[snipped Stephen M. Poole response]

Common sense tells [Americans] that, if multi-state flooding, category 5 hurricanes, world wars and other calamities can't destroy society, a computer bug probably won't have a much better chance of doing it. THAT is the mentality that you need to address.

Please think about what Mr. Poole is saying here. From down here in the cheap seats, if your intention is to prepare a community for something more than the current 2 or 3 day bump-in-the-road recommendations, that mentality is a show stopper.

Read Chuck Lanza lately?

Critt

-- Critt Jarvis (middleground@critt.com), May 22, 1999

Answers

Mr. ALL WET, can not see the BIG picture.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), May 23, 1999.

Yes, he can,

Unfortunately it's the IMAX screen at Disneyland which is where he spends most of his mental thought "processes"... yep, his own little world, Disneyland and Looney Tunes...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

Critt:

It seems that some people here can't think. Maybe they read the magic letters 'Poole' and just react mindlessly.

Nonetheless, the issue Poole raises is important. We've struggled for a while trying to find *anything* that resembles the possible impacts of y2k, so that people who aren't programmers can relate. And one by one, we've shot them down because they aren't systemic enough (like natural disasters or war), or because the underlying causes are too different (like the Great Depression).

So to get people to understand what we're facing clearly enough to motivate preparation, we need to create whole new scenarios pretty much from scratch. And this is very hard to do without sounding like a nutcase. Which is in turn compounded by the likelihood that some of the scenarios *are* nutty.

In practice, this often comes down to: "Ignore all the popular authorities and trust *me*. The government is lying, Marilyn vos Savant is clueless, the corporations are covering their asses, the media reports don't understand what they're writing well enough to question their sources, and even many of the computer 'experts' being quoted don't understand the big picture. *I* understand the big picture, and I'm telling you to sink a significant amount of time and money into a problem you can't see and almost nobody else can either."

This is a very hard sell, and Poole is exactly right.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 23, 1999.

Come on Flint we've re-hashed this dozens of times, let poole read the archives before sticking his oar in. It's not a difficult concept to grasp for anyone with average intelligence. Equating the systemic effects of a worldwide SIMULTANEOUS y2k rollover to isolated, very often predictable, natural and man-made calamities just doesn't wash at all. Chalk and cheese. poole knows this deep down yet he continues to spew his drivel. I call that trolling personified.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

Andy:

Of course *we* have been over all this y2k stuff in great detail, and we've sunk our time and money into it as well. Poole is addressing your neighbor, who may have heard something about this, but who's busy and regards you like they'd regard the Jehovah's Witnesses banging on their door. Not to mention the vast differences in expectations among even those of us who have studied this thing the most.

When Poole asks "How can we get our busy neighbor motivated to prepare?" it's hardly responsive to answer by saying "Poole is a troll." You should try answering this good question. If hatred blinds you, imagine that the question were posed by someone you respect. It's still a good question that needs a good answer.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 23, 1999.

"If hatred blinds you, imagine that the question were posed by someone you respect." I don't hate poole, he has simply shown himself to be a confused, misguided fellow. I have yet to see any evidence of young poole modifying his stance on preps. on his web site - to my mind he is still pushing the "y2k is a huckster's dream come true" angle, with rants attacking Gazza North and his reconstructionist views rather than the self-evident y2k fundamentals - time has run out, the code is broken worldwide, it's going to be a mess. I have yet to see poole tackle ANY of this with sincerity. I can't KEEP giving him the benefit of the doubt. He has point blank refused to modify his site to several forum participants - yes or no?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 23, 1999.

perhaps if you paid some of his site fee's?

-- put your (mouth@your.mouth), May 23, 1999.

Andy, this isn't about Pooles site. The question is simply stated in the plainest of terms and you still don't answer the question.

And I find it funny that you claim that Poole is against preparations. He does say that preparations are prudent, but on the scale that Gary North, Y2KSupply, and others tell you too.

Just answer the question and stop ducking.

-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 23, 1999.

I love these TROLLS (no need for namws here) that claim to be preparing yet make EXTRAODINARY efforts to lull the sheeple to sleep.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 23, 1999.

I'll throw my two cents in, but I'm rolling up my pant legs. (grin)

I find it unfortunate that I haven't found any social anthropoligists and psychologists seriously weighing in on Y2K. I guess corporate organization and exotic, orientalist questions are more interesting to them. If they did throw in their two cents, we might have some more interesting food for thought (for both optimists and pessimists) as Flint points out. Indeed, it appears that the potential threat of Y2K has not been academically and professionally examined by the EXPERTS.

However you define common sense, I think that you will agree with me that sometimes, common sense is on the money. Sometimes, it is not. Sometimes, uncommon sense is required. I tend to read Poole's use of common sense as "popular mood" and he is quite right about the popular mood. But "popular mood" and "common sense" seem to be classically distinct concepts. Common sense denotes a certain degree of prudence and prudent actions, while popular mood denotes a certain group think.

In regard to the ambiguities of potential Y2K problems, common sense will be found between Mr. Decker's preparations (7 days water, 30 days food, wood stove, and lowered debt) and my own preparation goals (3 months food and water, wood stove, lantern and lamp, hand crank radio and flashlight, alternate professional/income preparation, reducing market risk, camping gear, bug out bags, etc.). Uncommon sense in action may range from 6 months preps to 1 year (or more) of preps.

Uncommon sense will vary with the mileage. In regard to Y2K, it seems to refer to a willingness to make real and hard sacrifices in one's current lifestyle (living on beans and rice today in order to buy more beans and rice tomorrow) and changes to previous retirement planning strategies (cashing in retirement plans and losing some of that money due to penalties and taxes). Uncommon sense may not be prudent (as I understand "prudence") or reasonable; it may evolve from an intuition.

Intuition is not something to hastily dismiss. Nor are our intuitions necessarily right on. While you may not take Herr Carl Gustav Jung seriously, Hegel, Husserl, Marcel, and Wojtyla offer respectively increasing improvements over Kant's obsession with mere human reason. Unfortunately, the phenomenologists are not easy reading and, thus, aren't likely be become popular reading. My point is that uncommon sense is just that; it is uncommon, but it is not necessarily wrong.

Or right.

Yet uncommonly bad sense would be to not prepare for a threat, to go on without any concern on one's future, and to imitate the grasshopper in Aesop's fable of the grasshopper and the ant. Despite the deeply interconnected and interlocked personal position in human society, we also have a serious responsibility to ourselves, our loved ones, and our fellow human beings. This responsibility requires us to use our minds and hearts collaboratively with others-- not subjection to them.

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 23, 1999.

Stan Faryna commented:

"Despite the deeply interconnected and interlocked personal position in human society, we also have a serious responsibility to ourselves, our loved ones, and our fellow human beings. This responsibility requires us to use our minds and hearts collaboratively with others-- not subjection to them."

Well put Stan, pretty tough to do with 3 days of food and water, even with 30 days worth.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), May 23, 1999.

There is also a personal financial component that determines what can be done with common or uncommon sense. It's something that I have been thinking about (on and off-- as time permits). I haven't really come to something that is clear enough in my mind to express well in words.

Still, I feel it's worth mentioning. For example, I personally would like to achieve 6 months of preps (in that unique way that I would prepare for 6 months). My unique visualization of 6 months of preps, however, involves unusual risk-taking that doesn't now seem justified.

What do I mean by unusual risk-taking? Namely, the "cannabalization" of my current business ventures and other good and noble activities. I admit that I readily put a stop to some of my personal interests, my pleasantries, and some enjoyments. This was reasonable and necessary.

I'm not prepared to throw it all on the TEOTWAWKI number of the Y2K roulette table. On this Y2K roulette table, there are 9 numbers on this table in three thirds. I am covering the second third, because that's where my analysis of the spin says to bet on. I'd like to get something on the last third and still keep a strong bet on double 0s.

Unlike a real roulette table, the second third covers the first third and doesn't take necessarily mean a loss if it goes to zeroes (as I will be living more smartly than before). However, the last third gets significantly more complicated and complex than the usual roulette game.

Significant bets on the last third are such that if it's double 0s or in the first third, this comes out as a significant loss where me and mine will face hardship. A minimum bet on the last third or betting on the second 3 is the same or worse if the Y2K goes to the TEOTWAWKI number.

0 and 00 are things to bet strong on, but not to the very unreasonable exclusion of making any other bets. Not to make a significant bet on the 0s is equally unprudent. People may also give you funny looks. (g) That's the game. Unfortunately, Y2K is not a game; it is very real.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 23, 1999.

Here is Poole in action, and my response to him from another thread:

Poole said:

"For example, it is entirely possible for a utility to operate without its SCADA systems -- as the April 9th drill demonstrated -- complete with the power exchange stuff being done by hand. "

Stephen, stop being an ass. That is a flat out lie. The only thing tested during the drill was whether their phone lists were up to date and how well communications gear functioned. There was never ANY attempt at coordinating the actual grid by these means.

OTOH, if this is what you accept as "proof" that we will not have major troubles, then you are a lot more naive than I thought.

-- a (a@a.a), May 23, 1999.

-- a (a@a.a), May 23, 1999.

So attacking Poole, however off-topic you need to wander, is your magic bullet for getting people to prepare? I hope it works.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 23, 1999.

Gee Flint...I thought the topic was Poole's downplaying of the seriousness of y2k. Thanks for pointing out that I was somehow OT. Sounds like you've been using that big "cerebellum" of yours...

LOL

-- a (a@a.a), May 23, 1999.

If attacking me makes people prepare, I hope that works too.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 23, 1999.

A,

That is a flat out lie. The only thing tested during the drill was whether their phone lists were up to date and how well communications gear functioned. There was never ANY attempt at coordinating the actual grid by these means.

You, sir, are sadly mistaken; you have believed the spin that has been regurgitated ad nauseum by frantic Doomlits trying to downplay that drill, which was actually quite significant.

Anyone who doubts this is welcome to check into it for themselves, starting with this email from a guy who actually planned the drill for a utility at my Web site. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 24, 1999.

Andy,

He has point blank refused to modify his site to several forum participants - yes or no?

The day that I feel the urge to modify it to conform to your fevered vision of the future, I will jump off of Shades Mountain and get it over with.

(Hint: yes, you may construe that to be a NO. To you, at least. Anyone else who wants to point out FACTUAL errors in anything I've said there, I'll be glad to listen.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 24, 1999.

Stephen: from your email:

"The drill verifies that if all communications fail, utility personnel in the stations could manually control the system! "

uh, no, that would be called a test.

-- a (a@a.a), May 24, 1999.