Look at the irrational depths to which Y2K Scoffers will go to unjustly smear anybody who says Y2K will be more than a BitR.

Sherman accused Yourdon of profit-making from a "sleazy" infomercial.

Ed replies that he has never heard of it.

Bradley actually asserts that Ed should have had some kind of disclaimer!

Ed reminds Bradley that he didn't know about it, so how could he have had a disclaimer.

Ed then posts his and Bradley's private e-mail exchange, Bradley having asked if he himself could do so. Bradley then throws a snit because Ed posted the e-mail exchange (precluding Bradley from playing the quotation-out-of-context game).

And this is what passes for being reasonable among the Y2K Scoffers.

Enjoy.

Thread: Webster, Yourdon, Lord sell their souls

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 03, 1999

Answers

That is not, of course, the whole of the exchange. There's a lot more to it. I provided the link to allow any interested parties to check it out.

I add this caveat to forestall simple-minded complaints from the Pollyannas who visit this forum and who like to divert attention as quickly as possible from the subject at hand.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 03, 1999.

You forgot to mention the dozen kibitzers on the side-lines, each determined to offer commentaries, insults, and analyses of the entire exchange. Now I remember why I stopped visiting the csy2k forum several months ago... these folks seem to have far too much time on their hands.

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), October 03, 1999.

This is interesting. Last May/June I was introduced to a group out of Canada that sells soy protein ... then in late June or July they had a video which they claimed was going to be introduced with their advertising attached. It was in fact the one mentioned in the email with Hugh OBrien, etc....and a snippet or two from Ed and Yardeni. I emailed Ed at the time to ask him if he knew about the video or the company and it's CEO (who claimed to know Ed personally) ... Ed told me at that time he had never heard of them...and I believe Ed cause there was just too much name dropping going on by the CEO for the purpose of pumping up the sales troops and potential sales persons.

Interesting to see this float around again.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 03, 1999.

Ed, if you hadn't experienced the wonder that is Bks, or Bradley K. Sherman, before this, then you were truly deprived. I've been battling Bradley for a while now, as have others, whacking his ass for his shameless disingenuity, linguistic sleight of hand (tongue? keyboard?) and the moral deprivation his tactics reveal. He's a smart man, but, but, but something just ain't right with the boy. He engages in the most obvious rhetorical tricksterism that he should be ashamed of himself, yet he keeps at it. He's got so much ego invested in his personal Y2k debunking campaign that he can never admit he's wrong or mistaken. Truly a basketcase sometimes. Every time I think that, well, he's an okay guy, just a little misguided, he pulls the kind of stunt he did with you. And then, of course, his groupies chime in. A real circus, and a flea circus at that.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), October 03, 1999.

Kurt,

Not having visited the csy2k newsgroup for several months, I had no idea who BKS was. There are similar characters on this forum, of course, but I know who they are, and I know that any attempt to carry on a rational discussion with them will be a waste of my time and theirs. I don't know the cast of characters on csy2k, though I now have one name on my list of people whose postings I won't bother reading...

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), October 03, 1999.

Ed, Kurt's synopsis of bks is rather accurate. Beeks has never know a sleazy trick that he would not employ nor any half truth that he would not embrace. He makes flint look like Aristotle himself. Beeks indulges in what could only be described as the wildest of militant pollyannic denialism. Don't waste too much of your time on him, except maybe to scoff.

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

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 03, 1999.

"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of congress . . . But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain (taken from libertarian website) "I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed." --

Jonathan Swift

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 03, 1999.

Paul,

Flint = Aristotle? The mind boggles...

I guess what I don't understand about this kind of angry, confrontational debate is why anyone would waste their time at this point, with only 89 days to go. It took two or three messages for me to see that BKS was not only a polly, but a militant one at that; and I'm sure that people have formed similar impressions about militant doomers after a couple of exchanges.

But since these folks make it so abundantly clear that nothing on earth is going to change their mind, why spend the time and effort carrying on a debate?

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), October 03, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,



--bks is not a reasonable person masquerading as a Polly.
he is a shit eating liar on the same order as adechert and some 
others.  I won't presume to know what their motives might be.
althoug I suspect that Steve Baxter / Canadian Y2K might be right in 
his assertion that --bks , adechert, and the others are paid 
propagandists " doing a job ".



the fact is that c.s.y2k is an empty shell now.  at 500 days I told
Cory that the range of y2k effects was not between Hamasaki -> Milne.
but rather Milne -> Infomagic.



just as the world looked and acted more or less the same on the day 
after Black Monday, 1929,  so too will the world look and act more or 
less the same on 02 January, 2000.  but the downward spiral will have 
begun.   and just as newspapers and radio were trumpeting that " 
Prosperity was Just Around the Corner " as late as 1934,  so too will 
the media continue to bombast its Polly Propaganda for years to 
come.  even as the world around us degrades and unwinds.



01 January, 2000 is not the end or the conclusion.  it is but the 
beginning of a chain of events leading towards a world that will more 
closely resemble our grandparent's world than our own.



In more ways than one.

-- Nunja Biznec ( @ .org), October 03, 1999.

Thanks, Lane, for bringing this high-entertainment to the board. I'd been following it since it began, and it really has gotten pretty funny. Now BKS claims that Ed "ran" from him rather than be forced to answer BKS's probing questions about Ed's current take on Y2K. Hahahaha. Obviously, BKS can't be bothered to read Ed's current and very public opinion on his website. Not surprising, given that BKS couldn't be bothered to verify his impression of the infomercial before running to his keyboard and trying to smear Ed, et al.

I was also delighted by Ed's masterful checkmate of posting the email exchanges in response to BKS's request for permission to do so. Kinda makes me think that Ed knows more about chess than just how to use it as an analogy of the Y2K end game :-)

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 03, 1999.

Well...nobody said it wasn't gonna be interesting..ah, except bks that is...

-- a (a@a.a), October 03, 1999.

lol Lane, and what is the purpose of THIS thread - to spread brotherly love???? This kind of stuff is best ignored...

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.comn), October 03, 1999.

FactFinder,

If you don't mind my asking, what has Lane Core done to get you so irritated with him?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), October 03, 1999.

Ed,

Trolls deserve no special courtesy. Especially when they attack first... and with malice aforethought.

Diane

Troll-types also have a non-logic all their own. (Sherman half-a- tank?)...

http://x34.deja.com/=infoseek/getdoc.xp?AN= 532397299&search=thread&CONTEXT=938998221.338362440&HIT_CONTEXT= 938978406.2086928445&HIT_NUM=68&hitnum=44

Ed has run away. I'm still here. I win by default.

[snip]

--bks

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 03, 1999.

Ed has not run away. He knows that if you wrestle a pig, you get dirty and stinky while the pig enjoys this. Sort of like KOS enjoys mud wrestling with all members of the beautiful sex.

Ed, I completely trust your competency and veracity. My compliments for your backbone and excellent work.

-- Not Again! (seenit@ww2.com), October 03, 1999.

If you don't mind my asking, what has Lane Core done to get you so irritated with him?

I point out that he runs when confronted with questions he doesn't want to answer. That he is as adept at "finding" press releases as he is at finding "facts". That the only facts he is really interested in finding are facts that he likes, because they support the preconceived notions he doesn't want to admit he has. (Do I have preconceived notions? Sure. Do I make a big deal of the facts that support them? Sure. Do I dismiss with a sneer and a wave of the hand what doesn't fit in with them? No. Do I admit that I have preconceived notions? Yes.)

That is, Gordon, I show that his handle "FactFinder" is hype and a hoax.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 04, 1999.

Bradley Sherman may be wrong (and may not), but he is neither unintelligent nor ill-informed. Nor does he stand to make a penny from y2k (but does stand to lose, as do we all, if it's bad). Sherman's claim that Yourdon has made a concerted attempt to make money from y2k (from whatever motivations, and with whatever success) cannot be denied. And I fail to see how most people in this forum can be willing to emphasize those who have something to gain by minimizing y2k (to the point of calling them all liars and dismissing them), yet remain so loyal to the unbiased veracity of those who make money by emphasizing the dangers. As Lane Core admits, that bias is there. And no, I don't know if Lane Core is remunerated for his Westergaard columns.

But I don't think it really matters. Sherman is as sincere in his beliefs as Yourdon. And you must be *really* committed to an extreme viewpoint to feel Sherman has failed to document his case well or behave any more deviously than those who castigate him. Of course Sherman is marshaling evidence selectively to support his viewpoint, aren't we all?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

I'm sorry, Flint, but if you spent considerable time on csy2k, you'd see why people can't stand bks most of the time. It's not what he says so much as the disingenuous, sneaky way that he says it. In other words, he plays dirty, simple as that. All he seems interested in is winning. Because he's not making money by minimizing y2k, he's some kind of saint or moral exemplar? Hardly.

-- Kurt Ayau (Ayau@iwinet.com), October 04, 1999.

"Sleasy tricks" and "half truths", eh Milne. Well what about this:

Subject: Montana Hydrogen Sulfide Leak: 300,000 KILLED! Date: 1999/10/03 Author: Paul Milne <>

Oh yes, it's meant to be an attention getter. Oh, yes, it's meant to make a point. Generally you link stories that are variable. But this stoops to the level of National Enquirer.

Credibility counts.

-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

Kurt:

I follow csy2k, though I don't contribute often. And BKS doesn't seem to play any more or less fair than anyone else. However, he is a militant optimist, and thus guaranteed to really irritate anyone who anticipates big problems. Since my own perceptions fall much closer to Bradley than to Paul Milne, of course I see Bradley as playing as fairly as possible considering the intensity of the hatred directed at him. But I recognize that I react the same way to Paul Milne as you do to Bradley Sherman because of my own biases. And to me (and quite a few of the posters on csy2k, you shouldn't say "people" dislike Sherman just because you do) Sherman's case is MUCH stronger than Milne's. And I'm confident things will play out that way.

Perhaps it can be said, after we assess the damages (say in a year), that whoever missed the reality by the widest margin was ipso facto using the less honest method of evaluating the information, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 04, 1999.

"verifiable." Sorry.

-- Buster Collins (BustrCollins@aol.com), October 04, 1999.

Mr. Yourdon,

FWIW, your essay "Soronora Y2K" comes to mind often. Your point that arguing/debating is pretty much a waste of time is one I agree with. I do have a different opinion than many doomers. That difference of opinion is fine with me. But I've often noticed tollerance of differing opionions is a rare trait to have these days. It gets old having two running monologes instead of one dialog. Sadly, if one disagrees with the opinion of others, most just attack the one who has a differing opinion, rather than engage in thoughtful discourse. Sometimes it's nice to respond. I for one fight back on occasion. But often silence is the best path to take. People of whatever persuasion often will think and believe whatever they want to believe....and trying to reason with them is a waste of their time and yours. The calls to "come back here and fight" are pretty empty, since often they just repeat their own positions, without taking into consideration or even responding to your arguments. I think what they REALLY want is a maniquin to argue with! I say let 'em go find one to argue with; life is too short and precious to waste with 'em.

I personally believe Y2K will be about a 5 overall. I also think peoples reaction to whatever happens..or is feared to happen...will make it three times worse than it would ordinarily be. But, this is just my opinion, nothing more, less or else. It would be nice to see more tollerance of opinions -- wherever they happen to be on the spectrum, but such doesn't seem to be in the cards...for at least the next 90 days or so.

Best wishes. And sorry you have to be the target of attack. But, I figure, in the final analysis, so what? People, events, and Y2K will be who, what and how it is/they are....and in the end, today's opinions -- whether ours or others -- is not something to debate endlessly, or at the expense of robbing one of today's joy.

I used to say "Live and let live". Then I said "Live and let die". Now I just say "Whatever"...and go my way...leaving others to go their way.

Take care Mr. Yourdon. And thank you for your DP books and writtings. They have helped me in my career.

Best wishes,

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), October 04, 1999.

Gordon, I really don't mean to rile Lane, I was just poking fun at his hypocrocy (starting a thread about a "smear" job and making the thread be just as bad a "smear" job). Amusing! Poole is an angel compared to "Lane the Assassin", lol!

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 04, 1999.

I think it is a symptom of the trust we've lost in this society, to wit, pollys assume that everyone is out to use them and get their money, hence Ed is out to get their money. It's easy to see how a person comes to that conclusion about society, after all how often do any of us actually talk to somebody else unless we specifically want something from them. Nothing will change their suspicious natures.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Lane is still mad at me for pointing out that an early story posted to csy2k that the Unemployment Insurance systems in several states were going to go belly up in early 1999 turned into a complete non-event (in January the direside told the realists to wait, in February the direside told the realists to wait, ..., we're still waiting). Alwyn Aubrey, a direside journalist, investigated the Missouri Unemployment system and found no problems whatsoever, despite an anonymous tip from 'Stormhound' who has since disappeared. Lane was defending the story at the time. Lane claims to have killfiled me in csy2k *even though I turned out to be right*. Well, whatever, it's his killfile. His synopsis of the Chaney Video brouhaha is self-serving to the extreme.

As to Ed Yourdon's posting of my e-mail to the Usenet without permission, I'm sure that he is far too busy to worry about the niceties of netiquette and I will forgive him his transgression if he will forgive me for implying that he was receiving money from the Chaney scam video.

I usually don't participate in moderated forums, but I was alerted to this thread and thought you might be interested in some background. Please be sure to check out the Y2k section of my website at http://www.ironic.com/y2k/

--bks

-- Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com), October 05, 1999.

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

As to Ed Yourdon's posting of my e-mail to the Usenet without permission, I'm sure that he is far too busy to worry about the niceties of netiquette and I will forgive him his transgression if he will forgive me for implying that he was receiving money from the Chaney scam video.

Mr. Yourdon posted exactly what you requested be posted, i.e. his letters in their entirty and nothing more than that. The fact that these letters included quotes of pieces of your letters is something that you knew when you chose the words "in their entirity."

You downplay your offense by suggesting that all you did was imply that Mr. Yourdon was receiving some kind of payment from Chaney. You did far worse. You entitled your post with stronger words. You didn't merely suggest that he might have been connected to this outfit, nor did you do it just in passing. You used the most inflamatory words possible when you STATED that he HAD sold his soul!

How are we to know that you aren't being paid to defame honorable people, or that you aren't over-invested in the tragically broken established system? We don't. Rather than seeking out authoritative people in which we can invest our trust, we should all be listening to the messages that they bring us and evaluate for ourselves what kinds of preparations are prudent.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 05, 1999.

Wow, Dancr. Think I've seen it all now.....

-- only (on@the.'net), October 05, 1999.

No. Consider this entry at Deja News: (http://x31.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=532311457.1&CONTEXT=939161146.514326598&hitnum=4)

At no time did that message appear as part of e-mail by Ed Yourdon. That is, that e-mail of mine was *never* part of any e-mail by Yourdon.

So even if I agreed with your assertion (which I do not) the Usenet article referenced above refutes your contention.

--bks

-- Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com), October 05, 1999.

"Mr. Sure?man,

We invite to our fair city during the Rollover, Southeast Dee Cee"

------------------------------------------------

Posted by c4i on csy2k!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 06, 1999.

Hey, FF. I told it like it was. If that's "smearing", then the Blockhead Sherman smeared himself with his blundering hatchet job.

Hey, Blockhead Sherman. You are a piece of work. You had the balls to complain about posting of e-mail after you had accused the man of "selling his soul". Yourdon put in a pre-emptive strike and emptied you of ammunition! Poor boy. You are one mighty piece of work.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), October 06, 1999.

Lighten up for goodness sakes, Lane! At least I don't stoop to namecalling. Twas ever thus with the profits of doom. Instead of wasting time with your schoolyard taunts, why not dredge up a Y2k story? Hey, why not do a followup on the crashed Unemployment Insurance computers, or has doomer selective amnesia hit you too?

By the way, all of the guys I mentioned are making money off of Y2k are they not?

--bks

-- Bradley K. Sherman (bks@netcom.com), October 06, 1999.

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

I was wrong about your letters having been embedded within Mr. Yourdon's letters, although I sincerely believed that at the time that I wrote it. I have always found it confusing to understand the ">" carrots and color changes in that type of exchange as to who is saying what to whom and when, which may be part of the reason I prefer the Greenspun format over the one where this exchange took place.

In any case, though, I still would not conclude that Mr. Yourdon had violated your privacy. The words in question, again, are these: By the way, I'm going to get attacked in csy2k for the exchange. May I have permission to use your e-mails in the newsgroup if I reprint them in their entirety The difference of opinion centers around the interpretation of the word "them."

Does it mean just Mr. Yourdon's e-mails, or does it mean all of the e-mails in the exchange? I would have read this as a desire on your part to have displayed the entire exchange. The context of your letters is important to understanding the meaning of Mr. Yourdon's words, such as, for example, his "Lighten up" comment.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 06, 1999.

86 days, 1 hour to go. Does anyone think any of this is going to help out anyone who comes here looking for info? The polly doesn't need it because he thinks there will be, in the end, nothing that needs preparing for. Others, however, come believing this might be one of the few sites where they might be able to obtain real information.

For example: After todays postings I have decided to withdraw a very small amount from my local ATM machine each afternoon not for the purpose of stashing it but just to see if the ATM's are running out of cash early. Please note that doing this does not mean I agree with anything posted. By doing this I can find the truth of these claims for myself. No need for polly/doomer debate. Yet without this site I might never have thought of it. These sites can serve a useful purpose. It's a shame to see so much time and space wasted on this type of nonsense.

I have often heard that violence is the last resort of the ignorant. I have always believed that even if this is true, name calling has to be running a real close second

-- thomas thatcher (jabawaki@erols.com), October 06, 1999.