about the current and future status of the remediation effort. Fair enough. We'll see]
de Jager says that 'Failure is evidence of effort.'
The problem is that 'effort' is not evidence of success. he doesn't understand that.
[I'd be willing to bet against you on that. At big odds at that.]
And it is exactly why he is utterly unreliable as a judge of what is actually going on.
[Agreed. There is no such thing as a reliable judge of what is going on.]
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 15, 1999.
I'm sorry Flint - I'm too shagged to reply in detail - y2kfatigue I suppose.Briefly I believe de Jager and Yardeni are compromising their real beliefs - it is really quite evident. On the other hand the likes of Yourdon, Carmichael, North, Milne, Hamasaki have not budged an inch, and are if anything (quite rightly so) becoming more pessimistic in light of new evidence (especially news tricklling out about FEMA, the NG mobilization, war games, martial law in the UK and Canada etc. etc.). Granted, North has his Christian Reconstructionist agenda, amongst others, the rest I cite are calling the shots as they see them. As do I. I don't have an agenda. I think Yardeni and de Jager do - they want to keep their lucrative jobs it seems to me, at the expense of truth. I don't see why thay can't do both, but there you go.
Whatever happened to integrity?
Andy
Two digits. One mechanism. The smallest mistake.
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."
Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 15, 1999.
Like I said, Flint never met a denialist or pollyanna that he would not defend. They are all just 'honest' folks who may merely be 'honestly' mistaken. And that is a pile of crap.Every step of the way Flint has been dragged kicking and screaming.
In the final analysis, it has come out in the wash that Flint has done more to dissuade people from serious preparation than his efforts have influenced them *TO* prepare.
In everything he says he comes down harshly and squarely and unequivocbly AGAINST those who say prepare like your life depends on it.
He is entitled to his opinion. But when the day of reckoning comes, not ONE person will have been KILLED because they prepared like I have advised,like it is an actuality and not a mere excerise in 'insurance 'policies. Yet many many many will end up dead becuase of flint's take. And that is the difference.
-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), January 15, 1999.
Excuse me, I'm really tired tonight, but I just had an idea. I admire Mr. Milne for his unique ability to be direct and shoot his mark bluntly. But I can't help noticing his constant use of the words DEAD and BU**HEAD. These are the things making me tired, and it would be nice to have Mr. Milne come help us with our current hospice patient. She is almost dead, death hovering noticeably, unavoidably, and we have to give regular anti-nausea suppositories ... not to mention all the other hospice necessities involving that area ... so it would seem attractive to Mr. Milne to come experience his words so concretely. I can't seem to stop thinking of him every time we have hands-on interactions with Death and Behinds, which is at least every two hours. So I fully expect the power of thought will generate a meeting soon.xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 15, 1999.
Mr. Milne, you said:"Yet many many many will end up dead becuase of flint's take."
I'll make the request a seventh time: Please supply some facts to support this viewpoint.
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), January 15, 1999.
Paul, I've just read a couple well written posts of yours, one on Bonnie Camp's analysis and the one up here on DeJager. Both were impressive, and not ONE butthead word! You really have brains and a talent to demonstrate it in writting, when you want. Why do you insist on lowering your credibility by flaming people? You're doing yourself and us all a disfavor when you go "Milne" on people.I can see this essay from DeJager is a lullaby, but I didn't know how to show it, and you've done it so well for me. You have the brains and know-how to spar with anyone without the need to revert to personal attack, all you need to do is suppress your emotions.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 15, 1999.
"Like I said, Flint never met a denialist or pollyanna that he would not defend. They are all just 'honest' folks who may merely be 'honestly' mistaken. And that is a pile of crap. "Paul, you were mistaken about the meltdown that never happened. You were mistaken about the small businesses. You were mistaken about the DOW. You were mistaken about JAE. You were mistaken about the FY99 problems. I agree that every one was an honest mistake. Why can't you understand that others make honest mistakes as well?
"In the final analysis, it has come out in the wash that Flint has done more to dissuade people from serious preparation than his efforts have influenced them *TO* prepare.
In everything he says he comes down harshly and squarely and unequivocbly AGAINST those who say prepare like your life depends on it. "
Hard to swallow. I've told people to prepare. I've detailed my own preparations. Several posts up, I emphasize that preparation is a must. Never have I advised not to prepare, not once. Never have I said that the coming problems won't be bad. Never have I done anything remotely like talking someone out of preparing. Yes, I think you're a lunatic and your predicted future is unlikely, but I've never ruled it out, and still don't.
If you can find a single individual anywhere who has decided not to prepare because of my posts, I'd be amazed.
When I quoted you out of context, I publicly apologized. Can you do the same?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 15, 1999.
I can't help notice that when Milne lies and gets challenged on it, he vanishes. This is Rule of Disinformation #25. Those who frequent csy2k know that he applies this rule every time.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
I'm curious to see Paul's reply to your question too. I've never noticed that you, Flint, have dissuaded anyone from preparing, only arguing with (in my own view) polyanish views.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
Note to Andy:We know of North's agenda from a variety of published repors and his own newsletter. But Yourdon is selling a book of warning. No agenda? Milne is trying to justify a mistake he made 5 or 6 years ago, and is on record as wanting to see the downfall of our culture. No agenda? Hamasaki is selling a y2k remediation service. No agenda? I know nothing of Carmichael, so I can't say.
I can't say these people are wrong, but I can doubt their objectivity. de Jager himself makes a living from y2k, yet he's becoming more optimistic. As far as I can see, he's being called dishonest more for abandoning the faith than anything else. And so his agenda is questioned. Come on.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
Flint I know this question is to Andy, but I'd like to give my own take on this too.Ed's agenda I don't compare to Milne and GN. He wrote a book sure, he makes money off it sure. But how else do you propose he makes his knowledge known? By paying out of his own pocket the time off he had to take to write the book? By paying out of his own pocket to have the book published, then paying out of his own pocket for every person who want to read his book? Isn't that the only alternative to NOT make money on his book?
Ed's agenda was simply to spread his knowledge as far and as wide as he could. Without going broke and in the streets in the process.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
Chris, you make a very good point, and I'll try not to put my foot in my mouth trying to respond. If I do anyway, I really didn't mean to.I agree that Ed Yourdon has been aware of these date bugs for decades, and (quite rightfully) considers it a serious problem, worthy of an attempt to sound a warning. I am not in any way trying to imply that Yourdon is fabricating anything so as to line his pockets.
Still, consider a couple of points here. First, Yourdon knows a great deal about a great many aspects of software development, and could have chosen to write on many other things instead. Second, a good deal of original research went into Time Bomb 2000, it by no means all came off the top of his head. This same research effort could have been applied to almost any subject.
Now, Yourdon makes a good part of his living writing books, and this is difficult if he selects a subject in which there is no widespread public interest. Yes, you can argue that Yourdon is making a valuable contribution to a serious topic, and his selection of a hot topic is a wise marketing decision as well. But he isn't the only one trying to cash in on public concern about y2k, and he certainly fares better the hotter the topic becomes. The worse things can be made to look (rightly or wrongly), the hotter the topic and the better the book sales.
This line of reasoning applies equally to Hamasaki. Just because he has a vested interest in making fixes, doesn't mean that no fixes need to be made. Someone *must* make these fixes, and Hamasaki's skills are legendary.
It's a matter of orientation. Firemen see fire hazards everywhere, even when off duty. These are real fire hazards -- the firemen aren't making it up. But if you spent all your time in the company of firemen, you'd likely get an entirely false impression about the number fires that *actually happen*. This is quite separate from getting a better understanding of why fires *might* happen.
There's a phenomenon called 'med students' disease', whereby med students, reading and studying about all these different diseases and the vast panoply of symptoms, start seeing these symptoms in themselves and seriously worrying or even feeling sick (or *being* sick) for psychosomatic reasons. It's a pretty normal side-effect of immersing yourself in *any* topic.
So try to draw a distinction between the potential for catastrophe and the probability of that same catastrophe. Potentials are not guarantees, and just because something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. I suspect my views sound kind of Pollyanna because I refuse to equate genuine dangers (and they are genuine) with the foregone conclusion that those dangers will all materialize. Some will, but not all. A very small percentage of fire hazards become actual fires, but they are still hazards, no question about it.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
oh wow Flint...I don't mean to flame you or hurt your feelings, but I have to say that your view is illogical and convoluted. I'm not good at expressing myself like Hardliner and Andy many others are, but I'll give it a shot anyway and reply to your post paragraph by paragraph."I agree that Ed Yourdon has been aware of these date bugs for decades, and (quite rightfully) considers it a serious problem, worthy of an attempt to sound a warning. I am not in any way trying to imply that Yourdon is fabricating anything so as to line his pockets."
We seemingly agree on this, but then later in your post you contradict yourself and DO imply that his agenda is to line his pockets. Although you save yourself somewhat by pointing out that you're not implying that he is fabricating anything.
"Still, consider a couple of points here. First, Yourdon knows a great deal about a great many aspects of software development, and could have chosen to write on many other things instead."
Yes and I believe he already has. I don't get your point here? What does that have to do with the need to warn others of Y2K?
"Second, a good deal of original research went into Time Bomb 2000, it by no means all came off the top of his head. This same research effort could have been applied to almost any subject."
Yes I agree again, and again same as before, what is your point here? What does it have to do with the aim of warning others?
"Now, Yourdon makes a good part of his living writing books, and this is difficult if he selects a subject in which there is no widespread public interest."
Agreed. So here Flint, I see that Ed is genuinely concerned for society and has forgo the usual aim of big profit in writing a book, has accepted the potentiality of small monetary return since there is no widespread public interest, for the benefit of warning and helping others.
"Yes, you can argue that Yourdon is making a valuable contribution to a serious topic, and his selection of a hot topic is a wise marketing decision as well."
Wait, I thought you just said there were NO widespread public interest? You mean then that it's a hot topic among eggheads? And it's a wise marketing decision aimed at the eggheads? If so, then you under-estimate the intelligence of eggheads. "But he isn't the only one trying to cash in on public concern about y2k, and he certainly fares better the hotter the topic becomes."
This is where you contradict yourself with your first statement. Is or isn't he, in your opinion, trying to line his pockets with money on a "hot topic"?
"The worse things can be made to look (rightly or wrongly), the hotter the topic and the better the book sales."
That's inevitable. I know that, you know that, lurkers know that. So what is the connection here again, with Ed's aim at trying to warn the public?
"This line of reasoning applies equally to Hamasaki. Just because he has a vested interest in making fixes, doesn't mean that no fixes need to be made. Someone *must* make these fixes, and Hamasaki's skills are legendary."
Agreed. Hamasaki is simply caught as Ed is in the "fleecing people off Y2K" idiotic belief. I'm not saying here that there aren't people trying to fleece the public off Y2K, there sure are. But attempting to put Ed and Hamasaki in that same category is ridiculous.
"It's a matter of orientation. Firemen see fire hazards everywhere, even when off duty. These are real fire hazards -- the firemen aren't making it up. But if you spent all your time in the company of firemen, you'd likely get an entirely false impression about the number fires that *actually happen*."
Flint, this is sooooo in the left field! You insult my, and everyone else reading this, intelligence. Perhaps a slow-minded person would get that impression, but Flint, anyone able to turn on a computer and come discussing on this forum can make the distinction between "fire hazards" and "actual number of fires". Come on Flint! Take a few seconds to think about what you're saying.
"This is quite separate from getting a better understanding of why fires *might* happen.
There's a phenomenon called 'med students' disease', whereby med students, reading and studying about all these different diseases and the vast panoply of symptoms, start seeing these symptoms in themselves and seriously worrying or even feeling sick (or *being* sick) for psychosomatic reasons. It's a pretty normal side-effect of immersing yourself in *any* topic."
I'm intimately aware of this phenomenon, as I'm a nurse and went through the "first stage" of awareness, seeing symptomes of mental/physical illness in myself. But this phenomenon is simply a -first stage of awareness" Flint, that's all it is. Once you're immersed in the topic, you quickly shed this feeling. And that's exactly what happens with Y2K topic researching. Again, you're insulting the intelligence of eggheads, experts and lurkers.
"So try to draw a distinction between the potential for catastrophe and the probability of that same catastrophe."
I have, but you haven't given me a different logical way of doing it, only illogical conclusions.
"Potentials are not guarantees, and just because something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. I suspect my views sound kind of Pollyanna because I refuse to equate genuine dangers (and they are genuine) with the foregone conclusion that those dangers will all materialize. Some will, but not all. A very small percentage of fire hazards become actual fires, but they are still hazards, no question about it."
Flint, your perception is all skewed. Who here, other than Gary North and Milne, is saying that it will all definitely happen? They are the only 2 people I've come across on the Y2k issue that come close to saying that. Infomagic himself says that noone knows what will work and what will not, but simply gives his own worse case scenario of which he expects more than the average poster here, to happen. He could be wrong too, and it could be worse. As well as it could be much less than he expects. That's the real caveat.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
[Either I have totally lost what was once a decent ability to communicate, or I've run into someone who refuses to understand or who understands but refuses to 'give in to the enemy', incorrectly projecting a battle onto a conversation where no battle exists. I'll give it one more try. I admit up front that I *refuse* to believe that you see yourself as carrying the banner of doomist closed- mindedness into the war against the infidel -- despite growing evidence to the contrary. No offense intended.]"We seemingly agree on this, but then later in your post you contradict yourself and DO imply that his agenda is to line his pockets. Although you save yourself somewhat by pointing out that you're not implying that he is fabricating anything. "
[Chris, nobody puts the time and effort into writing a book with the intention of taking a bath on it. Some (most) do lose at least their time, but it was never their intention.]
"Still, consider a couple of points here. First, Yourdon knows a great deal about a great many aspects of software development, and could have chosen to write on many other things instead."
Yes and I believe he already has. I don't get your point here? What does that have to do with the need to warn others of Y2K?
[Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yourdon wrote his book to *make money*, regardless of the unquestionable truth and urgency of his message. Many people write many books warning about just about everything, and they are (almost) all entirely sincere in their warnings. They all also hope to make money. It isn't an either-or, they want both.]
"Second, a good deal of original research went into Time Bomb 2000, it by no means all came off the top of his head. This same research effort could have been applied to almost any subject."
Yes I agree again, and again same as before, what is your point here? What does it have to do with the aim of warning others?
[If you are saying (and I might be wrong about it) that Yourdon wrote out of the goodness of his heart, and that his sole motivation was to warn people and selling the book was just his way of subsisting while he gave his warning, then I think you need to think again. I sincerely believe that my own daily work makes the world a bit better, but I wouldn't do it for free either.]
"Now, Yourdon makes a good part of his living writing books, and this is difficult if he selects a subject in which there is no widespread public interest."
Agreed. So here Flint, I see that Ed is genuinely concerned for society and has forgo the usual aim of big profit in writing a book, has accepted the potentiality of small monetary return since there is no widespread public interest, for the benefit of warning and helping others.
[OK, this is clearly my failure to express myself properly, sorry. Take 2: you can't make a living writing books if they don't sell. You must pick a topic for which there is sufficient market. Yourdon did exactly that. How you can possibly claim that 'there is no widespread public interest' is beyond me. I expect we're looking at the topic of the year, hands down. Yourdon hasn't by any honest stretch of misunderstanding 'foregone the aim of a big profit'. He's seen the bullseye and done his damndest to hit it. You know this. I know this. Why pretend it isn't so?]
"Yes, you can argue that Yourdon is making a valuable contribution to a serious topic, and his selection of a hot topic is a wise marketing decision as well."
Wait, I thought you just said there were NO widespread public interest?
[Arrrrgh! I tried very hard to say that his expectation of widespread public interest (and yes indeed, the income resulting from it) *caused* him to write on this topic, rather than on some other topic. The fact that Yourdon's warning is important, useful, and necessary notwithstanding.]
You mean then that it's a hot topic among eggheads? And it's a wise marketing decision aimed at the eggheads? If so, then you under- estimate the intelligence of eggheads. "But he isn't the only one trying to cash in on public concern about y2k, and he certainly fares better the hotter the topic becomes."
[Which he does. No question about it.]
This is where you contradict yourself with your first statement. Is or isn't he, in your opinion, trying to line his pockets with money on a "hot topic"?
[I regret ever using the phrase 'line his pockets', since you insist on misinterpreting it. OK, you're a nurse. Are you 'lining your pockets' off the suffering of others? Of course not! Are you paid for your efforts? Absolutely. Would you like a raise? Probably. Does this make you greedy? Hardly. Is Yourdon trying to make big bucks and sound the alarm at the same time? Of course he is. There's nothing evil about being paid for doing good works.]
"The worse things can be made to look (rightly or wrongly), the hotter the topic and the better the book sales."
That's inevitable. I know that, you know that, lurkers know that. So what is the connection here again, with Ed's aim at trying to warn the public?
[Again, Ed has at least *two* goals - warn the public, and make money doing so. When you look for problems, you find them. When you eat, live and breathe those problems, is it beyond the realm of belief that they will take on an exaggerated importance in your own mind? By 'exaggerated', I mean, might you start believing those problems are worse than they actually are? There must be *some* reason why those making money off y2k consistently depict the situation as worse than those losing money. And no, neither is being in the least dishonest in their appraisal. I'm not addressing the charletans here (I admit they exist). I'm talking about the way sincere people process information.]
"This line of reasoning applies equally to Hamasaki. Just because he has a vested interest in making fixes, doesn't mean that no fixes need to be made. Someone *must* make these fixes, and Hamasaki's skills are legendary."
Agreed. Hamasaki is simply caught as Ed is in the "fleecing people off Y2K" idiotic belief. I'm not saying here that there aren't people trying to fleece the public off Y2K, there sure are. But attempting to put Ed and Hamasaki in that same category is ridiculous.
[Where in hell did this fleecing stuff come from? How many times do I need to say that the problems are real and serious? How can I possibly get across to you that your outlook is forged by the information you get and your interpretation of that information? I'm not addressing the con artists at all. I'm saying we have here a classic case of the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man's data are completely accurate, and each summary description is dead wrong. Each summary is based on the evidence they have. None of the blind men are in any way mendacious. They are simply extrapolating based on what they are exposed to. Their only error is in their failure to recognize that their exposure is limited, and isn't the big picture. Nor is Yourdon's, nor Hamasaki's, nor de Jager's.]
"It's a matter of orientation. Firemen see fire hazards everywhere, even when off duty. These are real fire hazards -- the firemen aren't making it up. But if you spent all your time in the company of firemen, you'd likely get an entirely false impression about the number fires that *actually happen*."
Flint, this is sooooo in the left field! You insult my, and everyone else reading this, intelligence. Perhaps a slow-minded person would get that impression, but Flint, anyone able to turn on a computer and come discussing on this forum can make the distinction between "fire hazards" and "actual number of fires". Come on Flint! Take a few seconds to think about what you're saying.
[Sauce for the goose, Chris. How many *actual* y2k catastrophes have happened so far? Minor problems, surprisingly few. Major problems, zero. Despite the dire warnings about JAE, FY99, the 9's problem, etc. So you must be talking about the *potential* problems. And these fall in the 'hazard' catagory. Yes, many of these hazards will indeed ignite. But 'the coward dies a thousand deaths, the hero dies but once.']
"This is quite separate from getting a better understanding of why fires *might* happen.
There's a phenomenon called 'med students' disease', whereby med students, reading and studying about all these different diseases and the vast panoply of symptoms, start seeing these symptoms in themselves and seriously worrying or even feeling sick (or *being* sick) for psychosomatic reasons. It's a pretty normal side-effect of immersing yourself in *any* topic."
I'm intimately aware of this phenomenon, as I'm a nurse and went through the "first stage" of awareness, seeing symptomes of mental/physical illness in myself. But this phenomenon is simply a - first stage of awareness" Flint, that's all it is. Once you're immersed in the topic, you quickly shed this feeling. And that's exactly what happens with Y2K topic researching. Again, you're insulting the intelligence of eggheads, experts and lurkers.
[As somone once said, 'we don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't a fish.' The fish are immersed in the water, and have nothing to contrast it with. I could reply that your implication that anyone who doesn't agree with your expectations is hard-headed, stupid or dishonest is also an insult to everyone, but I won't (grin)]
"So try to draw a distinction between the potential for catastrophe and the probability of that same catastrophe."
I have, but you haven't given me a different logical way of doing it, only illogical conclusions.
[The lack of logic is in the eye of the beholder. I said earlier that we cannot read all the stories never written about all the problems that didn't happen. Some of us focus exclusively on the few problems that have happened, colored by dire warnings. Others are surprised at how few and minor these problems have been. I said earlier that people's expectations of what's coming cover the entire range from no- problem to no-hope, and that *not one* of these people has changed their opinions a bit, regardless of what has been reported, or who says what about anything.
It's been a phenomenon throughout the history of science that new theories never supplant old ones because of new data or superior analysis of existing data, but rather because those who hold the older theories simply get old and die off, and aren't replaced. I'm willing to make the flat guarantee right now that no matter *what* y2k brings, *both* the optimists and the pessimists will be able to point to as many situations as they choose and say 'I told you so'.]
"Potentials are not guarantees, and just because something can happen doesn't mean it will happen. I suspect my views sound kind of Pollyanna because I refuse to equate genuine dangers (and they are genuine) with the foregone conclusion that those dangers will all materialize. Some will, but not all. A very small percentage of fire hazards become actual fires, but they are still hazards, no question about it."
Flint, your perception is all skewed. Who here, other than Gary North and Milne, is saying that it will all definitely happen?
[This is an artificial position, not honest. My mistake, sorry again. The question is always, how much of this will happen, and what will the results be? People are debating two basic issues -- (1) what will be the scope and magnitude of the problems we'll have, and (2) how resiliant is the complex adaptive system that must deal with them? Your position seems to be (1) very large, and (2) very little (I know, this is simplistic. Bear with me to get the gist of it.)]
They are the only 2 people I've come across on the Y2k issue that come close to saying that. Infomagic himself says that noone knows what will work and what will not, but simply gives his own worse case scenario of which he expects more than the average poster here, to happen. He could be wrong too, and it could be worse. As well as it could be much less than he expects. That's the real caveat.
[Agreed. I'm not trying to assess the future here. I'm trying to expand on the old saying in politics that 'where you sit is where you stand'. Why do you think no two eyewitnesses ever agree on the details of an event both watched, and often disagree about basic, fundamental aspects of it? They viewed the event from different angles, and brought in different predispositions. In experiments these witnesses, when shown a video tape of the event, often accuse the tape itself of being doctored! And none of these people had any reason to lie about it at all, nor any financial stake in the event itself. Now recognize that some people *do* have a financial and/or emotional stake in the event. Do you expect them to be *more* objective? Hehehe]
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
Alright Flint, we seem to be "violently agreeing" as Hardliner would say, on some points, and disagreeing on other points according to our own assumptions and world view. For the benefit of onlookers, I'll not respond again paragraph by paragraph, otherwise this thread will get lost in semantics/parsing/visual overload and fade away.I'll make those clarifications/concessions:
- I misread the sentence "Now, Yourdon makes a good part of his living writing books, and this is difficult if he selects a subject in which there is no widespread public interest."
- I was using strong unnecessary language. I have to work harder at this.
I'll now sum-up what I perceive to be our differences in opinions:
- You are attributing your own perceived motives to Ed on what made him write his book. Ed has come here and explained what his motives were. I go by that. He has shown me no reason to distrust his statement on that.
- You are projecting your own feelings and perceptions on this whole Y2K issue, as well as the issue and motives of Y2K book writers and fixers.
- You use english language better than I do, but I still stand on my views.
- You perceive me as being hard-headed and refusing to give in to differing opinions, when I perceive myself as being tenacious in attempting to understand differing opinions.
"If you are saying (and I might be wrong about it) that Yourdon wrote out of the goodness of his heart, and that his sole motivation was to warn people and selling the book was just his way of subsisting while he gave his warning, then I think you need to think again."
You are right, that's what I'm saying. That's what Ed has said, and again, he has shown me no reason to believe otherwise. I have no difficulty with this philosophy either, because I have seen time and again benefactors giving of their expert time for absolutely no monetary benefits in return. In very small ways myself, I give some of my "expert time" by sharing my nursing knowledge, and putting myself on the line, in writing, on this board. And so do many other experts in many other fields. Ed is doing it in a much bigger way, and trying to subsist at the same time.
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
Chris, OK, if that's what Ed said, I believe him. He did, after all, make the book available on his site to read for free. And I have contributed a couple of hundred hours to disassembling BIOSs searching for TD problems, free. (Sorry, haven't found any yet).Ed's book is selling quite well, and I know this helps him financially. The money was not his primary motivation, I wonder if he's contributing any of it to the y2k effort? I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Finally, I freely admit that I'm worried by Ed's statements to the effect that he sees things getting worse. He's one of my heroes, and I trust his judgment as much or more than anyone else's. Ed's concerns more than anything else started me preparing in earnest. I believe only God is objective, but when Ed says duck, you don't ask why, you duck! I hope Ed is wrong, but I won't bet against him, never.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
Ok, we've found a common ground. Lets shake hands on this :-)
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 17, 1999.
"- You are projecting your own feelings and perceptions on this whole Y2K issue, as well as the issue and motives of Y2K book writers and fixers. "Absolutely, how could it be otherwise? I can only see through my own eyes, and I'm as guilty as anyone of seeing what I expect to see. In Yourdon's case, it appears my perception was wrong. OK, my apologies to Ed.
Consider your hand shaken on this one. In the future, I'll still probably stand on the shore shouting that you missed the boat as you sail away. But I do my best, such as it is.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
De Jaeger said:"Any good news which does arise is cast aside as merely a positive spin. Bad news is accepted at face value. But good news, no matter hat supporting evidence is offered, is discounted, ignored and discarded."
He has a very valid point.
This issue has generated the nastiest exchange I've ever seen on this board. What a shame.
-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), January 19, 1999.