I've been in and out of this forum for some time now just reading but i tell you -ya'll are getting way off topic! I thought all you "cool" people were gonna leave some time back and form your own discussion group. What happened to this forum being about y2k?

-- Tonto (Tonto@silver.com), April 15, 1999

Answers

Tonto, dinja hear? Y2k is going to be a non-event. Y2K Pro said so. We're just passing the time with other topics now.

-- rick blaine (y2kazoo@hotmail.com), April 15, 1999.

Kimosabe:

Y2K touches EVERYTHING.

At this time, with our leaders waging a conflict in Kosovo, we are questioning their leadership, how the conflict will affect remediation/awareness efforts or will they be shelved, and most importantly, finding barometers to indicate whether we are being lied to. Just how truthful is Clinton being on this crisis? Will he be as truthful regarding Y2K??

Kosovo may turn into a global conflict, like a precursor to Y2K itself. There are MANY MANY questions being asked about Y2K that dovetail current events and how our leadership is deals with a crisis.

My opinion is that we are being lied to about Y2K, Kosovo, and many other situations that will affect us all. We are scrutinizing current events throught the prisms of Y2K and the culture war in which all events are now strained.

It's all about our future...and what it has in store for us.

Y2K may prove to simply be a mechanism to make a bad situation worse...or a trigger towards a global catalclysm. Any way you look at it though, every current event will be touched by Y2K in some fashion.

It's called having the Big Picture.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 15, 1999.

...says INVARiably stupid from the comfort of his Y2K bunker. Ya gotta feel sorry for someone this paranoid...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 15, 1999.

Russia Threatens US With Y2K Nuke Attack
http://www.canoe.ca/EdmontonNews/es.es-03-03-0057.html

[ new URL ]

3/2/99 -- 7:45 PM

Official: Tensions with NATO raise danger of false missile

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's disputes with the West over Iraq and Yugoslavia are increasing the chances that Moscow would retaliate after a false warning of a missile attack, a top Russian defense official said Tuesday.

False missile warnings may be caused by the Year 2000 computer bug - which Russia has been slow to tackle - or other radar glitches, said Vladimir Dvorkin, head of a Defense Ministry department in charge of missile-warning systems.

He insisted that Russia would be much less likely to retaliate for a false alarm caused by the so-called ``millennium bug'' if the United States and NATO heeded Moscow's demands and called off the bombings of Iraq and the threat of airstrikes against Yugoslavia.

``The risk of making the wrong decision is higher when international tensions escalate,'' Dvorkin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

``The risk of such mistakes, including those caused by the unresolved Y2K problem, would be eliminated if international tensions eased, especially in conflict regions such as Iraq and Yugoslavia,'' he said.

The Y2K glitch may occur if computers that only use two figures to designate a year misread the year 2000 for 1900, and produce erroneous information.

Dvorkin didn't specify what could cause a false missile-attack warning besides the Y2K bug, saying only that ``theoretically, mistakes are possible.''

In 1995, Russian officials apparently mistook a Norwegian rocket launch for a missile aimed at Russia, prompting President Boris Yeltsin to open his ``black case'' containing nuclear launch codes. No attack was launched.

While Moscow may not respond to a false warning with an all-out nuclear strike, he refused to specify just how it would react to a mistaken alarm from its strategic radar.

``It doesn't mean that a decision will be made to use all stockpiled nuclear forces in retaliation to a (perceived) mass attack,'' he said.

At the same time, the Defense Ministry sought to stress that it was dealing successfully with the Y2K bug, and the risk of it causing Russia's nuclear forces to fire off unintentionally was negligible. Still, Dvorkin said that 74 control centers of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces were judged in ``critical'' condition because of their unpreparedness for the Y2K glitch.

But he insisted that Russia will resolve the problem by the end of the year.

Russia has said it needs up to $3 billion to tackle the millennium bug problem, and appealed to NATO for help.

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

Of course matters have changed much for the worse since this open threat of Nuke Attack was levelled at USA.

A person following Y2K concerns will see clearly how very much the Kosovo situation is a threat to remediating/surviving Y2K.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx x

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), April 15, 1999.

The NON-EVENTSTER is back! BUDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), April 15, 1999.

The presence of paranoia does not preclude the presence of danger.

-- Donna Barthuley (moment@pacbell.net), April 15, 1999.

Donna:

You're quite right. Paranoia simply finds danger where it doesn't exist, and exaggerates the danger that does exist beyond all recognition. Interesting that those who think y2k will be the worst, are also terrified by everything else that crosses their minds.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

Flint, are you saying that Y2K and the crisis in the Balkins don't pose any kind of threat to the U.S. or the world? That we shouldn't be worried at all? Is that what you're saying?

-- Joe Williams (jwilliams@earthlink.net), April 15, 1999.

Joe:

Do you know what 'exaggerate' means? Can you see the the difference between possible small danger and guaranteed catastrophe? The situation in the Balkans is not good. This hardly means we're all in deadly immediate danger as a result. Can you see the difference between computer glitches leading to economic slowdown and personal frustration, and the scare images of total blackout, universal riots, martial law, total government takeover of our minds, loss of all our freedoms, confiscation of our firstborn sons, the list goes on and on. Some people seem to get off on that sort of thing.

But remember that 2+2=4. Just because I say 2+2 doen't make a million doesn't mean I'm insisting it makes zero instead.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

INVAR,

>Y2K touches EVERYTHING.

So? What does that have to do with ignoring boundaries between discussion forums?

>At this time, with our leaders waging a conflict in Kosovo, we are questioning their leadership,

... and you feel so self-righteous about your views that you feel justified in posting off-topic in this forum, right?

Have you no intellectual self-discipline?

Or is it just that you can't bear the thought that if you restricted your non-Y2k postings to non-Y2k forums, they'd be read by fewer people?

>Just how truthful is Clinton being on this crisis? Will he be as truthful regarding Y2K?

... which you could discuss by referring to Y2k topics, not dragging in other stuff.

>It's called having the Big Picture.

Restricting your postings to on-topic ones is called having courtesy and self-discipline.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 15, 1999.

Neat comment Sir Flint (of the Hard-Nosed)!

Now that we've covered programming, math, history, geography, political science, philosphy, humanity, the arts, chemistry and physics in just a few short paragraphes, which subject(s) are we now not getting off of?

-- Robert A Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (Cook.R@csaatl.com), April 15, 1999.

Andy, INVAR,

You know what gives away the game you're playing on this forum?

You don't even TRY to direct your off-topic discussions to forums where they'd be appropriate.

Why don't you post your political attacks on an appropriate forum such as The Government of the United States at http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=The%20Government%20o f%20the%20United%20States and then post a short reference on this forum with a link to your posting on the other forum? Is it because you're afraid you wouldn't get as much readership?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 15, 1999.

I gotta admit, wading through all the OT threads leaves me weary. I mostly just skip 'em. I keep looking for answers here. Finding plenty, but can't keep up with all the rest.

-- margie mason (mar3mike@aol.com), April 15, 1999.

"Paranoia simply finds danger where it doesn't exist, and exaggerates the danger that does exist beyond all recognition. Interesting that those who think y2k will be the worst, are also terrified by everything else that crosses their minds."

Flint, why don't you try reading a little bit, instead of basing all of your outlook on the narrow frame of reference you call your life. Do you need to be provided the facts and your reality from Dan Rather and Peter Jennings? If so, well then that says about all of it.

Reading expands the consciousness, it also expands the awareness and the probabilities of what lies in the future. Denial and ignorance does the opposite. One can do both with a supposed 'level head', so please don't preach that nonsense to me.

Small thinking is what seems to work for you. Large thinking is what works for me. Neither is better than the other, it simply means I will be going into our future with a more expanded outlook of the probabilities than you.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 15, 1999.

Delusions:

Good for you. I'm glad to hear it, and I wish you well.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

No Spam,

Go re-read the post from Leska above and tell me that Russia/kosovo/ Clinton et al, have NOTHING to do with Y2K and therefore is OT.

Obviously your ability to see the interconnectivity of techno- political issues that make up the world today is restricted to your finite definition of Y2K.

And if you'd taken time to notice, I haven't POSTED a thread OT lately. I'm RESPONDING to threads posted by others, take your issue up with them.

But I know why you're singling Andy and myself out. You can't STAND our ideological positions and it's driving you insane.

Too bad pal. Freedom of speech and expression. This forum shines as one of the brightest examples of freedom and democracy left in our nation.

And I shall continue to take part in expressing my views heartily and without apology.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 15, 1999.

I think what the complaints are is the cutesie, self-serving, narcissism, opponent degrading, prideful, arrogant, wasteful, humble- less, psychologically tactical, higher-than-mighty, tit-for-tatty, tennis-matchy, self-absorbed, exaggerated, understated, black and whited......you see how much fun you are having watching me dig my hole deeper and deeper until redundancy tells Ed to scrape another bunch of wasteful messages so that maybe, just maybe.....hehe

-- ok (freedom@here.there), April 15, 1999.

Flint says, chill out brethren, we're not in immediate danger.

Most people in Europe would have said the same when they read the news that Archduke Ferdinand and his wife had been murdered in Sarajevo. That was on June 28th, 1914. Four and a half years later, as a direct consequence of that event, 8-1/2 million soldiers, including 53,000 Americans, had been killed in action.

Of course we're not in immediate danger. The danger lies in what may play out in the months and years ahead.

Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 15, 1999.

"...says INVARiably stupid from the comfort of his Y2K bunker. Ya gotta feel sorry for someone this paranoid...

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), April 15, 1999."

Congrats, you have now been hereby officially deemed Y2K Prairie Dog, because that's all you do, pop your head up every now and then, sniff the air, say something dumb, and pop back down your hole.

One day Y2K Prairie Dog, you may say something remotely useful.

NO Spam,

I am really surprised at you - this is the land of free speech, these subjects that I bring up I believe to be eminently ON TOPIC, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting them.

Give me some credit here please, and do try to cut your censorship tendencies, if you don't like a subject then skip it. I've said this to you a dozen times No Spam yet you continue to bait myself and others on posts that you do not agree with.

Sorry, but that's the height of intellectual arrogance pal.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 15, 1999.

Plans within plans, like I said Tonto-- Know your ENIMIES!

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), April 15, 1999.

Andy,

If you know the definition of censorship, you know that's not what I'm requesting of you. I've specifically pointed out that there are other forums where your political postings would be on-topic.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

All due respect No Spam,

you're constant baiting of me is OFF TOPIC so go fuck yourself.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.

"Too bad pal. Freedom of speech and expression. This forum shines as one of the brightest examples of freedom and democracy left in our nation.

And I shall continue to take part in expressing my views heartily and without apology."

Well said Invar, I never thought the thought police would attempt to take over this forum...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.

INVAR,

>tell me that Russia/kosovo/ Clinton et al, have NOTHING to do with Y2K and therefore is OT.

You know very well that many of the issues raised here about Russia/Kosovo/Clinton have had nothing to do with their Y2k connections.

>And if you'd taken time to notice, I haven't POSTED a thread OT lately.

Posting refers to either starting a thread or adding an entry to a thread.

As I write this very sentence, I can clearly see that the title at the top of this page is, and I quote, "Post an Answer".

That's P-o-s-t, "if you'd taken time to notice".

>I'm RESPONDING to threads posted by others,

... by posting your answers, according to the title on the page where you enter them for submission to the forum.

>Freedom of speech and expression. This forum shines as one of the brightest examples of freedom and democracy left in our nation.

So do the other forums, where your non-Y2k postings would be on-topic instead of off-topic.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

No Spam,

Do I have to chase you from thread to thread to make you undertand this? The reason I value Y2K-related, off-topic dicussion, Mr. Please, is that I'm less interested in the opinions of people I don't know, however intelligent or credible, than I am those of the contributors to THIS forum.

Call them a family, club, clique or Granfalloon, it's the people HERE that I've grown to respect and trust regardless of whether I agree with their opinions.

Hallyx

"A friend is not a fellow who is taken in by sham. A friend is one who knows your faults and doesn't give a damn."---G W Dery

-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), April 16, 1999.

Hallyx,

Did I address a complaint to you? I don't recall doing so, unless you are synonymous with Andy or INVAR. Are you?

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

Hey No Spam,

Like Andy said...............

GO FUCK YOURSELF

Twit

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), April 16, 1999.

Please consider this. Y2K is one of the few topics that most people can say they've heard of. Some of those people are seeking information about Y2K. Some of them are seeking it here, on this forum. I post what I do in an effort to get others to pay attention to many significant topics that pertain to their lives which dovetail with Y2K. I don't bother with other forums, because I post primarily to engage people who have not necessarily had exposure to these topics. You may not feel so, but I believe I am doing them a service to bring to their attention not only y2k, but some of the many problems and challenges we will be facing in the near future.

After all, they aren't going to be truthfully enlightened by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, the New York Times or any of the myriad media outlets spewing 99% nonsense and non-news.

So, when you get pushy about postings from Andy, Invar and others who post 'significant' off topic subjects, please take into consideration the purpose and the outcome.

You have the choice of not becoming further educated by passing them up. Why don't you do so. We might just all get along better.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 16, 1999.

Stick with the subject, or I gonna revisit Little Big Horn!

-- General Custer (general@ahso.net), April 16, 1999.

Kosovo and related stuff may or may not be explicitly related to Y2K (ie, as part of a master gov plan) but just about ANY significant international or national events in 1999, especially those that persist over several weeks or more, are AT LEAST implicitly related IF ONLY that they grab world cultural mind-share that detracts from Y2K remediation, preparation, etc (given the consensus of most of us that distractions from solving/preparing for Y2K ought to be the preeminent global issue).

Now, people seem to be saying that these issues are grabbing Yourdon forum mind-share that should be going to "Y2K".

Wrong correlation in OUR case.

What is distracting to people not preparing for Y2K or anything (ie, the sheeple) is galvanizing to people on this forum who, HAVING REALIZED WHAT Y2K SAYS ABOUT FRAGILITY OF WORLD SYSTEMS AND DANGERS TO LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY are now increasingly sensitized to impacts on liberty coming from other actions. Sorry to shout, but a rereading of that might be valuable.

Zog (familiar to some of us from other fora) has been posting recently about Y2K prep (or non-prep) as indicative of a multi-decade DGI phenomenon, an ethical phenomenon, if you will, that is intersected by Y2K but NOT ONLY by Y2K. Exactly. Precisely. Critt mentioned the Whole Earth Catalog a few days ago. Take it from that angle if you want and you're talking 30+ years.

Anyway, as always, here is bottom line: read, post or go away. The Yourdon forum is inflicted on no one. None of us (not even Ed, so far as I've understood his posts) views this forum as some cosmic responsibility he/we bear to "persuade" the world, "fix" the world, even help the world "prepare" for Y2K. If people haven't prepared for Y2K by now, it ain't for lack of data, even data revealed by mainstream media.

Some of us believe there are other world events relevant to Y2K and we're gonna post about them. Some of us don't. Just like with Y2K, if you think Andy or INVAR are nuts, push back on the threads they're commenting on. I haven't noticed any, uh, inhibitions on the part of folks from doing that. So what's the problem?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 16, 1999.

Take for example the following thread which has nothing to do with Y2K, but a whole helluva lot to do with the people of this country who have to buy food.

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

Are you less enriched by knowing about it? If your answer is yes, then you have relegated yourself to ignorance. So be it. It's still a free country and you still have a choice. All we ask is not to take away that choice from others.

Do I read every single thread on this board? No way. Do I read every single answer to every single post? Of course not. I happen to think a lot of the postings (poetry, jokes, for 2 examples) are a waste of bandwith. They're simply not my bag, but I stand here and now to say they have my acquiescence to post all they want. I just simply don't read any of it. I'm happy, the poetic posters and jokesters are happy. Get it?

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 16, 1999.

Thanks Big Dog and Mass,

I just put together what I thought was a pretty good riposte for the thought gestapo but it wasn't up to your specs.

Another time I will expound.

Later,

Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), April 16, 1999.

Some Y2K worries on last Cold War front

-- (trend@watcher.now), April 16, 1999.

mass@delusions.com,

>Andy, Invar and others who post 'significant' off topic subjects, please take into consideration the purpose and the outcome.

Purpose: introducing their off-topic postings into a forum that has greater readership than the forums in which those postings would be on-topic.

Outcome: Makes it harder to wade through the threads on this forum. Increases demand on resources for this forum. Deprives the proper forums of their contributions.

>You have the choice of not becoming further educated by passing em up. Why don't you do so.

They have the choice of posting their stuff where it would be on-topic. They choose not to do so.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

BigDog,

>Kosovo and related stuff may or may not be explicitly related to Y2K (ie, as part of a master gov plan) but just about ANY significant international or national events in 1999, especially those that persist over several weeks or more, are AT LEAST implicitly related IF ONLY that they grab world cultural mind-share that detracts from Y2K remediation, preparation, etc (given the consensus of most of us that distractions from solving/preparing for Y2K ought to be the preeminent global issue).

EXCELLENT POINT!!

Notice how the off-topic postings about which I complain do not discuss the effect on Y2k preparaing, but instead simply concentrate on the issues of, e.g., radiological weapon use by Serbia versus U.S. depleted uranium bombs and so forth. Those postings are clear examples of attempts to distract "from solving/preparing for Y2K".

>grabbing Yourdon forum mind-share

There are tangible issues of server capacity, difficulty of searching through threads, and so on, not just mind-share. Those off-topic postings could be posted to other forums where they would be on-topic. The posters could then put a brief note on this forum with a link to the full discussion thread at the other forum.

But they choose not to do so, over and over, even after having been informed of such alternatives.

>bottom line: read, post or go away

... the first two of which, at least, are made more difficult by the proliferation of off-topic postings.

>The Yourdon forum is inflicted on no one.

But the off-topic postings are inflicted on the Yourdon forum.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

No Spam, please read 3 posts up.

Thank you.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 16, 1999.

mass@delusions.com,

Already read it -- "The spectre of Emergency Powers raises from behind the barn".

So?

I hope that topic doesn't keep getting posted over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over without Y2k connection and including numerous distortions or misstatement of fact like the ones I complain about. I predict that it won't.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

No Spam,

Sorry, you managed to post in between my post. Read 4 posts up from same point.

-- (mass@delusion.com), April 16, 1999.

mass@delusions.com,

If you're referring to your posting where you included the URL http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000iyv then I already read it and commented in my preceding posting.

-- No Spam Please (No_Spam_Please@anon_ymous.com), April 16, 1999.

No spam, since you do not care to be enlighted on other topics (excuse me, it annoys you to have to wade through non-y2k postings, and of course, you don't read any of them, right?) and this board will fluctuate it's topics from time to time, perhaps it would be hoove you to find a y2k board that sticks to y2k and y2k alone. I personally have yet to see one, other than EUY2K. Cowles runs a tight ship. When I visit this forum, I seek a multitude of things, including y2k education. I don't expect to see commentary on dog hygiene or the next seminar for Kryon, but then, most of us understand that those topics are uninteresting to the y2k'er. On the other hand, most posters bring information and topics that touch on many aspects of y2k, the government, future crisis in general and how it could all affect us. I personally feel most of what is posted is relevant. Y2K ain't black 'n white. There may be a lot of frivolous information posted, but hiding inside them are the true gems.

By the way, no spam, I don't want to see you move on to a different forum. I would rather as many people as possible get as much out of this board as they possibly can. One would be hard-pressed to get as much any where else.

Peace and have a nice evening.

-- (mass@delusions.com), April 16, 1999.