Who ever said that GIs were a humorless bunch, didn't read the following. Doesn't do much for the credibilty department does it?

"Last month there was a new crop of "trolls" to this forum. This month's crop is Vinnie, Y2KPro and Norm. I wonder which government agency or military branch they're part of. We've been told about these visitors before and I have no doubt that they're here now, mostly lurking. Maybe these people (this person) is new to the Internet detail and couldn't resist the urge to jump-in and not just monitor.

WW -- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), March 17, 1999. "

-- Norm (NWO@hotmail.com), March 18, 1999

Answers

My God, NORM is becoming self aware, it is starting to provide commentary on what it is posting, sort of learning as it goes. Fascinating. Perhaps the worlds first COMPUTER TROLL????

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

Norm,

Why don't you tell us who you DO work for? Why don't you tell us what you DO believe will be the consequences of this Y2K mess? Why don't you share with us whatever it is that gives you the insight for your apparent belief that it won't be as bad as many of us think? Maybe you know something that would help someone here to tone down their fear?

True, this can be a tough and bull-headed bunch. There's a real anxiety here that the world is about to go through serious and possibly deadly changes. But I know from experience that there are very few here who aren't willing to consider factual-based reasonable arguments that it won't be so bad. I myself base my opinions partly on the fact that I read EVERYTHING everyday about this problem. It's my job. Why don't you share with us what you base your opinions on?

This is a sincere invitation...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 18, 1999.

Norm,

Dude, chill.

Please expose our stupidity by using facts/data, perhaps even sincere questions. I'm afraid attacking regulars, just isn't going to build respect for your point of view(to which you are quite entitled).

Unless your intent is to cause dischord in which case I would start to wonder with Wilweasel. You seem to exert a lot of energy to dicredit the need for preps concerning y2k. Why do you exert so much energy over a non-event? I am very interested in your motivation. I for one would never invest my time in this or any forum, for no purpose.

Wilweasel said:

"I wonder which government agency or military branch they're part of. We've been told about these visitors before and I have no doubt that they're here now, mostly lurking. "

There has been data presented which supports this view, it's in the archives.

Refute the data.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), March 18, 1999.

He came, he read, he posted, he vanished again....

He ain't ever gonna get to "conquered" until he learns how to answer good questions like hers. Then again, maybe he can't ....

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 18, 1999.

Forget it folks, NORM's output buffer has flushed, so its back to seeking input again to flush once again to start another thread. Lets just hope that NORM is not Y2K compliant.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

That's very funny, King. A computer troll. LOL!

(Norm, keep that thing you said about "credibility" in mind when YOU'RE posting...)

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 18, 1999.

Well Norm, I see you still haven't answered my question, so I'll repost it here. I really would like an answer.

Norm, My opinion only. We're not afraid of anything. Most of us really do hope this will be just a "bump in the road". I know you've been trying to bring us good news, but we have seen all of this many times before. We have a few people (Diane Kevin pshannon) that spend alot of their time trying to find ANY news on this issue. I've visited a dozen Y2K sites and believe me, we get it here first. Again, my opinion, the evidence is not good. Yes, we do have some time left, and I hope to see much more good news. I just don't think it will be enough.

This is a very emotional issue. While we do have a few that are extreme, most here don't mean any disrespect. They just get carried away. I know, I've done it myself.

I'm glad you are prepared. But Mabel brings up a good point - most people are not. So I must ask you a question. What's wrong with our trying to spread the word and get people ready? Even if "nothing" happens, isn't this a good way to live? You seem to think so. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 16, 1999.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 18, 1999.

Hey guys,

You know, it *is* possible to disagree with the GI position. If one disagrees, and posts evidence to support that argument, the GI's job is to bring in a valid refutation. That's a constructive debate.

It's quite possible, if not probable that Norm et al, doesn't work for any government agency.

My suggestion is (if you have the inclination) to refute Norm's argument by presenting the GI evidence. Show how the dots are connected. Otherwise, as Cicero said a couple thousand years ago:

"When you have no basis for argument, abuse the plaintiff."

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), March 18, 1999.

Look at this example of troll efforts from January. Would an individual go to this extent? Notice on the thread how the first 10 or 15 messages were copied and pasted from other places on the Net.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000RNh

Recognize the names? I don't either. Neither did the other forum regulars. Someone or some group very much hopes for this forum to fade away.

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 18, 1999.

When someone (or THING -- I still think that NORM is a computer -- NORM = Non-thinking Output Response Machine) simply creates new threads that contain nothing more than a single pollyanna article (sometimes one that actually has already has a thread -- s/he/it does not even look), then never (or hardly ever) offers any commentary or any kind of follow up discussion, I would say that it is THIS FORUM that is being abused. If you PAID SOMEBODY to simply scan the Internet for pollyanna articles, then post into a new thread on the Yourdon forum, nothing more, what you would get is exactly what we do get from the NORM machine.

My idea of a what a DISCUSSION forum is supposed to be about differs from this approach.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), March 18, 1999.

'Do You Really Want Things to Go Well??'

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Reu

Another fine specimen of trollery.

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 18, 1999.

Honorable King - for certainly I could never knight you -

I would submit for your consideration that NORM ( NORM = Non-thinking Output Response Machine) is actually far worse. Far, far worse - and, as such, may perhaps unable to be reprogrammed at all.

He/she/it may be a bureacrat. Or even (gasp - cover the children's ears) a lawyer working as a bureacrat. Thus, we may actually be under attack from the normal mob of trolls ....

Non-thinking Output Response Machine Accessing Lawyers Monitoring the Output of Bureacrats)

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 18, 1999.

Who was this 'MAP' who'd been monitoring this forum for some time?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Pn2

MAP's disdain for us did not become evident until halfway into the message thread.

-- (watching@the.watchers), March 18, 1999.