This Norm character is really beginning to fascinate me : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This Norm character is really beginning to fascinate me. Even the Nom de Plume is brilliant. Norm, as in "Normal," nwo, "New World Order," - a Microsoft "property."

In the past few days, his posts have included: "Y2K - Another perspective that will be put down," "Y2K More Sound Than Fury," "Doomsayers starting to retreat," " Mitch Ratcliffe answers questions," "The Y2K Timebomb - Dud," "More positive news that will be dismissed out of hand," and "Y2K A sucker born every minute."

"Norm" posts an attention-grabbing headline, and the text of an article in the mainstream media. Maybe, an opening line of his own. Many of us have seen most of this stuff already. Then, "Norm" never (as far as I've been able to tell) follows up his posts with any commentary or opinion of his own. He never responds to what others say.

"Norm," most of the stuff you post is not news. I don't know if you actually read any of this stuff, but it's all carefully crafted propaganda. Also, in some of this stuff there is an obvious "disconnect effect" at points. There's very little investigation going on here. This stuff is designed to keep people's fears from getting them to a point where they will actually do any investigation on their own.

Many people on this forum spend a lot of time going to the sources of real news, with varied results. Yes, there is good news out there, you just haven't posted any of it. There is a wide range of opinion here, granted it's tilted way over to the "Doomer" side. That may be because investigating sources of REAL news along with a desire to understand issues of interconnectivity in the global economy (possibly more important than much of the actual Y2K "news") point to conclusions contrary to where most of the "Happy Face" drivel that you post leads.

But keep it up, "Norm." I find it to be a good gauge of the mindset of the propaganda masters. It's also a good exercise for the people who enjoy investigating the issues that you bring up, in order to counter fluff with evidence. Hopefully, newcomers to the forum will learn how to properly read the stuff you post and will be able to discern the "Fnords" in much of the mass-media "reporting."

(Go ahead, Mutha Nacho - flame away with ad-hominum attacks!)

-- pshannon (, March 16, 1999


As I posted earlier this morning, Norm is one of the more sophisticated trolls on this forum. Thanks for your comments, ps.

-- Brooks (, March 16, 1999.

and AMEN pshannon!!!!!!!

My guess is "Norm's" hope is to wear the MWGI's (Might Wanna Get It's) down by adding all this media spin in large doses so that they go back to sleep.

It's a modern PR tool to shape public opinion, widely used in Advertising circles, adopted by the media for propaganda purposes.

This technique worked to wear down the G.O.P., and got them to capitulate to all the White House's demands. There was no independent verification of the polls, and the like. THE MEDIA told everyone what to think and believe. They told it over and over, until the spin became truth in regards to what the American people felt about Clinton's scandals.

An example of this is how the White House and the Media kept telling us: "The American People are TIRED of this Monica business, they want to move on with their lives and they want Washington to go back to work for the American people".

If that was truly the case, why was Barbara Walters' interview with Monica Lewinski surpassed in ratings by only the Superbowl if the "American People are tired of this"? Still the media makes that statement. It is a mantra. The people believe it, because now they spout the same phrase when asked about it, even if THEY themselves watched the interview.

I imagine Norm and the rest of the media will utilize this tried and true method of spin, and make it stick in regards to: Y2K is all hype.

The machinations of the smoke and mirrors machine are impressive indeed.

To see the truth, parse the words and read between the lines. Verify through independent sources and stories, and you will arrive at the truth of the matter.

This is why we're preparing for an 8 or better.

-- INVAR (, March 16, 1999.

Norm and those who think like him should drop down a few threads and read nine fingers' assessment of the USPS. This is from a guy working the front lines who knows what he's talking about. I trust his take much more than I do that of an ad agency flak or a clueless journalist.

-- Vic (, March 16, 1999.

Norm was much more enjoyable when he just sat at the corner stool enjoying a y2k compliant malt beverage. Apparently Norm has now gone to Cliffie's Skool of Kompliance. I bet Vera is a GI. I've also heard reports that Normy has stockpiled several boxcar loads of pasteruized beer.

-- Puddintame (, March 16, 1999.

I think Mutha Nachu invited Norm & Vinnie to the forum..... his cohorts on GNIABFI.

Pollyannas who truly understand the potential cascade of failures generally treat Y2K with respect (witness Flint), while those who don't perceive interconnections employ the ascerbic, condescending tone..... The above three "debaters" honestly just don't get the big picture.

This forum, for them (and others), is nothing more than intellectual target practice/self-gratification.

-- Lisa (, March 16, 1999.

INVAR, brilliant observation. All those folks so exhausted by MonicaWorld just fell over themselves to get a glimpse of those glossy lips moving up and down, to hear those pululations from that golden larynx. We are the most heavily propagandized people in the history of the planet, and, thanks mainly to our friend television, too dull to realize it. (BTW, what would Norm make of Woodie? He went off and became a natural born killer)

-- Spidey (, March 16, 1999.


Intellectual target practice?? If so, you're out of ammo sweetheart.

Please describe the "Big Picture" us "Debaters" don't get.

This will be interesting.

-- INVAR (, March 16, 1999.

Psst, INVAR, I think Lisa meant "Mutha, Norm and Vinnie"...

-- Brooks (, March 16, 1999.

Uhm, Invar, I meant Mutha Nachu, Vinnie and Norm as the "above debaters".....

Troll analysis is fine entertainment mine here; those three are among the more sophisticated "debunkers" to surface.

In trying to establish motives for these three, I don't find the personal, calm-the-doomer reassurance that Flint and Paul try to offer, only ham-handed return volleys. Just argument and condescension.

-- Lisa (, March 16, 1999.

Jeez, I didn't watch the Walters/Lewinski fest, does that mean I really DGI?

-- Mitchell Barnes (, March 16, 1999.


Verifiable factual evidence please.

-- Watchful (, March 16, 1999.

Maybe Norm IS Monica?

-- BigDog (, March 16, 1999.

Very interesting thread.

Let me see if I have the gist of your complaints and let you know what I have learned since I have been here:

"Mainstream" Media................very bad, not to be trusted.

All levels of government..........very bad, not to be trusted.

Internet Web sites that sell survival equipment.....very good. To be trusted implicitly.

Companies who provide updates and public information about their compliance schedules..............very bad, not to be trusted.


-- Norm (, March 16, 1999.

No, Norm is Vinnie's id.

"Jeepers Sysman, you seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Do you actually work somehwere? What "large organization (air industry - not American)" BS untill you prove otherwise.

I cannot and will not jeopardize my professional career by speaking publicly about which I am not allowed. What I gave you was an example of what happens sometimes when systems run with a non-compliant date change. Nothing. I care a fig whether some low level IT guy believes me. I read the senate report, no doubt before you did. Old information reported cautiously. What did you expect?

"Lies from DOD. Missed deadlines. Increased spending. Spin from Kman. Media told to shut up. Senator Ben saying one of the biggest problems this country has ever faced one day, a bump in the road a few days later. Why do you think this is Vinnie? <:)= "

Sounds like a veddy sceddy conspiracy theory Sysman. Let me see if I can sum up:

Government = Bad

Media = Bad

Y2K Experts = Stupid or corrupted

Sysman and his team of Dilberts = Good! pshannon, I am sorry that I have come across rudely. In the real world I would not speak like that to anyone - on this forum those of us who are not TBs are personally attacked with great vitriol. Instead of taking the high road I have responded in kind - which I'm sure speaks poorly about my character. I will just leave you with this. If you go looking for the bad news, you will always find it. "

-- Vinnie (, March 12, 1999.

Or is sprouting Vinnie's "meme". Either or, no sale at this forum, and that (hopefully) is beginning to sink in.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.sofar), March 16, 1999.

Damn, it IS alive! Too bad I've given-up my EYE-OPENER days. Have fun guys!!! <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 16, 1999.

Norm, do you believe that the US government intentionally dosed pregnant women with plutonium? Well, do ya Norm?

Norm, do you believe that Morton Thiokol murdered innocent astronauts? Well, do ya Norm?

Norm, do you believe that the US government volunteered the truth about servicemen's exposure to chemical war agents in the Persian Gulf? What's it going to be Norm? Corporate America was right up-front during the Three Mile Island incident, Would'nt you agree Norm?

Teddy Kennedy wouldn't lie to save his candy-a** would he Norm?

The government does not include people like Kennedy and Clinton does it Norm? This list could go on for volumes. But you wouldn't believe any of that would ya Norm?

-- Puddintame (, March 16, 1999.

Your right

Everyone is a liar but you. No one can be trusted. The truth is out there

-- Norm (, March 16, 1999.

Now, now. We have some new slimy misinfo-dripping trolls, a couple of whom are actually NOT JBD. Let's just ignore them instead of wasting time & energy. They're easy to spot -- zero sincerity, zero true questions, zero valuable contributions, zero new news, zero respect, zero comprehension of the imminent Zero Zero. Poof!

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (, March 16, 1999.

And like Vinnie, Norm gets sensitive very easily.

Hey, man, you work for Cappy Hamper? Think I've seen you on his roster...

-- Lisa (lisa@sigh.hmm), March 16, 1999.

Sorry I sounded sensitive Lisa, I'm actually not. I am going to repeat something that I posted on another thread that I hope explains myself a little better.

What saddens me is the level that so many of you will go to disrespect others here who have opinions that differ from yourselves. Your Y2K prognostications may be completely right OR they may be entirely and totally wrong. What's wrong with hearing from the other side? What are you afraid of?

That's it.

-- Norm (, March 16, 1999.

Lisa, Mucho Apologistas Dear, I mistook whom your statement was targeted.


The answers to the above observations is as follows:

Mainsteam media: Yes. Do not trust them. They feed us what they want us to know and think. Case-in-point: Tobacco. Next case: SUV's Next case: Guns. Next case: Junk food.....etc., etc., etc.....(Notice how I left the political spectrum out- that's because it is no secret the Mainstream press is Leftist by-in-large).

All levels of government: Absolutely not to be trusted. As I've said before: this nation was founded on the mistrust of government. It is our birthright. Distrust of government was designed to keep it honest and faithful to the people. Blind faith to this corrupted government has given it the control and authority to oppress. (Just ask any large landowner West of the Mississippi. And if that doesn't make sense to your feeble brain; can you say IRS??

Internet Survival Shopping: Capitalism at its best. And just like any retail store, there are bad apples in the cart. So choose carefully.

Companies' Compliance Statements: Absolutely DO NOT TAKE THEM AT FACE VALUE. They must be verified independantly. A company doesn't voluntarily admit to having problems that can affect their customers unless a lawsuit forces them to.

Business 101: A company exists to make money. Anything that threatens that or their customer base is to be debunked. They will say anything to keep the stockholders and their customers happy and confident. This will keep the cash flowing while they work internally to fix problems while publicly stating 'things are grand'.

Show me proof that this Y2K thing is fixed or beat (and not by some PR flak or spokesman or ad agency twit) and then I'll relax a little.

So far there has not been one shred of evidence to suggest: No problem.

Norm, you sound like a guy who believes everything he reads at first glance. Did you see this week's Enquirer?

Interested minds want to know.

-- INVAR (, March 16, 1999.

I don't mean to be disrespectful Mr. Sysman, but I'm one of those fellows who has always (well, almost) been prepared for emergencies, loss of power, no food, etc. So, please don't lecture me. What saddens me is the level that so many of you will go to disrespect others here who have opinions that differ from yourselves. Your Y2K prognostications may be completely right OR they may be entirely and totally wrong. What's wrong with hearing from the other side? What are you afraid of?

-- Norm (, March 16, 1999.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Most people are *not* prepared for emergencies, loss of power and so forth, Norm. This forum is valuable because most of the information presented is documented and verifiable. What saddens me is when the 'Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot' crowd meme-ishly continue to report news that has been proven to be false. The story that Dr. Ed Yardeni lowered his recession prediction from 70% to 45% comes to mind.

You asked what's wrong with hearing the other side? Nothing except that we already have heard that side. We already know that 85% of the U.S. will be able to get their mission-critical systems fixed in time. The question on this news group isn't about the 85%; it's about the 15%.

What if your doctor told you that 85% of your body is in good shape? How would you feel if he told you 15% of your body like your heart and lungs was in iffy shape?

I saw another one of your threads with a story about utilities in Detroit. That's all well and good -- if you live in the Detroit area.

What are we afraid of? That you just might be able to convince a few people not to be prepared for emergencies, loss of power, no food, etc. that you say you are already prepared for.

-- Mabel Carter (, March 16, 1999.

-- Mabel Carter (, March 16, 1999.

If you're going to quote the answer, quote the question:

"Norm, please don't take our attitude personally. But again, Vic is right, we've seen it before. Keep trying if you wish, but until we see a mountain of evidence that says things will be OK, most of us will continue to prepare. I would suggest that you start looking at the mountain that we do have hear, and begin yourself. <:)="

Like I said, I'm staying out of this one. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 16, 1999.


My point in starting this thread was that the stuff that you've been posting here does NOT present "the other side." I presents PR flak. I know that most of us "True Believers" as Vinnie calls us, would be thrilled to see more in the way of real and verifiable evidence that the problem is, indeed, not so bad. That kind of evidence is not forthcoming from most organizations, for a variety of reasons. Companies just don't want to publicize their compliancy, good or bad.

What you've been presenting is not evidence. It's not reporting. And it's going to be knocked down for what it is by this crowd. We just don't take this drivel seriously. And, many of us fear that an overwhelming amount of this junk is going to prevent people from protecting themselves in ways that you say you have protected yourself.

If you really want to try to change anybody's mind around here (I'd personally be open to having my mind changed. Promise!) please present us with real evidence from the source that things are going to work, not poorly researched propaganda pieces designed as sleeping pills for mass consumption. Please.

Thank you...

If you

-- pshannon (, March 16, 1999.

I should point out that pshannon is an associate at Sanger's Review - a well respected Y2K news site. <:)=

-- Sysman (, March 16, 1999.

INVAR, cut the "dear" and "sweetheart" crap! You sound like Archie Bunker!

-- a'ldfjkf (lsdj;;f@;asdlf.cpu'), March 16, 1999.

Awwwww shut up will ya?

Yer an imbecile Meathead.

-- INVAR (, March 16, 1999.


I certainly agree with you that there's very little investigation going on here. The media haven't quite learned what questions to ask or who to ask them to. And they're interested in 'balance'.

So they find some talking head who says "We could have some very serious problems in this area." Then they find another head who says "Everything is under control." And the media quotes them both equally. Selecting among all these stories to cull out the 'carefully crafted propaganda' is tough.

I sincerely hope that Sanger's Reviews doesn't decide that one slant or the other has a monopoly on propaganda -- there's plenty of that for everybody. The notion that 'real' news supports MY position is something I try very hard to avoid. It's too addictive.

-- Flint (, March 16, 1999.

" Very interesting thread.

Let me see if I have the gist of your complaints and let you know what I have learned since I have been here:

"Mainstream" Media................very bad, not to be trusted.

All levels of government..........very bad, not to be trusted.

Internet Web sites that sell survival equipment.....very good. To be trusted implicitly.

Companies who provide updates and public information about their compliance schedules..............very bad, not to be trusted.


-- Norm (, March 16, 1999. "


Behold the intellectual subtlety of Nahmie.

And yes PShannon, it gets most disconcerting when Fnnords are parading about wearing big signs that say "I am a fnnord", and yet most people cannot see them as such.

All heil Discordia!

-- humpty (, March 16, 1999.

(This is not addressed to Norm.)

I have to ask, what practical advantage to anyone can there be in persuading people that the Y2K problem is nothing to be concerned about, that it's foolish to make any preparations, that it's wrong to anticipate any significant disruptions of infrastructure and basic services?

I can't conceive of any advantage in doing this. But if there is no overt goal in doing so, then arguments of the sort Norm has been making (if not simply frivolous) may be his way of protecting himself from thinking the unthinkable.

-- Tom Carey (, March 17, 1999.

(Go ahead, Mutha Nacho - flame away with ad-hominum attacks!)

HAH HAH HAH ha ha...ironic, no? wiping the tears from my eyes and getting back in my chair...)

Why would I flame you? you are far to entertaining! You acuse everyone of "media spin"...then just to make sure your fellow cultists don't fall off the 'spin' any good news you can find!!!!

HAH HAH HAH HAH ha ha ha!!!!!

(oh...I'm sorry...did I say spin? what you do is 'editorialize'..i forgot...)

BTW, I'm still laughing over your comment on the 'famine seems unlikely' thread...*you* are a hoot!

oh, and since you think I'm 'mutha nacho'....why don't you eat me!

LOL! (couldn't leave without one good zinger...)

-- Mutha Nachu (, March 19, 1999.


-- Mutha Fucker (, March 19, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ