There are a group of Pollys here (Stephen Poole, RMS, Paul Davis, Hoffmeister, etc.) who are totally convinced that Y2K will be a non-event or a "bump in the road", and spend a considerable amount of time here badmouthing doomers and trying to sway newcomers and "middle ground" people to their point of view. My question (and it was asked fairly recently and never answered to my satisfaction) is why are these people here at all? What possible reason could they have for wasting their time here? They are arrogant, pompous, egotistical windbags and love to spout their "everything's going to be OK" mantra, but they still haven't been able to justify their being here. Why do they care what doomers think? Their "I just want to prevent panic" reason is laughable! Practically no one in the general population is listening to the doomers. No one is taking them seriously. So why the major effort by the Pollys to discredit them?

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), May 05, 1999

Answers

And why do the Pollys care if I'm preparing for Y2K? I'm doing it, "just in case". If Y2K is a non-event, all it means is I'm going to have a few weeks of canned goods and bottled water to go through. Why is this so threatening to the Pollys? And why to the Pollys always focus on the U.S? This is a worldwide problem! Try telling me that other countries are going to be OK and what happens to them does not impact the U.S.

-- Amused (amused@laughing.com), May 05, 1999.

Because they're such obnoxious people in PERSON, nobody wants to be around them. The 'net is the only place they can get any attention.

Further, they seek power, and aligning themselves with the "no- problemo" spinners (.gov) allows them to feel RIGHT for once in their lives.

Some are just downright hateful folks who abhor people who are ABLE to become completely independent. Ya don't see a lot of country pollies, right? Except for Mr. Decker, who is a very principled polly. See?

"...For the record, I have enjoyed some of the work over at the EY forum... and I do not think the pessimists warrant ridicule or abuse. We are simply drawing different conclusions from the same data..." - Mr. Decker

Would that the rest of the pollies possessed backbone such as he.

-- Heloise (hints@nd.tips), May 05, 1999.

A few weeks? That's all you have? You're a denialist polly butthead! You fool! Don't you see, you need more preps. Stop wasting your time here and go do more preps.

-- Dr. Doom (paul@milne.bunker), May 05, 1999.

I've asked the same question many times, still no answer. If I thought Y2K is no big deal, I wouldn't be worried about it, and sure would not waste so much of my time trying to change the mind of those that are worried.

Gee, it's a nice sunny day out. Instead of enjoying it, I think I'll go to weather.com and see if I can find a storm.

What are the trolls up to? Maybe they're just bored at the Debunker's site, because so few people are there to agree with them. Maybe they're paid PR spin control folks. Maybe they just need to get a life! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

You know, I'm getting a little suspicious too. I mean, I understand the undeniable urge to argue better than most. And I give them the benefit of the doubt about their altruistic motivations vis-a-vis preventing a panic. But I've been lurking here for several weeks now, and even a die-hard debater like me is getting tired of the futility of this forum (aside from the practical tips - Old Git, Je t'adore!).

I also understand the need for an answer, once and for all. That is not going to happen. Look. When this many people can make this many good arguments on both sides of the matter, at some point you just have to accept the fact that you may never know the answer.

And in my opinion, if the argument is that good on both sides, and my life, or even just my hot shower, is at stake, I'm gonna prepare.

-- Gombah (goombah@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Consider that most whom you consider pollys here are often seen as doomsayers to the rest of America that is not tuned in to the Y2K debate. To most Americans, to even suggest that there will be glitches and inconveniences is doomsaying.

-- an observation (peanutgallery@yourdon.forum), May 05, 1999.

Yes, I've enjoyed both posting to Mr. Decker's posts and some private emails. He is a gentleman.

I'd enjoy playing chess or poker with him, win or lose.

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), May 05, 1999.

There's always the odious possibility that your and my hard-earned tax dollars are paying the pollytrolls to spin, divert, derail, and disgust the Forum.

-- h (h@h.h), May 05, 1999.

Amused,

The pollys are here because we threaten their religion. The word "culture" comes from the Latin "cultus," that is, worship. Worship is that to which we assign worth. Worth-ship. Acknowledge the Emperor! Declare his worth! This culture is a reflection of what the majority really worship in their heart of hearts. Y2K will kill that culture, their religion. We doomers are like the Roman Christians who wouldn't acknowledge Caesar's divinity, his supposed theistic standing. For this they were called a-theists. Our independence of mind and rejection of their religion is unutterably heretical and whips them into hysteria. There is no reasoning with them.

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), May 05, 1999.

Like I said once, I can say it a thousand times. I am here, and many others for the simple fact that we have a interest in Y2000 rollover, just as you do. But why are doomers in here? Wouldn't your time be much better spent tilling your gardens, buidling your new homes, and canning? Why do you feel the need to debate with a Polly? Are you being paid by Y2KNewswire, Michael Hyatte, and others to convince people that the Y2000 rollover will be bad, and hence everyone needs to purchase goods from the respective suppliers?

You, the same as Pollys have the vested interest in the Y2000 rollover as it pertains to how it will affect our lives. And ofcourse the grouping of Pollys into the simple category of not preparing is incredibly naive as not one person can find a polly telling others not to prepare at all. Its laughable in all honesty, as numerous evidence the last two weeks, gov't reports, big dates come to pass with little happening at all.

In all honesty, I don't know how this forum can exist with debate, some people and not all really soley on the same basic argument that we are being lied too, then demand proof to back up proof that you have given, only to dispel that proof as more lies.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Gumbah,

Un Italien qui parle Francais? (Je regrette de ne pas avoir trouve des accents ni des cedilles sur mon ordinateur.)

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), May 05, 1999.

Pat,

We're evangelizing the Y2K elect, not debating the damned.

Please learn to spell Michael Hyatt's surname.

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), May 05, 1999.

Prometheus, this post of yours is EXCELLENT !!

"The pollys are here because we threaten their religion. The word "culture" comes from the Latin "cultus," that is, worship. Worship is that to which we assign worth. Worth-ship. Acknowledge the Emperor! Declare his worth! This culture is a reflection of what the majority really worship in their heart of hearts. Y2K will kill that culture, their religion. We doomers are like the Roman Christians who wouldn't acknowledge Caesar's divinity, his supposed theistic standing. For this they were called a-theists. Our independence of mind and rejection of their religion is unutterably heretical and whips them into hysteria. There is no reasoning with them."
----------------------
Saving this ...

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 05, 1999.

Sorry Prometheus, I haven't been signing my paychecks over to Hyatt, so I did not correctly spell it. And of course you never once take up any of the arguments? Please answer the questions I posed if you and others are preaching to the choir so to speak.

-- Pat (bamecw@aol.com), May 05, 1999.

Pat,

Please read the following sentence. Does it sound familiar? It should, since you wrote it.

In all honesty, I don't know how this forum can exist with debate, some people and not all really soley on the same basic argument that we are being lied too, then demand proof to back up proof that you have given, only to dispel that proof as more lies.

Huh?

Now that you've read it, please make sense out of it. What does it mean? As written, it defies English. The mistyped words are one indication of the lack of care you devote to your trolls. The inability to form a complete sentence is something else. Please go back and finish grammer school before you resume posting to the net.

-- what (drivel@is.this), May 05, 1999.

Pat,

You're right! I never take up the arguments! I'm not here to debate. Read what I have already said: "We're evangelizing the Y2K elect, not debating the damned," and "There is no reasoning with them."

It is a common misconception that one can change another's mind through reasoning and debate. The notion that you can do so is your cultural inheritance from the Enlightenment.

Rather, one's beliefs are a function of the will. Change the will, and the beliefs will line up behind it. The will is not moved by logic. This is why we have all had the frustrating experience of successfully leading someone through through many steps in a logical argument, only to have him reject the logically valid conclusion. Hence the proverb, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."

If you are interested in persuading others, or being open to others' suasion, ponder this: What binds or looses the will?

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), May 05, 1999.

First, thank you for the kind words. One reason I continue to sally forth on this board is the warm support I have received from the "middle of the road" folks.

It is second inning of Y2K, and both sides want to declare victory.

Until January 1st, much of the rhetoric is speculation. The little hard evidence available is bitterly debated. For example, the "key" dates thus far have been largely uneventful. While I consider this encouraging, it is not definitive proof Y2K will be a nonevent.

In reality, I think very few people think there will be no Y2K- related problems. The real questions--what will fail and what is the cumulative impact of the failures.

On the technical issue of what will fail there has been excellent discussion. While an amateur in IT, I have enjoyed the comments of Mr. Poole, etc. Continued discussion of hardware, software, firmware, embedded chips, etc. is important. The exchange of information, to me, seems more valuable than a board where dissent is not allowed.

On the cumulative effects of Y2K failures, the discussion has not met the standard set by the technical folks. While there is no shortage of armchair economists, I think the forum can raise the level of the discussion. My first real post here, Y2K and Risk, generated 50+ pages of discussion... some rather unhappy.

I hope we can move beyond, "Did so, did not, did so, did not." There are impressive writers on both sides of the issue. Every civil post increases the value and participation level of this forum. The converse is true for every personal attack.

I confess to having moments of annoyance. I, for one, will resolve to behave better, ask more and tell less. Now, where were we?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 05, 1999.

Bravo, Mr. Decker. Bravo!

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 05, 1999.

One thing I have noticed, is "any" news article posted which includes a military slant, usually picks up more "heat."

Curious. Or not.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

"Shine your light upon the path, rather than into a person's eyes." (thank you Jeff Gordon)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 05, 1999.

A doomer is a person who is naive to believe he can prepare for this problem. He is the ultimate optimist.

There's two pollys, one who's informed and have come to the conclusion that he must ignore the problem because there is very little that he can do but pray.

The other polly doesn't have a clue, and it's pretty easy to sleep at night.

Let's face it, companies like Auto Industry, Airlines, Health Care will not be around next year. (The entire world just got started seriously in 1998)

Take your pick Doomer or Polly it doesn't matter, I'd rather be the Polly who doesn't have a clue. But after 20 Years in the computer business setting up systems, I am an informed Polly.

-- Arthur Washington (ARTWASH@webtv.net), May 05, 1999.

Arthur:

You make some pretty solid predictions there. Certainly solid enough to submit to Bradley Sherman's prediction website. Who knows, you might win a prize.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Decker -- "While an amateur in IT, I have enjoyed the comments of Mr. Poole, etc." Wow. I am sincerely amazed that you can't see through the shallowness and irrelevance of 90% of Poole's posts. I distinguish him, by the way, from Davis and Flint, from whom one can learn much.

Sadly, that only shows me the necessity of having to keep the intensity level of the debate high with certain posters, since so many people are being taken in and deceived. Sorry to sound so doctrinaire but it's true. You COULD no doubt say the same on certain economic forums, if you get my drift, where you have experience, knowledge and wisdom (and, actually, the latter is the most important). Poole is UTTERLY lacking in wisdom about Y2K.

No need to reply. I'm just stating my amazement and the conclusion I draw from it relative to this forum ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Could it be that they're trying to convince THEMSELVES that their gods of technology cannot, will not fail?

-- Lurker#286 (can'tstandit@nymore.com), May 05, 1999.

I wonder why the so-called "pollys" rarely ask what the pessimists are doing here. Rarely have my motives been questioned so often (or so creatively). Paid disinformation agent on the government payroll is my personal favorite.

Why do my motives matter. You may decline to read my posts. Ignore them. Read them and disagree... I only ask you respond without attacking and move beyond "I am right, Decker, and you are wrong."

[By the way, my skin is thick and I will forgive the occasional outburst. I have become a bit testy at times myself. (Sorry, folks.)]

Questioning motives is just another form of personal attack. For the sake of civility, may we focus on the content of the post and not the "character" of the writer?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 05, 1999.

Would y'all mind if I relate an anecdote? A long time ago, when I was a very naive young woman, no family nearby, except a 7-year old son, for whom I was the sole support, I worked for a non-profit, United Way, social services agency as a secretary. The office manager was off for a week and I was put in charge of her desk. I had to do my job AND hers.

At the end of the hectic week I wrote her a funny memo about what had happened--several crises--while she was gone and I ended it with, "I hate my life!" She showed it to the agency director who immediately called me in and insisted I undergo psychological counseling because of my "cry for help." I was appalled! "It's black humor," I said, "very British."

I was told in so many words that unless I agreed to the counseling I would be let go. I HAD to take the counseling, I badly needed my job. Luckily, the doctor was a sweetheart and we laughed about this incident after he realised I was no threat to anyone, least of all myself. But the incident still sticks in my craw.

Whenever the pollys criticize those prudent among us for preparing, I think of this director, this bloody do-gooder. I believe at least some of the pollys are cut from the same cloth--they can't stand it when they see what they think is aberrant behavior and they can't force us out of it.

Someone wrote about control freaks on another thread. I think the terminology is correct. Try a little laissez faire, pollys; if not laisser les bon temps rouler. (I know it's fractured French, but that's how they say it in Cajun). Let it be.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Old Git, that's a remarkable viewpoint, I must say. The doomers are insisting that everyone prepare. The optimists are encouraging everyone to make an informed decision, whatever it is.

And you say the optimists are the control freaks! Far out. You might want to take a step or two back and try a little perspective.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint --- I couldn't disagree more strongly. How can anyone "insist" that people prepare? I have no idea what that could even mean in the context of an Internet forum. Certainly, I am one of the people that carry the banner, if such it is, of preparation here. I suppose you could say I strongly encourage people to prepare, but insist?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Well, this thread is about Pollys insisting on hanging around a Doomer forum, so I suppose I can't really blame the Doomers for wanting me to buy an old German 88 on the black market and line my house with Kevlar! But you're right, I have little or no tolerance for anyone who thinks I'm not doing what THEY think I ought to be doing.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Big Dog:

I enjoyed that a lot! You 'strongly encourage'. You 'carry the banner'. But insist? Never!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint:

"The optimists are encouraging everyone to make an informed decision, whatever it is."

Another statement I strongly disagree with. First of all, you contrast "doomers" with "optimists". Loaded, very loaded. I am a doomer and an optimist, if the labels are going to be used. Second, you assert that "doomers" aren't encouraging everyone to make an informed decision. What am I doing? Encouraging people to make uninformed decisions? Obviously, I am convinced from my reading of the evidence that the information decision IS TO PREPARE. Weirdly, that seems to be the decision you have made as well.

So, what is going on with these statements?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Sorry, "informed" decision.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint --- I'm lost unless this is just semantics. I wish I COULD insist, true. How could I? How can I? How can anyone do anything more than encourage?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint...only the 'black helicopter'specialists are insisting that everyone prepare. PLEASE don't group everybody together. However, you might go and take a gander at the mission statement for this board.

Mr. Decker...I frequently read your posts because most of them impart a little more information to the equasion. Don't always agree but that's the beauty of a board like this. I don't HAVE to. That is where the problem comes in to focus. The 'pollies' insist we agree with them or at least go away. I do not agree with the extreme doomers and at times I wish I could make them lurk for a time so the dust could settle. However, I believe their viewpoint has as much place here as Mr. Poole's. The major issue is that with so much vitrol being bandied about from the two ends of the spectrum, much good information is lost in the cloud. I do not have time to read through 30 or 40 posts and all the answers each time I get on the board.(and Lord help anyone that misses a night, you'll never find anything).

Stephen Poole...I bear no animosity toward you, sir. I used to enjoy your posts (even though I didn't agree with 95%) but in the last two weeks, your posts have become increasingly vitrolic and lacking in facts. Might I suggest you take a step back and do some deep breathing?

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), May 05, 1999.

Big Dog:

Maybe this is more semantic than I realized. I, too, encourage people to prepare. My impression is that those who are less convinced that we face certain calamity have been less shrill, less belligerant (with some exceptions) and more logical.

You yourself wrote (on the Trucking thread) that completion percentages are meaningless, but it's essential to take them absolutely seriously! I'm still not sure why I should be so serious about the meaningless, but I'll try. Honest.

On another thread (I forget, there are so many) Humpty tied himself into knots agreeing that applying facts to logic was always the best approach, except just this once, because .. uh .. well, he couldn't say.

A lot of this is very hard to put into words, I admit. And the more you try, the more those words get ripped from their context and carefully misinterpreted. This is a religious issue.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 05, 1999.

The proliferation of these types of threads really makes me wonder why the self-described "Doomers" have to question motives, as opposed to the actual discussions.

I've never ridiculed anyone for their preparations. The worst I could be accused of is screwing around with Ray, but only after repeated implications that I was some sort of government "plant".

I'll say it again, the Y2k debate is about determining the actual risks involved. Each person must decide how to address those risks.

If this were a pure "Prep" forum, I wouldn't post. I don't post or argue on the "Prep" threads. But a large percentage of the posts are an attempt to convince just how bad things will be. If all here were "Doomers", what is the need? If, as some have said, nothing could change their minds, then why the need for these posts?

No, there is an obvious slant here to try and persuade others. When I see something that I consider wrong, either from my experience or logical reasoning, I post. If I see truly meaningful news or information, I post. After all, even some of the "Doomers" are continually asking for good news.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.

But Hoff, what you've got here is a forum originated and webmastered by the author of a book about how Y2K will likely screw up the works in major fashion. The forum's "mission statement" (see "About") talks about like-minded people discussing fallback plans--people who believe in a Timebomb 2000 scenario.

You say, ". . .there is an obvious slant here to try and persuade others." Well--yeah. When you see a French Country style house, do you expect the furnishings to be Early American?

"When I see something that I consider wrong, either from my experience or logical reasoning, I post." Yebbut this is YOUR experience or logical reasoning, not the Timebomb 2000 experience or logical reasoning. It's your attempt to put Early American in this French Country house. This is why there's a frequent feeling of cognitive dissonance around here. "After all, even some of the 'Doomers' are continually asking for good news." All to the good. But on a forum such as this, you must expect some stiff opposition.

In short, I think Pollys suffer somewhat from an undeveloped sense of consequence, perhaps a little masochism too!

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

Flint:

"You yourself wrote (on the Trucking thread) that completion percentages are meaningless, but it's essential to take them absolutely seriously! I'm still not sure why I should be so serious about the meaningless, but I'll try. Honest."

I did? I have no idea what I meant and am too tired to ferret it out. So there.

Look, the bottom line is (listen up, Hoff) that this is a very engaging debate. Yes, MANY aspects of it are "religious", some explicitly, some implicitly (our views of technology, power, control, honesty in public domains or lack of it, etc). That's not necessarily a bad thing. The founding of our country was a "religious" issue too, if you follow me (obviously, Y2K is far more trivial, however it turns out).

Maybe I should have said this earlier in the thread, but my simple answer to the post is, "because they want to be here." End of story. Same way I do. If some "doomers" are dangerous militia freaks, okay. If some "pollys" are government plants, okay. Let that stuff go.

This forum would be hideously boring, just like life, if we all thought alike. Fat chance of that happening here. Heck, I expect to be arguing cheerfully with you, Davis, Maria and Decker NEXT year about whether Y2K had anything to do with California finally falling into the ocean and the stock market dropping to 5,000.

And ya know what?

I'll say, "Yes." David and Maria will say, "No". Decker will say, "it doesn't matter, because the markets will correct themselves." And you'll say, "Hmmm. Yes but no but no but yes." :-)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 05, 1999.

Old Git, no problem here with stiff opposition.

Although I always thought logic was logic; maybe you could explain "TimeBomb2000 Logic" to me. It would probably clear up alot of things for me. ;-)

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), May 05, 1999.

I hope we can move beyond, "Did so, did not, did so, did not." There are impressive writers on both sides of the issue. Every civil post increases the value and participation level of this forum. The converse is true for every personal attack.

I confess to having moments of annoyance. I, for one, will resolve to behave better, ask more and tell less. Now, where were we?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 05, 1999.

--Mr Decker--

When you post the above < a href="http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&T L=925873341">HERE I will consider you post less than ingenuine. I have never been to your web page before and certainly wouldn't again, considering the columns I read during my short but, nauseating stay. I can only judge you by what you say Mr. Decker, Please feel free to include yourself (once removed) in my post to Mr. Poole.

-- spun@lright (mikeymac@uswest.net), May 05, 1999.

Well, okay, I was using "logic" in the "rational, reasonable, sane" sense (Roget's); to avoid confusion, let's replace it with "philosophy."

So you want me to explain Timebomb2000 philosophy? Why would you want to take my word for it? After all, I'm a Doomer! The original source is easily available at any good bookstore. Original sources, where available, are best when you want to formulate an opinion.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 05, 1999.

"people who believe in a Timebomb 2000 scenario. "

This is a big mistake. Yourdon's book presents many possible scenarios. To say that the mission of this board is to cater only to people who believe the "Timebomb 2000" scenario is not logical. Ed himself believes a depression is coming, not a total collapse of civilization. Part of preparing is to know what risks you must prepare for.

-- none (not@vailable.here), May 06, 1999.

"Questioning motives is just another form of personal attack. For the sake of civility, may we focus on the content of the post and not the "character" of the writer?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 05, 1999. "

Nice sentiments, but that has never stopped you or the other pollys from attacking character here before. Why should it now?

Any questions? Go to the biffy site and see how Mr. Decker and the rest of the lunatics there charactierize Yourdon forum regulars.

-- not @ (not_a@a.a), May 06, 1999.

Accurately

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

Flint -- I suppose that includes you as a regular? Oh, I forgot, YOU'RE the voice of reason.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 06, 1999.

This is MinnesotaSmith, the author of the Y2K-preparatory website http://y2ksafeminnesota.hypermart.net. If you want to see pollyannas fully revealed for what they are, go look at the profanity-dependent, sputtering-with-hatred types on the forum at the "Gary North is a big fat idiot" site. Hurry, it will be defunct later this month. (Use Metacrawler if your search engine has trouble finding it).

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 06, 1999.

If you read what I have written in any forum (ignore the occasional imposter), you will see I have debated issues, and tried to avoid character assassinations. On BFI, I said both sides had been "shrill" and appealed for more civility. On Debunker I said that the pessimists on EY forum did not warrant ridicule or abuse.

Of course, I am not perfect and have had moments of annoyance. Unlike many, I have been willing to apologize when I have felt I crossed over the line.

I suggest you wander back and look at my Y2K and Risk post in the "General" archive. Or read the two recent "lovefests" on this forum where I am called a coward, liar, etc. I have been targeted for numerous personal attacks... and yet read my responses. Where have I called my attackers names?

I am not saying every "polly" is well behaved. Far from it. But this forum tolerates all sorts of nonsense from members of the "club" and turns savagely on those who have a more optimistic outlook. Fortunately, Chuck (the night driver), lent me a complete Nomex ensemble.

Regards,

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

"gentleman" decker (lower case, natch) you are still here.

You will never be welcome, or lauded.

You know that for you have no conscience.

Continue on - automaton.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

time to quote from my song

oh pollyanna oh don't you cry for me cos i come from silicon valley with a banjo on my knee

-- dick of the dale (rdale@coynet.com), May 07, 1999.

"Where have I called my attackers names?"

Over on the lovefest thread I started, you called Diane a New Ager as a way of dismissing her. You've also begun using the word "Christian" to mock me, though I have been ignoring it since it's one of those "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of things.

You ARE a hypocrite, Decker. That is not a name, but a simple description.

BIFFY and its offspring tolerate no disagreement and avowedly want to destroy THIS forum. Curious coincidence, the trolls and you and Poole showed up a couple of months ago. Hmmmmmm. 2 + 2 = ...... I'm not an economist, Decker but I can add. If are the honorable person you say you are, you wouldn't even BE on that other forum. Don't give me that baloney about how you tell them not to "ridicule" SOME of us.

(laugher, rolling on the floor at Decker, shaking my head in amazement)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 07, 1999.

Big Dog,

I am not sure how you managed the Great Books program when you seem to have such difficulty reading my posts. MBA Diane took a poke at me, so I poked back at her spacey writing style. Her WRITING. You seem to have an incredible difficulty separating attacking someone's work and attacking someone. For example, calling someone a hypocrite, a coward or a liar is a personal attack. Yes, I can see where my use of the word Christian might needle you. I will avoid applying the word to you in the future.

Stan Faryna posted at Debunker yesterday and lived to tell the tale. I have been a "moderate" on every forum and my work on BFI was generally respected because it was logical, balanced and well reasoned.

If you'll notice, some of the reasonable moderates on this forum (like Faryna and Florence) do not always agree with my work, but they reject your interpretation of my motives. If you respect Mr. Faryna, Mr. Florence or the others who have spoken on my behalf, perhaps you should reconsider your incessant cat calls. On the other hand, you and Andy can make it your mission in life to rant every time I post. In the long run, however, I think your credibility will be damaged if you continue a series of gratuitous personal attacks.

The notion that I would not visit BFI if I were an honorable person is ludicrous. I reject it as a thought police tactic of the lowest sort. I also reject Gary North and Christian Reconstructionism as seditionary. North's use of Y2K has been a sham. His published goal is an overthrow of the Republic and establishment of a theocracy. Y2K is just the latest method. We can debate this any time you wish.

"Don't give me that baloney about how you tell them not to "ridicule" SOME of us. (laugher, rolling on the floor at Decker, shaking my head in amazement)"

It's good to see you still have your sense of humor.

Regards,

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

Your question deserves an answer. Whilst I am sure to be labelled on the "pollyanna" side of the debate, I too have chosen to prepare to a level I believed neccessary. I have no desire do destroy this forum, or any forum, but I DO believe in the need for balance. And it seems that on every Y2K related forum I go to, the moderate middle ground view becomes drowned out by the noise of extremism (on both sides).

You dismiss the "panic" justification for polly involvement in these fora out of hand.

Let me try to expand on that particular issue using the words of someone you almost certainly once respected, even if you do not any more. Maybe it will make more sense that way.

*snip*

"When we first started to write about this, it was a really simple outline: We used two-digit years; it's a problem; we better start working on this now. And by the way, it's going to cost a lot of money. We said that time and time and time again. But no one was listening. We made the assumption, naively, that once people understood there was a problem, they'd go off and fix it. So we had to change the tone and go into this mode: Listen, you dumb shmuck, don't you realize that if you don't fix this, your company's going to go in the tank? At some point, you have to turn it around, not to create fear, but to concentrate on the consequences of inaction. If you know a different strategy, I wish you'd have been around to tell me, 'cause this was the only thing that worked."

Such a tactic, he added, has its downside: "I wish we never had to do that. I wish I didn't, during interviews, have to talk about the consequences of failure. Because what happened was people who had no right knowing about Year 2000, who had no control over Year 2000, now became aware that there was this big problem that people weren't paying attention to. But it was the only way to communicate to management, to businesses, to government. ... While it did introduce activity amongst those who could take action, it also produced anxiety amongst those who had no control. So now, today, I believe that while the technical problem has been fixed, it's being surpassed or replaced by the problem of panic."

By Mark K. Anderson Published 05/06/99

*end snip*

Which polly denialist said that, I hear you ask ?

None other than Peter de Jager, one of the founding fathers of the Y2K preparedness movement. If you wont believe us, will you maybe believe him ?

Or are you only interested in seeing a forum here where the loudest of the extremist elements can scare the life out of newcomers with their tirades about black helicopters, the New World Order, and TEOTWAWKI without fear of contradiction ? Or are you REALLY trying to say that the creation of widespread public panic and disorder ISNT a contributory factor to the possible impact of Y2K ?

To say that "Practically no one in the general population is listening to the doomers. No one is taking them seriously." is so naieve as to be malicious. The media is a powerful tool. Think back to Orson Welles and "War of the Worlds".

Any source of MISINFORMATION, accomplishing nothing except an increased revenue stream for "Joes handy survival foods Inc." or the feeding of the medias thirst for sensationalism should not be permitted to go unchallenged.

Still in the dark about why we choose to be here ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Thanks, wolverine, you said it better than I can.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 07, 1999.

BigDog ... Heck, I expect to be arguing cheerfully ... NEXT year about whether Y2K had anything to do with California finally falling into the ocean.

Lets not go there please.

Californias already on edge enough with the Y2K thang. Lets not temp Mother Nature.

;-D

Diane

(Gosh, and here I thought I was just increasing the revenue stream for Safeway Foods and Luckys and Vons, the local health food stores, etc. Silly me).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

But we know better, Diane... relative to sea level, most parts of the coast of California are slowly rising !

When the big one hits, everything east of the San Andreas will fall into the Atlantic ...!

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 07, 1999.