y2k panic is our biggest problem? be serious!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

check out the lead article on Michael Hyatt's webpage written by Bill Dunn, the managing editor of his newsletters. Great rebuttal to all those knuckleheads moaning about "unnecessary panic," "self-fulfilling prophesy," yada, yada, yada. To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the code, stupid!" --rb

-- rick blaine (rickblaine@casablanca.com), December 23, 1998


...could you provide a link, or at least Hyatt's address? Thanks.

-- Ben Dair (not@aol.com), December 23, 1998.


-- Arnie Rimmer (arnie_rimmer@usa.net), December 23, 1998.

"Awareness without a solution is stage one of panic"

... Picked this little gem up at www.garynorth.com, thought it might fit in here somehow.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 23, 1998.

Went to Hyatt's web page. The first thing you notice is he's just another huckster selling stuff. Speaking schedule, seminars, books you know the drill. Just another Yourdonefor clone. Can't believe people want panic. You guys must have another agenda.

Seems to me like a power grid problem and a distribution of services. Come on man. This is America. You telling me the country that made like 10,000 planes a day in WWII can't figure out how to distribute some food for a while until things start comming back online. GET OVER IT

Save your keystrokes. I don't know how many planes a bunch of women made during WWII but it is an impressive ###.

What we have to fear in 1999 is panic incited by people with another agenda. The doomers are getting more and more shrill as the news keeps getting better and better.

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1998.

Just how far up your ass or in the sand have you shoved your head Bagga??

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 23, 1998.


Not this "you all are gonna cause panic" garbage again. Most businesses and government agencies have said they'll be done with Y2K remediation by December 31, 1998. If that's true, great--there will be no panic in 1999.

The only way there can be panic in 1999 is if we've been lied to.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1998.

Kevin, meet Mr. INVAR

Mr. Invar meet Kevin

Why do you guys hate me? I haven't been abusive to anyone. I think we're looking at a 2. So do a lot of people. I think some poeple who are overreacting are rediculous, and counterproductive. If people take thier money out of the bank this will cause a major panic. This cannot be a good thing. I reccomend leaving your money in the bank. I'm a nobody why do people get so upset. I don't want anyone to listen to me. I want everyone to do thier research and decide for themselves.

I also want the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS and the sheriff to keep an eye on Mr. INVAR

Thank YOU and Have a Nice Day

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1998.

Jimmy, your agenda is too obvious...sorry you feel so threatened both by individualism and by capitalism, but that's just too bad. You can continue to express your opinions here, but please don't expect any of us to take you seriously...at least not until you start being serious...

Arlin Adams If you have to hide behind a pseudonym and a false address, you might as well give up, as those you fear have already won.

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 23, 1998.

"Arlin Adams If you have to hide behind a pseudonym and a false address, you might as well give up, as those you fear have already won."

What the hell does that mean? My email works

Arlin I've never paid any attention to any of your posts. You, like so many here are just a tired old windbag. Frankly you juat waste everyone's time and have no idea what you are talking about, especially when you refer to me. Nice of you to let me post here. Talk about a pompous ass.

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1998.

Mr. Adams,

While I'm sure you don't agree with my opinions, I am as serious about this as anyone. There are other thoughtful, intelligent, serious people on this forum who, while not willing to defend Mr. Doughnuts, might in fact feel quite, "threatened both by individualism and by capitalism." Not threatened by the philosophy, mind you, but perhaps a little nervous when those who strongly espouse them, also profess an infatuation with ballistic weaponry and didactic moral positions.

"If you have to hide behind a pseudonym and a false address, you might as well give up, as those you fear have already won," you opine. And many of us might bridle at your intolerance. I, for one, have become quite attached to my screen name, even preferring it to my legal name, especially in this arena. And there are many rational reasons for not including one's real Email adress in his or her posts, not least among them the contumelious tone of many contributers, both here and elswhere.

Do not feel that I have singled you out as representaive of this attitude, sir. In fact, I find you one of the more reasonable voices expressing this opinion with which I disagree. But you must understand my trepidation when less sanguine souls -- and you know who they are -- seem willing to go beyond merely discussing these matters.


"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with catchup."

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), December 24, 1998.

Hallyx, those who promote individualism and capitalism honestly, are no threat to anybody. It is those who promote collectivism and communism who are the oppressive threats. Those who wish to subordinate others to their own will; those who wish to take others' produce and give it to those who have not earned and do not deserve it.

A true individualist will not oppress you and he will not fire first. The right-wing people who think everyone should be a subordinate Christian; that is NOT individualism. An individualist believes that if people want to be Christians, they can be; if they want to be Buddhists or Hindus, they are individuals and it is their decision and nobody else's.


-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 24, 1998.

Jimmy - it's not a question of whether your email still works, it's a question of whether or not you're so afraid of the current regime you have to try to hide who you are. If you weren't and you have the courage of your convictions, why hide?

Hallyx (er, just curious but are you pronouncing that as "Hallicks" or Hally-ex"?) I daresay we do tend to demonstrate somewhat different aspects of the American social environment, you and I, but I don't think that needs to prevent communication. I would submit that one needs to be a bit careful in discerning the difference between infatuation (i.e. with ballistic weaponry)and careful threat analysis - which is what I was attempting to add to the discussion on ICBMs, et al. If such events do occur it really will be a matter of russian roulette on a continental scale. It's the folks who do NOT realize that, who seem to become infatuated with issue IMHO.

as to the 'less sanguine souls' yeah, that happens to be a function of the internet - witness the latest troll incursions while various schools are in holiday recess...*sigh*... I guess that perceived threat doesn't effect me quite so much since I come from a perspective that expects one to defend one's self as neccessary. hmm...I suppose were I to come from a perspective which expected the government to defend me, that might be a bit more threatening, in that the individual has surrendered that defensive capability under those circumstances, no? That one baffles me a bit.

Oh, and if it makes you any more comfortable, while I hold a very definite theological position, and wish more people held the same position, I do NOT believe that the United States as a whole will ever believe exactly as I, or anyone else, might wish them to. I take such definitive stance in this medium simply because it has been my observation that conservative Christians have experienced consistent attempts to intimidate them from expressing their beliefs publicly, throughout most of the mainstream media. It's also been my experience that there are large numbers of folks who've never actually spoken to a conservative Christian and therefore have no idea what we actually do or don't believe...only what they've heard from other people...sorry if it grates sometimes, but goodness somebody has to actually stand up and say what they think - too many of our folks have simply disengaged from mainstream society entirely, and *that* could end up being a very dangerous thing indeed.

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 24, 1998.

Arlin & Leo,

Truly touched by your above posts. Thanks. I still have hope.

Notice the self-righteous elitism in all of Bagga's posts. If you don't agree with him, you're being counter-productive. Notice how he has to attack you personally as opposed to constructive discourse in articulating his positions. How typically Liberal. Don't address facts, attack the messenger personally.

A true sign of intelligence...right??

As far as Bagga's desire for my likes to be investigated by the government, I didn't realize self-reliance and preparation was a crime.

Folks of Bagga's likes are the REAL THREAT to our freedoms. He goosesteps higher than any Nazi I've ever heard of. Has the term "thought police" crossed his mind I wonder?...

-- INVAR (gundark@aol.com), December 24, 1998.

Thank you, Leo and Arlin,

I know you as gentle-men and so I value your assurances. I am not as sure about many others, both here and on other fora, who man such aggressive ramparts. My tolerance of hyperbole is diminished in the face of TROOTH (The Reorganization OF Our Technological Habitat).

A nice point concerning political philosophy was made, quite succinctly, by Shmuell, one of the csy2k Alpha-geeks. "The left is not liberal any more than the right is conservative, and the right has no more use for liberty than the left does."---Seymour J. Metz

Im off this thread. Discussing politic/economics is not "like" discussing religion. It IS discussing religion.


"Its alright to take your religion seriously, as long as you dont take it too literally. Its alright to take your religion literally, as long as you dont take it too seriously." ----Alan Watts

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), December 24, 1998.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ