Y2K as Religion

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

One of the definitions of religion: a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Y2K has become a religion. For some, the collapse of modern society is no longer a matter for debate it is precisely a specific system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

This is not a new phenomenon and often occurs in movements. Environmentalism serves as a useful example. Extremists in the environmental movement (e.g., Earth First!) have become more invested in a belief system than in rational inquiry. This has resulted in bitter debates and the rejection of some legitimate scientific research.

What we know about Y2K is that there will be some indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is a muddle of speculation, opinion and theory. A pessimistic interpretation of this muddle has calcified into a belief system

The true believers of Y2K see every event within the context of their faith. A lack of information is the private and public sectors hiding Y2K problems. Positive news is spin or propaganda from a government-business-media cabal. Bad news is the gospel whatever the source.

The true believers are saved. The saved proselytize. If you convert, you get it ergo the GI label. As a GI you are expected to perform the rituals of the faith the most predominant of which is Preparation. The degree of preparation appears a litmus test of Y2K faith.

To digress a bit, a Y2K version of Pascals Wager is used to convert the DGI (Doesnt Get It). Pascals Wager is pragmatic approach to whether one ought to believe in God. In simple terms, the argument contends a belief in the Almighty has nothing but upside. If God exists, you win. If God does not exist, you are no worse off than before. One can easily see this same argument applied over and over to Y2K preparation.

[It is important to note that there are criticisms of Pascals Wager that apply equally to Y2K preparation. http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/pascal-wager/]

The faith of Y2K has little mercy for those who do not convert, and none for those who leave the church. The label Pollyanna can easily be converted to heretic. (A dissenter from established church dogma.)

The acrimony between believers and heretics is inevitable. Much of the Y2K debate has moved well beyond rational discussion and into attacks/defenses of the faith. How different is this from scientists who believe in evolution arguing with conservative Christians who believe in a literal creation? The creation science advocates have access to the same data. They reach a different conclusion. Of course, it is difficult to deny their interpretation of the data is not influenced somewhat by their belief system. I suggest the same is true for Y2K.

Religion is about Truth. Science is about fact. Religion is conservative, even reactionary. It resists change. For Christianity, the Bible has been the Truth for over two millennia. Science, on the other hand, is progressive. Very little is left of the science man developed two thousand years ago. Science hypothesizes and proves. Religion simply concludes.

Stripped down to the barest of facts, Y2K is an indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is belief an emerging Old Testament faith invoking fire and brimstone. America is the modern Babylon and the faithful are ready to build a new society cleansed of past mistakes (including a perceived misuse of technology.)

Y2K appears to have some sincere, good-hearted believers. It also attracts the inevitable hucksters and charlatans who use the faith for more worldly reasons. It has saints (Ed Yourdon) and sinners (John Koskinen.) I am sure the astute reader can find more similarities.

What are the implications of Y2K as a religious faith? I am not completely sure. One point seems obvious. Conflicts between the heretics and the faithful will continue unresolved just as the debate between creation science and evolution plods on.

I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 26, 1999


Yes Decker, I heard there was a religion like that which took hold in Central America last year. The believers were concerned that their grass and mud huts constructed on the flood plain would be deathtraps if the category 5 hurricane spinning off shore was to come inland. Then there was some kind of mass suicide ritual, and 10,000 of the religious followers perished!

Did you hear about it?

-- a (a@a.a), May 26, 1999.

Yeah, Decker, can't you see? There was a hurricane last year. Therefore y2k will be calamity. What, you don't see the connection? You would if you had faith. 'A' sees connections everywhere, because his faith gives him second sight. When truth and facts conflict, are you going to stick with mere facts? You'll just never fit in around here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 26, 1999.

Psalm 49:6 Those who trust in their wealth and boast in the multitude of their riches,

7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him --

8 For the redemption of their lives is costly, and it shall cease forever --

9 That he should continue to live eternally, and not see the Pit.

10 For he sees wise men die; likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, and leave their wealth to others.

11 Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever, their dwelling places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names.

12 Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; he is like the beasts that perish.

13 This is the way of those who are foolish, and of their posterity who approve their sayings.

14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.


mr. decker, do you think this godless, technological society man has built will last forever? Be it y2k or something else, this abominable society will be brought down and humbled. Enjoy it while you can.

-- Religious (not@humanist.likeDecker), May 26, 1999.

This pathetic garbage (even if it is posted by a troll) represents the ultimate in Y2K denial. As we get closer to the big event, I'm sure this lunacy will just accelerate.

And note that with just minor editing, it could be completely turned around so its the pollyannas that have the "religion" that Y2K will be a big nothing, with their saints and sinners etc.

Typical crap from the troll we know only as Mr. Decker.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), May 26, 1999.

I should have done a post script anticipating the inevitable questioning of my personal faith. Let me say this. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Many of the greatest scientists have held a deep and abiding faith in God. They just did not expect God to prove the hypothesis for them.

Why did God make us curious?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 26, 1999.

Mr. Decker, this world is presently forrested with trees of religions...it is up to each man to climb his own tree. If you are happy in yours, so be it. However, I am a realist. We, and that includes you also, have made a mess of things, and if it's the Y2K, or something else the present system is in dire jepordy. We're living on the edge. Denial, can often become a narcotic, Mr. Decker. Watch your usage you don't want to OD.

-- Richard Westerlind (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), May 26, 1999.

My friend assures me it's all or nothing,
But I am not really worried
I am not overly concerned
You try to tell yourself the things you try to tell yourself
To make yourself forget
I am not worried

Oh lord, I'm not ready for this sort of thing

-- Adam Duritz (anna@begins.cc), May 26, 1999.

Yes, both sides have their religious qualities. But I don't think you need faith to be a GI or a DGI. Most DGI's simply ignore the issue more than anything else. I consider myself "GI" because I am seriously preparing. I don't have any "faith" that Y2K will be bad and I have no "faith" that it won't be bad. I have a huge Y2K file in my computer filled with conflicting information. Some seems ludicrous and some seems sensible, but I only have my own reason to separate the two and I have limited faith in my judgement on this. Anyone sure of their judgements on this is, IMO, an idiot. But I recognize that I could be wrong on that too.

So in the face of uncertainty, I prepare. I don't consider that a religious impulse. Plenty of cowardly agnostics out there, and I'm not ashamed to be one of them.

Pascal's Wager doesn't hold very well even with it's origianl application. It holds even less well for Y2K. There is a cost to any falacious belief and all actions based upon it. If Y2K is not a major problem then I have wasted a good deal of time and energy and money that I could have better used. I haven't psychoanalyzed why I chose to insure myself against this uncertainty while I've never had any other form of insurance my whole life except PL/PD on my vehicles. I've always thought insurance was for wimps or people with kids. I still don't have kids but I guess I'm getting wimpier.

Anyone that is informed on this issue and chooses not to prepare has my whole-hearted best wishes. They might be wiser or more foolish than myself. They certainly are braver or more full of faith.

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), May 26, 1999.

This oughta be good...Push dem buttons bubba!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 26, 1999.

Decker -- I'm sorry, but your post is so lame theologically and philosophically that one hardly knows where to begin to correct you and it wouldn't make any difference since you are the true fanatic here. Man. Breathtaking.

"I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one."

Decker, I don't know where you've been, but pollys and doomers alike agree that reliable data isn't available in 1999. If you want to describe Y2K as a matter of faith, which is absurd and a "confusion of categories", it is faith on all sides. Rational decision-making in the face of "uncertainty" is a better term.

Not that you care, but I'm honestly disappointed, though I can't say why, to be honest. I guess it's that I respect worthy intellectual adversaires, but your mind really seems to run in such a narrow orbit. Anything but the obvious, eh?

"It's still just Y2K, stupid." The code doesn't care.

Best of luck, bub.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 26, 1999.

Exactly the answer I anticipated from you, Big Dog. In the future, why don't we simply take as read your out of hand dismissal of my posts. Oh, and I doubt there are any unanswered questions about your opinion of me. If you really feel compelled, why not just cut and paste the following:

"I dismiss your pathetic argument. You are an idiot and your motives are suspect. It's Y2K, stupid. The code is broken. We started too late." Did I miss a chant?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 26, 1999.

You sound as though you have some knowledge of Christianity, and I know that Christians are on both sides of this issue. But various characters in the Bible come to mind: Noah; Joseph; the ant,(you sluggard); and the ten virgins. In certain extroadinary circumstances, God told His people to prepare. In others, he told them not to worry about a thing or make any preparation, and He would provide. He will. But Y2K is something of extroadinary dimensions, and, while I know nothing about the technology other than what I've read on the Internet, there are many exceptionally knowledgeable people who really, truly believe there will probably be extensive problems (but they don't know for sure), and they are warning people. It's got to be quite serious or the bean-counters (I love that appellation!)wouldn't be authorizing all this money to be spent. I personally hope the Pollyannas are correct, but I'm preparing as the doomsayers reccommend. Yes, there are both friends and family who think I'm daft. I hope they are correct. But what if I am?

-- Constance A. Iversen (hive@gte.net), May 26, 1999.

I have to correct my letter because I have so much pride that I can't let misspelled words stand. I misspelled two in my earlier note: "extraordinary" and "recommend". I didn't notice them until I had already transmitted the note. Forgive me?

-- Constance A. Iversen (hive@gte.net), May 26, 1999.


Y2K is both serious and expensive. There is a huge distance, however, between an indeterminate number of Y2K-related computer problems and the end of civilization. Compared to the general population, I am a pessimist. I have suggested a sharp recession next year, with Y2K partly to blame. In addition, my own personal observations on preparation are a matter of record on this site.


My post emerged from the observation that some participants on this forum are utterly convinced the results of Y2K will be catastrophic on a Biblical scale. I don't think the limited data supports this conclusion. Making the conclusion strikes me as more a choice of faith than reason.

Please read the "link" on Pascal's Wager. I'd be interested in your thoughts on how it might apply to Y2K and your final question.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

It doesn't surprise me that every time I read an article on Y2K that somewhere, they explain the Y2k phenomena so that the new people can understand what the millenium bug is about.....always mentioning that in the olden days there was not enough memory to allow more digits. Mr. Decker, I assume you skip that part right?...because you understand the fundamentals...right? You often talk about economics and the division of labor. You also mentioned Yardini as an acceptable source. I always consider Yardini's views and always download his PDF files when they become current. I assume you do, since he is on your wavelength or occupies his time with the subject matter you say you thrive on. Yardini mentioned a month and a half back about how the Govt. has reduced its critical systems in the thousands to make itself look better, from 57% remediated to 93% remediated when their march 31st deadline came up, when in reality they were far below that. People like Yardini have also exposed cover-ups. Your man there is on our side and he is not a religious fruitcake. You have always been an "issue skirter" when the facts get too close for comfort, then create ploy tactic schemes to hang the G.I. gang when it seems to fit your agenda, such as this religious tie B.S....

I often wonder how tight you wear your blinders and also what you think you can gain from it. What you are pushing here seems darker as you continue "it". Are you simply "the opposite force" for the well intended. I don't go to church, so I guess you can't count me in your ploy tactic scenario. I pray sometimes though. If I'm not a religious fanatic then if you do your statistics, many others like me feel the same way and do not fit your game plan here. In fact I bet most people as unique as they all are, still read that little piece of info when they do their research that describes why the millenium bug exists. It has all been agreed (by those not wearing blinders) that contingency plans have been neccessary to overcome the obstacles for those who started too late. Many have a wait and see approach. Even when the military have to resort to an "on foot" messenger man to help link communication problems as part of their contingency, then Houston, we have a problem........Mr. Decker...so do you sir.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 27, 1999.

Decker said [and I reply]

Exactly the answer I anticipated from you, Big Dog. In the future, why don't we simply take as read your out of hand dismissal of my posts. Oh, and I doubt there are any unanswered questions about your opinion of me.

[No, the unanswered question is what you are getting out of your posts? Can you name one Y2K element aside from the polly arguments (which you already agree with) that has changed YOUR mind on something? Basically, your position boils down to, "The market is overdue for a correction, regardless of Y2K and I live frugally as everyone should normally." Fine. That's not what I'm asking. I have, probably a dozen times or more, named polly arguments that have changed aspects of my own so-called "pessimistic" thinking about Y2K. You're the one whose mind is utterly closed on the subject. That's your right. But get real.]

If you really feel compelled, why not just cut and paste the following:

"I dismiss your pathetic argument. You are an idiot and your motives are suspect. It's Y2K, stupid. The code is broken. Westarted too late." Did I miss a chant?

[Your motives are suspect. Correct. When someone evinces not the slightest two-wayness in conversation, their motives come into question. You darn betcha. Should I engage in what could be a practically useful discussion about "Y2K as religion"? There are many on this forum with whom that would be so. In your case, why?

And yes, the code is broken (in the nuanced sense I have often explained it). We did start too late. You say these things as though they are seriously challengeable. I don't think Flint, Hoff or Maria challenge them. Of COURSE, we disagree about impact but that's not what you're saying here.

If you would start giving shreds of evidence from time to time that you are learning something on this forum, besides that most of us are "fanatics", and be specific about what you are learning, I would gladly stop dismissing your arguments. Because I don't disagree with your statement about that. As it stands, I see no REASON (using that in the St. John's sense which you might theoretically understand) why they should be entertained seriously.]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 27, 1999.

uh, B.D., you have to realize that decker doesn't realize his attempts at discrediting the forum have actually succeeded in discrediting him...one of those ego blindness things...though actually I got a chuckle out of his original post on this thread, since by his definition anyone who expects gravity to work the same way all of the time is guilty of making a religion out of it...



-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 27, 1999.

Hey, K.C., I bet you would like Aaron Lynch -- he thinks a lot like you. See 'The Millennium Contagion: Is Your Mental Software Year 2000 Compliant?' (http://www.mcs.net/~aaron/tmc.htm) It's the Meme Dream all over again and it's hot-linked over at Der Boonkah. (BTW, saw you posted your 'Epistle to the Yourdanians' there too, K.C.) Here's a small sample of what Lynch says --

"...As with religious belief, ideas of 'hell on earth' spur the most urgent evangelism. Many, for instance, have come to believe that electricity, water, fuel, and food supplies will collapse irreversibly. Airplanes will plunge from the skies. Nuclear weapons will launch at the stroke of midnight. And if the weapons dont fly, then financial chaos will still cause mass starvation and food riots. And so on.

Those accepting the direst predictions have a strong sense that time is running out, since they expect the catastrophe to start immediately after 1999. Survival thus depends upon evacuating urban centers, stockpiling food, drilling water wells, and so forth. But one must first believe in the Y2K cataclysm to be saved. As with the religious End Times memes, the secular strains naturally move believers to save friends and loved ones. So doomsday believers urgently spread the dire news of "what lies ahead" in January of 2000. Their extreme predictions spread well when combined with American survivalist memes, which give detailed instructions for how one can be saved. Like an evangelical religion, the meme package effectively says, 'Convert, and you will live.' Meanwhile, those who know that prosaic life will continue are generally unmoved to go forth and tell everyone about it.

The Y2K apocalypse memes also thrive on already prevalent religious doomsaying. Endemic beliefs that "the end is near" make it easier to think that deadly sin of digital sloth will get the End started. Fundamentalists who see the fading plausibility of an End Times coming from the Soviet 'evil empire' can turn their attention to the technocrats. So the belief in a technological debacle spreads vigorously in many religious circles, which have produced some of the loudest Y2K doomsayers. This includes conservative Christian activist Gary North, who widely proclaims the Y2K apocalypse in computer terms that persuade even the non-religious. Meanwhile, the secular doomsday meme renders its hosts more susceptible to religious evangelism... In any case, even the most atheistic doomsaying has roots in religion. After all, a religious thought contagion got us counting the years since the birth of Jesus in the first place."

(Temporary end quote)

See? Doesn't he think like you? Vry similar train of thought. Except Aaron tells what to do about us infected memes:

"To prevent such troubles we should counter the spread of destructive apocalypse memes long before December 31, 1999. This means explaining the viral nature of such memes to those yet unaffected, to immunize them from communicable panic.

Bringing a sense of perspective to people who already believe in millennial cataclysm will often be difficult. From their point of view, asking them to change their minds amounts to asking them to risk their lives and the lives of loved ones. Many will also have logic resistant ideas, and will have already invested heavily in them. For them, we might do better to explain the thought contagion to them in hopes of slowing their efforts to convert others. A combination package of helpful information works best. Start by showing them this article. To explain that life will continue even if severe glitches abound, show them the article by Peter de Jager, the world's foremost proponent of Y2K fixes. To further show that thought contagions are real, and to put the millennium contagion in a broader context, show them the book Thought Contagion."

(End quote)

Great googly moogly!!! Aaron's MAKING MONEY OFF Y2K!!! For shame, for shame!!!

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker

You have certainly become quite angry. It is so unlike you to write such rubbish. There are a variety of people on this forum with a variety of opinions. You color everyone with the same brush. This is hardly rational. Are you becoming obsessed with the opinions of others? Are their opinions wrong? Initially you were open, relaxed and actually had something to say. You now sound as though you have gotten some sort of religion.

In the distance I can hear the sad sound of one mind closing.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

What are the implications of Y2K as a religious faith? I am not completely sure. One point seems obvious. Conflicts between the heretics and the faithful will continue unresolved just as the debate between creation science and evolution plods on.

I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You are WAY out of your context here, Economic opinion fine but I can't believe you take yourself seriously on this Mr. Decker. Y2K does not operate by faith. It is a known fact that there is a problem. The reason is that computers have a hard time with 00 as a date if it is not programmed to understand it.

Now you get into Evolution and Creation. These are interesting comparisons to Y2K as both are driven by the movement of "time" It is my humble opinion that the human spirit may just evolve due to Y2K. But it is an "easily" reached understanding that the highest universal principles are Evolution and Creation. Why do I say this? It is because of the education on the matter that I have. Now some may say it is faith on my part that I say it. And you may say that. But I could give you a pile of books on the subject and if someone choose to read them then they would sugjest a REASON that evolution and creation are as important as light and gravity in the universal order.

The same thing can be said about Y2K. If you want to understand what the problem really is well there is more than enough information to give a person every REASON to think that Y2K is a problem.

Now your error is that you didn't give a degree of consern for Y2K.

Infomagic requires a degree of faith.

That there is a computer problem does not.

Y2K exists, to ask the question of faith in y2k sugjests that you know little about it. This is what the Army of the United States says about the "faith" in Y2K


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The effort to correct Army systems and devices affected by Y2K is daunting. To be successful, senior level managers must be personally involved. We must dedicate adequate resources to correct Y2K issues and manage the effort. The Army will not assign Y2K as an "extra duty." It is important to not only assign enough people to the job, but to also be sure they are the right people with the proper mix of management and technical skills. Y2K poses a tremendous near term challenge to the Army, DoD, the nation, and the world. The Y2K resolution deadline is unforgiving. Senior leaders must continue to take personal interest in the resolution of Y2K problems, because you will be held personally responsible for the success or failure of Y2K efforts in your organization. Put your top people on the job, hold regular status meetings, review progress, review your organizations data submittals, put controls in place that will ensure data is submitted on time, review system and device correction progress against schedules, review system and device risk assessments, ensure contingency plans are in place and are feasible, and prepare for Y2K compliance testing. Get personally involved, and stay involved.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr.Decker... We have a neighbor in our area that waters too much. We are all on a water well of our own. The same neighbor plays his music wayyy to loud on his 5 acres and blares the rest of us at times. He used to own a restraunt and once he even flipped out his "unit" on the table to show a customer. This Man has got quite a reputation for abusing women waitpersons. He's been through 57 of them. He still comes back strong as a fanatical social person, even though people loath him. Of all the people that mention a name, his name is the only one that gets mentioned. He has become a singleton in a large community. Somehow though, he feels he will become remembered for he yearns for attention. He is as dense as a doornail. None of us will be remembered as he will be, for that is his intention, not ours.

Mr. Decker, what is your intention sir, since you formulated this absurd post?

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 27, 1999.

Decker- In one hundred words or less please describe your motives for posting here. You are obviously not interested in concurring with like minded individuals. Judging by the quantity of your posts you spend quite a bit of time here. Are you trying to educate us? Thank you but I do much research every day, and outside this forum too. Are you trying to save us from ourselves? Thank you I already have a mommy. Are you trying to keep us from wrecking the status quo? Do you really think we are that powerful? We are trying, believe it or not, to give each other hope in a crazy world. Why is that wrong? My religion is inside me. I do not need to obtain it from anyone nor go anywhere to practice it. Do you really believe that you're doing a right and honorable thing here? Please, we're listening, go ahead.

-- Gia (Laureltree7@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker

For the first time I detect a hint of fear in you. Maybe your posts indicate a bit of "Denialist" in your mental constructs. Could you be afriad of your world changing? Your ability to adapt and evolve with the uncertianties of the future? Do you ever get this niggling doubt that you will ..... fail.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 27, 1999.

"I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason  at least for one. "

Exactly Mr. Decker.

You have demonstrated that you, yourself, are at least one "true believer." Regardless of any information provided by the government, industry or media, it will not change YOUR mind about Y2K.

While you preach your high sermon you seem to have neglected to look within yourself. You make broad, sweeping judgments and assumptions regarding others yet you are unable to see that you, yourself, are also a member of "a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Perhaps YOUR ardor and faith are much more entrenched in a religion that you would like to realize. Your faith and ardor are so entrenched that you cannot allow for even the most basic of scientific principals to be true. Stuff happens.

You fail to see the logic on both sides of this dilemma. You are comfortable, successful, fearful of change. Your religion is called the "status quo."

Instead of bending over backwards to write a post like this why don't you begin a serious journey toward the middle ground?

Mike ==================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

You are right, Arlin. A belief that gravity works the same way all the time would be a religion.

It is not an article of faith for me that Y2K will be a nonevent. From Day One I have said I expect problems with the rollover. Here's my concern. Most of the stuff I read on the forum is not fact. It's not even close. It an electronic "bull" session of anonymous participants full of rumor, speculation, theory, etc. Before I go out and buy a year's supply of food, I'm want better quality information.

All of the serious doomsaying used to involve the iron triangle. Now, with positive reports, it's foreign trade. C'mon, folks. If the power and phones work, we are in pretty decent shape. I hear about the banks, but as I continue to point out, the government has the financial services sector by the proverbial short hairs. The government can keep the banks from failing, although in the process they may severely damage the economy.

If I had really solid data that strongly suggested Y2K would be worse than an economic depression, I'd lead the damn GI parade carrying Big Dog on my shoulders. If it's "just" a depression, my concern is not food or water. I have enough in savings to buy food for quite a spell. Eventually, though, the savings will tap out unless I can work and earn an income. Fortunately, I have cultivated blue collar skills that might help me. The Great Depression resulted in a lot of human suffering... but three out of four people worked. More had piece work jobs or worked in the underground economy. Most "systems" worked.

I respect Yardeni, and he puts the Depression risk at five percent. Total economic meltdown is a subset of that figure. For the sake of argument, let's call it one percent. To me, I'm preparing the 99% scenarios. And, honestly, I'm not sure how anyone can prepare for the one percent unless you plan on building a hidden, fortressed community with good artillery and air support.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I'm getting an awful feeling here like I'm participating in a "gang bang". It does not feel good or right to me whatsoever. Please do yourself a big favor and spare us from this plight. Read, investigate, please take off the blinders, stop waiting for the news to inform you. The president is not going to make an address. We have all been through what you have, skepticism, pure and simple. I am not an abuser so try harder please sir, for everyones sake.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 27, 1999.

This thread, as do so many others, reminds me of a great quote:

"Don't pile on da wabbit, don't pile on da wabbit..."

(From the Bugs Bunny cartoon, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn")

The problem, in my eyes, is too many folks here wish to be like Bugs Bunny. Makes for great entertainment, though somewhat sad to see at the same time.

Carry on.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

Y2K as Religion. Yes! The ritual of preparation: The List. Elimination of guilt as items checked-off. Confessions: Forgot that TP on sale! Candles. Church time = clicking on Recent Answers. Deity: CostCo. Devil: the calendar. Cult of the Shoppers and Drillers. Donations: tax $$ down the drain of turf war remediation allocations. End Times: anticipating end of hot showers. Renunciation: trying out cold showers. Vows: We *will* organize the beans chronologically. Prayer: Thy Mercy that none of this will prove necessary. Reason: Duh, move that arse, time's a wastin. Church picnics: regularly, gotta test the groceries, go camping inside, shelter-in-place. Vestments: Duct tape! Creed Codified: oh oh. Relief: looney threads like this ...

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), May 27, 1999.



-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I agree with you. There are some people out there like that. Easily led. I don't think most are like that though. I read Drudge every day. China Daily. Russia Today. Cory's WRP. Watch CSpan daily. Browse Cnn and MSNBC. I browse this site, sometimes responding. I browse debunky, sometimes responding. I respond to this site a whole lot more. I think meme's are what you are driving at, and once a meme is exposed for what it is, it looses it's power.

Religion is about truth? Wrong! Religion is man made traditions. Science is suppositions accepted as fact until proven wrong. Preparation is not something a Y2K guru coerced me into doing. I simply learned 20 yrs ago it cheaper to buy in bulk. Period.

I believe in a higher power. I'm not religious. Will you please speak of your beliefs, not mine or any one elses? Thank you, and could you please forward your composition to the outer limits?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr Decker

If you are dealing with % then I would think that the Yardeni 5% is under represented on this forum. Most people that post or lurk would just like to figure out the problem and what to do about it rather than prepare for doomsday. If 1% of the posts on this forum talk about nuclear war - infomagic then you may be true but if you would want we could count all the posts and find out. Why don't you go find Paul Milne and Gary North and bug them.

Most folk on this forum want to make there lives Y2K compliant. Business do that why can't people.

By the way have you ever raised a child????

-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 27, 1999.



-- Brian (imager@home.com), May 27, 1999.

Like it or not, this is a pro-Yourdon forum. K.C. says on other posts that Ed Yourdon's home page invites discussion to take place on this forum. True. Then you get to the forum and click on 'About' and it talks of like-minded people discussing various fallback plans. The "discussion" on Ed's home page would seem, then, to refer to pro-Yourdon thinking -- of various degrees. K.C. seems upset that we do not agree with HIS version of Y2K. Why is he surprised? This forum was conceived by Ed Yourdon -- is it necessary to explain Ed's philosophy about Y2K?

Here's what K.C. wrote back on April 22:


The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation.

The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all-inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm.

What is the point?

The PSF folks are better served by hardcore survivalist web pages or perhaps homesteading or small farming sites. Posts by the IOR contingent generally fall on deaf ears. Has anyone decided to ease up on preparations based on reading a post on this forum?

While I have only posted on this forum a relatively short period of time, the posts have become increasingly less interesting... at least to me. On occasion, some of the more rational folks become involved on a particular thread. Even then, one more often sees ridicule than reason. While I have seen flashes of IS expertise, the quality of thought on economic issues... abysmal.

Yes, anticipating that some readers have a grasp of the obvious, I can choose not to read the forum. I believe there are a few intelligent, reasonable people who read (and post) here. It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999

(End quote)

How's the mouse?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 27, 1999.

One more post, and then to bed. I am interested in a discussion of Y2K FACTS... if they exist. This forum is a feeding frenzy of rumor, half truths, guesses, opinions, predictions, etc. In the words of my grandfather, some of it is not worth the powder it would take to blow it to Hell.

You know, if one person had read the link on Pascal's Wager, there might have been a decent discussion here. Instead, I get pop psychology, bad science, poor writing and more personal attacks.

Listen, folks, are you interested in the FACTS about Y2K or do you just want to trade prep advice? Are you willing to critically challenge everything that is posted here? Or do the pessimists get a free pass?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

"This forum is a feeding frenzy of rumor, half truths, guesses, opinions, predictions, etc. In the words of my grandfather, some of it is not worth the powder it would take to blow it to Hell."

And you started this thread with your rumor, half truths, guesses, opinions, predictions, pop psychology, bad science, poor writing and more personal attacks.

Go to bed before your grandfather takes the stick to your backside.

Mike ==============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I prepare for the future, whatever it may bring. I will not be able to prepare for every possible scenario, but those that I decide are likely, I prepare for as best I can. That's all I can do. It's what I must do for myself, my spouse and my children. I'm sure there are many others who have made similar decisions. Initially, preparation for y2k was the most important thing for me to do, to fulfill my personal responsibility to parent and protect my children. However, over the past few months I've realized that the importance of preparation is not for a single event but rather for the future in general, as a way of living and thinking. So, a new perspective on how to go about living has been gained for me and also by me because of my action. I am grateful for the opportunity to widen my vision. My children definitely will benefit from my new insights and that's really all I wanted to do, protect the ones I love so much. I can't do less than that.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), May 27, 1999.

"Are you willing to critically challenge everything that is posted here? "

Yep. I am. That's exactly what is going on on this thread Decker. Everything you posted is being critically challenged and the defensive nature of your last post shows that it's tough for you to engage in this kind of critique without suffering ego shock.

Why do you bother?

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

Meanwhile, over at Der Boonkah, KayCee alerts the trolls:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 27782402&P=Yes&TL=927772041

at 01:20:02 o'clock:

Check the thread on EY Forum

You might find it interesting.

Mr. Decker

Thread: Y2K as Religion

Y2K as Religion (Mr. Decker) (26-May-1999 22:27:21)

Almost but not quite. (cpr) (26-May-1999 23:03:13)

Check the thread on EY Forum (Mr. Decker) (27-May-1999 01:20:02)

(End quote)

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), May 27, 1999.

I warned you all about this nut case double decker from day one.


What does he do?What has he done since arriving other than provoke dissent.

Now it's religion.

Next week it'll be suicide or euthanasia or abortion.

Wise up to this fake asshole will ya?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker is a "true believer" in his own way. Here's a paragraph from one of the first posts by him on this forum:



Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems. Of course, there are forces that can exacerbate Y2Kprimarily public panic and government intervention. The true danger of Y2K is economic recession or depression due to public panic and a subsequent loss or personal or economic freedoms through government intervention. As a nation, staying calm and rational will deter centralized government "solutions."


-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Decker, did you expect anyone to admit to the following:

"I do hope at least one "true believer" of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one. "

The followers of Jim Jones and Heavens Gate thought themselves rationale, logical, prudent individuals. It was the rest of the world that was insane.

The True Believers of the Y2K Apocalypse are not going to admit to any part of your dissertation on Y2K as religion - regardless of its veracity. The "rest of the world" however, views the cult for what it is. "So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world. I have hoped for this all of my adult life." -- Gary North

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 27, 1999.

A snippet from

Pascals Wager

"Pascal's Wager vies with Anselm's Ontological Argument for being the most famous argument in the philosophy of religion."

After reading the above piece I now know why I ran screaming from the lecture hall after two weeks of Western Philosophy! Ugh!! Give me empiricism or give me death!

I'm not surprised at the response Mr. Decker has received yet again. We each have our blindspots. Mine is the continuing inability to fathom the incredible distaste many regulars have for Mr. Decker. The lack of reasoned response from so many makes my usage of this forum increasingly difficult to justify.

I had hoped someone who could stomach philosophy of religion would have addressed the subject of Pascal's Wager as applied to Y2K. Wishful thinking on my part. :(

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

BINGO1: I too am as dismayed as apprarently you are over the consistent hostility and venom directed at Mr. Decker.

I find his many posts thought-provoking and motivated by benevolence and good will - a respect for both the debate and for those so engaged. He puts up with a great deal of abuse for his repsect.

The almost humerous irony is of course, that whenever he starts a thread such as this, it will invariably generate some of the more entertaining as well as informative series of posts on this forum. For that I am glad he continues to engage.....

That in and of itself belies a great deal...

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), May 27, 1999.

Outings said: "Meanwhile, over at Der Boonkah, KayCee alerts the trolls: "

Big freakin' deal Outings. Like the trolls need to be alerted. Isn't it wonderful to be a hypocrite? You're engaged in "outings" huh? Why don't you out yourself.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 27, 1999.

Ah, wrapping up lunch. The most surprising thing about this thread was not the attacks. I expected some. I was surprised so few people actually responded to what I was saying.

Some people have moved beyond an objective, critical search for facts about Y2K. When Y2K becomes an article of faith, it takes on the characteristics of a religion... at least that's my opinion.

On another thread, I used the example of a stock tip. You know the one... it's your uncle's friend who knows this person who talked to a guy that used to work at Company X. The information on this forum reminds me of those kind of tips.

In my work, the data changes all the time. When the data changes, I reconsider my position. Of course, I factor in the quality and quantity of the data available. I don't "know" what will happen with Y2K, but I'd like better data. I'd like less shouting about the end of the world and fewer personal attacks. More fire, less smoke.

My thanks to Bingo1 for actually reading Pascal's Wager and to Dave Walden for his consistency as a gentleman.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Among other things, you said, "The 'true believers' of Y2K see every event within the context of their faith", and, "The 'true believers' are saved. The 'saved' proselytize."

Would you say that this applies to the character who goes by "Y2KPro" who is on a self announced, "A Mission From God"?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), May 27, 1999.

Ken Decker,why do you hang out here?Is it just because you love conflict?is there nothing better to do in Glen Burnie?get out and have some fun!jeesze!yer more of a downer than y2k!praise "bob"!

-- ! (!@!.!), May 27, 1999.

'Data' is the plural form of 'datum.' Did this guy say he was an economist? He doesn't know this? He used it as singular twice in one post.

-- correctness (obsessive@compulsive.com), May 27, 1999.

Well, Mr. Decker once again you've brought out all the end of the world prophets to throw stones at you. Logic seems to escape these memes, for they can "see" the interconnectedness, the systemic problems of the Millennium. Yet when asked very simply to explain this phenomena, they tell the unbelievers to seek for themselves the true meaning of Y2K. Amen I say to all that pass here.

A sign in Mexico read, "The manager has personnally passed all water served here." I think this applies to the doom brood logic in concluding the end.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 27, 1999.

glad to see that all the pollys made it over to support decker. it was getting pretty one-sided there for a while, but meme-busters has arrived just in time... can you say halleluyah!!!

-- Pollyslayer (pollys@are.funny), May 27, 1999.


Before I respond, let me add a nuance. A great scientist could have a deep personal faith, even feel "on a mission from God." His scientific work can be judged apart from his personal faith.

In the case of Y2KPro, he may just be quoting a line from "The Blues Brothers." (It is a rather funny movie.) You are right, though, a "polly" can be a "true believer" who sees all Y2K events through rose- colored lenses. A legitimate point.

I routinely err with "data." Maybe it was watching one too many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation with Commander Data. I have held professional positions in applied economics and policy analysis. (I am a practitioner currently working outside the field, not an academic.)

Ah, Maria, we meet again. Alas, I'm afraid I will not be voted forum president. You may not make homecoming queen.

It is not my intent to become a "stone magnet." I just have trouble understanding how reasonable people cannot see that SOME Y2K pessimists hold the Great Undoing as an article of faith. How many times does Paul Milne have to post "7-11" and "toast?" Well, maybe next year. (laughter)


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.


What you fail to understand is that it was Mr. Decker who threw the first stone. All I want to do is throw his own stones back at him and make him see that, in the end, he isn't any different from all of us.

Mr. Decker, now you've moved from Y2k being a "religion" to "I just have trouble understanding how reasonable people cannot see that SOME Y2K pessimists hold the Great Undoing as an article of faith."

Which is it? You waffle here.

I "Get It" but I don't see Y2k as being the "Great Undoing" nor do see it as "an article of faith." You, on the other hand, lump everyone within the same "pessimist" grouping without regard for the differences in opinion among even the "Get It" group.

In a sense, you are a "Get It" racist. You find comfort in stereotyping everyone because then you don't have to worry about the imperfections in your logic.

Sorry, Mr. Decker, but you're wrong to do this.

On the other hand, I completely agree that there are extreme views here and they occur on both sides of this argument. However, the majority of people find themselves in the stuck here in the middle.

It's really you that have become preoccupied with the "gloom and doom" of Y2k.

Mike =========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Upon reflection I feel I owe you an apology. My use of the term "racist" was not proper and showed a bad judgement on my part. Please forgive my poor choice of words.

I don't view you as anything close to a "racist". Perhaps you can help me out with a better word? : )

I do, sincerely, offer my apologies to you sir.

Mike =================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I believe that no one has better undercut your hypothesis than yourself:

>> Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.<<

>> Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.<<

>> Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.<<

Surely you have already thought this through during those long solitary evenings?

>> Why did God make us curious?<<

For once, an interesting question. Far more interesting than the ostensible direction of your sermon. My humble answer, FWIW: By enabling us to discern the difference between what we *know* and what we *think we know,* we can begin to comprehend just how much of our lives are lived by faith.

Mr. Taylor,

Your assessment is on the money. (Not your use of the "racist" term, but virtually all your points on this thread.) It was a worthy attempt, but I fear it will have no effect. Been there, done that. Talk about a blind spot...

Mr. Elbow Grease

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 28, 1999.

Mike - Elbow,

high fives

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 28, 1999.

"For SOME, the collapse of modern society is no longer a matter for debate it is precisely a specific system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. (Emphasis added)

I think Y2K will cause problems. So do many others. But I am not willing to concede the end of civilization quite yet. And Mr. Elbow Grease, Mike and Andy... SOME people are.

What is hard to understand about this?

It's like racism, Mike. Objective, scientific inquiry does not support racist values. Yet for some, the "inferiority" of same races is an article of faith. Hate as a religion.

If you are open-minded, facts can change your mind. If the facts on Y2K change, I'll reconsider my position. But will Paul Milne or Gary North?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

>>I think Y2K will cause problems. So do many others. But I am not willing to concede the end of civilization quite yet. And Mr. Elbow Grease, Mike and Andy... SOME people are. <<

Then do yourself a favor and address specific posters one-on-one on specific issues. This penchant for overgeneralization and derogation are unwarranted, irritating and immature tactics. Of course, if your intent is to generate controversy, polarization and noise, you will whine about unfair, ad hominem criticism and continue as before. If you have an open mind you will accept this as constructive advice.

What is hard to understand about that?

If you are plotting a range of data on a chart, do you select one of the extremes and extrapolate from that? Come on. The entire spectrum of Y2K opinion is represented here. What makes you think we all want to be squeezed into that tight little corner of your wayward imagination?

>>It's like racism, Mike. Objective, scientific inquiry does not support racist values.<<

I completely understand what Mike was struggling with here. Mr. Decker, *your* habit of stereotyping is racist-like. It is presumptuous and prejudgmental. Hardly an example of objective, scientific inquiry. Your opinion is just one data point on the Y2K curve. I have this vision that you see yourself as an angel hovering above the Y2K congregation, or perhaps as an adherent of a completely different "faith" (i.e. Science) but you are just another of the flock who delights in engaging in debate over how many blocks can be removed from the Y2K church before the edifice collapses. And remember this: There is a small but definite possibility that those prophets of Milne doom and North gloom crying in the wilderness may be telling us God's truth. Whether we like it or not.

Mr. Elbow Grease

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), May 28, 1999.

Decker said,

"If you are open-minded, facts can change your mind."

That rules you out then. You have proven yourself by your actual posts to be the most close-minded person who has ever posted regularly here, with the possible exception of Paul Milne.

You know, you are actually very like Paul in your obstinacy. That is meant descriptively, not belligerently (Paul's obstinacy about Y2K may prove to have been very valuable to himself and others he has, indeed, influenced).

But don't give us "open-minded to facts". BWA HA HA HA HA HA.

Thinking of my post on another thread, this does give me the idea that there may be a way to keep linking you to Milne .... perfectly precisely. Hmmmm ......

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

I just have trouble understanding how reasonable people cannot see that SOME Y2K pessimists hold the Great Undoing as an article of faith.

Mr. Decker,

Any issue as important and widespread as Y2K is bound to have its share of those with fringe beliefs. Yes, there are some Y2K pessimists that that hold significant disruptions as an article of faith. But there are also some Y2K optimists that hold to the idea that Y2K cannot cause significant disruptions as an article of faith. For example, you.

Your faith in free-market economics does not allow you to believe that there could be significant disruptions due to Y2K. Your faith in the free market would be challenged, even though it shouldn't be. I do agree that although a free-market economy is not perfect, it's the best of the options available.

But no matter how much I appreciate free-market economics, I know that it has a limitation in regards to Y2K. For the free market to take care of most Y2K problems, most businesses here and abroad would have had to realize in 1996 or possibly 1997 that it was in their economic self-interest to begin working on Y2K. That didn't happen. Most businesses would have started working on the problem sooner-- if they had known it was critical to the survival of their organization.

Y2K is a unique, one-of-a-kind event. Even the free-market economies of the world had trouble seeing that this problem was coming.

Mr. Decker, I do see that SOME Y2K pessimists hold the Great Undoing as an article of faith. What I have trouble understanding is how reasonable people such as yourself cannot see that SOME Y2K optimists hold the Bump In The Road as an article of faith.

Since there are a minority of people on both sides of the Y2K issue whose position is a matter of faith, you shouldn't have been surprised by the reaction to the one-sided message you started this thread with. You've complained that nobody on this forum wants to have a good economic discussion with you. That isn't likely to happen as long as you post messages that indicate you consider yourself to be an outsider when it comes to this forum.

There are Y2K extremists on both sides of the issue, but what does that have to do with you or me or most of the people who call this forum? Your post that kicked this thread off reminds me of the white politician several years ago who addressed the black audience he was speaking to as "you people". If you'd like more respect, treat people here as individuals and avoid harping on the obvious, such as that there are SOME people like Gary North (or CPR) who hold fixed opinions on Y2K.

After all, it would be just as easy for me to say that I do hope at least one true believer in Y2K debunking acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K debunking is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.

Governments are making Y2K contingency plans and businesses are making contingency plans. I don't see what's wrong with families making their own Y2K contingency plans.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.


I'm not sure Elbow Grease or BD have any interest in what I say. I do want to respond to your points because you seem interested in talking.

My prediction of a sharp recession with Y2K factors contributing puts me in the most negative 5% of folks talking mainstream economics right now. I freely acknowledge that the recession could lead to a depression.

Businesses do stupid things all the time. Remember "New Coke?" The exploding Ford Pinto? Governments are even worse. Y2K will wipe some businesses out. No doubt. The free market is not "all knowing" nor will it ever be. Businesses think short term and it kicks their backsides time after time. Despite the foibles of individual firms, it is a resiliant system.

Yes, there are "fanatics" on both sides. The people who tell me the market is fairly valued and we have a new paradigm... boneheads. After reading my posts on 'smart living,' you can infer I think much of America engages in 'dumb living.' The "polly's" that make me nervous are the Americans living way past their incomes with debt to their eyeballs. If you want, I rail against them. I can write a mirror post of Consumer Debt as Religion.

If you look at what I have written, Kevin, you'll see that I have been in the middle ground. My "preps," modest as they may be, make me a doomer to most Americans. Of course, some contingency plans make sense.

I've had the day off and spent too much time here. Let's use Yardeni's numbers... he's a guy I respect. Depression risk at 5%. So, 95 times out of a 100, we make it through Y2K with a recession or better. What do you think the risk of meltdown is? Just for the sake of argument. 1%?

If so, 99 times out of a hundred, where do we find the major risk factors to individual families. Let me ask it a different way, in a recession or depression, what do you want to store... food or money?

The "sexy" Y2K preps involve fortifications, food, firearms and fuel. The dull preps are having one's personal finances in order.

Well, if you read this, you'll see that we agree more than disagree. And let's talk economics, just appreciate my "faith" in the free market fall far short of religious fervor.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Decker --- Consumer debt as religion would make an EXCELLENT thread. Why don't you give a shot, seriously?

I don't see getting personal finances in order and securing appropriate "hard" preps (milage varies, as we all say) are in any way contradictory or mutually exclusive. In fact, both are required to be prepared for Y2K.

As for meltdown, I don't expect it either (I suppose your acknowledging the possibility of a depression doesn't make you an apocalypticist or does it?), but even a 1% chance (I personally believe it is higher) sure beats the chances in any other year I've passed through.

Since 90% of my preps are usable over time, no harm done in preparing for a 1% possibility.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

I'm late in participating in this conversation because it happened before my time (my first post to this forum).

Mr. Decker said: I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.

This would assume that we consider government, industry and media to be reliable sources of information, which many of us no longer do, for one reason or another. You, on the other hand do seem to consider them reliable, or you would not have made this statement. Why, then, do you place so little weight on the Quarterly Senate Reports, the Navy's Utility Assessment, Preparing For A Grave New World (William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense), Georgia State Representative George Grinley's Statement, Senate Hearings on State and Local Government Preparedness, and the Naval War College paper on Legal Aspects of Domestic Employment of the Army among other information that has been "provided"?

Why do the administration and the media discount them so heavily and then ignore them entirely?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ