I've been lurking for several months. Having seen this forum go from a place of tolerance to one of almost-religious fanatacism, I've come to the conclusion that most respondents here are adherents, albeit unknowing ones, of a new religion: Y2K Catastrophism. Please understand that I agree, at least in part, with the majority of the beliefs listed below, but people here should be aware that lately the level of dicourse has taken on almost hysterical tones, particularly apparent whenever a poster varies from the items I've listed below.

Here's what appear to be the main tenets of the new Y2K religion being promulgated on this forum - these are apparently part of the dogma, and simply questioning these beliefs will result in a minor Inquisition by the regulars.

1. Y2K will be severe, at least a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.

2. The government is lying about both the severity of Y2K, and its own plans for dealing with it.

3. Those who hold views differing from the above will be labeled as either polyannas, DGI's or a variation thereof, or government agents peddling disinformation.

The above may all be true and factual, but what I find disturbing is the reaction to those who disagree. Labeling and attack seems to be the order of the day for those who feel that a respondent isn't "following the party line," so to speak.

Comments?

-- belief (is@faith.youknow), March 03, 1999

Answers

Ashton, Leska --

I agree with your perspective. I tried to express the same thing in an essay I wrote last summer entitled

We're all Y2K Survivors

which you can find on my web site...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), March 03, 1999.

belief,

First one needs to make the distinction between the numinous and the ominous. Numinous - of or characteristic of the supernatural. Omnious - of or characteristic or portent of something threatning.

While I will not disagree that you see a lot of emotion express here. I would have to disagree with the assignment of the term Religion. The commonly held belief set is about something omnious not numinous.

Your're 3 points are essentially correct.

I regret that you find the disagreements distressing. Try watching for the patterns of the individual posters. You will see messages coming through behind what words are used. Most of the folks here are pretty decent, with a few notable exceptions. This is not a lot different that non-cyber life.

What I think you are seeing and feeling (I know that I feel it) is stress brought about by people dealing with grave matters that they by-and-large have never had to deal with in their entire lives. The future is unsure. Much more unsure that it has ever been for most of us. So unsure that it scares the Hell out of most of us.

Listen to those here who have seen hard times. The message I hear is calm. We can get through it with dignity. Man can survive horrible conditions. They have.

The preparations so often mentioned here are not the most important part of this experience. Sure, it's great to pick up valuable information. But even more important to see that we humans are all pretty much alike. A lot more alike that we are different.

It helps me tremendously to know and hear tha others think that what is "out there" is not numinous - it's NOT supernatural. It is only ominous - fallable people in a fairly screwed up world.

-- Greybear

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), March 03, 1999.

Well, actually we think this Forum has gone soft around the edges. There is very little hard-core nitty-gritty discussion and solution brainstorming about the obvious perils which will descend in a calamitous cacaphony all too soon. After being lied to month after precious ebbing month, and then being without power, light, heat, water, sewer, work, money, or food for two weeks and counting with no relief in sight, people will be megapissed and ready to show it.

Below are some serious problems we face -- risk matrix -- and looting, rioting, burning, stealing, cheating, shooting, torture, rape, mugging, terrorism, war, nukes, and other forms of social unrest are not even mentioned. It is the human reaction to being misled and unprepared which will cause the downfall of our present techno-propped civilization.

CALIFORNIA JOINS RED CROSS, FEMA IN URGING PUBLIC TO STOCK SUPPLIES

CALIFORNIA LAYS OUT THE POTENTIAL Y2K IMPACTS

[news]

In a no-holds-barred document straight from the California Office of Emergency Services, a plethora of potential Y2K impacts is described in eye-opening detail. Remember, these are not predictions.

They are potential impacts only. However, all these are being considered by California emergency services officials, and you should consider them as well. They include:

* Loss of operational control of dams, resulting in loss of life, property damage and environmental damage from floods

* Response delays in emergency services due to communications failures

* Inoperability of engines, ambulances, aircraft and other rescue support units, resulting in increased civilian deaths and increased property damage

* Decreased security in state facilities

* Safety system and pollution control system failures in HazMat (hazardous materials) facilities, resulting in explosions, fires, mass casualties, environmental contamination, property damage and delayed essential supplies

* Failures in the HazMat response systems, resulting in a failure to warn the public

* Failures in medical equipment and facilities, resulting in a reduced ability to cope with disaster casualties

* Loss of computer control systems in nuclear power plants, resulting in widespread blackouts, meltdown and release of radiation, or a forced shutdown

* Communication systems failures in nuclear power plants resulting in an inability to detect a radioactive release -- also, the inability of the government to know about this or to warn the public

* Air traffic control malfunctions resulting in slowed deliveries of medical supplies, aircraft collisions, mass casualties and fires

* Transportation system gridlock resulting in delays in mail and medical supplies; also inhibiting emergency response services

* Loss of generation or the transmission of electrical power resulting in food spoilage, failures of security systems, water pressure, medical equipment, heating & cooling, public safety, lighting, and more

* Loss of handling capacity of solid waste disposal resulting in bio-hazardous waste, methane gas, and environmental pollution

* Satellite system failures resulting in failed pagers, cell phones, credit cards and bank functions

* Failure of electrical supplies in utility companies, resulting in failed fire detection and suppression systems, failure of refueling systems

Read the full matrix at:
http://www.oes.ca.gov/oeshomep.nsf/10884826d3b7edaa882565f0005adc7f/cf 9568f6fb6c678d882566fa00835bbc?OpenDocument

[commentary]

Again, we emphasize these are not predictions. This is a "risk matrix" that outlines potential failures and their consequences. Most importantly, note that had Y2KNEWSWIRE authored this risk matrix, we would have been instantly labeled doomsday alarmists. But when a state prints the list, it's called "responsible strategic risk assessment."

Note that nearly all the suggestions now recognized as common sense and urged by the Red Cross, FEMA, and the California OES were originally suggested by the Y2K awareness community: sites like this one and people like Ed Yourdon, Gary North, Michael Hyatt, Jim Lord, the Y2KNEWS.COM people and others. In fact, the Y2K awareness industry beat the "emergency officials" by at least six months in calling for the public to begin stockpiling supplies.

RADICAL DOESN'T SOUND SO RADICAL ANYMORE

The so-called "radical" has become mainstream. As it turns out, the only "radical" thinking was that of the Y2K dissenters and peddlers of complacency who went out of their way to urge people to do absolutely nothing. After all, could be more radical than encouraging your neighbor to be left completely unprepared when a potential crisis is looming?

As is now obvious, that kind of thinking harms the public and would ultimately get people killed. Preparedness is the only action that makes sense, and the only legitimate debate now should be about the appropriate level of preparedness. Do you prepare for three days or three months? That's the realm of the Y2K debate. Those still calling for you to do nothing are only contributing to an eventual state of emergency and widespread panic. That's how fast Y2K has changed the playing field. Six months ago, those urging preparedness were accused of causing a panic. Today, it has becoming plain to almost everyone that panic only results from people surprised by unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, by acknowledging the Y2K risk and preparing for it, panic can be directly averted.

DO YOU KNOW A SURVIVALIST?

The term, "survivalist" used to conjure images of military-dressed bearded crazy men with grenades and rocket launchers. There might be a couple of those around, but aren't we all "survivalists" really? After all, most of us want to survive Y2K... and prosper on the other side. Everybody that has purchased an extra can of food, taken out a few extra dollars from the bank or put away an extra gallon of water is a survivalist. You're preparing for physical and economic survival, and now, all of a sudden, you realize you are a survivalist. But you don't feel particularly radical, do you? In fact, you hopefully feel a little more confident in your future. And the more you get prepared, the more confidence you'll have. Preparedness generates confidence, and confidence displaces fear. You are becoming an asset to society rather than a potential burden.

Welcome to the new definition of "survivalist," 21st-century-style.

=====================================================================

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.

The Y2K Impacts Matrix

This part is the govt and is not a lie.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.

In response to "Belief", I think you are absolutely incorrect. I certainly don't belief that y2k will be "at least" a 6, and no one has ever ridiculed me on this forum. (I will not be surprised if it is a 6, but that's much much different from saying at least a 6.)

I would wager that most people on this forum expect y2k to be a good year (at least in the US), but are preparing for at least a 6 just to be wise and safe.

About the government lying, etc., it's undisputed that much discussion is behind closed doors. You're not getting the whole truth. Moynihan slammed the Pentagon yesterday for its failure to inform the American public. Now these are just the facts. If you shoose to believe that the government is telling you the truth and the whole truth, then that's your choice and you'll have to argue with Sen. Moynihan about which of you is more knowledgeable about the government.

As far as labels, no one has ever labeled me a polly, DGI, etc. even though I do not meet your No. 1 criteria of the New Religion.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 03, 1999.

Ah, Puddintame, you old polly, DGI, poopie head, you.

There, take that.

-- De (dealton@concentric.net), March 03, 1999.

I knew that was coming. "Please, sir, May I have another!?"

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 03, 1999.

Hit the nail right on the head there, my friend. I've been lurking for a while too, and I'm seeing the same things you are. One thing you didn't mention is the real need to "convert" DGI's into GI's. After all, this is how religion spreads, by conversion.

-- Heretic (burned@thestake.com), March 03, 1999.

interesting consistency in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc from several apparently different trolls over the last week or so - go back and check threads with pseudonymous troll comments to see what I mean.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 03, 1999.

Why Arlin, you noticed :-)
JBD has been morphing and insiduously slithering about, ingratiating himself here and there, posting in batches and with innumerable names/addys, eliciting sympathy, doing everything in his power, energetically and slyly, to make preppers look foolish, and undermine legitimate concerns, starting threads, answering himself, then starting more threads berating the Forum for the previous threads, picking up phrases and concepts and cues and subtly trying to creep doubt and sow confusion in our Forum with his mean petty attempts at destruction.

Not to mention little tricks with fonts and colors in thread titles.
Yes, one slick sick clever troll, possibly paid by the misinformationists, possibly just devious, angry, and revenge-bent.

The trawler chummer will dredge up a shipwreck of bad karma and will find uncertainty, insincerety, betrayal, treason, and poor discernment leading to grieviously error-prone choices for many more incarnations and dreadful existences to come. The law of cause and effect works with exactitude, inescapably.

And should his poisonous spin so much as harm by one iota any reader coming to this Forum looking for true information, then God's righteous wrath will be upon him, marking him for eons. Woe be to those who know, yet will not see, nor hear, nor prepare, and even go so far as dissuading others from planning sensibly and prudently for what obviously is about to occur by the very law of cause and effect.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), March 03, 1999.

Whoa! Sounds like Koskinenbones himself is stayin' up late messin' with our minds!

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 04, 1999.

And what information do you bring to the table that indicates this consensus - derived by thousands of hours of debate between hundreds of people from different backgrounds, over 50,000 listings and coments, and very close inspection of several thousand different pieces of evidence - is incorrect?

Or are you indicating that this adminstration is - for some reason - telling the truth for a change? It hasn't yet predicted anything accurately - including forcasting just three fiscal years ago deficit spending through the year 2010. So if it can't figure out how much its own taxpayers are going to pay next year, what indicates it can possibly predict the outcome of a more complex problem?

Now, however, we do have proof that it lies - often and every time it opens its mouth - in front of witnesses, under oath, and to its own cabinet members. It doesn't matter - it will lie, and apparently attack and kill foreigners to cover those lies.

Your turn. Got rebuttals? as a respected member often adds...

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 04, 1999.

JBD? Koskingbones? I have seen this Jimmy Bag of Doughnuts character metnioned very frequently on this forum, as evil perpetrator of many so-called troll postings. You surely demonize him so much. Is it self-defense mechanism? Doyou miss him? Why can't you accept that maybe there is more than one person lurking which does not agree with your end of the world fears and conclusions. My choice of fake e-mail address hit it right on the mark too. Hear I am, burned@thestake for daring to disagree.

-- heretic (burned@thestake.com), March 04, 1999.

Belief, on the New Answers page is a link labeled "About." When you click on that label, you get what Ed Yourdon envisions this forum to be:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. . ."

If you are not concerned about Y2K's impact on your personal life and you do not wish to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people, then perhaps you need to find a more accommodating and welcoming group. Like many others, it seems you might suffer from an undeveloped sense of consequence.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Great answer Greybear.

As for attacks on dissenters, I think that the 10-people (on a scale of 1-10) get a pretty unsympathic reception also. When they start threads like "millions will starve" etc they have been accused of all sortsa nefarious motivations. I think the consensus 'round here is 7 through 9, so talking 10 will get you flamed too.

Calling y2k awareness a "religion" is meant to imply that y2k awareness has the epistemic sketchiness of religions, and therefore can be discounted. This is unfair. It is not at all uncommon for a discussion forum to share a broad set of assumptions or prior conclusions. The pollyannas get flamed, because for the most part they talk utter shite. We'd be more than happy to be joined by some 1-5's who don't reveal their bozo-osity with every keystroke. (Maria, here's a coldlink just for you - www.ceri.com ) I've been cheered by the appearance of optimistic Hoffmeister, who can at least string a sentence together.

Look at these two premises,,,

1. Y2K will be severe, at least a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.

2. The government is lying about both the severity of Y2K, and its own plans for dealing with it.

...to call these two premises "dogmatic" is absurd!! They're both entirely provable, and the proof is presented here daily.

Maybe we could all be a bit more polite with those who don't Get It, but exasperation with repeat-offender meatheads is inevitable. We oughta be careful not to blast innocent newbies, though, just out of courtesy.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 04, 1999.

I believe that those on this forum want to help each other plus those in their communities that do not get it! Which reminds me of a story .....

There was a great storm at sea and hundreds of star fish had been washed ashore. An old man was walking along the beach, horrified at all the star fish that would obviously die because there was no way for them to get back to the water.

Down the beach he saw a boy picking up a star fish and throwing it into the water. As he walked to the boy, he watched him time and again pick up a star fish and throw it into the sea. When he got near, he said, "Son, there are hundreds of star fish. There are just too many. No matter what you do, it can't make a difference."

The boy bent down once more and picked up a star fish. As he tossed it back into the sea, he turned to the old man and said, "It makes a difference to this one!"

I think we can save save a few DGI's.

-- rb (phxbanks@webtv.net), March 04, 1999.

Oddly enough, I've done that with sea cucumbers at Mayport and trash fish on a trawler and, to a lesser and different extent, with stray animals. They all, I'm sure, wanted to be saved. Seems to me, though, that many of the DGIs who post here just want to pick fights. I like to think that most of the forumites can spot the difference between a genuine DGI and a well-disguised troll, and treat them accordingly.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Nice to see you back, ron. Done more lurking than posting lately?

Chuck

PS I think you hit it quite well, both you and Leska.

Chuck, who couldn't be involved in a new religion, he backslides so much in teh three other ones he's invloved in.......

-- Chuck, night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 04, 1999.

Maybe it's because I live with someone most would consider a 'polly', that I find the instant flames of those who think 2-6 very distasteful. So Craig and Paul and 2010 don't think it's going to be TEOTWAWKI, let them air their opinions, too. Until they're flamed, they usually are polite and even logical. You may disagree with their premises, but I like finding out where people are coming from, even when I completely disagree. (Also, finding solutions is far more likely when you're not lost in the pit of despair - and that's where I find myself if I even consider Milne/Infomagic.)

As to the arguement that they will convince some DGI to stay DGI; it's far more likely to be that way if those who disagree with them are rude and sound ignorant, than if a considered rational response is given. Besides, if someone comes to this site, chances are they've already GI.

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), March 04, 1999.

Heretic - no flames so far ---- notice?

There is a clear and very significant difference between a person with whom we disagree - and I respect the technical opinions of such as Paul and "Troll Maria" because they do argue their points well - and a troll such as JBD who specifically adds nothing to the conversation but instead deliberately pollutes it with obsenities (-1 sp) and filth to distract and repell other users trying to find facts and opinions rather than sewage.

It is the difference in behavior - free speech is being able to stand in the private park (this forum is not paid for the public) and talk/argue/discuss politics and religion. Free speach is not defecating at the base of the children's slide.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 04, 1999.

Y2K isn't about religion. Religion is what God says to his creature, man (all you atheists out there, sorry, I just can't help myself). Y2K preparation is about realizing that the inventions of man can fail, and taking appropriate measures to ensure that the effect on you/your family are minimized. I've been accused of being a millenarian (not on this forum), but in reality, although I think Y2K has the potential to cause a sea change in industrial civilization (like shatter it), I don't think it has a lot to do with imminentism, or the Parousia (Second Coming of Christ). And I see almost all the obscenity coming from the trolls, who, basically, are cyber sociopaths, parading their disaffection from the norms of courtesy and respect. Other than Milne, who seems to have vacated the premises (fame gone to his head?), Paul Davis and the other 'pollys' don't get 'flamed' very often, not in the usual sense of 'flaming.' (Paul D., do you feel differently?) Compared to some, this forum is amazingly respectful, IYAM.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), March 04, 1999.

belief,

To some extent, you're right about your first and third points, but only because many of the "non-believers" are even more fanatical than the "believers". Most of us use verifiable sources of information to make our point.

But most (not all) of the people who come to this forum to try to convince us that Y2K will be a "bump-in-the-road" present few facts. They will argue ad hominem if they think it'll work. Sometimes these "non-believers" will stir people up, just so that they can point fingers at those they are able to stir up.

Optimists who argue without facts and who use personal attacks get annoying after awhile to those that are trying to exchange verifiable information on Y2K.

About your second point...you have seen this article, haven't you?

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

"Feds Plan Y2K Spin Control"

A person does not have to believe in the "end of the world AS WE KNOW IT" to start preparing for Y2K. No one can say for sure how Y2K will turn out, but the chances of significant disruption are greater than 0%, so that's why many believe it is prudent to prepare.

Honestly, can you read the following article and not believe that preparation is prudent?

http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/027317.htm

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.

Thanks everyone for the replies, I didn't think so many would take the time to respond. Some of you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make, namely that it's important to remain balanced on this issue, and be tolerant of other's views in spite of your closely-held beliefs. Personally, I believe that Y2K is going to be a "7", at least, and agree that it's vitally important to spread the word. Equally important, however, is that we NOT spread the Y2K "gospel". There is an old adage along the lines of "If you clench your fists, mine will clench just as fast." The entire thrust of my post was that I detect a tendency to wage a jihad in the name of Y2K here on this forum. While some people can be converted this way, others will simply reject the message, and no doubt the messenger, too.

I have nothing but praise for those who respond kindly but firmly to misinformed newcomers questions, answers or rants about the potential severity of Y2K, or the lack thereof. At the same time I feel that there are a lot of folks who spend way too much time on this forum and perhaps have lost their perspective. Case in point is the liberal use of the term DGI for those who happen to have differing thoughts. I find that term, or any other label that pigeonholes people and their beliefs, to be deeply offensive. Remember that there was a time when no one here was aware of Y2K.

-- belief (is@faith.youknow), March 04, 1999.

Something I forgot to mention. Worse than the term "DGI" is the term "troll", and I see that a least a few on this thread have put me in the that category, right along with JimmyBD (yes, I've been lurking for a while, and remember him/her well - not fondly, but well). You who said it, you're just proving the point I was trying to make. Maybe someone here will come up with a label for a person that denigrates and maligns someone's honest observations and viewpoints, simply because they diverge from his/her own. Given the current level of rhetoric, I doubt it.

-- belief (is@faith.youknow), March 04, 1999.

Belief you said:

"Something I forgot to mention. Worse than the term 'DGI' is the term 'troll', and I see that a least a few on this thread have put me in the that category, right along with JimmyBD. . . . You who said it, you're just proving the point I was trying to make."

Well, I didn't remember anyone putting you in the troll category so I checked back and had a look.

Arlin said: ". . . interesting consistency in vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc from several apparently different trolls over the last week or so - go back and check threads with pseudonymous troll comments to see what I mean."

Ashton and Leska said: "Not to mention little tricks with fonts and colors in thread titles. Yes, one slick sick clever troll. . . ."

Old Git said: "I like to think that most of the forumites can spot the difference between a genuine DGI and a well-disguised troll, and treat them accordingly."

Robert said: "and I respect the technical opinions of such as Paul and "Troll Maria" [who named herself] because they do argue their points well - and a troll such as JBD who specifically adds nothing to the conversation but instead deliberately pollutes it with obsenities (-1 sp) and filth to distract and repell other users trying to find facts and opinions rather than sewage."

Spidey said: "And I see almost all the obscenity coming from the trolls, who, basically, are cyber sociopaths, parading their disaffection from the norms of courtesy and respect."

DGI. Don't Get It. From what I've seen on this forum, the vast majority respect, if not agree with, a DGI's opinions. As for putting you in the same category as JBD, I can't see it from the above excerpts. Perhaps I missed something. Would you please show me where someone put you in the troll category right along with JBD? Finally, if you find labels so "deeply offensive," then why do you yourself label as catastrophs and hysterics people who happen to disagree with you?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 04, 1999.

Called it as I saw it, OldGit. Maybe I'm just being thin-skinned, but the impression I came away with was that the troll coments were being directed at me, since I had started the thread. Maybe I'm wrong, hope so.

As far as labelling people is concerned, look again at what I wrote. I didn't label individuals as hysterics or catastrophs, merely stated that those qualities appeared to be gaining ground concerning discussions here.

-- belief (is@faith.youknow), March 04, 1999.

belief, you're points must have been taken to heart. Check out the 'Panic' thread, Yourdonites handled that HF very well, IMHO (HF-happy face; any better than DGI?)

-- Tricia theCanuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), March 04, 1999.

[I don't know about it being a religion, but I do agree with the rest fo what you say "belief."

And I disagree with this:]

"Note that nearly all the suggestions now recognized as common sense and urged by the Red Cross, FEMA, and the California OES were originally suggested by the Y2K awareness community: sites like this one and people like Ed Yourdon, Gary North, Michael Hyatt, Jim Lord, the Y2KNEWS.COM people and others. In fact, the Y2K awareness industry beat the "emergency officials" by at least six months in calling for the public to begin stockpiling supplies. "

[The suggestions of the Red Cross and FEMA are very different from the majority view here.]

[Also, I think Puddintame would lose this wager:] "I would wager that most people on this forum expect y2k to be a good year (at least in the US), but are preparing for at least a 6 just to be wise and safe. "

[I would wager that most people here expect 2000 to be a very bad year.]

[There is a huge difference between preparing a household and preparing a bunker.]

-- Buddy (buddy@bellatlantic.net), March 04, 1999.

Buddy,

You said...

"There is a huge difference between preparing a household and preparing a bunker."

I disagree. Either of those two options could save someone's life if water, natural gas or electricity were interrupted for a few weeks. I have no problems with anyone who wants to prepare a little or a lot for Y2K.

What I do have a problem with are statements by people that encourage no preparation.

No preparation is more dangerous than "too much" preparation.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 04, 1999.

belief (is@faith.youknow) = Believer (ohye@little.faith) from months ago. Go back and see

-- alsdjf (a;lskdf@;lsda.alsjfd), March 04, 1999.

belief (or baby troll?),

1. Y2K will be severe, at least a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Sorry, but Im a KNOWN 5 (subject to later revision -- July timeframe).

2. The government is lying about both the severity of Y2K, and its own plans for dealing with it.

That, as investigative internet researchers, we have PROVEN.

3. Those who hold views differing from the above will be labeled as either polyannas, DGI's or a variation thereof, or government agents peddling disinformation.

Those who provide links to back up their assertions, are appreciated. Those who wade in with unsubstantiated opinion or flames, both subtle and overt, are bound to get labeled. Anywhere.

As to, government agents peddling disinformation ...

Their we cant panic the public remarks have been found, on the record, though not necessarily in the mainstream.

Just dig, or not.

Your choice. Your life. Just let others choose for themselves, based on accurate information, not disinformation.

Diane

(Go get em Leska)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 04, 1999.

belief - FWIW 'troll' is a term that comes from a long (for cyberspace) and dishonorable practice on usenet, whereby adolescent and psychologically adolescent posters would intentionally post inflamatory responses, merely because they found the results entertaining.

No, you didn't read me wrong - I was very much implying you're a troll, for that is certainly what you appeared to be. Blind tolerance is no virtue - while we must be careful not to frighten away newbies, we must also be careful to avoid allowing the forum to be dominated by those who seek to twist it away from it's initial intent. That hasn't happened so far, though goodness, we've had enough iteresting sways this way and that, in the discussions! A limited amount of tolerance, tempered by experience, discretion, and judgement are what are called for here, IMHO.

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), March 04, 1999.

LEskASHtoN!!!!! dIEter doeS not pLAy with FOnTS and SuCh, noR WAS DietER EVER JBD!!!!!! hoW IS it thaT yoU aRE SO UNAbLE TO geT THIS THROugh yoUR THICKNESS?????? yoU arE mosTly a NOn-foOL, BUT wheN IT COmES TO diEter, yOU ARE A REaL DGI, is thAT Not SO?????? WHy DO YOu accUSE DIEtER OF EViL?????? DIeTER IS THe expoSEr of fooLishness onLy!!!! whY CANNoT YOU SEE thIS??????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 05, 1999.

Dieter imposter alert!!!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 05, 1999.

I thought that troll comment was directed at me. Thanks for confirming it.

-- belief (is@faith.you.know), March 05, 1999.

belief,

Glad you GI.

Diane

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