What is going on with the Flint-bashing?

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

I've noticed a trend over the last few weeks to flame posters who point out any good news. In particular, Flint's very relevant question about the lack of JAE problems surfacing. All he did was point out that some of the predictions by Hamasaki and Infomagic regarding Jan 1 1999 and April 1 1999 failures have not come true. He did not tell anyone to not prepare, did not ridicule Hamasaki or Infomagic, or claim it was all a hoax. Save your verbal attacks for idiots like the "economist" on the Montel show who told a nationwide TV audience that Y2K had absolutely *no* chance of causing any real problems. Or the columnist in San Francisco who asked the question "If Y2K is so bad, why does it have such a cute little name?" Or the Florida columnist who admitted he knew nothing about computers, and then ridiculed any notion Y2K could be serious. Or the federal and state government officials who make "progress" by greatly reducing the number of systems they'll try to fix. Flint is a GI, not some clueless media hack who's too lazy to do research. Btw, I'm a GI too and thanks too Hamasaki and Infomagic, I finished the vast majority of my preparations earlier this year. If I'm going to buy it and it has a shelf life of more than a year, I've already got it. Don't let your understanding that Y2K is potentially catastrophic translate into attacks on anyone who points out some relatively good news. There will be plenty of it this year, as damn well there should be with three year, multibillion programs drawing to a close. Some of it might even be true. Enough good news that Y2K will be anything less than an economic disaster? I doubt it, that's why I prepared.

-- YourFullName (email@ddr.ess), April 06, 1999

Answers

I agree. Flint is a GI, and brings a well needed balance to this forum. I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I do respect his point of view. We have enough people here that need to be put in their place and/or enlightened. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 06, 1999.

Part of the problem that I've noticed is that some of us can't seem to nail down Flint's agenda. Now, I don't have that problem 'cause I don't give a half harted toot about ANYONE'S agenda. I have on occasion needled Flint on where he stands or stood on a particular issue. I suspect that most of us, and I'll plead guilty on occasion, can't quite see that he's coming from the best middle ground around.

As a matter of fact, if we had a search engine, we could go back and look at almost all of his posts and see that he probaply does the best job out there (yes, including Papa Ed) of DEFINING that scarcest of all real estate, the Y2K Middle Ground. I know of NOONE else here who is quite so equally flamed by both those who see a VERY SCARY POSSIBILITY for a future and those who think this possibility is so much codswallop. So, Flint, I commend you on your thick skin, sir, and encourage you to continue in what you are doing. I just can't see why you even continue to bother with us, given our responses. This is NOT to say stop, please continue, as you DO add to my understanding, and my ability to find the "Delete before Posting" key sequence (LOL) Chuck, Who wishes he brought as much Light to the forum as Flint.

-- Chuck, a night driver (reinzoo@en.com), April 06, 1999.

Flint's detractors could only wish for as much praise as he receives.

-- Lurch (watching@seeing.eye), April 06, 1999.

I'm new here... I am a GI

From my observations over the past week or so, it seems to me that Flint is very intelligent and has a command of the language. However, it seems that he has the habit of "Flaming" people over some point of minutia. Sometimes his comments seem to debate the 'what the meaning of is is' type of point.

I apologize if I am out of place. But, I thought perhaps a newbie might notice something that the regulars have become used to.

Creative debate without "Flaming" has much more educational value IMHO.

'In all things be Gracious'

-- Nofights (nofights@please.org), April 06, 1999.


Sysman,

you should work for the UN,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

the gracious geezer, you are spot on.

no more need be said other than i am now VERY suspicious of the idi (oops) twit called Flint.

SHIL - just so that other bozo can look up this thread and add it to the lsit.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 06, 1999.



Come on now Andy, I respect your opinion too (maybe I should work for the Peace Corps!). In fact, I respect just about everybody here that presents a resonable and logical argument. Besides, what would you do if you didn't have Flint to keep you on your toes? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 06, 1999.

Thanks for this post. I too read that thread and was shocked at the vitriole coming from "Prepared" and "INVAR," who appear to be hate-filled to the extreme. They had it out for Flint because he brought up a rational point. They are not rational, and rationality bothers them.

These grudge-filled people have a way of bringing down discussions to the lowest possible level. They are bottom-feeders, and it's pretty ugly to have to be brought down to that level of deliberate malice along with them. I fervently wish they would find some other forum in which to spew their odious and trumped up attacks on individuals who just happen to possess a way of thinking that is---Lord help them!---different from theirs.

I have a lot of respect for Flint, and have felt that way for many months. He always manages to maintain a very calm, rational, quiet approach. He is intelligent and asks intelligent questions. He is not "extreme" one way or the other, which is why he bothers the extremists.

If you are reading this Flint, I hope you stay on the forum and keep posting. The few deranged abominations who flame you for thinking in a rational manner do NOT reflect the vast majority of readers here, who I like to think are more tolerant than those one has, unfortunately, witnessed here lately.

-- Southern (Getsit@prepared.sou), April 06, 1999.


Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

-- Dilbert (the@cube.man), April 06, 1999.

Yeah, yeah. Say what you will.

I know this

Best not no catfish angler better tell me he has it better than us bass fishermen -- sure death! hook im fer sure

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 06, 1999.


Or, to put it another way I once heard:

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. Totally beastly noise! And it annoys the pig, too."

But we argue on, I'm afraid.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), April 06, 1999.



"I have a lot of respect for Flint, and have felt that way for many months. He always manages to maintain a very calm, rational, quiet approach. He is intelligent and asks intelligent questions. He is not "extreme" one way or the other, which is why he bothers the extremists."

It seems to me Mary, I might be totally wrong, that you are latching on to whatever fool presents an acceptable answer to your dilemma. It's not that easy I'm afraid.

Klint is as intelligent as a fox, alas.

Computers, Southern, don't have feelings.

Klint can intellectualise up the kazoo , it will change not one iota - of data.

Sleep.

Sleeeep.

Sleeeeeeeep.

Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

"now, about y2k, what was the problem ................"

"Sleeeeeeeeep"

"Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeep"

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 06, 1999.


Hey, Klandy---or is it---Kandy---

What is it with the "K" thing?

Do you need help? You seem so *changed.*

Is everyone in Britian as paranoid as you?

Sleeeeep, Kandy, sleeeeep, my friend, you need it.....that's right....just rest there for a while.....go to sleeeeeep, Kandy.......

-- Want to help Andy (Concerned@wanttohelp.help), April 06, 1999.


Hey copycat!!!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 06, 1999.

I like Flint!

He seems like a balanced guy to me, his posts in comp.lang.asm.x86 indicate that he knows his stuff, albeit PC rather than mainframe.

He gets it, 1 year prep says that for sure, and a private email he sent to me (before I had to hide behind an alias due to spam) indicates that he is aware of mainframe issues too. Sure, he's not TEOTWAWKI, but neither am I. I'm just cautious, preparing and trying to get others to do likewise.

There is good news, there's bad too, but the tendancy of this forum to suspect all good is lies or spin, but, in so many cases, to accept all bad, as factual is a worry.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to hide the Y2k truth, I think the situation is worse than Koskinen et al portray it, but this is due to self reporting and a tendancy of all news to get better the further up the management chain it gets. (Goto the misc archives and find 'How shift happens', for an assuming explanation (sic the shift, author was polite!!))

Nemo

-- Nemo (nemo@nowhereatall.com), April 06, 1999.


OOPS,

Assuming!?, should have been amusing!

Nemo, who knows where to buy full cream butter in a can, exp 04/2000!

-- Nemo (nemo@nowhereatall.com), April 06, 1999.



As I just posted on another thread, why flame the poster? Flint, Andy, Diane, and many others bring us the news from other sites.We have the choice to believe it, not believe it, or research it further.

The best part of this board should be to get all sides and updates, thus saving ourselves a lot of web scrolling time. We may disagree with the message but why blame the messenger?

-- sue (deco100@aol.com), April 06, 1999.


no fights, you sound like my mother who was fond of saying, " You can catch a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar." My response to that was, "Yes, if flies is what you're after."

I too don't believe in attacking the messenger, but there's nothing wrong with attacking the message, if you feel it is dead wrong, and if it's being used to bulldoze you into another's way of thinking. You have every right to say that y2k is a grand delusion of the crazies, but you don't have the right to insist that the alleged y2k crazy person believe your way, and stop preparing immediately.

And I agree that the "pulitzer prize winning author," on the Montel Williams show, was an arrogant "know-it-all," who treated the other y2k guests like demented children.

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 06, 1999.


I'm reposting this from the "Doomers are fraudelent and stupid" post, in case you averted your eyes from it in distaste. I hope it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, or contribute to a general panic. I should add that since the majority seem to feel that insults on this forum should only be tolerated when coming from corporate PR shills, I'm withdrawing in disgust. I am "prepared," but my local community is not. Here is all I will ever say to you about disinformation, distraction, and lies:

If you tolerate liars, you will continue to be ruled by them.

You love, and believe, a lie. You want to hear an irrelevant discussion about GPS or the Joanne Effect; you want to hear anything that will reduce your anxiety. From anyone, even if they're directly and repeatedly insulting you.

I don't hate "Chicken Little" and Flint because they foist irrelevancies on this forum in an attempt to distract you. I hate them because they deride and insult those who are preparing (Flint's preparation is a complete departure from his earlier posts). The title of this post: "BOGUS DOOMER predictions..." directly implies 1)not mere error, but FRAUD on the part of the people who made the predictions, and 2)that those who made the prediction are "DOOMERS," a term of derision. In the context of media demonization of preparers, that's like referring to black people by the "N" word, or calling all christians "Jesus Freaks." "Chicken Little," by choosing that name and e-mail address, is openly showing contempt for those who prepare, and equating preparation with panic. Anyone who hurls these kind of accusations and insinuations is no longer on the social register, in my opinion. With their insults, they have forfeited the right to courtesty from me, and ought to be driven off of this forum. Have a pleasant, pointless discussion with them if you want. THESE PEOPLE ARE, AND LONG HAVE BEEN, ACTIVELY DISCOURAGING PREPARATION, RELENTLESSLY, DAY AFTER DAY. WHY ARE THEY HERE? You should ask yourself that question each time they post. You should deride them as vociferously and vehemently as I do. People are going to die in massive numbers due to Y2k, and most of these deaths are preventable with a little preparation. By discouraging people from preparing, these men are buying time for the banks and F500 companies, and leaving bodies in their wake. After the deaths occur, these same shills and sycophantic "company men" will be placing the blame on programmers, on "hoarders," on "militias" (any community that resists martial law)- anywhere but on the corrupt and shortsighted management and intelligensia, where it belongs. Because of your "courtesty" and "reasonableness," the same criminals will stay at the helm, and there will be no accountablity for the disaster. If you roll over for them now, and you're not likely to be any less submissive when the chips are down. If this is the case, you deserve what's coming.

This is real, it's not an intellectual debate. But by the time you realize that, it may be too late.

Prepared.

-- Prepared (enough@weakness.now), April 06, 1999.


Prepared, I for one would like to see you stay around. You make some excellent points. We need your input. As you point out the corporate and .gov SHILLS are out in force. The more facts we can bring forth the quicker the Shills will disappear. And they will disappear.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 06, 1999.


I skip Norm & co.'s lullabye threads on one end and the warnings of concentration camps on the other. I make sure to read posts from people like Old Git or Nine Fingers that have truly valuable information to share. I read Flint when I have the time because he has added some things to the forum that I've found interesting. It seems to me that what he thinks about Y2K changes at times, and I consider that as a sign of intelligence. He says he is preparing somewhat, which is another sign of intelligence. He doesn't seem to mind being "bashed", but it takes up space.

-- Steve Hartzler (s.hartzler@usa.net), April 06, 1999.

Actually, it's only a very tiny minority of posters (maybe 3 or 4) who pride themselves on using only their hindbrain, and who are deeply suspicious of any mental activity more complex than fight-or- flight. These people cannot be reached.

There is a much larger contingent who cannot seem to distinguish between the *advisability* of preparing and the probability that they will *need* those preparations. To them, anyone who posts any good news at all has an evil secret agenda against preparations. These people can probably be reached, but certainly I lack the skill to do so.

The vast majority of posters here are thoughtful and interesting, and they keep me here and keep me thinking. I appreciate this a lot.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 06, 1999.


(BIG SMILE) I read this sight because of threads like this. Everyone loves a good argument. So both sides need to quit trying to out-pious the other. All of you need to admit that you enjoy delivering an intellectually clever insult. I know I like reading them. As a long time lurker, here's a little pattern I've noticed. Most (Polly's, trolls, whatever) first posts to this forum have been inflammatory to the extreme. I don't know if they come here thinking they'll have some fun with the Y2K idiots, or what their motivation is. I do know one thing, they quickly find out they underestimated their opponents. These doomers are anything but idiots. So things didn't turn out exactly like they planned. Instead of finding easily mocked prey, they became the mocked ones. Next, the tone of their posts moderate a great deal. They become the "voice of reason", but the old time posters don't forget their first derogatory posts. If one were a new participant of this forum, it would seem they're being abused. The next step seems to be to open a new thread like this one. "Why are those mean old doomers picking on poor l'il polly". The answer is simple, their earlier behavior demands it.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), April 06, 1999.

RB,

So, "they" get what they "deserve." I must differ. There is no excuse for churlish behavior. My first post (one that I actually provided) received about 50 pages of responses. (I printed them to write a follow up article.) A klansman would have had a more civil reception at the Million Man March.

Flint is quite correct. Some posters seem to be "hardcore" survivalists. These individuals talk "New World Order," "black helicopters," "'K'linton," "martial law," "Waco," "government conspiracies," etc. Oh, and there have been comments tinged with racism along with threats of violence.

Reasonable words seem wasted on the extreme.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999.


Mr. Decker, RB states that he has been around for a long time. You, sir, have not been here long at all. Maybe you should spend some time in the archives and get to know some of the posters better.

-- Read before you speak (you'll@learn.alot), April 07, 1999.

'Reasonable words seem wasted on the extreme.'

Yep. But Decker seems to have forgotten his own words. It's the old story of the kettle and the pot.

'The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention.'

Y2K and Risk

-- (middle@moderation.please), April 07, 1999.


Gentleman,

I stand by my words. Y2K mass hysteria has far more damage potential than a computer glitch. If government officals were forced into imposing a "bank holiday," we all would suffer. If enough people retreat to the hills into fortified bunkers, the economy will stumble.

I do not think calm, rational action is encouraged by hard core "survivalists." I'm not sure how to define survivalist, but anyone who has watched the movie, "Red Dawn" more than ten times might qualify. I have read enough posts to learn some authors are close the fringe... and my hope is that this debate is tarnished by them.

Unlike some, I cannot conceive of any suitable preparation for a complete social collapse, anarchy or martial law. Nor do I think the sitting president is the Anti-Christ.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.


Mr. Decker, RB states that he has been around for a long time. You, sir, have not been here long at all. Maybe you should spend some time in the archives and get to know some of the posters better.

-- Read before you speak, you are an idiot

Reading old post does not contradict "There is no excuse for churlish behavior" it rather supports it. And I know who you are. You can change your pen name but you never change your pen.

-- Someone (who@knows.you), April 07, 1999.


RB said:

"(BIG SMILE) I read this sight because of threads like this. Everyone loves a good argument. So both sides need to quit trying to out-pious the other. All of you need to admit that you enjoy delivering an intellectually clever insult. I know I like reading them. As a long time lurker, here's a little pattern I've noticed. Most (Polly's, trolls, whatever) first posts to this forum have been inflammatory to the extreme. I don't know if they come here thinking they'll have some fun with the Y2K idiots, or what their motivation is. I do know one thing, they quickly find out they underestimated their opponents. These doomers are anything but idiots. So things didn't turn out exactly like they planned. Instead of finding easily mocked prey, they became the mocked ones. Next, the tone of their posts moderate a great deal. They become the "voice of reason", but the old time posters don't forget their first derogatory posts. If one were a new participant of this forum, it would seem they're being abused. The next step seems to be to open a new thread like this one. "Why are those mean old doomers picking on poor l'il polly". The answer is simple, their earlier behavior demands it. "

My experience here was exactly the opposite. I posted here over a year ago (not w/ this name) a reasonable question concerning the expectations of everyone about Y2K. I was immediately flamed. When I attempted to deflect the flames and engage in reasonable discourse, I was flamed again with the general idea being "Y2K is not a debate. Start preparing now or you just don't get it, etc."

Also, I've got news for you, RB, most of the "old-time posters" are gone.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 07, 1999.


Mr. Decker,

You're assuming way, way too many things. Let me address a few of your comments...

If enough people retreat to the hills into fortified bunkers, the economy will stumble.

That's true, but it will never happen. Also, my impression of this forum after months of calling is that most who call here, who live in the city, are planning to stay in the city. They are making plans, though, to get out of the city quickly and stay with relatives if that becomes necessary. Many have talked about putting together small "bug-out" bags to use if things turn out worse than they expected.

I do not think calm, rational action is encouraged by hard core "survivalists."

Most people who call here are not hard-core "survivalists" and never will be.

I'm not sure how to define survivalist, but anyone who has watched the movie, "Red Dawn" more than ten times might qualify.

I've never seen the movie "Red Dawn". I do like going to the movies. I just saw "The Matrix" the day before yesterday.

I have read enough posts to learn some authors are close the fringe...

I do agree with you on that, but it's also true of some authors at that other place you post messages on.

Unlike some, I cannot conceive of any suitable preparation for a complete social collapse, anarchy or martial law.

I have trouble conceiving a suitable preparation for that myself. Let's hope fixing Y2K began soon enough that it won't be a 10--a complete social collapse. Both the average and median expectation of those who call this forum, though, is an 8.0 rather than a 10.

Nor do I think the sitting president is the Anti-Christ.

I don't think of the sitting president that way either. I've said it before...what's good about the president is that he's like JFK. What's bad about the president is that he's like JFK.

The bottom line is: this forum is like a talk show. People who call here should not be assumed to all hold the same opinions. A person doesn't have to agree with every opinion expressed on a radio talk show to find listening to the show informative. I find this forum, with careful reading, to be more informative than, say, John Koskinen's Web site.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 07, 1999.


-- Someone (who@knows.you)

Well, you're just SO brilliant, Someone! Who am I?

-- I'm waiting (to@see.howsmart U R), April 07, 1999.


BTW, Someone, does this little "game" have anything to do with the fact that I exposed you as the perpetrator on the "virus alert" thread?

-- Just wondering? (you're@really.something!), April 07, 1999.

You are Chris

-- Someone (who@knows.you), April 07, 1999.

Very funny, Someone. And you are "Dave."

-- Mind games? (isn't@this.fun), April 07, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ