Now For Something Completely Different: Thank You To Decker And Poole : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Ironically, the very slow trickle of hard Y2K news and the happy face reports were starting to demotivate this forum, both with respect to analysis and preparation (you regulars know exactly what I mean).

Heck, we were being forced to turn to black helicopters, contrails and, even, Kosovo.

Then, along came Decker, Poole and the rest of the Der Boonkah Biffy crowd.

This has had the stimulating effect of forcing many of us to crisply re-articulate the continuing seriousness of Y2K itself and the imperative to continue preparations when we would otherwise have kicked back and let the forum drift for several months.

Thank you, sincerely, guys! If you keep it up, who knows how many regulars and lurkers will step up their preparations!

Probably, this result is what is behind the urgings of the Der Boonkah forum that their "people" stop posting here. That, and the fact that we are "sucking their life-force" from them.

Slurp! Sluuurrrrpppp! AHHHHHH ...... Yummy. BURP!

Next, please.

-- BigDog (, May 15, 1999


Thanks, Sir B.D.!

I for one would warmly welcome a return to the topic at hand. I grow weary of sifting through the chaff...this X-Files stuff is getting really silly. The Der Boonkah crowd posts seem ALMOST (shudder) curiously refreshing in comparison, and should serve as a wake-up call to all you dormant sleepy-heads!

-- Spindoc' (, May 15, 1999.

Yes, double-decker and poole, CrETin, prove that Darwin was right all along :)

They have had the opposite effect than they intended,


What a pair of complete and utter maroons

-- Andy (, May 15, 1999.

Big Dog,

Agree. For awhile I even thought it was my "Where is everybody" post. Silly me. Contrast, even goofy, gives reason to reaffirm. Plus, there's been a ton more practical info posts. Much help to me.

-- Carlos Mueller (, May 15, 1999.

"Yummy. BURP!"

I don't know BD, they leave a funny taste in my mouth... <:)=

-- Sysman (, May 15, 1999.

"Der Boonkah"? I'm getting a Rip Van Winkle flash here. I went out to mow the lawn or something and some invasion went on here or what? I think of going back to read old fast-flown-by threads and see what happened, but I'm afraid to. Time warps are scary.

The trolls can't kill us, so they must make us stronger. (Thank you Arnold.)

Someone compared the forum to a teenager going through "that" stage of life. Maybe this is just the weird "friends" your kid has over in the afternoon that you never quite find out everything you ought to about.

Now I've got a 3-year-old and this forum doing daily personality makeovers. I'd like to yell "Stop the world...", but it was only last year I was ever so sagely telling y2k novices what a wild ride this year was going to be. As if I'd be on top of it all when it came.

That genset is still in storage, and every end of the month comes along and I call up the place and give 'em my card number. I hope that good electrician hasn't booked up through November yet.

-- jor-el (, May 15, 1999.

My spiritual practice directs me to look for lessons in every nook & cranny of life experience. I picture these lessons lined-up, eagerly waiting to be released into my world, that I may benefit through learning of their presence & incorporating their teachings into my very being.

Thank you, BD, for finding & sharing with this forum your discovery of a silver-lining that lay deep inside the invasion of the body- snatchers from other fora.


-- Bingo1 (, May 15, 1999.

Strong minds, good hearts. Since the beginning. Thats the continuity that shines through all the circumstantial permutations here. These people are the best Ive found; this, the best forum. The quality of its commitment to truthfully articulating the perceived reality gives me hope for us human beans, regardless of the magnitude of the obstacles before (and within) us. Walt Whitman would have found good friends here.

Shine on. Hard and bright and gemlike. In the end, were ALL going to be surprised.

-- Faith Weaver (, May 15, 1999.

Optimistic posts have had *two* favorable side-effects:

1) They have helped the more thoughtful people here to focus back on the matter at hand -- how bad will y2k be, and why.

2) They have highlighted those Yourdon contributors whose idea of defending their opinion is to attack and ridicule opposing opinions, while adding no substance of their own.

A simple head count of the relevant threads shows that those in group (2) outnumber those in group (1) by a wide margin. Even posts with more content than mere personal attacks contain indications of obvious disrespect for differing opinions. Too many of us make no pretense of looking for the truth, but only defend Received Truth against the infidel. Our track record here is lousy.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.


It all boils down to sincerity.

If poole and double-decker came to this board with sincerity then they would have earned respect and there would not be this "perceived" problem.

So what did they do?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

-- Andy (, May 15, 1999.


I don't see the insincerity you do. I think Poole really believes problems will be very minor, while Decker is more willing to concede that what we don't know (which is a *lot*) can indeed hurt us.

I'll grant that neither of them has accorded the hardcore doomers the assumption of equality, that their opinions are equally valid. But you don't have to look very hard to see that by comparison, the doomers have shown Poole and Decker MUCH less respect, mocking them and attacking them constantly. Whole threads have been wasted discussing how stupid/evil/devious these folks must be, to question *our* enlightened opinions. And even *mentioning* this emphatically unfriendly reception gets them accused of insincerity!

I continue to believe that if we behave like children, we should be treated like children. And we *do* behave like children all too often. But dissing the messengers who point this out only serves to perpetuate this attitude. We live in a glass house.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.

Flint, disagreement with what someone says is no justification to heap scorn. HOW someone says it is a whole nother matter, as you correctly state in No. 2. Howsomever. And it's a big howsomever. You cannot complain about folks replying in the same tone as the poster.

Right from the early days, Der Boonkah has had as its stated crusade the ridicule and "saving" or "deprogramming" (not genuine debunking) of people on various non-pollyanna forums -- and Der Boonkah's favorite target is the Yourdon forum (or what they call Yourdung) because it's so popular with its "turds" (Der Boonkah's name for Yourdon forum folks). Der Boonkah's method has been disruption. OutingsR, totally without sarcasm, suspects this method is more to do with the immaturity of Der Boonkah's main players rather than coming from a reasoned discussion on how to save us from ourselves.

OutingsR was created after BigDog talked about Der Boonkah on the Yourdon forum. OutingsR, who was then known as (blank), was seriously disgusted by the vitriol spewing in the posts over at that forum. Wading through the acid to the beginning of Der Boonkah, encountering only a few genuine debunking posts, the person formerly known as (blank) saw clearly that there was, absolutely, strong encouragement to muddy the Yourdon waters.

Doc Paulie, Der Boonkah webmaster, wrote an impassioned plea to Der Boonkahs to stop trashing the "doomers" because our memes (trans - mind-virus germs) are infecting everyone, including pollys, but nobody listened. Within hours, everybody, including Doc Paulie, was back to trashing the "doomers" again. So it was all bullshit, wasn't it? Or is it because our memes are too strong -- we made you do it???

Nobody knows whether OutingsR is one or more persons, male or female, old or new, high-cholesterol or low-salt, with or without childproof cap. Contrary to false rumors now being spread by Der Boonkahs, OutingsR is not a paid "shill" or "puppy dog" for "The Massa" (yes of course he read your post, CPR, look out, here comes a meme -- WHIZZZZZZZZZ -- thunk! -- slurp! -- ee-yew, tastes like it's past its sell-by date!!!). As one of the main influences on Der Boonkah, and no doubt a major disrupter here, OutingsR holds you in the strongest of contempt, along with others of your pernicious little like mind.

We don't pea in your pool, kindly don't pea in ours.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 15, 1999.

Flint -- are you gonna make me go through THEIR posts and hang them in their own words??? They asked for it, they got it. End of story.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 15, 1999.

"My spiritual practice directs me to look for lessons in every nook & cranny of life experience. I picture these lessons lined-up, eagerly waiting to be released into my world, that I may benefit through learning of their presence & incorporating their teachings into my very being." -- Bingo1

Love that image, Bingo!

Lessons are also found in holding up a large mirror, starting with self first, then looking at those other mirrors in life, surrounding us.

In holding up the Yourdon mirror, we can see ourselves split between opposing Y2K views while sitting in an Over-the-Top seething soup of chaotic misinformation waters. Trying to make sense in the mists of obsfucation. Perhaps this forum experience is part of learning how very interconnected our world really is. And how very little most of us perceive that lesson.

Do you notice how every permutation of human emotion is displayed here? Why? Because the thought of change terrifies some and galvanizes others. Especially spherical change ... the kind that can come at you from ANY direction, and over which you have NO control.

Its that feeling of powerlessness, that causes some to dig deeper and find their personal power and strength (in whatever form/belief/system is appropriate). Perhaps the hidden objective/benefit is to once again, become inner directed and connected to our source. To take responsibility for our own lives, and no longer be at effect but choose being at cause. To develop a new ability to respond to life ... to changing times ... and those around us.

Perhaps Y2K challenges help us to find the buried treasure of our being. At least, if we pay attention.

If we learn this lesson well, well uncork our latent heart energy, and be ready to help those around us, rather than react fearfully.

We may even finally recognize that not only is our world -- connected and interconnected -- in marvelous and unexpected ways -- but so are we all. Weve behaved, for centuries, like island nations and isolated beings, slowly learning to cooperate because that is whats mutually beneficial, and is just the next rung on the ladder of human evolution.

Y2K may well be just a catalyst for those lessons, now. (More to follow).

... Until we GI as a planet.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.


Poole, Decker et. al. have shown they have very little respect for anything/anyone not agreeing with them. They have also shown themselves to be highly intolerant and prejudiced.

And vice versa. The Y2K forum pendulum still swings.

Perhaps it will find a place of rest around midpoint later this year.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.

I agree BD...there're delicious! Could you pass me some Poole please?

-- a (a@a.a), May 15, 1999.

Sysman - that funny taste is from the green ones - some of them haven't matured yet...


-- Arlin H. Adams (, May 15, 1999.

Andy,are you aware that "maroon" is a racial slur?maroon denoted the negroid to caucasoid blood ratio.the etymology of "maroon" as an insult,implys that the person in question is less inteligent than your average white because of unseen african blood.I first heard the word maroon in a very old buggs bunny cartoon and only after I read "roots"did I realize the nastiness in the words original usage.I'm sure you meant "idiot"or some such,and I don't want seem like a pc cop but words like octoroon,mulatto,and maroon point to a shamefull history that I think we'd do well to not forget....peace.

-- zoobie (, May 15, 1999.

Thanks zoobie ... didn't know that.

What about using macaroon? As in cracked coconut cookie?

(For those still eating breakfast).


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.

fool - buffoon, jester, clown, harlequin, zany, merry-andrew, idiot, nitwit, halfwit, booby, numbskull, oaf, goose, blunderer, ninny, nincompoop, blockhead, dunce, simpleton, sucker, dupe, butt, chump, bonehead, fathead, meathead, marblehead, knucklehead, jackass, jerk, ass, boob, dupe.

-- roget's (thes@au.rus), May 15, 1999.


Cookie ...

Excerpt: "... bounces, that's the way the cookie crumbles; you never know..."

Excerpt: "..., bisquit, bun; constrach ; cookie, cooky ; cracker, doughnut..."

Cracked ...

Excerpt: "..., show off, flourish, crake, crack, trumpet, strut, swagger,..."

Excerpt: "... in a glass house. break, crack, snap, split, shiver, splinter..."

Excerpt: "... ; knock-down blow; doom, crack of doom. destroying; demolition..."

Excerpt: "..., break down; spring a leak, crack, start; shrivel (contract..."

Excerpt: "...) ; paradox; hard nut to crack, nut to crack; bone to pick, crux..."

Excerpt: "..., fracture, flaw, fault, crack, cut; gap (interval) ; solution..."

Excerpt: "..., breach, rent, split, rift, crack, slit, incision. dissection..."

Excerpt: "... one's whistle, take a whet; crack a bottle, pass the bottle..."

Excerpt: "...) ; fate; doom, doomsday; crack of doom, day of Judgment, dies..."

[Lots More]

Macaroon not found.

Rogets roget/

-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.


Beautifully stated! All of it. Every phrase a treasure! Proof to me that you & the Cascadians are indeed peas in a pod! ;-D

Fingers crossed that humanity decides to take one step up the ladder of human evolution & not one step down. The evidence leads me to conclude that gravity (in this case our collective karma) will take its course - pull us down - to reap that which we, as a species, have sown. :(

Nonetheless, please continue to brighten our days, lighten our loads with gorgeous word paintings such as above. And thanks for all your hard work.

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (, May 15, 1999.

"As iron sharpens iron..."

I'm also grateful to those who hold and express a more sanguine view of potential Y2K impacts. Certainly helps me revisit my assumptions.

Diane - Whaddya mean, "Macaroon not found"? Any database that demonstrates such a deplorably limited selection of treats will never get my business! 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), May 15, 1999.


I gave up on the debunker forum after a few posts. That forum is basically CPR and Doc Paulie, and they are as closed-minded a pair as I've encountered in some time. They have staked out the position that the future will be smoothe and quiet unless you can prove to their satisfaction that it won't be, and they have made any such proof impossible. They don't take genuine warnings seriously, giving them occasional lip service only.

I don't agree with you that if they behave badly, this justifies your behaving badly. Do you really think that stooping to their level is OK on the grounds that "they started it"? If so, grow up.

Nor can you honestly deny that extremists at the other end of the spectrum use the same techniques of mockery, personal attack, highly selective consideration of evidence, and distortion.

Poole and Decker raise legitimate issues and support their views energetically and relatively politely (at least compared to fools like Ray 'a', y2k Pro, Andy, INVAR and that ilk). I'd much prefer to read posts explaining why they are probably wrong, than posts declaiming that they are (fill in the insult).

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.


Thanks. Rather looks like our collective karma is for *some* to take one step forward, and *most* to fall backwards several paces. (Feels like being lost on a poorly marked wilderness trail).

Its a challenge. And likely, we all volunteered for the experience.


Guess were gonna hafta meander over to Martha Stewarts cookie recipes. ;-(


Thats why a mid-point offers more room to move ... as time allows.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.

Thank you, Flint. You are a sane, patient voice of reason here.

Diane Squire, you stated:

"Poole, Decker et. al. have shown they have very little respect for anything/anyone not agreeing with them. They have also shown themselves to be highly intolerant and prejudiced."

Diane, you are a "reseacher," no? Please, kindly provide concrete examples where Decker has displayed "highly intolerant, prejudiced" thinking.

-- Celia Thaxter (, May 15, 1999.


Read the archives.

(When I was a newbie ... I HATED it when an old threader told me that!!! *Sigh* Time and tide ...)

Seek and ye shall find.

Start here then follow your nose, uh, intuition ...

What is the point? 000kW4

My time is better spent on looking for the latest Senate Testimony, et. al.

And taking a walk and sipping a latte.



-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.

Dear Diane,

I have read the post you cite, and find nothing in it that warrants your broad-brushed swipe. Please provide specifics.

Also, I have been reading this forum since last summer, and actually recall when you were the "newbie."

-- Celia Thaxter (, May 15, 1999.

Diane, I think it was in the fall when you began posting. As I recall, you were the object of some rather heavy artillery from some smug "old timers" and "regulars." I don't remember the actual gyst of it, but it had something to do with your taking a "quiet" position in the forest, without guns. I was glad to see your entrance to the forum.

I have had no quarrel with what you write here, and have often found your research impressive, yet it troubles me that you have sometimes joined in the "mob" mentality directed toward newcomers who bear a perspective that differs from the perceived norm.

-- Celia Thaxter (, May 15, 1999.

No Celia, it actually come from having read much of what Decker and some of what Poole write.

Rather than spend hours finding the specific references for you ... since you choose not to do it for yourself, I will back of and say ...

"It is my personal and ardent IMPRESSION, after reading numerous posts, that Poole, Decker, et. al. have shown they have very little respect for anything/anyone not agreeing with them. They have also shown themselves to be highly intolerant and prejudiced."

That satisfy you?


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.


OK, I can understand your impression. Why it doesn't apply to the likes of Ray, Crono, INVAR and Andy is a mystery to me. Don't mean to waste your time, but I defy you to find *anything* that *any* of those folks have written that shows any trace of respect for a different opinion. The fact that you have no problems with this speaks volumes.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.

Thanks to Celia, this thread is going OT. I agree with Diane's posts here without hesitation.

I'll admit I certainly have my tongue deeply embedded in my cheek on this thread (slurp) but only partly. Since I am convinced that Decker- Poole-Biffys really do want to shut the forum down (ideally: I doubt they really believe it will happen), at least with respect to serious preps of any kind, I do think it quite ironic that their posts are forcing the kind of re-articulation of Y2K and preparation that I mention at the top. About that I am serious. And Andy is quite right that their efforts are having the opposite result of what they wish for.

If they were smart about their objectives, they would stop posting, since the current Y2K news flow is distracting everyone from the problem anyway.

The qualitative difference between Decker-Poole-Biffy and Andy, INVAR, a and me is the lack of seriousness with which they view Y2K (don't try to sell me soap on that one) and, consequently, their dissing of meaningful preparation.

DISCLAIMER: They have every right to their views and every right to post yada yada yada. Amen.

Flint, most of us have disagreed with each other on a number of things (a and I have quarreled intensely about Slick and religious views; Diane and I have disagreed about several things too and PLENTY of people, including "pessimists", have ridiculed Andy about various things), so I think that is a bit of a red herring.

-- BigDog (, May 15, 1999.

Big Dog:

The 'disagreements' you cite are like the theologians arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The entire subject matter requires that a whole raft of presuppositions be agreed on, before you can disagree about the details and mechanics.

Athiests undermine the entire structure on which the argument is based. This is what makes them both so exasperating and so valuable. The search for truth is very different from the search for meaning.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.

OT thoughts,

I remember Di's grand entrance too, new age psycho-babble and delusions of bow and arrow armed sprites flitting about the upper branches, while the rest of us less enlightened clumped about in camo below.

She took a bunch of flack from a lot of folks, I lobbed more than one or two her way myself.

But she's persistant, and an excellent researcher. Gotta give her credit for that.

Now if we could just 'de-yupp-i-fy' her, she would fit right in ;)

-- Unc D (, May 15, 1999.

MAROON - thought this was buggs bunny-speak for moron.

Let me rephrase,

what a pair of complete and utter morons :)

-- Andy (, May 15, 1999.

Flint --- I don't fundamentally disagree (how's that for being positive). Even when it comes to outright religious things, scripture indicates that God Himself prefers a good hot atheist to lukewarm rationalists.

Mr. Uncle Deedah also makes a relevant point about Diane that has to do with Decker-Poole et al. There is a certain kind of "initiation" that happens sometimes, legitimately, to determine someone's bona fides. That is distinct from attack, though the difference can be subtle, no question. It is especially vital on the Net, where all we have are words. Hence, there must be probing. This, BTW, is why I believe "Outing's" posts from Der Boonkah and Biffy are ENTIRELY legitimate and even vital.

It doesn't bother me personally at all that Decker and/or Poole would maintain 'x' position, even if it is diametrically opposed to mine. I don't honestly believe it bothers scarcely anyone else here either. The questions go to old-fashioned ones like integrity (of argument), honesty, underlying agendas, etc. I know that can be mis-interpreted as though I would set myself up as the Grand Inquisitor or something. I dread that in my own life and, at least consciously, have no wish to be that for others.

Bottom line, I DO believe what I believe (won't state it YET again) about Decker-Poole-Biffyites, not that they're "Y2K atheists" but that they are atheists that want to burn down the "church" (terrible analogy which will probably be thrown in my face) rather than, to keep the analogy, argue "scripture" from an honest heart with Paul in the Athenian square.

That can be addressed over time by their persuading people here that they, too are LEARNING something. Against the charge that I should take my own prescription, I can only say that I have learned much from those I disagree with (for instance, I have come to accept the possibility that we are further ahead as well as the possibility that we are further behind what the compliance percentages say, and MUCH more has been learned too) but have yet to see a shred of that from the Biffy crowd.

-- BigDog (, May 15, 1999.

Big Dog:

You are raising deep issues here, and I don't know how far we can usefully pursue them here. I admit I share Decker's disdain for some of the off-topic stuff I see. By now, as far as I'm concerned 'Klinton' is synonymous with 'move to the next thread, no intelligent life here.' It's one of my own biases.

Poole I think makes some good points, but his arguments are often weak or useless. I have (I admit) pigeonholed him as one who extrapolates much too far from limited or inapplicable knowledge, and who demands what he knows are impossible levels of verification. And to me, Decker's attempts to tone down some of the personal attacks, and get us to focus on the issue and make some attempt to quantify our expectations are worthwhile. I can understand why the mindless ranters find him threatening, but your reaction still mystifies me. I guess like Decker, I view many of the denizens here as adolescents at best. Decker is condescending, no question. But not deceitful.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.

Flint, dammit, you've twisted the words.

You began with: "...those Yourdon contributors whose idea of defending their opinion is to attack and ridicule opposing opinions..."

OutingsR respondd: "You cannot complain about folks replying in the same tone as the poster." I.e., when those opposing opinions are phrased in offensive terms, you have no grounds to criticize those who respond to such an attack with an equal or greater defense.

You said in response: "I don't agree with you that if they behave badly, this justifies your behaving badly."

Huh? This is not a game of nyah nyah. This is about discouraging admitted disrupters from screwing up this forum with their "mind-virus" crap and trying to save us from ourselves.

Y'ever had a hard-core salesman come to the door? They used to sell encyclopedias and brushes and things like that in pre-computer days. Where do ya think the "foot in the door" came from? You couldn't get rid of those die-hard, silver-tongued salesmen by talking nice-nice. You had to slam the damn door shut -- quick -- before they got their foot in the gap. That's all we're trying to do here, Flint -- at this forum dedicated to surviving the ill effects of Y2K, NOT dedicated to arguing about whether or not those effects might occur.

Now, since we're on the subject, just how ARE we supposed to react when someone attacks us, saying we're infected with a mind virus and in need of cleansing? Are we supposed to get out the lace tablecloth and best china, ply them with dainty hors d'oeuvres and beaujolais nouveau? This is all rhetorical. The Der Boonkah bunch would blow their noses on the napkins, spit tobacco juice on the carpet, start a food fight, and pea all over the toilet and floor.

You say Der Boonkah is basically CPR and Doc Paulie. In his plea to ignore us infectious meme-carriers, Doc Paulie said: "I do know that what we currently see happening to Stephen, Decker, Hoff, Y2k pro, Norm, Maria, you Pat, and even Flint is counter-productive and wastes the lives of some good folks." Look who get top billing -- "Stephen" and "Decker." In addition to these Boonkah friends, there are also Cherri, Paul Davis, Mutha Nachu, Doomslayer/Buddy, Cherri, Steve Hewitt, Jonathan Latimer, Johnny Cannuck and Thad. A few may have been missed.

As for K. C. Decker being cast in the role of a Der Boonkah friend, on 31 March of this year Lisa asked Doomslayer/Buddy: "...Isn't your Mr. Decker armed?"

Doomslayer/Buddy replied: "...As for our Mr. Decker having a gun, that's his business." They knew each other two and a half months ago, huh?

You say: "Nor can you honestly deny that extremists at the other end of the spectrum use the same techniques of mockery, personal attack, highly selective consideration of evidence, and distortion." Nobody denies they did. We only say you have no right to complain about rough treaatment for anyone who comes to a Y2K-is-a-problem forum, saying, "No, it's not, you friggin' idiot" or "You people have been taken over by mind germs." This is a pessimist's forum by design and intent. When are you folks going to realize that and leave us to our pessimism? Go help someone who needs or wants to be helped. Try the Special Olympics, local library, any place in desperate need of volunteer help. That doesn't include us.

You're not going to change, Flint. Neither are we. This forum is for legally-adult people who come here to talk to other people who think as they do -- as advertised. We have a right not to be bothered by trolls and weirdos who've seen too many "Alien" movies. Ensuing resentment is understandable, given the foundation of this forum -- the book, "Timebomb 2000."

If you don't like being insulted, don't insult us by questioning our carefully and thoughtfully arrived at viewpoint expressed on a forum especially set up for the purpose. Leave us the hell alone. Case closed.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 15, 1999.

LOL ... Uncle!

STILL have my bow and arrow ... de-myst-ti-fi-ably known as re- search.


I was treated to forum by fire in the early daze ... for months!

But ... if somethings important enough ... like global Y2K repurcussions ... my motto is persistence and determination. (Posted that somewhere in the archives! Wish we had that search engine! *Sigh*)

Poole & Decker, et. al., have a holier-than-thou and prove-it - to-ME approach, which is just kinda snotty, IMHO.

Andy, INVAR, a, etc. have their own style but at least they are honestly searching and questioning. That I appreciate, though I may not often agree. At least, Ill listen.

And likely learn something.


(OutingsR ... latte anyone? Green tea? ... and no spitting please. Someones been trying to whitewash the forum, and were squeeky clean now. Yeah, right. But they keep commin back!)

-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.


IMO, unless you are EY himself, you are way out of line. Psychotropic drugs can induce visions such as you are experiencing. So can excessive amounts of Guinness flowing through the bloodstream.

You're attempting to mark this forum as if it were your territory. Such pomposity! The sad thing is, you'll probably continue to lift your leg regardless of the validity of your claim. Of course, whether your claim is valid or not can only be decided by Mr. Yourdon himself. And I will abide by EY's decisions regarding this forum.

You stated: "This is a pessimist's forum by design and intent. When are you folks going to realize that and leave us to our pessimism? Go help someone who needs or wants to be helped. Try the Special Olympics, local library, any place in desperate need of volunteer help. That doesn't include us."

How dare you make proclamations as if by proxy! Whom do you represent, OutingsR? Please, name these silent partners. You don't even offer up a legitimate e-mail address.

You are welcome to contact me privately if you wish.

-- Bingo1 (, May 15, 1999.

Calm down Bingo1 !

Perhaps it's just the Yourdon Y2K rollercoaster ... getting to some ... not all of us. (Today).

Everyone's welcome along for the ride ... unless they try to trash it. Then "hold on to the crash bar!"

It could get "bumpy," fer a spell.


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 15, 1999.


You wrote:

"If you don't like being insulted, don't insult us by questioning our carefully and thoughtfully arrived at viewpoint expressed on a forum especially set up for the purpose. Leave us the hell alone. Case closed."

Are you serious here? If your mind is that made-up already, why bother spending time in *any* forum or newsgroup? After all, you already 'know' what's coming. Do you really need a whole forum full of people to tell you that you're right? Why?

My conclusions are tentative and subject to change (and they change daily, depending on what I read. For this I've been called schizophrenic and people have been asking *which* Flint is making this post). This happens to me because I value any opinion which seems to be to be based on available information, given careful thought, and filtered through salient personal experience. People like Dan the Power Man and Nine Fingers help me understand that things aren't all that bad in some places, and Sysman helps me understand that all too many systems have too far to go. Big Dog and others (like Yourdon) have made it clear to me that completion percentages are a rubber yardstick. I puzzle over the lack of predicted problems so far, and worry about Big BOOMs my own experience tells me cannot all be avoided. The entire y2k mess strikes me as a giant jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing and the rest made of putty.

I think this forum is and has been exactly the right place to be. The debunker forum is worthless, because they reject everything that doesn't fit their preconceptions, without honest analysis. Csy2k occasionally has some valuable insights, but most of it is just sniping and posturing. I think this forum is where the real issues are met head-on and wrestled with usefully. I think your request to "leave us the hell alone" only shoots yourself in the foot.

-- Flint (, May 15, 1999.

"to crisply re-articulate"

Who said comedy was dead?

-- Y2K Pro (, May 15, 1999.

This looks like a lovewly place to toss in a snippet I got the other night from a software installation engineer. He does installs of back office operations software for retail companies (Accounting, inventory control etc.). His quote will explain why the DB (tm) are asking for IV&V and outside sources. i jokingly commented that I was sure he got pulled into a corner and the person whispered "Is it compliant?" a lot. His answer was "I get it all the time. I say 'Sure it's compliant.' It's 7 months to the end of the year, and I'm going to tell them anything different? Regardless of whether it is or not? They ask if I've tested, 'NOPE'"

This is why we look so strangely at self proclamations.


And, no I don't know which company he works for.

-- chuck, a Night Driver (, May 15, 1999.

To Bingo and Flint: "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..." [emphasis added]. From the "About" section of the "New Answers" page of this forum.

If somebody can guarantee there will be no serious problems after January 1, 2000, then some mind-changing will be done. If somebody can guarantee there will be no natural disasters in the future and mo emergency supplies at all, then some more mind-changing will be done.

OutingsR does not presume to speak for EVERYbody on this forum, only for those who wish we could get on with the business of "discussing various fallback contingency plans" and not have to undergo carping and ridicule from pollyannas when we do. OutingsR no more speaks for everybody on this forum than does Bingo or Flint.

-- OutignsR (us@here.yar), May 15, 1999.

zoobie - FWIW the term "maroon" in Bugs Bunny talk is an intentional mispronunciation of the word 'moron', and has nothing to do with racial or ethinic slurs...and the polly trolls are truly maroons in that sense of the term. Sorry, but I personally do my best to consciously avoid excessive political correctness, and I will continue to use the word maroon in the Bugs Bunny context.

Flint - if you'll go back and look you'll notice that when I confronted decker with the fact that he'd been giving people inappropriate firearms advice he plain and simple refused to deal with the issue. waffling, obfuscation, misdirection and downright lies are what we've come to recognize as the hallmarks of the polly trolls. They receive no respect because they have earned none.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, May 15, 1999.

Thank you Arlin,

I thought I was right the first time.

dd/cet, maroons the pair of them

-- Andy (, May 15, 1999.

BigDog, Diane, et. al.

Actually, I find your (and Sysman's, and especially Andy's) attacks amusing more than anything else. My grandfather said it best: when a man starts making fun of you, it's usually because he's run out of argument and can't think of anything else to say.

Some members of the two forums in question have complained, but I've appreciated Outing's efforts, myself. It has caused a few people from here to look at things that they normally wouldn't read.

And on the topic at hand, you're welcome to go look at my posts at the Debunking Y2K Webboard or Gary North Is a Big Fat Idiot and find where I've said even half the things that you've attributed to me. I believe the worst is that I've called this (and Cowle's forum) a "Swamp" and one or two places, I believe I referred to the hardliners here as "Memes."

Not once have I ever stated that I wanted to "destroy" this forum. I have stated that I wanted to inject a little common-sense in the midst of the Black Helicopter/End of The World stuff that I've seen here, and I've tried to do that.

As for the posting of facts, I've posted a-plenty. I've posted links to tons of information that directly challenges your view of Y2K. I've posed questions which, if your view is correct, are perfectly legitimate, and which you should be able to defend with no problem. The usual response is to scream and raise the volume level so that the original question (and your unwillingness to answer) is quickly buried.

(Meanwhile, dozens of "new" posts -- which in many cases, are just REPOSTS of something put here previously -- magically appear above any thread started by me (or someone like me), in order to scroll it off into Der File Cabinet at the bottom of the page as soon as possible.)

(Or did you think I hadn't figured that one out? Heh.)

I don't even bother with Andy anymore, because I don't take him seriously. (Now that I think about it, it's possible that he's the lone exception: I may have called him a "nut" or the equivalent in Biffy or Debunker. On the off chance that I haven't, let me do so here: he's a nut, and anyone who takes him seriously needs his head examined.)

Andy has called me names for saying that the oil supplies wouldn't run out due to Y2K, and I asked him to back up his assertion that "well heads" could be "non-compliant." He didn't even TRY. His response to me is a classic example of what I'm talking about.

Since you and Sysman are beginning to descend to that level, I don't take you seriously, either. You're not interested in a discussion of facts; you're interested in discussing your religion with fellow believers. Whence the essense of your response to me: beware, he's not One Of Us.

The first post I responded to here was one about Bruce Beach, in which a totally and dismally typical discussion was going on: in essense, the regulars here were "voting" whether or not Beach was right. I responded, "heaven help us, technical issues are now being decided by popular vote."

After a few weeks in Der Swamp here, I've seen very little to improve my opinion. Kevin at least tries to post info supporting his view; a few others do as well. I'll give them credit.

The rest of you get credit primarily for being noisy. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 15, 1999.


So far as I know, we have no knowledge of the status of the overseas oil operations. Without any knowledge, proof one way or the other is impossible and assertions are speculations in a vacuum.

Yeah, yeah, we can *assume* that they'll be OK unless testing shows otherwise, and we can *assume* that they'll fail unless testing shows otherwise. But these assumptions aren't based on anything but our own biases. You make one assumption and Andy makes the other, and then you shout back and forth in mutual ignorance. We don't need this, and you both should know better. So there! [g]

-- Flint (, May 16, 1999.


if you haven't seen the rest of us posting information related to and supporting our perspective, then it would appear that you may be reading a bit overly selectively. I, for one, generally post such information several times each week. So do the others as they glean it from around the net and elsewhere.

If you choose to ignore the information posted, that is of course your right, but then please don't complain when people ping you for your ignorance.


-- Arlin H. Adams (, May 16, 1999.


That's not true. American companies own some of the facilities overseas; in many other cases, they serve as contractors and advisors. They are quite aware of what's going on over there. (The only one who seems to be in the dark are Doomers and the Federal Government.)

Enough information is available to make a more useful extrapolation than the usual, "we don't know, so assume the worst."

I don't "scream" at people and you know it. I am the recipient of screams (but as I said above, it amuses me more than anything else) and ad hominem attacks. I've called Andy a nut here (because he deserves it), but I want you to find one other post where I've engaged in an ad hominem (from the latin: against the man, ie, attacking the person instead of the person's argument) attacks.

I think the worst I've said is, "you're shooting your argument in the foot." I may sharply question what they've said. That may make the arguer(?) angry, but it's not an ad hominem attack.

I sometimes use CAPS AS EMPHASIS, but that's not screaming. (I guess I could use **the asterisks** or italics, but the former is ugly, and with the latter, it's too easy to forget the "[/I]" at the end.)

(Biffy lets you preview the message before posting; I wish this forum had that capability.)

My question to Andy was quite simple: after he screeched at my ignorance, I asked him to name one well-head or port control system that was non-compliant. He didn't even TRY.

Arlin, I said, "Kevin ... and a few others." You may include yourself in that latter group. I don't read all of the posts here; I don't have time. I'm speaking of what I've seen.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 16, 1999.


talking rubbish as usual.

on the well-head/port/refinery thread SEVERAL folks posted all the links you could possibly want to answer your questions.

not good enough for you was it?

you wanted MOI to post...

you're playing games me old son, AGAIN :)

-- Andy (, May 16, 1999.

"If you choose to ignore the information posted, that is of course your right, but then please don't complain when people ping you for your ignorance.

Arlin "

boy oh boy. you must be one DENTED up bugger!

-- Hip Hypocrite Hater (egads!@nowayspammers.thanx), May 16, 1999.

This is the thread where poole challenged me on well-heads, oild production etc.

My friends on the forum beat me to the punch with multiple links for poole.

Not good enough for him - as I knew would be the case. that's why I didn't bother with giving him any links. Waste of time. Game playing poole... :)

My answer to him is at the end of the cut and paste - I still stand by it.

"In the thread "Trucking", I stated that I expected, worst-case, to lose about 10% of foreign oil supplies due to Y2K problems (and that was WORST-case). Andy took me to task as follows:


He said, "never mind refining," then included "refineries" at the end of the list, so we'll exclude those. I'd challenge Andy

-- to provide an example of a well head that could fail due to a Y2K bug. Make and model.

-- to provide an example of a pipeline that could fail due to a Y2K bug; again, a specific example is desired.

-- to provide an example of how a Y2K bug could shut down a port or a ship (these aren't essential; if he'll just answer the first two, I'll be satisfied).

Let's see if, just once, Andy can answer a specific set of questions with specific answers. And PS:

Remember 1973-4?

You mean when OPEC embargoed ALL oil shipments to the United States, and the worst effect was that we had to wait in gas lines?

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 05, 1999


Mr. Poole:

If you would take the time to do your OWN research, you could answer your OWN questions. For instance, I just read this morning that the cranes at some docks will not work. I also read that NW Airlines has been working for 8 years on their y2k problems. They commented that there were thousands of bugs in their systems, and they were 80% done. We spend way to much time looking up DETAILS for people that are either to damn lazy to do it for themselves, or do not the the ability to process information in their SKULL. If you don't uderstand "cranes won't work" spend YOUR TIME looking it up! If you want to know the details of "thousands of bugs" YOU pick up the phone and call them! The clock is ticking, we don't have time for BS anymore.

-- SCOTTY (, May 05, 1999.

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

Stephen, there has been sufficient discussion and citations of freighters and oil tankers having between 100-200 embedded chips in their electronics, of chips in vessel traffic controls in rivers, canals and harbors, of chips and noncompliant programs involved in the extraction and transportation of crude oil in foreign countries, so I won't attempt to argue those points. Now, those gas lines you so blithely mention caused numerous assaults and shootings because Americans just are not used to waiting in line for gas. When a gas station ran out of gas, angry motorists still in line vandalized stations and ripped out pumps. A new crime wave arose--gas siphoning. Gas was siphoned from ambulances and fire trucks, causing emergencies to turn into tragedies. A new industry took off--manufacture of locking gas caps.

In addition, you fail to take into account that the US has gone from importing about one-third of its total oil needs in the mid-70s to just over one-half today. We are much more dependent on foreign oil imports than we were in the seventies. Please read the following item:

According to the "Short-Term Energy Outlook," just released by the Energy Information Administration, notwithstanding assumptions of slower economic growth, U.S. petroleum demand is expected to increase in 1999 by over 500,000 barrels per day, or 2.9%, from 1998 levels. Much of this growth is expected as a result of increases in demand for heating oil and other weather-sensitive products (e.g., propane and heavy fuel oil), based on an assumed return to normal weather patterns, as well as continued growth in transportation demand. U.S. petroleum demand is expected to rise by an additional 300,000 barrels per day in 2000. U.S. net imports of petroleum 2000 are forecast to account for 52% of total U.S. petroleum demand, up from an estimated 50% in 1998. The report also notes that electricity demand is expected to increase 1.6% over 1998 levels while it is projected to increase by 2.2% in 2000. The document can be found at

Natural shortages of oil and natural gas may soon lead to substantially higher prices for the gasoline, plastics, medicines, fertilizer, rubber and many other things that are made from oil and natural gas.


Conclusion: a) people are more violent and less tolerant than they were in the 70s; and b) we are more dependent than ever on foreign oil. Therefore, it's safe to say that any reduction in the availability of gasoline will result in some social unrest--the greater the reduction, the greater the social unrest. (See news reports from California, where organized rallies are being held to protest the price of gas at over $2/gallon.)

-- Old Git (, May 05, 1999.

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

Scotty, Scotty:

"I just read..." Where? I understand that this is NOT a research paper, but we still need ALL of us to cite our sources. I for one, will tend to read something and get a different take, from the numbers, or other info in the document, than for instance Flint, or you.

GADS, I'm being pushed into even SOUNDING like Flint. AH, WELL. it's not such a bad place to be, the middle ground.


-- chuck, a Night Driver (, May 05, 1999.

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

Chuck: Did not mean to offend anyone. IT's just that I am getting sick of these denial butt heads, that are to lazy, or stupid, to find info on their own. Most of us spend hours everyday researching the issues. I say, let the butt heads do the same. Let them read all the news clippings, let them read Scary Gary, let them read Ed, Cory, Paul, Ko- skin-em, et al. I agree that opinions will differ, as well they should. That is exactly why these butt heads should go searching for themselves. I do not have the time to sit down and document, hyperlink, cut and paste everything I read. On the other hand, I am not going to post something on this forum that I know is a lie. Again if I offend ya Chuck I'm sorry! The Steelers will still kick some Brownie butt though. :)

-- SCOTTY (, May 05, 1999.

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

Chuck; Forgot to answer your question. DUH! Cranes at ports; See Michael ... news, also Senate report dated 3-22-99... NW airlines; see

-- SCOTTY (, May 05, 1999.

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

Some Oil Education World Oil Archive: April '98 Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu?

Will the millennium bug give your operations the flu? Don't take the head-in-the-sand approach toward potential computer strangling of production operations. Time-contingent process controllers must be evaluated for year 2000 date stamp limitations and their implications for safety, the environment and operations

Scott M. Shemwell, Jerry Dake and Bruce Friedman, MCI Systemhouse, Houston, Texas

Human history is replete with mystical and religious concerns over the end of a millennium. Armageddon or end-of-the-world scenarios are typical refrains. This time, oil and gas producers may face a more identifiable plague. Then again, Jan. 1, 2000, may come uneventfully  as has every thousand-year transition of the past.

For more than 15 years, the oil and gas industry has expended a massive effort to re-invent itself. We all know that none of our firms would be competitive in today's market, if we had not made these hard decisions. A linchpin of the industry's success has been the reduction of the corporate cost structure through the use of technology and process re- engineering, much of it computerized. All of this work is potentially at risk, if serious loss of production is sustained as a result of unplanned computer shutdowns in many segments of the business, all at the same time.


As we close on the first 100 years of the "information age," we are faced with a legacy from the medieval computer past. In the computing dark ages, processing power, memory and hard disk space were an expensive premium. Like the wizard Merlin, programmers of that bygone era concocted software brews, the recipes of which now are, more often than not, non-existing. They certainly did not take one important fact into consideration.

No one expected that some legacy software, with roots often over 30 years old, still would be in general use today. Further, as these recipes or programming techniques were taught to modern-day wizards, they, too, adopted the same incantations. Therefore, even new software programs may have the same limitations.

How the problem started. Today, we live in a world in which computer software is fundamental to our very way of life. Computers are everywhere  from mighty mainframes, high-performance workstations and PCs, to games, toys and even automobiles and household appliances. Many software programs driving our business functions have one thing in common  limitations of the past dictated that the variable calendar year be represented by two digits instead of four, e.g., 1966 would be expressed as 66 and 1998 would be 98. This was an efficient method and did not present any problems initially. This date stamp limitation is the so-called "millennium bug."

A simple example. As one example, consider a simple problem. An oil and gas market researcher is interested in the buying patterns of his forecourt customers. He commissions a survey and asks 100,000 individuals a series of questions, one of which is their date of birth. In his analysis, he correlates age to a number of other variables, builds a profile of his customers and uses this profile as part of his next-generation product planning. Sound familiar? Well it should, because it happens every day.

What if our hypothetical researcher conducts the same survey in January 2000? If his statistical software calculated the year by the last two digits (00), he may find three types of error:

He will discover that individuals born in 1960 are not 40 years old, but minus 60, e.g., 00- 60= - 60. The astute researcher will see this problem immediately and adjust accordingly to this inconvenience. Any calculations involving the age of respondents such as "percentage of population over 30 years old" will be incorrect. This mistake may be more difficult to find and rectify, because age may be a variable in several processes. However, this is still largely a further inconvenience.

Age, or calculations made from age, may be the basis for more sophisticated analyses errors that may not be readily apparent to the researcher, such as what might occur with matrix algebra. When multiplied by 100,000 samples, this error may impact the validity of the analysis seriously. Business decisions made on the basis of these analyses are likely to be inaccurate and fail. A serious problem. Our example is straightforward, relatively simple, and most errors can be detected and compensated for easily. The real world is seldom simple, and the stakes may be a good deal higher. What if, instead of an off-line market research project, our system was one or all of the thousands of embedded or "computer on a chip" process controllers on an offshore platform, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system or distribution pipeline? What is the impact of these three error types cascading throughout multiple- intertwined and mutually dependent on- line systems? An offshore platform may have 10,000 or more embedded silicon chips governing all automated and even some manual processes. Many of these systems are subsurface or underwater and physically difficult to access.


Unlike the software of a marketing system, the embedded logic on a silicon chip is entombed deep in the system and not easily ascertained. Any given Distributed Control System (DCS) or Process Logic Controller (PLC) computer board has many chips, and their interdependencies on each other, and on other system components, make them difficult to analyze and repair, Addressing these issues will require a cross-functional team. It should comprise individuals who are knowledgeable about the engineering processes in question and their relationship to other processes, the equipment involved and its level of automation, process control systems, and year 2000 hardware and software issues. Reporting to an oversight committee and the executive sponsor, this team will inventory the functional processes and control systems associated with those operations. It will then contact the control system manufacturer (or access commercially available databases) to attempt to ascertain year 2000 compliance for the devices in question.

With this baseline assessment, management can determine which systems are mission-critical from the standpoint of safety, environment and business operations. Systems that are deemed to be critical will require action plans to ensure that those processes are dealt with appropriately. This may require switching to manual operation or a planned shutdown. Plans also can be implemented for systems that are determined to be non- mission-critical but may malfunction, too.

Large organizations should prototype each process, so that this knowledge can be distributed to global operations in a cost- effective, timely manner. Multiple parallel teams can be used as required, since it is unlikely that a single team can physically assess all systems in less than 24 months. Moreover, local engineering knowledge will be required, because many processes, while similar, are not exactly the same worldwide.

Some remediation can be accomplished during planned maintenance. But operators must expect that due to work volumes and time shortages, the contingency planning process probably will drive millennium bug resolution. Complex systems that include equipment belonging to multiple organizations further complicate the problem, because it is important to completely understand what signal is sent by each electronic device. For example, a smelting plant in New Zealand lost several months of production, because one of its controllers did not recognize the leap year and shut down when it received an electronic signal that was different than the expected date, March 1.

Computer chips are becoming ubiquitous, with over 7 billion manufactured in 1996, alone. The millennium bug not only can infect production processes, but also every on- and off-line process in the oil and gas value chain, from seismic acquisition to the pumps at the gas station.


The year 2000 software problem is real. Many computer industry pundits estimate that fixing the problem will require hundreds of billions of dollars, and a few place that figure substantially higher. This is an important issue, but it need not be Armageddon. As with our market research example, many failures will be just an inconvenience; others may be more serious. There are many uncertainties, but what we do know is that failures in process control and monitoring systems can shut down facilities, damage the environment and jeopardize safety. Management's fiduciary responsibility to corporate stakeholders suggests that we develop an understanding of our situation, initiate a remediation strategy with contingency plans, and implement those plans that are relevant to our specific situation.

On a Friday night less than two years from now, a tsunami will build in the Pacific and roll westward through all major hydrocarbon producing fields before reaching Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. We know the exact date, not to mention the hour, minute and second. We do not know its size. As with all tidal waves, it is safer to take precautions and move out to sea, where its arrival may not even be noticed. Disaster strikes those who are unprepared and caught near shore. There is little time left to mobilize, so to speak, and move the world's huge oil and gas fleet to the safety of the sea.& nbsp; WO

-- Brian (, May 05, 1999.

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

I am amazed that anyone has the stones to post one year old info; most of which has been debunked.

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

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

The American Petroleum Institute has built a database of oil and gas equipment which has been tested and found to be either compliant or non-compliant. They are not sharing this information with non-members of API, which would include all the foreign and state-run oil companies. You know, the ones who help us import 52% of the oil this country uses every day...

Read about it here

-- Doug (, May 05, 1999.

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

Stephen my computer-retarded friend,

I don't have to back up my statements for the likes of you. By asking me to back up my statements you are basically saying I am a liar. I take umbrage at that. You have a keyboard and a search engine - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. I am not here to provide you with hot links. they would be wasted on you - THAT is patently obvious. From my dealings with you so far on this forum - I am not impressed.

A few points you would do well to consider :-

1. Your web site.

You purport to be a Christian. Your web site consistently poo-poos the seriousness of y2k, ridicules people, generally portrays anyone who takes the possible danger of y2k seriously as whackos.


Less well informed fellow Christians may stumble on to your site and take it as Gospel.

Hope you can sleep well at night knowing what you MAY cause. As I've said before, we are all hoping for minimal effects here, however IMHO the situation is bordering on catastrophic WORLDWIDE.

2. You refused to post my piece on your web site because I would not supply you with an example of a verified embedded chip problem.

You know very well that many people have tried to do this on Michael Theroux's Boerderlands site - and failed to get past the stringent conditions laid down.

Stephen - don't play games with me old son.

You Sir are a rampant Hypocrite, at least Mr. Theroux had the decency to publish my piece on his site as an effort to provide some "balance" to his misguided view of y2k as some sort of con trick.

3. The oil embargo which you casually dismiss.

Ever heard of guns me old son? Remember those killed while argueing over petrol?

Is this more proof of your "Christianity?"

4. That's all.

You are a complete fraud, and worse, a dangerous one.

By all means stick around on this forum, you might learn something but I suspect your EGO would prohibit THAT process.

I'm not wasting any more time with you.

-- Andy (, May 05, 1999."

-- Andy (, May 16, 1999.

It looks like Andy couldn't or wouldn't answer your question, Mr. Poole, so he turned it into an attack on your religion. How does that saying go about misinformation again?

-- kjsdnvie (lkjdsfnvbe@;nvreb.aseeoi), May 16, 1999.

"It looks like Andy couldn't or wouldn't answer your question, Mr. Poole, so he turned it into an attack on your religion. How does that saying go about misinformation again?

-- kjsdnvie (lkjdsfnvbe@;nvreb.aseeoi), May 16, 1999."


kjs - are you blind? Did you not see umpteen links given to poole before I stated my piece? Sheesh.

Let me make my position clear here. I am a Christian. I wouldn't DREAM about starting a web site like poole's which will undoubtedly mislead people into thinking that y2k is a gigantic hoax for shysters to bilk JQP. He has been taken to task on this by several other folks on this forum, to no avail.

The reason I brought this up, if you must know, is that it was an ongoing discourse between myself and poole over several threads.

I mentioned earlier about my belief that posters on this forum will garnish respect if they are SINCERE - really, unless they are truly idiotic, most if not all of us will give folks a fair shake no matter what their views.

Now I'll go back to the Christian angle - and only because poole has trumpeted it so often on umpteen threads - I don't believe what he is doing is a "Christian" thing to do. The complete opposite in fact.

He issued me a challenge - I refused to play his silly games.

Take it or leave it kjs.

I can sleep at night, and apparently poole can too.

'Nuff said.

-- Andy (, May 16, 1999.


For someone who's not "wasting any more time" on me, you seem to have a lot to say to and about me.

And lest anyone here get the wrong impression, the links that were posted didn't answer my questions, which were quite specific. If any had, I'd have run over and taken up Michael Theroux on his challenge and made a little side change. :)

I'm not "misleading" anyone. I challenge anyone here to have a look at the Web site and point out where I'm misleading people to the extent that I could "cost lives."

Now: go take your medicine.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 16, 1999.

I geuss I'll leave it. You claim to be a christian? wow, if your one, I don't want to be one.

-- kjsdnvie (lkjdsfnvbe@;nvreb.aseeoi), May 16, 1999.

I forgot to mention the other tactic used on this board. In addition to hastily (re)posting a zillion messages to scroll my stuff off the board as fast as possible, in the threads themselves, you must cut-and-paste HUGE volumes of stuff ... knowing that the average lurker will never, ever read most of it.

At Biffy and Debunker, the messages are encapsulated and displayed separately, so that nuts can't do that.

Clearly superior fora, meant for adults. A refined taste and all that, like fine wine or old cheese . .. .. ..

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 16, 1999.

Poole -- Well, it's refreshing to see your under-the-table attacking turn public with Andy.

Flint -- You said,

"I think this forum is and has been exactly the right place to be. The debunker forum is worthless, because they reject everything that doesn't fit their preconceptions, without honest analysis. Csy2k occasionally has some valuable insights, but most of it is just sniping and posturing. I think this forum is where the real issues are met head-on and wrestled with usefully. I think your request to "leave us the hell alone" only shoots yourself in the foot."

I agree with you about this forum as do many of us, even though, like anything Net, the noise-to-signal ratio varies wildly. But Outings is not saying that those-who-disagree should leave us alone, I don't think (though it sounds that way): heck, most of us disagree with each other 30-60% of the time already. It's the unwillingness to learn that is destructive. I mean, Poole is bringing the "spirit" of the debunker forum here, see?

Does he have the "right?" Sure. Is it wrong? Yes.

This said, I should have anticipated, but didn't, the direction the thread would take.

My main point, I return to it yet again is:

"Thank you, Decker and Poole. Your posts are, ironically, reinvigorating the seriousness with which we take Y2K and our need to continue preparing."

-- BigDog (, May 16, 1999.

Poo, you said Der Boonkah and BFI are "clearly superior fora, meant for adults. A refined taste and all that, like fine wine or old cheese . .. .. .."

Izzat why the Chief Meme-buster (who is neither a doctor nor named Paulie) has as his public e-mail address, Just can't see a Fannybubbles with the port and stilton. Maybe the Mad Dog and spray cheese.

Pelting with posts in order to lose the "important" ones in the Archives. Hmmm. Not a bad idea.

Poo, you may not have accused anyone of being responsible for deaths--but your boonkmates have. Birds of a feather, ya know. Anyway, we know you believe in the mind-virus folderol because -- 25418044&P=Yes&TL=925406728

Debunking Y2k webboard

Thursday, 29-Apr-1999 16:34:04 writes:

"Yeah, and then I reposted it just to make sure it stayed on there. Of course, then Drew Parkhill followed my post with one from an economist who's convinced we'll have a recession.

I'm beginning to lose interest in Yourdon's Swamp. With very few exceptions, most of the posters over there are hardened Memes who believe it's going to be Bad no matter what..."

Lose interest? But you're still here! Oh -- you don't suppose you're infected, do you? Look out, here comes another meme........!!!!!

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 16, 1999.


All one has to do is look at your web-site and for any "reasoning" person, it is quite clear "where you stand" on Y2K issues.

Because you have displayed yourself to be intolerant and prejudiced, many posters do NOT care to jump through research hoops at your demand. And you almost always DEMAND!

To that we say ... "Pfffft."

We'll continue to study, to research, to post, to argue, etc. -- and not matter how much you "yell" you've lost the respect of many.

Live with it and yourself.

I, for one, will NOT jump through your (or Deckers) hoops on demand. IF a topic interests me, and if the research will help other form their own Y2K assessments ... then I'll do it ... as time allows.

Get it?


-- Diane J. Squire (, May 16, 1999.

Anyone with the guts to call himself FANNYBUBBLES is A-OK in my book, not!

Hey Docle, didja get that moniker from having excess sloppy beerfarts?

-- Unc D (, May 16, 1999.

And all this time I thought Doctor Poorly was a real Doc, sheesh.

-- Andy (, May 16, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ