Bruce Webster: Just Another Typical Pollyanna About To Assume Room temperature.

0 views
Skip to first unread message

fed...@halifax.com

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
Bruce Webster, the co-chair of WDCY2k, made this response to info magic. In
parenthesis find my response to Bruce.


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


> |Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:21:03 -0600
> |From: "Bruce Webster" <bweb...@osgcorp.com>
> |Subject: Response to Infomagic Part II
> |Message-Id: <19981130152219...@mail.insite.net.onramp.net>
>
> As someone who has spent a bit of time dealing with Y2K as well, I'm left
> unimpressed and disappointed by Infomagic's posting.
>
> >From what I can tell, Infomagic is largely unaware of complexity theory and
> complex adaptive systems (cas). Arguments such as his are nothing new; in
> various forms, they were at the core of books such as _The Limits to
> Growth_ (Forrester), _The Population Bomb_ (Erlich), and _The Coming Dark
> Age_ (de Vaca), all of which turned out to be dead wrong in their
> predictions. Why? Because they presumed that the complex systems--social,
> political, economic, informational, technological, and so on--that make up
> human civilization would fail to adapt or adjust. [For those of you
> interested, I'd recommend _Out of Control_ and _New Rules for a New
> Economy_ by Kevin Kelly, as well as _Hidden Order_ and _Emergence_ by John
> Holland for starters. I have a list of another dozen or so books if you get
> really serious.]
>

Bruce commits a serious fallacy here. He asserts that because the other
authors giving similar explanations, were wrong, then, info magic is wrong.

None of the other authors were addressing the Y2K situation.


> Beyond that, the biggest problem with Infomagic's 'logic' is that too much
> of it boils down to, "I'm really smart and experienced, I see lots of
> things that most other people don't, and so you should believe what I say."

He mad no such argument. He stated his credentials.

> Establishing credentials is fine, but Infomagic--hiding behind a
> pseudonym--doesn't even do that properly. While I won't presume to label
> myself a "super geek", my professional background and Y2K-related
> activities are on the web (www.bfwa.com, www.wdcy2k.org) for anyone to see.
>

Isee, infomagic establishing his credentials is not ok, but when you do it, it
really is only establishing credentials. However, little Bruce, this still has
nothing to do with any of his arguments.


> Infomagic's analysis itself shows a lack of understanding of key business
> issues.

On the contrary. Your rebuttal shows 'your' lack of understanding. There, now
I have done the same thing that you just did. Did that invalidate what you
say? No. And neither did 'you' invalidate anything that he said.


For example, the most likely reason for diminished or interrupted
> commercial airline are not the ones s/he cites: it is that insurance
> companies are likely to withhold liability insurance until _they_ are
> certain there are no bugs in the system, so to speak. (My long-standing
> prediction--which I still stand behind--is that commercial air traffic in
> the US will be at 20% of normal volume for the first three weeks of 2000.)
>

If it was at only 20% volume you can be sure of MAJOR business catastrophe.


> Infomagic's analysis also makes me question her/his depth and breadth of
> background in information technology, his/her claims notwithstanding. For
> example, Infomagic asserts that even if we should fix all Y2K problems
> (which, like Infomagic, I consider an impossibility), the residual failures
> alone would cause a global economic disaster. This ignores the vast number
> of software defects currently present in the global IT infrastructure,
> which we manage to work around somehow anyway.

Another ridiculous assertion. The 'vast' number that you say are presently
there, will be dwarfed into insignificance by the numbers caused by Y2K.


It also asserts that such
> defects are "systems failures" as opposed to annoyances, miscalculations,
> and so on. Let me give you a counter-example. I know of a major commercial
> enterprise [_not_ Fannie Mae, let me hasten to add] that estimates that it
> loses over $100M a year in overpayments to other firms due to software
> errors and inadequacies. Yet this firm is profitable and sound.
>

Apples and oranges. It is profitable and sound in 'THIS' economic context. Not
in one where failures will be rampant. Not in one where chaos is reigning.
Not in one where its suppliers and customers are being throttled.

> The weakest part of Infomagic's argument is the mathematical estimate of
> how many businesses will fail due to Y2K problems. The assertion of that 1%
> of all Y2K failures will be terminal for the business involved may sound
> reasonable (especially compared to the unsubstantiated "expert opinion" of
> 10% to 20%) but is backed up nowhere.


Whether it is backed up or not , in this 'particular' case is irrelevant. If
you are so lame that you think there will be only 1% failure, then you are not
dwelling in reality. He was *downplaying* the percentage. The actual
percentages will be much much higher.

First and foremost, Infomagic
> blithely talks about businesses failing without projecting a clear
> understanding of how businesses fail.

Yes,I am really sure that infomagic has no idea how businesses fail. <snicker>

In the vast majority of cases, it's
> due to a lack of cash (or credit).

Another bit of ludicrous nonsense, Bruce. I remember tha doctor who was asked
how a man shot twenty times in the chest died. He said that he died due to
lack of oxygen to the brain which caused the cessation of life functions.

Do you really think infomagic is *that* dull?

Note that businesses, _especially_ large
> ones, can suffer major losses for months or even years (cf. Apple) and stay
> in business.
>

Not in an economic context that is like Y2K. More apples and oranges, brucie.

> Second, Infomagic needs to establish situations where a software failure
> has ever been fatal for a business, especially a large one. Again, most
> software, _especially_ that within enterprises, is defective; failures
> occur daily and are dealt with.

This is the typically ignorant Pollyanna claptrap. "Businesses have problems
every day, and they deal with them."

For the fourth time, NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF Y2K. Bruce is talking about
failures that occur in a REGULAR AND NORMAL business environment, which Y2K
will not be. Businesses do not have IT failures 'every day', with their
suppliers in pandemonium, customers going bankrupt, bank runs occurring,
countries imploding, Airlines not flying, utilities failing, civil
disturbances breaking out, etc etc ad infinitum, and still just roll merrily
along.

Bruce 'compartmentalizes' the failures to be occurring in a non-Y2K type
environment. When these failures occur during the chaos of Y2K and they can't
get through to their customers and suppliers, when the power is going on and
off and one problem spawns ten more and they spawn ten more again, companies
will not be able to hold up. They will not be experiencing **ONLY** IT
problems, but a whole gamut of problems that they find will multiply well past
their abilitiy to keep their heads above water.

There _are_ a few real-world examples, as
> can be seen in the books _Software Runaways_ (Glass) and _Software Failure:
> Management Failure_ (Flowers), but what those books more emphatically point
> out is the ability of enterprises to absorb tremendous software failures
> (and financial impacts) _without_ going out of business.
>

Like I said, the problems will not be merely of the IT type, and they will
very rapidly spiral out of control.

Bruce 'emphatically' misses the point.

> Next, Infomagic needs to establish how Y2K failures could lead to such
> business failures. Most Y2K failures range from minor annoyances to major
> inconveniences.

Yes most. Now. In a world that is NOT YET plagued by multiple simultaneos
parralel systemic failures. All over the globe. in every industry. At every
level.

What bruce 'HAS FAILED' to establish that the easily corrected failures that
he is talking about, occurring in a normal business environmnet, are even in
the same ballpark as the scale and magnitude of Y2K exacerbated problems.

Some could seriously hurt a given business.

This is certainly damning with faint praise and clearly show the cut of his
Pollyanna jib. He 'condescends' to admit 'some' could hurt business.


But Infomagic
> has not given any scenarios where Y2K failures (much less residual ones)
> would lead to a Fortune 500 corporation going into bankruptcy.
>

ROTFLAMO. He does not 'have' to. Not only that, if you are so, IGNORANT,
bruce, that you think that a 'Fortune 500' company possesses some kind of
invincibility due to its size, then you are more laughable than you have
already exhibited yourself to be. In the beginning you lamented that
Infomagic had a poor grasp of complexity issues. LOL. The more simple system
is, the less likely that it will fall prey to problems. The higher the degree
of complexity in IT systems and otherwise gives rise to a greater
probability of disasters multiplying in a Y2K exacerbated economic context.

> The supply chain argument is the most credible one that Infomagic makes.
> The GM shutdown this year due to a 57-day strike at two suppliers led to
> 200,000 workers being laid off, while GM lost nearly $3B. But note: GM
> didn't go out of business.

And as you say *BUT NOTE*, you are comparing apples to oranges again,
something at which you are a master. They did not have this problem in a Y2K
environment.

*BUT NOTE* there will be far far less than 50% of all companies fully
operational. There will be no significant amount of airlines, airports,
utilities,manufacturers, banks, cities, counties, states, or federal agencies
that are not in chaos.

*But note* Bruce continues to live in la la land. A world where isolated IT
problems will be the only thing occurring where 'sufficient' numbers of
programmers can fix them before they spawn a myriad of new problems. A world
where there will be no reaction of the populace.

Actually, in my opinion Infomagic has the
> percentages reversed: small businesses are far more likely to close than
> large businesses because they are more vulnerable to shutdowns in cash
> flow, supplies, and services.
>

This is typical of the ignorance of IT types like Bruce. The heavily armoured
and hulking 'Goliath' will easily withstand the onslaught while the 'Davids'
don't stand a chance.

Bruce is totally dependent upon thinking that the big companies can simply
outlast the problems because they have more cash. I do not care how much cash
a company has. Survival is not measured by merely not filing for bankruptcy
because you can pay your creditors. If your customer base is decimated and
vendors are gone, what difference does it make if you can fend off your
creditors. When the smoke clears you are still ready to pump out ten million
widgets a day to an economy that now only wants one, or none.


> Finally, the arguments about devolutionary spirals and carrying capacity
> are thoughtful analogies, but again they seriously underestimate the power
> of complex systems.


LOL LOL. No, IT types seriously overestimate their abilities and
undersetimate the scope and magnitude of the problems. That is why we are in
this mess, butthead.

They also ignore the absolutely wretched state most of
> the world was in just 50 years ago after World War II--with most of Europe,
> Russia, and Asia laid waste, hundreds of millions dead, crippled, sick, or
> undernourished, occupying armies spread throughout the world, and the US
> economy the only robust one on the planet--and the subsequent economic
> expansion which has taken place in those 50 years with very few bumps
> (1973-74, 1980-82, 1991) in spite of--and in some cases, because of--that
> devastation.
>

And, you idiot, a world that was not IN THE LEAST BIT ***DEPENDENT*** upon
computers to create the carrying capacity. What a dolt. This is a childish
variation of the 'we got by without computers once' argument. And that
expansion only took place for ONE reason. For the first time in history the
winners helped rebuild the losers. That is called 'OUTSIDE AID' brucie. In a
Y2K ravage economy , THERE WILL BE NO OUTSIDE AID.


> Note that in all this, I am definitely not the "Pollyanna" type.

"Rolling on the floor choking up my lunch'. Have you ever noticed that the
clarion cry of the Pollyanna is "I am not a Pollyanna." You see, if he was not
a pollyanna, he would not have to tell us, we would readily see it.


I am on
> the record publicly (in Newsweek Magazine, no less) as estimating that the
> US impact will be a 7 on the 0..10 WDCY2K scale (see
> www.wdcy2k.org/survey).


Then, you are what, merely schizoid?


I suspect it may be less than that, but no lower
> than a 5.

And late at night, under the covers, a 2.5

On the other hand, I have seen nothing to indicate that it will
> be an 8 or higher, much less the end of the human species, and that after
> months of doing full-time Y2K contingency planning for a Fortune 50
> corporation.
>

So you have extrapolated what is going on at ONE company to the rest? Swell.


> In short, unsubstantiated assertions,

Most of which are yours...


unproven authority,

given what I have read of Info magic and you, I agree. Your authority is
completely unproven. Even though this is, of course another logical fallacy,
the appeal to authority.


math chains based
> on data pulled out of thin air,

No, not pulled out of thin air. He took absolutely MINIMALIZED data and even
then, the conclusions were grave. The actual data will be far worse.

analogies from deer populations and Roman
> forts,

He made no analogy from roman forts pertaining to the consequences of Y2K.
He merely wondered if someone would be wondering what happened to us as he
wondered what happened to them. try to stick with a real argument, and not a
straw man.

As far as the deer are concerned, he made no inappropriate analogy. he used
the deer population merely to explain the concept of carrying capacity.


and STATEMENTS IN CAPITALS do not a valid or sound argument make.

'saying' an argument is invalid is not the same as 'proving' it invalid, which
you have not done. The only thing you have done is embarrass yourself.


> Infomagic's posting adds no light, only heat, to the Y2K issue, and serves
> no one--except, possibly, her/himself. ..bruce..
>

Again, on the contrary. Infomagic acquitted himself well. The only reason that
Closet polyannas like you say that he adds heat is because you do not like the
conclusions.

An do tell, bruce, when *your* comments will be less self-serving. They
certainly have not served anyone else. Anyone who can spot nonsense, anyway.


> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce F. Webster (www.bfwa.com)
> Chief Technical Officer, Object Systems Group
> ==> bweb...@osgcorp.com, 972.650.2026, www.osgcorp.com
> Co-Chair, Washington D.C. Year 2000 Group
> ==> bweb...@wdcy2k.org, 202.256.1279, www.wdcy2k.org

--
Paul Milne
"A prudent man sees evil and hides himself; the naive proceed and pay
the penalty." (Proverbs 22.3; 27.12)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Wade Ramey

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
In article <7475bi$pkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fed...@halifax.com wrote:

> > Establishing credentials is fine, but Infomagic--hiding behind a
> > pseudonym--doesn't even do that properly. While I won't presume to label
> > myself a "super geek", my professional background and Y2K-related
> > activities are on the web (www.bfwa.com, www.wdcy2k.org) for anyone to see.
> >
>
> Isee, infomagic establishing his credentials is not ok, but when you do it, it
> really is only establishing credentials.

The difference is, Infotragic did not establish his credentials. Unless
you believe one can remain anonymous and establish credentials--which you
probably do. (Hint: Credentials can usually be checked third-hand.)

> > Infomagic's analysis itself shows a lack of understanding of key business
> > issues.
>
> On the contrary. Your rebuttal shows 'your' lack of understanding. There, now
> I have done the same thing that you just did. Did that invalidate what you
> say? No. And neither did 'you' invalidate anything that he said.
>
>
> > For example, the most likely reason for diminished or interrupted
> > commercial airline are not the ones s/he cites: it is that insurance
> > companies are likely to withhold liability insurance until _they_ are
> > certain there are no bugs in the system, so to speak. (My long-standing
> > prediction--which I still stand behind--is that commercial air traffic in
> > the US will be at 20% of normal volume for the first three weeks of 2000.)
> >
>
> If it was at only 20% volume you can be sure of MAJOR business catastrophe.

Milne, you exceed yourself. And nothing exceeds like excess.

Webster does not deny a major business catastrophe. He denies Infotragic's
"analysis". He gives an example to illustrate. Argue with the example. Try
to focus on what's actually said. Get some nutrition. Inhale. Sleep. Take
a day off, or a year.

If Infotragic really believed in the apocalyptic scenario he desribes, why
would he remain anonymous? What's there to lose at this point? C'mon
Infotragic, show us who you are, so that we can be awed by your superior
qualities and mighty credentials as a supergeek, airline pilot, social
historian, Nietzschean Ubermensch and probability guru in all your
1-(1-f)^n glory. Until you do, your warnings from on high appear to be an
elaborate hoax (a good one though).

Wade

PS: Milne, I do thank you for that e-mail from Webster. Don't think I
would have seen it otherwise.

________________
to respond, replace y2k with earthlink


Flint

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to

Dave Eastabrook wrote in message <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>...

That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or
>conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.
>
>:Dave


I assume you mean an *informed* opinion, as opposed to the variety that got
this thread started?

Wade Ramey

unread,
Dec 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/3/98
to
In article <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
<ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> You can look up Infomagic's postings on DejaNews if you select "past".
> For those of us who've been here a long time in csy2k, Info's knowledge
> of computer systems - and therefore capability of having an informed
> opinion - are known. That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or


> conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.

You can't even tell me if Info is one person or a committee of high-level
geek pranksters headed by David Starr. She/he/it (say it fast) could be
the greatest hoaxer of all time, or just the doombroodster with the
greatest flair. He (I think it's a he) does have style ...

Wade

Dave Eastabrook

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
on Thu, 3 Dec 1998 Wade Ramey <wra...@y2k.net> wrote

>
>The difference is, Infotragic did not establish his credentials. Unless
>you believe one can remain anonymous and establish credentials--which you
>probably do. (Hint: Credentials can usually be checked third-hand.)

You can look up Infomagic's postings on DejaNews if you select "past".


For those of us who've been here a long time in csy2k, Info's knowledge
of computer systems - and therefore capability of having an informed
opinion - are known. That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or
conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.

:Dave
--
Dave Eastabrook; Sales & technical director for TD Tools; Europe, ME & Africa.
Combat Time Dilation, the Crouch-Echlin Effect, on your PC, year 2000 & after.
GBP24 (+VAT in E.U.) http://www.elmbronze.co.uk or http://www.elmbronze.com
Contingency site: <URL:http://www.elmbronze.demon.co.uk/products/TDsales.htm>.

tom mcdowell

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to

Wade Ramey wrote:

> In article <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
> <ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

> > You can look up Infomagic's postings on DejaNews if you select "past".
> > For those of us who've been here a long time in csy2k, Info's knowledge
> > of computer systems - and therefore capability of having an informed
> > opinion - are known. That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or
> > conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.
>

> You can't even tell me if Info is one person or a committee of high-level
> geek pranksters headed by David Starr. She/he/it (say it fast) could be
> the greatest hoaxer of all time, or just the doombroodster with the
> greatest flair. He (I think it's a he) does have style ...
>
> Wade
> ________________
> to respond, replace y2k with earthlink

DC Y2K Weather Report (Infomagic, Day 400, more)
Date:
28 Nov 1998 02:23:55 GMT
From:
kiy...@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki)
Organization:
HHResearch Co.
Newsgroups:
comp.software.year-2000
cory hamasaki's
DC Y2K Weather Report
November 27 1998 - 399 days to go. WRP103 V2, # 47
Draft $2.50 Cover Price.

(c) 1997, 1998 Cory Hamasaki - I grant permission to distribute and
reproduce this newsletter as long as this entire document is reproduced
in its entirety. You may optionally quote an individual article but you
should include this header down to the tearline or provide a link to the
header. I do not grant permission to a commercial publisher to reprint
this in print media.
--------------------tearline -----------------
<snip>


Preface -- Who is Infomagic? --

No one knows but based on his comments on computers, large systems, and
programming, Infomagic has substantive, serious expertise. In addition,
there are multiple dimensions to his experience set.

<snip>
"multiple dimensions to his experience set"

"Bond" James Bond

Tom McDowell

Andrew Rowland

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
I disagree, you do not have to be a legacy mainframe geek to have an
informed opinion on y2k.

To have an informed opinion you need to have done your research, studied the
subject, and incorporated a smattering of other disciplines into your
conclusion - the most valuable commodity in the equation is common sense.

Dave Eastabrook wrote in message <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>...

>on Thu, 3 Dec 1998 Wade Ramey <wra...@y2k.net> wrote
>>
>>The difference is, Infotragic did not establish his credentials. Unless
>>you believe one can remain anonymous and establish credentials--which you
>>probably do. (Hint: Credentials can usually be checked third-hand.)
>

>You can look up Infomagic's postings on DejaNews if you select "past".
>For those of us who've been here a long time in csy2k, Info's knowledge
>of computer systems - and therefore capability of having an informed
>opinion - are known. That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or
>conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.
>

Rev Tim Burke

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to

fed...@halifax.com wrote in message <7475bi$pkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Bruce Webster, the co-chair of WDCY2k, made this response to info magic. In
>parenthesis find my response to Bruce.
>
>
>=============


[snip]


I'm mildly surprised by Bruce's ignorance. Oh, well. Yes, this moronic
assertion, that y2k failures will be like IT failures that occur all the
time anyway -- reminds me of a genetics class I took, which went into how
our DNA is constantly getting damaged by cosmic rays, toxins we ingest etc
etc, and how the DNA constantly repairs itself. Normally.

But there are times when the damage is so severe, so ubiquitous, that the
damages are too much for the repair mechanisms -- they are overwhelmed. A
tumor begins to grow, and in certain cases, the person is dead in six weeks.

*This* is y2k. It is not 'normal, everyday software glitches.' It is the
overwhelming, cascading collapse. It is the point-of-no-return trauma
condition. The billions of little straws that will not only break the
camel's back, but demolish the camel's carcass, as well.

I do not *know* if this is how y2k will be, but the evidence seems to very
strongly suggest that this *is* how y2k will be. It seems self-evident, but
I suppose Bruce and his learned colleagues could be correct. I'm just a
dumb preacher. What do *I* know?
_____
Rev Tim Burke

Rev Tim Burke

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to

fed...@halifax.com wrote in message <7475bi$pkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Bruce Webster, the co-chair of WDCY2k, made this response to info magic. In
>parenthesis find my response to Bruce.
>
>
>=============


[snip]

> They also ignore the absolutely wretched state most of
>> the world was in just 50 years ago after World War II--with most of
Europe,
>> Russia, and Asia laid waste, hundreds of millions dead, crippled, sick,
or
>> undernourished, occupying armies spread throughout the world, and the US
>> economy the only robust one on the planet--and the subsequent economic
>> expansion which has taken place in those 50 years with very few bumps
>> (1973-74, 1980-82, 1991) in spite of--and in some cases, because of--that
>> devastation.
>>
>
>And, you idiot, a world that was not IN THE LEAST BIT ***DEPENDENT*** upon
>computers to create the carrying capacity. What a dolt. This is a childish
>variation of the 'we got by without computers once' argument. And that
>expansion only took place for ONE reason. For the first time in history the
>winners helped rebuild the losers. That is called 'OUTSIDE AID' brucie. In
a
>Y2K ravage economy , THERE WILL BE NO OUTSIDE AID.


Ahh. I finally get it. One of the big puzzles to me as I try to think about
y2k, has been cleared-up: the WWII 'paradox' if you will. Of course, of
course, why didn't I see it before? Devastation was everywhere --- EXCEPT
the USA. So we could help.

Of course, of course. Had the USA been bombed, invaded etc during the war,
and been in the same devastated condition as Europe, Japan etc, then there
would have been no Marshall Plan, no Demming going to Japan to teach them
Total Quality Management, etc etc.

So it's looking like y2k will be WWII, only far far worse. And there will
be no unaffected nation of any significance which can 'lend a hand' and be a
catalyst for rebuilding the world. And it appears that y2k damage will far
exceed bomb damage in WWII. In short, can u say 'New Dark Ages?'
_____
Rev Tim Burke

Dave Eastabrook

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
on Fri, 4 Dec 1998 Andrew Rowland <andy_r...@email.msn.com> wrote

>I disagree, you do not have to be a legacy mainframe geek to have an
>informed opinion on y2k.
>
>To have an informed opinion you need to have done your research, studied the
>subject, and incorporated a smattering of other disciplines into your
>conclusion - the most valuable commodity in the equation is common sense.

I've noticed you giving your opinion often on matters outside your area
of expertise, and so can say that you do have the required experience to
give an opinion about having opinions. That doesn't mean, of course,
that I necessarily agree with that opinion ...

:Dave

Dave Eastabrook

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
on Thu, 3 Dec 1998 Flint <fli...@mindspring.com> wrote

>
>Dave Eastabrook wrote in message <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>...
>
>That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or
>>conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.
>
>
>I assume you mean an *informed* opinion, as opposed to the variety that got
>this thread started?

I *guess* so !!!

:Dave

Dave Eastabrook

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
on Thu, 3 Dec 1998 Wade Ramey <wra...@y2k.net> wrote

>In article <31hPZEA3...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
><ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> You can look up Infomagic's postings on DejaNews if you select "past".
>> For those of us who've been here a long time in csy2k, Info's knowledge
>> of computer systems - and therefore capability of having an informed
>> opinion - are known. That's *not* to say I agree with his theory or

>> conclusions, but that I'd vouch for his capability of having an opinion.
>
>You can't even tell me if Info is one person or a committee of high-level
>geek pranksters headed by David Starr. She/he/it (say it fast) could be
>the greatest hoaxer of all time, or just the doombroodster with the
>greatest flair. He (I think it's a he) does have style ...

So could you or so could I. Web-sites mean nothing, they could be a
plant as well. And there could be a hundred people using *my* name
(which isn't exactly a common one) on alternative wet Thursdays! Though
there are three posters to this NG who have met me face to face right
enough, and a few on the phone. _And_ they survived the experience :)

I think it's a case of building up a picture of someone by their
postings over a time, though DN can help. Some things people say,
especially in the heat of the moment, would be very hard to fake though
not impossible. And yes, it's a he ...

... or he says he is!

... hmmm. Or the AI program says it is.

... or *they* did.

Cheers

:Dave [at least, I think I am]

merl...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <7475bi$pkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> Bruce Webster, the co-chair of WDCY2k, made this response to info magic. In
> parenthesis find my response to Bruce.
> > |Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:21:03 -0600
> > |From: "Bruce Webster" <bweb...@osgcorp.com>
> > |Subject: Response to Infomagic Part II
> > |Message-Id: <19981130152219...@mail.insite.net.onramp.net>

[ snippage ]

> > certain there are no bugs in the system, so to speak. (My long-standing
> > prediction--which I still stand behind--is that commercial air traffic in
> > the US will be at 20% of normal volume for the first three weeks of 2000.)
> If it was at only 20% volume you can be sure of MAJOR business catastrophe.

The Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike earlier this year, for just over
three weeks (strike started August 28, pilots ratified contract September 12).
Some airports lost up to 80% of their flights (e.g., Memphis, Tennessee: see
http://cnn.com/US/9808/30/northwest/index.html#3). How many businesses went
under due to this?

[ ... ]

> > The weakest part of Infomagic's argument is the mathematical estimate of
> > how many businesses will fail due to Y2K problems. The assertion of that 1%
> > of all Y2K failures will be terminal for the business involved may sound
> > reasonable (especially compared to the unsubstantiated "expert opinion" of
> > 10% to 20%) but is backed up nowhere.
> Whether it is backed up or not , in this 'particular' case is irrelevant. If
> you are so lame that you think there will be only 1% failure, then you are not
> dwelling in reality. He was *downplaying* the percentage. The actual
> percentages will be much much higher.

Well, I asked "Infomagic" to provide the metrics behind his claim that even
as much as one percent of all Y2K bugs will cause business failure, and I've
heard nothing.

After Andrew Rowland posted a supportive analysis of "Infomagic"'s claims, I
asked him to provide the metrics, and I've heard nothing.

So now I'll ask you, Mr. Milne: Do *you* have any metrics (preferably with
checkable references) which support the characterization of this one percent
rate as "_extremely_ optimistic?"

--
Edmund Schweppe aka merl...@my-dejanews.com
Blissfully free of official positions

merl...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <7497oo$hnk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, merl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> The Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike earlier this year, for just over
> three weeks (strike started August 28, pilots ratified contract September 12).

Aaack. Obviously I can't subtract on a Friday. The strike lasted just over
*two* weeks.

--
Edmund Schweppe aka merl...@my-dejanews.com
Blissfully free of official positions

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

fed...@halifax.com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <7497oo$hnk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
merl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7475bi$pkb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> > Bruce Webster, the co-chair of WDCY2k, made this response to info magic. In
> > parenthesis find my response to Bruce.
> > > |Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 09:21:03 -0600
> > > |From: "Bruce Webster" <bweb...@osgcorp.com>
> > > |Subject: Response to Infomagic Part II
> > > |Message-Id: <19981130152219...@mail.insite.net.onramp.net>
>
> [ snippage ]

>
> > > certain there are no bugs in the system, so to speak. (My long-standing
> > > prediction--which I still stand behind--is that commercial air traffic in
> > > the US will be at 20% of normal volume for the first three weeks of 2000.)
> > If it was at only 20% volume you can be sure of MAJOR business catastrophe.
>
> The Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike earlier this year, for just over
> three weeks (strike started August 28, pilots ratified contract September 12).
> Some airports lost up to 80% of their flights (e.g., Memphis, Tennessee: see
> http://cnn.com/US/9808/30/northwest/index.html#3). How many businesses went
> under due to this?
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > > The weakest part of Infomagic's argument is the mathematical estimate of
> > > how many businesses will fail due to Y2K problems. The assertion of that
1%
> > > of all Y2K failures will be terminal for the business involved may sound
> > > reasonable (especially compared to the unsubstantiated "expert opinion" of
> > > 10% to 20%) but is backed up nowhere.
> > Whether it is backed up or not , in this 'particular' case is irrelevant. If
> > you are so lame that you think there will be only 1% failure, then you are
not
> > dwelling in reality. He was *downplaying* the percentage. The actual
> > percentages will be much much higher.
>
> Well, I asked "Infomagic" to provide the metrics behind his claim that even
> as much as one percent of all Y2K bugs will cause business failure, and I've
> heard nothing.
>
> After Andrew Rowland posted a supportive analysis of "Infomagic"'s claims, I
> asked him to provide the metrics, and I've heard nothing.
>
> So now I'll ask you, Mr. Milne: Do *you* have any metrics (preferably with
> checkable references) which support the characterization of this one percent
> rate as "_extremely_ optimistic?"
>

From L.M. Boyd’s column in our local paper 12/1/1998

“Massive computer code controlled AT&T long distance system in 1990 when
the system failed repeatedly. Troubleshooters found and fixed the
error. Millions of lines valid code, they said, were shut down by just
three lines of faulty code.”

It seems that three lines of code out of several million is only a miniscule
fraction of one percent. Y2K will have much much much more than that going
wrong everywhere at the same time.

But, I don't expect a pollyanna to understand that tiny fractions of the code
can shut down the whole shebang.

> --
> Edmund Schweppe aka merl...@my-dejanews.com
> Blissfully free of official positions
>

Wade Ramey

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <4cccDPAB...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
<ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >You can't even tell me if Info is one person or a committee of high-level
> >geek pranksters headed by David Starr. She/he/it (say it fast) could be
> >the greatest hoaxer of all time, or just the doombroodster with the
> >greatest flair. He (I think it's a he) does have style ...
>
> So could you or so could I. Web-sites mean nothing, they could be a
> plant as well. And there could be a hundred people using *my* name
> (which isn't exactly a common one) on alternative wet Thursdays! Though
> there are three posters to this NG who have met me face to face right
> enough, and a few on the phone. _And_ they survived the experience :)

You or I are not presenting the most flamboyant of end-of-the-world y2k
scenarios. Our credentials aren't that interesting. But mine could easily
be checked, and so could yours. (No one's interested in mine, and you've
given enough info about your biz so that we could check you out if we
wanted.)

Take Bruce Webster, for example. I've seen him on TV, identified as such
on a y2k panel. Numerous people on this ng know him, have met him. He runs
a business; references can be checked. Same for Paul Milne: He's been
interviewed in the media, his mother was quoted as saying he's psychotic,
etc. We know who he is. Given the high level of uncertainty, backgrounds
of the "y2k players" are important.

Why can't Info tell us who he is? He's got great style, and it would make
quite a little splash in the media. What's he afraid of here, in Dec. 99?
He can't be taken seriously until he tells us.

docd...@clark.net

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <wramey-0412...@1cust115.tnt10.sfo3.da.uu.net>,
Wade Ramey <wra...@y2k.net> wrote:

[snippage]

>Why can't Info tell us who he is?

There is no need to state inability; it seems that Choice would provide
sufficient motivation.

>He's got great style, and it would make
>quite a little splash in the media. What's he afraid of here, in Dec. 99?

There is no need to question fear... once again, Choice serves well.

>He can't be taken seriously until he tells us.

Just like a wine cannot be judged until you read the label?

A tyrant demands 'What have you got to hide?'

A free man replies 'I've no reason yet to tell you.'

DD

Robert F

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
Wade Ramey wrote in message ...

>In article <4cccDPAB...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
><ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >You can't even tell me if Info is one person or a committee of
high-level
>> >geek pranksters headed by David Starr. She/he/it (say it fast) could be
>> >the greatest hoaxer of all time, or just the doombroodster with the
>> >greatest flair. He (I think it's a he) does have style ...
>>
>> So could you or so could I. Web-sites mean nothing, they could be a
>> plant as well. And there could be a hundred people using *my* name
>> (which isn't exactly a common one) on alternative wet Thursdays! Though
>> there are three posters to this NG who have met me face to face right
>> enough, and a few on the phone. _And_ they survived the experience :)
>
>You or I are not presenting the most flamboyant of end-of-the-world y2k
>scenarios. Our credentials aren't that interesting. But mine could easily
>be checked, and so could yours. (No one's interested in mine, and you've
>given enough info about your biz so that we could check you out if we
>wanted.)
>
>Take Bruce Webster, for example. I've seen him on TV, identified as such
>on a y2k panel. Numerous people on this ng know him, have met him. He runs
>a business; references can be checked. Same for Paul Milne: He's been
>interviewed in the media, his mother was quoted as saying he's psychotic,
>etc. We know who he is. Given the high level of uncertainty, backgrounds
>of the "y2k players" are important.
>
>Why can't Info tell us who he is? He's got great style, and it would make

>quite a little splash in the media. What's he afraid of here, in Dec. 99?
>He can't be taken seriously until he tells us.
>


Due respect, but your final sentence is itself not worthy of being taken
seriously. Infomagic's posts have included a wealth of information about
programming. His colleagues here would have dismembered him if he wasn't so
obviously speaking from experience. Lots of people disagree with his
forecast, but I haven't seen *anyone* challenge his programming knowledge.
Bruce Webster's criticism was *because* Infomagic cited his experience, and
only Paul Milne managed to catch the irony of that.

I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
address.

Robert Folsom

Wade Ramey

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <749lgo$upk$1...@callisto.clark.net>, docd...@clark.net () wrote:

> Just like a wine cannot be judged until you read the label?
>
> A tyrant demands 'What have you got to hide?'
>
> A free man replies 'I've no reason yet to tell you.'

What a load of crap. What I wrote was

"Given the high level of uncertainty, backgrounds of the "y2k players" are
important.

Why can't Info tell us who he is? He's got great style, and it would make
quite a little splash in the media. What's he afraid of here, in Dec. 99?
He can't be taken seriously until he tells us."

You left out that first sentence, oh smug one. Note that in the case of
wine, there is no uncertainty: The taste is everything.

DD: Do you have any opinions on y2k, or do you just slither around from
thread to thread making snide little side comments? It gets a bit tiring.
(BTW: I'll not be clamoring for your credentials.)

Dave Eastabrook

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
on Fri, 4 Dec 1998 Wade Ramey <wra...@y2k.net> wrote

>
>Why can't Info tell us who he is? He's got great style, and it would make
>quite a little splash in the media. What's he afraid of here, in Dec. 99?
>He can't be taken seriously until he tells us.

Perhaps he'd prefer to stay at his place of employment just a little
longer ...

Mail: Y2000 infomagic com

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
On Thu, 03 Dec 1998 17:43:46 -0700, wra...@y2k.net (Wade Ramey) wrote:

>The difference is, Infotragic did not establish his credentials. Unless
>you believe one can remain anonymous and establish credentials--which you
>probably do. (Hint: Credentials can usually be checked third-hand.)

I believe I have adequately established my credentials in numerous
postings to this group over the last two and a half years. Do you
really believe that Cory would have asked me to write something for
his WRP if he thought I was misrepresenting myself?

>If Infotragic really believed in the apocalyptic scenario he desribes, why
>would he remain anonymous? What's there to lose at this point? C'mon
>Infotragic, show us who you are, so that we can be awed by your superior
>qualities and mighty credentials as a supergeek, airline pilot, social
>historian, Nietzschean Ubermensch and probability guru in all your
>1-(1-f)^n glory. Until you do, your warnings from on high appear to be an
>elaborate hoax (a good one though).

The pseudo address "y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m" is not to
protect myself but rather my clients. If you check my earlier posts,
you will see that I have been highly critical of at least one, and the
information I gave could adversely affect their reputation as well as
create a liability problem for them post Y2K.

I never even coined the pseudonym "infomagic". When I first started
posting from the anonymous address someone (I think it might have been
Cory) asked "can we call you Y"? I was about to reply "Y-not?" when
others just started calling me infomagic. I just let it go, since it
did have a nice ring to it.

Infomagic is mainly an ISP (they are also well known for selling Linux
CD's). I have no personal or financial involvement with them, I am
just another user.

There are a few in this group who know my real name. When I carry on
a real dialogue with a real person I feel it to be my responsibility
to let them know who I really am, and I have done so. However, I have
no intention of revealing this publicly for the reason stated above.

For those readers who still have doubts, I would also point out that I
am an actively practicing christian and such things as hoaxes or lies
about my background are not even remotely within my behaviour pattern.
Of course, you don't have to believe that, either, but if you check
earlier posts you will find them entirely consistent with this.

As to Bruce Webster's response, in the next few days I will post a
full reply in a few days (as a new thread). This will include
responses to other posters as well. I have simply been waiting for
most of the traffic to clear on the original thread -- a sort of
public comment period.

=====================================
y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m
=====================================
Of course, I could be wrong.
It could be worse.

Wade Ramey

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to
In article <VXHnxFAi...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk>, Dave Eastabrook
<ne...@elmbronze.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Perhaps he'd prefer to stay at his place of employment just a little
> longer ...

Perhaps, but that's pretty piddly when you put it next to his
prognostications. (BTW, in one of his posts, Info said his employer agreed
with the contents of that post.)

There's a chance he's afraid the government might arrest him for fomenting
panic. That meshes with his gun-toting, libertarian, left-bashing,
fractional-reserve hating pontifications. That's the best case I can make
for his anonymity at this point.

Wade

Bill Hoyt

unread,
Dec 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/4/98
to

Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
>You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
>Infomagic is a coward. He thinks that civilization is
>going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
>what company he works for. Really this is the only piece
>of evidence that he could provide that would convince me
>that he knows what he's talking about.

That's kind of a strange statement, -bks-. Why would the company he works
for convince you that he knows what he's talking about? Do people who work
for some banks know about TEOTWAWKI and some not?

I must work in a strange shop, I guess. We have Einsteins and we have
idiots...the only real way to tell the difference is to talk to them, listen
to them. If they are able to integrate facts into an understanding of
things (trends, systems, etc.), then I think they might know what they're
talking about. If they simply repeat themselves, without being able to draw
sound conclusions or defend their arguments, they probably do not, even if
they work in the same shop as Einstein.

A person who knows what he/she is talking about will recognize others who
know the same; the facts are verifyable, the arguments sound. But I have
yet to see a shop where wisdom is granted upon employment.

Personally, I don't care what shop someone works for, and if I don't know,
the only reason I would follow up would be to verify some obscure fact about
that shop, not whether they can build a competent case for bump-in-the-road
or TEOTWAWKI. And even if they had inside facts, they would probably be
unverifyable, because if they were verifyable, they would not really be
inside information.

Does Infomagic *know* we will have TEOTWAWKI in a metaphysically certain
sense? Of course not. He has built a conclusion based on facts that are
generally available. If his reasoning is sound (personally I think most is,
but not the thermodynamics stuff (the effects are offset by adding energy
through a plan) or the dark ages (unless we *completely* lose the right of
property)), if his grasp of the facts is clear, if he can explain and defend
his conclusions, then he probably knows what he's talking about. Does
cowardice (or rather prudence, in his case I should think) affect logic
somehow?

So what difference does it make where he works?

Bill "a little confused here" Hoyt


Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
>I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
>seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
>*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
>address.

You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear


Infomagic is a coward. He thinks that civilization is
going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
what company he works for. Really this is the only piece
of evidence that he could provide that would convince me

that he knows what he's talking about. Infomagic may
be the second coming of Isaac Newton, but the only bank
he knows the status of is the one that he's working for.

So stay anonymous, Herr Infomagic, but let one of your
colleagues leak enough information for us to determine
which bank you work at and to confront the management
with details that would put them on the spot. You have
stated that you are part of a team which is probably
part of a huge IT department (Banks are nearly pure
IT shops) so it will be rather difficult to trace it
back to you personally.

--bks


merl...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <749jvg$sos$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> In article <7497oo$hnk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> merl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > Well, I asked "Infomagic" to provide the metrics behind his claim that even
> > as much as one percent of all Y2K bugs will cause business failure, and I've
> > heard nothing.
> > After Andrew Rowland posted a supportive analysis of "Infomagic"'s claims, I
> > asked him to provide the metrics, and I've heard nothing.
> > So now I'll ask you, Mr. Milne: Do *you* have any metrics (preferably with
> > checkable references) which support the characterization of this one percent
> > rate as "_extremely_ optimistic?"
> From L.M. Boyd’s column in our local paper 12/1/1998
> "Massive computer code controlled AT&T long distance system in 1990 when
> the system failed repeatedly. Troubleshooters found and fixed the
> error. Millions of lines valid code, they said, were shut down by just
> three lines of faulty code."
> It seems that three lines of code out of several million is only a miniscule
> fraction of one percent. Y2K will have much much much more than that going
> wrong everywhere at the same time.

Oh, I'm quite aware that even as little as *one* bad line of code can cause a
system to stop working. "Infomagic"'s claim, however, was *not* that one
percent of all LOC would be buggy, but that one percent (or much more) of
those bugs would be so catastrophic as to cause the business to fail *as a
business* -- e.g., everyone out of work, all the vendors lose their customer,
all the customers lose their services, etc. The 1990 AT&T network problems,
while clearly the result of buggy code, did *not* cause the demise of AT&T
itself.

My question remains unanswered: what metrics (preferably with checkable
references) support characterizing a one percent chance of any particular bug
causing the demise of the affected business as being "_extremely_ optimistic"?

--
Edmund Schweppe aka merl...@my-dejanews.com
Blissfully free of official positions

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Robert F

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to

Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...
>>I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
>>seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
>>*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
>>address.
>
>You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
>Infomagic is a coward. He thinks that civilization is
>going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
>what company he works for. Really this is the only piece
>of evidence that he could provide that would convince me
>that he knows what he's talking about.


Is it really so much fun to play the guttersnipe, Mr. Sherman? The simple
point of my post was no one, you included, has made specific challenges to
the details that Infomagic has given regarding his programming expertise. My
point stands.

If Infomagic is under a contractual or ethical non-disclosure agreement, and
were he to violate it, you would be the first one to jump off the top rope
proclaiming how immoral and untrustworthy he is. Weren't you whining just a
day or two ago over something as trivial as someone posting a private email?

As for who to take seriously, some of your posts almost do it for me. But
soon enough you throw crap like the above against the wall, and return me to
my senses.

Robert Folsom

Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <74adnl$1hi$1...@opal.southwind.net>,
Bill Hoyt <bill...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> ...

>So what difference does it make where he works?
> ...

You need to read the entire corpus of his contributions
to csy2k to understand. If Infomagic wants to convince
me that he's not just putting us on, i.e. that he is
sincere about his beliefs (Y2k, historical and religious)
as expressed here, he'll have to show a few cards.

Of course he is under no obligation to do that, or to
reveal his name, nor does he have to do anything for
my benefit. I don't even think that being a coward
is bad in all cases. But I, for one, see a great
deal of hypocrisy in his lust for a few more dollars
versus his stated credo. Your mileage may vary.

--bks


Bradley K. Sherman

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <2a3a2.504$Zk.15...@news1.atl>,
Robert F <rob...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...

>If Infomagic is under a contractual or ethical non-disclosure agreement, and
>were he to violate it, you would be the first one to jump off the top rope
> ...

If he broke a NDA with a bank because he had a conflict with
a professional code of ethics, or a set of religious beliefs where
he felt that the benefit to society was more important than the
profits of a corporation, I would be the first to defend him.

--bks


Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 04:06:21 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

>>I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
>>seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
>>*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
>>address.
>
>You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
>Infomagic is a coward. He thinks that civilization is
>going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
>what company he works for. Really this is the only piece
>of evidence that he could provide that would convince me

>that he knows what he's talking about. Infomagic may
>be the second coming of Isaac Newton, but the only bank
>he knows the status of is the one that he's working for.
>
>So stay anonymous, Herr Infomagic, but let one of your
>colleagues leak enough information for us to determine
>which bank you work at and to confront the management
>with details that would put them on the spot. You have
>stated that you are part of a team which is probably
>part of a huge IT department (Banks are nearly pure
>IT shops) so it will be rather difficult to trace it
>back to you personally.

I understand your concerns. I think it's time to resolve this once and for all.
His real name is "Publius."

HTH.
HAND.


--
When they say, "Eat your spam," I say, "Drink your [purple] Koolaid".

Sender: crosscut
Domain: killtrees.com

Don Scott

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to

If he's a consultant, his name is "Billus Maximus".

But, seriously, if Infomagic cannot provide a real name, then he
cannot provide real credentials. That's simple and straightforward.

His math is suspect, especially when he fails to match his
calculations against observations from real cases that have been
repeated time and time again from corporations around the world.

I remember a trig. or geometry puzzle from years ago where the
calculated conclusion was that 1 = 2. But, in reality, 1 remained
equal to 1. Infomagic has arrived at a 1=2 scenario, but 1 still
equals 1 all around him.

Credentials or not, he would be laughed out of any professional forum
with his ridiculous conclusions. The extrapolations that he applies
to those conclusions are just more lipstick on the pig.

DS

The Goobers

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
Don Scott wrote:

[snippolinio]

> I remember a trig. or geometry puzzle from years ago where the
> calculated conclusion was that 1 = 2. But, in reality, 1 remained
> equal to 1. Infomagic has arrived at a 1=2 scenario, but 1 still
> equals 1 all around him.

Mr Scott, I recall seeing something similar to that demonstrated by one
of my Avionics instructors a few decades; it relied on nothing more
complex than algebraic substitution and some arithmetic... started with

a = 1
b = 1

... and concluded that a = 2b... or maybe it was 2a = b. Anyhow, the
instructor timed his demonstration so that the smoke-break occured after
he came to the 'impossible' conclusion and most of my classmates
wandered out, shaking their heads; I went up to the board and, after
receiving a nod to a 'May I, Sergeant?', took a piece of chalk and
circled

(something-or-other-I-cannot-remember) / (a - b).

DD

fed...@halifax.com

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <366921fe...@news.nbnet.nb.ca>,

sco...@nbnet.nb.ca (Don Scott) wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 08:34:28 GMT, som...@flubnutz.org (Ron Schwarz --
> see sig to reply) (Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 04:06:21 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >
> >
> >I understand your concerns. I think it's time to resolve this once and for
all.
> >His real name is "Publius."
> >
>
> If he's a consultant, his name is "Billus Maximus".
>
> But, seriously, if Infomagic cannot provide a real name, then he
> cannot provide real credentials. That's simple and straightforward.
>
> His math is suspect, especially when he fails to match his
> calculations against observations from real cases that have been
> repeated time and time again from corporations around the world.
>
> I remember a trig. or geometry puzzle from years ago where the
> calculated conclusion was that 1 = 2. But, in reality, 1 remained
> equal to 1. Infomagic has arrived at a 1=2 scenario, but 1 still
> equals 1 all around him.
>
> Credentials or not, he would be laughed out of any professional forum
> with his ridiculous conclusions. The extrapolations that he applies
> to those conclusions are just more lipstick on the pig.
>

Another well reasoned post. Congratualte your mother on having married her
brother.


> DS
>
>


--
Paul Milne
"A prudent man sees evil and hides himself; the naive proceed and pay
the penalty." (Proverbs 22.3; 27.12)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

fed...@halifax.com

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <bksF3H...@netcom.com>,

b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
> >seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
> >*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
> >address.
>
> You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
> Infomagic is a coward.

and you are an idiot.


He thinks that civilization is
> going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
> what company he works for.

His arguments stand or fall on their own, not based upon whether he works for
this company or that company. Have you ever seen "Flight of the Phoenix"?
The flight of the Phonix is about a plane that crashes in the desert. The
survivors build a new plane out of the wreckage of the old plane following the
instructions of one of the passengers who is an 'engineer'. Just before they
fly to safety, they find out that this guy is an engineer for a toy company
that makes 'model airplanes'.

You are an idiot sherman. It makes no difference who he works for if he
understands the principles behind that which he theorizes. His arguments stand
or fall on their own merit.

Really this is the only piece
> of evidence that he could provide that would convince me
> that he knows what he's talking about.

Then that convince me of what a giant ass you really are.


Infomagic may
> be the second coming of Isaac Newton, but the only bank
> he knows the status of is the one that he's working for.
>

and jealousy raises its ughly head.


> So stay anonymous, Herr Infomagic, but let one of your
> colleagues leak enough information for us to determine
> which bank you work at and to confront the management
> with details that would put them on the spot. You have
> stated that you are part of a team which is probably
> part of a huge IT department (Banks are nearly pure
> IT shops) so it will be rather difficult to trace it
> back to you personally.
>

It is not in the least bit necessary for you to know for whom he works. It is
a wild goose chase because it is easier for you to go off on that tangent
than address the facts, as usual.


> --bks

Tom Beckner

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
fed...@halifax.com wrote:
>
> In article <bksF3H...@netcom.com>,
> b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> > >I find it laughably arrogant to suggest that Infomagic "can't be taken
> > >seriously," as though you speak for someone besides yourself. I take him
> > >*very* seriously, with or without seeing his resume or knowing his home
> > >address.
> >
> > You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
> > Infomagic is a coward.
>
> and you are an idiot.
>
> He thinks that civilization is
> > going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us
> > what company he works for.


Infomagic works for himself, as we all do.

Live with it.

Tom Beckner

snip
>

The Goobers

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
fed...@halifax.com wrote:

[snippissmus]

> His arguments stand or fall on their own, not based upon whether he works for
> this company or that company. Have you ever seen "Flight of the Phoenix"?
> The flight of the Phonix is about a plane that crashes in the desert. The
> survivors build a new plane out of the wreckage of the old plane following the
> instructions of one of the passengers who is an 'engineer'. Just before they
> fly to safety, they find out that this guy is an engineer for a toy company
> that makes 'model airplanes'.

Mr Milne, are you aware of the fact that when you saw 'Filght of the
Phoenix' that you were not watching a documentary? (Neither was 'Cool
Hand Luke', by the bye)

DD

Don Scott

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 15:22:05 GMT, fed...@halifax.com wrote:

>> Credentials or not, he would be laughed out of any professional forum
>> with his ridiculous conclusions. The extrapolations that he applies
>> to those conclusions are just more lipstick on the pig.
>>
>
>Another well reasoned post. Congratualte your mother on having married her
>brother.
>

Do psychotics, as a rule, fixate on incest - or are they more prone to
dwell on the end?

DS


fed...@halifax.com

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to
In article <bksF3H...@netcom.com>,
b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

Will you be 'first' to feed all the people that you have dissuaded from
preparing as well?

Tom Benjamin

unread,
Dec 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/5/98
to

Bradley K. Sherman wrote in message ...

>You can take him seriously or not, but it's pretty clear
>Infomagic is a coward. He thinks that civilization is


>going to end in less than 400 days, but he won't tell us

>what company he works for. Really this is the only piece


>of evidence that he could provide that would convince me
>that he knows what he's talking about.

This is garbage. You can look at Infomagic's argument and reject it or not.
(I reject a great deal of it myself.) The company he works for is
irrelevant. It does not matter whether he is an expert programmer or not.
The argument is there to be read. You do not need any nuts and bolts
computer expertise to understand Y2K.

Tom


Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply

unread,
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 12:14:56 GMT, sco...@nbnet.nb.ca (Don Scott) wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 08:34:28 GMT, som...@flubnutz.org (Ron Schwarz --
>see sig to reply) (Ron Schwarz -- see sig to reply) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Dec 1998 04:06:21 GMT, b...@netcom.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>
>>I understand your concerns. I think it's time to resolve this once and for all.
>>His real name is "Publius."
>>
>
>If he's a consultant, his name is "Billus Maximus".
>
>But, seriously, if Infomagic cannot provide a real name, then he
>cannot provide real credentials. That's simple and straightforward.

[blah blah blah snipped]

I didn't think the name would ring a bell.

C'est la merde, or somesuch.

OT hint: only a comedian begins a sentence with "But, seriously...". The irony
is that if you want to be taken seriously, you won't immerse yourself in comic
memes.

That'll be $65.00 and a cup o' joe, TIA.

Chris A. Goodey

unread,
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 16:44:12 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
wrote:

The point is still valid. If an argument is logicallt valid, it
matters not what the source is.

Note also that the plane you saw really was flown (not a special
effect.) It crashed, killing the stunt pilot.

Arnold Trembley

unread,
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
The Goobers wrote:
>
> Don Scott wrote:
>
> [snippolinio]

>
> > I remember a trig. or geometry puzzle from years ago where the
> > calculated conclusion was that 1 = 2. But, in reality, 1 remained
> > equal to 1. Infomagic has arrived at a 1=2 scenario, but 1 still
> > equals 1 all around him.
>
> Mr Scott, I recall seeing something similar to that demonstrated by one
> of my Avionics instructors a few decades; it relied on nothing more
> complex than algebraic substitution and some arithmetic... started with
>
> a = 1
> b = 1
>
> ... and concluded that a = 2b... or maybe it was 2a = b. Anyhow, the
> instructor timed his demonstration so that the smoke-break occured after
> he came to the 'impossible' conclusion and most of my classmates
> wandered out, shaking their heads; I went up to the board and, after
> receiving a nod to a 'May I, Sergeant?', took a piece of chalk and
> circled
>
> (something-or-other-I-cannot-remember) / (a - b).
>
> DD

I had the same one in high school. If memory serves, it went like this:

a = b
a2 = ab (I don't have superscripts, a2 is a-Squared, multiply both sides
by a)
a2 - b2 = ab - b2 (subtract b-squared from both sides)
(a + b) * (a - b) = b * (a - b) now factor both sides
((a + b) * (a - b)) / (a - b) = (b * (a - b)) / (a - b) get ride of the
redundant
factor of (a - b)
a + b = b and finally substituting b for a, we get...
a + a = a And if a = 1, we get 2 = 1.

I didn't catch the error the first time. I was terrible at algebra, but
I remembered this very educational example. Just remember to do the
same thing to both sides of the equation, and you can't go wrong, er..
except for one minor consideration.

--
Arnold Trembley
http://home.att.net/~arnold.trembley/
"Y2K? Because Centuries Happen!"

The Goobers

unread,
Dec 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/6/98
to
Chris A. Goodey wrote:
>
> On Sat, 05 Dec 1998 16:44:12 GMT, The Goobers <docd...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> >> His arguments stand or fall on their own, not based upon whether he works for
> >> this company or that company. Have you ever seen "Flight of the Phoenix"?
> >> The flight of the Phonix is about a plane that crashes in the desert. The
> >> survivors build a new plane out of the wreckage of the old plane following the
> >> instructions of one of the passengers who is an 'engineer'. Just before they
> >> fly to safety, they find out that this guy is an engineer for a toy company
> >> that makes 'model airplanes'.
> >
> >Mr Milne, are you aware of the fact that when you saw 'Filght of the
> >Phoenix' that you were not watching a documentary? (Neither was 'Cool
> >Hand Luke', by the bye)
> >
> The point is still valid. If an argument is logicallt valid, it
> matters not what the source is.

Mr Goodey, I am uncertain here... to which 'point' are you referring,
InfoMagic's stated-but-'unverified' technical capabilities or Mr Milne's
point of 'I saw something like that in a movie, once'? I have no
dificulties with the former but the latter makes for rather... curious
equations.

>
> Note also that the plane you saw really was flown (not a special
> effect.) It crashed, killing the stunt pilot.

Now I'm utterly lost... but this is nothing new. Is this plane the one
in the movie to which Mr Milne referred? Does the fact that it crashed
reinforce the point of 'I saw it in a movie so everyone's lives should
be structured in this manner?'

DD

kre...@rocketmail.com

unread,
Dec 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM12/11/98
to

> I never even coined the pseudonym "infomagic". When I first started
> posting from the anonymous address someone (I think it might have been
> Cory) asked "can we call you Y"?

That would be me :-)

>I was about to reply "Y-not?" when
> others just started calling me infomagic. I just let it go, since it
> did have a nice ring to it.
>

>


> =====================================
> y 2 0 0 0 @ i n f o m a g i c . c o m
> =====================================

Kreskin

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages