DeJager's Current State of Mind : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I have read with some bemusement the comments on Peter DeJager's current state of mind. All anyone ever mentioned was effort, effort, gut-busting effort. No mention whatever about working smarter rather than working harder.

This is disappointing for those of us who believe that date expansion is a totally inferior approach compared to either windowing or time-shifting. There should have been, a long time ago, a high level debate on the techno-blab which has caused CIOs to choose such a suicidally cost-ineffective course of action as date expansion. I am referring to such claims as "would just be a messy temporary solution" or "think of the performance burden" (as if the testing that could be avoided, at least with time-shifting, were a nothing).

We needed Paul Revere to ride a second time. Unfortunately he has ridden but once.

-- Peter Errington (, February 02, 1999


from csy2k

This is almost beyond words. On almost the same day that Bennett issues a fairly scary statement on Y2K and how it is too late to fix all of even the "critical" U.S. government systems, etc, we get de Jager spewing crap like this. Amazing. Look at these brilliant quotes:


"Now the good news: the efforts have largely succeeded, and its OK to laugh, de Jager said Friday."

""Some of us are taking this thing way too seriously, especially in the press. We need some humor."

""Literally billions of dollars have been spent," he said. "For the most part weve broken the back of the problem. The catastrophic scenarios created by myself and others a few years ago are no longer possible.""


Just when I thought the man couldn't possibly get any more stupid, he goes and proves me wrong. Someone please tell me he's not really Canadian!


BR firm to publish book spoofing Y2K problems

By PETER SHINKLE Advocate business writer

Tired of worrying about the scenarios of global calamity in discussions of the Year 2000 problem?

Peter de Jager, a Y2K pundit from Canada, is working with a Baton Rouge company to publish a cartoon book on the lighter side of the "Millennium Bug."

First the bad news: the nation has spent billions of dollars to address the problem.

Now the good news: the efforts have largely succeeded, and its OK to laugh, de Jager said Friday.

"Some of us are taking this thing way too seriously, especially in the press. We need some humor. After all, it is the dumbest thing weve ever done," said de Jager, a former computer operator who lives in Brampton, a town outside Toronto, Ontario.

The Y2K problem is premised on the fear that many computers that read the last two digits of a year, such as 99 for this year, will read 2000 as 1900. Some say this will prompt shutdowns of computers used in transportation, banking, defense and numerous other areas.

Concerns have eased recently as government officials announced progress in clearing some agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury, of Y2K problems.

Yet in an article in this months Scientific American, de Jager warns, "Computers are now riddled with representations of dates that are frighteningly ambiguous." The article also points to real glitches, such as computerized cash registers in Michigan that crashed after trying to read credit cards that expired in "00."

Now taking a new tack, de Jagers hopes to use his new book to spoof concerns such as the fear that microwave ovens will fail on Jan. 1, 2000.

The cartoon will show a woman saying "Pedal faster!," to a man riding a stationary bicycle hooked up to power a microwave. "Post-Y2K microwave oven," it is titled, de Jager said.

Of course, de Jager is one of those who have helped fuel fears  and built a business on them.

He joined with a consulting company to set up a Web site,, which begins with the following statement in big bold letters: "For many computer and software systems, the year 2000 will bring a host of problems related to software programs that record the year using only the last two digits."

His Web site offers dozens of Y2K books, and features ads for merchants hawking merchandise like Y2K polo shirts and clocks that tick down to the big day. It also offers humorous items, like Y2K bug spray, "a great awareness raiser for your next Y2K meeting," and "Uh-Oh The Y2K Game."

Visitors to the site also can find out how to purchase a set of audio and video tapes on Y2K by de Jager for $75.

In an interview Friday while he was in Baton Rouge, de Jager, who has sometimes been described as a Y2K alarmist, said the problem has been overblown by some people, and to some extent it has been resolved.

"Literally billions of dollars have been spent," he said. "For the most part weve broken the back of the problem. The catastrophic scenarios created by myself and others a few years ago are no longer possible."

One of his early articles on the problem appeared in a computer magazine under the title "Doomsday 2000."

Bray Communications Inc. of Baton Rouge is working with de Jager on his cartoon book. He said he hopes the book, titled "The Bug Stops Here," will be published by March. Its price is expected to be $12.95, said Bonnie Bray, Bray Communications president.

Stan Taylor, a Baton Rouge cartoonist, and Donald Smith, a New Orleans writer, also are working on the project.

So convinced is de Jager that the problem has been eased, he said, he plans to spend next New Years Eve on an airplane, noting that the Federal Aviation Administration has responded to concerns that air traffic control systems would fail early next Jan. 1.

"Ive spent time with the FAA. Ive spent time with Boeing," he said. "Im convinced theyve done what they need to do."

Steve Baxter

------------------------------------------ Canadian Y2K ... 'We're not *all* polite'.

-- Andy (, February 02, 1999.

Peter de Jager's state of mind...November 17, 1998:

"Open Letter to President Clinton"

-- Kevin (, February 02, 1999.

After reading the above link provided by Kevin, and reading the many inane remarks De Jager has made to the press lately, now this silly cartoon book he's authoring, I suggest that the last line in the open letter that he sent to Clinton at the end of November, tells us exactly what and why De Jager's tune has changed.

De Jager signed off his very cryptic letter by saying:

"We have 13 months left; the ball is in your court today, do something with it".

Very strong words addressed to the President of the United States of America.

I suggest the President took him at his word, and did do something about it, and its called handing De Jager a new tune to whistle or else. I find no other explanation viable for such a 180 degreee turn- around in such a short time. Certainly, in 30 days from the date of that letter and the "New De Jager" nothing got better. There was no silver bullet, and the government didn't miralously become compliant and neither did 90% of the fortune 500 companies. So, go figure.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (, February 02, 1999.

And the really pathetic thing about it is that his "humor" is not even funny.

-- a (a@a.a), February 02, 1999.


I don't need to "go figure".

It sounds to me like you've got it figured just right.

-- Hardliner (, February 02, 1999.

<< de Jager, a former computer operator who lives in Brampton, a town outside Toronto, Ontario. >>

Former computer operator, now just a fast operator.

-- Franklin Journier (, February 02, 1999.

I think we can safely put de Jager in the troll catagory now. He simply caught on the the gov. spin to prevent bank runs and to be 'in' he has lent his voice. He wants to spend all that money he has made on y2k. He is famous now. He is the one who has saved the world. NOT


-- b (b@b.b), February 02, 1999.

Whatever his motivation, his credibility is shot. I suspect this cartoon book will prove to be just another, ego driven, public relations disaster for DeJager- remember "Project Damocles".

-- for real (, February 02, 1999.

Microwaves again, oy! Is there ONE person here who gives a flying ANYTHING about whether or not microwaves will work?

-- Mercy (, February 02, 1999.

Hey, folks, Cary Mc from Tx may have it absolutely right. Let's examine the options:

1. DeJager believes his current spiel. Nobody's going to believe that since he cites no evidence.

2. He's trying to protect his newfound fortune by maintaining confidence. Possibly.

3. Cary's scenario or some variant. While this is farfetched, everybody must have considered it in looking at the selections of potential explanations. Lending credence to this theory are DeJager's vacuous *reassurances*, the hint of fear and the lack of humor is his so-called jokes. It's somewhat reminiscent of a prisoner of war's repudiation of citizenship. The real message is not in the words' but in the voice. Who knows, maybe DeJager is doing everthing but winking at us to communcate his feelings. If he were really trying to convince us, wouldn't he know that corroboration is paramount in the persuasion process.

Man, this stuff gets weirder by the day.

-- Puddintame (, February 02, 1999.

Seems like the servants have become the masters......

First he teaches us to look at the problem critically, questioning everything and focussing on the issues. Now, he wants us to accept sugar-sweet, mind-numbing platitudes the likes of which he's currently putting out. Well, Dr. Frankenstein, looks like your creation has a mind of its own afterall.......

-- abcdGoldfish (, February 02, 1999.

I saw DeJager on a show by D.James Kennedy ( a big-time tv minister from Fla.) last Sunday am. As I recall, when asked, he said that he was personally prepared for 1 year.

-- me (, February 02, 1999.

One point here is missed....... de Jager could have been offered a deal he couldn't refuse. Just to back off. Funny, his tone down began after the feds announced an "official tone-down" effort..... Wonder what his new government job/position will be???

-- Mr_Kennedy (, February 02, 1999.

I wonder if anyone has ASKED P. deJager about his seeming aboutface in attitude. It would be interesting to know how he would answer a direct question about this...

-- pshannon (, February 02, 1999.

He would either:

a) Lie

b) Tell the truth

We would either:

a) Believe him

b) Or not

Which would:

a) leave us where we are, not knowing. He sure isn't going to say "Well, some folks told me I would be dead if I didn't tone it down a bit"

-- Uncle Deedah (, February 02, 1999.

I sent a personal e-mail to De Jaeger last year right after the first Gary North interview on Art Bell asking if North's scenario was realistic. He flatly stated then that North was a nut, and that while some minor disruptions were ineviteable y2k would not be much more than a bump in the road.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, February 02, 1999.

Well, it seems to be unanimous. de Jager has lost his mind, his integrity, or both. Other possibilities need not apply.

Gary North is so much more consistent. He's been wrong for decades, hasn't noticed this yet, and neither have his fans (who continue to buy 2-YEAR subscriptions to the Remnant Review, LOL!)

-- Flint (, February 02, 1999.


Not so bro, reread my post, he can b) tell the truth "I honestly believe things are going to be okay" (if that IS the truth, one cannot read minds)

You don't see any inconsistancy in his about face? Was he lying then to increase his speaking fees? Has enough been done in the past few months to avert a disaster? Where do you see the 'truth'?

-- Uncle Deedah (, February 02, 1999.

I thought you might be ineterested if the following reply I received from Peter Shinkle:


In all honesty, I was unaware of the letter to President Clinton. That said, I would also point out that my article clearly stated that even in his January article in Scientific American, Mr. de Jager appears to issue a dour warning about the threat of Y2K. Even so, I'm not sure his comic book constitutes a complete "about face," as much as an effort to find humor in the problem and do a little business with that humor. In any case, I certainly don't intend to revisit this issue in the pages of The Advocate. But I do appreciate your comments and your drawing Mr. de Jager's letter to my attention. UNQUOTE.

Go figure......

-- Carol (, February 02, 1999.

Oh yeah, Flint. That's it. de Jager's waffling on this single issue is certainly exonerated by North or anyone else being wrong, at any time in the past, on any number of issues.

Let's see... I was incorrect fifteen years ago by not buying land in the Sierra foothills when it was cheap... so clearly you can't be held to task for not flossing your teeth last night.

I had thought you could do better than this, but now I wonder.

>> Of course, de Jager is one of those who have helped fuel fears  and built a business on them. <<

-- Grrr (, February 02, 1999.

I'm with you, puddintame. I just had a flashback to the Iranian hostages reading their "statements" to the US, the downcast eyes, the inflectionless voices. Gives me the heebie-jeebies.


-- jhollander (, February 02, 1999.

Puddintames option number three (3) gets my vote.


-- flierdude (, February 02, 1999.

OK, I failed to communicate. Bear with me; I'll keep trying until I get it right.

To Grrr: I mentioned North to illustrate attitudes. I was trying to ask why being wrong and refusing to admit it is considered preferable to being wrong and correcting your mistake. Think -- if someone comes to this forum and realizes the problem is much worse than they previously understood, do we call them a waffler? Oh No! We say they're a 'get it', they've become part of our nice cozy in-crowd, attaboy, great to see you wising up, etc.

Now if they start from a position of fear and panic, and after substantial study they come to the conclusion that things won't be that bad after all, they become liars, wafflers, bought off, knuckling under to pressure, or whatever.

Changing you expectations is acceptable around here ONLY if your expectations change for the worse. Otherwise, you're a fool or a troll or blind. You've read this thread, you've contributed to many, can't you see this pattern? (And no, I'm not counting the flamers, I'm talking about the attitudes shown by the regular posters).

To Uncle Deedah: I don't know 'the truth', and I'm not about to start accusing anyone of evil just because I'm ignorant.

You want theories? OK, I'll speculate, why not?

1) Maybe enough really has been accomplished over the last few months to really turn the corner. I don't see that much having happened, but just because I can't see it doesn't mean de Jager can't either.

2) As Mark Twain wrote, when Twain was 17 his father was an idiot. By the time Twain was 21, he was amazed how much the old man had learned in four years! Perhaps de Jager has learned a great deal in the last few months, leading him to the conclusion that all in all, things weren't as bad to start with as he'd originally feared.

3) Perhaps de Jager has decided that the dangers from panic now outweigh the dangers from bad code, and has changed his tune to counter what he sees as the greater threat.

One thing that *has* happened over the past few months has been availability of a far greater quantity of far more reliable information. No, it ain't great yet in either respect, but until recently it was nonexistent, and all we had was occasional anecdotal horror stories. Until recently, there's been far more reason to fear than reason not to. This is true whenever the best we can expect is not great, and the worst is open-ended. It isn't unreasonable to argue that the worst case is increasingly bounded.

Reporters covering the y2k beat, here and in the UK, have noticed a huge change. They are now welcomed with open arms, here's our budget, here's our status, do you want to talk to any of our programmers or engineers, would you like to see a demonstration, please try to get the facts out there! No, the bug isn't dead around here, but it's getting sick and weak, moreso every day.

I'll try to post details from a y2k reporter if I get to it.

-- Flint (, February 02, 1999.

Peter de Jager, 17 November 1998:

Peter de Jager, 29 January 1999:

-- Kevin (, February 02, 1999.

Looks like the link to de Jager's Jan. 29 comments is dead now.

-- Kevin (, February 02, 1999.

Flint, If DeJager doesn't want to discuss or analyze statements or published written material upon which he bases his current conclusions, that's his business. He could at least cite his sources in footnotes and let us analyze it. If he's just "blowing sunshine", then as the kids say, "Talk to the hand!" Flint, if DeJager were suddenly touting the beneficial health effects of cyanide, what kind of supporting data would you like to read before you followed his advice to swill a cupful?

-- Puddintame (, February 02, 1999.


IF de Jager were a famous doctor with an outstanding reputation, and IF cyanide was otherwise unknown, and IF I suffered from whatever it was supposed to cure, your analogy would be accurate. After all, we take prescription medicines all the time without the need to be doctors.

-- Flint (, February 02, 1999.


Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps? Those are your arguments? This man changes his complete attitude in 30 days and you can only say perhaps?

Perhaps if a frog had wings he'd fly instead of bumping his *ss.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (, February 02, 1999.

But wait!

Peter de Jager now says he was quoted out of context in the article in which he is supposed to have said that Y2K as a technical question has been solved.

Gary North has put Peter de Jager's clarification on his Web site, and Gary presents it with no spin. Here's the link:


-- Kevin (, February 04, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ