This is a must read article. Anyone concerned--for any reason--is a nut, apparently, or at least of low I.Q.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2209104,00.html

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

Answers

Whoops. Blew the URL. Gotta run now but will try to post it later. You can find the article though by checking press clippings at www.year2000.com Look for the article "Y2k Disinformation Builds."

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

Ziff-Davis has gone out of the way recently to build 'buzz' about their online product and their TV show. Both are floundering badly.

One trick of online "journalism" (notice I put that in quotes) that's used to build a following for a news website is to take an absurd position, put commentary out there to be spread around the internet, and then set up an online feedback mechanism for people to call the author a butthead (or worse).

Wait a second. This sounds like euy2k.com. ;-)

Whoops - but there's one difference. The whole exercise for a commercial "news" website is simply to drag people into the website so advertisers can get 'hits' on their banner ads. Stir up controversy. Enraged people are more motivated to go to a particular website that does not support their own personal point of view, and to voice that opinion. And the neat thing is: those enraged people will go back multiple times to see if their rage has been validated by someone else! So, again, an advertiser gets multiple hits from one incensed reader. It's a no-lose proposition for the advertisers and owner of the website!!

I'm letting this posting stay up, even though it's not related in any manner to the topic at hand. Consider it part of Rick's Freebie School of Onlining (no accredation; no credits given).

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

LOL! Here's one response to the ZDnet article from one of the alarmists! Anyone recognize the name? Hee. Hee.

Name: Joseph Gaertner Location: everywhere Occupation: read the article I am one of the consultants scaring the h*** out of poor, innocent businessmen who are falling into a trance as I tell them about the terrors of Y2k and pull money out of their wallets as they stand there drooling like dogs. Oh, but wait, these business aren't stupid! And they have already addressed the problem, too! Somehow, in their trance like state, their project managers actually learned a methodology. And now there will only be brushfires. How nice. I feel much better now that you have imparted your assurances upon us. Maybe this means I can forget all about the SEC Y2k filings in which Ford states it will not complete it's mission critical system until mid-2000. What maybe, of course I can forget about that. And then I can forget it only took only two striking parts plants to bring GM to it's knees. No, no, I'll forget about that, too. And of course I'll ignore Chevron's SEC filing which said they do not have a prayer of finishing their mission critical systems in time. Maybe I'll just mentally scrap the whole concept of just-in-time manufacturing......Or, better yet, maybe I'll just forget I read your article.....

-- Anonymous, February 16, 1999

FM,

Where do you get YOUR info?

Here's what Chevron REALLY said.............

Year 2000 Disclosure in the 10-Q Filed With the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 1998: Year 2000 compliance assessments of the company's information systems, software and embedded technology continue and are coordinated by a specially formed Year 2000 Project Team. The company is also investigating the Year 2000 compliance efforts of suppliers, contractors, and other third party entities with whom Chevron does business and has material relationships, with a view to preventing the company's operations from being adversely affected by significant compliance problems of others. In several areas of the company's business, the assessment stage is complete and corrective actions are under way. Specific areas where the company could face material Year 2000 issues include the embedded technology in certain of its exploration and production facilities, refinery operations and chemical plants. Chevron has signed various consulting contracts with entities which have expertise in Year 2000 assessment and remediation services for embedded technology and information systems and software. While many uncertainties exist, the company intends that substantially all material Year 2000 issues surrounding its information systems and software, embedded technology and third party relationships will be identified by the end of 1998.The company also intends that all material issues will be corrected or addressed by the end of 1999. Concurrent with its efforts to correct Year 2000 issues, the company will be developing appropriate contingency plans to help prevent the company's operations from being materially impacted by a failure to correct a Year 2000 problem. The total amount of costs to be incurred by the company to address Year 2000 issues cannot be reliably estimated at this time. The ultimate effects of certain Year 2000 technology problems may not be known until 2000.Because of uncertainties, the actual effects of the Year 2000 issue on Chevron may be different from the company's current assessment. However, the company currently believes that Year 2000 issues will not have a material effect on its results of operations, consolidated financial position or liquidity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The company is using a risk-based analysis of its operations to identify those items deemed to be "mission critical," defined as having the potential for significant adverse effects in one or more of five areas: environmental, safety, ongoing business relationships, financial and legal exposure, and company credibility and image. To date, over 350 items in the companys own operations and over 1200 third-party relationships have been deemed mission critical. Additional items and third-party relationships may be added to this list, as further assessments are completed. Chevron is corresponding with all mission-critical third parties and expects to meet with a large percentage of them, either alone or with other potentially affected parties, to determine the relative risks of major Year-2000-related problems and to mitigate such risks. Using practical risk assessment and testing techniques, Chevron is dividing its list of more than 350 internal items into three categories:  those that are expected to be tested and made Year 2000 compliant by the end of 1999,  items that will be removed from service without testing and replaced with Year 2000 compliant items, or  items to be "worked around" until the items can be replaced or made Year 2000 compliant. Many mission-critical items already have been found to be compliant, while others are undergoing assessment, remediation and testing.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

RG

Let me offer you a suggestion - go back to the Edgar database and pull the next 10-Q from Chevron. The date of the document is Sept. 30, 1998.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

OK, I read the 10Q for Chevron. It still doesn't scare me. It sounds like their just covering their butts for litigation purposes. Even if they do have a few problems it not expected to be system wide.

I also happened to read Exxons and Texacos 10Q's. They are much more promising.

Railroads? A-ok to date. Right on schedule.

Utilities? I've looked into a few on the PJM connection. All PA utilities are mandated to be remediated by 3/31/99 or risk being fined by the PUC.

Sorry guys, I'm just having a hard time reading into these reports the way most here seem to be.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

So everyone's saying they're going to be 'OK' for the big date huh? I find it so hard to understand how people can believe what companies lawyer's are telling them to say.

I have a friend where I live who works for GE at a co-gen plant. They've got these huge power distribution panels, with loads of pc boards and [probably] hundreds, maybe thousands, of embedded chips on them. A consultant recently proposed looking into their y2k compliance at a cost of $12,000 (probalby just another fear mongerer trying to make some money right?). Well the boss didnt go for it; says the y2k problem isn't 'real'. So NONE of their critical distribution systems are even going to be tested.

In addition, none of the employees are allowed to comment on y2k status or rememdiation efforts (with the unwritten implication they could be fired for commenting without approval). So everything is going thru one "Y2k Spokesman" for the company. Complete control over the issue.

It's an understatement to say that my friend isn't too confident about the prospects of his plant surviving after the rollover. But he continues to hear that other 'associates' inside and outside the company are hearing basically the same type of story about not much being done to rememdiate.

Just thought I'd pass this along.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 1999

Lou,

One thing that you need to keep in mind. This company stands to lose much more in litigation than it would cost to test and remediate the boards.

I work for a large telco, and I know the types of rumors that fly around. Many times these get started by someone who has a beef with a manager and it gets out of control.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

RG,

If you know the facts, you don't have to read into anything.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Has anyone else experienced this "In addition, none of the employees are allowed to comment on y2k status or rememdiation efforts" situation?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 1999

Reporter,

Absolutely. We get the same warnings. I work close enough to the remediation efforts to know exactly what's going on and not be concerned about completing the effort. At least at my company these statements are put out primarily by paranoid corporate lawyers who want to take zero risk. The problem is that shortly after Jan. 1, ANY problem whether they are Y2K related or not, will be blamed on Y2K thus opening the potential for lawsuits.

After all, these corporate lawyers don't want Y2k litigation cutting into their quality beach time in the Bahamas ;)

-- Anonymous, February 19, 1999