Why do pollyannas care what we GIs think?

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

I don't understand why those who think Y2k is a non-issue feel that they have to persuade doomers that they are wrong. I can understand the moral obligation of a doomer to try to persuade non-doomers (since they think they are saving them from doom), but I don't see why pollyannas get so worked up because some of us doomers are persuaded that Y2k could create problems, and think it is only sensible to acquire a little insurance for ourselves and those we care about, even while hoping that we are wrong.

How come the pollyannas aren't trying to get me to cancel my fire insurance and my life insurance (after all, if I'm dead, I won't be able to spend the money)? Actually, I don't want to collect on either my fire insurance or my life insurance.

-- Dan Hunt (dhunt@hostscorp.com), March 31, 1999


OIC.....it's OK for you to try and persuade people to see things the way you do, but the reverse isn't true?!? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me. If my Webster's is current.

I'm not a Polly...but I'm not a Doomer either. The general tone of the posts on this site are too extreme, to my way of thinking...and I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, either.

First off, many of those you term "Pollys" aren't Pollys at all; they are very Y2k-aware, and as such don't have as extreme a view as some of you do. Difference of opinion. Not ignorance.

Secondly, the reason those of us who hold to a "3-to-5" view (for example) want to argue with you "8-to-10" folks is plain and simple....we don't agree. You don't agree with us, and you argue. Turnabout is fair play, dude.

Thirdly, you folks attempt to proselyte, i.e. you try to persuade people that the worst-case scenario is the only credible way of thinking; then you try to persuade those same people that they need to bug out, run to the hills, spend exorbitant amounts of money on firearms and barbed wire, and buy enough yucky-tasting food to feed all the refugees in Albania. And all the time claiming that this is "prudent preparation." Male cows excrete better than that every day.

That's why the so-called "Pollys" care what you think. Get it?

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), March 31, 1999.

" I can understand the moral obligation of a doomer to try to persuade non-doomers (since they think they are saving them from doom), "

Dan , you answered your own question. Some people have a vested interest in a subject that concerns them and just because someone else have a different view doesn't mean they are wrong. Or do you have a magical crystal ball that shows you the future? As fas as I can tell your as wrong as anybody on this forum. But since your "on a mission to save the world" (saving pollyannas from "doom") I'm sure you'd never agree.

-- (~~@~~.com), March 31, 1999.

I can tell that Chicken Little is a true believer to his cause. First of all, because he probably does believe at least half of what he said in this snip...

...you try to persuade people that the worst-case scenario is the only credible way of thinking; then you try to persuade those same people that they need to bug out, run to the hills, spend exorbitant amounts of money on firearms and barbed wire, and buy enough yucky- tasting food to feed all the refugees in Albania.

And I can also tell he's a true believer to some cause for thinking he has to persuade us that Y2K is a 4 rather than an 8. Why is this important?

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.

Male cows?!?

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (storestuff@home.now), March 31, 1999.

Kevin -- why is convincing us that it will be an 8 important, then? Following your logical train of thought? Such hypocrisy.

Pearlie -- merely a polite attempt at refraining from spouting a familiar profanity :=)

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), March 31, 1999.

I'm not so concerned with *what* we think, as I am with *whether* we think. There's more to thinking than jumping to a conclusion and fighting to defend against the infidel, facts and analysis be damned.

Too many posts here just waste time and effort calling other people names. Labels like Polly and Doomer only serve the purpose of superimposing a dichotomy onto a complex issue. Such inapplicable shortcuts prevent thinking, rather than encouraging it.

Dan makes a simple error here, confusing the advisability of *having* insurance, with the probability of *needing* insurance. Big Dog has consistently maintained that any posts questioning whether we are *guaranteed* to need insurance are arguing against having any in the first place. Errors like these emphasize the importance of thinking things through.

Those who have waded through the inadequate, unreliable, outdated, agenda-ridden information we have and formed firm conclusions should probably stop and wonder at this now and then. If you have no doubts, you have mothballed your critical faculties.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 31, 1999.

well said, Mr. Flint.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), March 31, 1999.

Dear Dan,

I think the answer to your question is that the agressive DGI's are relativists.

I don't know a great deal about relativism, but I know that they don't believe in an absolute truth which exists outside of each of us. To them, only opinion exists; so their experince provides "truth" to them which may be different from the "truth" which experience has provided to you.

To put it simply: "Perception is reality."

This results not only in non-stop whistling past the graveyard, but also in lying in the hope of creating truth. They believe that wishing *will* make it so.

They believe that if everyone believes that Y2K will be a problem, then it will be. And if no one believes that it will be a problem, then it won't be.

So they attempt to shout down the GI's in the attempt to alter the future. They would eliminate the threat by eliminating the messengers.

-- GA Russell (garussell@russellga.com), March 31, 1999.

Dear Sir,

First, the discussion of alternative viewpoints does not necessarily indicate a desire to "convert" others. The exchange of ideas is more for the open minded among the optimists and pessimists and less for the firmly entrenched. Personally, I enjoy civil discourse. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of bile from both extremes. Even the language framing the discussion, e.g. "polly" vs. "doomer," "GI" vs. "DGI," is inflamatory. In my limited experience on this forum, the calm and reasonable seem to be "shouted down" by the extremists.

This is a marketplace of ideas. Remember the oft repeated quote, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My only suggestion: exercise your rights to both speak and prepare with common courtesy.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 31, 1999.


I've considered this question as well, on and off. My theory is that your average DGI/DWGI is driven by an odd combination of fear and laziness. Of course, such a crude generalization does poor service to some of the more thoughtful DGI's that hang out here, and to them I sincerely apologize in advance.

The GI's, on the other hand, are mainly driven by fear and action. Hopefully, given enough action over time, the fear subsides for most GI's, thereby allowing them to reach some state of internal equilibrium.

The only way the DGI/DWGI group can reach a similar equilibrium is if, in fact, Y2k turns out to be inconsequential, and only then well after the event has passed. Since no actually one knows what's going to happen, we have the situation where most of the prepared GI's are more or less at relative peace, regardless of the turn of events, whereas the DGI/DWGI become ever more incensed as circumstances evolve.

Rather than exercise their freedom and take personal responsibility for themselves and their dependents, they'd rather jabber about NOT doing so, as this soothes their fears -- temporarily. If they had no fears, they'd likely not be posting here at all.

We also have the occasional "fearless and lazy" poster here, as well. These are likely the bona fide trolls that pop up now and again. They usually don't even attempt serious debate. They're simply here to disrupt...probably just kids.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), March 31, 1999.


-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 31, 1999.

I don't have a label for myself. When I read of concerns on the internet one of the first was about aircraft falling out of the sky. This was just about a year ago. Knowing what I do about them I knew that could not happen. I then went on to research other "possibilities" that have been named. I have the advantage of having been taught electronics and mechanics by my Father since I was around 9 years old. Then with my Tech school training in the USAF with constant continueing education as well as the years of on the job training and work on the equipment (which included mainframes and the "embedded" systems such as A/S, D/A, etc). Then even more years at a civilian company working at the same job, but with additional training at the schools provided by the mainframe computer manufacturers, as well of programming in languages from machine language on up to MS-DOS. I have come to believe that this sort of "having to know every aspect" of the equipment I worked on (not just the hardware and software)is not commonly done. Am I a GI or DGI? Neither, I am a person who is fortunate enough to know what is real and what is not. So for me I can judge the validity of the explanations given in compliance statements. I can understand the workings of many things others cannot. When an idea is thrown about which has no bases in reality, I can understand how people without my background could believe it. What bothers me is when given information that can be easily understood by anyone, people refuse to believe when something is Y2KOK. I acknowledge that there are problems, many which are being fixed or have been fixed, while some are not started yet, and some will not be fixed in time. But when people who are considered "experts" tell the world something which they, by their statements, prove they do not have the knowledge needed to give advice or make statements on, and I can see that, I will confront them. Honesty is needed from EVERYONE. Why are so many "Experts" and websites biased to the extreme? Such as the "Embedded Chip" situation. (note I did not say "system"). Unfortunatly there are still a lot of people reading that 40 billion chips or a percentage thereof could have failures due to Y2K. Even though those who first made the judgment have lowered the percentage and changed the definition. There are so many things people believe as being effected that I have chosen to find out if they are, and many are, but also what has been done to fix the problem. Fortunatly a lot of problems ~and yes there were a lot with problems ~ are easily fixed due to the fact that they are PC based. Fix the BIOS and on some, Change the software. If people can see where the problems have been fixed and checked then that should reasure them a bit, so they can continue to be concerned about the problems that still exist. People who refuse, for some reason, to belive that work has been done and a lot has been fixed in different areas, even when shown the facts, confuse me. They must have some reason to want to believe that nothing can or has beeen fixed???

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), March 31, 1999.

Gosh, so much inaccuracy, so little time.

Mr. Russell: I am as much of a non-relativist as you will ever meet. Things are very absolute with me. And one of those absolutes is that this world is not coming to a virtual end, just because of the flimsy evidence presented by the likes of Ed Yourdon, Gary North, Cory Hamasaki, and the like. You folks are a cult of doom. Yeah, I said it. And mean it.

Mr. Decker: your points are well taken on the surface. However, beneath the surface, they too reek suspectly. Speaking of a subject may not preach it; but when anyone disagreeing with the subject spoken about is unceremoniously blasted out of the water, that qualifies as a desire to squelch that opponent thought. That translates into a desire to propagate the dominant philosophy; any fifth-grader can see that. And anyone who denies that such events have taken place with regularity on this forum had best see their ophthamologist/reading teacher, stat.

Nathan: the laziness is evidenced by those who choose to withdraw and spout doomer epithets at those who choose to disagree with doomer lunacy. In my experience, not a single Doomer has joined in with the local community at large to try and work together with the 'powers that be' to try to reach a helping togetherness on this issue. The Doomers want to withdraw from society; "they've been warned; let 'em hang." I paraphrase G. North. So who are the real lazy ones here?

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), March 31, 1999.


First, you prove my point exactly. Second, do not confuse doomer with GI. All doomers get it, but most GIs are not doomers. Another generalization to give your binary worldview fits.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), March 31, 1999.

Chicken Little - Why are all of you pollys so hung up on Gary and Ed? Are these the only 2 internet sites that discuss the Y2K problem? NOT! Why aren't you attacking Sanger's or euy2k (sorry, Rick also has a book), or the dozens of other sites? What about Yahoo? What is their motive? Infoseek newswire? Yea, it's all a big hoax, a money-making bunch of BS. I guess GM must be a real sucker, spending $750,000,000.00 on this non-sense. Have a nice day, they may be numbered. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

Well let's see here.

Nathan. Please explain, in common-sense terms for all to see, how I prove your point exactly. I fail to see it, having reread your/my posts three times, and having graduated college twice. Am I that stoopid. I believe I "get it" enough to speak on the subject locally, enter into interactive discussions with local government agencies....people that "don't get it" just don't even know enough to do such things, now do they. Somebody has their definitions screwed up pretty good, methinks. And it ain't me.

And "all doomers get it"? Get what? Paranoid lunacy? Then I hope I never "get it". Maybe GI should stand for "Gadfly Idiots"

And Sysman. Once again, I am not a Pollyanna. (Do you know what a {Polly is? guess not.) Why do opponents of gloom-and-doom concentrate on Yourdon and North? Well DUH. Have IQ's just dropped to zero in here all of a sudden? Let's go back to nursery school.

"Mr. Ed and Mr. Gary have been the ones who have made the biggest noise about how this Y2k thing was going to be the thing that ruined the world as we know it kids! It's like, if you're in a war, and you stick your head up above the bunker and shout real loud, all the bullets are going to come towards you! You understand that, now don't you kids?"

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 01, 1999.


You said...

Kevin -- why is convincing us that it will be an 8 important, then? Following your logical train of thought? Such hypocrisy.

Sorry, but I don't see the hypocrisy you're talking about. I know from polls taken on this forum that the median plausible scenario expected is an 8.0. People discuss these differing scenarios and discuss the best way to prepare for them.

What I don't understand is why people who don't think Y2K needs to be prepared for, or who think it can be prepared for with little thought, bother calling here. If the news about Y2K is as good as the "optimistic" say it is, and if this news is going to get better as 1999 continues, then why do the "optimistic" keep calling here?

They say they call here because they're concerned that we will start public panic. Yet these are the same optimistic people who say news about Y2K is good and getting better.

That's hypocrisy.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.


I certainly don't want to call you blind as a bat, but...Kevin, you're blind as a bat. And those who blindly follow the doomer agenda as laid out by their leaders don't know what hypocrisy is, much less recognize it in themselves.

You said, "And I can also tell he's a true believer to some cause for thinking he has to persuade us that Y2K is a 4 rather than an 8. Why is this important?

Well that immediately calls up the argument between those who think Y2k will be a 4 and those who think Y2k will be an 8. Like that hasn't been an ongoing argument on this forum (or any Y2k forum) since the word go!!

Well, I have chosen to take the "4" route....and as a result have been flamed, insulted, and generally abused on this forum. The truth. Can't bury that, or change it. Verifiable history.

On the other hand...there have been those who have subscribed to the "8" view (just using these two numbers for the sake of brevity...you all know what I'm talking about). The "8" people have been uniformly given high-5's, approval, "I love you guy" treatment. Those who would try to deny this fact are clouding the truth pretty severely. Might as well tell me donkeys have wings as deny it. (Got all this stuff in text files anyway, don't bother).

So back to hypocrisy. I don't feel the need to prove to those of you who are set in your beliefs that Y2k will be less of a calamity than what you think. That's near pointless. Have at it. Do what you will.

Also pointless is your attempt to change my mind. Might as well ask a leopard to change its spots. Ain't gonna happen. The folks I'm concerned about are those who might be new to the problem; who might come to this website and be infected by your poison.

That is a bone I have to pick with you doomers. Any time I've seen cogent, common-sense, factual arguments in favor of a less-than-horrible Y2k scenario on this forum, the vultures have come out in full force; discredit the speaker; cloud the issue; bring up divertive issues.....the Clinton defense team would be proud of the crap that has surfaced on this forum ("why didn't we think of that?")

And yes Kevin, what you say is the height of hypocrisy. You call into question my wanting to raise the possibility of Y2k scenarios being a 4; as if your 8 were a foregone conclusion. Got news for ya bud: we're in the same boat; you don't really know any more than I do. In the macro sense, no one knows if you or I are right. I think I am, you think you are.

I could put your first post on this thread before my 5th grade English teacher; she would say, "he's assunming that he's right." There's the hypocrisy. You're assigning to me the motives you already have.

On this forum the doomer conclusion seems to be foregone, by all honest observer opinions. But know what? I have the weight of most credible experts on my side. I'm not trying to lead people into extremist oblivion. You are. Along with Pied Pipers North and Yourdon. Have fun. You doomers are a fast-vanishing minority.

When it comes time to dance, you gotta pay the piper.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 01, 1999.


Please define your "doomer". Doomer = 10+?

Please define your "get it". Get it = bad code, started too late?

Does Y2k concern you? If not, do you frequently enter into discussions over issues that do not concern you? If so, why?

Are you preparing? Do you have the time, energy, and inclination to prepare for anything more than the "three-day snowstorm"? If not, does it bother you that others are preparing while you're not? If it does bother you, why is that? If, as you say, you "get it", then why are you not preparing? Can you actually "get it" and not prepare? If so, please explain how.

Meanwhile, keep arguing against the extreme end of the scale, where the exceptions lie -- it's much easier than dealing with the actual range of opinions.

By the way, Hamasaki is at 7, Yourdon is probably around 7/8, and North is a 10 and would likely be one even without Y2k. Oh, and lot's of GIs are involved with their communities. In fact, they're practically the only ones trying to alert and prepare their communities.

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), April 01, 1999.


Sheesh you come across as a know-nothing. Sorry. Calls em as I sees em.

Am I preparing? Let me ask you. How many category 3 hurricanes have you ever sat thru? (3 here) How many times you been in a federally-declared disaster area? (3 here) How many times have you gone without water and electricity for weeks? (2 here)

To me, a doomer is an 8+. Unrealistic. Not anything palatable by the general public; I know that's not the litmus test; but when it's unpopular and factually unsound to boot, why hang onto it?

As for your statement about doomers being the ones warning the public: please see my statement above about male cow excrement. Doomers by and large are taking a public role about like that of Jimmy Hoffa, where I live. I.e none at all. They're too busy selfishly preparing themselves to the neglect of everyone else, per Bro Gary's instructions.

Am I preparing? Yep. But not per Bro Gary's instructions. I stay prepared. Better than most of you Johnny-come-lately's, I'll bet. You folks are going off the deep end, tho.

And I'll keep arguing against the extreme end of the scale. You betcha. Because all through history, the extremists are never right. Including this time.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 01, 1999.


You still don't understand why you and people like you sometimes get flamed on this forum? It's because you still haven't answered the question of why you bother calling here when you're confident that Y2K will be a minor event.

What you're doing would be similar to me trying to find a Web site for those who believe the earth is flat and then argue with those people that the earth is round...that is, if you believe we are as off base as that.

One other thing you said...

I have the weight of most credible experts on my side.

I don't know who your credible experts are. The Senate Y2K report was not very encouraging. And this report by the CIA...

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/gershwin_testimony_0305 99.html

...is downright sobering. The economic impact of Y2K is likely to be significant.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.


You dunderhead,

Never have you heard me say, imply, or think that Y2k "will be a minor event".

That's the main problem with you doom folks -- "either agree with us totally, or you're a Polly who thinks there is no problem at all".

Basic math, dude. There are several valid integers between the numbers 8 and 4. Or didn't they teach that to you guys growing up?

And, I've read all the references you cite. The glass is 80% full. But to you, it's 20% empty (or 30%...or40%...)

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 01, 1999.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify the difference between your opinion and my opinion. I feel comfortable with what I've said here and I stand by it.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.


I think I may have another thought as to why "pollys" care what "GIs" think; it has the potential to affect their lives.

Regardless of the severity of the actual Y2K problem, I think it fairly safe to say that people would agree that overreaction to any problem can be detrimental. As an example for Y2K, regardless of the problems it may actually cause (or not), everyone running out and emptying their bank accounts in December could cause a significant problem for EVERYONE... GIs and Pollys alike. In that situation, a polly would therefore be affected by a GIs actions...and so the polly tries to prevent this from happening, by demonstrating why Y2K may not be a big problem.

Now, I can already hear people about to fire off at me "If they prepare properly" or "they won't panic, and will take out a little money at a time, then everything will be fine," and I can accept that. However, the vast majority of people, it has been said here and elsewhere many times, are not/will not be doing that. So the polly posts to this board, and other places like it, because he is fighting the potential overreaction to Y2K in his way (showing that it won't be a big deal) and the GI posts to GNIABFI and other places like it, because he is fighting the potential overreaction in his way (If you are prepared you won't do anything as silly as pulling all your money out of the bank). Both, I think, are different paths up the same mountain.

We agree that overreaction is bad. Both sides have different approaches to preventing Y2K overreaction.

That said, I can say that I am at about a 3... and that will slide if the Japan/Canada/New York rollover goes well...which should be happening right about now...

Keep smiling,


-A computer glitch will not bring about the end of civilization. It takes hordes of panicking people to do that.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 01, 1999.


That all sounds well and good, but...

I think most people call here to an idea of how they might and might not be impacted by Y2K. It's to make sure limited preparation budgets are properly targeted.

If someone thinks Y2K doesn't need to be prepared for, or only requires small preparation that takes no thought, why would they bother calling here? I could try to find a Web site for people who think the earth is flat to argue that it's really round, but then I would be the nutty one.

I'm sure the "noble" purpose of those trying to neutralize this site is to prevent public panic. If the news about Y2K is as good as they say it is right now, and if the news is only going to get better as the year goes on, then I can't see how public panic later this year is possible.

You or someone like you should explain why there could be general panic when, if we are to believe the optimists, the news about Y2K gets better everyday.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Attention All

Note that chicken little "Graduated college twice " .

That either makes him 2 times smarter than us or 2 times dumber !

I graduated college the first time around . :o)

Prepare for the worst , hope for the best .

-- mike (mickle2@aol.com), April 01, 1999.

I used to worry about the people that acted like everything was going to be a bump in the road.

I used to care that they or their children might go thirsty.

I used to care that they or their children might be hungry.

I used to care that they or their children might suffer the cold.

I don't care anymore.

I have seen enough rhetoric from all the pompous as**s who, for lack of a better term, DGI that I can stomach. What absolutely amazes me is these folks think they know more than any one else. Well, I don't see General Motors knocking on their door. I don't see the Fortune 500 companies begging them for assistance. So unless they can see into the future, they do not know any more than I do.

Thanks to people like Chicken Little, Mutha, and others, I no longer care what happens to those people and/or their families. So they have achieved one of their goals. I have no desire to talk them in to buying a single can of food or a single bottle of water. As far as I am concerned, and please pardon the vulgarity, they are in the same category as Monica Lewinsky... They both swallow anything Clinton has to offer.

-- (wondering@some.people), April 01, 1999.

font off

-- _ (_@_._), April 01, 1999.


Thanks for the replies to my questions. Here is how I see these issues right now.

I made this comment...

You or someone like you should explain why there could be general panic when, if we are to believe the optimists, the news about Y2K gets better everyday.

Your reply was:

You have to explain to me why, if the news about Y2K keeps improving, that people here and elsewhere immediately label it as corporate spin, government propaganda, or polly blindness. Another link on this forum explained what people would need to change their opinions about Y2K; all of the responses on both sides of the issue seemed impossibly high.

And my comment about your reply is this: I didn't claim that news about Y2K is improving; that's your position. The outcome of Y2K, whatever it is, is a fait accompli. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about Y2K now. What does matter is when organizations here and abroad started their Y2K fixes. Most started late.

Another point I raised was...

If the news about Y2K is as good as they say it is right now, and if the news is only going to get better as the year goes on, then I can't see how public panic later this year is possible.

Jonathan, your reply was:

Because the panicked message is so much simpler to spread, grabs much more quickly and firmly, and is damned hard to shake off. The message 'It's going to be a nice day January 2nd' does not spread with nearly the velocity or ferocity at "January 2nd is going to be an unmitigated disaster." If enough people believe January 2nd will be a disaster it will be, regardless of whether the computers react or not.

I disagree. Around Thanksgiving of 1998, 60 Minutes did a feature on Y2K. It ended matter of factly by interviewing a professor who said we won't be able to fix everything, and that there will be problems. Was there a panic? No.

A month or two ago, Gary North was on Art Bell's show. Gary North repeatedly came back to the issue of bank runs, and yet his comments did not cause a bank run.

In early February, the Senate committee on Y2k released a sobering document on the state of compliance here and abroad...


...and what was water-cooler conversation about the following day? The Barbara Walters interview with Monica Lewinsky! I just can't see public panic happening later this year if the news about Y2K keeps getting better and better as the optimistic camp says it is.

In a weird sort of way, the optimistic are doomsayers in their own particular fashion...they're quite pessimistic about the effect that Y2K-related panic could have on them, when at the same time they are so optimistic because of good news about Y2K they say they keep seeing.

-- Kevin (
mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

Close link tag.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 01, 1999.

I think that we should be grateful that they (the 3-5) group get it. The important thing here is to help as many of our fellow men & women to wake up to the Y2K problem and to make plans for themselves (as much or as little as "they" feel is necessary.) Even some preparation is better than none at all.

As to who's view is right.....only time will tell.


-- Excop (ExCop@excop.com), April 01, 1999.

Personally, IMHO, I think pollyannas care what GI's think because they DON'T want to GET IT or be forced TO DO ANYTHING. If they can continue arguing with great strength as to what fools we are, they can continue to convince themselves with their protestations that they need not do anything.

This keeps them from having to face the possibilities that all GI's have taken a hard look at. It's not a pretty sight. It's much easier to just keep on chugging and not worry about a thing.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), April 01, 1999.

Sheesh, Little Chicken.

Reading your angry posts are a waste of good energy.

However, for the record, its all about choices and peoples right to inform themselves, to individually choose what to DO with their lifes decisions, and then act upon those choices. They also have the right to change their choices, as new and different information comes in ... pro or con.

Hopefully, if they get the potential for Y2K global, economic, and supply-chain impact and possible severity levels at their local area (unknown Y2K repercussions are NOT one-size-fits-all), theyll keep watch, personally, for ever changing information.

Do you lambast emergency response managers, private industry and both government and military organizations for creating contingency plans? No? Yes? Why get your emotions twisted when individuals and organizations choose to plan for different future outcomes? (Dull thinking, IMHO).

If youre as educated as claimed, then youd recognize the strategic planning wisdom calling for Best Case, Middle Case and Worst Case scenarios. Whats hard to understand about that?

It appears you would have people only plan for the Best Case. Youd be laughed out of graduate business school and most corporate board rooms across America with that recommendation.

Here, were also laughing. Yes, at your often inane comments (How dense is dense?)

Got logic? (See little evidence).

Im still a 5 (NOT a 4 or an 8) at this timing, and have been for five months of intensive study. I also acknowledge the wisdom of recognizing Shift Happens, and using personal discernment in sifting through the words of fools ... or ignoring them.

Read the Congressional testimony, not your tea leaves.

Diane, M.B.A.

(Given a choice between formal training and common sense, Ill choose common sense every time).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 01, 1999.

Why do we care? Because the misinformation and stupid rumors that get started in the doomer world are getting back to us now. Many people who don't have the time, inclination, or in some cases the ability to research and come to their own conclusions are now coming to me repeating all the stupid rumors and overreactions of the doomer crowd.

There is a big difference between emergency preparedness and doomsday preparedness, and if a significant portion of the general public begins to believe in doomsday preparedness then any problems we do have will become bigger than they should have.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 01, 1999.

Ah Jonathon, what interesting subtle things you've dredged up - "...if I think that what a GI believes threatens me (refering to a run on the bank) then I have to nip it in the bud..."

This threat is exactly what several of us have noticed in your (collective) attacks here and in other Internet sites. The federal government has announced and is paying for a specific, credible PR campaign to propagandize their view of Y2K specifically (it is apparent) to prevent a run on the banks. While I disagree with them in many areas, I will agree that almost every American will, if he or she feels his or her maney is threatened, they will try to withdraw it as they panic.

Doesn't matter whether I agree with this crowd of panicked people or not, they will panic if they fear the future.

For discussion purposes, let us assume that 10% of Americans will "Get It" and actually prepare for some sort of disruption lasting some period of time - perhaps a 4 days, perhaps a week or longer. These people will absolutely NOT panic, they are already ready.

Let us assume another 5% are so out of touch that they are helpless and cannot think for themselves, cannot understand tehy mus tprovide for themselves, or are not capable of thinking or preparing for themselves, and another 5% cannot, under any circumstances, provide for themselves. Thus, the federal, state, and local governments and health care facilities must be able to either ignore these people, or provide for their care and feed until all disruptions are over.

This leaves 80% of the taxpayers who are capable of preparing to take care of themselves, and who are capable of understanding that they collectively must take care of themselves in the event that services are disrupted.

Now, it is my opinion that the panic you fear (and that the government fears) can be prevented (in the 80% of Americans that are capable of listening and learning).

IF they are told to prepare for a reasonable period of time - perhaps 4 -7 days, and in a consistent, persuasive, coordinated manner. It is my considered opinion, however, that the federal government is hiding the evidence, outright falsifying evidence, and deliberately misleading the public in its efforts to presuade people that they should not panic. THUS misled and misinformed, and in the current absolute proof that their government will lie, and has lied to them in the past, they will panic. There are two ways that severe disruption can be averted: if enough people prepare (mentally and physically) for some degree of troubles so the remainder can be taken care of using existing assest. or if nothing significant happens.

While the latter is possible, only full-up integrated system-wide testing can demonstrate that "nothing" is even remotely possible. AND NO SYSTEM-WIDE TESTING HAS BEEN DONE, and none is scheduled.

Your efforts and arguments here, then, have apparently the effect of trying to convice new learners that they should NOT prepare: perhaps as part of this propaganda effort, perhaps as an innocent parallel effort to this propaganda, despite your declarations to the contrary. We, those of us trying to get the country to prepare, face a difficult, slow, and soemwhat painful process of convincing people that they should be ready for an uncertain future - we believe that, if successful, this effort will avert the panic you fear.

So, why are you (the Propagandist Polly's) working so hard so confuse, disrupt, and discourage people who are preparing, to convince people that they should NOT prepare for uncertainity? What is your agenda? What's in it for you if others prepare? If others don't prepare?

Other than Jonathon's stated effort "to nip this in the bud" that is.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 01, 1999.

"IF they are told to prepare for a reasonable period of time - perhaps 4 -7 days, and in a consistent, persuasive, coordinated manner. It is my considered opinion, however, that the federal government is hiding the evidence, outright falsifying evidence, and deliberately misleading the public in its efforts to presuade people that they should not panic."

Now isn't this what FEMA and The Red Cross are doing? We think that Americans should listen to them, not some self-proclaimed "experts" who claim that anything the government is telling them is propaganda.

What I see here is people claiming that FEMA and The Red Cross are wrong, that people need to prepare more. That is where you are wrong. If you are telling people that then you are part of the problem.

-- doomslayer (1@2.3), April 01, 1999.

Robert, doomslayer ain't gettin' past the two-dimensional Y2K perception that he has...

You know, maybe if we could prove the Fed's printed up enough money such that banks can dispense the demanded cash (which, of course, would be quickly re-deposited after the "bump"), pollyannas like doomslayer who really only care about themselves would ease off...?

-- Lisa (impossible@granite.head), April 01, 1999.

It takes two sentences, perhaps endlessly repeated, but only two sentences:

"We do not know exactly what is going to happen. However, we need everybody to be ready for at least one week of interrupted services and irregular, irritating disruptions."

And no, FEMA and the Red Cross aren't advertising this - they are saying maybe, but are couching it behind slurred warnings about winter storms and in the last two paragraphs of misleading and distracting press releases. For every hundred paragraph and press release related to dismissing the evidence, critical of anyone who is saying "the sky is falling" "panicking" or "running for the hills" and then loudly shouting "WE WILL BE READY" "I'm fully confident...." "All mission critical systems...." "No problems expected ....." etc. there is one weakly wordded sentence "...as if for a winter storm...

For every thousand times they lead off a story with "planes falling from the skies" in the headline and lead paragraph, the federal government once says "....as if for a winter storm." - which is meaningless anyway for anybody in 3/4 of the country - the warning itself is misleading and leads to no preparation at all.

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 01, 1999.

I know you've seen this, but just to remind you that the Red Cross *IS* saying prepare for several days to a week.

From the Red Cross web site:


Y2K Checklist ___ Check with manufacturers of any essential computer-controlled electronic equipment in your home to see if that equipment may be affected. This includes fire and security alarm systems, programmable thermostats, appliances, consumer electronics, garage door openers, electronic locks, and any other electronic equipment in which an "embedded chip" may control its operation.

___ Stock disaster supplies to last several days to a week for yourself and those who live with you. This includes having nonperishable foods, stored water, and an ample supply of prescription and nonprescription medications that you regularly use. See Your Family Disaster Supplies Kit for suggestions.

___ As you would in preparation for a storm of any kind, have some extra cash on hand in case electronic transactions involving ATM cards, credit cards, and the like cannot be processed. Plan to keep cash in a safe place, and withdraw money from your bank in small amounts.

___ Similar to preparing for a winter storm, it is suggested that you keep your automobile gas tank above half full.

___ In case the power fails, plan to use alternative cooking devices in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. Don't use open flames or charcoal grills indoors.

___ Have extra blankets, coats, hats, and gloves to keep warm. Please do not plan to use gas-fueled appliances, like an oven, as an alternative heating source. The same goes for wood-burning or liquid-fueled heating devices that are not designed to be used in a residential structure. Camp stoves and heaters should only be used out of doors in a well-ventilated area. If you do purchase an alternative heating device, make sure it is approved for use indoors and is listed with the Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

___ Have plenty of flashlights and extra batteries on hand. Don't use candles for emergency lighting.

___ Examine your smoke alarms now. If you have smoke alarms that are hard-wired into your home's electrical system (most newer ones are), check to see if they have battery back-ups. Every fall, replace all batteries in all smoke alarms as a general fire safety precaution.

___ Be prepared to relocate to a shelter for warmth and protection during a prolonged power outage or if for any other reason local officials request or require that you leave your home. Listen to a battery-operated radio or television for information about where shelters will be available.

___ If you plan to use a portable generator, connect what you want to power directly to the generator; do not connect the generator to your home's electrical system. Also, be sure to keep a generator in a well-ventilated area_either outside or in a garage, keeping the door open. Don't put a generator in your basement or anywhere inside your home.

___ Check with the emergency services providers in your community to see if there is more information available about how your community is preparing for any potential problems. Be an advocate and support efforts by your local police, fire, and emergency management officials to ensure that their systems will be able to operate at all times.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 02, 1999.


Do your believe your government and elected officials?

IF so, you haven't paid enough skeptical attention.

Go in peace. Hopefully, not in pieces.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will ignore the dot gov spinners, and uninformed agenda pushers, and seek the subtle, yet scattered truth.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.


Unfortunately, to ignore all the spinners is to ignore everything we've ever learned about y2k. The trick is to try to find what underlies the spin. Ignoring a major source of information because a lot of it is unreliable, may not be a good idea. I can't help but notice that government sources like GAO and Senate hearings are held up here as excellent evidence of coming problems. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that what matters to us is that we find the content agreeable, regardless of the source.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 1999.


Check and verify.

So far, I've found the Congressional testimony and GAO reports more indicative of the "real" Y2K issues than the Washington Post or New York Times, et. al. The newsmedia DOES provide valuable clues on where to locate the key information, though. Even the SEC reports give you something to go on. And sometimes, we get lucky and bump into a true investigative reporter. (The rarity is better appreciated).

Also, I watch Koskinen closely. He has too much Y2K "sway" power and is not being honest. Behind-the-scenes information has verified that. I've checked. Every now and then, in some obscure meeting notes, without the glare of media attention, he actually lets drop some word gems. As someone once said, his job is to be a wet blanket.

Often, the general spin interpretation of a source document, speech or testimony is "no problem." And then I "read" what was actually said. Usually drastically "different."

There are leads and clues all over the public domain landscape.

I prefer to remain a skeptical optimist. Skeptical because past experience has shown that is the wisest choice. Optimistic, because it's the way I prefer to live.

And then there's "realistic." Realistically, my personal assessment is global recession, and lots of local problems ... ranging from time- consuming annoyances all the way to life-threatening.

No one knows where or when the unexpected will occur. At least, the dot gov types are honest with that statement. In the event of such overwhelming global uncertainty, its just wise to get ready for anything.

At least I expect change. And choose to remain flexible enough to adapt to any contingency.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 02, 1999.

Robert & doomslayer:

Pardon my French, but 4 to 7 days ain't shit. Most people keep more than that in their pantries and freezers. Telling people to prepare for a 4 to 7 day disruption is tantamount to telling them its a bump in the road. End of story.

The reality is, and Koskinen has privately admitted, that there is not enough to go around (to prepare for a one to three month supply) even if we had started last year. Therefore, the official word is, 4 - 7 days. I.e., NOTHING MORE IS NEEDED THAN YOU NORMALLY KEEP IN YOUR LAZY SUSAN. That's the problem, doomslayer (and Robert, I though you knew better). This is why some of us are telling those THAT WILL LISTEN to prepare to this greater extent.

If y2k is an 8 or more, these people will be among the survivors.

-- a (a@a.a), April 02, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ