Bill,
The manner in which you criticize the entire Year 2000 issue is more appropriately applied to your own argument.
<< One example was the child-abduction craze of the early 80's. It all started when John Walsh (of America's Most Wanted fame) testified before Congress that "over 50,000" children a year were the victims of abduction by strangers.>>
Now here you're using the indirection technique that you get to later on in your "argument".
<< The point being that many people [...] simply went into child-abduction panic without bothering to question the premise and dig for the truth below the media hype. >>
Good point. You should take your own advice and dig for the truth below the media hype. Talk to someone. Call up a Year 2000 program manager at any major corporation and ask them if it's all a hoax. Not one will tell you that it is. Can they all be duped??? Are they all incompetent fools?? Or is it a conspiracy between the media and the project managers to pump up the stock valuations of Data Dimensions?? Talk about hype -- your contrarian position, devoid of facts, is 100% hype.
<< (which is not a crisis to begin with, not particularly relevant to modern hardware and software, and actually fairly trivial to resolve). >>
I'm sure your definition of the Y2K problem is centered around the remediation of software and firmware containing assumptions about the century. If that's true, then you know nothing about the problem beyond what a television reporter might pick up and deliver in an afternoon. Y2K is a business risk management problem. It starts with the software problem, of course, but for the organizations that are most significantly impacted, its all about business risk management. Supply-chain investigation, regulatory compliance (for banks and insurance co.s), contract language review and remediation, testing, disclosure liabilities, etc. etc. are all significant and real risks. I can give you some businesses that have ALREADY suffered huge losses because of this issue if you want; tell them it's all a hoax.
<< Most importantly, it is designed to get them to spend money for Y2K "services" and "solutions" offered >>
The entire world economy gets duped by Peter de Jager and Kevin Schick into spending billions of dollars. Ha! - you give them WAY too much credit. It takes overwhelmingly compelling reasons for companies to move in this manner. Your babbling flies in the face of common sense.
<< Unfortunately, the scientific evidence does not back up claims of the true believers, but like any religious zealot, they're not interested in gathering empirical evidence to support their hypotheses. >>
Such an accurate criticism of your very own argument -- if only you had some facts,... or first-hand experience,... or SOMETHING to give your argument some credence. "Citicorp is getting hyped into spending $300 million on Y2K because 50,000 kids a year getting kidnapped was accepted by People magazine readers" is not scientific evidence, SORRY!
<< They'll then make dire predictions of financial institutions collapsing, planes falling out of the sky, elevators stopping, and cars not starting as their computers go bezerk at exactly 12:01 am on January 1st, 2000.>>
Your attempt at lumping the entire Y2K effort under the above characterization is weak. Yes, there are the hypsters, but it doesn't mean that the Year 2000 problem is a hoax. Crazies may have thought that Haleys Comet was a UFO (and they got press, too), but their beliefs didn't make it any less of a comet. Y2K is a definate and real problem. You say that it isn't because you've been reading the press covering the crazies on this issue (at least we all HOPE that they are crazy).
<< Millennial apocalypse hoaxes and panics are nothing new. This one just happens to be a particularly embarrassing. >>
Here's a bumper sticker for you to consider -- "KILL YOUR TELEVISION".
<< With the Y2K story now filtering into the mass media (Newsweek stories, sound bytes on the evening news, etc.), I believe we are approaching the frothy peak of the hoax, and perhaps a spectacular opportunity for the investor to profit from the inevitable failure of Y2K companies to live up to their absurd valuations. The following stocks have been driven to unrealistic valuations due to Y2K speculation and are ripe for short-selling.>>
I just figured out what your contrarian hype is all about. You are actually a believer in Y2K, and you're trying to get others to short your stocks so that you max out your return. Very clever!
Actually, the over-valuation of Y2K stocks is an excellent topic and a completely valid point. The crash of these stocks, whether by consumption of the work that's available on Y2K or by some sort of collapse in investor backing, is where you should be stimulating discussion. Why drape it in baloney? |
