Systems that are based on confidence don't work very well when big mistakes are made. I appears that innocent people get hurt. I find it very irresponsible to blame this on Gary North.

-- Reporter (foo@foo.bar), January 29, 1999

Answers

You mean that the kid who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes on WASN'T responsible for him being naked?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), January 29, 1999.

I'm not blaming "this" on Gary North. (Your previous two sentences refer to big mistakes made, systems not working very well, and people getting hurt. Which of these is the "this"?) His previous "sky is falling" predictions never happened, so I don't consider his current prediction a possibility either. I blame "experts" that lend credibility to the Gary and capitalize on "buy-my-survival-kit". But that's the way of the world and I wish I had thought of it before them.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 1999.

(Gary North's)..."previous "sky is falling" predictions never happened, so I don't consider his current prediction a possibility either."

Oy.

And this woman wants us to believe that she takes a logical approach in her perception on this problem. If she had said "likely" instead of "a possiblity" I wouldn't pick nits. But, it seems as though everything she adds to the dialogue is riddled with this stuff.

Oy, and I'm defending Gary North. Yuck...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 29, 1999.

If Gary North can change the world, then a gnat can eat a bale of hay.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), January 29, 1999.

Pshannon, thanks for a great response. Sorry about forcing you to defend the Gary.

You claim you want people to get it. I can understand that you would, fearful of the DGI and DWGI coming to steal your supplies. But all you do is throw flames. Recall the Pattie thread. I thought that was a great example of how you react to trolls.

I come on this forum as an openly dont get it. But I really am a WGI want to get it and you havent convinced me. I rate myself around a three on the scale.

Maybe you could try a different tactic. Maybe you could start explaining in a sllllloooooww way how this problem could cause a collapse of the world.

BTW you are being a nit picker.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 1999.

Maybe this would be worth a separate thread, but it seems like there are too doggone many these days (often redundant ones, too), so let me just post this here. One difference between a Doom&Gloomer and an Optimist seems to be how much their belief in the message is influenced by their perception of the messenger. I have noticed that most D&Gs seem to only be interested in the evidence supporting or refuting the message, and could not care less about any "hidden agendas" on the part of the messenger. Whereas, it seems like Os sort of have to "have faith" that the messenger is living up to their expectations before they will believe, and then the belief itself almost considers evidence to be of secondary consideration (if even that).

This certainly explains all the controversy that erupts everytime Gary North is mentioned. Just an observation....

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 29, 1999.

"I blame "experts" that lend credibility to the Gary and capitalize on "buy-my-survival-kit". But that's the way of the world and I wish I had thought of it before them."

Malevolent, capitalistic and greedy Troll at that! No wonder the Jacksonville Troglodyte is in love with her!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 29, 1999.

So how do you earn your money, hardliner? Tell me you don't think about ways to make more money.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 1999.

Nah - you can be an "O" (Optimist) as long as you remain deliberately open-minded enough to continue to review and read and study the problem as it develops.

The problem is - as an optimist, you (anybody - not "You" as just Troll Maria) will naturally be trying to "find" and research those statements and threads that reinforce your current beliefs. Most people who "don't want to get it" will try to avoid information that contradicts what they have "faith" in (for y2K, this faith is almost a religious conviction that "nothing will happen - and if it does it is because the mean-spirited right-wing conservative fundamentalist Christian hate groups .... caused mass panic.")

So I commend you for continuing to review the news - because we don't know what will happen. The problem is - regardless of 'want-to's" there is nothing the DWGI's can do about the oncoming potential disaster.

All they will be able to do then is sit freezing in the dark, trying to suck water out of an empty pipe; cold, hungry and thirsty. Because "getting it" then will be too late.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 29, 1999.

Troll Maria,

How, or if, I earn my money is none of your business. Didn't your parents teach you any manners? (No, Hardliner you idiot, of course not, she's a Troll!)

I will tell you that my values do not include "scamming" someone and then making my living off of the scam. And furthermore, if they did, I wouldn't be stupid enough to criticize them for the scam in one breath and then express envy that I hadn't done it myself in the next.

At least you're "up front" about your willingness and even your desire to "make money" (as you put it) by taking advantage of what you perceive to be a dishonest or immoral operation. That's unusual for a Troll, isn't it?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 29, 1999.

Maybe Gary North is cognizant of the coming Great Depression. I fear that America will get hit HARD by God's wrath.

-- dinosaur (bumblepuff@hotmail.com), January 29, 1999.

Most of my money will be made after Y2K hits by selling survival supplies. Cha Ching, Cha Ching. I've spent several years accumulating cast iron skillets, cookstoves, blankets, etc. I expect to quadruple my money, it's called an investment. Some had the foresight to invest in the stock market and I had the foresight to see trouble ahead. Just picked up another campstove today for $3.00, I will sell it with a gallon of fuel for $35.00, maybe more if supply and demand warrants it.

-- ~~ (~~@~~.com), January 29, 1999.

"~~", My 12 year old reading behind my shoulder just asked me how you will use your money. I responded "he'll eat it".

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 29, 1999.

Chris,

good point. but then there are always at least a few too many vultures...that's why it's common courtesy to shoot them when they get too bold and venture near human beings...not saying *you* will, mind you, but something for someone else to keep in mind in a post y2k environment, you know what I mean?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 29, 1999.

Jack, I agree. Most people tend to filter things based on the messenger. I don't believe most things I read (especially on the web) and consider the sources' experience or background.

Harliner, I have no faith in anything you post. You remind me of a pitbull that won't let go. I asked you how you earn your money because you called me greedy and I wondered if you were a monk, or some other noble profession. You're right sweetheart you don't have to tell me what field you're in. Now go along and play with the other two year olds.

Robert, I don't know what to think about the DWGIs. How they react if disaster stricks all depends on their life experiences. I know I'll be OK no matter what happens; I've lived through some pretty bad times.

Chris, Why do you think anyone making money after TEOTWAWKI will eat it? Do you plan on only bartering? Then taking money out of the banks is foolish if, as you believe, money will be worthless.

Still no one has explained TEOTWAWKI to me.

Troll Maria

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), January 29, 1999.

Chris, what will people do with their gold and silver? People are out buying thousands of dollars worth of gold and silver coins. They are banking on it being worth something, and I am banking on my goods to be worth something too. Supply in demand, that's the way it works.

-- ~~ (~~@~~.com), January 29, 1999.

Troll Maria,

What a fountain of knowledge! You seem to know as much about pit bulls as you do about everything else. Somehow the term "sweetheart" just doesn't seem right coming from you; neither "sweet" nor "heart" seem compatible with anything you've posted so far. That's OK Troll, keep on shooting off that mouth of yours. Each time you do your nature becomes more apparent to everyone.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 30, 1999.

Hardliner, you must be an awful person to be around when you're drunk.

TM

-- maria (anon@ymous.com), February 01, 1999.

I confess I find Jack's post about the messengers most curious.

If you actually read the press releases most organizations produce, why, they're all highly optimistic. I can't help but notice that these happyface reports are all rejected on the grounds that the messengers have an axe to grind and cannot be trusted.

If you actually read all the links at, say, the year2000 information center, the vast majority of them are equally optimistic. We reject these as well, on the grounds that the reporters are cluelessly reporting what the messengers want us to hear. We can't trust those reports, but the negative minority are FACTS!

If you listen to Koskinen, there's no reason to prepare at all. Presumably Koskinen is in a position to know a great deal more than is being public reported, but we reject him too. Another bad messenger. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen doomists select single statements by Koskinen as 'proof' we're hosed, while rejecting the rest on the grounds that *nothing* Koskinen says can be trusted. The only reliable things he says are what we want to hear!

High completion percentages are discounted ("completion percentages are meaningless"), low completion percentages are accepted as proof of coming disaster. So long as our opinion is supported, consistency is unimportant.

AHA, but when doom is predicted by someone who is ON RECORD as desiring to see the end of our immoral culture, then we all suddenly become soberly objective, and accept this doom at face value. The messenger has nothing to do with it!

As Larry Sanger points out in his excellent essays, preparing to the hilt is the only sensible course of action. But there is absolutely no question that we are all filtering every message through our convictions, and arriving at those selfsame convictions!

We all see just what we want to see, and we can't see that we're doing it!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 01, 1999.

Maria,

I wonder about being around Hardliner drunk, or sober, or whatever. Maybe someone needs to slip some Viagra into his drink, so he can get him some, and calm down. Otherwise I'd probably just have to slap him around a bit. Hank Jr. called it an 'attitude adjustment'.

Now. On to more important matters --

I completely agree with Flint. The hardliners filter things through their perceptions. So do the DGI/Pollyannas. Doom/Gloom'ers pretty much refuse to see the merit in any good news, and the reverse for the Pollys. Those who don't put out their particular brand of the 'news I agree with' are either lying, or stupid, or just out of touch, or dishonest, or ignorant. Anything to avoid challenging 'my' viewpoint.

Those who are somewhere in the middle are the only ones who are making any sense. They are keeping open minds, and weighing the evidence accordingly, come from where it may. Don't believe everything, certainly not, but don't DISbelieve everything either. There is truth, or parts of it, to be found in many divergent viewpoints. The smart ones can pull these kernels of truth from many different reporters, and figure out what is going on from that.

To stick blindly to a certain point of view, when things are changing so rapidly, is to get left behind, where valid awareness is concerned.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), February 05, 1999.

I wonder which choice is more "sensible." Preparing for an earthquake before it's hit or wishing you had after the house lies twisted?

Now, for Y2K. We know it exists. Companies, governments and militaries have spent amazing amounts of money trying to fix it. Big problems looming overseas. Will it be a 3.1 or a 7.5 on the economic richter scale? Will they get completely done? (Remember, small business has barely started).

Which would you rather be ready for? Which would you not want to be wrong about?

Can you PROVE you'll be alive tomorrow? Do you purchase life insurance so your family will be cared for?

What would be the most logical thing you could do to help prepare those you love or those who live around you for some "unknown" event with a fixed date that most the world governments are "concerned" about?

Maria, you are NOT doing your homework, for all that grey matter you claim to have going for you, IMHO. Git crackin gal, and quit resting on your ten-years old insider "how they used to do it" knowledge set.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 05, 1999.

Well Diane, I have done my homework. I've read the jo anne effect and I still don't get it. That's why I asked that someone please explain it to me. No one has done that yet. What made it click for you?

TM

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), February 05, 1999.

OK, Troll Maria, since I don't think that you are really a troll (don't ask me to explain why -- I just don't), here is a full explanation of The Jo Anne Effect, which includes a (humorous) example.

The Jo Anne Effect (Again)

In terms of Why Do We Believe What We Believe: for me, its always factoring in the What Ifs. Within the past two days, on two separate threads, we have good news and we have bad news about Y2K. Good news: airline travel reservation systems were tested and found to be ready for Y2K. Bad news: hospital medical equipment tested and found not to be ready for Y2K -- with the result that it could cause deaths if the equipment were actually used in 2000 -- even though manufacturers claimed that the equipment was indeed Y2K compliant. If I take the approach of believing that its the bad news that will predominate, and prepare for it, I lose relatively little if it turns out that I am wrong. If I take the approach that its the good news that will prdominate, and it turns out that I am wrong, then I have lost a lot.

So there ya go, Troll Maria, I don't think that it gets any simpler than that.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), February 05, 1999.

Boy hardliner you sure seem to be a real crowd pleaser..... How about another one of those psychiatric analyses of yours?? They're very entertaining. You just know EVERYTHING! Please enlighten me some more!! I need a good laugh this morning.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 05, 1999.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the facts as they stand and the rationale of taking an optimistic view of Y2K. That's why I'm a doombrooder and why TM, Flint and others are missing the boat logically, even if they are preparing personally.

It is possible (but I can't rate the possibility) that we are actually far ahead of the Y2K curve and that Y2K will end up being a bump, at least in the U.S. (If so, btw, our role as the world's prime engine is going to accelerate even further, for all you stock-pickers out there). In other words, I don't rule out the possibility that Koskinen's, de Jager's ...... happy-faces might be based on anecdotal realities not yet available as facts to the hoi polloi.

My point is the released facts about the process to date globally, based on everything we know from IT experience and history, are abysmal, taken as a whole AND that the enormous politicizing of the process probably means only bad as well, based on my experiences as a citizen. In other words, it acts as a major drag, not an accelerant, on fixing the code itself (see Doug Carmichael's recent newsletter on how Y2K news is reported up-and-down organizations).

Why is this equation still a mystery to some on this forum (TM? Flint?):

Bad Y2K data (facts) do-not-prove Y2K disaster (consequences) but fully justify doombrood logic and preparation (logic, not just preparation), given the perilous nature of some of the potential consequences?

Mom's who have never programmed understand this. What's the problem?

The only thing that deserves challenge is whether or not the Y2K facts are bad as of a given moment in time, taken as a whole. Here is my challenge:

I say the Y2K facts as of February 5, 1999 are bad as a whole. I have been laying out those facts (as have others) on this NG repeatedly. I am still waiting for Paul Davis or TM, others, to give me an alternate set of facts about Y2K remediation. Not about what they have experienced in their organization but about Y2K remediation itself.

When I can be shown that the facts have changed, either today or on 'x' date (let's pick one at random: July 18, 1999), I will gladly fight anyone who refuses to adjust to those changed facts.

Here is a for-instance: I will consider the ability of airlines to handle Year2000 reservations a good news fact for all of us, providing some simple due diligence is done to verify that weird fixes aren't being jimmied behind the scenes. Simple diligence, I'm not talking paranoia.

I consider it probable that Social Security has been fixed (happy fact), for instance, although I believe we have good reason for pointing to the decade it took as a not-happy indicator about Y2K remediation as a whole.

Am I making myself clear enough? Of course there are some good facts. Let's stack them up, day by day. In fact, this NG does try to do that. As for the facts as a whole?

I'm waiting .......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 05, 1999.