-Caveat Lector-
June:
>And banks have had extensive 'disaster recovery' plans for years,
>covering the range of relatively minor disasters (such as burst plumbing
>in their main branch wiping out their computer system) up to a major
>nuclear holocaust...
Are we just to take your word for it, or perhaps you can elaborate on these
fantastic 'disaster recovery plans.' You might be able to convince me
yet--if you can be (A) more specific, and (B)--the more difficult--direct
your efforts toward rebuttal as opposed to attacking your opponents. :-)
You still haven't answered my question about guaranteeing your employer's
losses if you are wrong in any case.
>Y2K is just an additional 'disaster' which they've drawn contingency
>plans for, with the hope of never having to utilize it. But rest assured
>that if banks can restore their records in the event of a direct nuclear
>hit, the worst case scenario of Y2K is a cakewalk...
Interesting; some have referred to Y2K as the IT equivelant of the atom bomb.
>The thing banks fear most is a run on the bank,
What!?! You mean that banks fear having to honor the demands from their
customers for their own money?! It sounds as if my advice was all the more
sound for reasons having nothing to do with Y2K. You go, girl!! Make my
points for me! Maybe I should put you on my payroll. (ROFL)
>No, what banks routinely do (SOP, nothing to do with Y2K) is print paper
>registers of customers and their balances....
Are they required to do this by federal regulation? Do ALL banks conform to
this practice?
>Since you claim you don't have a bank account, I guess you've never
>experienced going to a bank and being told "We're sorry, our computers
>are down..."
I never said that I had never held a bank account. I do not have one now
and haven't had one for ten years. Inasmuch as I have worked independently
for myriad companies being in the position of handling fincances for these
companies, I am more than familiar with ATMs and bank services (from the
consumer end) in general.
>Most of them have been compliant for years,
Most!?!?! There seems to be a lot left unsaid for those institutions which
are NOT compliant. What about the depositors in THOSE banks? :-) Are you
looking for a job, June? Do you want to come work for me as my personal
polemicist?
> Where banks are possibly vulnerable is
>in making sure that all the PCs at all the branches are Y2K-compliant
Now, you propose to say that, despite the fine work you coders have done on
the mainframes, it all may be for naught because the individual work
stations may not be able to 'talk' to the mainframes. I love it!!!!! Thank
you June!!! I think I'm gonna go on another 'chicken little' campaign.
>...perhaps there may be sporadic cases of individual PCs at
>branches not working, but there would still be other PCs at the branch
>working...
Doesn't it seem to you that you are using far too many qualifiers (such as
'perhaps,' 'some,' 'most,') to be as sure of compliance as you seem to be?
>(Again, I'm stating a 'worse case' scenario, which I personally feel
>won't occur)
I don't either, but we haven't reached that point in the discussion.
>Banks have been specifically working on the Y2K issue for the past couple
>of years...with the priority on the software that effects their
>day-to-day operation, which means that which effects their customers,
>including individual depositors...
They MAY have been working on it, but have they FINISHED the task? Why
should anyone trust their money with a bank just because they have been
'working on the problem' for years?
>The same thing as all the coworkers of your supposed friends who are NOT
>playing the Chicken Little game, and in fact laugh at the 'sky is
>falling' panic...
Wrong; most are (reportedly) making similar--although perhaps less
intensive--plans.
>Let's see....you want people to withdraw all their funds from banks in
>the next 2 weeks, plus sell out everything in the stock market.
Please provide a quotation from me when/where I said I wanted people to
withdraw their money and bail on the market within the next two weeks. I
made the suggestion that they might consider it if it were in THEIR best
interests, but I proffered no timeline.
>..and you
>don't see how this will bankrupt the financial system and bring about an
>economic crash if everyone did as you suggest?
Again, I do not expect 'everyone' to follow my suggestions (there were more
than two), and I am not sure whether these institutions going bankrupt
would not be a good thing in the long run. In any case, I couldn't give a
rat's ass about financial institutions.
>Yes, you DO seem to gleefully anticipate chaos and the breakdown of the
>social order....
I see you must have gone to the K-mart school of debate.
>But you fail to point out that the government will utilize that as an
>excuse to institute draconian measures to severely curtail all of our
>civil rights...
The government will use whatever works as a reason to initiate 'draconian
measures.' They are priming the pump right now throught the 'threat' of
'terrorism' (an engineered phenomenon having nothing to do with Y2K).
>No, I'm suggesting people use their INTELLECT, and actually RESEARCH >the
issue instead of running around in circles in a blind panic
Suppose that people use their intellects, do the research and come to
conclusions more radical than my own? Are their intellects to be devalued
by you just because they reach a different conclusion than you?
>What you claim is acting in 'their own best interest' is indeed based on
>your PREDICTION that the Y2K bug will bring about chaos...
June, are you TRYING not to pay attention? I have NEVER made ANY prediction
regarding Y2K. I have made suggestions for preparedness *IF*
something/anything adverse happens.
>But I DO know the true status of their compliancy, and while there may be
>glitches,
Wrong! YOU only "know" what shape the programs YOU personally worked on are
in. You have no more clue than I as to whether or not the entire industry
is compliant. You might hazard a guess based either on your own work or the
purported work of others, but it is still a guess.
>Yours on the otherhand is based on conjecture and hearsay...
How do you know? I haven't stated my credentials or have believed it
necessary to do so in order to suggest that people make their own decisions.
Edward ><+>
=================================================
WARNING! Stay OUT of America's cities on 1/1/2,000!!
Edward Britton ><+>
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html
Reality Pump: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2
=================================================
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
