Truth . . . OR . . . Consequences : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

The majority of this country seems to have a problem with truth: Most of them just DGI !!

Will they NEVER learn?!!?

Just like we teach our children . . . Just like we tried to tell Slick Willy . . .

"Tell the truth or suffer the consequences": lack of truth --> lack of trust = GI's

This is so-o-o-o elementary! I cannot understand the mentality of those DGI's!!

April 5, 1999 Banks gearing up to quiet worry over Y2K bug's bite


One aspect of Year 2000 readiness you won't hear from your bank is its current rating from federal regulators. Though banking agencies release aggregate findings, they bar banks from telling the public their particular rating. The thinking: Ratings are intended to be used as benchmarks to judge banks' readiness and not as a stamp of approval


Who wants approval? Just give us the facts . . . the truth!!

(hope I formatted the clipping from this article OK)

-- JA (, April 08, 1999


Two points and a comment.

Point one. In a Lockian Liberal society (as ours was founded), it is the role of the individual to prepare themselves and their families for events, emergency, crises, and life. We read and teach many fables to this end. The most prominent in my mind is the 'Grass Hopper and the Ant'. We have the responsibility to prepare for what we believe will be the result of the date roll over. Some will prepare more than others and some not at all.

Point two. In the Lockian society, it is the role of the government (read beauracracy - banking industry in this case) to relieve the public of its fear in an effort to prevent panic. This can be done in a number of ways and the most common is the spin that 'everything will be okay'. In the event of panic, the government's role is to prevent harm to the populace and their property, both private and public. It is not the role of the government to prepare each individual for disaster. This may be the role in a socialist or social democratic society but not in a Lockian society.

As a nation, we have lost the ability to read and think using a qualitative and quantitative analytical process. Those who 'DGI' can not extrapolate the possible effects of the date roll over, or other such events, from the material currently presented to them by the media and the government. Unless the individuals in the society move to accept responsibility for their actions, the GIs will continue to be a very small minority of the population. As far as actions/consequences, what negative consequences did the President suffer for his actions? Using this example, why should the individual believe that any negative conquesences will be associated with a lack of individual responsibility?

-- Tom (, April 08, 1999.

A heartfelt appeal for "The truth".

Lets not dwell on why you think you have the inalienable right to demand that commercial and governmental organisations spend time and money generating "truth filled" reports just for you on the subject of your choice. Lets assume you have that right, for the sake of argument. But would you recognise "the truth" if you were given it ?

Depends on your specific definition of the phrase.

Would it bother you if you found out that the views of the "Y2K Trolls" were actually closer to "the truth" than your beloved regular posters here? Or, as I suspect, does the fact that the things they say dont agree with your particular outlook override all other criteria ?

Ed Yourdon himself says (about this forum) . . "Most forum participants have gradually learned that the best way to get rid of the trolls is to ignore them (and for me to delete their obnoxious Javascript postings). One could make the same argument about anyone else that you feel are in the "time waster" category. There are several threads that I don't bother looking at, because the originator's name is a sufficient clue (for me, at least) that it's not worth the effort of reading the same old stuff one more time... "

So the definition "Troll" means that a persons views can be ignored by default, apparently. This forum then would have to be described as "a place where people who share an outlook and assume it to be true reinforce their opinions among themselves, to the exclusion of any contrary information regardless of the source."

Thats a straightforward enough analysis isnt it ? If someone doesnt agree, they are ignored or ganged-up on. Thats no secret, read the threads.

"Ah !!" I hear you cry "But they are only criticised because the content of their postings are factually incorrect". Really ?

How many "Troll" postings here have been systematically pulled to pieces NOT because of the truth or otherwise of the content of the post, but simply because the foundational thinking behind the message is different to that which you all share. Thats not a good way to go about finding ANY kind of truth. Turn the tables. What do we hear from the "GI's" regarding the many many predictions of date-related failure, including those of Mr Yourdon, which have come and gone and simply failed to materialise as predicted. Do you all cry foul ? If those venerated opinions were "the truth" back then, and they have since been proven to have been false, what does that tell us about your definition of "truth" ?

If you close your eyes and ears to any message which appears to contradict or undermine a principle which you hold to be true, then you are deifying an opinion and your definition of "truth" has become distorted. Maybe what youre really calling for is factual affirmation of your world view on this subject. And the fact that youre not finding much of it is, (I suggest), more a factor of the invalidity of the fundamental thinking behind the opinion than an indication of malpractice, conspiracy or misinformation by the agencies you criticise so hurriedly.

Now please feel free to ignore, spam, or flame the above opinion as "Typical Polly Trolling".


-- DGI (Damned if you'll Get me Infected) (, April 08, 1999.


If you go to the main page and click on "About," this is what you will find:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

This is Ed Yourdon's forum, based on his book Timebomb 2000, which has as its theme the possible adverse consequences of Y2K. As Webmaster, Ed can delete anything he wants. It's Ed's ball game and he makes the rules. Period.

-- Old Git (, April 08, 1999.


My apologies . . . It appears I did not do a good job conveying my actual thoughts in my original post.

I have to agree with you, though, in that the pres did not suffer retribution. However, I was really implying that the consequences was a loss of trust, as it always is when lies are told or the truth is withheld.

In this case with the banks, finding out that the public will not be told the truth **should** (by human nature) result in a "loss of trust" in the banking industry.

I used the clipping of the article about the banking industry as just **one more** reason we all need to be GI's. And I used it as **one more** reason why there IS going to be panic.

My reference to DGIs was an implication that the gov't, the banking industry, the utility companies, etc. just "don't get it"! They don't seem to understand that when the public finds out that they have lied or will not tell us the truth, that THEY are responsible for the panic and all that's going to follow. That's really what I meant when used the term "truth or consequences." If they aren't truthful there will be consequences (i.e., panic, run on banks, etc.).

I truly find it scary that when the public hears/reads that they're being lied to or not being told the truth, that the majority refuses to accept it and chooses to ignore clear black & white facts. I understand that alot of times it can be the mind's form of "protection" from "danger." But, really, the majority!?! Seems to me it's time to get a grip already!

(Hope I did better this time around) :~)

-- JA (, April 08, 1999.

--> DGI (Damned if you'll Get me Infected)

Stop being so hysterical. Save it for a time when you'll have **good** reason. (266 days) :~)

-- JA (, April 08, 1999.

Old Git . . . AH !! that old chestnut.

Well in that case, the original poster has no business calling for "The Truth". Maybe what they meant was "Ed's truth". NOT the same thing. It seems that THEY are in the wrong forum, not I.

JA. Hysterical ? Me ? Maybe youre mistaking me for one of your "pack the cellar with cans'o'spam grandma the rooskies are a comin'" colleagues. Im just calmly getting on with life (and will be spending new years quaffing excellent wine in a well-equipped Spanish country house).

I will however spare a few thoughts for you and your ilk in the early part of 2000. Maybe you could start a thread on "What do we say to the friends and relatives we spooked into action once the date passes and nobody notices" or even "Ways to cope with social ostracisation after publicly hitching one's wagon to a chicken".

As I hope you can tell, the only hysterics I'm suffering from are caused by observing the hilarity of the mindset illustrated on these pages. I prefer to leave the panic brand of hysterics up to your more excitable "GI" contributants.

-- DGI (Damned if you'll Get me Infected) (, April 08, 1999.

Hey, DGI, so you actually think that nothing will happen when thousands of computers fail?!? And I suppose that you also belived Clinton when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." And you also belived him when he said y2k "will be the last headache of the 20th century, and not the first crisis of the 21st." WAKE THE HELL UP, YOU FOOL!!! The leader that you and all the other DGI's and DWGI's worship so hard is nothing but a lying, cold hearted, EVIL, perverted, piece of scum. It's a testimate to how far the country has fallen that he and those like him represent us, and it shows that most people(you and millions like you) only care for worldly pleasures, and self fufillment. It was the same in the 1920's, and it lead to the Great Depression, the rise of Hitler, WWII, and the HOLOCAUST!! Yes, the holocaust!! DGI's, like you, "appeased", Hitler, until it was too late. you ignored what was happening, and it lead to over 50,000,000 deaths. Unfortuately, you sheeple learned nothing from it. "Those who forget the mistakes of the past are comdemmed to relive them." Well, here we go again... Sorry if it seemed like I was ranting, but this is how the world looks to me... :(

-- Crono (, April 08, 1999.

There used to be a word for SPIN. It was called a LIE.

But LIE is such a bad word. LIE is now SPIN which is a political tool to achieve political or public opinion ends.

Truth is relative. Truth is nothing more than a perception nowadays. My truth isn't your truth and vice-versa

Amen Crono. You say the truth.

Too bad the average American idiot doesn't see it. They WANT to be lied to. They WANT to FEEL good. It's too HARD for them to contemplate that the gods of convenience and technology might fail, and that their handsome king is really an evil tyrant about to condemn the world to catastrophe.

God help us. Time's up.

-- INVAR (, April 08, 1999.

Someone strap me down, my sides are splitting.

No sooner had I read the first response to my post, when good old crono pops by to affirm what I said about the hysterical element being among the "GI" fraternity . . and what better proof could there be than his ridiculous rant ?

For your information Crono, my assumptive old chum, I do NOT worship Billy Clinton, nor am I (as per your misguided assumptions) an American, who contributes to the "fall of THIS country". I know that some of you folks like to think the world stops at your own shores, but that kind of xenophobism is something that we non-americans have come to EXPECT of people like you.

For your information, I'm British, and if you want to rant at someone about Hitler, appeasement, and the holocaust, take care that the recipient of your venom doesnt hail from these shores, because just possibly he'll remind you that for 3 years we opposed him unaided, while your nation sat squarely on the fence deliberating about joining in. When you did arrive, (only because you were BOMBED in by Japan, incidentally) you did a fine job, but dont get high and mighty about things unless you get your History straight.

Enough of this, the analogy was weak to start with. I fail to see how World War 2 and Y2K have anything more than the most spurious detail in common. If however you want to continue the debate about "truth" and "spin" (2 sides of the same objective coin) then take a valium and try again.

-- DGI (Damned if you'll Get me Infected) (, April 08, 1999.


One does not have to endorse Slick Willy to believe the consequences of Y2k will not be a catastrophe. Personnaly I never liked or trusted him from day one, but I also do not think that "thousands" of computer systems are going to fail and that the world is going to be plunged into chaos come Jan, 2000. I to have a natural skeptism of the government and what they say, but I am deeply involved in resolving Y2k for major institutions and because of my involvement I do not see TEOTWAWKI. Bumps in the road, yes, need to do some preparation, yes, but that is only prudent for any possible circumstance. TEOWAWKI is not going to happen. Remember that the very corporations and institutions you accuse of not addressing or spending to little effort on this issue have a great deal to lose from complacency and being able to continue to do business (and possibly) creating a competetive advantage) is a major driving force for companies to resolve any issues of Y2k.

-- ???? (????@?.?), April 08, 1999.


I agree with your point. But just like the glitch, truth is date-time dependent. We each must discover the truth from the facts or, stated differently, a year of beans and rice vice three months of beans and rice. As for the ranters, they also have their truth. Hopefully, they have analyzed the same facts that we have and have chosen the correct path. Will the Kosovars, Rwandans, Sri Lankens, et al. need food donations in 2001?

Socialogically (the society) and psychologically (the individual) we do not accept adverse news well. There are too many examples that I can quote here to support this.

While I am not a programmer, I know enough about systems and nature of integrated systemic tools to understand the problem. As a result, I have chosen to ensure my family's future. Alternatively, I have chosen not to destroy friendships when my friends fail to prepare. One group will be correct in their analysis. Back to your initial point, yes the bank beauracrats are spinning but that is their job. It is our job to take the facts, sort them, and ultimately, determine the truth.

-- Tom (, April 08, 1999.

Not to instigate another war..... (and no offense intended Andy)

But DGI- -

If memory serves....didn't we xenobhobic Americans kick your stuffy British ass in the 1700's?

And if memory serves...did we not save your ass TWICE this past century??

If you Brits were so capable of going it alone...why did Winston Churchill sit on intelligence about Pearl Harbor if he didn't desperately WANT and NEED us arrogant Yanks in there to bail out our elder brother? Plus you nasally upturned Brits WERE getting aid from us during WWII BEFORE we had to save you. Does Merchant Marine ships with military hardware being hunted by Nazi subs in the N. Atlantic, ring any memory bells?

Get your history straight.

Plus WWII AND Y2K has plenty analogies and similarities in regards to re-emerging conflicts and global implications.

Be careful about keeping that nose upturned too high DGI, if it rains you might drown.

-- INVAR (, April 08, 1999.

DGI >>>> "" For your information, I'm British, and if you want to rant at someone about Hitler, appeasement, and the holocaust, take care that the recipient of your venom doesnt hail from these shores, because just possibly he'll remind you that for 3 years we opposed him unaided, while your nation sat squarely on the fence deliberating about joining in. When you did arrive, (only because you were BOMBED in by Japan, incidentally) you did a fine job, but dont get high and mighty about things unless you get your History straight. ""

How about if you post a picture of Chamberlain getting off the plane from Germany,, waving that piece of paper around ??

-- (, April 08, 1999.

INVAR, Ill rise to that . . .


If you Brits were so capable of going it alone...why did Winston Churchill sit on intelligence about Pearl Harbor if he didn't desperately WANT and NEED us arrogant Yanks in there to bail out our elder brother?

Sure we needed ya . . we're just a piddly little island in the ocean. Albeit one with some guts and moral fibre. The fact is that "we" requested "your" help many times from 39-42 and got blank. So being half-smart, Churchill kinda forgot to let y'all know the Japs were coming. So sue us. You would have done the same.

-snip- Plus you nasally upturned Brits WERE getting aid from us during WWII BEFORE we had to save you. Does Merchant Marine ships with military hardware being hunted by Nazi subs in the N. Atlantic, ring any memory bells?

Yes, and (ignoring the slight . . did I resort to calling you obese fashion disaster yanks ? no, i did not, so lets stick to talking about the issues here) once again, check your facts. The "aid" we got from you from 39-42, and after that, was not charity. WE PAID YOU. And in fact we were continuing to pay right up to the 1960's. Gee thanks, youre so magnanimous when it comes to fighting fascism.

As to the talk of the war of independence. Well yes, you were able to kick our asses back then, no argument, but its relevant to add that it was 260 years until you got an object lesson in how easy (or not) it is to fight a war half a world away from where you live.

I didnt post here to start an argument between our two countries. My mentioning of the history of WWII was simply a reply to someone with very little grasp of reality lecturing me on Hitler. And I didnt start this whole war angle.

Now is anyone interested in talking about this concept of "truth" or is the thread down the tubes ?

-- DGI (Damned if you'll Get me Infected) (, April 08, 1999.

Don't hand me that crap, DGI!! Your people gave Hitler what he wanted for years before you fought him! Remember Munich?? IMHO, Chamberlain was THE DWGI of the era!! Only Churchill, Stalin, Musolini, and FDR understood what was happining. The rest of the world (read EUROPE) was glad of appeasement! Remember Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech?!?

-- Crono (, April 08, 1999.

DGI - As I pointed out above....Truth is relative nowadays. Even in how you interpret history.

Spin is everything. Public opinion is king. Polls are god.

But a few quips- Of course we asked you to pay us back. Nothing in life is free - and again...if memory serves, you Brits were EXPERTS at usury yourselves.

But to back-up Crono - I think his point was that the ideology that led to the rise of Hitler is very-much alive and well today. He was assigning that ideology to most DGI's. He sees similarities as do I.

The truth will set you free.

-- INVAR (, April 08, 1999.

er Crono...You might want to drop Stalin off that list of people who knew what Hitler was up to. He had a non-aggression pact with Hitler and was caught completely off guard when Germany invaded Russia, very nearly losing the whole country.

-- Nikoli Krushev (, April 08, 1999.

Thank you, INVAR!! That was exactly what I was trying to say!! :) :) And for the record ???? I never said that I belived that y2k WILL BE TEOTWAWKI, but that it is a possibility. My estimate for y2k is around 8.5, which is a severe depression. Unless, the NWO , that Slick , and British PM Blair, I might add, are a part of use it to take over. Otherwise we will recover... eventually... I hope... *Gulp* ... :<

-- Crono (, April 08, 1999.

Stalin did know of Hitler's plans to invade, he just ignored them to buy his country some time to propare for Hitler's onslaught, Nik.

-- Crono (, April 08, 1999.

Let's get off this anglo-american love-fest and back to the main issue of the thread, which I take to be: do banks (and by extension government) have an obligation to tell us the truth or not conceal truth? And if they don't, are we to be expected to "trust" them regardless? I put it to you that we MUST NOT trust them if we are lied to. We deserve any kind of subsequent atrocity if we encourage them to abuse us in that way. We are not only justified in withdrawing our funds from banks and "packing our cellars with Spam," (and tools, and seeds...) we are re-establishing the working basis of human community, within a non-sustainable system that exists to farm us like sheep for the benefit of a flagrantly corrupt elite. THAT'S why DGIs are so defensive - they are getting their share of this boomtown rush, and are terrified to see it crumbling at the seams. The more frequent DGI posters may be paid to mock efforts at self-reliance; but many other DGIs are simply overidentified with their masters - licking the hand that feeds them, so to speak.

(If you want to psychoanalyze preparedness "kooks" and "whackos", be prepared to give as well as you get. History will judge you on the SUSTAINABILITY of the culture you are defending).


-- Dano (bookem@blacksand.srf), April 08, 1999.


You're a wise man. Thanks for your input. It's been nice chatting.

The best to you & your family!

-- JA (, April 08, 1999.

I agree with you Dano, trusting our currant governments is foolishness, as we will not get the truth, but only lies. In short, HOPE for the best, AND PLAN for the worst! I.E. HOPE AND PLAN!!! That one's for you DGI!!! I hope you GI soon, before it's too late :) *Sigh*... and remember to prepare, even if you expect a non-event... remember, a sitch in time saves nine... or something... and uh... And an ounce of prparation is worth a pound of cure... OK now I'm outta quotes... execpt "believe a politian's words, and you have earned your fate."...

-- Crono (, April 08, 1999.


You gotta watch that Canadian spelling: criticise

-- none (none@none.none), April 08, 1999.

Gotta side with Nik on your claim about Stalin Crono. No disrespect BUT - Stalin disbelieved that Hitler would invade Russia up to THE HOUR THEY INVADED.

Stalin idolized Hitler. He would not let the troop buildups along the borders, or the intelligence from his own Generals sway his insistence that Hitler would NEVER invade Russia, as Stalin thought Hitler and he were friends.

Hmmmmmmm, history DOES repeat itself doesn't it?

Anyone got the willies about China right about now?

-- INVAR (, April 08, 1999.

As has been said before, We see that Crono is flatulating again.

-- Amused (giggling@even.harder), April 09, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ