I've uploaded a new essay onto my web site, entitled An Open Letter to Alan Greenspan

Comments and feedback welcome...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 19, 1999

Answers

Thank you so much Ed! Excellent work. It means an awful lot us to have a voice of reason and expertise such as yours to send your message to our government. As you stated, even though we can't expect to change their minds about their approach to this problem, at least it is now documented that you have attempted time and time again to get them to respond. They will not be able to continue to hide behind the media forever, and we will hold them responsible for whatever occurs. After all, that's what we're paying them for isn't it?

Thanks again, and best wishes to you and yours!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 19, 1999.

P.S. Being a bit of a wise-guy myself, I am particularly fond of your last comment ... "Arf. Arf". Love it!

-- @ (@@@.@), September 19, 1999.

Woof!

Yes - I used to use Arf Arf myself instead of my now favoured

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha ha ha

Which is what I thought of greenscum's sorry-assed cop out of a "speech"...

He could not have picked a more inappropriate choice of acronym either...

Ever see the movie "Outbreak" - where the mad doctors (read programmers) at the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in Atlanta try to combat an ebola-like virus threatening to decimate mankind... well slap me with a wet trout but isn't that just what Y2K is possibly going to do? Probably going to do... will do.

Is the bastard taking the piss here? Is he having a private laugh?

Thanks Ed, and also Ashton & Leska for their critique, I hope it gets to the traiterous asshole and ruins his millennium... I hope the tribunals go for him, Koskinen and Clinton as a matter of priority when/if the dust ever settles.

Roll on Nuremburg, DC.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

Ed, You went far to easy on the SOB. He had nothing but platitudes. His comments were specious. It would really be nice to see someone of your stature savage the SOB like he really deserves instead of this tip toe around the tulips crap. Must be nice to pretend you are sitting in the parsonage balancing a teacup on your lap.

People are going to die. people are going to die as a direct result of comments like Greenspan's.

You know that, don't you. Are you harboring any reservations about that?

There are only little more than a hundred days left. When will someone of your staure and credibility stand up, pull off the kid gloves and rip them a new wazzoo?

People are going to die, Ed.

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 19, 1999.

@,

Yes Ed's words are once again documented.

What I fail to understand is why he did not say these things when he had the opertunity to do so in front of Congress.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 19, 1999.

Mr. Yourdons analysis is really good, and so is Ashton and Leskas, but if you want to really understand what Mr. Greenspan is really saying just skip the whole speech and read the last line.

"If we avoid fear-induced, significant economic responses in the months ahead, the Century Date Change will hopefully replicate the saga of "the dog that did not bark."

Ever heard the old saw about this dogs bark is worse than his bite? Ever had a really bad ass dog slip up behind you and attack without ever making a sound? I have.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), September 19, 1999.

Cherri,

That is an outright lie. On the contrary, Ed said many of these same warnings to Greenspan at the Senate Commitee testimony way back in May, and the guy still won't listen. Read the testimony yourself posted on Ed's home page, and give him credit where it is due.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 19, 1999.

Some good points raised here. You echoed some of my concerns, such as:

1. Fix On Failure
   Heck, if you think calling for technical support is bad  now...
   At present, you call in to report an anomaly and get a fix, and you're put on hold or told to leave a message, and your call will be answered as soon as possible. Or, after you've waited 30 minutes on hold, the operator tells you to visit their website and download the patch. If things indeed get messy, a lot of folks opting for FOF will be calling for support. Will they get prompt service, or a busy signal? As for downloading patches, if your systems or routers are down, how are you going to download the patch?
   
   What if you're still functional, but your ISP is down or you have no datacomm? You'll need to have that patch sent to you somehow...perhaps via CD in the mail? If a mission critical system is involved, how long can your organizaion bear waiting for that patch to arrive? Let's say that you need to hire people to implement the fixes. Some organizations may have the financial resources/resources to do so. However, if you're not able to process orders while you're down, your cash flow  is diminished. Will businesses resorting to FOF have the financial reserves to cover these outlays?
   
2. The interconnectness issue
   The United States may fare well, but we rely heavily on imports for components in many market segments. Clothes, shoes, automobile parts and semiconductors are just a few examples of a very long list. . At present, alot of what we consume is manufactured overseas. Imported oil is of particular concern, for many of the things that are manufactered rely on petrochemicals. Plastics and pharmeceuticals, just to name a couple. Of course, we could ramp up factories to accommodate the demand, but this takes time. Also, revamping facilities involves capital and the ability to get the machines/resources needed to retool the plant.
   
3. The timeliness of software projects
   Last year I read that it would take years for some of the fixes regarding certain market segments and government organizations, but in less than a year, said organizations and industries have bounced back from behind and are now caught up. If they indeed managed to accomplish this feat, then why the bad track record in general regarding other projects whose scope is large in nature? I agree that most large software projects aren't delivered on time. If they are, there are usually compromises involved. You report to the vendor about the errors, then you work around the errors and wait for the patch. If one were to use MicroSoft as an example, I'm sure you'll get my drift. They couldn't release Windows 95 on schedule...and when it arrived, it was buggy. I guess it all boils down to fault tolerance. Which leads to another point:
   
4. Fault tolerance
   Granted, the development/software tools I use are buggy now...I am accustomed to workarounds, and I manage to deliver a usable solution. However, if errors/anomalies exceed the IT staffs' abilities to develop workarounds and usable solutions in a timely manner, how will this impact the company's day-to-day operations? How does it affect their customers, their vendors, the market sector, etc.? There are so many variables in the equation that no one really knows...but I consider this good food for thought here. There are a lot of nifty point and click development tools with wizards that write the code for you, but depending on the tool, it may be difficult for one to go in and actually tweak the code. And, if one has the option to tweak that code that those wizards generate, what concerns me is how many actually have the ability to read that code. I see many folks claiming to be programmers that just point and click using these wizards, yet when it comes to reading the code they're creating, I swear some of these folks are clueless. Let me make it perfectly clear that I have nothing against point and click tools, as long as one knows how to modify their code.  :-)

I remember AG stating that "99% is not good enough." So, according to AG's logic, we're better than 99% at this point, or has he lowered the bar? I have doubts about this one...that 99% statement really stuck with me ever since I started researching this...

yap yap ;-)

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), September 19, 1999.

This is just one small clip of an entire section adressed to Greenspan during the May 25th testimony:

"With all due respect to Mr. Greenspan, I don't think that speeches like this one contribute to the kind of thoughtful discourse that we need to have if we hope to make an informed decision about what we plan to do with our money that currently resides in the nation's banks. On the contrary, the speech consists of a number of ambiguous, undefined terms strung together in such a way as to provide an emotional appeal against panicking."

-- @ (@@@.@), September 19, 1999.

"I remember AG stating that "99% is not good enough." So, according to AG's logic, we're better than 99% at this point, or has he lowered the bar? I have doubts about this one...that 99% statement really stuck with me ever since I started researching this..."

Me too Tim, me too...

He'll never live that quote down, never...

GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

People are going to die, Ed. -- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 19, 1999. Paul

People die every day driving a car. People still buy them and die. Same with smokes. People are addicted and or obligated to go on with their lives. If they have not changed by now it is not going to make a differance. People are socially addicted.

By the way I know who you are and have lived alot harsher than you can imagine. Reality and facts are two differant things.

Ed Yourdon

I found Mr. Greenspan to be quite outspoken lately. In his own way he has warned people. Doesn't seem like a person that like to say things twice. It would be interesting to take his previous speaches and compile an assessment of his ideas. The guy is a master at understatement. When looking at the BIG PICTURE you miss the details. Unfortunately the details are people and communities and they are where the rubber touches the road.

People in power will always defer the responcibility. With Y2K though the devil is in the details. Us.

Greenspan doesn't get paid to watch the details. I think that he called it "as it is" to his pears in;

 Greenspan Speech

Which actually is what Paul Milne has been worried about all along. What are "things" going to be worth if society go to shit. Assets to a bank are the "things" that have some worth. Less worth, less assets

Greenspan's job is to operate a system, what happens within the system is not his mandate. If he tells people and they don't listen then it is their problem in a freemarket system. That is how people learn. It is like raising a child. You can only protect them so much. The trick is to judge how much depending on the childern. Anyway at this time that is my opinion being a Alan watcher. If there was anything I was suprized about it was the plain speach he used. With a guy like that it is and indication of something. I figure more comments will be in order :o) (Asia Crisis)

Alan Greenspan farts and the financial community wants a smell.

IMHO it is the press that reads Alan G. wrong. They do not understand Y2K. And they weren't smelling his farts either. I think that in the last two communications Alan G. has been yelling and people don't understand because he doesn't understand people. And people don't understand him. And so on.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 19, 1999.

C'mon brian.

No excuses.

He's copped out, so has Clinton and the Inventor of the Internet.

Bottom line - they are so shit scared of bursting the economic bubble, which is gonna happen anyway, that they won't tell the sheeple to prepare - thereby causing massive loss of life.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

Paul,

I don't think it is reasonable to expect Ed to be Superman and save the World by himself. He has already saved a lot of people. If I had not happened to hear him speak last year on the Art Bell show I might still be going into this as naive as the Pollys. He has testified in government hearings, written bold letters and books, and made appearances at many occasions. How many times have you made a media appearance? There are limits to how much a person can protest the government without putting themselves at risk. IMHO he doesn't deserve to be made to feel guilty for his brave and generous efforts.

-- @ (@@@.@), September 19, 1999.

Andy

I am not saying that A.G. is correct, I am just saying that he is protecting his 'system'. It's not a cop out but an alocation of resourses.

Personally A.G. has had his priorities in the wrong places (keeping comodities low) and thus keeping things at an even keel. Of course this is BS in a big way but it is what the system demands. The problem isn't figuring out what is wrong but what is right. No one has the answer to that, it is "in the wind". NWO types are no match for time. Things change. And they die. Everyone dies. And everything changes. The worries of 30 years ago are differant than today yet just as serious as today. And back then it was the war, pollution, over population and communism (bit of drugs). Now I used to watch the Contra hearings on the tube (from Canada). In 30 yrs. nothing has changed. Drugs, guns, and money rule. A.G. is just another pawn in the biggest picture. Trouble is he doesn't even realize it. Really Nature rules. Just ask the "members" of Lloyds.

The world is evolving, and so is everyone else. Let the child trip and fall. It should have happened last year with the asia crisis and they didn't let it happen. Silly people that don't let others learn from their mistakes. Y2K would be "redundant" if they let it fall last year and they didn't. They might pay for that mistake. But then that is A.G.'s job. It is all a matter of scale. The bigger they are the more it matters.

That is where I don't understand the method. Letting the weak survive in the market is going to kill the system. Don't even think that A.G. has a choice, it is his mandate. Bailing out LTM was just a cop out. Y2K in just another pain but they just made it much more painfull. The higher they go the farther they fall.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), September 19, 1999.

Ed,

Wonderful letter as always, although I would have to agree with those who said you let him off the hook...

Interesting last line on the web page:

Copyright 1999 by Edward Yourdon. Updated on September 20, 1999.t.Comments to Ed Yourdon, ed@yourdon.com

I knew you were a man ahead of your time... are you perhaps wanting to experience the rollover a little bit ahead of everyone else?!

-- Y2KGardener (gardens@bigisland.net), September 19, 1999.

Brian,

Very well put Sir, and I pretty much agree with everything you said - an almost perfect rationalisation if I may say so. However it still doesn't let any of the three off the hook does it? Canada and the UK, while no means perfect, are at least setting some sort of example in how to address y2k to the populace without panicking them - in stark contrast the USA is falling over backwards (Koskinen and the Navy report leak for example...) to actively DISSUADE preparation.

I'm sorry but that's tantamount to culpable homicide in my book and these scum should be treated the same way the Nazi murderers were in post WW II.

Greenscum is nytol-man personified - he's probably bored everyone to the point of apathy regarding y2k...

Mission accomplished.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

He'll never live that quote down, never...

GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 19, 1999.

Andy,

I doubt if Greenspan could care less one way or another if anyone remembers that quote.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 19, 1999.

One of my last Y2K preps (still not done because I don't see any shortages here ;-) ) is to buy a dog.

This mutt had better bark loudly and often when slick salesmen in suits come knocking on our door!

(Great commentary, Ed. Maybe I should name the dog after you? ;-) )

-- cgbg jr (cgbgjr@webtv.net), September 19, 1999.

To @@@@,

I am not trying to make Ed 'feel' guilty. Ed is in a special position. he is an acknowleged expert in his field. No one will dispute that. that gives him an opportunity to save lives that is virtually unparalled. Maybe he wants to rest on the "know one knows" crapola. I am NOT attacking Ed. We have had a number of very pleasant exchanges in the past, and I respect Ed. That does not mean that i have to agree with or respect everything that he does.

It is ludicrous to believe that there will not be catastrophic consequences. Ludicrous. People are going to die. And not like the other idiot who countered with "people die every day in cars."

This is a demonstrably forseeable event. The world is manifestly unprepared. Everyone but a few have on the kid gloves. I wish that I had the visibility that one like Yourdon has. Not for the benefit of publicity or notoriety. i believe deep down that people need to be seriously warned. I am not much for kid gloves, nor molly-coddling, nor polite tea party chatter. I calls 'em as I sees 'em, let the chips fall where they may. I When i was on CNN, that was exactly what I said. I said that NY City would look like Beirut. In actuality, that was indeed one of Ed's own comments. But he did not say that to Congress.

I am tired of people who mold their comments to fit how they think they will be perceived. This is the same thing that Ed Yardeni did. I went back and forth with him in e-mail over this. I accused him of saying something publically that was not what he had said privately. Privately, he said that there was a 100% chance of a recession. But, publically, at the time, he said only a 30% chance. I lambasted him. he said that if he said 100% no one would listen to him and he would lose his credibility. So his message is molded to fit the opinions of his hearers.

That is one thing if one were not talking about life and death.

Ed Yourdon takes Y2k seriously enough that he has absconded to new Mexico for the safety of his family. Maybe he would have 'retired' to a spot like that anyway. No matter.

Is it his responsibility to 'save' the world'? No. Does he have anything like a 'duty' to be more vociferous? No. In the beginning he could have said nothing and proceeded silently in all that he did. But, obviously, he did feel that he had 'some' responsibility to do and say something. I am only arguing that what he has said is not strong enough, especially at this late date, with so much at stake.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 19, 1999.

thanx Ed- after I had read Greenspan's speech- I in fact wanted to put an "open letter to Al Greenspan" on the forum- but; why would he care what I had to say anyway?

what galls me the most I think is the premise that he puts forth, that households that prepare in any fashion will cause the problem. Why should it have any impact on the economy if I keep a years supply of food and tp at all times? Or if I don't keep my money in the bank? Why is it my job to support the economy anyway, or for that matter, why do I have to deal with banks if I would rather keep cash buried in the backyard or under my mattress or whatever? I haven't noticed the US government being all that concerned about keeping the economy of my family going strong.......

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), September 19, 1999.

All, Thanks for the comments and feedback. A few people emailed me with a list of typos. I plan to make the corrections a little later today, and also plan to add some URL hot-links to provide some corroboration and validation for the "assertions" that I would like Mr. Greenspan to accept as "facts".

Paul Milne, Each of us communicates in whatever fashion he/she feels is most effective. You've chosen passionate anger; Gary North mixes biting sarcasm with an overwhelming quantity of articles, links, stories, etc. I feel just as passionately as you do, and my friends will tell you that I can be just as sarcastic as Gary North. But since you guys (and a few others) have already filled those "channels" of communication, I decided to choose a different one.

Your style will grab some readers (though probably not ANY of the business/government leaders) and shake them up, make them really think about the issues; and those people would probably fall sound asleep reading whatever I have the say. But the opposite is also true: there are some readers who are so overwhelmed and offended by the anger in your message that they'll stop reading before they see the substantive content that almost always exists in each of your messages; perhaps some of those people will find some useful information when they turn to my articles and essays.

As far as I'm concerned, we're all in this together; I think you're going for the home-runs, and I'm going for the singles, with an occasional double. At the same time, I can't help thinking to myself that many of us participants on this forum would never have met each other, and would probably never have had a common bond, had it not been for Y2K. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows ... and bedfellows makes strange politics.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 19, 1999.

Paul, I am sorry for missing this as I am sure information is widely known among forum-goers. What is your expertise, position, etc that would have had you on CNN? I do not doubt you are experienced and knowledgable, just don't know actually what your field is. Do you have a website, or something that talks about what you did/know that makes you so certain? Thank you.

-- (y2kfallback@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

cgbg:

I don't have a dog either, but one of my last minute purchases will be bags of dog food. I figure when people use up their stock of dog food, the streets will be filled with pooches turned out to fend for themselves. Then I'll have my choice of loving, grateful, loyal burglar alarms.

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (storestuff@home.now), September 19, 1999.

Pearlie: Smart !!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

"Each of us communicates in whatever fashion he/she feels is most effective. "

Ed, Not to be argumentative...

This is virtually a tautology. They key point is 'communicte'. What is it that is communicated? The SUBSTANCE. You are talking about 'style'.

Style is NOT what I am talking about. I am talking about SUBSTANCE.

Did you get the impression that I was merely arguing that your 'style' lacked something but that the 'substance' was fine?

Let me clear up any misapprehension. You are mollycoddling. You are pussy-footing. You are bordering on trifling.

There are many ways to communicate a more serious 'substance' than what you are doing without being 'intentionally' boorish or offensive.

The bottom line is this. People are going to die. Is there a nice way of saying that? To me, that is the gist of the whole thing. How important is human life that one will do what it takes to warn people? How important is human life that an individual will speak the unvarnished truth. ( of course, as he sees it.)

Greenspan's comments were ludicrous. They were specious platitudes. They will result in people dying. Yet you treat him as an honored/respected guest in your home. You do not have to come out and call him an 'a**hole' to his face. I would have no problem with that. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Greenspan's comment make him out to be a giant a**hole in my estimation, because they are GOING TO GET PEOPLE KILLED, Ed.

So, you can play tea party games and think that we are dicussing 'style' or 'effective fashions of communication' if you like. I am talking about the SUBSTANCE.

People are going to die, Ed.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 19, 1999.

I think it might be a tactical error to start such a long essay with a discussion of how badly the federal government "underestimated" the cost of fixing y2k.

As any bureaucrat knows, when it's time to get money, there's a trick to getting it. Ask for way too much, you aren't taken seriously. Ask for too little and you'll get too little. So you try to ask for just a bit more than the maximum you think you can get. That way, the politicians can look good cutting you back, and you get as much as possible.

Oh, the issue of how much you need? Largely irrelevant. It's probably safe to say that, taken together, the agencies knew they were asking for FAR less than would be required to fix the problem. They just knew that there was no way they could get that much all at once. Government works incrementally. You get as much as possible each budget cycle, whether you need it or not, or whether you need a LOT more than that. In other words, the agencies didn't estimate how much they needed, they estimated how much they could get. Very different.

The timing is similar. There must be some *public* recognition that y2k is a significant expense, before politicians will allocate significant resources. So if you try to allocate it when it's really needed (which is well before the public has ever heard of y2k), the politicians won't cooperate, since they can only look bad for "wasting" money.

Greenspan likely understands these political facts of life very well. And an essay that, underneath the fancy verbiage, is telling Greenspan how to do part of his job, isn't going to hold water if the very first point made indicates almost no understanding of how his job works.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Pearlie, better save the dog food to feed the starving people. Ol Roy at WalMart is the cheapest you can buy. Ruff, rufffff

-- Skippy (skippy@skippyyy.com), September 19, 1999.

Paul, we think people will die. Lots of them. So many that body disposal will become a logistical problem. We also think that possibility is now one of the "better in the long run" side effects that Mengelese .gov types are calculating. What other conclusion can one reach at this late date after so many warnings? It has gone far beyond stoooopidity.

When the truth is stated, those mired in lies shutter down.

We've concluded that, whatever idiocy, myopic tunnel selfish laziness contributed to the Y2K catatonicastrophy, NOW it has become a .system conscious Cull Opportunity. Big fast way to eliminate all that enormous drain of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.

Entitlement Coffers to Coffins. Koffinsky in charge. Let's reinvent Government!

Stocking streamlined shrouds ... think they've gotten that far, the .gov .system .biz .establishment with quick nitty-gritty-grungy for-real COVER-UPS, contingency plans "final solutionized?" Got grave diggers? Got enough crematoriums?

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

Paul Milne, read carefully what Ed has just said.

If you were the only source of Y2K warnings I would have heard, I would have dismissed you as a crazed man only because of your style, and block you out completely, missing all the important facts and common sense of your message.

Ed Yourdon speaks in a style that does not automaticaly puts the reader in a defensive position. That's called civilized communication. You may call it molly-coddling and chatting over a tea cup, but unfortunately for you, more and more educated people have become used to this style of communication. Successful people are very aware of this, and they practice and develop what's called "interpersonal skills", or Emotional Quotien, E.Q. for short. In the business world, Ed Yourdon has a much greater chance of being heard and taken seriously with his style than you could ever be. Think about it Paul, if Greenspan went around calling people "buttheads" in his speeches for worrying, would he be respected as he is? Would he be taken seriously? Of course not. A civilized spin needs a civilized debunking.

Ed, I've printed your open letter, very nicely done and timely for my husband to read, as he pointed to me the headlines from yesterday's paper and said "see? Greenspan's saying the economy will be ok."

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 19, 1999.

Ed,

The letter is terrific. Thanks for making the statement.

Oh course Mr. Greenspan knows what's coming down and has been told what to say, as they all have been told.

Paul

I appreciate your point of view, but frequently an angry method of discourse will merely polarize the discussion and end it. Not everyone sees the matter of communication in the same light as you do.

What you are basically saying is that everyone should have your personality. Wouldn't you feel a little lost in a crowd if that were so? Good to see you posting here, however.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

A&L:

Have you considered eating all these people? Why waste good meat by burning or burying it during a time of mass starvation? If you want to become a more practical parody, GarySouth has some recipies for "long pig" that will make your mouth water.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

What Mara Said.

-- No Statue Ever (Erected@ForA.Critic), September 19, 1999.

Paul Milne, read carefully what Ed has just said. If you were the only source of Y2K warnings I would have heard, I would have dismissed you as a crazed man only because of your style, and block you out completely, missing all the important facts and common sense of your message.

(Then you are a fool. A fool who can not divorce style from substance. the reult would be your own injury.)

Ed Yourdon speaks in a style that does not automaticaly puts the reader in a defensive position.

( And once again, i say that my comments were NOT about style. They were about substance. CONTENT. Apparently no matter what the content, you don't seem to comprehend, do you?)

That's called civilized communication. You may call it molly-coddling and chatting over a tea cup, but unfortunately for you, more and more educated people have become used to this style of communication.

( You grow tiresome. I know that people like you are impressed with the triumph of style over substance. YOU are the whole problem.)

Successful people are very aware of this, and they practice and develop what's called "interpersonal skills", or Emotional Quotien, E.Q. for short. In the business world, Ed Yourdon has a much greater chance of being heard and taken seriously with his style than you could ever be.

( Yes, he does have a higher chance of being heard, and what is heard is the problem. It is second rate pap and molly-coddling. )

Think about it Paul, if Greenspan went around calling people "buttheads" in his speeches for worrying, would he be respected as he is? Would he be taken seriously? Of course not. A civilized spin needs a civilized debunking.

Ed, I've printed your open letter, very nicely done and timely for my husband to read, as he pointed to me the headlines from yesterday's paper and said "see? Greenspan's saying the economy will be ok."

( And ultimately, Ed's letter will influence NO ONE at all. He repeats the same old swill making sure that his 'style' is inoffensive by means of maing the substance as bland as pap. Don't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater when there IS a fire, you might offend someone. never mind that human life is at stake. In our modern world, we must make sure that we communicate in a fashion that will be palatable to as many ears as possible. Only be contriving a message contorted to the confines of palatability can we 'reach' people. of course, what they are reached with is meaningless, but you congratulate yourself on having 'reached' people.)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 19, 1999.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), September 19, 1999.

Chris:

The reason Milne's predictions have been as accurate as they have, is due entirely to his ability to listen, and think about what he's hearing, and learn when good points are made.

Needless to say, his predictions have never been right yet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Ok, I'm a fool, like millions of people in this country. I don't like people who spit in my face when talking to me, especially when they have bad breath.

What Ed has done for my perticular situation is expose Greenspan as not being as honest and credible as my husband used to think. For me at least, and perhaps several millions of fools like me and worse fools like my husband. How many fools have you reached today Paul?

Go brush your teeth.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 19, 1999.

Thanks Ed,

Great response. And more balanced than some.

Unfortunately, I have NO expectation that the dot govs actions/ reactions, as we head for the final Y2K End Game, will change... at all. Clearly, their decisions and public/media perception management strategies were determined some time ago, and are not likely to alter their behavior, at this late date. Wonder what would? Oh well. Stay tuned.

FOF--fix-on-failure--appears to be the government awareness strategy of choice, at least for the individuals, because local is not where the FEDs are (they assume). And, yes, quite likely, people WILL DIE as a result. Needlessly, but there it is. The Federal Emergency Management Response has been predetermined. Koskinen, et. al., have declared Y2K a 3-day winter storm... and SO IT IS.

Except for the fact that they admittedly dont KNOW! (Wonder if lessons learned in North Carolinas Floyd-ravaged flood waters will change any preconceived national notions?) Doubt it.

*Big Sigh*

The disconnected, still lead the disenfranchised. And Greenspan is now in the weather forecasting business. Why does that bother us? Because hes a specialist, asserting beyond his ken. Not unusual in politics and business where money--not people--is the bottom line of choice. And the newsmedia applauds. Sad. Very sad.

Ed, you ask... at what point does the public develop the impression that the entire banking system is collapsing?

Good question. Who knows? Perhaps, they never do. At least, until its swirling around their ankles, like a rising tide. Then its often too late to head for higher ground. Perhaps well learn some valuable lessons, as a planet. Or not.

Sure hope Greenspun is right... We at the Federal Reserve are optimistic that computer problems associated with the Century Date Change and the response to the CDC will not be a major event for our nation ...since hes betting the entire global farm that he is. Or is he gambling? Very high stakes game, IMHO. But is he holding a royal flush? Again... who knows?

Personally, Im *prepared* NOT to play his game. Seems like a loosing proposition.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

Flint, after all this time, you still haven't cognized that we are vegetarians. We fully expect to die very soon, one of the millions of statistics, and we're planning to die laughing, having the last laugh ;^)

We are peaceful people and hope mightily that we're completely wrong. But we deal with death every day, and the elderly, and know first-hand, up close and personal, how extraordinarily fragile is that tenuous thread upholding life for billions of frail elders.
Demographics and carrying capacity.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

Alan Greenspan is witnessing the results of his POLITICALLY motivated actions over the past years. His MAJOR concern today is the US stock market which is demonstrating characteristics similar to those markets of 1929 and 1987. He must do everything is his POWER to reverse the trend of this market NOW. If that includes misleading statements about the potential for y2k problems so be it. He CHOSE to let the good times roll and now the piper is knocking at the OUR door demanding to be paid.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 19, 1999.

Nice try, Flint. Ed ran circles around Greenspan. Too bad you can't see them.

But, hey, he served your purpose. Any chance to jump in and correct somebody: that's what keeps you going.

So, here's another chance to jump in and correct somebody. No need to thank me.... ;-)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 19, 1999.

Lane:

I think you nonetheless. You have 'a's knack for scraping the hometown boy off the mat and raising his unconscious arm in victory. Could you say your winner wassn't determined in your own mind until you'd read the presentations, and still keep a straight face? For your sake, I hope not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Flint, Does your mommy know that you talk like this? Have you EVER completed a debate class? An ethics class? The Lord loves you, and you need to show some respect for yourself and other people, too.

-- Hilda (####@#####.com), September 19, 1999.

Again, could someone please advise upon Milne's credentials and history of current unwavering belief in a 10. I would really like to know. Thank you.

-- (y2kfallback@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

One's credentials are summed up in one's character and vibration.

Read Milne's posts. He spares no punches. He is as he comes across. Raw and real. At this point all that matters is fact. Time is running out. And the fact is that we must all prepare as intelligently as possible to meet our needs, in our localities, during possible disruptions to Life As We Currently Know It.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

Hi A&L, I do like his writing and have always read with enthusiasm his postings. I'm just wondering if he had some special expertise that alerted him to the problem earlier then most and gave him greater conviction then most. I know the earlier WRP's reference him, but I do not find credentials, (for lack of a better word.) Not asking with hostility "What are your credentials." just want to know what has given him such conviction in a world of waffling. No disrespect intended at all. Thanks for writing back though.

-- (y2kfallback@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

Hilda:

Are you suggesting I become more like Paul "Yourdon's writing is second rate pap" Milne? THAT kind of respect?

If so, sorry but I decline. Why don't you adopt that style instead, since you have posted no objections to it. OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 19, 1999.

Hhhmmm, we don't know. We haven't paid much attention to ppl's "background," degrees, etc. We figure their measure is displayed by their writing, actions, experience, etc. -- how much they are able to share and help others. We've razzed Paul quite a bit about his, um, uniquely colorful choice of words, but then stopped because we actually began finding it refreshing after the gummy dull deliberately drab dribble coming out of the Spin Machine.

You'd have to ask Paul directly your specific questions. He never answers us anymore; Cory never has. That also tends to help us evaluate "credentials." ;^)

Grade as you go :-)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

To he who asked the rhetorical question"whose business is it if I store a year's worth of food..."? I am a GI, so I am not criticizing you for this statement, but one point that I have NEVER seen posted here, or anywhere, regarding FOOD, is that very simply, did you realize that at any time of year throughout the world, there exists ONLY ABOUT 90-120 DAYS WORTH OF RAW FOODSTUFFS (COMMODITIES)! So, let's follow a simple line of reasoning along the line of Jim Burke's "Connections": when someone buys some form of food in a store(and you should also know that even a supermarket has on hand a maximum of THREE DAYS worth of goods), that food must be replaced through the supply chain, whether it is canned or processed or fresh. If we follow the chain UPWARD to the producer, we arrive at the conclusion that NOT everyone could store more than 90-120 days of food, period. That is all there is in the world! Fortunately for those who GI, they are in such a tiny minority that it HAS been possible for them to accummulate a year's worth of foodstuffs. If a panic hits later in 1999, rest assured the average DGI will be lucky to grab a few day's worth, since it takes TIME to replenish the food supply chain. Even that assumes NO bottlenecks anywhere else, like the petroleum system!

-- profit_of_doom (doom@helltopay.com), September 19, 1999.

I wonder if Mr. Yourdon found a way to send his message directly to Alan Greenspan. In other words, I wonder if Mr. Greenspan will ever even see it. It seems to me that we have brilliant minds on both sides of the Y2K problem, and I would like to see a Q&A session with both sides participating.

I'm so confused. Mr. Yourdon, Paula Gordon, Jim Lord and others all sound very convincing and terrifying. Yet I can't reconcile doomsday with the stock market still up so high. I wish I knew more!

I'm taking precautions just in case, but most of my friends think I'm crazy.

-- Rebecca Waldock (RWaldock@aol.com), September 19, 1999.

Profit of Doom-yes- I understand some of this is a problem- but why has it been allowed to be? Because the mantra has been- prepare for a 3 day storm- because people who stock up are acused of being hoarders and doomers and all sorts of names.... Because we have been led to believe that we are so smart and technologically advanced, that nothing will ever bring down this deck of cards- not mother nature, and certainly not computers. We produce enough food in this country to allow everyone to store plenty- we also waste incredible amounts- between food that is discarded by stores and restaurants, food left in the field after harvest, food never harvested, and food farmers are paid not to grow. there need not be a shortage of food- we can grow enough to store. But- yes- it is too late now. But it wasn't in the recent past.

-- farmer (hillsidefarm@drbs.net), September 19, 1999.

See thread...

Second draft of 'Open Letter to Alan Greenspan' (Ed Yourdon)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Qvk

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 19, 1999.

Y2kfallback, here's a thread started in June asking who Paul Milne was.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000x Ia To me, he's just another brilliant guy lacking badly in personality and social skills. With his brain power, if only he would polish his social skills he'd be a lot more effective, but as he is, he's wasting a lot of effort banging his head against a brick wall. He yells a lot but he isn't heard much.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 19, 1999.

A &/or L wrote:

"One's credentials are summed up in one's character and vibration."

Truer words have never been posted on this board! Praytell, where did you come up with such a definition?

JG

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), September 19, 1999.

Hi Bingo1, great to see you back!
Pray 'n He will tell ;^)
JG

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 19, 1999.

I have read quite a bit that Ed has written on y2k and I like the manner of his presentation. I think (always dangerous) that Ed was unusually angry when he wrote this and may have tried harder not say anything truly inflammatory.

When I read the AG speech the first time I felt the anger rise also and perhaps that is because I expected just a little more from him than the average government shill. Instead, the promise of his words was not supported by the substance of fact(thanks Ed-well explained).

This arrogant presentation by AG could have come from NERC just as easily although his language constructs need to be translated. He may be the first impressionist of the English language.

I believe that Ray is correct in his assumption that AG is afraid. Fear is a powerful motivator and y2k may push Alan's Humpty Dumpty economy off the wall.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), September 19, 1999.

It always seems silly posting this late. In any event,

Ed:

It was a nice analysis.

Paul:

I like your passion and directness and also understand why I may be in the minority.

Rebecca:

Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT ever let the stock market prices tell you how good things will be in the future. Market tops are, BY DEFINITION, the point of maximum euphoria. 1929 is a case in point. 1987 is a case in point. There are many.

My assessment? I'm with Cory on the societal. Whatever was going to be done on a large scale had to have been started a long way back. To cause everybody to GI now will not solve any big problems. (Gettgin friends and relatives will, however.)

We're milling around waiting for the game to start.

Best regards... Dave

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), September 20, 1999.

Could you say your winner wassn't determined in your own mind until you'd read the presentations, and still keep a straight face? For your sake, I hope not.

Get down off your high horse, Flint. You would have asked me the same question if I had said Greenspan won hands down. You argue for the sake of arguing: you come here day after day to see whom you can correct. You take a dozen different positions on every angle, and then dispute whoever points out that you've taken one of them.

It's Monday: what position are you staking out today?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 20, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

This discussion continues at Second Draft of 'Open Letter to Alan Greenspan'

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 20, 1999.