--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > In 1999 I was working for a technology PR company that > > monitored Y2K stories for a 'well known software giant' > > and it seemed to me that the stories of impending doom > > came primarily from newspapers desperate to sell copy > > and from computer companies trying to make a buck riding > > on the wave of hysteria. > > The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the > > day is long. I like my doom and gloom. > > By the way, not to get into the "debate" any > deeper than to laugh at one side of it
Without, of course, reading any of the series analysis, evidence, and testimony that supports the side he's laughing at, let alone trying to rebut it. Some systems were more vulnerable to Y2K problems than others; an anecdotal report of one set of systems that functioned properly without a Y2K fix tells us nothing about the real extent of the threat. No account of the Y2K flap that I've read denies that it was overhyped in the media; no account denies that more was done than turned out to be necessary. Ironically, once Y2K had come and gone without major disruption, the very media that had been selling papers and eyeballs with hysterical predictions were the first to claim that because none of them came true, therefore the threat had never existed in the first place--and using that claim to sell still more papers and eyeballs.
