Are the Sysops here afraid of civil discourse regarding Y2k?

Curious and Amused Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999

Answers

AndyRay,

Keeping it to a civil "discourse" is fine. Trolls and intentional "doomer flames" are out.

Too little time.

Nuf' said.

Diane

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

The key word here would tend to be "civil."

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 19, 1999.

Diane,

Do the rules apply both ways, or are they being applied only to those who challenge the meme?

Curious Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

If anybody has a URL for a forum about Y2K in which there is civil discourse please list it here. I'ld love to find one. Certainly haven't seen anything even apporaching civil discourse around here for a long long time.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), November 19, 1999.

Y2K Pro, Doomers(tm)Suck, and others,

I do not believe Ms. Squire or Chuck is a nazi, and I do not think that term should be thrown around lightly. If one is engaging in fascist activities, call it - but to state someone is a nazi perhaps overstates your intention.

Censorship is ugly wherever it rears it's head. And, in an information age, it will back-fire upon the imposers, in my opinion.

Disappointed, But Not Surprised Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

To dumbtroll

The last time I checked the term "feminazi" or "feminutsi" was coined by Rush to describe people thinking like you.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), November 19, 1999.

Personally "Pro", I have rarely seen you post ANYTHING of value. You come on this board and call people vile names, and belittle them for being concerned and trying to prepare for the unknown. I find your spew offensive, your information lacking, and your IQ questionable.

I feel that every post you (and some others) make should be deleted out-of-hand. Take a hike, bozo... (and take your buddy "suck" with you)

-- Dennis (djolson@cherco.net), November 19, 1999.

Andy,

I also don't like censorship, but editing is a different matter. When trolls don't have anything useful to say, don't waste my time...edit, edit and more editing...please!!

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), November 19, 1999.

Andy Ray,

I'd like to introduce myself. I'm a new Sysop. I'm not Diane, I'm not Chuck. Who I am isn't important. What is important is that users treat this board as they would like to be treated.

"civil discourse regarding Y2k" is exactly what this board is about.

Any thread created ONLY as a personal attack will be deleted, zero tolerance.

Your thread, as it exists now, is an example of how important "civil discourse" is and how tolerant the Sysops are to differing points of view.

Have a nice day. I will decloak eventually.

-- The Stealth Sysop (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), November 19, 1999.

Pro, Andy, Suck:

It's not exactly what you say, but HOW you say it.

There are standards, and they will be upheld, not matter how much you dislike them...

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 19, 1999.

Andy Ray,

Please describe in your own words what "FASCISM" is.

Your application to the SYOPS here demonstrates that you have no understanding of what fascism is.

You're throwing a word around to incite an emotional reaction without understanding it's practical application and definition.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), November 19, 1999.

Diane, Dennis, Deb M., I second your observations. When a pollytroll goes ad hom or uses profanity, well, that's a great example of why we have the delete button.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Andy Ray

My My are we conserned that your "civil discourse" will be interupted??

I will help you in your mission, how does information sound?

Veterans' Affairs assessment testimony by the GAO, Long and detailed (PART ONE)

Veterans' Affairs assessment testimony by the GAO, Long and detailed (PART TWO)

Because of the limitations cited above for many of the manufacturers web sites, our ability to determine the total number of biomedical equipment products reported and their compliance status was limited. Accordingly, the actual number of products reported by these manufacturers could be higher than the 32,598 that we counted.

As shown in figure 2, of the 32,598 products we identified on manufacturers web sites, about 54 percent reportedly do not employ a date, about 29 percent of the products are

considered compliant, and about 12 percent are reportedly noncompliant. The compliance status of the remaining 5 percent of products was unknown for reasons such as the manufacturers ongoing assessment of the product.

In you displays of ignorance on the board you have asked for failed chips, it isn't the chips that you have to worry about but the system as a whole. In very few areas is this more important than the Health industries. The above is from the GAO report checking out Veterans Affairs, (the health of those that protected your ability to say very silly things) there is still 5% of equipment on manufactures sites that still haven't been assessed, and do you know why????

It is because they were to late, more than likely engineers that pooh poohed the idea of Y2K as a problem.

Not only that the hospitals can't check the equipment because the manufactures don't generally let them because of warranty conserns.

The is from the GAO report, a bunch of bean counters not self interested parties.

So at this late date not only is there 12% that are noncompliant there are 5% that have no status as per the manufacturer.

So if you are a cuban this might be humorous but the US Vets I am sure would find your glib attitude disgusting to dismiss this information at this late date.

So if you have a point I would like to hear the facts buddy other wise quit posting your little childish rantings or I will repeat this post in every thread you start. You know I will do this.

I am a Canadian and if you figure that this is crap then I would be thoughly pissed off that any American would let you wave the stars and stripes, unless you are a Cuban.

And this is only the tip of the iceburg. That is the worst part.

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

More information for your "civil discourse" from the above report.

VHA Position on Not Testing

Biomedical Equipment Unchanged

As we reported last September, VHA relies on manufacturers to validate, test, and certify that equipment is Y2K compliant. We also reported that there was no assurance that the manufacturers adequately addressed the Y2K problem for noncompliant equipment, because FDA did not require medical device manufacturers to submit test

results to it certifying compliance. Accordingly, we recommended that VA and HHS take prudent steps to jointly review manufacturers compliance test results for critical care/life support biomedical equipment. We were especially concerned that VA and FDA review test results for equipment previously determined to be noncompliant but now deemed compliant by manufacturers, or equipment for which concerns about compliance remain. We also recommended that VA and HHS determine what legislative, regulatory, or other changes were necessary to obtain assurances that manufacturers equipment was compliant, including performing independent verification and validation of the manufacturers certifications.

At that time, VA stated that it had no legislative or regulatory authority to implement the recommendation to review test results from manufacturers. VA and the Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) have stated that manufacturers are best qualified to analyze embedded systems or software to determine Y2K compliance. Accordingly, they do not encourage user testing of biomedical equipment for Y2K compliance. ECRI guidelines, however, suggest that health care facilities should consider testing interfaces between medical devices in cases where the facility cannot determine the Y2K compliance of the interface from the device manufacturer. FDA also agrees with the ECRI position on testing biomedical equipment and interface testing. Specifically, FDA has taken the position that manufacturers submissions of Y2K compliance certifications provide sufficient assurance of product compliance, and that such testing on the part of users is not necessary.

According to VHAs chief biomedical engineer, VHA guidance to the VISNs and medical facilities is not to conduct stand-alone compliance testing of biomedical equipment in their inventories. VHAs Y2K project manager told us that VHA relies on the manufacturers certifications; therefore, there is no need for such testing. However, he stated, in cases in which one medical device interacts with other systems or devices, the medical facilities should test these to ensure proper operation.

In contrast to VHAs and FDAs positions, some hospitals in the private sector believe that testing biomedical equipment is necessary to prove that they have exercised due diligence in the protection of patient health and safety. As we have previously testified, officials at three hospitals told us that their biomedical engineers established their own test programs for biomedical equipment and, in many cases, contacted the manufacturers for their test protocols. Several of these engineers informed us that their testing identified some noncompliant equipment that the manufacturers had earlier certified as compliant. According to these engineers, the equipment found to be noncompliant all had display problems; none was critical care/life support equipment. We were told that equipment found to be incorrectly certified as compliant included a cardiac catheterization unit, a pulse oxymeter, medical imaging equipment, and ultrasound equipment."

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