Think about that for a second. Why are they so active?

Why would the pollys care one iota if we're going about our personal preparations? I'm not trying to convince anyone that Y2K is real or not. I certainly pose no danger to any of the pollys. And they are not going to convince me that Y2K is a non-issue. So why do they even bother posting in a forum such as this?

My personal take - I'm convinced that they are attempting to quell discourse between like minded individuals. Maybe they see us as a collective threat to the status quo. But I certainly think that more than one of them is a "plant", and a product of Koskenin's PR program.

All I know is that I can sleep well at night, and that regardless of what happens after 1/1/2000, I'll have a clean consience. I might feel stupid if nothing happens, but I'll have a clean consience.

And if it's bad, I wonder if the rabidly active debunking pollys will have a clean consience. That would be kind of hard if someone went through severe hardship because they trusted the polly argument.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999

Answers

Night,

I would love for you to reference some threads where "Pollys" have outright told you that it's a waste of time to prepare.

I can't speak for all of them, but I've never said that. In fact, I have made prudent preparations for years -- extra critical medicine, extra food, that sort of thing. Y2K won't cause me to change my plans, because I made them some time ago (around the time of Hurricane Hugo in NC, in fact).

If you'll look back over the threads, what the "Pollys" do most commonly is address bad information from Doomers. For example, I posted a reply to the nonsense under the thread "Networking giants leave users in a Y2K lurch," because I saw bad info there.

If you want to prepare, that's fine. Power to you, and I WILL NOT criticize you. But if you post bad information, it will be challenged.

That's how debate works, 'mano. Get used to it.

-- Stephen M. Poole, cET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 1999.

Le Runs de Banque. Raison d'etre solamente.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), April 29, 1999.

Runs on the bank are just part of it, Lisa.

I guess I'm also allergic to the idea of thousands of displaced geeks running around in the woods behind my house with automatic weapons. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 1999.

what if there are bank runs?what if the banks totaly crash?how would the generals get the grunts to keep order if the grunts have no cash?would we end up with a somalia siuation where each general becomes a warlord?I do not understand enough about econonomics to grasp how the world banking would start over if it crashed

-- zoobie (zoob@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Stephen,

"I guess I'm also allergic to the idea of thousands of displaced geeks running around in the woods behind my house with automatic weapons. :)"

That sounds like a huge disconnect with reality. Is it anything like "planes falling from the sky"?

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

Cary,

You haven't seen some of the creatures purchasing guns here in Birmingham. If they start shooting, the safest place to stand would be directly in front of the target. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 29, 1999.

Stephen,

We are certainly lucky to have so many big brains (yours certainly included) on this forum. What would we poor, stupid doomers do without all you geniuses to calm our irrational fears?

I don't know your motivation, or that of the other pollys on this forum, but your constant TONE OF CONDESCENSION is starting to piss me off. Besides the ability to overlook reality, it appears to be the one characteristic that pollys share.

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@pissingme.off), April 29, 1999.

Stephen,

"If they start shooting, the safest place to stand would be directly in front of the target. :)<

Are people in Alabama that bad a shot? Here in Texas, we teach our kids before they're old enough to drive a car, how to put most of a clip inside the 8 ring. :)

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), April 29, 1999.

The safest place may be the place they are shooting at because the weapon is not calibrated. So your in more trouble standing 5 feet one way or the other of where the weapon is being pointed.

Sincerely, Apple

-- Apple (villarta@itsnet.com), April 29, 1999.

If you'll look back over the threads, what the "Pollys" do most commonly is address bad information from Doomers.

What the hell do you care, Mr. Poole?? If I want to read and believe "doomer" information in a "doomer" forum, why the hell should you care?? And you NEVER debunk, you just put your own special spin on the information.

My question remains: why waste your time? Why do you care? Don't you have something productive to do?

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Night,

Back in the "dark ages" when I served in Vietnam, there were several times that the air raid sirens went off, but it turned out to be a false alarm. I don't remember anyone establishing a mental comfort zone so that they would disregard the warnings. After the all-clear was sounded, we all came out of our bunkers, laughed, and had a beer. I am certainly not equating y2k with any war (it may turn out worse), but all I am saying is that if the warnings turn out to be false we who are preparing can do the same as we did in Vietnam. We can pull out our supplies, use what we can, and enjoy not having to drive down to the local supermarket. Some people claim that we are like the little chicken that went around proclaiming the sky to be falling. It's not the sky that I'm worried about; it's the ground beneath us that we assume to be solid. NO ONE knows what's around any corner, and there's no crime in being prepared.

-- Larry Trapp (lawada@tminet.com), April 29, 1999.

What Pollyslayer said is exactly how I was made to feel by the hard-core doomers when I began posting on this forum last year. They thought that they had all of the answers and that their sense of reality was superior to mine and other so-called pollyannas. So, now maybe you're getting a taste of your own medicine.

But, you're right, why do we care, it's not like your going to start bank runs or convince others who don't have the time or inclination to research for themselves that all of your rumors are true--NOT.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 29, 1999.

---Night

Very good question asked,and still haven't received an answer. A choice few pollys have gone to great lengths to dispute any bad news. They are surely connected to the same puppet strings Dan Rather and the like are attached to................

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), April 29, 1999.

Doomslayer - your argument is totally specious.

If a handfull of doomers in a (by internet standards) backwater doomer Y2K forum can cause 250,000,000 sheeple in the domestic U.S. to initiate a bank run, then there were more fundamental problems than simply Y2K.

Get a life and don't be so full of yourself or this issue. I doubt that .001% of the population in the U.S. is even aware of the broad implications of this thing. If CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS don't think it's a problem, then it isn't, and won't be, a problem in the minds of 99.999% of the population.

If I chose to withdraw every single one of my (not inconsiderable) assets from financial institutions where they currently reside, it would not even cause a blip on the radar screen. The "I want to avoid bank runs" excuse for polly bullshit in a doomer forum is a totally specious argument, at best.

I'm not a conspiracy nut. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK. I have never been abducted and probed by aliens. But with Y2K, something strange is afoot here.

Again, why won't you just go away?

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Kevin, are you saying good news can be disupted, but that bad news can't? Or are you saying that bad news *should* not be disputed? A great deal of that bad news has turned out to (1) not come true; (b) vanish when examined; (3) be seriously exaggerated; (4) not be based on a solid understanding of what it means, etc. In other words, it has been both highly and properly disputable.

Does this matter at all? Or would you join nightmare in preferring that those who point these things out just go away and let you panic in peace?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 1999.

The reasons Pollies stay around is because we want the real news.

When I heard about Y2K last November, my friend showed me sites of North, Yourdon, and Hyatte. No wonder he was stocking up, things are looking worse than ever in less than 14 months. And I basically panicked, sitting there reading post after post, trying to find anything that would be good news.

So after a few weeks, I found other Y2K sites, Y2Ktoday, Y2Knews. And a host of other news sites. And I noticed articles that were warning of scams, ect. And I found a site that exposed Gary North.

I continued on till January or February with just the news stories, and I read Peter De Jaeger's Doomsday Avoided essay. And I noticed that he was making alot of sense, that the news being released looked to be from the gov't/companies that they were fixing the problem. But I went to Yourdons board to see what others thought, and I found ridicule of the article, based soley on a "You sold Out" mentality.

As this year has gone on, I noticed that more conspiracy theories were cropping up. That nothing factual backing up the claims other than, Clinton wants to be a dictator. At this time, I found GNBFI and later Y2K DeBunker forumn. I gave them a read, and noticed that the ones screaming the loudest were the ones that were selling the goods.

Then April 1st rolled to a non-event, and I read all the predictions that were made, and the quick cover-up of the wrong guesses. Can you trust someone that tells you it is going to be bad, but then at the same time will sell you the stuff you need to survive?

The reason myself, and Im sure others dedicate their time is to disprove all the crap that many are writing on the internet at this time. Im watching and seeing the crumble of many. If it TEOTWAWKI, why does Gary sell 2 year subs? If its TEOTWAWKI, why do many like Hyatte seek profits? Money won't be any good.

But what really irks me, and Im sure it is the same with Stephen. I noticed that many Christians on this site welcome that they want TEOFTWAWKI, many are buying guns to protect their food, houses. Thou shall not kill means what it does people, not selective for periods of war and hard times.

But I dare any to find A)A polly who said, not prepare at all in any form. B)That their will not be problems, ever. C)Making money off people not preparing.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

I have thought about this for a while. Here are a few of the possibilities that I have come up with.

They aren't polys at all. They are actual doomers like most of us here. They just do not have anything better to do with their lives than to try to make conversation. What better way to make conversation than to get on the "wrong" side of the most common thoughts? This will sure get some conversation going their way.

They think that if they stir up the crap long enough, it will float.

They don't possibally want to admit that they are wrong.

You can catch my drift here. I think that if most of us wanted to act like a poly we could pull it off very well. Who is to say, some of the polys may be some of the regular posters just putting the poly spin on things. I bet 5 lbs of sugar, that most of them are stocked to the gills....

-- (pondering@your.question), April 29, 1999.

I can pitch in that I am going to be keeping a fair amount of food, water, and money for the first weeks of January, and maybe into the first week of Feb, but I feel that any stockpiling of food and water won't be anymore necessary than I say 2 weeks, if even that.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Near the bottom of a page Stephen Poole linked to --

(start snip)

* As a conservative, in fact, I'm concerned that Y2K may be used as a back-door way to increase government interference in business. Let's say I'm the manager of a small bank and feel that I can ignore Y2K; I'll just hire a couple of extra people and deal with it the old fashioned way. There is a very real question now of whether the radical Y2K'ers will even let me do that!

Have you not noticed that some 60's-style radicals are becoming involved in the Y2K thing now ...?

** Howard Ruff is back! That rascal almost talked me into becoming a survivalist during the Carter adminstration. He had me convinced that TEOLAWKI (the end of life as we know it) was at hand. It was my dear mother who beat sense into my head, and of course, his predicted collapse never occurred.

(Yes, you may infer from this one of my motivations for writing about Y2K. I don't want to see anyone make the same mistake.)

(finish snip)

-- Moderate (less@spam.get), April 29, 1999.

Pondering:

OK, you have joined into the chorus of those hollering that anything that can happen, will happen. Many optimists are well stocked. They also have insurance policies against lots of possible mishaps. Is it hypocritical to buy auto insurance and still drive? After all, the insurance *guarantees* that you will have an accident, so driving makes no sense, right?

Low probability, serious problems justify preparations. Like Pat said, the Pollys are saying that the probability of *needing* those preparations is low. High enough to prepare, but still low.

Why is this so hard to understand? I see your argument daily. Doomers can't be *that* stupid, can they?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 1999.

So, Pat,

If in your infinite wisdom, you've decided that things aren't going to be that bad, (now, here comes an AND gate),

and you hate bad, bullshit news, (here comes the THEN statement)

then: THERE'S NO FUCKING REASON for you to be here.

(Here's the GOTO statement.) Take it over to the Biffy forum.

...oh, and Flint, prepared people don't panic.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

The truth is always some place in the middle.

Got a measuring tape??

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Night:

Are you really so insecure in your convictions that you cannot tolerate reading other opinions? If you weren't, your attitude would be "here's why you're wrong" rather than "go away, I don't wanna hear it."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 1999.

No, Flint - I'm very secure in my convictions about Y2K and most other things in my life.

I'm quite tired of the noise, and I am ready to bail out of all Y2K discussions simply because I can't have a decent, non-obtrusive conversation with folks who have the same interests as I.

That's exactly what the polly's want, and that's why I think there's something nefarious afoot.

I'll make a deal with you. I'll stay out of the Biffy forum if you, Poole, *@*hole, and the rest of the ankle biters stay out of here.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Taz - don't need steenkin' tape. 36B. But I can sling testosterone with the best of them.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

36B? I haven't been a 36B since I was 10 years old. bwahahahahaha

-- I better not say this time (Dolly@nd.I have a lot in common), April 29, 1999.

Night:

If your interest is y2k, we all share your interest. That's why we're here. If your interest is in looking at the available material from all possible angles, you should welcome all views.

If you are only interested in being told how right you are, you are going to need to curtail your reading a bunch. And you've already curtailed your learning completely.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 29, 1999.

Flint says:

>>Low probability, serious problems justify preparations. Like Pat said, the Pollys are saying that the probability of *needing* those preparations is low. High enough to prepare, but still low. <<

Elbow Grease is beginning to feel schizophrenic and so am I. We both agree with the statement above, but consider ourselves doomers. What is going on?

It is easy to stand on the 95% - 98% (or whatever) probability side of the argument and yell "Told ya so" at the 2 - 5 percenters as time passes and the future becomes a little clearer. I don't see anything big-brained about that position; it's just an ego trip. Of *course* there's a greater chance it will be a bump in the road. If, however, the discontinuity causes severe problems, does that prove that Elbow Grease is twenty times smarter than the average polly?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), April 29, 1999.

Why pollys care.

Possibly larger Y2k ready firms plan to buy up smaller non-compliant businesses. Large banks would buy small banks. A bank run could cause partial nationalization of banks. Some in power would rather see raw market forces at work -- the large gobbling up the small.

But General Motors can't make all its vendors compliant by buying them up.

-- (rather@not.say), April 29, 1999.

Flint, Flint, Flint, darling, you really don't understand at all what I've been driving at, have you?

If this forum is such a ghettoized wasteland of intellectually challenged hillbilly yahoos who are tightening up the screws on the Easy Rider Rifle Rack in rapt anticipation of composting their own dung, why the hell do you care and why the hell are you bothering to post here? Are you trying to convert the "unwashed" or something?

Ah, wait a minute. The light bulb just went on. Now I get it - is this a "missionary" thing for you and Poole?

I really want to know.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

I am surprised my name has not surfaced in the "polly" camp. First, I dislike the "polly" and "DGI" labels. What I have read of Mr. Flint and Mr. Poole, I consider them optimists-realists. To my knowledge, they have not discouraged preparation. Unless I am mistaken, they both support personal and economic freedoms. In fact, I support much more economic freedom than we have now. With very few exceptions, I think government should avoid telling individuals what they may or may not purchase... this includes metric tons of rice and beans.

I read and post here because I find the information of interest. Y2K is a meta-issue... a political economist's dream come true. It involves aspects of every social science, with a bit of high technology voodoo to spice the mix. There are some authors here I find very readable... and the responses often make me laugh (and a few that remind me I ought to lock my doors at night).

Despite my very mixed reviews, I have received numerous emails from individuals who were heartened to hear a moderate viewpoint. When I read a post that I feel is wrong... I sometimes feel compelled to chime in. While I know economics is an inexact science, some of the posts here (how shall I put this delicately) are misguided.

If someone decides to prepare and asks a question I can answer... I gladly help. If someone want to talk about the economics of Y2K, it is my cup tea. There is no secret agenda... just a desire for civil discourse.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 29, 1999.

Night, the reason that I come hear is for the simple fact that I enjoy reading what is posted here. I like to see what the opposite of the sprectrum thinks on a issue. It would get pretty boring over at Biffy is the posts went like this:

Pat:Flint, look, another article. Lets run through it. Flint: Yeah, lets do it.

Debating is one of the oldest mental excercises that goes back to the beginning of time basically. Same thing here:

Yourdon:Things look bad. Night:Yep, not lookin good at all.

Everyone comes here to read what a response to the posting will be, and that is why Im posting a rebuttal to you. So I can check out your response when I get home tomorrow from work.

And also, I was sent from the gov, just as many doomers post here to help Gary sell Newsletters, Ed sell books, Michael sell freeze dried rice and chicken, and Y2Ksupply to sell freeze dried bologna. Forgot to answer your question in the last response.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), April 29, 1999.

Well, Night, a certain Dwarf MD would have my ass for answering a question with a question, but why does it bother you to have your beliefs questioned?

I don't read all the posts here, but I don't remember any polly's attacking the pure prep threads.

I post here for a number of reasons. One of the main one's being that Y2k is a serious issue. I have my opinions, but have always found it a good thing to have my conclusions challenged, and have to defend them. At times, it's made me reevaluate my opinions.

I wonder why you are so opposed to these discussions?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Mr. Decker, Pat, and Hoff,

This is not your high school debating team forum.

This is the "Timebomb 2000 forum". To wit:

(from the "About" link at the top of the page)

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.

Do you get that? Do the phrases "fallback contingency plans" and "other like-minded people" mean anything to you? You and I are very apparently not like-minded. The problem is, this forum was put up to discuss preparations for Y2K. Despite protestations to the contrary, the pollys who have invaded this forum are discouraging preparations.

You all say, in one shrill voice, "we want to present the other side". Not one of you has satisfactorily answered my question - why?? Why do you care?? Is this just so much sport for you?

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

Night, I've also read Mr Yourdon's open invitation to discuss Y2k on this forum, on his website. Even started a thread awhile back on it. So, until Mr Yourdon posts his preference that this forum be restricted to "Doomer"s, I'll continue to post. Funny, too, I haven't seen your protests on the NWO/Klinton conspiracy threads. Why is that?

I don't post to try an "convert" anyone. For better or worse, I think this forum attracts many lurkers, due to Mr Yourdon's name/reputation. And I think it important that both sides be heard. You really seem disturbed by this. Are your beliefs that weak, that they cannot be defended?

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 29, 1999.

I think we all answered your question. Multiple times. Slowly, one more time, we all feel we benefit from the experience of reading and posting here.

On this forum, Ed Yourdon and I have exchanged ideas. He did not find my comments "useless" nor has he placed restrictions on who can or cannot participate on forum. If you want a pure survivalist web site, there are many out there. And, by the way, we did not have a high school debate team....

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 29, 1999.

The atmosphere here must be getting more laid back. This time none of the pillows burst. This is good news.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 29, 1999.

Tom, you and I are incorrigible, but don't look now, as there's a swarm of feathers over your left shoulde......... He was a good man, our Tom, when he was eaten by a swarm of feathers and transported to the great pillow fight in the rumpus room, where he was required to rescue his spouse, from the clutches of about 23 giggling pre-teens.......

OH, right, topic, gotta stay with this thing. TOPIC ummmm

ahll tell yo whut, I really don't care WHY Hoff, Mr. Poole, etc post here. As people have said to Mr. Decker (guess they beat me to it, OH WELL **SIGHS**) there is a certain appreciation for a cold, strict rational-realist here. Now, I am NOT worried about my, soon to be applied for DOOMBROOD (tm) CARD, at all. I've been enough of a pain for y'all to know where Mrs Driver and I stand. It is GOOD EXERCISE to read contrasting viewpoints, sort out chaff from kernels (some of us need to save more kernels than we are and throw away more chaff, but...) and try to explain why or where we are. The more times one actually ENGAGES in the discussion, rather than reflexes to it, the better grounded the beliefs will become. they will also become more rational (one hopes).

Of course, ENGAGING in the discussion has a certain amount of danger inherent. The danger is that you MAY find that your position MUST shift in order for you to remain intelectually honest. OOOPSIE!! The breaks of the game. Remember we're talking about SERIOUS, PROFOUNDLY AFFECTING issues here. ANYONE who is NOT WILLING to check his/her ego at the door, and question his/her beliefs, probably ought not be involved.

NIGHT, you have had MANY posts that have hit the target well, I am having some problems with your objections here. Maybe you could enlighten me, either off forum or on, doesn't matter to me, the email has always worked. Just don't expect instant answers as I Do work a funny schedule.

Besides, to a people watcher (as a paramedic, i'm one of the most intense people watchers you EVER met, why do you think I own 10 X 50 binocs for racing?? To look at the CARS??? Hoo boy), watching the subtle and not so subtle changes in how people aproach the subject, how they change from one position to another (if they are constitutionally able), is a tremendous KICK!

I'm beginning to think that if Mr. Decker decides he has better things to do with his free time, we will lave lost a valuable resource. I TRULY enjoy Flint's posts because if you look at what he says, disregarding the occasional need to flame which everyone succumbs to (myself, the soul of laid back excepted of course, you***&&*^*^0), he is striding through what one of my IT bosses used to describe as the grey Twilight Zone, wherein dwells a "little skinny, wavy line" that denotes truth. [Anyone who ever worked with a guy named Arnie Weiss in Cleveland has heard that one a LOT] It is fun to watch his slides back and forth, though I have got to have a LOT of sympathy for the bruises he receives, from us here and from the people who espouse the other extreme on other fora (what, you thought this was my online life?? Get one yourself!!!!)

Guys and gals (Flint, Mr. Decker, Maria, Hoffmeister, et alia) DON'T STOP!! I enjoy the discussions, I may not hop in as my ammo consists of balista bolts and you folks are up to Class III stuff awfully fast. Your points when there are some, always cause me to re- evaluate my situation, atitude and expectations. Though, sometimes you would NOT be happy with the results of the re-evaluation.

Having retyped the last line 3 times due to a little feline "help", I guess it's time to feed the kidz and head for bed (when does a 20 pound cat eat?? ANY TIME HE WANTS TO!!!!!!)

Chuck, a Night Driver who isn't quite as set in his ways as some might think (only takes a 2 X 4 not a 12 X 12 barn beam! LOL L0L LOL LOL LOL)

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 30, 1999.

Did Paul Neuhardt change his handle?

-- observing (longtime@lurker.only), April 30, 1999.

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'll start public panic. Yet, these are the same optimistic people who say news about Y2K is good and getting better. As I see it, there won't be panic on the public's part unless there are significant Y2K failures that the public hears about.

There is another angle to all of this, though. This discussion would not even be taking place if the U.S. government had met its September 30, 1998 remediation deadline, and if the business community had met the generally agreed upon deadline of December 31, 1998 so it could have a year for testing. That would have been the easy way to nip possible panic in the bud.

What happens later this year depends on whether the world started working on Y2K soon enough. If the optimistic are trying to prevent bank runs, they may need language dictionaries. Why? Panic, if it happens this year, could start in foreign countries. Things don't always revolve around the United States.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 30, 1999.

Chuck,

Even though we may disagree at times, it is impossible for me to dislike a driver. Many miles on the road last at night, you guys have kept me awake and entertained (not to mention that you've warned me about the odd cop or traffic jam!). I never go on a long trip without the radio hooked up.

It is especially impossible to dislike a driver who is owned by a cat. My wife and I are currently owned by two; lock, stock and barrel.

Moderate,

If you visit the main page at my site, I clearly state what I think under the heading "Where I Stand."

But thanks for posting that little note about government interference in business. That is one of my (minor-but-present) concerns about Y2K hysteria.

Night,

Why don't you come clean and admit that you sell things for Y2K preparation? :)

And I'm sorry, no deal on Biffy or Debunkie. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join the discussion ... and may say whatever they wish.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 30, 1999.

The problem with the Pollys on this forum is that they have adopted a near religious fervor in trying to prove that Y2K will NOT be any more than a minor bump in the road. And like all good religious zealots, they have to proselytize and gain converts to their way of thinking. Those infidels who won't come around to their way of thinking are worthy of verbal scourging.

Pollys (Flint, Decker, Hoffmeister, Y2K Pro, Mutha Natcha, Paul Davis, Craig, etc.) please find another place to peddle your feel- good religion. I, for one, am sick of the spin. I get enough of it from Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, and the other media monkeys. Go to a "Y2K is no problem site" and tell each other there what a bunch of idiots all of us doomers are. Your constant battle on this forum is destroying any usefulness it might have.

But that's what you ultimately want, isn't it???

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@religious.fervor), April 30, 1999.

Pollyslayer,

Flint isn't a "polly". I get the impression from what he's said that he disagrees with a lot of what he sees as extremism here, but that he disagrees with a lot of unwarranted optimism when he's on other "optimistic" Y2K Web sites.

In general, I agree with you, though. The optimistic rarely participate on this forum in a natural give-and-take fashion. We rarely hear from them about where they expect Y2K to turn out on a 1- 10 scale, and how much they're going to prepare for it. The general idea on their part seems to be that to whatever level each of us individually are concerned about Y2K, we need to be less so. They rarely specify their views, except to say that it's different from ours.

I would respect the optimistic more if they explained the reasons for whatever level of preparations they've made (if any). More often, it's a case of them finding one person's weak argument, making an issue of it, and then retreating until another day.

John Koskinen has said that you don't avoid a panic by telling people not to panic, because then they will. The optimistic should keep that in mind. If the idea is simply that whatever level of concern individual pessimists have needs to be less (regardless of what documentation there is leading to that level of concern), then efforts by optimists are likely to be taken by many here as evidence of the proverbial rumor being officially denied.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 30, 1999.

Pollyslayer, at least two of the "pollys" you list call themselves 5's, just like Diane. Do you want her to go away? What about me, I vary from 5-7, I should go away too? Every one less than a 9 should leave? No way, Jose.

Personally I enjoy reading the give and take from "pollys" and "doomers" as long as it stays fairly civil. Flint, Paul Davis, Craig, Maria and Stephen don't (generally) bother me. I think a number of doomers are still too sensitive due to some real trolls that came by (and likely will again as soon as schools out). But unlike the real trolls, most of the rational pollys can be interesting to read and help me to hone my logic and figure out where that ends and hunch, gut feeling, begins.

Moreover, you quote the mission statement for the forum :

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.

By this statement, all threads except prep threads are OT. No more news threads, no more threads like this one, no more humour threads, and no more being human threads. Seems to me that if Mr. Yourdon wanted the statement more strictly conformed to, he'd do something to ensure it got that way. The day he tells me, and all those previously mentioned to go away, is the day that I quit posting here. 'Til then, deal with it. Quit reading any but the prep threads, or skip over posts that you deem a waste of time, or keep bitching about pollys and I'll start to skip your threads and posts (which would be too bad, I've enjoyed them!)

Rant mode off *sigh*, I usually do skip this type of thread...

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), April 30, 1999.

For one, I am ready to change my Y2K "forecast" but not on the basis of rampant speculation or elaborate conspiracy theories. For example, if the IT trade press start screaming Y2K, my ears would perk. I just have a tough time buying that only people who "get it" are the select few on this forum.... The recent news and movement by "experts" (Yardeni and de Jager) to moderate positions suggest we are making progress.

I tend to ignore the trap of "proving" the U.S. will be "Y2K ready." I cannot even prove my truck will start this morning. We can only deal in reasonable expectations.

Ironically, I am already well "prepared," but for reasons completely outside of Y2K.

Finally, I think we will see an economic downturn in the next 18 months and I have changed my investment portfolio accordingly. I will not empty my acccounts... particularly my retirement accounts. Between my personal tax bracket and the penalty, I would hand half of my retirement funds over to the U.S. government. With 30 years before I plan to retire, I think we will have Y2K well sorted out by then.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 30, 1999.

UUMMMmmmm..... Mr Poole, under the "Truth in Advertising" statutes, I should let you know that my "Driving" consists of hauling superfluous freight of consultants around in a Buick Roadmaster, usually from or to Cleveland Hopkins airport but on a regular basis to Pittsburgh, Columbus, Detroit, Buffalo, in short wherever they ask us to go.

Chuck

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 30, 1999.

OT, Chuck:

Was back in the area last week, took the kids to the Great Lakes Science Museum. Man, I was shocked! Going down 9th Street to the lake, was amazed at the transformation. Cleveburgh is looking awesome. Almost makes me want to move back.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.

Mr. Decker, if you posted your reasons for this downturn, I've missed them. Can you tell me why you think this? I do agree but I don't know enough about economics to put any reasoning behind it.

Pollyslayer, that looks like you Chris. If it is, you've always been the first to put down the polly point of view (actually you make it personal) in insulting tones. People in glass houses....

I first came to this forum looking for answers. I found a lot of hot headed responses to my posts from the doomers. Troll was one of the nicer things said to me. Then I started to throw flames back and now I'm considered an awful person for doing that. The only time I was treated cordially by the doomers was when I posted that I was preparing (of course under a different name). The doomers seem to be scared of pollys, yet I can't figure out why.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.

Maria,

WHY are you preparing??? I thought your company was just fine and Y2K was a bunch of hype???

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@theother.side), April 30, 1999.

Pollyslayer, you just don't get where my name came from do you?

Anyway, I'd like everyone to try a little exercise. Go to go.com, yahoo.com, or whatever search engine you prefer. Type "y2k" in the search box and see what comes up. When I first tried this last year most of the first 10 results were doom-oriented. Yourdon.com and garynorth.com were right at the top of the list. They still appear in the top 20 among plenty of other doom-sites.

The interest in Y2K is growing. There are more and more people looking into it for the first time. Now, what do you think will happen if enough of them only see the doom-sites full of rumors and people posting a pessimistic view because they have other motivations?

Do you understand where I'm coming from now? Do you really think the forum is a "backwater" forum?

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999.

I've found that when everyone agrees there isn't really much conversation. I sometimes have the best conversations with people who disagree with me. Without the 'optimists' (as I prefer to call them) on the board, there would be a lot less conversation.

'Course there'd be a lot less flaming, too.

I'm reminded of something that might apply to optimists and Y2K:

Only optimists kill themselves. Pessimists aren't surprised their life sucks.

Where was I. Oh yeah. Optimism. I find when I am feeling "most polly" as some would call it, and Y2K starts feeling miles away and bad stuff mostly impossible, after a short time I end up with a more obsessive urge to read this board. I think it is a "secret,hidden fear" on my part. My survival instincts saying, "But what if? Please don't look away. WHAT IF?!"

I used to be involved in a forum that discussed religious issues (all religions, in different areas). It was very interesting to me how the atheists hung out in the Christian sector, 'debunking' them, etc. Some Christians hung out in the pagan section telling them they'd all burn in hell. Buddhists and Jews argued enough with each other over theological semantics, they didn't need anybody else. Eventually I could see that pretty much all of these people had often-subconscious issues going on, things they hadn't really resolved within themselves.

They weren't trying to convince others. It just seemed that way. They were trying to convince themselves.

I think everybody should try being honest for once. I don't believe people talk about Y2K to save others who need to prepare. They talk about it as part of the process of saving themselves. And people don't talk "optimist" about Y2K to save others from being misled. They talk it because they want to believe it themselves.

And either or both or all of the above may be true, who knows. But the recurring argument that some kind of 'altruism' is involved -- from either direction -- in the reasons for posting needs to be examined. I have never, in my life, when thinking clearly, seen altruism manifest. I have seen good things done by good people who wanted to do good things. Because THEY Wanted to. They did it for THEM, first -- humanity second.

Start thinking in this direction and you might get to know yourself better. No matter what your point of view.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 30, 1999.

Pollyslayer, I never said Y2K is a bunch of hype. I said that most articles portray lots of hype (Y2Knewswire??, the Gary to name a few). Billions of $ are being spent on Y2K, that's not hype. Y2K is a problem but it's being fixed as evidenced by the billions of $. The TEOTWAWKI scenario is a lot of hype. Pollyslayer please try to understand the words that get typed, don't take them out of context. Take off your doomer glasses for just one second to see the real world and stop being so mad. And, no sweetheart, I am always prepared. I've stated that on other threads. Yes, my company is just fine, currently in integration test and we have outside IV&V.

Doomslayer, is it time for you to reveal your identity? I came here in October last year. Would I have seen some of your posts under your other name?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.

Night,

Maybe it's just morbid fascination with kooks that draws people to the page.

-- J. D. (jxd29@hotmail.com), April 30, 1999.

To answer Maria's questions: No, and yes.

I'm really just a nobody, an average American.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999.

Its hard to predict what will happen, however, the RISKS are quite real.

What I find disturbing about the so-called pollys is the attack-dog stance, many, not all, take. Instead of finding back-up information to substantiate their claims, by and large, a good many resort to flames and vicious name-calling ... then it devolves ... from both sides of the fence.

Its pointless and a waste of good energy.

If you want a good debate, great. How about some house rules then?

Perhaps this forum can evolve into something even more meaningful. Or not.

Time may tell.

Diane

BTW, Cynthia Beal, a food supply expert and Y2K speaker, sent around these words of wisdom quoted from a person named Cho Qosh, who spoke at San Francisco Bay Areas Oakland Y2K conference in March.

It is a synopsis of one message that the Hopi Elders have for us now as we face the uncertainties of these times.

Worth pondering ...

1. Where do you live (not just geographically)?

2. What is it that you do?

3. How are your relationships?

4. Are you in right relation with the Earth?

5. Where is your water?

6. Know your garden (and nature around you).

7. Speak your truth; it is time now.

8. Be good to each other.

9. Don't look outside yourself for the leader.

10. This could be a good time.

(Depends, on choices).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Doomslayer, but are you an average Libran? You've always been the most polite of the agitators....

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 30, 1999.

Lisa,

Astrology means nothing to me. However, I'm a Sagitarrius (sp?) born on the cusp w/ Scorpio. November 22, to be exact. John F. Kennedy was killed on my 4th birthday.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999.

Another reason that people with opposing views post here is to buffer some of the disinformation and spin that comes from this site. Whenever there is a chemical plant explosion or utility disruption, people start posting and crying "Y2K" when there is zero information to substantiate it. Whenever a CEO steps down or sells off a large amount of stock (it has been happening for years, folks) there are immediately whispers that it is due to Y2K. If a helicopter flies overhead and takes two right turns, it is doing maneuvers for Y2K. And on it goes.

In most cases, on this forum, negative information does not have to be substantiated, only taken on its face. Moreover, neutral information, (such as in the examples above) is often twisted to have a negative Y2K bend. I don't have a problem with preparing (I am doing some myself, out of uncertainty) or even having a doomer outlook (I've been there myself), but when the same people that cry "spin" begin spurting out disinformation and irresponsible speculation with zero evidence, it's not wrong to call them out.

Which leads me to another dynamic that constantly occurs on this forum. When people here make unsubstantiated claims, they attempt to put the burden of proof upon the dissenter, rather than taking responsibility for their allegations and providing supportive information for their claim. This then allows them to say "If you can't prove to me that my unsubstantiated information is wrong, then it's right."

Here is an example (abbreviated):

Yourdonian: We had a power outage in our neighborhood last night. Can you say Y2K?

(40 supportive posts later, someone who wants proof has the audacity to chime in)

Dissenter: Do you have any evidence that this was Y2K related? Power outages occur all of the time.......

Yourdonian: How do you know that we're wrong? We've been noticing a trend on this forum. Why don't you show me some information that these power outages are not due to Y2K...

(The last sentence is the switch. Rather than backing up his/her claim, the Yourdonian attempts to switch the burden of proof onto the dissenter. It's like saying "I think that there are gay mosquitoes. If you disagree, prove me wrong.")

But, if its positive news, as in the case of Dan the Power Man, who has more than shown, through his posts, that he has knowledge in his field, people still questioned the veracity of his statements as well as whether or not he was in the power business until he was actually verified by Drew Parkhill.

Please don't tell me that a double standard here doesn't exist.

-- CJS (CJS@CJS.com), April 30, 1999.

CJS,

It is perfectly reasonable to question IF a certain event is Y2K related, especially when there is "supporting" documentation that an industry group is "concerned" about Y2K repercussions in that area.

This is the year of TESTING. And as we all are aware, tests find out if things work, or not. Sometimes they even cause accidents.

And, we wonder. I do at any rate, and so do many here.

You, on the other hand, will ONLY "call" something Y2K related, if it says so in the labeling. (As a kid did you ever play mystery games like ... Clue?). And then you'll proceed to say "why" it isn't so. Without any supporting evidence. Just because YOU "think" it's not a possible problem, doesn't make it so.

Sad. But it's your choice. Doesn't mean ANY of us have to agree with you.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

Speculation is not the same as evidence, my dear Diane. I can speculate about lots of things but not everything is Y2K related... this year. I can make myself sound very intelligent and throw out "profound" statements such as "interesting piece of the puzzle" just to make you ponder. But, that doesn't make it real. When you put down my responses to your military speculations, I have to wonder why. Why do you get so sensitive about your "findings"? Like I said I can speculate about a lot of things (alien life on earth, spiritual intervention, karma and past life pay-backs) but I tend to only discuss things that I have direct knowledge of.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 30, 1999.

Diane:

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned. Nobody denies this. But concerns don't guarantee failures, or even make them more likely. Sure, there are a great many things that can go wrong. Will they? CJS is quite correct -- many on this forum have a tendency to take a rumor and exaggerate it into a 'fact.' When the testing shows the rumor wasn't valid, the next step is to question the testing. When the testing turns out to be OK, the next step is to doubt the source of that information. If the source is a good one, the final step is to attack whoever posted that information -- "They're against preparation!"

A forum full of people doing this over and over is a wonderful source of amazement and amusement, well worth commentary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 1999.

Flint: "A forum full of people doing this over and over is a wonderful source of amazement and amusement, well worth commentary."

Ah, so then, Flint - it is "sport".

I knew someone would get around to admitting it eventually.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.

Maria ... just for you ...

Did some MORE research. Its NOT speculation.

Army To Outsource Two Major Software Centers (Mission-Critical Y2K Problems?)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000m0n

Care to apologize? Miz. Military expert?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), April 30, 1999.

OK Diane-

This is the year of testing. And their doing it in every industry. So everytime there is a power outage, every time there is a chemical plant explosion, everytime the phones go out for a period, everytime a shipment doesn't make its destination, everytime an ATM goes on the fritz, everytime there is a near close call with an airline, let's allude to the fact that it is caused by Y2K, even though all of these things have been happening for years.

But for good news, you ask for proof. For your claims, you choose to provide none.

The fact is that you are actively seeking out and are tuned in to any incident which may be Y2K related.

Also, when I've seen something with its "Y2K labeling", I haven't refuted anything without providing evidence. However, when it comes to someone like yourself making rampant speculations and claims, I haven't said that it isn't Y2K related, only for you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

Let me bottom line it for you again. If you are going to make the claim, simply back it up. Otherwise, expect to be questioned on it. That is a reasonable expectation in any situation.

What you like to say is "Oh it seems to be more cloudy today. It's probably Y2K related." If someone questions you, you want them to prove that you are wrong. That's not how it works.

In many cases, it doesn't need to be rock-solid evidence. But when neutral stories are given a Y2K bend, for no identifiable reason, it gets pretty ridiculous. That being the case, you can pretty much attribute anything to everything, and all accountability and credibility go out the window.

-- CJS (CJS@CJS.com), April 30, 1999.

Apparently, the pollies don't think anyone can engage in critical thinking skills without input from the polly camp. For those of you who are interested, Night is right, the "doomer bashing" phenomena in this forum has all the elements of government-level involvement.

If I'm a Baptist, I don't go hang in a forum with Muslims and harrass them for their views because I think the Muslim religion is inherently dangerous to me.

Most of the polly responses in this thread have been sooooooooo sickeningly benevolent. Would you like to see how benevolent these wankers are? Check out their discussions of the Yourdon forum in GNIABFI and Mr. Poole's new little clubhouse.

-- The Anti-Wanker (anti-w@an.ker), April 30, 1999.

To: Flint, Hoffmeister, Maria, Doomslayer, Y2K Amateur, Cherri, Stephen Poole and the rest of you lackeys who seem to think it's YOUR BUSINESS what I do, you DISGUST me. You slippery little weasels seem to think that you are endowed with the RIGHT to attack me for what I BELIEVE and what I do.

Get a Life, ALL of YOU. Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

You slippery little weasels seem to think that you are endowed with the RIGHT to attack me and other participants for what we BELIEVE and what we do.

I expanded the previous post to include all who believe it is wise to prepare to ANY degree.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

The Brown Cow Has New Shoes.

Repeat.

The Brown Cow Has New Shoes.

(EOM)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.

Hoffmeister, love to see you comment like this. I must be touching a NERVE.

Over and Out,

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

Doomslayer- Buddy in DC is that you?

-- none (none@none.none), April 30, 1999.

Hoff the puppetmaster, Ray the puppet.

"Dance, Ray! Dance!""

ROFLMAO

-- Elite Spook #2 (Doyousee@howstupidyou.look), April 30, 1999.

none, Buddy did disappear when Doomslayer appeared? we could always email Buddy and ask.

-- naught (naught@naught.naught), April 30, 1999.

See INVAR's stupid thread about Polly motivations for your answer.

-- Doomslayer (1@2.3), April 30, 1999.

Well, as this thread begins to burn itself out, I can see by the sheer number of posts and rebuttals (plus those in INVAR's post) that I hit a polly nerve.

Still, not one polly has answered the question - why? Why bother to post here? While some tried to answer, not one polly really gave an explanation that made any intellectual sense to me.

For me, Anti-Wanker summed it up nicely:

"If I'm a Baptist, I don't go hang in a forum with Muslims and harrass them for their views because I think the Muslim religion is inherently dangerous to me."

So, the only thing that makes any sense for me is that the polly crowd is populated by one or more folks that has a hidden agenda. I'm not saying that all of the polly's, but given Doomslayer's admission to about 4 different aliases in INVAR's thread, it makes sense to me.

Again to the pollys: go somewhere where you're with you're own kind. Laugh at me and everyone else in this forum if you feel the need to jack up your own superiority, but do it from a distance, not in our house.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), April 30, 1999.

Night commented:

"Again to the pollys: go somewhere where you're with you're own kind."

Night, this might be difficult for those folks on someone's payroll!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

Ray and Night:

I think you two have found true love.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 1999.

Flint commented:

"I think you two have found true love."

Flint, TRUTH has ALWAYS been difficult for some to COPE with. Fortunately there are still MANY who believe in HONEST and TRUTHFUL character.!!

Your Pal Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

"Flint, TRUTH has ALWAYS been difficult for some to COPE with."

Yes, Ray, your posts have driven home this point ad nauseum.

"Fortunately there are still MANY who believe in HONEST and TRUTHFUL character.!!"

And they piss you off, I can tell.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 30, 1999.

Flint commented:

"And they piss you off, I can tell. "

Flint, i believe this is the FIRST TIME I have seen you use this type of language. Quite interesting !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), April 30, 1999.

we only have freedom of speech when despised opinion's of despised peoples are protected.

-- zoobie (zoobie@zoob.zab), May 01, 1999.

I see this thread has deteriorated. Maria, I will have to write another post on my recession predictions. Look for it on the main board. Now, I expect to look around and see Mills Lane.

(laughter)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 01, 1999.