I suspect there are a few here who have witnessed my progression from teotwawkier, to doomer, and now to "bumper" (BITR) (although, Im a polly compared to the vast majority on this board. I find this amusing, because I am considered a teotwawkier to everyone outside a Y2K chatroom).

My most recent progression is the result of a discussion I had with my father and uncle, who own small oilwells in Kansas. Ive given some thought to oil production, and Id like to present my current view of the future. Id like to preface this discourse by stating that (as Ive said before) Y2K will be a tragedy for many, an inconvenience for some, and a great time for others.

One of the reasons why I am now a "bumper" is because Patrick, Cary, and I respectfully disagree with Downstreamer on the amount of oil available in this country. We believe there is enough oil in this country to last a MINIMUM of 40 years (I happen to believe my uncle, who says that there is enough for generations here). I think that all of us can agree that there is enough oil to last us until other regions are functional again. As I suggested in an earlier post, I believe we can process enough of that oil without computers, get it to market etc. within a maximum of four months. This of course, will be accomplished by hiring people to do the work that some computers previously did.

A forum member once told me, "the kind of production that ol' Uncle Joe knows accounts for maybe 4 million barrels a day while the world consumes 70."

That sounds pretty good to me. I think we only need to produce enough for the U.S. & Canada. I think the solution to the problems caused by computer failures will be relatively short term: lasting maybe as long a 1 year. Its my personal opinion, most systems will either be fixed, replaced, or will be limping along by then. During that time, I think that those who are unemployed, or who have been over-employed, will find new positions after the rollover as manual laborers. Since computers have replaced the work of men for the last 20 - 30 years, I believe that for a year or so after Y2K, men will replace the work of some computers.

Lets consider the possibilities of what could happen during the rollover:

1. Does anyone think all electrical companies, nuclear reactors, oil wells/refineries and communication companies will crash? No? me neither.

2. Does anyone think that some of all the above will crash? Sure,. ..and what is it were afraid of? Well, if were in the blast or fallout zone of a reactor or a wayward missile; were dead - or worse yet - someone we love will die or suffer. Is there anything we can do about that? Probably not much more than we've already prepred for. I think we should enjoy today - today. I'm tired of living my death over and over again in every conceivable manner known to man. I have died a thousand times already just thinking about the concomitant disasters that Y2K could possibly bring.

3. Does anyone think that very few of the utilities will crash, and a large amount of private industry computers will crash? Me! Me! Thats me! Thats what I think!

What will the future be like if that happens?

I think IT professionals will be scrambling to FOF, and graphic designers, webmasters, etc. will have to go to work doing the kinds of labor that computers replaced 20-30 years ago. Men will have to manually open the gates to canals, and do whatever they used to do to make a city function. Some bean counters will have to calculate on battery-operated calculators, doctors offices will have to share the one or two office computers that dont crash. Patients wont be able to have MRIs or other computer-assisted medical care. People will be hired to do paperwork and filing by hand. So what? I did that in high school, and I thoroughly enjoyed my life then too.

Consider this; there are a lot of services and products we use that are not dependent upon RTCs or even computers in general. I have a friend whose husband owns a radiator shop in Glendale, and he has NEVER used a computerand before you ask: yes, he is very successful. His company has been profitable enough to buy them a five-acre plot and a $300,000 home.

Let's explore this thought a little further. My uncles combines arent computer-dependant either. What else isn't? My clocks arent, they are electric. My TV isnt, my stove isnt, my appliances arent, my air conditioner isnt,I guess my biggest worry is that the electric company doesnt crash so that I can still live the life Ive become accustomed to. I would like to insert one caveat at this point. I own a seminar business, and it can be run without the use of computers (although, I set mine ahead two days ago, and obviously, I didnt crash!). Im pretty sure most people and businesses can accommodate for the loss of their computers, but I worry about those people who work in high rise buildings. I suspect those elevators have date sensitive chips and some people are going to have to walk up a lot of steps to get to work. This is one of the areas that I see the potential for tragedy. If you are old, or have some sort of physical disability, I believe it is the end of your career in that building. You will probably have to find a job doing something else. I suppose theres any number of things you could do on the ground. I suspect there will be many positions available for security guards. The "people problem" will create a need for security for grocery stores, liquor stores, furniture stores, etc. (Think L.A. riots.)

Ultimately, I think if we dont get nuked, blown up, or stabbed after the rollover, weve been blowing this bug WAY out of proportion. I think most of us at this forum are panicked because WE use computers, and our lives may have to change. Fear of the future and the unknown can be debilitating, but we have to remember there are a lot of people who dont depend on computers. That is why so many people are not preparing! The guy who operates a backhoe doesnt give a damn about Y2K...neither does my mother. Chances are, most housewives and laborers have never touched a computer.

In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences or because they mistook some poor schmuck who knocked on their door to tell them their cat is stuck up a tree, for someone who was going to steal their stash. Can I hear an amen to that!

-- (Ladylogic46@aol.com), December 09, 1999

Answers

Its not the odds... its the stakes.

And THIS is extremely offensive:

In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences....

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), December 09, 1999.

Dear lady, how can one say this gently: You are proof of the old adage that it is best to be silent and only thought to be dumb than to say something and confirm the fact.

-- noone (Noone@none.co), December 09, 1999.

You have never done any manual labor especially under primative conditions have you?

-- goldbug (goldbug@mint.com), December 09, 1999.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this lady...but Y2K isn't about you, your uncle or your brother...it is about the global infrastructure...and the POSSIBILITY that enough of it will collapse with or without the oil wells you are so proud of capitalizing on.

-- eubie (eubie@wakeup.com), December 09, 1999.

You're going to base your conclusions on the opinions of people who haven't even studied or researched the problem? This is logical?

Have a very, very nice life. It's been fun.

Guess because it's going to be a BITR we don't need to read nonsense like this anymore,

the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences

I'm a gentleman Lady, so I'll stop here though I feel a great desire to continue.

Mike

================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Blast zone of reactors?!? Ahem... You need to do some more studying on that topic.

Anyway I think the biggest concern is the electric power, because that is the linch pin of the country. Now if that stays intact, the worst possibilities of Y2K are over. However, I noticed that you completely avoided the topic of the banks. Please note that the Great Depression occured with zero mechanical failures. I unfortunately think that a collapse in banking is almost 100% assured due to the interconnectedness and fragility of the world banking system, as demonstrated by the Asian fiat collaspses and the Long Term Capital Management fiasco.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), December 09, 1999.

There is a lot you are leaving out:

1) The oil industry is not de-bugged. If most refinaries are down, it will take at least 3-6 weeks to bring them back IF all the right circuit boards/chips are ready to go.

2) This means that there has to be drastic measures (rationing, martial law, etc. etc. to conserve gasoline to essential uses).

3) There are industries/production lines/process controls/shipping that are not debugged since that would have meant shutting something down. It will take a while to bring all those things back up.

4) Many financial transactions will get jammed up/lost. There is no way all these transactions can be done manually. Re-- estimates that it will take 35 years for the IRS to process and mail refund checks for 1999 tax season if their computers go down.

5) We have barely begun. 40% of small business have done nothing. etc.

6) The elctrical grid does not look sound. If there is no power to a quarter/third/half the country it is hard to imagine a quick recovery in an environment of drastic shortages of gasoline/diesel fuel.

7) Without disel and without the mainframes the trains do not run. WIthout trains, no coal to the power plants. Without power, the phone system is dead. Etc. etc.

In sum; this can all get very interesting.

I think we are having the bump in the road right now. The shock starts in 3 weeks. Good luck

-- David Holladay (davidh@brailleplanet.org), December 09, 1999.

Spider just posted this Lady. It may help you to find the errors in your "logic"

144. Summarizing the results of the meeting, the
Chairman of the Working Group on Informatics noted that
there had been general agreement that achieving full year
2000 compliance might not be possible by 31 December
1999. Member States should therefore establish
contingency plans for all systems and activities of national
importance to handle potential year 2000-related
disruptions.

This is in PDF format.

Steps taken within the United Nations system and with
Member States to resolve the year 2000 date conversion
of computers

PDF file

-- DO RESEARCH (you own@business.?), December 09, 1999.

Bimbo!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), December 09, 1999.

What you are describing is not a BITR. For the economy to change back to the way it was 40 or 50 years ago would cause a huge depression.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

its amazing how one person can be so myopic and offensive at the same time. up until the last para i could have considered this lady(?) misguided, but then she presents herself as small-minded and mean- spirited.

a pity, but at least if things go bad, no great loss.

-- Cowardly Lion (cl0001@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

After reading this utter nonsense in which you base your assessment of a huge global computer problem on the counsel of people who know very little about computers, I understand why women were not allowed to vote for such a long time.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 09, 1999.

You really *must* change that internet name of yours.

-- Me (me@me.me), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogi, we(the US) have used up 80% of our oil, and only have about 20% left, with the world about to hit the 50% mark in a few years(not factoring in y2k). Get your facts sraight. We don't have enough oil in america to run the country for much more than 5 years... taking into consideration all untapped reserves.

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), December 09, 1999.

Laura,

I don't have the time to get into the substance of your post now. The reason I'm posting, though, is to ask you to retract your statement at the end regarding "...people in Y2K forums...".

There is little doubt in my mind that the potential percentage of people who are or may end up contemplating these things is far, far higher outside of the forum than of the forum participants. Some reasons for this are that people who are caught unprepared will probably behave less predictably, more irrationally, be dealing with sudden desperation, anger, etc. etc.

Please delete your statement. It is indeed very offensive, and untrue.

Thanks,

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 09, 1999.

First, I'm going to be polite and ignore your comment about "people who are going blow up bridges, shott people....." - They only ones who are going to panic and cause peoblems are the ones who have kistened to the supposed government experts and who have failed to prepare.

Worry about their reactions. They will be the ones who attack, loot, rape, rob, and destroy - because they are the ones threatened by computer failure.

...---...

Well - If "that guy on the backhoe" is typical: he won't be able order pizza, his property assessment is wrong and can't corrected at the courthouse, owes ??? in taxes but can't pay, didn't get paid because his boss can't get paid because the job is cancelled because his county can't get permits issued - and it wouldn't matter because the county can't issue their own paychecks to the schoolteachers, much less contractors.

He can't get gas into the truck to tow the backhoe, and can't get a just got ticketed since his vehicle sticker is outdated, but he can't renew - the state emmisions control computer is screwed up. His kids can't go to school (no pay, no teachers, no janitors, no heat, no water since pressure went out three hours into the new year), and have no books because the library can't check them out.

He hasn't had a hot bath in three weeks, his woodpile is down to the last three logs, and he can't wash clothes. Has only the non-potable water from the construction truck behind him, and has to go the National Guard armory to get his daily allotment of 5 gallons of pure water. But he is about out of gas in both cars, and doesn't want to walk three miles to get more water tommorrow.

His kids are sick, his wife is going crazy trying to take care of them....and he has no food left - at all. Sure power is up, but when the mail came, it had a notice that his insurance was cancelled, his bank statement show no money since an automatic deposit was sent to the wrong account number (the program swapped two digits), but the automatic withdrawals continued, except for the two that bounced when the other withdrawn amounts were for the wrong amount (just a few exrta digits in front of the actual ammount (10,035.43 instead of 35.43), that was all. It took six days to fix, and nine more transactions bounced while he tried to get it fixed.)

Yep - guess that guy on the backhoe isn't affected at all.

AND HE CAN"T DO A DAMN THING TO FIX ANY OF THESE.

.....

Want more? These are only failures that HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 09, 1999.

I reinterate,

I am considered a polly in this forum. I came to this forum a months ago, after studying Y2K for 17 months before that, and I have re-evaluated information every day. I simply believe many companies have made progress (including banks), and not everyone is lying to us. It is amazing how some people will defend their preconceived beliefs by synthesizing only the material that justifies their point of view.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Uh, cody,

Check the bottom of your shoes, hon.

'Lady',

What are you sellin', sister? {Or should that be smokin'?}

-- flora (***@__._), December 09, 1999.

Good responses guys and gals.

-- Larry (cobol.programmer@usa.net), December 09, 1999.

;)

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), December 09, 1999.

Seminar #1 - How to Think (and you really need this, Ladylackinglogic)

Step 1 - gather data and facts Step 2 - analyze data/facts to determine if any conclusion can be reached (stop here for Y2K) Step 3 - state conclusion, supported by data/facts/details etc.

Ladylogic, your thought process starts and ends with stating conclusions. That doesn't mean you are wrong. Even a broken clock is "right" twice a day.

Just what subject do you give seminars on? And don't expect any pleasant posts in response when you say you are worried about Y2K forum people raping, shooting etc. Because everyone who responds to your post ... is a Y2K forum person. Did that occur to you?

Although I find most people on this forum are far more worried about Y2K than I am, I realize in the absence of hard data, we are forced to make our own choices on preparing ... or not. Those who prepare for the worst ... are also prepared for winter storms ... and may have enough provisions to help neighbors like me who have done no Y2K preparations at all (other than monitoring 'Y2K prevention' progress for almost three years and expecting only a "2" or "3" on a scale of 10). Excuse me, I have to go out and bomb a bridge. Hopefully your post will be deleted by the time I return.

-- Richard Greene (rgreene2@ford.com), December 09, 1999.

I'm not quite sure what the reason is, maybe chemical depression?, some of you CANNOT HEAR anything anyone else says that opposes your views.

This is a forum for an exchange of information and ideas, a place to share. It is the only place in the world where you totally exist in and indulge our opinions. When you get sick and tired of your extreme views regarding Y2K, you will get help. Until then, I suspect you will never hear what anyone else says.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady NoLogic:

You are the last person to lecture anyone about "preconceived notions" since you consider people who want to discuss Y2k as probable rapists, terrorists, bridge bombers, murderers, etc. Perhaps if you pull your head out of your selected bodily orifice, you will actually get an unobstructed view of what others really think. Unlike the view your presently have now that is viewed through the excrement you so readily post here in this forum, troll.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), December 09, 1999.

OK, folks, try a little balance. Ms. Logic is providing her personal assessment of Y2K and the story of her progression from extreme pessimist to dour optimist. It is stated as opinion, not fact.

I agree the "raping" women statement is unfair. On the other hand, I have read dozens of posts on this forum where the author expressed NO reluctance (even eagerness) to shoot someone. We've also seen the "death pool" and countless other articles wishing for the demise of forum "Pollies." I have read racist statements... and Cody neatly finishes by adding a sexist remark. I think Logic makes an inflammatory statement... but that is hardly unique to this forum. When made by pessimists, these statements are excused or ignored. Can you say "double standard?"

Linda... if stakes were more important than odds, people would wear helmets and Nomex suits driving to work. Would you take a passenger airline if all you cared about was the stakes? Is a weekend in Bermuda worth your life?

Mike... after things like the "Mr. CEO" story or "C4I," you might realize the forum has a double standard. How many "my cousin's brother knows this guy who used to work with a woman who had an ex- husband who did the programming for a company I can't name AND they are not ready for Y2K" stories have we seen? I don't have any evidence of the credibility of Logic's family. It goes into the same bin as "Mr. CEO." It's called consistency, Mike, and intellectual honesty.

Ken... we can talk for hours about the Great Depression, but I am glad you stated your views in the form of an opinion... rather than conclusive fact.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 09, 1999.

And furthermore, you have a belief, the same as me, that is all. You have no evidence to substaniate your beliefs either! At least let someone else have their views as well, that are equally non substantiated. What kind of a obsessed monsters are you?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

This is crazy! Perhaps you have over-indulged in some substance that has distorted your thinking. You are about as wrong as you can be.

An earlier post in this thread hit it square. Its about INFRASTRUCTURE and all that depends on it. The huge risk is a significant (30% +) failure particularly in electricity and oil (production, importing, refining, distribution). Without electricity, there is NO refining capacity and therefore nothing to distribute. With NO imported oil, or at least sharply lower amounts, the demand will quickly outdistance the supply. Prices will soar. With little or NO fuel, you have no distribution, so the system collapses and dies of its own dead weight.

I mean no disrespect, but your relatives oil wells in Kansas are a belch in a windstorm. 4 million barrels a day would not even dent the demand in the U.S. alone. And to hell with Canada...in the final analysis, they may be nice folks, but the nation itself is a Socialist cesspool already in steep decline. In this kind of global failure, the needs of the citizens of these United States come FIRST!

You obviously have a very weak will to survive and that is sad. What are you going to do about the thug who has forced his way into your home...ask about his sexual preferences before you decide if you can shoot him or not??? Geez!

Rant mode off.

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), December 09, 1999.

Well, I guess I have to give you credit. I am impressed with your imagination, although Im not impressed with your attacker mentality.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic,

Woman, you have guts. For that I give you credit.

I hope you are right.

Cody, you spineless twitt. Did a cat bite yours off?

-- (Polly@troll.com), December 09, 1999.

---

Dear Ladylogic,

Do you remember the "New-Oil versus Old-Oil" Law during the Carter Administration? I remember quite well. It was a very costly mistake.

It permanently killed hundreds of highly productive oil wells at the expense of oil companies and royalty holders.

Yes, there is a LOT of oil under some areas of some states.

No, there isn't time, equipment or trained workers to bring it up.

No, we cannot depend on our own oil. We have become too dependent upon imported sources. We would have to re-build our domestic capabilities. Re-building our own capacity is a great idea, but we simply DO NOT have enough time left in which to do it.

BTW, crude, natural gas, distillate, etc are not useful in their natural state. They must be refined and transported. How do you propose to do that with widespread dislocations and undependable utility services.

Get ready to chop wood.

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

It sounds like ladylogic has never found herself in a situation she couldn't wish herself out of,an enviable position to be sure.I hope it works for her next year.A lot of people say children are the world's greatest resource but I'm still sure it's petroleum.Lady logic seems to think America exists in a vacuum.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

Congratulations, Ladylogic -- you make Cherri look intelligent.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 09, 1999.

Further, looking just at oil,

You are assuming they pump it (oil no longer gushes like an artesian spring!), you are assuming they measure it, transport it, refine it, transship, receive it, and get it to the right desitination without problems.

You are assuming that it will be measured right at all points, and that each user will get paid correctly. You are assuming that each user/transfer point can get the right data to the right place to figure out how much to pay what person, that they can pay, and that they do pay.

You are assuming that the refineries and users here are operating correctly, and have not had problems forcing shutdowns.

Biggest assumption, you are assuming the people you chose to listen to are unbiased, fully informed, and capable of analyzing all of the ramifications regarding the various situations that will affect all of us.

I choose to be more humble: I don't know what will occur, and don't make absolute predictions about situations I'm ignorant about.

I have made a choice to be somewhat pragmatic - since I have seen many more computer errors than your "experts", and have decided that various and unpredictable errors (of various degrees of import in various systems occurring at various times) are more likely to occur than that only minor errors will occur.

One word of advice: Don't ever bet your life on a computer.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 09, 1999.

KOS...you dawg you.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

Cripes! Would you people take a moment and READ the post? I SAID "I" think people will have to do some things manually. I also said "I" think it will take a year to regain some semblence of normalcy. Lord, if you are this selective about your reading, I don't trust your opinions on anything.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

When someone decides to forfit their life and steal my family's food I could care less what race or sexual preferance were(what useless liberal white guilt).From the moment they break into my house and threaten my family they are nothing but a corpse colored cleaning hassle on the carpet.

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

I'm going to Sam's, Wally World & the BIG K-Mart.

Anybody need anything will I'm out?

Just put it on the list in the kitchen.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

I now pronounce thee polly-troll and wife.

Pass the shoe around; what with Ken's frugal living, we ought to chip in for the honeymoon, no?

-- cupid (arrow@aimed.true), December 09, 1999.

KOS:

ROFL! Now the Cherri statement IS a real insult. Although I can conclusively prove it, a careful read of Cherri's post do imply a mental ability approaching that of roadkill. Just a personal unscientific observation.

-- James Bond (JamesBond@007.com), December 09, 1999.

I simply believe many companies have made progress (including banks), and not everyone is lying to us. It is amazing how some people will defend their preconceived beliefs by synthesizing only the material that justifies their point of view.

You are the one who sees only what they want to see. No one on this forum thought that progress would not be made. What you are either too inebriated or high on Prozac to understand is that not enough was made.

"99% is not good enough. It has to be 100%" - Alan Greenspan, Chairman and Obsessed Monster of the Federal Reserve Board

-- a (a@a.a), December 09, 1999.

The F.B.I. lists #1 buckshot as the best manstopper.You can never have too much.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

"I suspect there are a few here who have witnessed my progression from teotwawkier, to doomer, and now to "bumper" (BITR) "

It must have been a pretty fast progression. I've only been a GI and at the forum the beginning of July, and granted, I haven't read everything posted here. But I really don't recall seeing posts from you until maybe the last 6 weeks or so.

Maybe I only noticed lately because of the frequency and increasingly irritating tone of your posts.

-- (yourlogic@defies.you), December 09, 1999.

And I thought you swore never to start a thread again. Damn!!

You are insecure, unsure and seeking any-kind of attention you can get.

Your disruptive behavior in Boks chat room is at best pathetic. Seek counseling now, before its to late.

-- (karlacalif@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

We got her good, REAL good!!

-- Porkt (Porky@in.cellblockD), December 09, 1999.

I just had an epiphany. Anyone who wanders into this forum is expected to live your personal hell with you. No thanks. I have shoulders the size of Atlas, and I will not be a party to your delusions .

THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO END.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Oops! I meant to say that I CANNOT prove, not CAN prove my statement.

-- James Bond (JamesBond@007.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady, I've been in forums too many years. You're a plant. I've seen it before. You are trying to pass yourself off a just a sweet 'ol country girl that don't know more than backhoes and uncle's old oil wells. Your vocabulary and sentence structure belie a far greater education than (sic) "I found out last week fossil fuels are really fossil fuels". I'm not fooled.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 09, 1999.

Who said that THE WORLD WAS GOING TO END? Do you judge entire groups by the statements of a few on the fringe? Maybe you don't but if you do you are every bit the wacko you accuse others of being. Don't lecture us about 'preconceived notions'.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), December 09, 1999.

Don't forget the duct tape...you can never have too much duct tape.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

After reading this whole thread, I hope everyone can see what type of glib person started it. I've met a few other people in my time who can say sentences, but had no idea what they meant.

I don't know why anyone reads her posts, unless they are unfamiliar with her. Thank you Ladylogic,for demonstrating an unique ability to construe information into impossible, ridiculous, and laughable scenarios.

It is immpossible to argue with the ignorant. By the way, this is not name calling. It is simply a fact. Rightly calling someone ignorant, who is, is not name calling. Nobody on this forum puts down someone who is uninformed, or naive, but this goes WAY BEYOND. Why does she continue to try and dialog back? Unbelievable.

At least most who've read this post see what I mean.

Gawd!!!

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 09, 1999.

Ken:

"Linda... if stakes were more important than odds, people would wear helmets and Nomex suits driving to work. Would you take a passenger airline if all you cared about was the stakes? Is a weekend in Bermuda worth your life?"

I'm a little lost as to the logic of your reply.

Ladylogic:

"the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences."

Now, I maybe be a little new to this forum but, I have yet to see anyone suggesting rape, bombings and murder. Do you have links to threads that reflect your concerns? Personally, I find this statement offensive and the rest of your opinions is not backed up by any fact. I personally don't believe that Y2K will be the beginning of the end of the human race but, BASED ON FACT, things may get rough.

Lastly, this forum is basically for people who GI. Why you would not expect retaliation for you views, especially the last paragraph, is beyond me.

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 09, 1999.

Miss Logic, Why do you take this to personal levels? I wasn't offended by your original statement, but was disturbed by your failure to apologize to those who were. Stop trying to defend youself by being offensive, and think!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

my thoughts exactly gary

Her?? outrageous mood swings and intentional disruption of Bok's forum indicate LL46 is not what he/she appears

-- max (take your @medicine.lady), December 09, 1999.

Some of you people suck.

If you don't agree with what she says, THEN DONT REPLY IN THE THREAD! If you don't agree and wish to correct her in some way...DO IT NICELY!

Why does she have to be insulted. She made a post THAT WAS CLEARLY HER OPINION, and just wanted a little feedback, not a flame bombardment and cheap shots.

hmm...lets see, you alienate yourselves from the "pollies", as you so colorfully call them....then you insult each other, and make matters worse.

lame.

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

The Cardinal is at his wit's end --it is true that he had not far to go. -Lord Byron

-- Lord Byron (Lord_Byron@yahooo.kom), December 09, 1999.

Mr. decker states that Ladylogic was only stating an opinion. True. But when she states an opinion that there is plenty of oil and it is all readily available and we really do not need those funny speaking guys on the other side of the ocean her opinion marks her as a mental lightweight. if mr. decker tells me that smallpox was really caused by bad vapors from the swamps, not invisible little germs I instinctively would no the value of his opinion. ditto lady logic. The problem we same to face in our pc society were we never want to hurt anyones feelings or harm their image of self worth is that we have lost the ability to say that is really a dumb statement. Well, ll's statement is REALLY DUMB. It is without value. Sorry.Mr D., if you find her opinion of value, you are equally dumb. So be it.

-- Noone (noone@none.com), December 09, 1999.

How do you do Familyman,

It is a pleasure to meet you. You, at least, are asking a rational question. When I said, "the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on"... I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things.

FM, I don't know where those posts are. They've come and gone in this forum and others. I just assumed other people had read them too. But, I can promise you, if you hang around for a while, they will show up again. At least they have repeatedly for the last 4 months that I've been online.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Gentle readers,

LadyLogic has made the following assertions about the people who post to this forum. These are direct quotes from both the chatroom and the forum: 1. The people who post here are sick 2. She is the only person here who owns her own business--anyone who says differently is lying 3. The regulars who post here are all unemployed--anyone who says differently is lying 4. People who post to Y2K forums are racist idiots who are likely to blow up bridges, kill, rape and pillage 5. The posters here are obsessed monsters.

Laura is unable to comprehend that these types of comments are extremely offensive. Much as she is unable to comprehend that spamming and trolling is offensive, as are graphic written descriptions of her underwear, and what her hands are doing while she posts. Folks, Laura is suffering some maladies best addressed by her psychiatrist, and not the forum posters. Those who are so inclined may want to offer her their prayers. Otherwise, please don't take what she says too personally. She may be unable to self-regulate her behavior.

-- (sad@sad.sad), December 09, 1999.

Cory:

Stick a cucumber in it. If we want to reply in a forceful manner, then DON'T READ IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

-- X (X@X.com), December 09, 1999.

Dummies, dummies, dummies.....

World War I, World War II, The Great Depression, Small Pox, Measels, The Cold War, AIDS, Hurricanes, Earthquakes......

We not only have survived them all, but, in fact, continied to become the greatest country on the planet. This was accomplished by those in this country that love challenges, and did not grow up believing life was supposed to be a trip to daycare.

Thank God the vast majority of us in this country have more courage, and a hell of alot more faith and respect for our fellow man, than the so called "GI's" in this forum. You people are afraid of anything that goes bump in the night. Face it, your pathetic.

But, after Jan. 1st, when those of us, who won't be hiding in closets, have taken care of all the problems- regardless how severe, we will take you back into society. We will comfort you, we will say "there now little one, everything is OK now, no need to be afraid any longer. Go back back to your family and friends, they knew you were among the weakest and won't hold your faults against you".

Flame away children!

-- for real (for@real.com), December 09, 1999.

Sad:

You are right. I apologize for my comments, LadyLogic. You clearly need professional help, and in my rush to reply, I overlooked this obvious fact. My apologies and best wishes that you will find someone who can effectively treat you.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), December 09, 1999.

Silly Troll:

You believe that the beliefs of maybe 1% of the forum represent the views of everyone? How silly. Perhaps you need to take a class in critical thinking skills. I bet you also believe that David Duke represents the views of everyone in home state. Too funny.

-- Honest Abe (HonestAbe@me.com), December 09, 1999.

She is clearly in a very deep denial. Expect to see more of this desperate rationalization from pollys as we get closer to Y2K and they begin to realize the grave situation they've put themselves in. Denial is just the first step. The next, as shown in Elaine's recent message, is anger and most likely violence.

Be ready. The panic is beginning.

-- (its@coming.soon), December 09, 1999.

X....

Cucumber? You are confusing foods I like to eat, with foods you like to sit on.

Try using your real name now tough guy.

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Cory:

I like being anonymous. Like sitting on pickles? Got any proof? Duh. LOL. Go ahead and be macho, big guy. Like I said, I like limited anonymity, so I'll concede that you're shoulders are probably bigger than mine, although your brain may have an inverse relationship to your shoulders (no proof mind you, just speculating). Bottom line: If you don't like how other people react to a provocateur, then don't read it. Simple as that. Nobody paid attention to your judgment on other people's reactions to LadyLogic anyway, except for me. If you can't understand the caricature that LadyLogic made, then you obviously have limited reasoning abilities.

I'll grant that you advocated a softer approach. In a world of people with class, unlike LadyLogic, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However, blithely characterizing people as robbers, murderers, rapists, bridge bombers, etc. is a little inflammatory, don't you think?

-- X (X@X.com), December 09, 1999.

Let me ask you something thewre "LL", (if I may be so familiar)

What if you are wrong? Simple and to the point. What if you are wrong? Are you going to 'roll over and die' like so many people will. Do you deny that this is a possible option? That the world might end? Or is is that you simply cannot allow yourself to think in such a manner? I really am curious. I've run across all types of people in my life, from the hard-as-nails can take anything to the creem-puff who doesn't stand a chance...I just am really curious...what if any group, (and I do not mean polly/doomer/tinfoil/et al) do you feel that you may belong if the unthinkable were to happen? Would you be able to live/survive/florish? Lemme know...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady, you mark yourself over time as a troll disrupter for your behavior in the chatroom and the development of your posts on this forum as well. So, you think you are BITR because that is the only choice besides end of the world. And you think you can be a BITR even though you say that Y2K will be a tragedy for many?

Fortunately for you, the SYSOPs have too much integrity to tell us who you really are. Fortunately for us, you lack the subtlety to succeed in what you are trying to accomplish here.

-- Had it (with@this.troll), December 09, 1999.

LadyLogic:

"People will be hired to do paperwork and filing by hand.

Now, you are in an area I do know a bit about. I manage an employment office, mostly temp to perm.

Right now, if we, along with every agency in town, had to find 25 bookkeepers who knew how to do manual bookkeeping and have them on the job within the week, we flat couldn't find them. They are not out there.

This, in a county of about 180,000.

The only way that we could squeeze out the numbers of workers needed to go manual in office and banking operations would be if very significant numbers of companies were going bankrupt or experiencing massive layoffs. If this were the case, the effect on the economy would most likely be rather severe.

As I see it, it would mean having more (many more) workers doing the same amount of work as before. In other words, greatly reduced efficiency. Lower profits. Losses. Less investment in capital equipment. Less money to fix problems....

As all of us, you are indeed welcome to your opinion. I did find your last paragraph offensive, but I'll get over it.

*IF* you are the person "Lady" who has been so disruptive of Bok's chat room, I must take that behavior into consideration when judging the total value of your opinion.

Fare thee well in the New Year.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), December 09, 1999.

Listen to me whisper forum members,

i did not intend to start a polly/doomer war. i was just giving you my personal assessment of y2k.

gary, i am not a plant. however, you are correct in assuming i'm educated. i graduated summa cum laude, i am a regent scholar, i was on the national dean's list for four years in a row, and i am a member of phi beta kappa, and phi kappa phi.

i think my education and innate intelligence should allow me the right to participate in this forum, and share my views, with anyone i want.

i'm here, i have a voice, and and i'm going to express my opinions regardless of how much i'm slandered.

i have a beautiful voice. get used to it.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Watch out familyman. If you're the married man who was dating and then dumped "Lady", she is looking for you. She said she didn't know what your handle on the forum was. A word to the wise...

-- (I@wasn't.here), December 09, 1999.

Hmmm...

Lady Logic is sooo intelligent, yet makes blind characterizations bordering on character assassination:

"In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences or because they mistook some poor schmuck who knocked on their door to tell them their cat is stuck up a tree, for someone who was going to steal their stash. Can I hear an amen to that!"

You obviously are proof positive that some graduates, despite their academic honors, are nothing more than EDUCATED IDIOTS.

-- Montana Lurker (HorseWhisperer@Montana.com), December 09, 1999.

X...fine...i was merely saying that at a time when we should all be working/sticking together, we probably shouldnt take every EXTREMELY EASY opportunity to rip someone a new XXXhole just because one appears.

Thats all.

As for my shoulders/brain connection....lucky for me, god gave me both. (actually, god gave me the brain, I worked on the shoulders)

What I said wasn't meant as some type of bodily harm threat, that would obviously be a waste of time :)

HOWEVER...if the insults keep up, eventually everyone will be affraid to speak their minds on the board....for fear of having people like you jump down their throats.

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady, Just be sure to stay in character. You slip every so often.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 09, 1999.

Please don't look now, but I believe Darwin is smiling.

-- ghost (fading into the@background.com), December 09, 1999.

Just remember to stay in character. You slip sometimes

-- gary (a@a.com), December 09, 1999.

Cory:

Sorry if I was a little harsh. Didn't mean to be against anyone except LadyLoser. Her characterization of Y2k board posters is something out of Nazi Germany, and nobody likes being characterized as a possible/potential rapist, terrorist, murderer, etc. Demonize everyone based upon the beliefs of a few. Hitler and Goebbels used this effectively. Perhaps LadyLoser has Nazi tendencies? The characterization is what most/all of us are reacting to. There is room for alternative viewpoints on this board, and I defend anyone's right to disagree. That's one of the most valuable functions of this board. But her last paragraph was nothing more than a general character assassination.

LadyLoser: You are the last person on this board to be talking about slander. Your opinions are welcome, unlike your character assassinations. So keep your Nazi beliefs to yourself, please.

-- X (X@X.com), December 09, 1999.

I don't find your comments offensive nor do I nessarily think they are true either, I've died a thousand deaths too, over this myself, sometimes, I go thru different degress of intensity, Its a complex society, I don't know much about computers, oil, power grids or whether they even have nukes in China, haven't seen one, but I'm pretty sure they are there, if I took the time to go there and touch one. Its all heresay evidence, from my own proven perspective, but my survival instincts respond to the patterns I see and I fly south for the winter by being prepared with stuff I will use anyway and I'm willing to give anybody's comments the benefit of the doubt knowing full well that it may just adding to my own psycological dilusion. (Quite convincing) I'm willing to do all I can to insure that my kids have food on the table and are safe from whatever happens so I keep plowing, because you will know the future when you get there and you'll pay the consequences tommorrow for actions today. I bought a computer 3months ago to get some better news and this sight is more real than the daily paper, if you can handle it mentally. When I see good news I relax, when I see bad news I go get another bag of rice. My brother brought TEOWAKI on himself worrying about it all! Positively couldn't function. Take the Psycological breaks, they are good for you. Nobody knows what will happen, it is easy to get lost and confused in this. Today's a good day to plant the seeds for tommorrow and who knows maybe there will be a nuke in your face, someday and nothing you could have done about it. Worry is not a good substitute for preparation. If prepared for a 10 nothing else can go wrong, If your prepared for a BITR, get prepared for suprises. Good luck.

-- robert j. (crandalls@cableone.net), December 09, 1999.

-- (I@wasn't.here):

Uh...no. I'm not familiar with other chat rooms except "The Chathouse.com" Haven't been there since last year. I use the handle "NiGhTLifE" or "Sha-Kahn" when I'm not in here.

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 09, 1999.

One more time... when I hear personal opinion, I consider the source. When Ed Yardeni or Bill Urlich give me a personal opinion, I factor in their credentials and experience (and consider any possible exterior motives.) While Ed Yourdon has a solid IT resume, he was also "selling" Y2K. This does not make him "wrong," but I consider the apparent conflict of interest when reading his Y2K essays. I have never met logic personally, nor do I know her family members. I have no way to assess her professional reputation as it relates to the oil industry. For all we know, she may be the CEO of a petroleum company... or her contact with the industry may be limited to pumping her own gas. IF she can to provide industry data (www.api.org) to support her argument, her position improves.

My real point... some pessimists routinely treat unverified third- person gossip as gospel, as long as the information support their view of Y2K. The same folks reject data from credible sources... because it conflicts with their view of Y2K.

This practice is intellectually dishonest. Establish a standard for evidence in the Y2K debate... and apply it equally. Rumor should be treated as rumor... no matter how it fits your personal theory.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 09, 1999.

From Lady's "Oil" post:

"My father knows I am distraught over Y2K..."

Now you are a self-proclaimed polly in a matter of 1 day, and it's only going to be a BITR.

"He's worried about us in Phoenix, because of the "people problem" and I agree with him. I'm going to be laying low for a little while after the new year."

How about laying low early, you need time to go visit a shrink.

-- do it now (doitnow@doitnowww.xcom), December 09, 1999.

And furthermore, you have a belief, the same as me, that is all. You have no evidence to substaniate your beliefs either! At least let someone else have their views as well, that are equally non substantiated. What kind of a obsessed monsters are you?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Computech/Issues/bone9943.htm

Year 2000 Facts, Forecasts, and Areas of Concern

-- Year 2000 Facts, Forecasts, and (Areas@of.Concern), December 09, 1999.

Amazing how so many are so easily "baited"

Lady, you have a right to your opinions, even the opinion that some on these boards would commit the despicable acts in your last paragraph.

I have a right to respectfully disagree, which I do.

Within two months we should have a clear idea of who is right. Hopefully, it won't come down to the contingency plans as you have laid them out, however.

What you have described, while not TEOTWAWKI, is certainly

TTSOTWAWKIFAUPOT

The Temporary Suspension of the World as We Know it for an Undetermined Period of Time.

Sounds like an "8" to me. And you're encouraged by that???

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic46 (are there really at least 45 others out there?) clarifies, "I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things."

Oh, well, then that makes it all better. How do you define "is," by the way?

I really have no problem with you posting your opinion of why you think things will be okay. (In fact, I hope things are okay.) But your last paragraph was pretty offensive and I suggest that if you don't want to imply the majority of a group that you brush up on your modifiers. If you had instead written "...the only thing I'm going to worry about are _some_ of the people in Y2K forums who are planning on..." might have taken the edge off of that sweeping generalization.) You state that you didn't mean ALL of the people on the forum, just those planning on doing x, y and z, but without qualifying your statement when you wrote it, you easily included everyone associated with Y2K forums as a 'planner.'

Since you have clarified that you are only going to worry about those who are PLANNING to do these terrible things, then indeed, you have very little to worry about.

-- (yourlogic@defies.you), December 09, 1999.

Oh Brother,

I guess I'm going to spend my day explaining what I said to you.

'When I said, "the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on"... I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things.

FM, I don't know where those posts are. They've come and gone in this forum and others. I just assumed other people had read them too. But, I can promise you, if you hang around for a while, they will show up again. At least they have repeatedly for the last 4 months that I've been online. '

Furthermore, I never said I hadn't planned or prepared. I have done both! However, I have re-evaluated the situation for ME, based on information I receive from my city officials...one with whom I have a personal relationship [for the perverts: not sexual... personal] and I don't believe he lies to me. It wouldn't serve any purpose; he doesn't have anything to gain by soothing my fears. I, like many of you, have already prepared as much as one can prepare without doing crazy things like maxing out credit cards. I can only assume by some of those over-reacting to my post have already done some crazy things and have a vested interest in hoping for doom or teotwawki. I however, am more prepared than anyone I know (save one) and I will not end up in bankruptcy court when the banks get their systems fixed (if they aren't already!)

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

LL deans list, national honors, suma and magna are nice, but your opinions are still in the flat earth category. I repeat, your statements on oil were beyond uninformed, they were dumb (as in truly stupid). Now that you have an education, you can move on to learning how to think. Good luck, for some people it is the work of more than a lifetime.

-- Noone (noone@none.com), December 09, 1999.

Well I wish you'd have made that distinction before. It just seemed like you were trying to paint all of us with the same brush. That's all. It's good that you have prepared. I'd say that most of us don't think it will be the end of the world. I certainly do not. Our nation has survived hard times before and it will again. Good luck.

-- X (X@X.com), December 09, 1999.

Thats cool X...i just think now is the time to start getting along...if we don't then preps or not (if TSHTF) we are enscrewed further.

I do completely dissagree with Lady, I guess a few people just came off a little hardcore...

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady stated:

"I just had an epiphany. Anyone who wanders into this forum is expected to live your personal hell with you. No thanks. I have shoulders the size of Atlas, and I will not be a party to your delusions ."

My thoughts exactly. High five, Lady. LOL! ROTFLMAO!!

And regardless what many here boisteriously bluster, you are entitled to state your opinions - censorship aside - not without egg throwers doing their dirty deeds, of course.

Third-grade playgrounds abound with like-minded individuals such as those here who attempt to shout down non-believers. Pariah-hood (?) IS becoming, don't you agree?

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), December 09, 1999.

Not sure I should poke my nose in here but I gotta say something. A few of you people out there sure are touchy! Sheese!

As to oil, I'd bet silver dollars to donuts grandpa is right. Back in the 1920's the newspaper headlines read that we only had enough oil to last a few more years... maybe a decade or two... don't remember the exact figures. About the exact same headlines we had in the 1970's. How quickly we forget. You want oil? I bet we could slam the price of oil down under $10 a barrel if we got the government off the back of the oil industry... "EPA! You're fired!"... turned the wildcatters loose... and let them keep all their profits... "IRS! You're history!" There is more oil within reach of American drillers than we can ever dream of using. Unfortunately, this won't happen short of a full blown collapse.

Secondly, Y2K is not about the amount of oil in this planet. Y2K is about an aged and vulnerable and overextended infrastructure, the ineptitude of political opportunitists and the folly of fallen man coming under the judgement of a God who laughs at all our plotting. Read Psalm 2, pray for a bump-in-the-road and prepare for the worst. Phil

-- Phil Morris (patrickhenry7@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic, well i guess the government and corporations of this country and others have sure needlessly wasted alot of money setting up contingency plans and command centers. I wish they had talked to your first.

-- tt (cuddluppy@nowhere.com), December 09, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I am not the CEO of a petroleum company. However, I do pump my own gas, and I own a seminar business. I have been providing Y2K seminars to private industry in-house since last February. If ANYONE here should have a vested interest in Y2K, it would be me. I would generate far more income if it's bad. But, I don't see that happening! My estimation of Y2K is simply an a priori exercise expressing what I think will happen in the future.

I find it interesting that A & L, and infomagic can describe a future that is so bleak it makes grown men cry...and members here embrace it. However, when I describe a future that holds glorious possibilites, there is wholesale dismissal. I'm not sure who needs the prayers more...me, or those who refuse to believe life will be good again.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Mr. Morris writes that LL's grandpa is right, there is more oil in the U.S. than we know what to do with. But he goes on to say it willtake a total collapse to drive us to the point of getting it. Excuse me, but that is the end of the world as WE know it. And LL, the world has a much higher probability of continuing than any of us. But I do judge continuity on me as well as the world. If Y2k end anything it is you or me, or the guy next door. mother earth will scarcely notice.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 09, 1999.

LL,

Because I believe anything is possible (and I mean absolutely anything), I'd have to grant that your assesment of the situation could be right.

That being said, and after sifting through a monumental pile of information and misinformation on Y2K (using what's left of my wits to try to collect the bits that "feel" accurate), I'd have to conclude that you're probably painting an overly-rosy picture of the future.

Were're all entitled to draw our own conclusions here, and I hope that yours is right (though I fear for all of us that it is not).

I'm glad to hear that you're prepped. Get ready to step through the threshold of a different world, suprises await us all.

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), December 09, 1999.

Am I the only one here who thinks what Lady describes in scenario 3 would quicly degenerate into AT LEAST an 8?

Lady, how do you reconcile that to a BITR?

"Me! Me! Thats me! Thats what I think!

What will the future be like if that happens?

I think IT professionals will be scrambling to FOF, and graphic designers, webmasters, etc. will have to go to work doing the kinds of labor that computers replaced 20-30 years ago. Men will have to manually open the gates to canals, and do whatever they used to do to make a city function. Some bean counters will have to calculate on battery-operated calculators, doctors offices will have to share the one or two office computers that dont crash. Patients wont be able to have MRIs or other computer-assisted medical care. People will be hired to do paperwork and filing by hand. So what? I did that in high school, and I thoroughly enjoyed my life then too.

Consider this; there are a lot of services and products we use that are not dependent upon RTCs or even computers in general. I have a friend whose husband owns a radiator shop in Glendale, and he has NEVER used a computerand before you ask: yes, he is very successful. His company has been profitable enough to buy them a five-acre plot and a $300,000 home.

Let's explore this thought a little further. My uncles combines arent computer-dependant either. What else isn't? My clocks arent, they are electric. My TV isnt, my stove isnt, my appliances arent, my air conditioner isnt,I guess my biggest worry is that the electric company doesnt crash so that I can still live the life Ive become accustomed to. I would like to insert one caveat at this point. I own a seminar business, and it can be run without the use of computers (although, I set mine ahead two days ago, and obviously, I didnt crash!). Im pretty sure most people and businesses can accommodate for the loss of their computers, but I worry about those people who work in high rise buildings. I suspect those elevators have date sensitive chips and some people are going to have to walk up a lot of steps to get to work. {What compassion!} This is one of the areas that I see the potential for tragedy. If you are old, or have some sort of physical disability, I believe it is the end of your career in that building. You will probably have to find a job doing something else. I suppose theres any number of things you could do on the ground. I suspect there will be many positions available for security guards. The "people problem" will create a need for security for grocery stores, liquor stores, furniture stores, etc. (Think L.A. riots.) "

-- Duke 1983 (Duke1983@AOL.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic,

I would agree with you if we were only talking about one industry, such as the oil industry. Granted, most of the problems we meet in life are with linear systems that are durable and any problems lend themselves to reasonable solutions with a little work. But the linear paradigm can not be applied to a systemic problem like Y2K because we are talking about complex systems failure... a whole different animal.

The following description is one of the best I've seen regarding the systemic nature of y2k. We are use to thinking linearly. Linear systems means that I can treat each function independently and when I integrate or add these functions together I achieve the functionality of the whole. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people are simply not able to think outside of a linear paradigm. To quote from the article below, "...none of the participants realized that they were dealing with a system which, though not every element interacted with every other, many elements interacted with many others. They conceived of their task as dealing with a sequence of problems that had to be solved one at a time."

Y2K is not linear, it is geometric, both in time and place. The threat goes way beyond the imagination possible in a linear paradigm. Yet very few people are able to appreciate this. Thinking geometrically is not native to our normal way of perceiving the world. The linear paradigm is applicable to simple systems only. Simple systems are what we deal with most of our lives. However, in a geometric paradigm, such as in the case of Y2K, we are dealing with complex systems based on INTERDEPENDENT variables. "A system of variables is interrelated if an action that affects or is meant to affect one part of the system will also affect other parts of it..." Our linear paradigm misleads and misinforms us as to the true nature of reality... a prescription for disaster.

Semantically, I guess the easiest description I can come up with is to say that y2k is not going to be a linear failure. Rather, the danger is that y2k will be a geometric failure that will cascade through the infrastructure of the whole economy... something akin to reaching critical mass in a nuclear core... only in this case the result is implosion. That's what's so scary.

Phil

. . . Dietrich Dorner's The Logic of Failure, Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. Written in 1989 and translated into English in 1996, this book identifies the roots of catastrophe: "the small, perfectly sensible steps that set the stage for disaster." Anyone investigating, remediating or in any way postulating about Y2K would be well advised to read it.

Dorner explains how our global interrelations in the modern world are all based on cause and effect phenomena. Complex systems based on interdependent variables. " A system of variables is interrelated if an action that affects or is meant to affect one part of the system will also affect other parts of it. Interrelatedness guarantees that an action aimed at one variable will have side effects and long term repercussions." It is not enough that we simply acknowledge the existence of many variables. Rather we must recognize the ways the variables affect one another and themselves.

Using various real life and laboratory generated scenarios, Dorner's control group was unable to create satisfactory developments in any of the cases. Indeed, all were prescriptions for failure and catastrophe. Dorner states, "one basic error accounts for all catastrophes: none of the participants realized that they were dealing with a system which, though not every element interacted with every other, many elements interacted with many others. They conceived of their task as dealing with a sequence of problems that had to be solved one at a time. They did not take into account the side effects and repercussions of certain measures. They dealt with the entire system, not as a system but as a bundle of independent mini-systems. And dealing with systems this way breeds trouble. If we do not concern ourselves with the problems we do not have, we soon have them."

In conclusion, Dorner warns, "We must understand that the side effects of our decisions may turn up in places we never expected to see them surface."

In regards to Y2K, the side effects may turn up not only in places we didn't expect to find them rather, more importantly, at times that we didn't expect them to happen. It would be wise to remember that Y2K is not day 2000 but rather year 2000.

E-mail received during the last few weeks has confirmed the suspicion that I have had for some time. That the center of attention of Y2K failures has indeed been focused primarily on the rollover date of January 1, 2000 and a few weeks beyond. Indeed, this was confirmed yesterday when I received this message from a project manager. J.K. is in charge of the business contingency planning operation for a large U.S. Corporation and writes:

"Our corporate position has been along the lines of the focus being on legal and market share fallout as the driving force behind the remediation/contingency planning efforts. This is driven by CNN exposure and a lawsuit happy environment - without it, the efforts would not be so extensive, because of it the focus is short term. I believe that real contingency plans need to encompass at least all of the year 2000, since ripple effects will cause unexpected problems for quite awhile, but the ones I've analyzed so far only cover the first 2-3 weeks in January. I'm in the process now of trying to raise awareness of the longer term ramifications and getting someone high enough in management to mandate more extensive coverage. I'll let you know how that battle goes." . . . .

Further, this sobering comment from John in Chicago, "If all hell doesn't break loose during the first week in January, all the programmers will be let go. Then when the dominoes begin to fall later in the year the businesses will be scrambling to find these guys." . . . . http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Tip/Lord/conn9947.htm

-- Phil Morris (patrickhenry7@hotmail.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady is a plant. Now she's a provider of Y2K seminars who has changed her mind to the BITR outcome.

If you all keep taking the bait, I don't know who'll look more foolish.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 09, 1999.

Forum Members,

If you would like to read why, in part, I've come to my conclusions regarding Y2K, you can read the thread from two days ago.

OIL

If that hyperlink didn't work maybe you can use this?

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001wg4

My father owns an oil well, and my uncle owns several. I discussed this with a few members of this forum two days ago, and I swear, my attitude regarding Y2K is far more optimistic now.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic46 (are there really at least 45 others out there?) wrote:

"I find it interesting that A & L, and infomagic can describe a future that is so bleak it makes grown men cry...and members here embrace it. However, when I describe a future that holds glorious possibilites, there is wholesale dismissal. I'm not sure who needs the prayers more...me, or those who refuse to believe life will be good again."

Now, can I ask, are you referring to "ALL" members here who embrace it? Or just those members who are "PLANNING" to do despicable things?

I just needed to know if you were presuming to speak for me. With your knack for ambiguity when constructing sentences, perhaps you should consider a career in speech writing for politicians.

As far as speaking about your view of the future holding glorius possibilities (what is it you said, "Ultimately, I think if we dont get nuked, blown up, or stabbed after the rollover, weve been blowing this bug WAY out of proportion.")-- well goodness, you sure do have a way with those positive and uplifting words. I missed your account of the future holding glorious possibilities the first time through.

As far as wholesale dismissal, well, don'tcha think for just a minute that those inflammatory comments you made at the end (Yes, you've clarified and clarified) had something to do with it? And really, wasn't that the effect you wanted?

Oh yeah, I've been wondering something-- why did you post this as OT?

-- (yourlogic@defies.you), December 09, 1999.

Choirboy:

What you said about sums it up. LL tries to paint a rosey picture that, for me, I pray everday for. I try to sift through all the facts, rumors, heresays to determine a logical but, personal determination of what is in my best interest to do. I, personally, can not afford to risk my family on the assumption that the .gov is correct. To many things are pointing in the other direction.

LL does and should post opinions here but, from I see, HER opinions are not taken seriously. I'm fairly new here so, I don't know who she is or what has caused this forum to go balistic when she post an opinion and..I really could care less. But, maybe we should just take it "with a grain of salt" and except the fact that there are people out there that believe in a "non-event" or maybe just want to believe.

Nothing wrong in believing.

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 09, 1999.

Familyman, You'll see in forums that some people will include inflamatory statements their "opinion" to generate attention. Lady's thinly veiled insult regarding rape, etc in her original post is a fine example. Here post of several days ago was filled with both misstatements of fact and nievate (sp) that it garnered many responses.

After working everyone into a frenzy, she now comes out with the statement that she gives Y2K seminars!!! All the while falling back on the "its just my opinion you intolerent monsters" routine.

IMO she's a fake. But I'll admit I've found the whole thing entertaining to watch.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 09, 1999.

Lady,

I'm not here to get involved in this dogfight. Yes, there are some very hysterical people on this forum, but I believe they are more scared than dangerous, otherwise they wouldn't be here.

Some of your conclusions are seriously flawed though, and I think you should re-evaluate them...

"I think that all of us can agree that there is enough oil to last us until other regions are functional again. As I suggested in an earlier post, I believe we can process enough of that oil without computers, get it to market etc. within a maximum of four months."

Our Strategic Petroleum Reserves currently hold 570 million barrels, which is enough for 28 days. Do you realize what will happen to this country if we do not have gasoline for four months??

"A forum member once told me, "the kind of production that ol' Uncle Joe knows accounts for maybe 4 million barrels a day while the world consumes 70. That sounds pretty good to me."

The 4 million barrels a day is correct for what we can produce within this country, assuming the refineries can process it. The problem is that we are currently using 20 million barrels a day, and that amount is increasing every day! How can you be so certain that foreign countries will be able to supply us with the other 16 million barrels a day, and that we will be able to process it as quickly using manual labor?

Also, take a look at my posts on this thread and see what you think about the situation regarding our Reserve Oil Supply. It would seem that even in a best case scenario, the month of January we are toast.

I agree, it's not the end of the world, but it ain't gonna be "Happy Days" either.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 09, 1999.

Hi Hawk!

I certainly didn't mean to imply that we will continue using petroleum at the current rate. Heavens no! As I stated in my post, I think "some" systems will crash. However, even if we don't import another drop from other regions, I know we will be able to process some petroleum/gas in this country. Furthermore, I agree with you... for most people, it won't be "Happy Days". I do however, believe we will get through this by reducing, reusing, recycling.

"Our Strategic Petroleum Reserves currently hold 570 million barrels, which is enough for 28 days. Do you realize what will happen to this country if we do not have gasoline for four months??"

Let's consider this for a moment, Hawk. What if a full two-thirds of our refineries crash on 1/1/00 (high in my estimiation, but for the sake of the teotwawki'ers, I'll use that as an example). Do you think it is possible that during that 28 days, we can start pumping the ones that are sitting relatively dormant like my father's? Of course, we can. Do you think that in that 28 days we can drill others? Of course, we can. Will we have a disruption in our lifestyles until everything shakes out in a year? Of course, we will. But, the disruptions will provide jobs for those wildcatters, etc. additional employment. As I said earlier, I believe Y2K will be a tragedy for many, an inconvenience for some, and it will great time for others.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

[[[[A forum member once told me, "the kind of production that ol' Uncle Joe knows accounts for maybe 4 million barrels a day while the world consumes 70."

That sounds pretty good to me. I think we only need to produce enough for the U.S. & Canada. ]]]]

This says it all. There are some extremely intelligent people out there who have ZERO common sense. I think you need to change your name to "LadyBookSmart".

-- Get (A@Clue.Woman), December 09, 1999.

Correction,

"Do you think it is possible that during that 28 days, we can start pumping the ones that are sitting relatively dormant like my father's?"

I meant do you think it is possible during that time that we can start pumping oil from the oilwells that are sitting relatively dormant like my father's.

-- (Ladylight@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

"LadyLIGHT"? Yeah, that's about right.

-- Had it (with@this.troll), December 09, 1999.

To Ladylogic... Wow, do I need to say a few things here and now.

1) First of all, I am not in any "attack" mode. I was simply placing your flawed commentary under the hot lights. Personal attack is not my style.

2) My imagination is NOT a factor here. The real issues related to Y2K are serious enough without drumming up some fantasy world.

3) In spite of your family being in the oil business, it is PAINFULLY apparent that all of you have little grasp of the realities in the oil and energy business. And before you turn on your flamethrowers, be advised that I am no expert either. BUT, I do read extensively and try to stay reasonably informed. My opinions about oil are just that, my INFORMED opinions.

4) Last but not least, your now infamous last paragraph was not only absurd, but an insult to every decent and respectable person on this board. Are there predators, fools and idiots in this world? Yes, sadly ! Does that equate somehow with folks trying to be as prepared as possible for an unknown series of events to come? NO! Frankly, I got the impression that your deepest concerns revolve around political correctness. Your gender/race discrimination comments were utterly misplaced. You came across looking silly, and that does nothing to benefit you.

5) I absolutely respect your right to post and make your views known.

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), December 09, 1999.

I've only visited a couple thousand threads, but this is by far the longest - and the most spirited. If it was LL's intention to get a reaction, I'm sure this has exceeded her wildest expectations. She threw out the hook and we took the bait. Seems to me that the kettle is starting to boil - and it's threads like this that lift the lid.

As for her posting, I don't find it any more ignorant, bigoted or narrow minded than many others that haven't received this kind of attention. It is her conclusion that generated the reaction - many posters have obviously taken it personally. We flatter her by our responses.

Very 'mused

-- 'mused (just@passin.thru), December 09, 1999.

I'm bewildered at the continuing number of posts.

I can't believe anyone is responding to Lady Logic in any serious way.

Is it because she's a girl? Most responders are guys. The women responders seem to be pissed off at her at best.

What's the point of talking with a moron?

Several responses have shown the utter idiocy of what she originally said. She continues to add to it herslf with even MORE posts.

Very wierd.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 09, 1999.

Give her what she wants, and she will go away. Everyone just say Amen.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), December 09, 1999.

Here's an entertaining thought:

Can you imagine what one of her inhouse y2k seminars would have been like last spring??!**

-- ShesLikeTotallyClueless (Can'tBelieveit@Academia.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic, good for you that you have found relief from the insanity known as y2k. However, please remember that your uncle and your father only "know what they know" which doesn't mean they know it all.

I will give you one little tiny example. You commented in passing about your uncle's combine not being computer dependent. I'm sure that is true, however there are plenty of combines that are dependent on embedded systems, one of which was discussed in the senate hearings earlier this year. The testimony of the man being interviewed, an Arizona farmer, stated that it took his team 8 MONTHS TO FIND THE PART that failed when testing for date sensitivity.

So, the moral of the story is "you only know what you know, and that ain't very much".

Good luck to you and yours.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), December 09, 1999.

I suppose I should have been re-posting this every 15 minuts today:

'When I said, "the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on"... I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things.

FM, I don't know where those posts are. They've come and gone in this forum and others. I just assumed other people had read them too. But, I can promise you, if you hang around for a while, they will show up again. At least they have repeatedly for the last 4 months that I've been online. '

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

I don't think there are any forum members who plan on doing anything more than protecting themselves and their families from others who may attempt robbery or worse after the rollover, or at any time, for that matter. Some are vehement, others are passive. Then there are the teenagers posting who have too much time on their hands. They are easy enough to spot and to disregard.

Ladylogic, who are you referring to?

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), December 09, 1999.

.....Well...........

.....Having seen my name in the original question, forgive me if I feel compelled to respond. Im the one that thinks Infomagic is a polly, remember? Now imagine my surprise to discover that Ive actually put someones mind at ease, or at least lessened their apprehension concerning y2k. Lady, I believe youve mistaken my assertion of oils availability with the end product having complete accessibility, and Im sure someone with all that alphabet soup after your name can comprehend that these are certainly two different ballgames. Never mind that I gave deference to Downstreamers experience in the modernday oil patch. My experience was nigh on twenty years ago. The JIT inventory system is far too vunerable to categorize oils accessability as highly reliable.

.....It is not my intention to heap any more abuse upon you, however, there is a point or two to be made here. If in fact you were the one that engaged in disruptive behavior at Boks room, I find that inexcusable, and from what I hear, the language and behavior would certainly disqualify your status as a lady. If I am incorrect in this regard, I apologize in advance, and no offense should be taken on your part, for, if the shoe doesnt fit, simply dont put your foot in. I know for a fact that youve recently posted that you were new to this knowledge of y2k, and that is irrefutable; so how is it that that youve also been providing seminars since last February? What were you teaching in these seminars? Would not a teacher of a seminar be required to be well-versed in that subject matter? This sounds like great folly.

.....Lastly, it has been my personal experience that the female gender is largely found wanting, (although there are certainly exceptions to every rule), when it comes to logic as a tool at their disposal for the sake of reasoning ability. Ive found the vast majority of the fairer sex to operate more on emotion than logic. Im not a sexist, simply a realist. If you find fault with such a statement, then perhaps youve had different experiences than I. But as I said, it has been my personal experience that the terms, lady and logic are mutually exclusive, for the most part.

.....I would implore you and all others that read this to prepare as you would for a hurricane, while bearing in mind that a hurricane can flatten your home and all that is in it in a very short period of time. What lies just ahead is going to surprise us all, Im sure. Best wishes to all, time is very short.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 09, 1999.

Patrick, you are indeed correct about Lady's behavior in the chat room. It is true and many have witnessed it. I must say that someone who rattles off a bunch of credentials needs to go back to school to learn basic common sense and manners, but they don't teach that in school, you learn it from your parents. I wonder what her "seminar" participants would think if they knew how she acts on the Internet and the filth that comes out of her mouth? I'm glad we no longer have to put up with her in the chat room.

-- zero tolerance (zerotolerance@zerotoleranceeee.xcom), December 09, 1999.

This would all be very entertaining if we weren't all facing a drastically changed landscape within the next six months (or less)I GI, have for sometime. Because of the marvelous PR campaign over the last year, hardly anyone is doing anything to be self-sufficient at all. Millions of people here in the USA and billions worldwide have no clue that the way we do business Worldwide is going to be seriously disrupted, peoples lifes (and deaths unfortunately) are going to be severely impacted. They don't have a clue what's just around the proverbial corner. I wish you all the best and may you and yours get thru the coming troubles intact. Yes, even you LadyLogic, although that moniker seems like misnomer somehow. Anyway, good luck to all of us, we will probably need a lot of it.

Michael

-- Michael (michaelteever@buffalo.com), December 09, 1999.

Thanks, ZT...

.....I'm of the opinion that much of what passes for "education" these days is simply socialist indoctrination. Too many of our countrymen have been educated right on past their intelligence. They hold themselves in esteem for their degrees, and still maintain the belief that our own civil war was fought over slavery. If anyone believes that, then they have indeed been taught a very silly thing, and that's just one tiny glaring example.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 09, 1999.

Patrick,

You said, " .....Back in the early '80's I worked as a "caser" in six western states. The "company hand" as they were referred to, told me personally, that the one feild we were working in had enough oil to run this country for 40 years... and every well in that feild was being capped!"

I was referring to your statement regarding availability...nothing else. I made the extention that we could process it.

Furthermore, you just made one of the most BLANTANT sexist remarks I've ever heard:

".....Lastly, it has been my personal experience that the female gender is largely found wanting, (although there are certainly exceptions to every rule), when it comes to logic as a tool at their disposal for the sake of reasoning ability. Ive found the vast majority of the fairer sex to operate more on emotion than logic. Im not a sexist,"

Unfortunately, it is sad that you don't even recognize it your disrespect for women. It is much easier for me to dialogue with someone who will come right out and say, "women are emotional and illogical, and men are superior."

But, that's pretty much what you just said isn't it? It is because of men like you that I think Y2K will be a "people problem", although, people who are racist, sexist, and those with thinly-veiled hostilities, are already a problem.

And guess what people! I am not going to retaliate in-kind. I posted this thread because I wanted to contribute something besides my good looks and sweet breath. The truth is, I have a fondness for everyone in this forum for simply having agnate views regarding Y2K... even if we do have different predictions on the Likert-type scale.

Mine is a 3.

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

LadyLogic, in your latest post you state:

"Let's consider this for a moment, Hawk. What if a full two-thirds of our refineries crash on 1/1/00 (high in my estimiation, but for the sake of the teotwawki'ers, I'll use that as an example). Do you think it is possible that during that 28 days, we can start pumping the ones that are sitting relatively dormant like my father's? Of course, we can."

Why do you start out talking about refineries and then state that pumping (or drilling) more oil wells will fix the problem??? That is NOT logical. Supply and demand...more crude oil is great, but without the refineries to process it and turn it into diesel, gasoline, aviation, etc. what good is it??

We don't live in the world of the 1950's much less the world situation that you believe will happen. We cannot support the current population and lifestyle if we "go back to manual".

Please tell me if you understand that.

22 days left.

P.S. Bill Clinton may be alot of ugly things, but one thing he definitly isn't, is stupid. Prepare your own mind for the coming events.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), December 09, 1999.

I said nothing about superiority. You'll not find that word in my post, that was something you've added. For every time I was at an advantage because of my logic, there is an equal number of times that I found myself disadvantaged through the lack of a proper emotional response. I believe that's what is referred to a natural balance.

"But, that's pretty much what you just said isn't it? "

I don't appreciate words being attributed to me that I have not spoken. I was simply being forthright with regards to MY experience. You've slipped your foot into that shoe I mentioned. You really shouldn't be so sensitive to a statement such as this. Perhaps you've been on too many PC campuses, LL. Remember this, political correctness is to correctness, what political integrity is to integrity. Since it turns out that everyone I've spoken to affirms that you were indeed the person that disrupted the chatroom, you're found wanting in that category, as well. You also failed to answer my question regarding the "new knowledge" you had spoken of, and chose rather to obfuscate with the cry of "SEXIST! SEXIST!" Very unbecoming, if I do say so myself.

.....I don't disrespect women, I hold them in high regard; to say that those I've encountered failed to act with logic before emotion is not at all a derogatory statement, it is simply the fact of my experience... perhaps you should put in for "minority" status.(g)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 09, 1999.

Ms. Logic, Your opinion is welcome here. May I add, however, when voicing an opinion, it might be wise to think about effective communication. Your last paragraph, and yes, I've read your reiteration, served only to alienate many forum participants. Why? Because the majority of the participants on this forum are decent people who do not wish TEOTWAWKI and would neither condone nor participate in terrorist activities. Perhaps a more effective sentence would have been, "In, conclusion, the only thing I'm going to worry about are people planning on bombing bridges..." etc. Surely, with your intelligence, you have researched Y2K and have heard about 'threats' from sources other than this forum. After stating your opinion, then be prepared for debate on the oil issue. I take no offense in your statement because I am giving you the benefit of doubt, and I am assuming you meant no insult, but rather you have underestimated the power of words carelessly arranged. If I am wrong, and you meant to venture a judgement on the participants of this forum, then you must take responsibility for your judgement and reap the consequences. I wish you well.

-- Casey DeFranco (caseyd@silcom.com), December 09, 1999.

Hi Brent,

Since I suspect few here will go to the original thread that has my conversation with my uncle, I'm going to include a part of it here:

My father knows I am distraught over Y2K, so when I started quizzing him about his oil well, he said that maybe my fears might be somewhat allayed if I spoke to my uncle Joseph. To give you some background, uncle Joe worked on rigs until he started a refinery with two other partners he sold out 20 years ago, and retired to live out his days on a farm in western Kansas. I didnt tape record the conversation (unfortunately) so I cant transcribe it word for word. I did take notes however, and this is what he said:

The reason they arent pumping very much oil out of their wells is because, due to sheer volume, it is cheaper to haul crude in from other countries.

There is more oil in the world than we can ever use.

The reason for that is because oil really is a fossil fuel! I never knew that until yesterday! These people simply dig five feet at a time through formations (Cherokee, Kansas City, Conglomerate, and Arbuckle) until they hit an area where a sample shows microscopic bone oozing with oil. It is the decomposition of animals (and now Im wondering if people are included too.) that make oil. (I also learned that coal is made of the same stuff, it just hasnt been compacted as much.) At any rate, with life, there is death, the cycle continues and ensures oil reserves forever..

My uncle went on to say that there are areas of the earth that have more oil than others, and while Ive been snoozing, technology has advanced to where we can now detect oil in the earth relatively accurately from satellites. There are HUGE deposits in the earth, and it is more cost effective to mine that oil, than use up the comparatively small amount we have here. (I suspect that we have enough here to last us for two lifetimes though.)

Now, that I have covered availability, I will try to address what he said about the computerization of the industry. He doesnt know how the off-shore rigs work, but our oilwells (my familys) have been drilled using diesel powered bits, and it is a mechanical function only (not computerized).

He said that there is nothing on the derricks that is computerized, and they are mobile, so we dont have to keep rebuilding them (and yes, trashcan man; I suspect there is a lot of equipment out there going to rust, because we simply havent needed it). He said the pipelines are not computerized, they work them by manually turning valves. (He went into a 15 minute discourse about propane, gas, and oil separation, but I didnt understand a word of it. He even felt it necessary to tell me that they used to color their product, but now all of it is white. This means nothing to me! But, he is my uncle, and I couldnt say, "Get to the good stuff! How will computers affect the oil industry!" A half hour later, he did:

They use computers to do their billing and word processing.

He said that he hopes the electric company doesnt fail for that reason."

Now that I have re-read that post, I don't think I made it clear that my uncle said that his old refinery isn't computerized except for their billing and word processing. I believe my uncle. Period. It is unfortunate that I can not download my experiences and conversations into your knowledge base,...all I can do is report them here.

Furthermore, I'd like to reiterate: I think there will be problems, but I don't think it will be the end of the world. My prediction is a 3.

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Casey,

That is an OUTSTANDING suggestion, ", "In, conclusion, the only thing I'm going to worry about are people planning on bombing bridges..." etc."

Thank you for directing my attention my ambigious statement. I have been wondering all day why people would take offense to it. Maybe I should hire you to my editing, eh?

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Casey,

For example, I could have used you on that last post!

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Ladylogic, I do respect that your family members are telling you what they know of on their turf as wellers and refiners. Albeit, they are not currently in the 'thick of it' their information is pertinent.

What can they offer when it comes to knowledge about the large producers in our country, or for info about offshore sires. That definity holds a key for me.

-- Mass is back (massdelusion@juno.com), December 09, 1999.

Hmmmmmm.....Lady Logic(not!) somehow reminds me of Will Continue and little Kenny Decker all at once. Perhaps the old timers will see the similar tactics, possible purposes, and general arrogant, snide method of writing. She, too, is worthy of shunning.

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomdweller.net), December 09, 1999.

LadyLogic- Miss, exactly what school graduated you?? I have never been to a college for anything other than parties and yet I know that Oil is a fossil fuel. It was taught to me in 9th grade Earth Science by Mr. Bowen. That was 15 years ago.

Can you say "BAAAAAAAAAAAA" ???

(the above is rhetorical by the way....doh, now you have to look that up in the dictionary. Remember that R comes after Q.)

Oh, and it is not Physically POSSIBLE for there to be enough Oil to last our economy forever. The Earth has a finite amount of such a resource. It takes on the order of a thousand (at least) years for the Earth to 'make' a fossil fuel from the decomposing material. We definitly use it up a little faster than that.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), December 09, 1999.

LL, can you please answer the question I posted before? How can you call the scenario in #3 you pointed out a BITR or "Furthermore, I'd like to reiterate: I think there will be problems, but I don't think it will be the end of the world. My prediction is a 3." I definitely think what you described is an "8". Scroll up to find the post, it's the only one in red!

-- Duke1983 (Duke 1983@aol.com), December 09, 1999.

Hi Duke,

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to avoid your question, I was busy answering direct e-mails. I find it fascinating that there are people who agree with me, but are afraid to voice those opinions on this forum. I guess they are afraid of being slandered/ridiculed/and dismissed also. It doesn't matter to me though. I am more than willing to be one of the voices that think the future isn't going to be quite so dour.

To answer your question, Duke. I think any number on the Likert scale is subjective. I think people base their fear (?) on how well they've prepped, their geographical location, their health, and the support they have in their community. I also base my opinion on the belief that most electrical companies will function during the rollover, or will function soon afterward.

If the electric companies function, the rest of the utilities have the opportunity to repair their systems. I have spoken to the representatives of the two local companies, and while I didn't use to believe their reports of readiness (they are not allowed to use the word "compliant") I have looked them in the eye, and they told me they will provide service. They are telling this to city officials also, Duke. If they are lying, we know who they are, where they live, and who their family is; so it wouldn't it be foolish for them to lie to all of us? They are not stupid, they could tell us if they thought they would crash, and we could prepare. I believe them now, and that's why I think it will be a 3.

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Catfish joe:

You ARE a bottom dwelling, mud sucker. Nice handle.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 10, 1999.

WOW - 113K of thread,

And to think I used to watch woodpeckers banging their heads on trees and wondered how long they could keep THAT up.

This is amazing.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 10, 1999.

Quote of the day!
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001sGB

"We're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at stars."

Thanks for everything Flint, Decker, Cherri, Andy, & Y2KPRO.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), November 28, 1999.

-- (gotlogic?@or.intentions?), December 10, 1999.

LadyLogic,

"...i'm educated. i graduated summa cum laude, i am a regent scholar, i was on the national dean's list for four years in a row, and i am a member of phi beta kappa, and phi kappa phi....i have a beautiful voice. get used to it."

As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a beautiful woman who is without discretion --Proverbs 11:22

Until you deny the accusations about you concerning your very unladylike behaviour in this and other forums...then I'm afraid that the proverb above holds true. Besides, we've got a lot of intelligent people in this country (wasn't Willy Clinton a Rhodes Scholar). I think we need folks with more character, and less smarts and good looks.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 10, 1999.

LL

Wow! You have a thread here that Ken and Andy Ray put together couldn't match :o)

It amazes me how intelligent folks can make an error like lumping all forum members in the same pile. And then wonder why everone is attacking them or do you just do that to agitate the group with obfustication to achieve your own ends?

Shit I am more polly than Flint in someways yet my contributions to understanding the problem on the forum is significant. It certainly doesn't please me to be associated with raping and violence just because of that.

Yet not much of an apology has been forthcomeing from LL.

This is the type of tactics that will not make friends I am afraid.

To bad.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 10, 1999.

Who cares that she implied many people plan to do bad things? That's merely ANOTHER example of how illogical she is.

Why is anyone trying to talk to her seriously.

Do you try and explain calculus to 5 year olds?

Her wonderful opinion of what's coming will COLLAPSE the MARKETS, and cripple the nation.

Are those of you trying to "reason" with her 5 years old too?

Very wierd.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

Lady Logic,

In addition to stirring up a hornets nest you've managed to mangle the facts regarding oil. I responded to your thread on OIL a few days ago. You managed to ignore it. You'll probably do the same with this one. That's okay. There's some blockbuster oil information yet to come on new threads soon enough.

First and foremost regarding Oil Production/consumption and where it comes from. Sources US DOE/IEA also the American Petroleum Institute Links provided below.

Estimated US Domestic oil production of 6,070,000 barrels daily

Crude oil Imports of 8,107,000 barrels daily

The above for the week of 12/3/99. [note: demand is less in December]

Note that only 20% of US Crude Oil production comes from the small "Stripper Wells" that contain NO embedded systems. Everything else comes from wells with embedded systems. This means that less than 10% of our oil is coming from non- embedded wells here in the USA. Even then, most of it goes thru oil pipelines which are also loaded with embedded systems and goes to a refinery. MOST (almost ALL) US Oil refineries contain at least some amounts of Embedded Systems.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_ petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt

Here's more FAST FACTS FROM THE API and DOE

http://www.api.org/faqs/

1. U.S. petroleum imports (crude & products) in October were 10,426,000 barrels per day (b/d); imports in the same month last year were 10,861,000 (b/d). (API).

2. Total imports in October as a percentage of total domestic petroleum deliveries 531.6 percent; imports as a percentage same month last year 56.6 percent. (API).

3. Persian Gulf petroleum represented 22.6 percent of total imports in August; 23 percent same month last year. (DOE)

4. Average price for a barrel of OPEC crude oil: $23.19 (11/12/99). (DOE).

5. Average U.S. refiner acquisition cost for a barrel of crude oil: $21.64 (September). (DOE).

6. U.S. crude oil production in October was 5,912,000 b/d (of which 1,036,000 b/d was Alaskan); total U.S. crude oil production during the same month last year 6,143,000 b/d. U.S. natural gas liquids production in October 1,853,000 b/d; same month last year, 1,744,000 b/d. (API).

7. U.S. marketed natural gas production was 53.7 billion cubic feet per day in October; same month last year, 53.9 billion cf/d. (DOE).

8. U.S. deliveries from primary storage of motor gasoline in October were 8,634,000 b/d; same month last year 8,378,000 b/d. (API).

9. U.S. deliveries from primary storage of distillate fuel oil (home heating and diesel) in October were 3,786,000 b/d; same month last year 3,547,000 b/d. (API).

10. Total petroleum products delivered to the domestic market in October 20,225,000 b/d; same month last year 19,188,000 b/d. (API).

11. Count of active rotary drilling rigs in the U.S. as announced 11/12/99 was 774; average for 1998 was 830; all-time high of 4,530 announced 12/28/81; record low of 488 announced 4/23/99. (Baker Hughes Inc., Houston).

Ladylogic...this means that the kind of oil wells your "Uncle Joseph" refers to accounts for LESS THAN 10% of America's Oil NEEDS. LESS than 10%. The rest is on shaky ground from a Y2K standpoint.

The US only produces about 47% of the oil it consumes.

53% is from foreign sources. Venezuela has been our leading foreign supplier of late, followed by Saudi Arabia. On this basis, more than half of our oil must depend upon the following Y2K foreign factors for which we have little or no control.

Oil Wells in compliance Pipeline transport in compliance Port Facilities in compliance Ocean Oil Tanker in compliance US Port facilities in compliance US pipelines in compliance US Refineries in compliance US Finished Product Pipelines in compliance US Retail outlets in compliance at pump and registers

Now, even at a glance, that's quite an interconnected chain of links. ALL must stay compliant. None can go down without causing disruptions.

Now, Keep in mind that 4 out of every 5 US oil wells contain as much as 10,000 to 100,000 embedded chips in approx. 50 to 100 large-scale embedded systems (LSES. Garnter group among others have provided varying estimates of failures approaching as much as 30% to 40% on LSES. Overall on chips themselves, even the NIST report from the US Dept of Commerce is reporting 4 to 6% fail rates on embeddeds. Jim Lord's Mr. CEO is reporting 5 to 10%. My sources (over 2 dozen) in the oil biz are reporting to me (depending on source) 7% to 20%.

You run the math, lady logic. RUN THE MATH. FIGURE IT OUT. The ODDS are NOT GOOD. Chances are that virtually every well... every well of significant size in the US will experience problems. How severe? We don't know. The odds based on the limited testing strongly suggests at least a good chance that each will well will suffer at least one serious failure incident. The kind that could put a well out of commission. MAYBE NOW you realize why in the last 10 days (if you've bothered to track the latest developments) you'll see the Feds suddenly starting to get "quietly" alarmed. Now they won't outright admit alarm. But, clearly the NIST Report of Nov 22, 99; the Nov 9, 99 meeting between Koskinen and a panel of embeddeds experts, clearly has the Feds quite concerned. WHY? Because the 'experts' in embedded systems have told the Feds that industry, NOT just Oil, but Electricity, Phones, (any industry using embeddeds) did NOT understand the full and tricky aspects of embeddeds. These folks warn that many if not most embedded chips may that could pose significant hazards may have been overlooked or ignored. This has given everyone the "willies." Until now, it would seem the Feds had tried to believe the industry spinmeistering that has prevailed. The latest revelations now show the industry has grossly underestimated the problem and has failed to do adequate testing. Jim Lord's "MR CEO" also stated the same thing. What do you suppose that Mr. CEO said in those meetings? Undoubtedly he was there.

DID YOU BOTHER TO READ THE NIST REPORT? DID YOU READ KOSKINEN'S MEMO that was just posted the other day? This is all serious stuff.

FURTHER MORE... (and this is a really stupid, stupid... did I say S-T- U-P-I-D??? Yes, I did. And I mean it) ... your comments about a 28 day start up of old oil wells is ludicrous. Absolutely INSANE! One does not just go in and restart an old capped oilwell. First of all, when pressure is lost when shutting down a well, it is "gone for good." That's right, all you can do is go and drill a new well. Chances are you'll have to go in and install additional pressure systems...usually a high pressure water-injection system (especially in old stripper wells). How do I know. It happened with the old stripper wells that my family has owned for the last 90 years. Repeatedly too, I might add. You just don't go out and "restart" an abandoned well. FURTHERMORE... regarding drilling new wells. You need drilling rigs. Guess how many we now have??? Well go back to #11 above. See those stats? 774 in November. The all time record high count was nearly 20 years ago at 4,530. Most of those are now gone. Most cut up for scrap or sitting around rusting out and basically unusable.

FRANKLY, you don't have a clue about the oil biz and your family doesn't either. I doubt your uncle knows what the rig count is this days and would be shocked to know its declined by nearly 90% from his time in the oil biz 20 years ago. You think you know what is going on???? You don't have a clue!!!! Yet you come in here pretending to know nothing. Then you claim to have relatives who know. Then you tell us your a Y2K expert going around holding seminars. You were a TEOTWAWKI, then you've become a Polly, and then you've become a ____ ???

Frankly, I think you're either a woman who's suffering a mental breakdown or you are a plant, an infiltrator-type troll who cleverly came in to stir up trouble. One thing is clear. You don't present the full picture of the Y2K facts when it comes to the oil industry. And guaging by your other sweeping generalizations I'm not sure you've got a handle on reality. Most of us that come here are not unemployed. Many of us are quite educated and some of us have had past high connections in the government or higher echelons of power in the corporate world. Actually, we come from all walks of life. Most of us, if not virtually all of us deplore the notion of anarchy and violence that you wish to attribute to us. Perhaps its time you joined a different forum for Pollies who've gone off the deep-end.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 10, 1999.

A quick addendum to your claims. 4 million barrels of oil a day like that which comes from your Uncle Joseph's wells? Well, again, those are stripper wells. Stripper wells account for far, far less than 4 million barrels a day. Try closer to maybe 500,000 (half a million) barrels a day. We use 14 million bpd. BIG difference there. And remember, in the USA we're focusing on how it will impact us here.

It just seems you don't have a clue as to what the facts really are. Your numbers as well as understanding of reality are way off base. Can we say D-E-N-I-A-L ???

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 10, 1999.

One more thing...

I've posted this in a more recent thread but it bears worth reposting part of the material here seeing how it has become quite a hot potato.

We're referring to HOW MUCH OIL IS THERE IN THE USA. While there is still a lot here, (we only remove a third of the oil from a reservoir before we shut down the well because it is too costly to try and remove the rest) this article below explains why we can't get to all the available oil in a cost-effective way.http://www.fe.doe.gov/oil_gas/res_efficiency/res_efficiency.html

For every barrel of crude oil produced in the United States, two barrels are left in the ground. Average oil recovery from U.S. reservoirs is only about 32 percent. Although it is physically impossible to recover all of the oil that is discovered, the potential for improvement with the use of technology is very large indeed.

Today, the United States is considered a mature oil and gas province. Production of easily-accessible oil peaked in 1970 and has declined since then. Advanced technologies, often based on sophisticated computer modeling, hold great promise for additional oil and gas production from the Nation's remaining hydrocarbon resources.

Using tomorrow's advanced technologies, our Nation will be able to slow down, even stabilize, the currently declining oil production rate and increase the gas production rate. More importantly, it is imperative that we reduce the rate at which domestic oil and gas fields are being abandoned. Once shut-in or abandoned, oil and gas reservoirs cannot be economically restored to the production status due to the high costs associated with developing the field.

The U.S. Department of Energy, in partnership with the oil and gas industry, academia, and the National Laboratories, supports basic and applied research of physical and chemical processes that govern fluid flow in porous media. This combination of the best public and private research capabilities has already produced remarkable results. Our goal is to accelerate the creation and implementation of promising, innovative approaches to increase recovery efficiency processes.

The Reservoir Efficiency Processes Program addresses all aspects of upstream petroleum research, but focuses on improved, less expensive, and less risky oil recovery technologies. These technologies are known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes. In general, EOR technologies fall into one of the following four categories: thermal, gas-miscible and -immiscible, chemical, and microbial. New or improved technologies often combine elements from more than one category.

Methods of the future include unconventional approaches, such as field-wide development of strategically-placed horizontal wells, gravity drainage enhancement, microbial EOR, and radio frequency heating.

The United States leads the world in EOR technology. Already, 12 percent of U.S. oil production is from EOR applications, and that fraction is growing steadily. The world's EOR production is about three percent and also growing.

The Need for Research In Reservoir Efficiency Processes

Changes in technology, competition, resource base, and politics have transformed the petroleum industry. Some of the most significant changes include:

The decline of U.S. oil production and reserves since 1970, with decreased hope for the reversal of this trend.

Increase of oil and gas well abandonments, due to insufficient productivity and low oil prices. Once abandoned, redevelopment cannot be justified and future access to reservoirs is foreclosed, even with improved technologies.

Concern for improving the environment has led to new regulations imposed on industry by State and Federal agencies, which add costs to operations. This particularly affects the independent producers operating marginal wells. Increasing cost of complying with regulations is often the reason for many companies to move overseas.

Downsizing in the petroleum industry and reduction of basic and applied research. Independents, in particular, drill 85 percent of all U.S. wells, produce 66 percent of natural gas and 40 percent of crude oil, but do not conduct their own research.

As a consequence, more than 15,000 to 22,000 marginal oil and gas wells are abandoned every year, and about 220,000 wells are idled (not producing). Use of advanced technology enables reduced production costs during times of depressed prices. Advanced technology can uniquely access the already discovered but unrecovered resource; on average, two- thirds of the discovered resource is currently unrecoverable.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 10, 1999.

Laura (ladylogic);

I'm sure you're aware by now that the gratuitous, inflammatory remarks by you have completely overshadowed what otherwise may have been a well intentioned (although naive) assessment of your take on the oil issues. And with no retraction or apologies (that I noticed, anyways)!

In fact, it's finally got me wondering as to what your true intent on this forum really is...

To the others,

In the light of the above, I'm really starting to believe that she's not serious, after all. Let's redirect our time to the more earnest posters, as the days have now dwindled to a precious few.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

The Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) methods he just described ar ehighly computerized/automated dependent on "topside" analysis, sensing, and processing - especially for planning the holes that are used to pump the liquids (or other fluids) needed for EOR. It's a long (and sometimes unprofitable) method; can't be done in a short time. Worse, only a few companies are equipped to do, have the people and topside eqpt, and have the skills and computer simulation software and underground surveys to analyze the underground flows and patterns to figure "how" to do it.

Let me be charitable, since you seem to be getting your information on oil production from sources 20 years out of the industry.

Today's refineries and off-shore terminals and derricks and platforms (more a source for trouble than the small hand-operated stripper wells themselves) are more complex, more expensive, and more susceptible to shutdowns than any nuclear power plant I've ever built or operated.

These things cannot be managed profitably, much less operated or safely started up, without a myriad of support systems and processes: all of which are threatened. I did not say everything wuld stop - never have.

I do expect - based on my years of experience with compputer software, software upgrades and revisions, software testing (and subsequent failures), industrial automated processes, and the entire manufactoring, distribution, management, and supply chain - that there will be major and unpredictable failures in many (not all) industries and processes.

Your two references may be good, reliable people who you trust and value.

Great. They can be trusted to give you information about what "used to be" in a less complicated world where oil was easily recovered and could be managed manually. The refineries then didn't have highly automated processes - they weren't reliable enough then. But the men who used to be able run them manually are not around any more: they've been replaced by very fast, very stupid computers and automated controls from central stations that rely on remote sensors and controls and actuators.

Your sources are no longer able valid, are no longer capable of predicting the impact, the overall effect, nor the results for the events surrounding year 2000 troubles: no more than my dad is any longer able to tune up his car. The fact that he used to be able to check and adjust the timing, to tweak the carburator, and to set the spark plug gap is nice, but meaningless.

He doesn't have the computer to read the sensors, diagnose the error codes created, and figure out what the busted sensor is doing, much less figure out which, if any, of the sensors is bad at all. Yes, he can still replace the busted part - he can still use a wrench and screwdriver, provided he has the right "torx" head screwdriver in his set - yes, they updated the basic "nuts and bolts" too! - but without a 19,000.00 automated diagnostic center - he can't tell what is the real problem!

And, right now, neither can your dad. Sorry. Remember that friend who has the radiator shop - who has never used a computer you were so proud of in the original message? Ask him to do your next tuneup, emission test, or transmission job.

---...---...

Now, since you've ignored the litany of real failures that affected the live of that mythical "back hoe operator" remember, he too was said to "unaffected" by y2k - let me ask a simpler question: give me the impact of loosing 20% of our oil supplies for, say 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months? How big is that "bump"?

20% after all, means that ALL refineries are able to operate 100%, that ALL US and Canadian fields are capable of producing at 100% of today's levels, and that only a small part of our imported oil cannot be processed or shipped.....and that is optimistic.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 10, 1999.

To all:

I'm just curious. Now I'm relatively new to forums, so please have patience with me when I ask the following:

Is there a numerical limit to the number of posts in a given thread, beyond whch the thread self-destructs, with the computer possibly blowing up? Has anyone experienced this before? If so, in which direction would the monitor fly? And should I have one of my ABC fire extinguishers handy? And should I get a helmet? Or what?

If the above is true and we're coming close to the limit, please let me know. Quick.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Nah - nothing blows up.....but on a Windows NT machine with Microsoft Expolere - the [Contribute An Answer] button sometimes "scrolls" up the page a few inches...

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 10, 1999.

To all;

Yeah, yeah, I know... I posted something about being serious, and then in my next post I wasn't. Well, the latter post was self-therapeutic, not just for the audience. I needed it, and I'm better now. I swear.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Well, this has to be one of the most amusing threads I've seen in a long time. Sorry, Eve, I have to throw in another two cents. RC, you may be right about her being a plant. A houseplant.

Lady, your logic circuit is fried. You get an 'F' for your essay. I would love to know in what field all of your acedemic achievments are. Definately not science related, I'll wager. To point out all of your errors would require a thread much longer than this one, so I will just point you in the general direction of remediation. Any corrective actions you take, will, of course, be your own responsibility.

These are the areas where you have made errors in logic:

A. Problems of explanation and extrapolation 1. Problems of Scale and Place a. Time b. Space c. Location

2. Problems of cause and process a. Convergence b. Divergence c. Efficiency d. Multiplicity

3. Problems of systems response a. Singularity b. Sensitivity c. Complexity

I'm sure these sound like gobbltygook to you, but, I assure you that if you study each of these concepts in detail, your perception of the problems will be enhanced. Unfortunately for you, A.1.a. 'Time', has expired. Sorry.

It will indeed be interesting to look back from the future and see what behaviors prove to be adaptive.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Yes, I believe the monitor will take off in the direction of the nearest oil deposit. Warning - be sure to have your waders on when looking at the screen from now on. I'm told the rubber insulates you from the smelly aspect of it all.

Hey Eve, did you ever respond to LL plea to hook up with other females?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

Yes, I believe the monitor will take off in the direction of the nearest oil deposit. Warning - be sure to have your waders on when looking at the screen from now on. I'm told the rubber insulates you from the smelly aspect of it all.

Hey Eve, did you ever respond to LL's plea to hook up with other females?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

Hi Guys! (BG)

Gawd, imagine my surprise of coming to the forum to check out the latest news reports when I came across this amazing thread with the following sentence using my name in vain! LOL

"One of the reasons why I am now a "bumper" is because Patrick, Cary, and I respectfully disagree with Downstreamer on the amount of oil available in this country. We believe there is enough oil in this country to last a MINIMUM of 40 years (I happen to believe my uncle, who says that there is enough for generations here)."

I'm sure when Ladylogic (OMI, what a misnomer) was using the word "we" she meant the Royal "We". Gawd, I'm LMAO! I've certainly never intimated that it was possible for the US to provide our oil needs should we have a decrease in oil imports, infact I know that if you've ever read my posts regarding the Oil industry, you know that I've stated uniquivicably that we would not be able to ramp production up in order to cover even a 10% loss of oil in this country.

As you know I don't participate in threads such as this (flame wars are so very useless and time consuming), but I will add this for your edification Ladylogic....You are a very naive and selfish sounding girl, and some of what you've posted is way past the pale. Certainly not ladylike. My advice to you, is to listen to what R.C. says concerning the oil industry.....he is absolutely correct.

BTW, R.C. you referred to me once as a man.....I'm not.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), December 10, 1999.

Pinkrock - I fail to see why you have to insult houseplants like that.

Gregg - Those of us who, unfortunately, know LadyNOT from the chatroom knew enough to stay clear of her summons.

R.C. and Robert - Once again, you have made outstanding contributions. Thank you so much for the effort you have put in this year.

-- Had it (with@this.troll), December 10, 1999.

Well... it looks like gobbltygook to me...I give myself an 'F' in formatting.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

I agree with eve. Lady"logic" is just a waste of time (and skin!). We should ignore her polly-trolling drivel and move on. Still, it was enjoyable seeing her get what she deserved!

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 10, 1999.

Cary,

Oopss. I apologize profusely, though I don't remember doing so. I knew that you were a Yellow Rose of Texas :-) Somehow, I must've gotten my wires crossed at some point or shall I say my keyboard? Btw, thanks for coming in and clarifying on that. I thought LL was a little screwy but it seems that she likes to twist everything that anyone says. You don't suppose that she's actually Cherri (brigadoon) in disguise do you? I wonder. This gal has completely self-destructed. Maybe she's having a nervous breakdown in our midst, or perhaps we're just now seeing her true colors.

I wish Cheryl the Oregon Transplant were around to get a load of this.

-- R.C. (racambab@mailcity.com), December 10, 1999.

LadyLogic wanted to start a single women's group. Then she wanted to make sure there were no women with "kidletts" in the group because they would talk about their children. Then she said forget the single women's group, she had had it with the forum and online stuff and was moving on to find Y2K people in the real world. And now this.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), December 10, 1999.

R.C.

Apology accepted. ;-) I don't think Cherri and Ladylogic are the same person, Cherri is too much of a "know-it-all" and Ladylogic acts too much like a "blonde" for them to be one and the same.(G)

Yes, it would be neat if Cheryl the Oregon tranplant weighed in on this. I can just see her rolling her eyes. LOL

Have a good day!

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), December 10, 1999.

Gregg,

The way you responded to my goofy post, segueing it right back on topic to oil was really smooth. I'm impressed!

And, no, I didn't respond to LL's request for three reasons. First, I'm a little too paranoid right now to give out my real e-mail address unless I know and trust all who might be seeing it. Second, you had to be childless to join the group, and I'm a single parent (full custody) of two young teenage boys. And third, even at the time, something about her disturbed me, although I couldn't quite pigeonhole the feeling. By the way, I don't do chat rooms, so I have no experience of her there.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

I find this very typical. Ladylogic states an opinion directed at people on this forum. Then people on the forum respond with high emotions (150 in one day), stating that she's not logical but emotional and stupid. Hmmmm does anyone see an oxymoron here? Sounds like kids chanting, "I know you but what am I?"

Patrick you are a sexist moron! When someone states the fairer sex is not logical, you can get your head out of the caves, man!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 10, 1999.

Good Morning, Brian, Robert, and Cary,

I just read your responses, and I wanted to let you know that I will address your questions/comments in about an hour. I assure you I am neither a troll, a plant, Cherri, in mental-melt down, or whatever attributions confused people are branding me with. I do own a business and I have the onerous task of balancing work with internet discussions. You are important to me however, because I juxtapose my information against yours, so I'll be back soon.

-- (LadLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Don't bother, Lady"logic." Nobody wants to hear your inane delusional spew. Go back under the bridge, Troll.

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 10, 1999.

Robert A. Cook, PE,

Thanks to your response, my hyperventilating is now subsiding.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Patrick,

Don't confuse feminine wiles with your understanding of 'logic'. What we see here isn't even what I'd consider feminine wiles, more like 'unmitigated manipulation'.

eve,

She can keep beating this as long as the beatees keep ponying up.

-- flora (***@__._), December 10, 1999.

Eve, Yeah, I had reponded a month ago to some reply LL gave to King of Spain, saying she was a Goddess. I forget what I said exactly, but then she said she'd prove it and E-mailed me a picture of her.

I E-mailed her once, asking how she could have studied Y2K for 17 months (according to her), and not realized that Utilities/Oil was a BIG concern. Didn't make sense to me. I figured she was a nut.

Pollies, in your defence of the BITR, hasn't your attention wandered at least once to the possibility of Iron Triangle Meltdown, and Oil Industry failure? Even at least to construct an argument as to why you think everything's fine?

NOBODY with a BRAIN could research this for even 1 DAY, and not consider Utilities/Oil.

It's amazing she's been able to stay alive this long.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

To help explain many of the responses to this thread:

Laura's behavior in Bokonon's chatroom has been far beyond anything considered appropriate by even the most broad-minded of free-speech enthusiasts. Her topics have ranged from what she does and would like to do with her own and others' various bodily parts to verbiage and actions bordering on stalking some of the male occupants of the chatroom. Indeed, those worldly-wise males have been shocked and not a little perturbed by Laura's advances.

Sometimes Laura appears perfectly logical, at others incapably and obscenely inebriated, using speech generously sprinkled with expletives. She has been given the most liberal benefit of the doubt and has, finally, been asked, then directed to tone down her behavior. Laura's response has been to hold down the enter key so that nobody can hold a conversation with anybody else. When she gets tired of scrolling, Laura inserts four-lettered phrases. I am giving Mr. Decker the benefit of the doubt and assuming he has not experienced Laura's frighteningly erratic behavior on his recent visits to Bokonon's.

(It should be noted that, contrary to Laura's belief, above, coal does not derive from animal remains [like oil] but rather from vegetable sources, such as trees, enormous prehistoric ferns, and other plant material.)

-- Not just a (coal@miner's.daughter), December 10, 1999.

Hi Brian!

I have said this a couple of times in this thread, and I dont understand why people still think I am referring to them in particular:

When I said, "the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on"... I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things.

FM, I don't know where those posts are. They've come and gone in this forum and others. I just assumed other people had read them too. But, I can promise you, if you hang around for a while, they will show up again. At least they have repeatedly for the last 4 months that I've been online."

That was not a blanket indictment of any particular person, or even any particular chatroom! Furthermore, if you read my posts, you will notice I NEVER make blanket indictments, or generalize, because as a female, I am acutely aware of how much damage that can do (See Patricks remarks.)

By the way, did you get my message the other night? I couldnt find your website or e-mail address. I have your e-mail now, but Id like to take a look at your stuff again. What is your web address?

Additionally, I have been speaking (on the phone) with a Y2K representative that lives and works in Kingston, Ontario. Are you anywhere near there?

Maria,

Thanks for recognizing and addressing sexism. It is an ugly issue, and unfortunately, there are only a teeny, tiny, minority of us with the character so say SOMETHINGS WRONG HERE.

I assure you it is not easy being the dissenting voice in the masses. It is easy for people to be influenced by predominant opinion, and we are the ones at risk of being ostracized. So what? The worst thing that can happen is we can be called silly names on the internet.. And, let me make this perfectly clear: I honestly believe everything Im saying on this board, and I say it to the people I work with. I guarantee you, I receive a much more fanatical response on this board.

Bingo - Thanks for the encouragement. I'll take that five, and add a and add a good, firm, handshake. It is a pleasure to meet you.

Eve - I am sorely disappointed in you. Even if you dont understand my position on oil, you should have recognized the sexist remark and commented.

flora - su ojos are GREEN!

Cary,

I hate meta-quotes, but I have to call you to the mat on this one. You said,

"Downstreamer,

You said, "Forty years of this would equate to about 300 billion barrels... so you're talking about more reserves than Saudi Arabia or about a quater of the world's proven reserves in ONE FIELD in one western state...I don't find this very credible."

[This is Carys comment to Downstreamer] Well, believe it. Here's the deal....the oil in Wyoming was expensive to extract, depth of well, labor costs, etc. When the oil prices plunged and the Mid East began supplying the world with cheap oil, companies could not economically vindicate to stock holders the necessity to develop these fields, hince these fields are sitting idle but remain a part of a "vast asset" for many oil companies/landowners/mineral right owners. Plans for future use of these fields are definitely being made."

Cary, that quote is why I used your name regarding the availability of oil. I am going to say it again, and again, and again, until you people understand it.

THERE IS MORE OIL IN THE WORLD THAN WE CAN EVER USE.

THERE IS ENOUGH OIL IN THE CONTINENTAL US TO PROVIDE FOR THE US AND CANADA FOR 5 - 100+ YEARS DEPENDING ON WHAT SOURCE YOU BELIEVE. No one thinks we are going to run out any time soon.

You can believe me or not, at this point Im tired of discussing it, and no matter how hard I try, I cant make some people understand.

Robert Cook,

Thank you for taking the time to respond sir. I suspect either you did not take the time to read through the previous links where I have discussed the background of my family, or you missed a section. I am going to take the time to respond to your comment because I believe you are honestly trying to understand what I'm trying to say.

You said, "Let me be charitable, since you seem to be getting your information on oil production from sources 20 years out of the industry."

No. His information is not 20 years out of the industry. He sold his portion of the refinery 20 years ago, but he still pals around with his associates. I assure you, he told me the refinery only uses computers for billing and word processing. I can also assure you that the refinery may be using old technology, but it is still functioning. Furthermore, it certainly is not the only one in existence for petes sake! Granted, there are not enough of these refineries left to generate enough product to supply us with the amounts we are currently using, but I dont believe for a moment that every refinery, and every electrical company, and every communications company, is going to crash either. Id like to take a moment and say this again also, I believe we will have to reduce our consumption next year, but relative normalcy will return after that (if you would like an explanation of that statement, you will have to re-read my comments in this post, and the previous ones).

People, I can not possibly keep rewriting my epistemology, and I certainly will not address anyone who doesnt have the courtesy, and the intelligence to understand that I am telling you exactly what I think, based on discussions with my family, and the officials in my city. However. If you truly would like to see how my nascent thoughts evolved into my recent conclusions, you can follow these lengths:

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

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

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001wg4

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Cmd/Bardou

I admit to some purposely OUTLANDISH behavior in the chatroom. You

wouldn't believe the satisfaction I derive from harassing you! You and

I both know I can't stand you, and furthermore, you have just proven

who the true Ladyin this forum is. I have had the courtesy to refrain

from commenting on your salacious posts, and to once more prove I am

the Lady here, I am going to ignore you in the future.

Gregg,

Yep, I remember when you challenged me to proved Im a goddess; and I did. However, after reading your e-mails, I didnt respond because you are too intellectually pedestrian.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Laura (ladylogic),

My initial reaction upon seeing Cody's remark was that it was so obviously mindless that it was as if he was shouting to the world, "Hey everybody, look at me! You see? There are still cretins out here who can't wait to advertise it!" So, I kind of rode right through it. You're right, though; I guess I should have called him on it earlier. Hopefully he's still reading the thread.

Does anyone want to start a "Hey, Cody, You're a Jerk and Here's Why " thread? I don't have the nerve to start it, but I promise I'll be one of the first contributors. Maybe someone will even find a way to tie it into Y2K.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Robert,

Are you sure that a large amount of bandwidth won't toast this thread? Ordinarily, when I write my post, it is automatically condensed, and that didn't happen in my last post.

I guess we will find out soon enough.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

R.C.,

I understand that it is easy to be selective in our reasoning, and there is an incredible amount of unsubstantiated, conflicting information regarding oil, but the IEA is presenting information that I believe supports my case:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/security/Y2KAssess.html

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Laura (ladylogic),

If you were referring instead to Patrick (re sexist comments), or others, I did not read all of Patrick's explanation, nor do I go searching for statements of this nature to jump on. Some are irritating, some are outrageous, etc. But I'm not on a crusade, and I just don't have the time for all of this, in any case. Let's get back on track, ok?

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Eve,

We have a couple of dogs in this thread. It was Patrick who said:

".....Lastly, it has been my personal experience that the female gender is largely found wanting, (although there are certainly exceptions to every rule), when it comes to logic as a tool at their disposal for the sake of reasoning ability. Ive found the vast majority of the fairer sex to operate more on emotion than logic. Im not a sexist,"

And it was Cary (who is a woman, which makes her comment more nefarious) who made the "blonde" remark:

Apology accepted. ;-) I don't think Cherri and Ladylogic are the same person, Cherri is too much of a "know-it-all" and Ladylogic acts too much like a "blonde" for them to be one and the same.(G)

Yes, it would be neat if Cheryl the Oregon tranplant weighed in on this. I can just see her rolling her eyes. LOL

Have a good day!

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), December 10, 1999"

Have a good day yourself Cary! You are lucky I can only fight one battle at a time!!

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Ladylogic46 (are there really at least 45 others out there?),

I still would like to know: what prompted you to post this as OT?

-- (yourlogic@defies.you), December 10, 1999.

OK, Eve -I don't have time for their B.S. either.

Yourlogic - Doesn't O.T. stand for Off-Topic?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

"Patrick you are a sexist moron! When someone states the fairer sex is not logical, you can get your head out of the caves, man!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), December 10, 1999. "

Maria...

.....Care to articulate an argument, or just more of your namecalling?

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

Yes, OT does stand for Off Topic. So why did you identify your post, in which gave your opinions on why you think y2k will not be the end of the world, as being off topic (since you posted it to a y2k forum)???

-- (yourlogic@defies.you), December 10, 1999.

This easily wins the award for the longest, stupidest, funniest thread ever ... and that's saying something. My Lady is a very sick woman. Come here, my dear, and take your medication. There, that's a good girl.

-- A Longtime Regular Weighs In (Gentlemanlogic46@ROFLMAO.com), December 10, 1999.

"...This practice is intellectually dishonest. Establish a standard for evidence in the Y2K debate... and apply it equally. Rumor should be treated as rumor... no matter how it fits your personal theory."

Amen, Ken, amen.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 10, 1999.

LL

You are still missing my point, whatever your intent in raising the violent, raping issue it still came across as an attack on the forum and the members. If you had offered an immediate retraction and got a SYSOP to delete the offencive section much of this thread would be nonexistant and you would be arguing about oil.

If there are CERTIAN members of the forum you have an issue with then direct it to them. But to lump it together as you did is just asking for trouble and your future lable as a Troll is assured.

****In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences or because they mistook some poor schmuck who knocked on their door to tell them their cat is stuck up a tree, for someone who was going to steal their stash. Can I hear an amen to that!****

I can only remember folks saying they would defend home and family. No doubt in inner city enviorments this could be a consideration.

At no time do I remember raping and pilliging as a topic of discussion.

I would say an apology would be in order.

It just blows my mind that you can't understand this.

Oh and as Pinkrock pointed out complexity will contribute to problems that are beyond our imaginations. A Lesson.

 Chaos in the 21st Century (A lesson)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 10, 1999.

Oy!

Now I smell a troll...

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 10, 1999.

Yes, now this is definitly the stupidist, absurd thread. Very wierd. C'mon Flint, aren't you going to play?

Yes, LL, I told you about the then upcoming Iraqi situation. I said that technically, the Oil market looked like it would come down. Longer term, demand might be down in 2000, if companys went bankrupt. On the other hand, I said a disruption of supplies, plus Japan and the U.S. buying Oil to stock up, might make it go higher, at least short term. I said that with these apparently diverse forces at work, it was hard to say which way might go that DAY.

I said my plan was to wait for a pullback, to around the 23-24 $ region before going "long", or purchasing a call option. Small price fluctuations have big impacts in postioning one's self in the Futures Markets.

I don't remember what Cody said, but obviously you reinforce Patrick's experience with every new post you make.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

-- A Longtime Regular Weighs,

I am ROTFLMAO also. CLEARLY, I think differently than the majority of the folks here at TB2000, and I find the majority of their responses hilarious! Believe it or not, I laughed out-loud when I read yours... thank you for the chuckle. If I am wrong in my estimation of Y2K, I will let you personally administer NH4CI down my throat...because if I am wrong, and everyone is lying to me, and everything I have read is twisted, and Y2K is an 8, then what is the point of living anyway?

It ain't gonna happen, THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO END.

-- (LadyLogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Are you suggesting, Patrick, that your personal experiences with women are so extensive as to support a general theory about the gender having diminished capacity in logical thinking? Do you have psychometric data to suggest women have a deficiency in the area? Have you engaged in clincal studies of the subject... or are you just making an off-hand remark. Oh, feel free to share your personal feelings on African-Americans, Jews, etc. I'm sure you'll offer insights equally fascinating.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 10, 1999.

Brian,

"In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges," etc.

I SAID "IN Y2K FORUMS"! That means PLURAL! This is not the only Y2K forum I have frequented. However, it was in this forum, that I read a post from a man who wanted directions on how to poison his well. I can't cite it, I read it, was repulsed by it, and moved on.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Uh, Patrick,

I think Ken's trying to tell you to check the bottom of your shoes, hon.

CG, er I mean LL, or how 'bout if I just call you Ellie Mae,

Su ojos are BROWN!

-- flora (***@__._), December 10, 1999.

Oh, I forgot what LL said in response to my e-mail.

I wish I hadn't trashed the e-mail, but she said she wished she were intelligent enough to understand the Oil situation, and that she'd just realized there might be a problem.

I guess the old saying applies here : Never try to teach a pig to sing, you'll just piss the pig off and frustrate the hell out of yourself.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

"let them ... administer NH4CI ... down my throat" ????

First, why whould let them do a thing like that? H**l, the pioneers suffered far worse than a " mythical 10" when they walked across country to get to CA......what ever happens, people will recover. They just might not like it as much as now - you're ignoring the fundemental economic pressure that will eventually rebound from anything.

Second: What the hell are you worried about "ammonium-carbon-Iodate" for? It doesn't exist.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 10, 1999.

Now, ammonium chloride ain't so good for you either....but it won't help you recover oil either.

Ever try cod liver oil?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 10, 1999.

"because if I am wrong, and everyone is lying to me, and everything I have read is twisted, and Y2K is an 8, then what is the point of living anyway?"

I, for one, would want to live to see my son grow up.

Sniff sniff... sniff sniff. Troll?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), December 10, 1999.

No Gregg,

The saying is, "Don't fight with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig (you) likes it.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Ken...

.....My statement, initially meant to illustrate the illogical thinking of this thread's hostess, (as has been reiterated by several others above, mind you), is simply my explanation of the root cause of the battle of the sexes, in a nutshell. Face it, folks; we really don't understand each other when you get right down to it. I believe it's because men initially operate with logic, and women with emotion; that's not to say that either are completely devoid of the converse. This, as I stated, was an observation based upon those women I've come into contact with, your experiences my have been different. I maintain that this was NOT a derogatory statement. However, PC doesn't fly with me, it's just plain stupid to say there are no differences between the sexes, or do you find that there is very little difference between YOU and a woman, Ken?

.....I don't disrespect women, but I don't believe "respect" is something that is automatically bestowed upon every person that one comes into contact with, until they prove themselves disqualified for such. Quite the contrary, respect must be earned. How much do you think you've earned, sir; by lumping your miscomprehension of my initial statement in with racism? I'm hardly a racist, Ken, as my understanding of Scripture tells me to treat all with kindness, (golden rule, you see), as I will never know when I may be entertaining "angels unaware." I have ALWAYS given every person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether they were going to be good people or "slugs," as I refer to them. I've met plenty of both, regardless of color.

.....Also, you must have missed my post regarding "antisemitism" a while back. Revelations 2:9 and 3:9 explain that there are those that "claim" to be Jews, but are not and do lie; these are explained in Zacariah 5, if memory serves, hiding in the skirts of Judah, and would afflict that "nation" until the very dusk of this age. They are the ones that have many deceived Christians railing falsely against our brother Judah. Not that I expect you to understand this, Ken; you're more into that fluffball, guilt-trip thing, from the sounds of the recent thread regarding "charity" as you understand it.

flora...

.....Ken says a lot of things, and my shoes are still clean.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

Robert!!

That's it! You just made one of the points I've been trying to make for 1 1/2 days!

"what ever happens, people will recover. They just might not like it as much as now - you're ignoring the fundemental economic pressure that will eventually rebound from anything."

Now, hang with me buddy. Could you please synthesize the information I have presented regarding oil availability and production, and maybe you could say that better than I do too?

If you can't make that stretch, I understand. I'm about ready to give up trying to explain my understanding of the antiquated (although still viable) remains of the oil industry myself.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

"This is not the only Y2K forum I have frequented." -- Ladylogic.

Please do not feed the hybrid trolls.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), December 10, 1999.

Patrick,

Ok, Patrick, now that you've shoved it in my face...

I like to think of logic, in a nutshell, as being our method of reaching conclusions objectively by deriving them without contradiction from the facts of reality, through the evidence of our senses. If you operate without this, your tie to reality is severed. How can you possibly state that women initially operate without this? You're kidding, right?

nothere nothere,

Two (of your) posts ago you said, "Oy!" Are you Jewish? (I am). You know, your handle doesn't sound Jewish. Maybe I can help you come up with a new one.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Ken,

I really appreciate you stepping in here and helping out with the sexism thing. See, I just knew we'd eventually see eye to eye on something!

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Oh My Heavens,

I just had another epiphany. When I first came to this forum, I read about the bickering and in-fighting that was going on. I didnt understand how that could possibly happen given that we were all pretty much in the same situationstrying to learn about, and prepare for, Y2K.

Now I understand how that happens! It happens like this:

1) Someone presents an opposing opinion (logical or illogical in the readers view), and no matter how honest the intent, it is attacked by varied posters for assorted reasons.

2) Dogmatism and narrow-minded attitudes slip from under-active minds into over-active fingers. Bigotry is here, just as it is in the world outside this box.

4) Testosterone and estrogen are every bit as much a factor here as it is everywhere else. I have already looked the green-eyed lady straight in the eye (green ojos = jealousy)

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

Eve...

.....Perhaps my choice of words was not the best to convey exactly what I meant, maybe I should have tried to express that women often have to overcome the emotional response prior to reaching into their "bag of logic," so to speak. By the same token, the opposite is true of men, if you stop to think about it. It wasn't oh-so-long-ago that all we heard was how we had to be more sensitive to our feelings, and "it's okay for a man to cry," etc. Were we supposed to be overly offended at being accused of being emotionally challenged by the "mainstream concsiousness?" Maybe men have to push that cloud of logic out of the way in order to find the "emotional" tools that aren't inherently our first priority. This is simply my speculation on what would appear, in today's climate of the battle-of-the-sexes, to be an unanswerable question. I think we've blurred the lines a bit too much with regard to this issue.

.....Again, I wish to stress that I personally attached no vitriol to the observation, and I meant no offense. If there was any offense to be directed it would be solely directed at Laura, as she wants to use "logic" in her handle, yet disply so little. You certainly seem to be a very nice person, as we've spoken before. I wouldn't intentionally say something to alienate you much less the entire female population. Actually, I'm rather fond of women.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

Patrick,

So if you separately asked a male carpenter and a female carpenter to build a shed for you, show me how the female would be expected to initially approach this in an emotional way, and the male in a logical way. (Or feel free to substitute your favorite trade or business here).

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Greetings, This certainly is the longest and most amusing thread I've read in a long time. LadyLogic, you sure have guts, I'll give you that...are you really a "goddess?" Now, I'm so curious. Can you e-mail your photo to me, too???

Anyway, I think if most of us met on the street, we'd all be quite civil to one another. The anonymity of the internet has its good and bad points, right?

I think much of the antagonism is arising out of the stress that we all must feel. It is a very uncertain and sometimes "unreal" feeling to be living in a world that may be gone, or definitely WILL be changed in a month or so.

Let's all hang in there, and help one another out now and into Y2K. We're going to need it.

Live long and prosper...

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), December 10, 1999.

Patrick,

By the way, you do seem like a nice guy (other than this little problem, of course). And even if we can't get past this, I have confidence we'll still get along.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

Hey LadyLogic- your handle should be CrazyLady.

Please note that the statement by you that I have quoted below contradicts itself. And is based on 3rd person (4th for us 'forumers')hearsay evidence having come from your Uncle who has heard it from his buddies. AND most importantly it defies logic.

"THERE IS MORE OIL IN THE WORLD THAN WE CAN EVER USE."

"THERE IS ENOUGH OIL IN THE CONTINENTAL US TO PROVIDE FOR THE US AND CANADA FOR 5 - 100+ YEARS DEPENDING ON WHAT SOURCE YOU BELIEVE. No one thinks we are going to run out any time soon."

"You can believe me or not, at this point Im tired of discussing , and no matter how hard I try, I cant make some people understand"

My sentiments EXACTLY, Lady. You fail to understand that you are NOT being logical.

P.S. What makes you think that your Uncle has his finger on the pulse of the WHOLE oil industry?? ie. how does he know exactly how much oil is in the ground?? How do we know if we have found all of it?? OH, and your story went from him owning an Oil Well to a Refinery. Oh, and I've seen several stories about the 'embedded chip' problem for the Oil industry. One of them was from an industry rag...and the story was informative for those in the industry. I guess that your uncle must've missed it. Is your "uncle" good 'ol Uncle Sam????

Troll, and a dumb obvious one at that.

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), December 10, 1999.

To repeat the obvious: Any of LL proonouncements are not exactly grounded in fact. Taken together, they represent factual mistakes that could only be made by a truly non inquisitive mind. I am sure ll is a kind feeling and caring person. But a race of LL's would never progress to a technical civilization no matter how many ages it was given. She is, for all her well spoen phrases, a tremendously unaware person, So unaware it almost has to be a deliberate choice. LL's feelings are good. But the problems of a technical civilization cannot be addressed by feelings alone. To Ken Decker a question. Is LL related? To both of you 22 days and games up. Noone

-- Noone (noone@none.com), December 10, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019PA

The "Doomers" are losing. . .

-- The ("Doomers"@re.losing), December 10, 1999.

"Patrick, So if you separately asked a male carpenter and a female carpenter to build a shed for you, show me how the female would be expected to initially approach this in an emotional way, and the male in a logical way. (Or feel free to substitute your favorite trade or business here)."

 eve

Eve...

.....In this context, it would hardly matter how the approach would be handled, should both prove competent. What I am speaking to is not the superiority of one or the other, or that either manner of the thought processes of male versus female is good, bad or other. My point is that we are, in fact, different. A possibly better illustration would be when husband and wife pull into the driveway together to discover that their home was in the process of burning down, while still having time to run in and grab a few items to save, which of the two would head for the most expensive, hard-to-replace big-ticket items, and which would head for the photo albums? Again, there are exceptions to every rule. It would serve us all quite well to recognize the differences, and even to celebrate them, after all; I certainly dont want overly masculine traits to manifest themselves in my wife, as Im certain that she likewise would be repulsed by any femininity on my part. Others may see it differently. Should y2k prove to be WCS, Im thinking the lines between the sexes will become a bit less blurry.

.....I wish to stress that had I had the body-language and nuance to go along with my statement, Im fairly certain that it wouldnt have come across quite as chauvinistic as it so obviously did. But were denied the subtleties to communication through this medium. On the other hand, this particular medium affords us the freedom that face- to-face coumminication denies, for the most part. A trade-off, of course, but one that I am slowly learning to deal with, (Im still in my rookie season with this).

.....Thank you for the kind words with the second of the latest posts, I believe that you are a very sweet person, and have gone out of your way, even in disagreement, to be both gracious and tolerant. Something that is seriously lacking with many others, and theyd do very well to follow the most excellent example of civility that you have repeatedly shown.

.....BTW; you carpenter example would be a moot point with someone like myself, as I never hire any work done that I can do myself; I'm building my own home, having laid every block and hoisted every beam.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

Should be "communication" - (oops!)

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

And I congratulate you yet once again, LadyLogic: in the roughly 36 hours that this thread has existed it has generated over 200 reponses and is still growing. That has GOT to be a forum record.

Even Decker's idiotic inflammatory threads have never seen that kind of return. Pay attention, Ken, you just might learn something from LL.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 10, 1999.

LadyLogic or Ken Decker:

Have you seen or read this thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001yE1

I, personally, would like to have either of your opinions on this thread. You probably should start a new post with your answers. This thread is incredible to load and it's getting just a little to long. A matter of fact, I might just start one and address it to either of you.

I'm not doing this to show disrespect, just want an honest answer and hoping I'm not opening up a can of worms.

-- Familyman (prepare@home.com), December 10, 1999.

Patrick,

Even though I don't yet quite see eye to eye with you on this (and I have more to say), I think you've done a very good job in trying to explain your position, and I respect the way you've put your points across in a very polite and civil manner.

And your words to me were so kind that I'm near embarrassment. Thank you so much.

Well, I'm getting kind of tired right now, so I think I'll sign off for awhile.

Talk to you later, Patrick.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 10, 1999.

The antagonism of the people here is directed at a person who is not naive. A naive person makes a "blunder", realizes it, and quickly learns the "ropes" so as to cease being ill-informed or naive.

A logical person asseses data as to relevance, and wheather by inductive or deductive means, comes to a conclusion that makes sense.

A delusional person, can't tell anything about the real world.

A psychotic, says one thing and then another, often taking both sides, and usually can't remember what they said last, and can often appear to be "different" people.

What kind of person started this Thread.

C'mon Flint. Are you so busy prepping that you can't add something?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.

Don't feel bad, Gregg... I'm still waiting on a reply from Decker. (Ithink he played "hit and run."

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 10, 1999.

Gregg,

You are living proof that, "H*ll hath no fury, like a man scorned."

I'm sorry I hurt you. I didn't know you would react this badly. But, all we did was e-mail twice, and you told me you live by a retired general, (See? I am much nicer than you) and that you "were looking to get long on oil".

I don't know if your problem with me is you've lost money on oil, or you're angry because I ignored your e-mails. Which is it?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 10, 1999.

With all due respect, Patrick, your knowledge of social anthropology is about on par with your knowledge of economics. Both men and women are emotional beings. The socialization process in our culture has a great deal to do with gender. In the opinion of most social anthropologists, sex-role imprinting starts from birth. It is informative to examine other cultures where the male-female gender roles are handled differently. What you will find is that men do not have imprinted logic circuits nor are women universally emotional.

In reality, culture imposes gender roles... not biology.

We can talk about biological instincts like nurturance of the young and aggression, though I think it is a mistake to confuse these primal instincts with emotions, per se. These instincts helped ensure the survival of the species when we were more prey than predator. As biological entities, we are not so far removed from those days.

The same biological instincts that served us well in earlier times often create problems in our modern society. I find it far easier to see the instinct of agression in men, than any genetic prediposition towards logic.

I think you far better served, Patrick, to delve the mysteries of gender with the serious thinkers of our time... than to make rather provincal statements. It is a fascinating subject, one worthy of serious thought. Men and women are profoundly different... and gender relations far more complex than your construct.

Though to your credit, you haven't asked anyone to mud wrestle yet.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 10, 1999.

.....Though to your detriment, Ken... you tried to slander me as a racist... You lost a tremendous amount of credibility with me on that one.

.....Also, simply because I don't buy into, (no pun intended), your deluded version of economics doesn't necessarily mean that I'm the one who's knowledge is necessarily lacking.

.....Better take those memory enhancers, Ken; you've used that mudwrestling line on me before.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), December 11, 1999.

No, Patrick, I asked you to provide your views on other groups. Given your idea that men are hard-wired for logic, I simply wanted to know if you had drawn any other anthropological conclusions. I do not know if you are a racist... but your analysis of gender makes the same mistake often shared by racists. Put simply, many racists feel skin color, rather than culture, determines behavior. Let me ask again, Patrick... do you think racial genetics determine (or influence) behavior. It's a reasonable question, particularly in light of your already stated views on gender. Oh, please feel free to share your views on homosexuality. Biological or social? Hell, sally forth on any aspect of social anthropology. I'm listening.

Patrick, if I wanted to call you a racist... I'd hardly beat around the bush. I will say that your views on gender are, at best, provincal and simplistic. I feel exactly the same way about your views on economics. Unless you want to answer the concerns in my first paragraph... let's just call it a day.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 11, 1999.

No. Im Ladylogic.

No. Im Ladylogic.

No. Im Ladylogic.

No. Im Ladylogic.

No. Im Ladylogic.

No. Im Ladylogic.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 11, 1999.

Perhaps you have a point, but remember that only about half of US businesses will finish their mission critical systems. You must therefore assume that "fix on failure" is an acceptable plan that will get us through inevitable y2k glitches. I think that FOF is going to work fine in many cases but not in all. The question then boils down to this: when do little problems make it difficult to solve other little problems, creating big problems? At what point is Y2K systemic?

I think that y2k impact (pain)--if plotted on the y axis when # y2k failures are on the x axis--looks like an "s" on its side. At a certain point stuff is going to snowball. Are you really that confident that it won't snowball? IMO the best case scenario is a 70s style "malaise" recesssion with stagflation. This is still quite bad, as those counted in the 12% unemployment can attest.

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), December 11, 1999.

Never argue with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will love it.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

I love deadlines. I especially love the swooshing sound they make as they go flying by.

I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow's not looking good either.

I don't have an attitude problem. You have a perception problem.

I'd explain it to you, but your brain would explode.

Am I getting smart with you? How would you know?

You're slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through Peanut Butter!

Why do people with closed minds always open their mouths?

You have the right to remain silent, so please SHUT UP.

On the keyboard of life, always keep one finger on the escape key.

I don't believe in miracles. I rely on them.

Someday we'll look back on this and plow into a parked car.

Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with brie.

There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives.

Don't piss me off! I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.

Oh yea, Y2K? Of course I don't look busy... I did it right the first time.

And your point is...

-- Dilbert (the@cube.man), December 11, 1999.

Mr Decker,

I have followed this thread with great interest, and it is plain to see that you are an articulate and intelligent fellow. You have said many things that I would agree with, but despite the quality of your argument(specifically the gender issue), you come across as nothing more than a know-it-all...having insuated that your famiiiarity with the "serious thinkers of our time" makes your contentions irrefutable. You then reason that if Patrick lacks the understanding of the experts, any assertions he might make are void and without merit. It is this condescending attitude that taints this particular argument of yours. This is the same attitude that LadyLogic operates in...to good and to smart to be wrong.

As an aside, it must be said that it is the "serious thinkers of our time" that have led this world astray; they being all too eager to intellectually vomit on the common man, and impress the masses with their version of truth, wisdom and understanding. The Sartres, the Russels, the Voltaires, the Marxs, the Darwins, will pay dearly for their lack of real wisdom and understanding.

"Unless you become as a child...you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" -- Jesus Christ, the Son of God

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 11, 1999.

LL, I actually have the picture you sent to me. If you're not careful, I'll post it here - for everyone to see. Then ALL can decide if you are a Gawdess or not.

I'm quite pleased you never answered my question about how you could have "researched" Y2K for 17 months, and never stumbled on the Utilities/Oil problem. To me, that cinched my first impression, that you were crazy.

Ken, Let's cut the crap. If you've ever dated more than 1 woman, you know what Patrick is talking about. Ladies, so what? Who said you had to be LOGICAL. Who said Men had to be sensitive. Most women I know say they want someone sensitive, but then are attracted to the abusive a$$hole. Go figure. Certainly not logical.

Biology has EVERYTHING to do with it. I don't believe societal "programming" changes much, of what is a billion year "hard-wired" animal. In fact, there was a recent documentary, by two women doctors, that basically said as much. They were trying to get women to understand, that because of the hormone injection they receive every month, things are going to appear differently to them. NO BIG DEAL - THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

Do you realize, the hillside strangler (he is in L.A.), who murdered about 20 women, has adoring groupies at courtside? Can you name me ONE woman criminal, who has a legion of men groupies?

I know some very rational women, and I know some basket cases. If men aren't logical, please Ken, refer this forum to a woman Philosopher, like Plato, Aristotle, etc.

The smartest women I know, admit to their BEING, and don't apologize for being that. We can both learn from each other, and hopefully find a balance, if, you are fortunate enough to be with a smart woman.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 11, 1999.

TM,

Why don't you provide me with the scientific documentation that prove men are more "logical" than women and that it is biological, not cultural. There are none. There is fascinating research on we interact with infants and how gender roles are imprinted from an early age. As for "serious thinkers" leading the world astray, I disagree. The framers of our Constitution relied on serious thinkers. "Serious thinkers" have also helped us unlock many mysteries of the universe... and solved countless problems. There are genuises who ideas have productive... and destructive. Oh, and since you criticize Darwin, should we talk about the "science" of Creationism.

Gregg, I think Patrick is essentially a well-intentioned fellow, but vastly unstudied about gender relations. Anyone with a shred of scientific background knows that personal experience is NOT science. There are people who actually study gender relations, social anthropology and our biological roots.

Having watched a television program, Gregg, leaves you a bit short of a doctorate in the area. While we are biological beings, "logic" is not hard wired into men, nor "emotion" into women. It's a teensy bit more complex. And culture has a HUGE amount to do with gender roles, as you would learn in any kind of comparative cultural anthropology class. If biologoy had "EVERYTHING" to do with it, gender roles would be remarkably similar across cultures.

The real irony here is that you and Patrick are making my argument. Your approach to resolving this problem is more emotional than logical. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 11, 1999.

AMAZING!!!

As KOS has stated, this thread has become a forum classic to be sure. Being an occasional lurker I am not aware of all the forum regulars but who has yet to sign-in on this thread? The following poster reminds me of the battery operated frog that croaks ribbit, ribbit when someone approaches its proximity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I agree with eve. Lady"logic" is just a waste of time (and skin!). We should ignore her polly-trolling drivel and move on. Still, it was enjoyable seeing her get what she deserved!

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 10, 1999. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Whats up with you brett? I would like to think that most folks on this forum could recognize a polly without your constant bleating. Might be time to remove your D cells and shut you up.

-- Ready (4@it.com), December 11, 1999.

To all those who should know it applies to them:

Sexism is nothing more than another very low, crude form of collectivism. It implies a person's intellect and character are somehow produced and transmitted by her/his internal body chemistry. So this means that, for example, a woman could be judged, at least in part, by that which, in the eyes of the "judge" exists as a collective attribute (e.g., emotionalism).

The sexist thus ends up invalidating, at least in part, the specific attribute that distinguishes a woman (along with a man) from all other living species -- her rational faculty. And it's nothing short of tragic that this syndrome still exists among some.

But I try to recognize that it exists to different degrees, can be extremely difficult to eradicate in any case, and should be recognized as only one trait of what could be an otherwise good, decent human being. Perhaps this is why at times I tend to be more or less accepting of some small degree of sexism, depending on the individual.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 11, 1999.

Mr Decker,

I never said that I disagreed with your contention that the influence of culture plays a vital role in the development of gender identity...the increase of the size of the homosexual community is evidence enough to prove that when cultures abandon moral codes it exerts a powerful influence on gender role development. On the other hand, though this may be purely circumstancial, I personally know of children raised in homes with same sex parents, who develop pure heterosexual identities. There must be some biological traits built into the genetic code of the sexes that cause men and women to think differently. As anecdotal evidence, my wife of 18 years thinks very much different than I do...our marriage survives beacause we understand that men and women approach issues with very dissimilar thinking skills. Living with her "cultural" influence has not really changed my though patterns...nor have i changed her's.

As to the issue of "serious thinkers", I very much agree that this world needs thinkers and philosophers, but I should have elaborated more and qualified that term.

Every serious thinker who attempts to exert his influence upon this world without a foundational understanding of the sovereignty and omnipotence of God is a roadblock in the development of mankind...no matter how "good" he or she sounds (Darwin included). PERIOD! I hope I have clarified my argument.

As to the issue of creationism, I freely admit that I am not a qualified anthropologist, geologist, biologist or zoologist, and therefore am unable to spar with you on this matter. I will state that I would rather believe the literal reading of the Genesis account and to be proclaimed a fool, than to discount the word of God by making a stand on a scientific theory that is questionable at best. When I have time and opportunity I will research this issue, lest I enter upon the field of battle without weapons.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 11, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

"The real irony here is that you and Patrick are making my argument. Your approach to resolving this problem is more emotional than logical. (chuckle)"

You're beautiful! And by far, the most logical, intelligent man I've ever met. Mister, you take my breath away.

If there is anyone in this thread still studying oil, I'd like to add this article/site I just captured from the International Energy Agency. The second paragraph down is a summation of the article.

"The International Energy Agency is the energy forum for 24 Member countries. IEA Member governments are committed to taking joint measures to meet oil supply emergencies. They have also agreed to share energy information, to co-ordinate their energy policies and to co-operate in the development of rational energy programmes." (They are based in Paris, and I believe that is why their spelling is occasionally different than ours.)

LINK

http://www.un.org/members/yr2000/meeting/oile.htm

API Oil Industry Report to the UN Year 2000 National Coordinators' Plenary (11 December 1998)

"Can we absolutely guarantee no problems? Of course we can't. No one knows the future and something can always go wrong. But it does mean we can deal with any problems, if and when they occur. Because we employ so many redundant control systems, the chances of a (US) national oil system shutdown - due to a Y2K problem or anything else - are extremely small. Assuming it did, it is highly unlikely that oil would escape from any platform, pipeline, or oil tanker."

Contribution for United Nations' Year 2000 National Coordinators Plenary December 11, 1998 New York, New York USA

REPORT FROM THE OIL SECTOR

Contact Information

Sector: Oil Industry Organization Submitting Report: American Petroleum Institute Y2K Point of Contact: Kendra L. Martin, Senior Manager of Electronic

Commerce & Information Technology Telephone: 202.682.8517 Facsimile: 202.962.4730 E-mail: martink@api.org Website: www.api.org/y2k Mailing Address: 1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20005 USA

The American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association with more than 400 member companies involved in all aspects of the oil and natural gas business; has been working with the government, other private companies and associations to identify Year 2000 problems and develop and share solutions. This industry effort has been ongoing since early 1997.

Description of Y2K Problem in Oil Sector

Simply stated, the Y2K problem is an insufficiency in computer programs that causes them to mishandle four digit years. Unfortunately, it is not a simple problem. Date handling codes show up within various computer applications and are embedded in computer chips. Programs written with this deficiency show up throughout the petroleum industry, from computer applications to process control devices.

The potential results from mishandled dates in the petroleum industry range from incorrect financial transactions, oilfield production outages, refinery and pipeline stoppages, product flow disruptions, as well as potential environmental and safety hazards. However, we believe that the possibility of these issues arising are extremely low, thanks in part to the industry's timely recognition of the problem and wide-scale efforts to address it.

A major concern for our member companies, however, is the issue of the Year 2000 readiness of our suppliers, customers, and joint venture partners.

Alliances for Addressing the Problem

The U.S. oil industry's efforts have been coordinated on an industry-wide basis through our trade associations--but they have a foundation in individual company initiatives, many of which began as early as 1995. The key to success there has rested on three critical factors. The first is senior level sponsorship and commitment. This helps ensure commitment from all levels in an organization. The second success factor is business entity ownership and accountability. Management and all functional areas, including information systems experts, have been involved and are being held accountable. The third success factor is managing the project within the existing corporate culture and environment. Managing an effort of this scope outside of existing processes could create a disjointed effort, resulting in potential failure.

Association Efforts. Associations have been actively addressing the problem for some time. For example, the American Petroleum Institute created a Y2K task force in 1997 to help plan and coordinate industry efforts, including efforts within the oil and gas industry, to address the Year 2000 problem. All companies within the oil and natural gas industries were welcomed to participate. The focus of the task force was on building and maintaining an open dialogue among participants, sharing information, and evaluating progress. API also established an Internet web page as a tool for disseminating information necessary to convert petroleum industry computer systems.

Government and Industry. The President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion has provided a good forum for the many different sectors of the oil and gas industry to address Year 2000 issues. The council encouraged trade groups to reach out to their members to assess their state of readiness before 2000, reflecting the Administration's belief that the problem should be solved by companies, not the federal government.

API joined with other industry associations--including the Association of Oil Pipelines, the American Gas Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, the Natural Gas Supply Association, and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, along with many other groups--to sponsor a comprehensive study of the oil and gas industry's computer readiness for the year 2000. The Year 2000 assessment survey was coordinated with the Oil & Gas Working Group of the President's Council on Year 2000 Convergence. The Oil & Gas Working Group was chaired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and included the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety and the Departments of the Interior, Energy and Defense. The survey respondents represented 45% of U.S. oil and gas production, 78% of U.S. refining capacity, 70% of U.S. crude oil and refined product pipeline deliveries, and 43% of U.S. branded retail outlets (service stations).

As we reported when we presented the survey data to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on September 18, all respondents to the survey are confident that they will have resolved all highly critical computer problems by the time the new century arrives. We will repeat the survey each quarter between now and the year 2000, so we'll know if that assessment changes. Moreover, even if our current outlook proves to be overly optimistic, the pipeline industry is prepared. Our goal is to resolve all highly critical issues without compromising either the environment, the safety of our workers, or the communities surrounding our facilities.

Observations of Key Obstacles

As part of the survey, companies were asked to list the greatest obstacles the company would be facing in achieving Year 2000 readiness by December 31, 1999. The majority of the comments submitted by respondents and the challenges listed in assessing, addressing and correcting the Y2K problem can be categorized in three areas:

-- Vendor issues (i.e. concerns over software and system certification); -- Resources issues (i.e., lack of human resources, time, or funding); and -- Supply chain issues (i.e., whether customers or suppliers will be ready)

While a single company cannot address these three issues, we believe that overall preparedness can greatly be enhanced by the kinds of activities our associations have already taken along with the President's Council of Year 2000 Conversion. The integrated nature of each industry requires a cooperative approach. Companies have worked within their own trade associations to address the Y2K problem and in conjunction with the federal government. There is no advantage for an individual company, sector, or even industry to have resolved the problem when other companies, sectors, or industries have not.

Oil Industry Contingency Planning

Our preparations for the year 2000 are a natural extension of our industry's already extensive contingency planning. For example, oil and gas pipelines have long used sophisticated computer systems, many custom-built. For the most part, the people who design those systems are part of our regular staffs. So they have a vested interest in ensuring they run smoothly.

Our member companies use embedded processors for remote communications, monitoring, and control - devices commonly known as Remote Telemetry Units (RTUs) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). Since the late 1970s, we have also used embedded microprocessors to regulate oilfield production, the rates of flow in our pipelines, operate alarms, gauge the liquid levels in our systems, and in the "smart" sensors that track the pressure and temperature in our product flow systems.

The initial design and rollout of these devices was extremely conservative. We did not rely on date clocks for control and monitoring. We did not use magnetic storage for embedded processors. We did not use low cost - but relatively unreliable - dynamic RAM semiconductor memories.

Instead, our embedded processors were designed to operate in ambient industrial conditions. They were designed to validate control actions on several levels before execution. Battery backup ensures uninterrupted power flow. The software running our embedded processors is commonly known as "firmware" - meaning it is not easily defeated.

For some time now, we've been identifying and addressing potential problems with embedded processors and other computer systems. Our member companies are replacing equipment, rewriting computer programs, testing components of our systems, and developing contingency plans. We are testing rollover to the year 2000, leap years and accessing historical data. We are installing controls built around fail-safe components and strategies. We are evaluating the Year 2000 readiness of our customers and suppliers. Company contingency plans cover every area of operations from producing fields to refinery and pipeline operations to communications to security and emergency response procedures to environmental monitoring and control.

Petroleum companies have an enormous interest in maintaining safe and reliable service. We don't want oil industry operations shut down by events beyond our control. Our efforts to prepare for the year 2000 have been aimed at ensuring that shutdown will not occur and oil supplies will be available as needed.

Can we absolutely guarantee no problems? Of course we can't. No one knows the future and something can always go wrong. But it does mean we can deal with any problems, if and when they occur. Because we employ so many redundant control systems, the chances of a national oil system shutdown - due to a Y2K problem or anything else - are extremely small. Assuming it did, it is highly unlikely that oil would escape from any platform, pipeline, or oil tanker.

Assessment of Global Readiness

While major oil producers have made initial "on the ground" assessments of readiness within various host countries, additional information on the readiness of critical sectors within these countries is essential for contingency planning. The worst case for contingency planning could be evacuation of company personnel. This is a very undesirable scenario for oil companies, who are often considered to be "partners" by the host government, and who contribute to the basic infrastructure within the country.

Possible evacuation of company personnel, while a last resort, must be planned well in advance. Consequently, information on the readiness of key sectors within a given country is critical for an accurate assessment on which to base contingency planning. Key sectors include electric power, telecommunications, and transportation--including airports and ports.

API has joined together with government agencies to form an International Oil Coordination Council under the Oil & Gas Sector Working Group. The group met in early November with the purpose of exchanging information on efforts made by the industry and government and plan for efforts to assess Year 2000 readiness internationally. This International Council will focus on collecting information globally and creating a public scorecard of international readiness. Other related goals of the Council include:

-- expedite the gathering and flow of information; -- bring in as many sources of information as possible; -- take actions to minimize duplication of effort in data gathering; -- identify specific information gaps in other segments important to international oil; -- gather information regarding countries where roadblocks have been identified; and -- develop information which can provide a basis for the U.S. government to promote and facilitate actions by host countries.

Recommendations for Actions to be taken by Y2K National Coordinators:

Subject: Worldwide Year 2000 Coordinating Committee

Issue: The API member companies are looking for a mechanism that will assist them in understanding the Year 2000 readiness of key infrastructure areas in countries in which they operate. It is desired that a reporting scorecard be created that will summarize the Year 2000 readiness of each country's key infrastructure areas to include telecommunications, power generation, and transportation. It is believed that in order to properly oversee such a process, a Worldwide Year 2000 Coordinating Committee operating under the United Nations umbrella should be created to manage such a reporting process.

Action: Create a United Nations Year 2000 Coordinating Committee to oversee the implementation of a Year 2000 Health Check scorecard for all United Nations countries.

Recommended Forum for Action Step: United Nations Year 2000 Coordinating Committee."

This summation from IEA is based on "global" readiness. We in the United States have had far more resources to remediate our utilities, (time, money, and qualified technicians) and I believe this further supports my contention that:

THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO END

I still predict a 3

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

TM,

I am sure you have deeply held beliefs for your convictions. However, I believe we are supposed to refrain from using religious/spiritual arguments at TB2000. There are posters here from many different paths, and you are wandering into a subject that is based on "faith". It can not be debated, or even discussed unemotionally by some. We all have our own beliefs, so can we refrain from theological discussions please?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

FACT: Men and women have differences in their genes. Women have an "X" and men have an "XY" chromosome.

FACT: Genes encode proteins. About a third to half of these proteins are specific to the brain and nervous system.

FACT: based on studies of identical twins separated at birth, we inherit 50-75% of our personality.

Therefore, statistically speakig, if men and women have different genes expressed in their brains--regulated in different ways--men and women are going to behave a little differently ACCORDING TO THEIR NATURE.

Also a FACT: one of the most crucial aspects of the human brain is its adapatabilty and its reliance on learning (rather than instinct) for behavior. Because the learned personality is such a complex thing, it can often quite easily transcend biological positivism.

This makes comparative studies of male and female human brains a little difficult. Why? While neural anatomy shapes behavior, behavior also shapes neural anatomy. Simple "nature vs. nurture" arguments are truly naive because both co-exist in yin-yang relationship with one another, impossible to disentangle.

Nevertheless, studies of brains DO show that women have a bit more communication going on between their two hemispheres. Men have fewer connections between the two hemispheres. This is thought to give women a bit of an edge over men in intuition, but that it gives men a bit of an edge in the ability to completely zone in on one thing, in extreme concentration and hyperfocus.

Women and girls are more verbally fascile, learning to talk at an earlier age and speaking more words per day than men throughout life. Men tend to be slightly better at spacial skills. Women tend to use speech to figure out what the other person is _feeling_, and, perhaps, how these feelings can be of use to them in the future. Men tend to use speech more for information, only--and often grow tired of conversations in which nothing is "won" or "solved" after a limited amount of time.

Are there exceptions to these rules? Of course. But to deny either genes&biology or environment&culture on what makes men and women tick is completely bogus IMO. There will always be mystery between the two sexes, hence the beauty and hence the conflict.

-- coprolith (coprolith@fakemail.com), December 11, 1999.

Laure (ladylogic):

It appears to me that in all your writings (that I have seen at least) that you have never addressed how you feel the impact of a worldwide, simultaneous crunch of date-dependent embedded systems on 1/1/2000 would play into your overall assessment.

I find this very strange. Can you respond?

Thanks, Laura

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 11, 1999.

Wow,this thread is one of the best examples of ego-masturbation I've yet seen.Agree to disagree and wait out the next 20 days,then we'll know who's right and who's cold and hungry.I'm much less concerned about being right than I am being warm and fed.Judging from LL's remark about forum regulars raping and throwing people's cats in trees she's at best a demagogue and at worst a troll but she's definitely a waste of energy.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

Our Nature,

Isnt it conceivable that genes, biology, environment, and culture are far to complex in scope to comprehend, so we will never understand ourselves, therefore, we will never understand each other? I think we have to make a commitment to someone we "communicate/resonate" with, and enjoy and develop that relationship faithfully, intellectually, and pleasurably for a lifetime. Otherwise, life is merely a selfish exercise in narcissism and makes for a vacuous existence.

But, back to oil:

LINK

http://www.zdnet.com/zdy2k/1998/09/4723.html

September 18, 1998

" Consumer FAQ: Oil and Gasoline

By Mitch Ratcliffe - ZDY2K

Q: Will oil and gasoline continue to flow at reasonable prices?

A: It will flow, but the price may well rise."

I have only included the first sentence because I dont want to interrupt the beautiful onversation regarding nature and male/female relationships. Please follow the link if you would like to still discuss oil.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

Zoobie,

Please forgive me if that paragraph offended you. I have posted this explanation four times now, but, if you scrolled down quickly to get to the bottom, they would be easy to miss:

"In conclusion, the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges," etc.

I said, "PLANNING ON", and "IN Y2K FORUMS". That was intended as plural. This is not the only Y2K forum I have frequented. However, it was in this forum, that I read a post from a man who wanted directions on how to poison his well. I can't cite it, I read it, was repulsed by it, and moved on.

Zoobie, you are not the only one to read it that way. I still don't understand why it is so ambigious, but if 5(?) if you didn't understand it, I'm going to have to consider hiring an editor.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

Gawd, yes, by all means get an editor, LadyLogic. Your writings would appear to professional editors to be those of a self-impressed, precocious juvenile, massaging words with narcissistic arrogance.

Anyone who is as fatuously in love with their own communication as you seem to be desperately needs an editor to instill (or spin) some humanity and humility in the content.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), December 11, 1999.

LadyLogic,

I find it difficult to separate matters of faith from the issues that beset our society today. Faith in God is the core and center of my thinking and therefore shapes my perception and understanding of the topics at hand. You, on the other hand, may look at faith as if it were a evening gown...appropriate to put on for a dinner party, but never to be worn to work. Pity.

But just to show you I'm not completely incorrigible...I will really try to refrain for your sake.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), December 11, 1999.

Eve,

You asked me to address what I think will be "the impact of a worldwide, simultaneous crunch of date-dependent embedded systems on 1/1/2000"

As I think you know, I believe there are ~1.8 million critical embedded chips in the world. I find the key word there is "world". Now, since we are more computerized than any other country, lets posit a theory that one-third of those are in the US, which gives us 600,000, and that leaves 1,200,000 for the rest of the entire world.

In my opinion, the critical question is, "How many of those 600,000 here have been remediated." because that is what will have an immediate impact on our quality of life.

However, your question addresses a global perspective, and I am happy to discuss that with you also. I think there are countries that dont have even a fourth of their embeddeds remediated and that, of course, will diminish exports to this country substantially next year. However, oil is not one of the exports I am concerned with for a few reasons:

1) I believe Shell, Chevron, and the rest of the multi-national companies have spent many years, and a lot of money identifying and replacing those chips. Greed is the factor that keeps organizations viable, and I dont believe for a minute they would have forgotten to remediate chips that are critical to the continuation of their organizations. These are not small organizations Eve, they are among the most powerful on earth. I told you I thought Paul Oaves was telling the truth at the AMG meeting, and I meant it. I think these organizations have done everything they can to ensure a minimum of disruptions next year. However, I naive enough to believe they wont have any problems. There will be problems, and that is why I predict a 3 for a year.

2) I believe my uncle, we can use old technology to produce oil until other countries systems are up.

However, I think it is only prudent to prepare for assorted failures in other countries. Everything we import, that is not an American interest, is at high risk for a while . It is my understanding that we import two critical items from Russia: titanium and vodka. (Actually, vodka isnt critical, but we can certainly purchase it now and use it as a barter item next year) Out of curiosity, I asked Jeeves what other countries export, and discovered this:

China

Industries: iron and steel, coal, machine building, armaments, textiles and apparel, petroleum, cement, chemical fertilizers, footwear, toys, food processing, autos, consumer electronics, telecommunications

Russia

Industries: complete range of mining and extractive industries producing coal, oil, gas, chemicals, and metals; all forms of machine building from rolling mills to high-performance aircraft and space vehicles; shipbuilding; road and rail transportation equipment; communications equipment; agricultural machinery, tractors, and construction equipment; electric power generating and transmitting equipment; medical and scientific instruments; consumer durables, textiles, foodstuffs, handicrafts

Mexico

Industries: food and beverages, tobacco, chemicals, iron and steel, petroleum, mining, textiles, clothing, motor vehicles, consumer durables, tourism

UK

Industries: production machinery including machine tools, electric power equipment, automation equipment, railroad equipment, shipbuilding, aircraft, motor vehicles and parts, electronics and communications equipment, metals, chemicals, coal, petroleum, paper and paper products, food processing, textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods

US

Industries: leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining

Labor forceby occupation: managerial and professional 29.6%, technical, sales and administrative support 29.3%, services 13.6%, manufacturing, mining, transportation, and crafts 24.8%, farming, forestry, and fishing 2.7% (1998) note: figures exclude the unemployed

Japan

Industries: among world's largest and technologically advanced producers of steel and nonferrous metallurgy, heavy electrical equipment, construction and mining equipment, motor vehicles and parts, electronic and telecommunication equipment, machine tools, automated production systems, locomotives and railroad rolling stock, ships, chemicals; textiles, processed foods

Algeria (Africa)

Industries: petroleum, natural gas, light industries, mining, electrical, petrochemical, food processing

Eve, it looks to me like were capable of being self-sufficient. It is my bet that if we stockpile items that people are addicted to, we will weather theY2K fallout better than most. I think booze, cigarettes, and medications are the only things we cant mass produce fast enough to keep people happy next year.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

zoobie,

You stated,

"I'm much less concerned about being right than I am being warm and fed."

With all due respect, then, perhaps your time would be better spent in the prep forum. What are you doing here?

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 11, 1999.

By the way,

I filed this thread under "Awareness/General"

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

Laura,

Please, please, please read Leonard Read's short essay, "I, Pencil," about three times, meditate on its implications for a while in a closed room by yourself, and let me know when you're done. Then we'll continue with our discussion. Ok?

It's at http://209.195.183.242/about/ipencil.html

Talk to you soon,

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 11, 1999.

Well, I haven't checked in yet. I've been trying to ignore the terror and sex issues, and look at some of the "interesting" stuff posted here.

Some of it needs a closer look. I'll be back...

Tick... Tock... #231

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

Bump

-- Helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

Eve,why,I'm here for shits and giggles,of course.I pass the time here while at work.Why?Have you noticed anyone here changing positions?Or even attemting discourse?No,it's eveyone trying to prove they're right and the other camp is wrong.I love conflict resolution and for conflict,baby,this is the place.My hope is to convince those who are already prepping to purchase firearms,if only to defend themselves against roaming dog packs.The true poly's won't prep if only because of spite.I'd rather that those who are prepairing but choose not to consider how inhumane people can be during a crises reconsider that violence carries it's own logic and when you're broken and bleeding it's just too late.So pick up that shotgun at K-mart and load it with #4 buckshot.Won't be long now.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 11, 1999.

"Judging from LL's remark about forum regulars raping and throwing people's cats in trees..." -- zoobie

GAWD!!!!! And I get grief about asking women if they like to mudwrestle??????

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 11, 1999.

King of Spain,

"GAWD!!!!! And I get grief about asking women if they like to mudwrestle??????"

Your mudwrestling is admirable compared to some of the warped attitudes that exist in this forum. At least mudwrestling is an expression of love. (I am saying that symbolically, of course.)

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

zoobie,

I have a strong feeling that you should find out whether or not 'she' prefers her refried beans in the classic recipe, or the 'waif special' FUD-free version.

-- flora (***@__._), December 11, 1999.

Can someone please tell me what, "Its not the odds... its the stakes." means?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

The stakes of Y2K, which is essentially The World As We Know It, are obviously high. We depend on things like electricity, telecommunications, clean water, a global banking system, etc., which in turn largely depend on computer technology. The potential impact of Y2K problems places all these at risk. Everyone should agree with this.

The odds of Y2K problems actually being severe enough to cause significant problems for a significant period of time in one or more of these areas is where there is much disagreement. Some think that the odds are very low if not miniscule ("pollyannas"); some think that the odds are exceedingly high if not a "sure thing" ("doomers").

An argument for Y2K personal preparation is that one should prepare even if one believes that the odds are low, simply because the stakes are high. Especially since the actions taken to prepare can payoff later (e.g., whatever food is stockpiled can simply be eaten regardless of what happens in 2000).

20 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), December 11, 1999.

ROTFL! It can't get any better than this!

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

Thanks Jack!

I've been wondering what that meant since the first poster said it. Now I'm wondering, what part of Y2K do you think can't be fixed? (By the way, I love the way you make those letters flash.)

LBO,

Stick around it does get better, it will get a LOT better.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE END OF THE WORLD.

Eve,

I haven't forgotten you, your answer is just taking a little time to write up. (That wasn't an easy question you asked you know?) I should have it for you some time tomorrow.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 11, 1999.

Ken said: "Having watched a television program, Gregg, leaves you a bit short of a doctorate in the area. While we are biological beings, "logic" is not hard wired into men, nor "emotion" into women. It's a teensy bit more complex. And culture has a HUGE amount to do with gender roles, as you would learn in any kind of comparative cultural anthropology class. If biologoy had "EVERYTHING" to do with it, gender roles would be remarkably similar across cultures.

The real irony here is that you and Patrick are making my argument. Your approach to resolving this problem is more emotional than logical. (chuckle) "

Ken, why are you using a typical, topic obfuscating technique? I expect better from you. Trying to associate yourself with various fields of human behavioral sciences makes your opinion no less flawed.

1. I never said logic was "hard-wired" into Men, nor emotion " hard-wired" into women.

2. I never claimed to have a doctorate in anything.

3. Gender roles, have little if nothing to do with what Patrick was saying.

First off, there is no problem to resolve. Biology has to do with what the NATURE of a Man or Woman is. Gender roles, are by definition, a ROLE one gender plays in the family, group, society. This role could be played by a logical person, or an emotional person. Wheather the person is logical or emotional has nothing to do with the "role" they play per their situation, although it may effect the effectiveness of their role.

For example, the family unit might survive better if a logical person had the role of making a decision about something, but maybe not. Maybe the "illogical" choice would ulitmately have been better. Who cares????

Trying to take the conversation down this road, is like LL never addressing R.C.'s questions and posts on Oil.

The point was simply, that in Patrick's experience, logic was not one of the strong points, of women he knew. You also avoided my statement, that if you've dated more than one woman, you know what Patrick was saying. Should we assume that you've dated only one woman, or none?

Perhaps this inability of yours, to address the point at hand, without veering of track and trying to muddle up the issue, is because YOU are one of these exceptions you are trying to point out exist, for logic certainly isn't hard-wired in you.

And feel free to point out how my "approach to resolving this problem is more emotional than logical", rather than you just getting in a one-liner.

By the way, I don't mind being emotional at all. And the real point of this whole deal is, was, and still will be - LL is a nutfarm.

Continuing on, LadyIllogic's recent statement about their being only 1.8 million embeddeds is again, proof of the goof. I was on the thread when the math that arrived at the figure was calculated. It goes like this:

The figure of 60 Trillion chips worldwide was used. Assume only 3% have date related failures. 60 Trillion x 3% = 1.8 Trillion Failures. If only ONE PERCENT of those failures are in mission critical systems, then that's 1,800,000,000 (that's right - 1.8 Trillion) MISSION CRITICAL FAILURES.

Lady Illogic thinks there are only 1.8 million critical embedded chips in the world.

Proof of the goof.

Eve, you probably think I'm a cretan(sp?) by now. Oh well. My monitor landed in a Chevron station restroom.

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 11, 1999.

>>Stick around it does get better, it will get a LOT better. <<

Lady,

Elbow Grease has been around here for quite a while. He was commenting on the general weirdness of the forum these days, and of this thread in particular.

>>IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE END OF THE WORLD. <<

Well, you needn't shout, but you're certainly right; it's not going to be the end of the world... but who told you it would be, and why do you take the idiot seriously? But *some* folks may suffer severely.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Gregg,

Slow down, please. I don't know where you found the figure 60 trillion; no one to my knowledge ever said there are that many. I was given the number 60 billion by Mr. Oaves (P.) at the AMG meeting. Here is the excerpt:

"Michael Laura, there are sixty billion embedded chips in the world, of that, the number that we expect, like 3%

L. are critical. I know.

M. Thats number 1. Number 2: Of that theres only 1/10th of 1% that will have any problems. Youre talking about an infinitesimal amount.(ia) SRP (local electric company) went through their entire system, from stem to stern, they did not find one embedded chip (problem? Inaudible). OK. My guess is, that most of that are not time and date driven. (ia)

L. Well, actually, I do have some sources that say that they are.

M. Well, Im sure you can find a source for everything.

P. (ia) I will stand behind that statement by the American Petroleum (ia)."

I was told there are 60 billion embeddeds at that meeting, and no one here has ever has ever disputed that figure. If it is higher, I would love to see a source. Gregg, it's not going to be that bad, honest! Just prepare the best you can without going into debt. You can't lose that way buddy!

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Gregg,

Even though I may not agree with some of your ideas about women, overall you really seem like a sweet guy.

By the way, I'm trying to drop out of the sexism debate because I'd like to see things get back on track.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 12, 1999.

I expect that one's attitude toward y2k parrallel one's faith in the corporate establishment.If one tends to see American business as being able to rise to any challenge then the idea of a design flaw bringing down the wonderful world of laptops,mcdonalds,and shopping malls,the wonderful world that takes care of us and helps us make our decisions with clever commercials and attractive glossy print is quite offensive and not a little terifying.To those who find the corporate business structure to be an expoitative establishment that encourages sycophants to slime their way to their highest potential of incompetance,well,that type of person is more likely to notice the bureaucratic dilbert like inefficiency and the inconvienent historical fact that large scale computer projects are almost always late,understaffed,underbudgeted,underestimated,and often canceled due to lack of progress.Add to that a lack of adequate testing time and you have someone who will probably not be convinced that corporations are on top of it regardless of how many unverified self-reported happy face reports they are force fed.With 19 days left, most y2k opinions have long since ossified into intractability.After a year and a half of trying to convince those around me to make the basic common sence preparations the red cross tells us we should always have on hand and being treated like a pariah for it,I'm counting down the last few days with a mixture of ennui and morbid excitement that the uncertianty will soon end and I can return to living in the now.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 12, 1999.

zoobie,

Good points!

Laura (ladylogic),

Please read this one about ten times, meditate on it for an hour, take a nap, then ten more.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 12, 1999.

Remedial Math 101

60 Billion x 0.03 = 1.8 Billion

1.8 Billion x 0.01 = 18 Million

However, these numbers are in hot dispute. The new admissions from Kosky and NIST suggest the failure rate could be 1 or 2 orders of magnitude higher than this. That is: somewhere between 180 Million and 1.8 Billion critical failures in embedded systems. We shall soon see.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

I told you the news would get better!

As Diane reported last night, there are several countries (Britain,

Australia, Israel, South Africa, and we could probably include the

U.S. in that category, right?) well-prepared for the roll over now:

LINK

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/1999/12/1 1/international1557EST0588.DTL/

phototonboy,

You need to get a new calculator son, the answer is:

One, point, eight million.

Are there nothing but extremists and imbeciles in this chatroom? I'm honestly beginning to believe I'm wasting my time. Can anyone here even begin to comprehend what Im trying to convey?

Eve,

I am still working on my response to I, Pencil. Please realize that what you are asking for is an explanation of the dependencies and interdependencies of society, and how Y2K will affect that. I don't think a harder question has ever been asked of me, but I'm more than willing to show you.

However, it is going to take a little longer than I thought. I have two more posts to write up, and then I have to go apologize to my family and friends. (God, that is going to be embarrassing.) If you want to stick around for a few days, I'll explain it to you later.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Sorry, the link is:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/1999/12/1 1/international1557EST0588.DTL

LINK

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Well, since that just won't work, we can do this another way:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001z8w

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Laura,

That's ok; take your time.

-- eve (123@4567.com), December 12, 1999.

Laura,so have you made any preparations at all for the many many levels of possible disruption that fall beneath the end of the world (the destruction of the planet??)like,oh,a bag of rice and a water bottle? It seems that various disruptions of one's lifestyle is much more likely than apocolypse.Or are you taking more of a Charles P.Ruben version of logic?

-- mike (mike@wal-mart.com), December 12, 1999.

Mike,

Of course, I have made preparations. I am logical! I have purchased enough preps to take care of me and my brother's family ~3 months. I have also learned water purification methods, I have built several solar ovens, and I have researched and eaten native edible plants. However, If I had it to do over again, I would only purchase one months worth of food.

Mike, I am not suggesting that people shouldn't prepare or stop studying survival methods. We can always eat our preps, and survival knowledge will give us a secure foundation that will last us for the rest of our lives. I am just trying to present my epistemology that Y2K is going to be a 3. By doing this, new people who stumble into TB2000 will understand that there are differing opinions regarding the severity of Y2K. I am merely spending my time, trying to convey to people WHY I think it will be a 3.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

Example #1

LINK

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

"The problem with tolerating polly's is that by the end of January they will be demanding that the government find our supplies and distribute them to the masses, And them we have to kill them".

( goldbug (goldbug@mint.com), December 12, 1999."

I am including this to illustrate my last paragraph, "'When I said, "the only thing Im going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on"... I wasn't referring to ALL forum members, just those PLANNING ON doing despicable things.

FM, I don't know where those posts are. They've come and gone in this forum and others. I just assumed other people had read them too. But, I can promise you, if you hang around for a while, they will show up again. At least they have repeatedly for the last 4 months that I've been online. '

Of course, this is colleague's statement is preposterous, but it demonstrates another one of the warped attitudes that exists among Y2K forum members.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

"Lady",

It's of dubious distinction, but kudos for being perhaps the most effective troll ever.

You must be very proud.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), December 12, 1999.

Ah, the glories of it all -

Several points, several directions in this thread.

---

My dear Ladyluck46 -

One. You expressed disgust and irritation at thefact he mentioned poisoning the well, and turned off the thread - stopped reading. If you understood the question - he said he feared the government or robbers/thieves attacking his family, and wanted to know how he could DISCOURAGE such attacks by removing the visible "attraction" for such attacks from his property.

HE WAS PLANNING ON DESTROYING HIS OWN PROPERTY TO PREVENT ATTACKS ON HIS FAMILY. Why did he fear attacks on his family, on his property?

BECAUSE HE FEARED THE GOVERNMENT (the police, the local sheriif) WOULD HAVE LOST CONTROL OVER THE CRIMINALS......Now. Does this sound like somebody who would attack and destroy the very things he is worried about losing? About attacking the governmetn that might protect him AGAIST anarchy and criminals?

Exactly the opposite - unless you WANT to spread rumors about y2k extremeists - which is what the SPLC and ADL want to do. And what the FBI/ATF etc apparently want to do.

Does our disgust with the statement you made now make sense....

....

To contiunue: You mentioned that the guy who was asking about/planning to poisen his well - as an example of sabotague, and thus a reason to fear "people in y2k forums as terroists" - is wrong in several ways.

But the fact that is factually wrong, is itself telling and important. The single biggest fear of the whole y2k-induced situations is the control of the federal government by extremists in the midst of of true national emergency. You've seen what the federal governmetn did in the forties to the Japanese citizens living in the west coast after Pearl Harbor. they were confined for years in concentration camps by the government - for no reason except the governmetn's fears of sabotage. They were left there for years.

Thus, there is historical and current evidence that the so-called plots against those preparing are correct at the federal levels.

Two.

The country can - and will eventually - recover from the economic impact of any y2k-failures, because there will be a positive "ecominc push" to produce goods and services to supply hte people who can pay. In turn, those goods and services create a demand for more goods and services, and the people providing the labor and the material create the jobs.

Look only at oil: the impact is not that we do/do not have enough oil internally to support the US for x number of days. The fact is: right now, we absolutely cannot be self-sustaining in oil. Therefore, any impact in delivery - other than what is inplce right now - will have a substantial and lasting effect in the economy. A bad impact.

The ripple efect is wrong - it will more likely be a tidal wave that destroys much of we now regard as normal. However, as costs rise, as time goes by, as people and refineries and pipelines recover, - most important - as the industry has time to open wells, to restart refineries, to "make do" with less efficient methods of manual control - if they can - then more oil will get produced.

It's the market stupid - people want oil, and will pay to get it. Therefore, people will find a way to get it - at a higher price, and at lower delvery rates perhaps, but it will eventually recover.

NOTE: the highly favorable IEA/API report you quoted was entirely self-reported for less than half the industry in the US only, and reflected "what was expected" - NOT WAS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE. Internationally, the "IEA will make up losses" promises are foolish - the only losses will be from causes that NOBODY can "makeup" - until the systems are fixed.

And only now are we getting "statements" that previously non-compliant whole countries are suddenly "okay"....sounds funny, doesn't it?

Three. Social and Government Interactions.

The problem is the delay (the recession or depression) that is likely as today's economy recovers - a recovery which appears fundementally flawed in such crucial areas as the stock market being overvalued by endless specualtion and a "push" from investment of retirement and insurance money. Recovery is certain - but recovery will take time, and today's society demands instant gratification and instant (constant) bread and cicuses from the media and the government. This type of society is NOT one to breed slow substantial recovery, but rather is one of extrme reaction quickly - of looting and riotign as soon as possible by the crowds - as witnessed at LA and in Seattle.

ALSO of unrestrained extreme reactions by the authorities - as at Seattle. Martial law, confiscation of private property previously legal, and curfews were immediately declared.

We have seen a concentrated - and deliberate - and successful - attempt to portary ay degree of preparations as extremist, right-wing, gun-toting terrorist activities - carried out by religious fundenentalist wacko's hiding behind locked doors in bunkers out west, armed hoarders attacking.....and these are just the FBI's own quotes. Never mind what the rest of the media is endlessly repeating.....

The point to be so strongly emphasized: because it wraps several problems with potential year 200 troubles together - is the economy that will be affected by companies unprepared for y2k disruptions.

The US/UK/Canadian/NZ/OZ companies, ironically, are on average, best prepared for y2k because they are finacially impacted. But look at the monpolies: especially overseas and in governmetn situations: there is no accountablitlity, there is a reason to lie, and no reason to tell to tell the truth.

Lies have been proven effective - when backed by the news media. There is no penalty for not telling the truth, and no evidence of failure to prepare. For governments (here especially today's national government) there is ample reason to get more people affected disasterously by year 2000 events - and so be driven to see the federal governmentas a shield and protector, while alienating those who disagree and posing them as extremeists.

It fits the agenda of the socialists in power.

And this fits the campaign now underway from Washington and the national media.

---

Economic impact - How will a stock market that failed to predict IBM's losses in October - and dropped immediately, but then jumped hundreds of points over ONE MONTH of good news in jobless rates in one day, how will that market respnd to "it might take a month to get production back up...."expect shortages for 6 months.....expect gas prices to go to 2.50 or 4.00 per gallon." After all - prices went up by 4 times with a loss of only 20% in delveries in the 70's.....and now, deliveries could stop all together.

The ONLY thing telling us that things are okay is the government ....

---...---...---

Seriously - how will a society that tunes into physic help lines, watches "pro wrestling" and endless cable sex shows respond to cold, hunger, darkness, and lack of police protection of the innocent?

Will there be enough time to restart wells?

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 12, 1999.

The "Doomers" are losing. . .

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0019PA

-- The ("Doomers"@re.losing), December 12, 1999.

.... just re-read the API report above: it has enough hole to drive an oil tanker through, if you dare read it carefully; but it deserves it's own thread and a chance for your comments and rebuttals independent of the illogic/logic arguements among primates.

Include the date-time group the API wrote this PR story, and the quarterly reports they promised......

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 12, 1999.

"We'll be done with everything by 12/31/98 with a full year for testing!...o.k.,we'll be done with all the mission critical systems by 12/31/98 with a full year for testing!...o.k. we'll be done by 4/1/99...ok,we'll be done by 7/1/99!Er,make that 10/1/99!...Oh don't worry my Uncle and daddy say we have enough oil to last for 40 years! So it must be true!I'm logical!I love AOL!Can I hear an amen to that!

-- apokoliptik (apokoliptik@yahoo.com), December 12, 1999.

I've been avoiding adding to this L O N G thread, waiting in hope that some true analysis would appear in its content. Alas, so far I have seen a few valiant individuals post some very worthy points, but their voices appear to be squelched in the din. So now I add to their chorus, praying that the addition will raise awareness above the ongoing cacophany.

First point - The End of the World:

This world is NOT going to end anytime in anyone's current lifetime. A simple bit of arithmetic will provide a clue. Locate an "H-R Chart" of main sequence stellar characteristics. Reference within that the mean expected lifespan of a class M-3 star. Sol, our sun is a member of that classification. In doing so, one finds that the mean lifespan is approximately 10 to 15 Billion years. Next locate a reference that indicates the current accepted age of Sol. One will locate a value of approximately 4 to 6 Billion years.

First Point conclusion - Until Sol enters its expansion phase of the exit off of the main sequence, 4 to 11 Billion years from now this planet will continue to exist as a recognizable planetary body, irregardless of the outcomes of what exists on its surface.

math notes: Min time remaining = Min expected lifespan - Max accept current age Max time remaining = Max expected lifespan - Min accepted current age

Second Point - "The End Of The World As We KNOW It":

Each night as we enter into our sleep, our world as we knew it ceased to be. On that day, new discoveries were made in all fields of knowledge, new inventions were created - the knowledge changed, a new chapter begun ... The End Of The World As We (collected humanity) Know It has as occured.

On an individual and personal basis - things changed as well ... children were born; loved ones died; academic, employment, marital, lifestyle, etc. conditions began, changed, or ended. Successes and Failures occur - Triumphs and Tragedies occur. Each of these brought with it ... The End Of The World As We (personally) Know It happened righ before our very own eyes!

Second Point Conclusion - TEOFTWAWKI is a continous, ongoing event.

Third Point - Y2K Bug:

Y2K is NOT an event, it is a process. Much as we cumulatively refer to the accumulation of all the organic and inorganic chemical processes, pertubations, and interdependencies as LIFE, the myriad of proceses, pertubations, interdependencies and effects of the date dependency errors imposed by the truncation of the 4 digit year information into a 2 digit format are cumulatively referred to as the Y2K bug.

Intrinsic to any advance is the inherent presence of errors, mistakes, foibles, and occasionally sheer folly. These are the foundation upon which further advance is predicated. No sinister influence need be imposed - they are naturally occurring.

Third Point Conclusions - The Y2K bug is a logical outcome of a digital systems technological advance, no hidden agendas need be explored.

Fourth Point - Conspiracies and Hidden Agendas:

Human nature being what it is, the presence of conspiracies and hidden agendas are to be expected and can not be denied. ALL living organisms seek control of its own environment. The higher the level of that organism, the wider that environment extends, and the more inclusive other organisms and structures tend to be. Humans, arguably being at the top of the organism chart, are driven to gain power and control over everything. Many have demonstrated the ability to deflect that drive into more noble actions, philosophies, and motives. Unfortunately, their number is a relatively small percentage of humans.

It should thus suprise no one that these conspiracies and hidden agendas exist. Those that deny them are invariably, yet perhaps subconsciously, engaging in this process themselves. One of the most unfortunate consequences of this behavior is the creation of a self-limited paradigm, one in which their ability to act (either proactively or reactively) is severely diminished due to insufficient factual data or self-deflected awareness and/or comprehension.

There are many, including myself, on this forum who have exposed, or at least attempted to expose, to the awareness of all of the rest on this forum, a few ongoing conspiracies and/or hidden agendas which MAY have an influence on THEIR lives. This has been met with instant acceptance and agreement by some; automatic denial and derision by others; the vast majority, mute in comment, are most likely somewhere in between.

Fourth Point Conclusion - The veracity of any alleged conspiracy and/or hidden agenda SHOULD be questioned. Research is essential. Correlation and analysis is critical. But to either automatical concur or dismiss the existence of one out of hand is foolhardy at best, and potentially dangerous to life and limb at worst.

Final Conclusions:

Y2K IS going to be create a myriad of problems. It will NOT cause the end of the world. It is just another factor in the continuous process called TEOFTWAWKI. Y2K is the logical outcome of the technologies involved and the widespread implementation of that technology. Conspiracies and hidden agendas do not have to be invoked to explain it, though they abound in multitude, and many WILL play out (using Y2K as an excuse).

All this having been said ... the reasonable and prudent course is to assume anything MAY occur, dismiss nothing, and prepare accordingly. As promulgated by the Boy Scouts - BE PREPARED! Human society is inherently a VERY unstable environment. Continous change is the only constant. To those that are prepared, a 1000 on the 'y2k scale' will be a BITR, a mere anoyance. To those who are unprepared, anything more significant than what is ongoing in their current daily lives shall be catastrophic..

Please take this post in the spirit it was offered. An attempt to bring clarity and balance to a murky and teetering situation.

As always, I am humbly ...

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 12, 1999.

Hiding in Plain Sight,

Withstanding your use of "irregardless" I find you the best writer, with the best vocabulary in all of the forums I have ever visited. Your post was awe-inspiring, and will go down in history.

If I understood you correctly, in a nutshell, you said in the most beautiful voice I've ever heard, "The world is not going to end, but be prepared for an emergency regardless of the circumstances."

Brillant, absolutely brilliant. However, I would like to add one caveat - do not mortgage your future, your family, and your soul, to prepare for Y2K. You will have to live in your community and hopefully retain a modicum of respect long after the bug is dead.

Do you write professionally?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 12, 1999.

LL -

Thank you for the compliments. But admit my point was not to invoke awe or to inspire, but rather as a means to invoke critical thinking on the part of the participants of this thread in specific and this forum in general.

To answer your last question - yes.

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 12, 1999.

BTW: Just so there is no misunderstanding. Based upon almost 20 years of my own personal experience, first-hand knowledge, and in-depth, detailed research (both professional and personal) - and accumulating all of the data I have on hand regarding all probable events with a high degree of likelihood of occurrance over the next 24 months - my personal prognosis is:

praying for a 10 .... expecting a 100 .... prepping for a 1000.

(my thanks to the originator for the format ... :-)

To which I add a disclaimer - as they say - Your mileage may vary!

Added note: My personal current situational analysis:

Everyday Life: 2 Y2K Influences: 2 Vested Interest Manipulation: 3

Current Situation Rating: 7

-- hiding in plain (sight@edge. of no-where), December 12, 1999.

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

Link

INVESTIGATING THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM: THE 100 DAY REPORT SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What will happen when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, 1999? A single, specific answer to that question is still unknown (and, ultimately, unknowable) but the extensive information developed by the Committee and outlined in this report provides an understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the problems that may occur.

There is currently widespread awareness that Y2K involves more than the failure of an individual's personal computer, or an incorrect date in a spreadsheet. Potential Y2K problems increase exponentially upon examination of the multiple layers of computer systems, networks and technologies supporting individuals' everyday lives. It is now widely understood that Y2K could affect the lives of individuals, but exactly in what manner is unknown.

Inherent uncertainty in the outcome of Y2K fuels public concern and makes preparation difficult. Sensationalists continue to fuel rumors of massive Y2K failures and government conspiracies, while some corporations and nations concerned about their image downplay real Y2K problems. The Committee finds that both extremes are counterproductive, and do not accurately reflect what typifies most Y2K problems. The true extent of Y2K failures will match neither the most optimistic nor the most apocalyptic predictions. Rather, Y2K problems will hit sporadically, based on geography, size of organization, and level of preparedness, and will cause more inconveniences than tragedies.

While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly.

In the past 14 months, companies and nations, large and small, have taken the Y2K problem seriously. The increase in worldwide public awareness, remediation, and contingency planning since the Committee's February 1999 report, "Investigating the Impact of the Year 2000 Problem," has been remarkable. However, the Committee's hearings, interviews, and research reveal that many organizations and industries remain unprepared. The Y2K problem still has the potential to be very disruptive, necessitating continued, intensive preparation in the time remaining. Y2K risk management efforts must be increased to avert serious disruptions.

While the Committee has become increasingly confident about U. S. Y2K preparedness, it has become increasingly concerned about international Y2K preparedness. Some of our important trading partners are months behind in addressing the Y2K problem and are not likely to avoid significant disruptions. These disruptions could have adverse economic effects here at home and, in some developing countries, result in requests for humanitarian assistance.

OVERALL OBSERVATIONS

Sectors critical to the safety and wellbeing of Americans, as well as to the economy, have made significant progress in the last eight months; concerns remain in health care, local governments, small business, and education.

Most physicians' offices, many innercity and small rural hospitals, and numerous nursing homes have not fully addressed the Y2K problem. In general, larger firms have grasped how a Y2K failure could severely impact their businesses and are taking steps to remedy the problem. Unfortunately, nearly half of smalland mediumsized businesses across all sectors are taking a waitandsee approach to Y2K.

Many local governments and some public safety answering points used to process 911 calls remain at risk of Y2K disruptions; as of June 1999, only 37% points were compliant. Most school districts, colleges, and universities are not prepared; surveys this summer indicate that less than onethird were Y2K ready.

Many projected Y2K readiness deadlines are dangerously late.

Heightened concern exists with regard to organizations and industries that project readiness dates in the last quarter of 1999. For example, approximately 500 of the 8,000 oil and gas companiesand 30 of the 103 nuclear power plantsproject completion dates after September 30, 1999. Original completion dates were planned in the first quarter to allow plenty of time to complete endtoend testing and to address unexpected anomalies. However, these projected completion dates continue to be deferred. Organizations with late completion dates are not leaving sufficient time to address unexpected problems, which also heightens the importance of adequate contingency planning.

Pandemic selfreporting may result in overly optimistic Y2K projections.

Selfreporting, which is analogous to letting students grade their own tests, offers data of varying reliability. Nonetheless, selfreporting has become the standard in private industry and government, both domestically and internationally. Since its last report, the Committee has seen a trend toward greater use of independent verification, but selfreported surveys are still the most widely utilized tools to measure Y2K readiness and predict success. Y2K disclosures remain inadequate.

The Year 2000 Information Readiness and Disclosure Act (Public Law No. 105271) provided a basic level of protection for Y2K statements made in good faith. The CRASH Protection Act of 1997 (S. 1518, 105 th Congress) pressured the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to require more meaningful Y2K corporate disclosure to shareholders. Despite the SEC rule requiring Y2K disclosure by public corporations, companies are reluctant to report compliance levels, for fear of litigation or ceding competitive advantage. In August 1999, the SEC fined nine investment entities for failure to adequately disclose Y2K readiness information.

National emergency planning for Y2Krelated failures is evolving.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) continues to refine plans to handle Y2Krelated emergencies. However, state and local governments represent the first line of defense in emergency situations, and emergency planning varies widely at these levels.

In addition, organizations are charged with the responsibility of developing adequate contingency plans in the event that Y2Krelated disruptions do occur. Some sectors have achieved greater progress in this regard than others.

Finally, the Administration plans to develop a Y2K Information Coordination Center (ICC) to monitor and address Y2K problems nationwide. It is unclear how the ICC will function, since participation and reporting details essential to its viability and effectiveness are as yet undetermined.

The international Y2K picture is more disturbing. The Y2K preparations in many countries of economic and strategic importance to the U. S. are inadequate. Of greatest concern are Russia, China, Italy, and several oilproducing countries. The Y2K problem has highlighted the economic interdependence of nations. A significant potential exists for the Y2Kinduced problems of other nations to wash up on our shoreswhether in the form of recession, lost jobs, or requests for international assistance.

The Y2K problem highlights cyber vulnerabilities.

Study of the Y2K issue has heightened awareness of vulnerabilities in America's hightech infrastructure. Millions of lines of computer code have been sent overseas for Y2K repair. This creates the possibility that those wishing to commit acts of terrorism or political and corporate espionage could use "trap doors" or "logic bombs".

In the current information age, attacks on American defense and industrial facilities in cyberspace are as real and dangerous as conventional threats to economic prosperity and national security. The Committee recommends the development of a national policy to protect private industry's hightech infrastructure and safeguard the federal government's ability to meet the defense challenges of the next millennium.

SECTOR ASSESSMENTS

Since its establishment in April 1998, the Committee has held nearly 30 hearings, received testimony from more than 150 witnesses, written numerous letters, participated in forums and working group meetings, held multiple "town hall" meetings, and talked to hundreds of experts. Shortly after its inception, the Committee set forth the following critical sectors for study, listed in order of their importance:

7 Utilities 7 Healthcare 7 Telecommunications 7 Transportation 7 Financial Services 7 General Government 7 General Business 7 Litigation

To these original eight sectors, the Committee has added the sectors of international preparedness and personal preparedness. A summary of the Committee's assessments, expectations, and concerns in each of these sectors follows.

The Committee's ratings of these sectors are provided in the table on page 9. The ratings are based on five risk factors preparedness status, data quality, public disclosure, contingency planning, and dependencies.

UTILITIES A prolonged, nationwide blackout will almost certainly not occur; that is, the power grid will work. However,

local and regional outages remain a distinct possibility depending upon the readiness of the 3,000 utilities serving any given area. Further clouding accurate assessment, only 25% of electric utilities routinely disclose Y2K information to the public, making it difficult for individuals and organizations to get detailed information on "their" utilities. While bulk power producers, including nuclear facilities, are generally well prepared, they still must develop comprehensive contingency plans to prepare for unexpected problems.

Oil and gas companies have made notable advances since the Committee's last report, but continued progress remains essential. Nearly 500 companies do not plan to complete repairs until late 1999, which makes disruption possible for some domestic oil and gas billing, production, transportation, and distribution. In addition, the likelihood of disruption in oil imports is high due to the lack of preparedness in key oilproducing countries. Disruptions could ultimately affect gas prices and availability.

The enormous scope and variation in the use of technology in the water industry makes it difficult to generalize. However, our assessment of the water industry is generally positive. The Environmental Protection Agency and professional associations have waged a very aggressive readiness campaign. On the other hand, while a recent survey on the readiness of wastewater facilities expressed a high degree of confidence, it also indicate that much work remains to be done to ensure readiness. A joint study conducted by the major water treatment associations concluded that, while isolated malfunctions in equipment could occur, interruptions in service should be limited in scale and of short duration.

HEALTHCARE

Y2K compliance is mixed in the healthcare industry, which is characterized by extensive decentralization of operations. Some segments, such as pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesaling and distribution, and largescale hospitals, have invested the managerial and financial resources to remediate and test for most Y2K problems. Conversely, rural and inner city hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians' offices have particularly high Y2K risk exposure due to limited technical/ managerial resources and lack of awareness. The Committee remains concerned about the hundreds of different types of electronic biomedical devices used by all healthcare providers. Most in the medical device industry have identified the Y2K compliance of their products, but endtoend testing within a facility has not been the norm. The difficulty in testing and limited resources available for replacement of devices at some institutions contributes to the Committee's concern and raises serious patient safety questions.

Healthcare is the nation's single largest industry, generating $1.5 trillion annually. The U. S. has 6,000 hospitals, 800,000 doctors in 50,000 offices, and 16,000 nursing homes, as well as 2,000 biomedical equipment manufacturers and numerous

healthcare insurers in the public (Medicare/ Medicaid) and private sectors. All of these entities are highly automated and, thus are highly exposed to Y2K risk. On a positive note, the Health Care Financing Administration, the federal agency that oversees Medicare payments, has made a nationwide effort to ensure that its health claims payments system is Y2K compliant.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

The telecommunications industry has spent billions of dollars on Y2K fixes and, in August 1999, reported that 98% of the industry was ready. As a result, carriers project minimal service disruptions domestically. Internationally, however, there could be problems in completing calls to some highrisk countries. International telecommunications carriers are working to develop an international early warning system to share Y2K information.

Still, unpredictable infrastructure failures, sudden changes in consumer behavior, or customer premise equipment and private network problems could adversely impact telecommunications. Increased call volume and ad hoc "testing" could congest networks and erode stability. Full interoperability between compliant and noncompliant elements and their impact on the public switched network remains unknown. The lagging Y2K readiness of small and mediumsized domestic carriers could impact services in rural communities.

Finally, there has been no attempt to assess whether the rush to implement Y2K fixes on a global scale will having a lingering impact on the stability of global communications networks over the next year.

The Committee remains concerned about customer premise equipment the telephone equipment used to route calls within most businesses. Failed customer premise equipment could have a severe impact on business operations if not adequately addressed.

TRANSPORTATION

Transportation is the linchpin for justintime inventory management across almost every business sector, from healthcare supplies to food.

The Federal Aviation Administration has successfully completed its effort to make the nation's air traffic control systems ready. Notwithstanding this considerable progress, it appears that some of the nation's 670 domestic airports remain at risk in areas such as jetway security systems and runway lighting. It is likely there will be disruptions resulting in delays at some U. S. airports. The situation with international air traffic control and airports is much more worrisome.

The maritime shipping industry has not moved aggressively toward compliance, leading to the likelihood of disruptions in global trade.

Many public transit systems have also failed to aggressively address the Y2K problem, which makes service disruptions likely for some transit systems. Most transit authorities plan to suspend bus and railcar operations for a brief period around midnight on December 31, 1999, as a safety precaution.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The financial services sector in the U. S. will be prepared for the millennium date change. Automatic teller machines are expected to function correctly, and banks should have adequate cash to meet consumer demand, based on a Federal Reserve estimate that each American household will withdraw an average of $500. Federal regulators have made considerable progress in tracking compliance among banks, thrifts, and credit unions, 99% of which have received satisfactory government ratings. Regulators are encouraging financial institutions to communicate their preparedness to customers in order to reduce the potential for panic.

The securities industry has responded well to its internal Y2K issues and has undertaken expansive testing. However, fund managers and brokers have only recently started to consider the implication of corporate Y2K vulnerability on investment decisions.

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

The federal government will spend in excess of $8 billion on Y2K. Wholesale failure of federal government services is not likely to occur. In addition, FEMA is now engaged in national emergency planning in the event of major and minor Y2K disruptions. State and local government preparedness remains a concern for the Committee. There is wide variation in the Y2K readiness of the nation's 50 states, 3,066 counties, and 87,000 local jurisdictions. Several states and many local governments lag in Y2K remediation, raising the risk of service disruption. For example, approximately 10 states are not prepared to deliver such critical services as unemployment insurance and other benefit payments. Surveys indicate that 65% of state critical systems were ready as of May 1999, and only 25% of counties reported being ready as of June 1999. Of greatest concern at the local level is the readiness of the 911 Public Safety Answering Points, and the ability to provide adequate response in the face of a potential increase in demand for service due to Y2K problems.

GENERAL BUSINESS

In general, large companies with greater resources have dealt well with the Y2K problem. Very small businesses may survive using manual processes until Y2K problems are remediated. However, many smalland mediumsized businesses are extremely unprepared for Y2K disruptions. One survey shows that 28% of small businesses do not plan to take any action.

The heavilyregulated insurance, investment services, and banking industries are farthest ahead in their efforts; healthcare, oil, education, agriculture, farming, food processing, and the construction industries are lagging behind. The cost to regain lost operational capability for any missioncritical failure will range from $20,000 to $3.5 million, with an av erage of 315 days necessary to regain lost functions.

LITIGATION

The prospect of litigation arising from Y2Krelated failures has overshadowed the Committee's information gathering from its inception. Early estimates placed litigation costs as high as $1 trillion. Along with the Senate Committees on Commerce and the Judiciary, the Committee held a hearing to examine the potential Y2K litigation explosion, and assisted in the drafting of legislation to address the issue. Senator Dodd played a key role in the passage and enactment of the Y2K Act (Public Law No. 10637), which is intended to encourage remediation of Y2K problems instead of litigation.

INTERNATIONAL

The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K picture. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to the U. S. are severely behind in Y2K remediation efforts. Regions of the world of most concern to the Committee are Eastern Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia and South America. When considering strategic and economic factors, and the status of Y2K remediation efforts within specific countries, the Committee's greatest concerns lie with China, Russia, Italy, and several of the countries from which the U. S. imports oil.

Severe longand shortterm disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur. Such disruptions may cause a lowtomoderate downturn in the economy, particularly in those industries that depend on foreign suppliers. In addition, there may be a request for humanitarian relief from developing countries that have not addressed the Y2K problem.

PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS

Communities and individuals should take reasonable steps to prepare for the Year 2000. Consumers are urged to keep copies of financial statements and to ask local banks what efforts are being made toward Y2K compliance. Individuals should research companies' compliance levels before making investment decisions. The Y2K problem has been likened to a winter storm, with the implication that similar preparation is appropriate. With their individual circumstances in mind, Americans should prepare for Y2K based on facts and reasonable predictions about the problem's effects on vital services.

* * * * * * The challenges posed by the Y2K problem are numerous and daunting. The Committee conducted extensive research and held numerous hearings in 1999, but still cannot conclusively determine how extensive Y2K disruptions will be. However, the Committee has no data to suggest that the U. S. will experience nationwide social or economic collapse. Nonetheless, disruptions will occur and in some cases those disruptions will be significant. The international situation will certainly be more tumultuous.

-- Senate (100@day.report), December 13, 1999.

Senate,

With all due respect, that report is what?...two and a half months old.

IT IS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT.

Please, don't go overboard people.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

The only person who seems to be talking about the end of the world here, lady, is YOU. If there are people on this forum who believe that the year 2000 will be the Apocalypse, they are few and far between.

So let's get to the heart of the matter -- what kind of preparation for Y2K do you find prudent and what length of preparation in your opinion is excessive?

-- Significant problems but (not@the.Apocalypse), December 13, 1999.

Significent Problems,

Good Evening, (or should I say Good Morning?)

It is late, it is sooo late I can hardly keep my eyes open. May I please answer your question tomorrow? Hang tight, buddy, we will get there if you will be patient with me.

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 13, 1999.

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

Laura said: In conclusion, the only thing I'm going to worry about are the people in Y2K forums planning on bombing bridges, poisoning water, raping women, shooting people because of their skin color, religion, sexual preferences or because they mistook some poor schmuck who knocked on their door to tell them their cat is stuck up a tree, for someone who was going to steal their stash. Can I hear an amen to that!

and later in the same thread she said about those who are assuring us that everything is fixed:

If they are lying, we know who they are, where they live, and who their family is; so it wouldn't it be foolish for them to lie to all of us? They are not stupid, they could tell us if they thought they would crash, and we could prepare.

Who are the Real Unstable People?

In reference to the goldbug line quoted so often, i.e. "The problem with tolerating polly's is that by the end of January they will be demanding that the government find our supplies and distribute them to the masses, And them we have to kill them". I believe he was saying that he expects pollys to say that people with supplies have to be killed. If so, he wrote it very poorly.

The other statements come from a select few people. Some or all of them may be planted idiots, such as your own "we know who they are" line quoted above, or also taken out of context. Many of the handles I do not recognize after having been here all year.

Please, do not re-post these rude and misleading statements a seventh time. It does not matter if you meant "all" of the people who are concerned about Y2K or only enough of them for you personally to be worried about. In any case it's a grossly unfair characterization and extraordinarily rude to repeat it here ad nauseum. Apologize for real.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 13, 1999.

All right, I'll give it a shot. Can you delete me out of this thread?

-- (Ladylogic@aol.com), December 16, 1999.

Just deleting your last message will be enough, moron.

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 16, 1999.

I hope you don't have children Lady (without) Logic. Y2K is bigger than all of us, and you just insulted it.

-- doomer wacko (daddy@worldwide.web), September 20, 2000.