This forum has become exceedingly busy in the past couple of months, and there is a great deal of duplication of questions and answers. This makes it difficult for visitors to sort through the blizzard of postings to find something useful.

PLEASE check recent questions and postings before you decide to post a new question of your own.

TimeBomb 2000 Forum Posting Guidelines:

 Y2K--preparation and related issues--are recommended discussion topics
 Challenge posts with facts or reasoned arguments--try to avoid flames
 If you have nothing of Y2K value to say--lurk dont post
 Post using your own name or handle--stealing may result in deletion
 Once 3-5 regular posters request DELETE--pointless threads may be removed
 Refrain from using profane/obscene language--or post will be deleted
 Dont feed the trolls--please
 Delete assessment of TBY2K SYSOP(s)--is final

Problems? Help? Notify Moderators or Sysops at: y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com

-- TBY2K Sysop (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999

Answers

good bye,al-d.

-- mcook (mcook.@aol.com), June 27, 1999.

Any of you whiz-bang computer programmer geniuses out there able to construct a Search Engine?

-- 2 boggled in archives (allaha@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

Seems reasonable to me !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

What is this al-d thingall about anyways? Forgive me, but I am totally lost.

-- conused (confused@this.wierdness), June 27, 1999.

You need to define trolls for the newbies. Please delete a-ld

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), June 27, 1999.

Sadly I vote "Enough of al-d" despite my love for free speach.

Freedom to post some OT threads and throw a few flames around is one thing, but using this place as your own private masturbatory is something else.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999.

delete al-d,he knows what he's doing

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999.

I vote to delete al-d. Is there any method by which his answer could be stopped before it is ever posted? If so, it would not be necessary to scroll past the post. I ignore the ones with his e-mail address when he starts a new thread but sometimes he has a an answer in an otherwise interesting, intelligent, and informative post.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), June 27, 1999.

Please delete al-d. And if you can get him off the planet, do that as well.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 27, 1999.

I had been waiting in the hope that al-d would morph into something usefull or a least funny. Enough already.

.....GONG...GONG...GONG

Ask not for who the bell tools. Delete on sight.

-Greybear

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), June 27, 1999.

If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be al-d. Delete,Delete,Delete. NOTE! If you are reading this al-d, and you are truly collecting documented evidence for some kind of 'character assassination' lawsuit, I invite you to respond to my e- mail address. I will be more than willing to give you some choice words and look forward to getting your sorry ass in court. Thank you very much!

-- Barry (bchbear@earthlink.net), June 27, 1999.

As one of the Forum Moderators... speaking for myself... and *some* others... we're tired of the al-d dribble too.

He's worn out his welcome and any consequences are those he's created for himself... over... and over... and over... again.

Back to Y2K.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999.

As I said on another thread, I come to this forum about one tenth of what I previously did, because the whole forum is full of ad-l. Its nice to know something "might" be done about it.

-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), June 27, 1999.

Well, well, I see old al-d has drawn the wrath of the forum. I'm in agreement with the tone of the lot here but I hope the moderators will proceed with caution. Has any "ID" been banned here in the past? If so what productive results were realized? IMO free-thinking self- sufficient individuals who hold the right of self-expression dear to heart populate this forum. We will succeed in our own endeavors regardless of so called interference by trolls or flamers. Diversity is our strength. Like it or not the likes of Poole, Y2k Pro, Flint, and even the unbearable Anita are closer to us than the average Bear (sorry Grey Bear). A parting thought, those of you obsessed with spelling and grammar, I do intend to improve via a summer class. Please be patient.

Movie to watch: "First Knight" 1997, Richard Gere and Shaun Connery. Get a hanky for this one if youre the emotional type. Great flick. **** Four out of five stars in my book.

Local note: Those of you in the St. Louis area please "call" back, my email was purged recently.

-- mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 27, 1999.

How about defining "trolling?" Are nonrational posts by pessimists subject to the same censorship, or do the sysops plan to turn a blind eye to Andy and Co? What constitutes a regular and why three to five "votes"? Do "polly" regulars count? Why emphasize preparation when the forum originally had the broader scope of Y2K in general? Is the intent of the sysops to weed out the "nonpreparers?"

If it walks like a censor and talks like a censor...

Regards,

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

Mr. Decker, why don't you strike a principled blow against censorship by inviting al-d to participate in your forum. I'm sure he'd love to be asked.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), June 28, 1999.

Thank You.

-- Homeschooling Grandma (mlaymon@glenn-co.k12.ca.us), June 28, 1999.

Ken

I didn't see any indication of "censorship" in the above rules. The only indication of this is pulling posts with foul language and you of all folk realize that it doesn't take anymore effort to write a good post as apposed to one containing profanity. You are nit picking.

Alot of the "polly posters" are good sources of information, I have learned information from Paul, Anita, Marie, Hoff and while I don't consider Flint and yourself as "pollies" you provide a balance and that is very important even if some do not feel so. It is the attacks to the forum itself which are pointless, to many diverse individuals to be singleing out any prevailing thought pattern. If you know what I meme :o)

IMHO

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 28, 1999.

A troll is any poster that does not agree with the forum sysop(s) assesment of y2k problems. Good news will not be tolerated.

-- TBY2K Sysop (why2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

<>

So in other words, if 3 - 5 "regulars" (i.e. buddies of the sysops) don't like a thread (i.e. is not doomy enough) it might get deleted? Good policy folks! Kudos to you!

-- Big Brother (has@arrived.com), June 28, 1999.

Some brain cell said...

"How about defining "trolling?" Are nonrational posts by pessimists subject to the same censorship, or do the sysops plan to turn a blind eye to Andy and Co? What constitutes a regular and why three to five "votes"? Do "polly" regulars count? Why emphasize preparation when the forum originally had the broader scope of Y2K in general? Is the intent of the sysops to weed out the "nonpreparers?" If it walks like a censor and talks like a censor..."

Regards,

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

You're a freakin Troll moron, Doh!!!

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

Please do not delete postings on the basis of poster ID. Restrict all such decisions to content of postings only.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Sysops-

Thanks. I agree, delete al-d. I don't have enough time to try to sift out his mostly obnoxious posts.

I appreciate your efforts. Linda

-- newbiebutnodummy (Linda@home.com), June 28, 1999.

decker-king of the debunkers--yells censorship--again--read about-- 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 --not trolls--see?

-- decker (doubles@again.trollsupport), June 28, 1999.

The tag line about the forum on Ed Yourdon's home page was wide open invitation. Has it changed? Is this now a pure survivalist forum? In my opinion, the most important issue is what actually will happen after the rollover. Of course, the sysops may choose to delete that debate as irrelevant. If the sysops think meltdown is a "given" and want a board dedicated to survivilism... just put a sign on the chapel. "GI's Only... no one else allowed."

Regards,

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

Mr. Decker said

The tag line about the forum on Ed Yourdon's home page was wide open invitation. Has it changed? Is this now a pure survivalist forum? In my opinion, the most important issue is what actually will happen after the rollover.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

A pure survivalist forum??? Get a grip Ken. Everyone is a survivalist. We have to live. I see nothing in the above suggesting that this is a "pure survivalist forum". You have mentioned a capacity for reading as well as writing. The trouble is the page you are reading from is not in my book. Where does the rules even remotely consern survivalist tendencies. While some have the capacity to understand computers and the remediation of them, some have an idea of what real survival means.

In my capacity as maintainer of a Archive in this forum there has been little need for having a "survival category". The posters are just not there. I know the differance in the need to survive anything and being able to live when local utilities are disrupted or there are shortages of basic needs.

Ken this may be strange for you to imagine but you have posted the most "survivalist" post I have seen in my tenure here. The one on defending a home (or lack there of) from sniper attacks. You may not realize this but that post went to Elists of all types. You have contributed one of the most "Doomer" posts on Y2K.

funny isn't it?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 28, 1999.

Amazable! Isn't it Brian?

Decker thinks he's so "smooth" and subtle... except when he's not. I remember that first post too. What a shocker!

Notice too how he "subltly" defends trolls while attacking survivalists. Boy, is that one just "obvious?" (Insert Decker chortle here).

Remember what ass-u-m-ing does deck.

Diane

(Humm. Now where was that Decker Classic sniper post? It really need to re-surface. Kevin... oh, Kevin).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

Sorry, Brian, I disagree. "We" are not all survivalists. There have been many brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. They placed honor and duty above self preservation. They had a 'will to live' like all of us. Many left behind spouses and children. Why?

Because for them, something was worth more than saving their own backside. We don't HAVE to live, Brian, and we surely will not live very long. One good bet is anyone reading this post will be dead in 2100.

In my opinion, HOW we live is more important than how LONG we live. I'd rather die saving the Republic than spend a lifetime under the heel of tyranny... or in the rubble of anarchy.

If I remember correctly, you are a Canadian. As such, you may not understand my feelings about America... or more importantly, the idea of America. The Republic is more important than one individual life. The fact that men and women feel this way about America has kept us free for over two centuries. When enough people start worry only about themselves, our Republic is in deep trouble.

For me, survivalist and patriot are close to mutually exclusive... at least how I define the terms. The survivalist focuses on his or her personal well being... or that of a small community. A patriot focuses on the commonweal... the nation.

My post about the folly of fixed defense need not have been written. Better military minds have written the same words. I just translated the concept into Y2K. My point was NOT to create a survival primer, but to point out the folly of "survivalism" in the absence of the rule of law, of a greater society. The idea of America will not exist in a post-Apocalyptic world. It will be the feudalism. A might is right world.

Regards,

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

Dianne (MBA),

I have more experience with snipers and small unit tactics than with "Yanni" and the healing power of crystals. While I know rational thought strains your new age mind, try this. It's impossible to defend a fixed position, even with Feng Shui. When a well-armed, motivated aggressor force wants to take your Y2K supplies, a cup of warm chamomille tea will not soothe them into leaving. Quoting Kahlil Gibran will force even the most merciful of raiders shoot you.

Pray, meditate, project astrally, become one with the Gaia... whatever it is you do, Dianne. Ask the Great Spirit to save us from a post-Apocalyptic world. This way you'll be free to pursue your alternative though patterns without the messy business of reality.

Regards,

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

Mr. Decker

You are right I am a Canadian and this is an international forum. The use on the word "survivalist" has meant differant things to you and I.

Not many folk have ever had the pleasure of having to literally "survive" and take actions that will mean life or death in an uncomprimising position. And I do not mean agianst a man with a gun I mean agianst dieing prematurely against the natural enviorment and the situation that you are presented with at the time.

In my pocket Oxford dictionary there isn't even a word for survivalist.

And survive: "outlive, be still alive or existent"

Sounds like a primal human condition.

As to defending a country, the Excited States has not been invaded (continental) for many generations. I respect your commitment to your country and its founding values. But I do beleive that this is a little OT for this thread. It would make an interesting thread in its own right possibly. The idea of the rule of law has interesting possibilities for discussions. The rule of law for man or the rule of law for nature. One is derived from infinite evolution and one is a construct to organize the affairs of man and society. They are not the same yet the understanding of the former will lead to the implimentation of the latter in a wise social structure.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 28, 1999.

*ahem*

Question for the moderators and other forum participants:

I feel that I owe the Forum an apology for violating the implicit policy against posting unauthorized personal data. No matter that finding that "prayer" posting by al-d was a trivial task for Alta Vista; I have a sense that my re-posting it to the Forum was bad manners at best, and perhaps more serious. It smacked of retaliation and punishment, which was not really my intent. If I violated the canons, I will apologize to the Forum at large.

For me, TB2K has been a haven of interesting and informative discussion in the wild and woolly world of the Net (just compare to c.s.y2k - *sheesh*); your comments are welcomed.

Even yours, Mr. Decker. Man oh man, who rattled your cage this morning?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 28, 1999.

As one of the mod squad, and re-reading the content at the top of this thread, I have yet to read anything in the posts that doesn't square with the intent. Most of the guidelines are recommendations.

As to who deletes, the sysop does, aided by those of us on the squad. Simple. That's the nature of wielding appropriate authority, which Ed Yourdon delegated, as was his right and responsibility. Everyone is welcome to post within these guidelines. Also simple. If it is disagreeable, other forums abound across the Net.

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

Indeed, what did rattle the Deck today?

"..When enough people start worry only about themselves, our Republic big-@ss ponzi scheme is in deep trouble. [snip] A patriot focuses on the commonweal... the nationfractional reserve system."

[snip]

to Diane..."While I know rational thought strains your new age mind, try this. This way you'll be free to pursue your alternative though patterns without the messy business of reality."

No wonder you're still single, Deck.

You could at least cough up some of that ABA money here to help with the disc space your malicious agenda consumes.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

Ah, our jackboots come into the light. Big Dodger and Dianne Squire, MBA. Who else is on the "home team?" No "heretics," I presume. (laughter)

Not too much of a stretch, is it, BD? I imagine the robes of SysOp fit nicely on you. Perhaps Dianne can tell you about your past lives? I can imagine you have worn the robes before... extracting confessions during the Inquisition perhaps? Keeping the common folk from the Scriptures while peddling indulgences? Playing the politics of imperialism, all in the name of the Holy Church?

I recognize you now, Brother Russell, with your sincere eyes and soft hands. Enjoy your church, BD... I just hope Dante was right.

On to lighter work... Lisa. Rattled? Hardly. I just hope you take a moment to thank the men and women who served so you could prattle on about how terrible America is. Like a spoiled child, you treat poorly the freedoms you never had to earn.

Of course, here I am talking about freedom in a private club. Close the windows, folks, and keep out the light.

Regards,

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

So.. "Like a spoiled child, you treat poorly the freedoms you never had to earn."

And like a spoiled child caught with hand in cookie jar, you deflect.. attention away from what you're saying and doing.

The sooner you're honest about your true motivation here (and how the hell you got hooked up with RJ), the sooner "light" work like me will resist cheap shots.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker - you just went to the top of my Christmas Card list with this one.

**************On to lighter work... Lisa. Rattled? Hardly. I just hope you take a moment to thank the men and women who served so you could prattle on about how terrible America is. Like a spoiled child, you treat poorly the freedoms you never had to earn. *****

thank you

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 28, 1999.

I can imagine you have worn the robes before... extracting confessions during the Inquisition perhaps? Keeping the common folk from the Scriptures while peddling indulgences? Playing the politics of imperialism, all in the name of the Holy Church?

I recognize you now, Brother Russell, with your sincere eyes and soft hands. Enjoy your church, BD... I just hope Dante was right.

Mr. Decker

You do seem to be rattled. I can tell as you move from intellectual discourse to the emotional meaningless crap such as you displayed above. You are better than that and this is a sign of you at your worst. You should have gone for the rule of law rather than the rule of the scripture. You would have been in fine form I believe.

It has been well over twenty years since reading the Divine Comedy and if I remember right Satan was frozen in ice in the depths of hell. Surely a sign of an inflexible nature than will surely condem some folks. Lessons to be learned on both sides of the situation.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 28, 1999.

Deck... thats Diane... with one n thanks.

(Boy you must be having a bad no hair day like Dieter, too).

Since you clearly dont want to understand energy of the non- physical variety, or true power... Ill simply refer you a PBS TV special Bill Moyers did a few years back... "Healing and The Mind."

http:// shop.pbs.org/WgeNTbPa05/products/A1130/

BILL MOYERS: HEALING AND THE MIND

Today, modern science is confirming the wisdom of ancient medical science that told us our minds and bodies are one. In this eye-opening and insightful series, Bill Moyers talks with physicians, scientists, therapists and patients -- people who are taking a new look at the meaning of sickness and health. How do emotions translate into chemicals in our bodies? How do thoughts and feelings influence health? How can we work with our bodies to encourage healing? In this incredible series, you'll also explore the meaning of "Chi," the life force that is at the root of all Chinese medicine and examine two therapies that involve neither drugs nor surgery.

Titles are: "The Mystery of Chi," "The Mind Body Connection," "Healing From Within," "The Art of Healing," and "Wounded Healers."
###

Watch the "The Mystery of Chi" and the Qigong master in the park in China. (Then snicker if your dare).

Now... Deckers first post... for comparison.

Raiding your local Y2K survivalist

...To begin, I served in the U.S. military, active and reserve. In addition to "seeing the world," I had the opportunity to learn small unit tactics, infantry weapons and other skills well-suited for our frequent "police actions." Given this delightful experience, I thought a bit about a favorite Y2K doomsayer fantasy--survival in a post- apocalyptic America. ... Decker continues...

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

Nuff said.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

LIsteN To aLL OF thE IdiOT BUnGhoLES!!!!!! cRYIng Are THeY!!!!! ceNSorSHiP thIs!!!!! CEnsoRSHip thAT!!!!! whaT foOLIsH HYenAS!!!!! INfiDeLS!!!!!! piCKinG At the EYe sOCKeT BUzzARDs!!!!!!

wHY CrY Do thEY?????? diETer CAnnOT SEE iT!!!!!! HuH???? whAT????? DOEs NOT thE Y of thE TWo KaY prO PosT HERe?????? doES nOt thE paUL DavIS PosT WIthOUT DEletiONS?????? poST NoT DOeS MeeSToR DEckER?????? weLL?????? haVE nOT THe maNY poLLy waNNa CRacKYA Had FReedOM Of expOsURe heRE??????? wELL????? yEs???? haS Not thE PolLY poINT Of viEW Had FAir eXPOsuRE HerE??????? oF COurSE!!!!! doES It nOT CONtiNUE??????? wEll??????? IDIot WIndbaG REmorAS!!!!!! CRyiNG JacKAL diLLwicKS!!!!!!

"""""buT YoU HAve SIlenCEd ThE oNE SIngLE SOlitaRY VOicE oF THe deLUSIOnaL Al-denTE""""!!!!!!!

wAS hE NoT he WHo wAS WHiniNG Of THe UtmosT????? hE Who hAS Of tHE ofF TOpIC foOLIsH DIsruPTIonS ONly?????? haS THaT ANy THinGS To dO WIth YOur idiOTIc CEnsORShiP WhinInG JAckASSelrY????? shUT Up SHut uP ShUt Up!!!!!! IDiotS!!!!!!

haS NoT mEEstOR DEckER DonE MorE HArM To hiS OwN CREDibiLitY On thIS THreAD THAn CouLD THe hyENA ANdY In teN MIllIOn YEArS??????

YeS!!!!!!

silEncE FOolISH CHildREN!!!!!! sILencE NoW Of tHiS VERy MOmeNT!!!!!!

i hATe yoU!!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), June 28, 1999.

Dieter... I LOVE You!

;-D

Latte time... ta, ta.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

"A patriot focuses on the commonweal... the nation."

So how long were you in the Marines, Dreck? You're 36, right? So unless you enlisted when you were 16 and just now retired, you didn't even put in your 20. So did you get your college hours from the University of Maryland while you were in the service and then get out? Just curious about how patriotic you really are.

-- Squirrel (nut@acorn.com.), June 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Again you reveal your basic non-understanding of the technical issues involved with Y2K. (or do you perhaps understand and choose to disregard?)

You say, "In my opinion, the most important issue is what actually will happen after the rollover." I would refer you to the work of the MITRE Corporation on behalf of the US government. They have drawn a picture (and I do mean a picture. It is a line graph.) that depicts the distribution of technical failures over time. That picture makes it quite plain that the rollover is simply a minor event in the overall scheme of Y2K and that its main distinction is to mark a point in time at which the basic lie that we've told most of our computers ("All of Time consists of 100 years") will result in all future date calculations to be suspect, if not incorrect. You clearly do not understand or you ignore that fact that the failures have already begun and are having detrimental effect even now.

What is far more distressing is that you attempt to use your (purported) military service as leverage to silence the expression of opinion. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU?" Your implication that only those who have gone in harm's way on behalf of America have a right to criticize her is the ultimate insult to the very men and women that you attempt to identify with! I don't know where you may have "served", but it seems clear that basic civics was not among your training. Just why the Hell do you suppose all of those men and women were there in the first place? I speak for myself and those who of my certain knowledge have gone there on behalf of America and tell you that the very reason that we did so was so that Lisa (and "People like her") could freely criticize America. Just what rock do you live under anyway?

Now as one of those men and women who have served, I'd like to "prattle" a little about, ". . .how terrible America is".

The republic that came into being some two centuries ago has not in fact existed for some time. A republic allows all citizens certain basic rights as defined in its core documents. Ours are the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The distinction between a democracy and a republic is simply those basic rights that may not be taken away by majority vote.

It is clearly a national disgrace that the PTB have shat upon those documents and hold them in utter disregard. The Executive does so by conducting searches and siezures in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and the Judiciary upholds them. The Executive does so by the mechanism of "Executive Orders" which clearly put the President (no matter which one) in the position of making law. The Legislative does so by passing laws with full knowledge that they are unconstitutional but that by the time they are held so (perhaps) by a clogged judiciary, their purpose will have been accomplished. The Judiciary does so by interpreting the core documents as will suit political expediency from time to time. (Do you really believe that you have a right to a, "speedy and public trial"? If you do, I'd suggest a little legal research.)

The rule of law has been terribly perverted from the intention of the Founding Fathers as documents such as the Federalist Papers clearly show. The law currently means whatever the hell the PTB wants it to mean!

Your tactics and premises here belie your patriotic stance and place you squarely in the camp of the PTB. Your defense of and attempt to justify the current banking system is clearly at odds with that of those same Founding Fathers (or at least one of them) as exemplified by the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said:

"I sincerely believe . . . that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

--Thomas Jefferson, Letter, 28 May 1816, to political philosopher and senator John Taylor, whose book An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814) had argued against the harmful effects of finance capitalism.

Your continued ad hominem mud-slinging makes clearer with each instance that you have no valid arguments and are not interested in anything save your own objectives.

I would suggest that if there are in fact any comrades of yours underneath small white markers that you visit them and commune with their spirits. Oh, yeah, apologize to them too. Your words disgrace their sacrifice.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 28, 1999.

Well, Squirrel, when you stop by the house we can swap stories. As you might understand, I prefer not to discuss my personal life and history, including my military service, on this forum.

And Hardliner... the man who writes with the soul of a petty bureaucrat lecturing me. Let me refer you to the Gartner Group who predicted 25% of all Y2K-related problems would happen this year. So far, it's been a rather dull event, I must say. "Any day now," say the pessimists. How many days will pass until you acknowledge Y2K problems will not result in an economic and social meltdown?

And your grasp of the technical details of Y2K... yikes! "Most" computers? What planet are you living on? Most of the computers that are not Y2K compliant are as useful as boat anchors. How often does your firm swap out hardware? It's every 18 months where I work... and every PC has been verified Y2K ready. Suppliers? All of ours on record as Y2K ready. Banks? Every major regional bank that I deal with is Y2K ready. Power. The major companies in the Mid Atlantic have all weighed in as Y2K ready. Where is this negative effect, Hardliner?

If everything is interconnected (as goes the pessimist mantra) where are all these domino effect failures? The economy bursting along fast enough to raise inflation fears.

And listen, "H," if listen wants to run down the country, she can exercise the right. And I will exercise mine by reminding her she only has the right because someone else put their ass on the line.

Unpuff yourself, Hardliner, and save the parade ground exercise for someone else. Most of the grunts who served could not quote Jefferson. Hell, most couldn't tell you much about the Constitution. They served because it was just the right thing to do. A generation of good soldiers took a raft of crap from the Lisa's of the world... and they heard the same quasi-patriotic double talk you spout. No one was there so Lisa could prattle on about how lousy this country is. They were there because they grew with the knowledge that every good thing comes with a price.

America's not perfect. It never was. The America you admire was a slave-holding nation. The Republic you get so misty about bought and sold human beings... just like good old Thomas Jefferson. And it seems he enjoyed all of the benefits of slave ownership. They were just men, Hardliner, men with an idea far better than they were. And we have grown as a nation. We have grown beyond genocide of the native peoples. We have grown beyond Jim Crow laws and lynchings.

And we have a lot of growing left to do.

Regards,

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

Drecker said to Hardliner --

"The Republic you get so misty about bought and sold human beings... just like good old Thomas Jefferson. And it seems he enjoyed all of the benefits of slave ownership. They were just men, Hardliner, men with an idea far better than they were. And we have grown as a nation. We have grown beyond genocide of the native peoples..."

And Drecker said to Ms. I pm BFI [http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/965/1/2/1/1.html] --

"...Even now, I polish off a book or two a week... depending on my hectic schedule. At mid-career (I'm 36), I want to segue into university teaching and writing... combined with the life a gentleman farmer. Too Jeffersonian? Providing the world (as we know it) does not end, it seems a fair enough plan. Et vous?"

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 28, 1999.

Ms. Diane:

I note that you have risen from the role of "Information Navigator", which role you filled most admirably, to the role of "Supreme Court Justice of the Tribunal". I do not know just who all are members of this board, but I most assuredly do not envy any of you your self inflicted tasks. I am reasonably certain that you are all worthy of the trust bestowed upon you, and that you will not abuse the powers of your office to pursue your own agenda.

The gavel of justice is now held in the Velvet Gloved hands of the "Steel Magnolia".

I do not care for sensorship, within the context of the purest definition of that word, and of all that it implies. I do however feel fairly certain that we will be as admirably served by you in this new position as we have been in the recent past in your capacity as Information Navigator.

I can live with it for the nonce, however I do reserve the right to plead for mercy on special occasions, as you and I both know that I am terrible at compliance with rules and strictures. And, I have a truly terrible record here in this forum.

I will attempt to restrain myself to just an occasion expletive, for emphasis only, and only in the context of a structured sentence setting, and not solely as a stand alone statement.

Be gentle with me, Oh "Princess of Sweetness and Light".

(that's blatant sucking up in case you missed it)

BTW: Congratulations.

-- sweetolebob (buffgun@hotmail.com), June 29, 1999.

Mister Decker,

Wherever you may have served, it is clear that you are unaware of the special meaning the term "mister" has for Marines. You haven't a clue, do you?

For your edification, I am not now, nor have I ever been a bureaucrat, petty or otherwise. As for my soul, tell us what you know of souls, Mister Decker! I damn well will lecture you, as it is quite apparent that you hold the principles of America in contempt. Have you no shame?

It is also clear that you are an ignorant and blind Mister, as well. Your Gartner Group reference simply concurs and validates that of the MITRE Corporation! You foolish man! What appears as dull to you does so only because you have not the education to be aware of it and you do not perceive what is going on under your very nose! Whatever the "pessimists" may say, those who understand even a small part of the construction of the technology say, "Every day"! As for acknowledgment of a "safe passage" through the Y2K crisis, I and all others will acknowledge such if it occurs, but don't hold your breath. I have never asserted that any "meltdown" will happen, but I clearly understand that the potential for such exists. Our civilization is clearly in "deep shit", Mister Decker, and you are either too ignorant to know it or too dishonest to admit it.

What I said was that we have told the same lie to "most" computers. That your reply was to the capability of the computers themselves rather than to the software which is the problem and flat out incorrect at that, only further reveals your ignorance. I have been fixing and programming computers since they had motors and belts and gears and pulleys in them and I assure you that every last one of them was "Y2K compliant". The instructions that we have given them are in part, a lie! Time consists of more than 100 years! You simply do not know what you are talking about. All your patent reassurances of "Y2K Ready" suppliers and power companies and banks will be only so much incorrect ancient history if enough systems that are "mission critical" to our civilization go belly up! Things are not looking very good, Mister Decker, and regardless of how they may eventually turn out, you are simply wrong in your beliefs about the problem.

If you are not aware of the interconnection of our technology, it's far too late for you to get educated now. Your words will not alter the objective reality (nor will mine) that our technology is interconnected. It is not only interconnected in the ways that we know about, but it is interconnected in ways that we haven't realized yet. If those dominoes begin to fall however, we'll all find out what all of those ways are.

As far as Lisa "running down the country", it seems very likely to me that what set you onto her was her comment about your marital status (cheap shot though she admitted it to be) and not her repetition of what has been said so many times here before. Or perhaps it was her allusion to the ABA. My vote is for the former. (Pure ad hominem, Mister Decker! how do you like it?)

I make no apology for my education or for my knowledge of Jefferson's thought or the Constitution. That you were not fortunate enough to know and serve with others who had similar background is your loss, not mine. Why don't you mosey on over to the thread about General Krulak and learn about some of the things that Marines are taught and believe in and fight for. While you're at it, be sure to read his father's words from fifty years ago. It's not a new idea in the Corps.

Soldiers of all generations have taken, "a raft of crap" from the society that they served, but the fact that you picked on Lisa speaks to your personality. Women with the intellect that she obviously has are rare, Mister Decker and it is quite apparent that you don't pack the gear to handle a woman like her. Do her brains and courage to speak her mind intimidate you? Just what is it that makes you think that what you have to say is more valuable than what she has to say? I have to agree with her, Mister Decker, it's obvious why you're still single (or in the event that you are not, it's just as obvious that your mate is deserving of great pity).

You are again incorrect, Mister Decker in your characterization of my words as, "quasi-patriotic double talk". It's the real deal, Bub, and you can take that to the bank.

If it's double talk that you want though, you need only look to your own words when you say, "No one was there so Lisa could prattle on about how lousy this country is. They were there because they (grew with the knowledge ??) (knew ?)that every good thing comes with a price." One price was that of allowing all men to "prattle on", not just the ones that agreed with you. That is part of the price of freedom of speech. Another price is the price in blood, sweat and tears that soldiers and sailors pay so that everyone else can pay some of the other prices and so that everyone else can enjoy all of the freedoms that they fought for. No wonder Andy calls you "Double" Decker!

I never said that America was perfect, and I certainly never advocated slave holding or "got misty" about the Republic. It seems however, that you have taken extreme exception to Lisa's comments to the effect that America is not perfect. Double talk, Mister Decker! We have indeed, "grown beyond genocide of the native peoples". We damned near finished the job too! We have grown to the point that we commit genocide on small men with slanted eyes and allow it on men with black skin in faraway lands. Oh yes, we have grown! We are the only nation on earth to have incinerated cities, Mister Decker, so don't come off with any holier than thou horseshit about how we've grown! Jim Crow? Been to Mississippi lately? How about the Alabama Gulf Coast? How many White faces have you seen in our prisons, Mister Decker?

You know what, Mister Decker? You're just plain full of shit!.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 29, 1999.

For Decker...

Re: Marine Corps Commandant Gen.Charles Krulak

What's In Wilmington Delaware? (4-Star Marine Corps General "Retires")

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 0010Kr

Hardliner...

Sitting up straight in my computer chair... saluting.

Sweetolebob...

Thanks... I think.

Just one of *many* Moderators trying to make this puppy work. Real pain in the ASCII some daze. None of us cares for... censorship. Sensitivity... however... is another issue.

A few of us have publicly stated our MoD Squad positions... and been flamed... as expected. Most prefer to remain quietly themselves. Others get stuck with taking out the trash. Kitchen scraps... ya know? Not particularly compostable. Or edible.

C'est la vie.

When you get down through all the debating... it returns... full circle... back to Y2K... and getting ready for the great unknown. Or not.

Choices, choices.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

I can't understand why Decker doesn't go and found his own forum. After all, that's how this country was started--by men (and women) who didn't agree with the way things were run and sailed off to found their own country.

There are several possibilities why Decker doesn't go and start his own forum. One possibility is because he just likes to argue. Two is because he subscribes to the "meme" belief (very pertinent since he penned his diatribe on Y2K pessimism as a religion) and wants to save us from ourselves. There are others, but I believe that he simply thinks he knows better than anyone else, as do most misogynists.

Quentin Crisp said: "To know all is not to forgive all. It is to despise everybody." It applies equally well to those who THINK they know all; certainly Decker seems to despise everybody except sycophants.

Any thriving entity has operating policies. The military, which Decker professes to hold in such high esteem, has more operating policies than anything except the federal civil service. Certainly nonprofits operate under all sorts of guidelines, especially if they are fully or partially federally-funded. Why should this forum be any different? There is a moderating team; it is their responsibility to formulate appropriate policies; end of story.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 29, 1999.

Ummmm....hey guys?

Maybe it's just me, but I read Lisa's comment as an insult to BANKING, rather than the USA, using the "Quote your opponent, and change a few of his words to make him appear foolish, or to give him an agenda" technique that many folks here use.

Go back and read it with that in mind.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

....that and, of course, an insult to Mr. Decker's motives for posting.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Yes, I was referring to banking, which mEeStoR Decker obviously holds as the heart, soul and guts of the Commonweal of the Nation.....

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 29, 1999.

Hardliner,

Ah, a jarhead. Many a Marine contributed to my poker fund, but most had a better sense of humor and a more refined grasp of profanity than you. Even your insults are boring.... How about something more creative?

Let's say we cut to the chase, clerk. Why don't you pick a nice round number and let's make a wager on the outcome of Y2K? Put your money where your tireless mouth is. You are simply wrong about Y2K, Hardliner, and you will find out in the months after January 1st. The power will flow, communications will work and the banks will not fail. It's simple. If you are so confident in your opinion, let's make a gentleman's wager. Call it a performance bond. If the economy and society performs to an agreed upon measure, I'll take your money. If not, you'll take mine. What say? Nothing spends quite as well as a Marine's money. (laughter)

To borrow from TR, better men than you have been carved from bananas, Hardliner. Not only that, you have a lousy grasp of history, even less knowledge of science and your doom goggles firmly strapped into place. If you don't think America is a better place now than 200 years ago, you are a fool.

Put up or shut up.

Regards,

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

A wager? Darn! After all of that, I was hoping for an old fashioned duel!! :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), June 29, 1999.

I respect your right to disagree with my views, however, please do so in a civil manner. Personal attacks simply waste the time of readers who actually want to engage in discourse.

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

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

-- Z (z@z.zzzzzzz), June 29, 1999.

Ahhh, yes. A bet will settle everything. How about fisticuffs? How about pistols at ten paces? Where can I buy tickets?

May I interject a clarification to inform the Kenchild of another historical misapprehension on his part? Said the increasingly flummoxed KCD, "We have grown beyond genocide of the native peoples." You haven't been keeping up. Corporations, with the tacit approval of our esteemed government are, to this day, trampling on the rights of our original populations. Wherever resources exist on the sovereign territory of Indians (in North America and elsewhere), we continue to violate agreements, cheat, dissemble and con then out of what is rightfully theirs. Nor are Canadians, Europeans and other Northern governments and their corporate masters without guilt. Indian societies are burdened with a disproportionately high rate of alchoholism, suicide and health problems, including shorter life-expectancy, than "white" society. While this may not be "bullet-to-the-brain" genocide, it's the next best (worst) thing. I communicate with Indians throughout North America and subscribe to two Native American newsletters. Should you wish to inform yourself, I might suggest "In the Abcence of the Sacred" by Jerry Manders.

I almost choked when I read this: "We have grown beyond Jim Crow laws and lynchings." Perhaps in a literal sense but, as one who grew up in a largely black midwestern metropolis, I can assure you from first-hand experience that just changing a law does not constitute changing a society---nor its prejudices nor its attitudes toward others who do not look like you. That it is better than it once was does not make it good.

Golly, a flag-waving, racist, economist---three strikes against you there, KC.

Sorry to see you losing your aplomb. You've been doing so well up until now. On the other hand, it's nice to see that you're almost human; I was beginning to have my doubts.

Hallyx

"Is there anything else you know absolutely nothing about?" --- Groucho Marx

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), June 29, 1999.

Offering Hardliner a "gentleman's wager" Decker?

And here I was under the impression that your aren't a gentleman. That you've demonstrated admirably.

It rather looks like you are also not a "gentle" man. Got an "agenda" man?

Oh well. Your responses here have certainly been "enlightening."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

This has devolved into verbal ping pong. I know the end of my patience is near when wispy Hallyx weighs in. Why don't the forum "priests" just post a "No DGI" sign. Let's get this over with. Give everyone who doesn't agree with you the bum's rush and welcome anyone who does... no matter how lunatic fringe their other beliefs.

The original intent of this thread was another censorship announcement from our pals Diane and BD (and the mystery team members). I stand opposed to this censorship... but make it clear this is a member's only club... and I will take my leave.

Fair enough?

Regards,

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

Boy... are you stuck on a "censorship meme" Decker!

Just like a little pit bull!

Have YOU been censored? NO. Have the "polly's" been censored? NO. Has Flint been censored? NO. Has Y2K Pro/Norm/Vinnie been censored? NO. Has Supper Polly a.k.a. Super Troll and various other names been censored? NO. Has Buddy been censored? NO.

For the flip side... has Andy been censored? NO. Has Ray been censored? NO. Etc. and et. al. ... NO.

The "only" one who got a recent delete was al-d because regular forum posters "voted" DELETE and because someone trashed his threads with HTML mess ups.

Get over it.

Sometimes, the potty trash gets taken out. Period. It's a thankless job. But somebody's gotta "do" it. Ed did, now others do.

'Nuff said... again.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Pardon me for asking, but where in the hell are you coming from Mr. Decker?

All of this ranting and raving because ONE idiotic fool was deleted for not heeding warnings to keep his delusions to a few threads?

Where have opposing views been silenced? Which Pollys have had their ideas banished from the board? How many times have you, or Paul Davis, or even Y2K Pro been censored?

Frankly, IMHO, all of your foaming at the mouth over the vast Doomer conspiracy to silence opposing viewpoints has made you look very foolish, most especially because it does not exist, as your freedom to endlessly complain about it amply demonstrates.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

A chink in the armor Mr. Decker? or would that be a tear in the sail cloth? A sailor...shoulda figured.

grab a nap, cup of java. refresh, revitalize and come on back.

(laughing with you - not agin you)

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 29, 1999.

Ah, les petits esprits mob together.

Mr. Decker originally asked:

How about defining "trolling?"

Are nonrational posts by pessimists subject to the same censorship, or do the sysops plan to turn a blind eye to Andy and Co?

What constitutes a regular and why three to five "votes"? Do "polly" regulars count?

Why emphasize preparation when the forum originally had the broader scope of Y2K in general? Is the intent of the sysops to weed out the "nonpreparers?"

Good questions, I think. Have they been answered, Diane? Big Dog?

Guess not.

These lines are for you, Hardliner:

While another with envious eyes / Rocks in the dark his unballasted thought / And runs it aground.

-- Another Smart Patriot (I love@USA.com), June 29, 1999.

Man, if Mutha's squirmin', I musta struck a nerve...

-- whoa (how@bout.that), June 29, 1999.

Ah, a jarhead. Yes, a Jarhead! You got that right at least! BTW, Mister Decker, great sentence structure. . . Many a Marine contributed to my poker fund, Yeah, we know. You told us before only last time it was your "Decker Fund". What's wrong, early Alzheimers? but most had a better sense of humor If you find anything humorous about the situation, you are indeed one sick puppy. and a more refined grasp of profanity than you. Do you actually think that you insult me by telling me that I can't cuss as well as someone you may have played poker with? Get a grip! Even your insults are boring....Yeah, we know. You told us that before too. Accuracy is my objective though, Mister Decker. Your "turn the arrow from its mark" techniques are getting pretty ineffective here lately. . . How about something more creative? You're just going to have to settle for accuracy.

Let's say we cut to the chase, clerk. What chase is that Mister Decker? Are you running from something? What do you think is chasing you? And since you brought it up, what do you have against clerks? I am not and have never been any variety of clerk, BTW, but I find it curious that an economist should hold clerks in such low esteem. . . Why don't you pick a nice round number How about zero, Mister Decker? That's as round a number as you'll find, or does not your education in basic science allow you the understanding that zero is not only a number but the number that allows the banking system that you seem to live for to even exist? and let's make a wager on the outcome of Y2K? In the first place, I never bet with people that I do not like, and Mister Decker, it should be quite evident at this point that I dislike you a great deal. In the second place, I don't make sucker bets. I know that the outcome of Y2K is not a certain or even very probable thing. The only certainty is that whatever happens will be a surprise and that many things will fail in ways that Robert Cook quite poetically describes as "weird and wonderful". The fact that you are so willing to bet on that outcome marks you as the extremist, not me. I simply admit that things could go either way and opine that they don't look at all good at this point in time. You, OTOH, insist that the outcome is a sure thing. I'm not interested in any bets. Put your money where your tireless mouth is. More chest-beating, Mister Decker? As for a "tireless mouth", why don't you tally up the words you have spewn into this forum since you were first conjured up and compare the total with those that I have presented since then? I suspect that you'll have a large lead on me, Mister Decker. You are simply wrong about Y2K, Hardliner, and you will find out in the months after January 1st. How do you hold that I am "wrong" when I have clearly told you that I don't know what will happen? You can't, but you do anyway. What logic! You are correct however, that we will all find out with the passage of time. BTW, don't wait until "New Year's Evil" to take your money out of the bank! The power will flow, Maybe, and maybe not. communications will work Maybe, and maybe not. and the banks will not fail. Maybe, and maybe not. It's simple. You are truly ignorant to believe that anything is simple here, Mister Decker. If you are so confident in your opinion, See the above reply, Mister Decker. let's make a gentleman's wager. You are incapable of such an act, for apparent reasons, and I make no claim to such status as would allow me to do such a thing, so it's not a practical suggestion. Call it a performance bond. Call it whatever you like. If the economy and society performs to an agreed upon measure, I'll take your money. You'd better pack a lunch if you intend to take my money. If not, you'll take mine. (LAUGHTER) What say? (MORE LAUGHTER) Nothing spends quite as well as a Marine's money. (laughter) What the hell kind of economist are you that you think Marines use a different kind of money? (Never mind, you've already answered that question)

To borrow from TR, better men than you have been carved from bananas, Hardliner. I'm gratified that you think so highly of me, Mister Decker. Try this one on. Better men than you have been flushed down a cathouse commode. Meaningful exchange, eh wot? Not only that, you have a lousy grasp of history, Do tell! even less knowledge of science Tell me 'bout the R-a-a-a-bits, Mister Decker? and your doom goggles firmly strapped into place. No "doom goggles" if you please, you've obviously got me confused with someone else. If you don't think America is a better place now than 200 years ago, you are a fool. I freely admit to being a fool in may ways, but what that may have to do with a belief that I never put forth escapes me. But, since you brought it up, it is clear that America is far better in some ways than when she started and far worse in others. Your dichotomies simply won't do, Mister Decker, we on this forum are people, not computers.

Put up or shut up. As I've made plain above, I've no intention of "putting up" and as for "shutting up", don't hold your breath.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 29, 1999.

There is an interesting and very important sociological phenomenon occurring between some of the owls and roosters responsible for national-level political or financial policy. It has already begun and will begin to harden as we approach 1 January. The owls ridicule even the rational roosters as the owls' fears of what panic may mean becomes more palpable. The more reasonable roosters become even more concerned as they see the owls' continuing disinformation about what is ground truth concerning levels of remediation/confidence in our systems working properly. This in turn makes the roosters (that is, the reasonable ones, not the wackos) dig in their heels, because their perceptions are that those who should be responsible are not being so. This is all to say that there will be much greater distrust and lack of cooperation at the highest policy levels unless a bridge can soon be found. Dr. Landes' approach is, I believe, correct. The owls' approach will not work for this crisis. It is all pervasive. A proper approach should be to encourage populations and entities to have some preparation just as they would buy insurance against an unlikely event. That doesn't mean it will happen, but it would calm fears among a great number of people in the US. [The hardening of boundaries between roosters and owls is the single greatest risk to clear and successful planning.]

Planning guide

-- ---- (owls@roosters.barnyard), June 29, 1999.

Well Mutha, if somebody is editing posts by adding verbiage I did not see those posts, though I do recall some squawking about it. I am not on the "team" of moderators, nor do I follow every single thread here.

If that is true, and it continues, I will squawk louder than anyone, if true (and I'll take your word that it is so) it is an abismal policy which needs to be halted. PRONTO!

All in all, this is a very open place, with lots of hot debate. I hope it remains so.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Mutha! Welcome back -- and here's something to make you feel right at home -- a post by your very own meme guru, Doc Paulie (who is neither a doctor nor a Paulie and runs the Polly War College known as Der Boonkah). Just so everyone can understand more clearly where you're coming from, who influences you, and what motivates you to post here.

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 24025072&P=Yes&TL=923846196

13-Apr-1999 13:37:52, 208.211.54.172 writes:

Oh, I get it. Memes. Right. My thinking is not my thinking; it is someone else's. But your thinking is your thinking. Those who don't agree with you are obviously under a dark spell, their minds influenced by a meme. Perhaps you can mate this meme theory with orgone therapy and achieve universal mental health. Good luck to you.

Lose the thinking deal, you aren't. Like ALL OF US, you are a composite of many memes. Appears you have what Flint has, the either/or meme in a "bad" way. I also detect some sexual hang-up meme(this is could be called the universal meme). I also detect a variation of the either/or meme, in the form of the good/evil meme. Man you do have issues now don't you? Welcome to the club!

Good news is, one can work on not being a good environment for the many destructive memes. You cannot see the good(memes) due to your prior good/evil meme but maybe by accessing your either/or meme you can deduce that good memes exist, fair enough? make sense in that there thinking of yours? great.

Remain an observer. This applies mentally as well. Trouble is most have never been beyond their memes, which they call their thinking. All the "problems" ya know Robert. When one has mental clarity there is no thinking, worrying, deciding, just options, how is that for a meme?

Further reading available in the cybermemosphere..

Why do Memes die? Things I am reading

Doc Paulie

(end cut & paste)

What a breath of fresh air. Well, I guess we can't help it. We're controlled by these memes, swooped right in, just like a dose of flu. It's not humane to blame us for soemthing we can't help. We're victims. Better leave us to it, you unmemed ones, you don't want to run the risk of being infected and becoming poor persecuted meme-infected victims like us.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Sorry, it just came busting out. Them memes are mighty powerful little fellahs, ain't they? Is there a pill for this? Should I stock up on them for Y2K?

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 29, 1999.

Mutha,

Just because you asked... sorta... go check out the thread you referred to...

NOTICE: To Forum Posters Re: Trolls and Moderation

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

See the first two answers directly below the initial post?

Rember you manners and use your own handle
A gentle reminder, Kev! ;)
-- Time Bomb 2000 Sysop (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), June 08, 1999. < br>

Those two posts represent... STEALING one of the Sysop(s) handles... and as weve discussed in the Moderators Forum... were made by... Super Polly a.k.a. Rodeo Rosie.

Not cool... by any stretch!

Now put that in perspective with the avowed statements to take down this TimeBomb 2000 Forum... stay tuned... a team is searching for those specific links on De Bunky. (The rantings by cpr about his FBI files are classics, BTW).

As Chuck the Night Driver, another public Moderator once said... this thing didnt come with training wheels.

As a group were ALL--Moderators and Sysop(s)--trying different ways to encourage the trolls to leave. A very few [] bracket warning/ comments were made quite early on, then stopped. We decided on a different strategy... letting you hang yourselves... by your own words.

Decker has illustrated this nicely.

Truth... will set you free. Us too... we hope. Then its back to Y2K.

Diane

(P.S. Dealing with your continuing dribble is SUCH as waste of time... Y2K is whats important, IMHO. You and your continuing jeers, trolling and heckles are just fly droppings on the global Y2K scene. *Sigh*).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

who,s afraid, of the wicked witch-&-her brother the snitch.

-- al-d. (CATT@ZIANET.COM), June 29, 1999.

Mutha Nachu,

As I've recommended, several times, and as is openly linked at the bottom of the top level web-page, read Phil Greenspuns book on how this MIT Forum software works, that Ed choose to start the forum on. And do recommend that Super Polly read it too. Then he might not assume.

Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing

http://photo.net/wtr/thebook

Its an open book. Do your homework.

Hint: Read Chapter Three Mutha... its not a date bound issue.

Diane

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

Hardliner

You criticized Mr. Decker:

Again you reveal your basic non-understanding of the technical issues involved with Y2K. (or do you perhaps understand and choose to disregard?)

You say, "In my opinion, the most important issue is what actually will happen after the rollover." I would refer you to the work of the MITRE Corporation on behalf of the US government. They have drawn a picture (and I do mean a picture. It is a line graph.) that depicts the distribution of technical failures over time. That picture makes it quite plain that the rollover is simply a minor event in the overall scheme of Y2K and that its main distinction is to mark a point in time at which the basic lie that we've told most of our computers ("All of Time consists of 100 years") will result in all future date calculations to be suspect, if not incorrect. You clearly do not understand or you ignore that fact that the failures have already begun and are having detrimental effect even now.

Hardliner, this is spoken like a true Polly. I once was an 8 - 9 and am now a 3 - 4 precisely because of these facts. Some leading y2k commentators stated that we would have major problems by now that would reveal just how terrible y2k would be. Gary North was obviously the worst offender, but Michael Hyatt and Ed Yourdon also hinted that the problem would be much too big to coverup by now.

In his August 1998 essay "Oh Captain, My Captain", Yourdon wrote:

O Captain, my Captain, I hope someone has told you that the problems will begin long before the strike of midnight. They have already begun: 37% of the companies in this country have already experienced Y2K problems. On January 1, 1999 they will experience many more, and it will be much more difficult to sweep them under the rug. On April 1, 1999 we will all watch anxiously as the governments of Japan and Canada, as well as the state of New York, begin their 1999-2000 fiscal year; at that moment, the speculation about Y2K will end, and we will have tangible evidence of whether governmental computer systems work or not. On April 6, the government of England and many of the private-sector companies begin their fiscal year;

Sure, we have seen some y2k related failures--the Van Nuys sewage spill being the most extreme example. But these failures have been relatively few and far between. Certainly there are many failures going on behind corporate and governmental closed doors--but they are being handled by their IT departments. I have yet to see convincing evidence that y2k errors after 2000 will so overwhelm programmers that they will cause major prolonged disruptions.

In fact, I am surprised you jumped all over Mr. Decker for saying the most important issue is what will happen after rollover. I suspect that at least 90% of those who post to this forum share those concerns. I believe the concerns over embedded systems have been way overhyped, but to the extent that there will be problems I would expect them to occur on or soon after rollover.

Last year many were chanting "Wait until January 1999! That will prove y2k is TEOTWAWKI, you'll see!" January came and went and almost nothing happened. In February the airline reservation system started processing bookings into the year 2000 and some superstores such as K-Mart went into their fiscal year without going belly up. April 1st was supposed to be the "day of reckoning" with New York State and Canada going into fiscal 2000 and April 9th was supposed to cause some problems because it was the 99th day of year '99. The results? A big yawn. As a result of all these non-events most posters here have pushed back the time when they expect to see major problems. Many do not expect large problems until very late this year or early next year.

Hardliner, Mr. Decker's statement of concern that the major problems won't happen until next year falls well within the norm for posters here. The fact that you went after him so viciously for such an innocuous statement proves in my book that you are hardly suitable to render a fair judgment on him or his motives. Just as Mr. Decker's criticism of Mr. Cooke caused you to question Mr. Decker's motives and goodwill, your unwarranted attack on Mr. Decker causes me to question your objectivity (at least in regards to Mr. Decker.)

Indeed, I believe my opinion is further bolstered by your outrage over Mr. Decker's critique of Lisa's post. Mr. Decker wrote:

On to lighter work... Lisa. Rattled? Hardly. I just hope you take a moment to thank the men and women who served so you could prattle on about how terrible America is. Like a spoiled child, you treat poorly the freedoms you never had to earn.

To which you replied:

What is far more distressing is that you attempt to use your (purported)military service as leverage to silence the expression of opinion. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU?" Your implication that only those who have gone in harm's way on behalf of America have a right to criticize her is the ultimate insult to the very men and women that you attempt to identify with!

Sorry, Hardliner, but I think you are off-base here. It does not appear to me that Mr. Decker is using his military service as a tool to silence Lisa and your outrage is over-the-top here. Mr. Decker never said, as far as I can see, that Lisa should shut up and that she has no right to criticize the country since she didn't serve in the military. Mr. Decker was using his military experience as a leverage to gain debating points and reader sympathy with his view that Lisa was an ingrate and a misfit for knocking her country. Mr. Decker has every right to criticize Lisa on those grounds. He has every right to question her honor and integrity. Whether or not he has the moral right to use his military service as a crutch to score debating points in his feud with Lisa is a legitimate question for you to raise. But for you to claim that Mr. Decker is using his military service to silence Lisa is way out of line. There is a HUGE difference between criticizing an opponent and questioning her motives and silencing an opponent.

A lawyer using economic leverage to SLAPP a corporation's critic with an unfounded libel suit to shut him up is an example of silencing an opponent.

A SYSOP deleting a post for ideological reasons would be another example of silencing an opponent. (This statement should not be taken as a backhanded slap at the moderators of this forum. I do not mean to imply that they have silenced their opponents. This statement should only be taken at face value and nothing should be read into it.)

Mr. Decker's criticism of Lisa was not an example of silencing an opponent. To even claim that Mr. Decker was attempting to silence her is a bit of a stretch.

You of all people, Hardliner, should know the difference. I have rarely encountered anyone with a more masterful grasp of the English language. Your ability to deconstruct a message you want to criticize is breathtaking. It would not be such a big deal if a lesser poster were to misuse the word "silence". But you know better, Hardliner. You have parsed every word of Mr. Decker's posts looking for tiny flaws which you could blow out of proportion to make him look like a villain. It seems hard for me to believe that your misuse of the word "silence" was an innocent mistake. I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, if you had not first criticized Mr. Decker for taking a position that is mainstream for this board. Since you first chose to attack him for worrying about the problems we face on rollover I SUSPECT that your misuse of the word "silence" was intended as part of a campaign to smear Mr. Decker.

Cheap trick, Hardliner. Just as cheap as Mr. Decker's attempt to use his military service to gain debating points in his argument with Lisa.

I am hardly saying that Mr. Decker is perfect or above criticism. Certainly his insinuation that Big Dog would have felt at home during the Inquisition was a cheap shot and worthy of criticism. But your sense of righteous indigantion seems way out of proportion to Mr. Decker's offenses.

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), June 30, 1999.

another de bunky rushes in

-- coming (out@debunker.woodwork), June 30, 1999.

Well well well.

What did I tell you all about double-duplicitous-decker the ABA-paid banking SHILL from day one...

If he was ever a Marine I'm a Dutchman...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 30, 1999.

Dutchman? You wish.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 30, 1999.

Robin,

Here we go again. . .

You said, "Hardliner. . .You criticized Mr. Decker. . ." That is absolutely correct and I stand by every word.

Then you said, "Hardliner, this is spoken like a true Polly." Just so that you know where I'm coming from Robin, I do not consider myself a "polly", nor do I consider myself a "middle-of-the-roader", or a "doomer". I have endeavored to make plain that I see the potential for anything from a BITR to TEOTWAWKI in very large measure. The most accurate label that I know to describe that state is "searcher", or perhaps student.

You continue, "I once was an 8 - 9 and am now a 3 - 4 precisely because of these facts. Some leading y2k commentators stated. . ." Rather than paste in all that you refer to next, let me simply say that I have read all of that too, and your argument is quite convincing. The problem is, that it is convincing that those commentators were incorrect and (with the benefit of hindsight) obviously missing something necessary to ensure that their predictions were correct. I listened to all of that, but if you could locate all of my previous writings, you would find that I did not subscribe to most of it. For example, I knew from several decades of direct experience in the data processing industry that the "nines problem" was not likely to be much of one and I said so. In short, I argue on behalf of my own reasoning and conclusions only. With such respect as may be due to the men that you mention, I have and will continue to form my own analyses and conclusions. Your assumption that I defend or hold, agree with or even respect positions that I did not put forth simply because they might be the majority position or that of a "respected" commentator is not an accurate one. Much of your criticism of my words rests on that assumption.

You acknowledge that, ". . .we have seen some y2k related failures--the Van Nuys sewage spill being the most extreme example", but the conclusion that you draw ("(But) these failures have been relatively few and far between") is only demonstrated as to those failures that we have seen, and you acknowledge this when you say, "Certainly there are many failures going on behind corporate and governmental closed doors". Clearly, if they are unseen, none of us can know if they are many (as you assert) or few. Your assumption, "--but they are being handled by their IT departments", is one that I would make as well, regardless of their number. Now it seems plain to me, that whatever the magnitude of that effort to handle unseen problems, it must detract from the ability of those IT departments to deal with as yet unremediated, or even unexamined, systems. It's like observing that to the extent that the fire department is actually putting out active fires, they cannot be searching for and correcting fire hazards. In the face of widespread efforts to keep one's own "dirty laundry" under wraps, we cannot assign a quantitative value to that detraction, but it is still clear that it must be a negative value.

You go on, "I have yet to see convincing evidence that y2k errors after 2000 will so overwhelm programmers that they will cause major prolonged disruptions." I haven't seen such evidence either Robin, nor has anyone. That's one of the aspects of the situation that is so insidious. Not only is there no such evidence to be seen, that statement contains the hidden implication that if the programmers are not overwhelmed, that all will be well. That is not the case either. Without attempting to argue the likelihood of such, it is surely clear that if the power grid were to fail, the programmers would be sitting on their hands in the dark until the power were restored, or if not restored at all, for much longer. There are obviously other parts of our physical and social infrastructure that would cause "major prolonged disruptions" (for lack of a better term).

Your surprise is misplaced when you say, "In fact, I am surprised you jumped all over Mr. Decker for saying the most important issue is what will happen after rollover." Mister Decker has clearly told us that all of the important issues and consequences of the Y2K problem are, and will be economic. Now I have stated my own meager economic credentials publicly, and scant as they are, they far exceed the threshold necessary to see that if the banking system collapses, or if the supply chain collapses before the end of the year, that whatever happens at and after the rollover will be secondary simply because we will already be in the midst of a calamity of major dimensions. That Mister Decker, an economist by his own assertion, should see the events of the remainder of this year (whether they result in panic and collapse or not) as less important than those after the rollover is not credible to me. If a collapse occurs before, it is plain that such collapse will be of more moment than what might have happened, and if there is no collapse, that fact will be determinative of the future and, I hold, more important than events after the rollover if only by virtue of precedence. Whether or not we perceive panic and/or bank runs on the part of the populace to be the "greatest" threats, it is surely clear that they are "show stoppers". For Mister Decker, as one who declared himself to comprehend the workings of the economy, to assign a lower priority to those events or their prevention (and the public reports that might precipitate or mediate such events, i.e.: the MITRE Corporation and Gartner Group reports) than to subsequent and dependent events says to me that he is either stupid or dishonest. I can see no other alternatives and I do not believe him stupid.

When you question my objectivity "(at least in regards to Mr. Decker.)", and conclude that it is lacking (". . .proves in my book that you are hardly suitable to render a fair judgment. . .") and that his remarks were of no great substance (". . .such an innocuous statement. . .") and thus my "attack" was unwarranted, you failed to consider a number of facts that are crucial to my reasoning.

It is a fact that bias or prejudice is not possible as to that of which one is ignorant, and prior to Mister Decker's appearance in this forum, I had never heard of him. That was the last point in time at which any of us could have been completely objective about Mister Decker. On that occasion, I agreed with his position, and thus began to develop a bias in his favor! If you will review each subsequent presentation of Mister Decker's to which I responded, you will clearly see the path that my evaluation of his reasoning, techniques and motives took. I submit that while my evaluation of him and his positions and his reasoning and techniques at the time you take me to task for "attacking" him was no longer by any means objective, it was one that had been reached through fair and equitable process and was the result of public and honest (at least on my part) debate between him and me in this forum. That it was most unfavorable to him is not in question; that it could not have been and was in fact no longer objective is not in question. At that point, accuracy and equity were all that were called for. Objectivity, Robin, does not consist of starting each day in ignorance as a goose. It is a starting point from which we all must develop and build. You must not confuse objectivity with equity. The jurist who sentences a convicted killer to death may not be objective, simply by reason of the conviction. He must be equitable however, and sentence the defendant to only those sanctions which society has decided are fair. I do not believe that I have been unfair to Mister Decker and I have seen nothing to convince me that my conclusions about him are incorrect.

Next you take me to task for disagreeing with your perception of the situation ("Sorry, Hardliner, but I think you are off-base here."), the level of my reaction (". . .your outrage is over-the-top here."), accuse me of dishonesty (". . .But you know better, Hardliner."), accuse me of petty chicanery ("Cheap trick, Hardliner.") and suspect me of wishing to libel another (Oh, no! Not that argument again!) (". . .I SUSPECT that your misuse. . .was intended as part of a campaign to smear. . .")! That's a pretty heavy bag, Robin, but let's take a look at it.

You say, "Indeed, I believe my opinion is further bolstered by your outrage over Mr. Decker's critique of Lisa's post." No problem. Your beliefs are yours by right.

Mr. Decker wrote:

On to lighter work... Lisa. Rattled? Hardly. I just hope you take a moment to thank the men and women who served so you could prattle on about how terrible America is. Like a spoiled child, you treat poorly the freedoms you never had to earn. He did indeed.

To which you ( I ) replied:

What is far more distressing is that you attempt to use your (purported) military service as leverage to silence the expression of opinion. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU? Your implication that only those who have gone in harm's way on behalf of America have a right to criticize her is the ultimate insult to the very men and women that you attempt to identify with! I most certainly made that reply.

You continue with, "Sorry, Hardliner, but I think you are off-base here. You're certainly within your rights to think so, but I disagree. I shall attempt to explain why It does not appear to me that Mr. Decker is using his military service as a tool to silence Lisa later I think that he is, and here's why. The first thing that Mister Decker informed this forum about was his military service. That he appeared to do so with a modicum of modesty may be nothing more than just that, but in light of his condescending manner (which has been remarked on extensively and is surely not a figment of my imagination) I think it likely that it was simply an attempt to create a mystique and foster an image to be utilized later. Mister Decker is no slouch in the pop psychology department and although his attempts to manipulate opinion are usually pretty transparent, he is capable of subtlety and planning. I'm sure that he knows that the first thing people find out about you is usually the most likely to be remembered. Don't you work that way? I expect that most everyone who has read my postings here knows that I am a Marine. If I refer to anything military, I expect my readers to view it in that context. That's not wrong, it's just the way people work. That's just my opinion and evaluation based on my interactions with people over the span of my life, but it's all any of us have to go on. and your outrage is over-the-top here. The degree of my outrage, Robin, is a function of two things. First, that which was insulted (freedom of speech, an inalienable right as guaranteed by the Constitution) and second, by the oath that binds me to support and defend that document. I have not simply sworn to die in that endeavor, I have sworn to live for that endeavor. I am a constitutional fanatic and have announced it here previously. I do not accept any limits in that endeavor other than those forced on me by my ability to perform. Mr. Decker never said, as far as I can see, that Lisa should shut up and that she has no right to criticize the country since she didn't serve in the military. No, he didn't say so. and I didn't say that he did. I said that he implied it (. . ."Your implication that only those who. . .") Mr. Decker was using his military experience as a leverage Here you clearly agree with me that he was using it as a tool (lever), so all that we must resolve is what he was attempting to do with that tool. to gain debating points and reader sympathy with his view that Lisa was an ingrate and a misfit for knocking her country. With this crowd? Sympathy? I do not believe that, and I can't see how you could either unless you've really not followed his "career" on this forum.Mr. Decker has every right to criticize Lisa on those grounds. He has every right to question her honor and integrity. Yes, he has those rights, but he also has an obligation to demonstrate the truth of such allegations. But he does not have the right to disparage her capabilities and character by referring to her as, ". . .lighter work... Lisa.", without clearly demonstrating how and/or why Lisa might be considered as somehow less capable or of less character than anyone else. Robin, is it not abundantly clear to you that his wrapping himself in the flag and invoking vague images of prayer (". . .take a moment to thank. . ."), characterizing her speech as witless ("prattle") and telling her in public that she was "bad ("spoiled child") and that she had done a "bad thing" (". . .treat poorly the freedoms. . .") and misused a gift (". . .you never had to earn.") is intimidating speech? I ask you fairly, would not such intimidation cause most people to want to shut up and make such public abuse stop? That he was unsuccessful is a product of the fact that he was incorrect and that Lisa is not easily intimidated. That result does not excuse the attempt nor does it alter the nature of what he said. It would seem that most people here understood his words as such, and unlike the matter of facts, human understanding of language is a matter of consensus. Whether or not he has the moral right to use his military service as a crutch to score debating points in his feud with Lisa is a legitimate question for you to raise. But for you to claim that Mr. Decker is using his military service to silence Lisa is way out of line. As I've already argued, I don't believe that he was trying to "score any points". I believe that he was trying to make her look "bad" enough that she would shut up and I've explained my reasoning. There is a HUGE difference between criticizing an opponent and questioning her motives and silencing an opponent. I agree, and I hold that he was trying to silence her and not simply criticizing her. No one's military service was in any way even remotely relevant to the subject. No one insulted any military person except Mister Decker. Nothing Lisa said was witless, and how the exercise of an inalienable right can be characterized as the act of a spoiled child is beyond me. Where is a question that goes to motive? Where is a criticism of her words? He could have said, "Where do you get off calling the Republic a ponzi scheme?" but instead he called her a spoiled child. He could have said, "You're crazy. The nation is not the same as the fractional reserve banking system." Instead he said that she was treating poorly freedoms that she hadn't earned. It was all clearly ad hominem and unrelated to what Lisa had actually said.

A lawyer using economic leverage to SLAPP a corporation's critic with an unfounded libel suit to shut him up is an example of silencing an opponent. That is only true if it works. If it doesn't, it's only an attempt.

A SYSOP deleting a post for ideological reasons would be another example of silencing an opponent. (This statement should not be taken as a backhanded slap at the moderators of this forum. I do not mean to imply that they have silenced their opponents. This statement should only be taken at face value and nothing should be read into it.) We are in agreement here.

Mr. Decker's criticism of Lisa was not an example of silencing an opponent. In point of fact, you are correct because Lisa did subsequently post on the same subject, but I correctly characterized his words as an attempt, not a fait accompli and I believe that my reasoning as outlined above makes clear that it was no "stretch". To even claim that Mr. Decker was attempting to silence her is a bit of a stretch.

You of all people, Hardliner, should know the difference. Is it not clear that I do? I have rarely encountered anyone with a more masterful grasp of the English language. Your ability to deconstruct a message you want to criticize is breathtaking. You're just not looking in the right places Robin. My Benedictine and Cistercian mentors may not get the same level of favorable press that the Jesuits do, but they nevertheless pass on to countless men and women the language skills that you find remarkable. It would not be such a big deal if a lesser poster were to misuse the word "silence". But you know better, Hardliner. Of course I do Robin, but I said exactly what I meant. You have parsed every word of Mr. Decker's posts looking for tiny flaws which you could blow out of proportion to make him look like a villain. I do that to everything that I read Robin. I do it in a search for comprehension; not to find ammunition. I really do have a life outside this forum, and I have lots of better things to do than to look for ways to discredit Mister Decker. It seems hard for me to believe that your misuse of the word "silence" was an innocent mistake. I'm glad to hear that because not only wasn't it a mistake, I used it exactly as I intended to use it and I used it properly. I would be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, if you had not first criticized Mr. Decker for taking a position that is mainstream for this board. To reiterate, I take no responsibility for what others may argue or what position they may hold. Neither do such arguments or opinions operate as a shield to my criticism, nor should they. Since you first chose to attack him for worrying about the problems we face on rollover Let's be accurate here Robin. I took him to task for saying that such problems were the most important, not for worrying about them. I SUSPECT that your misuse of the word "silence" was intended as part of a campaign to smear Mr. Decker. As I believe is quite apparent, if I wanted to "smear" Mister Decker, I probably could. The fact of the matter is however, that neither I nor anyone else needs to. He does quite well all by himself.

Cheap trick, Hardliner. I've nothing up my sleeve, Robin. I've explained how I did it, and believe me, it wasn't cheap. I take the matter entirely too seriously to denigrate it by cheap tactics. Just as cheap as Mr. Decker's attempt to use his military service to gain debating points in his argument with Lisa.

I am hardly saying that Mr. Decker is perfect or above criticism. Certainly his insinuation that Big Dog would have felt at home during the Inquisition was a cheap shot and worthy of criticism. But your sense of righteous indigantion[sic] (that sic is not a criticism of you Robin, as the offending word is plainly a "finger check". I just wanted to needle Celia if she's watching) seems way out of proportion to Mr. Decker's offenses.

Well, now you know how I see it, and maybe you agree, and maybe you don't, but that's all there is (thankfully).

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 01, 1999.

Hardliner,

Thank you for your well-reasoned response. I agree with you in many respects but disagree on certain crucial issues.

We agree that there are computer snafus going on behind the scenes and that the IT departments are by and large dealing with them. You write:

Now it seems plain to me, that whatever the magnitude of that effort to handle unseen problems, it must detract from the ability of those IT departments to deal with as yet unremediated, or even unexamined, systems. It's like observing that to the extent that the fire department is actually putting out active fires, they cannot be searching for and correcting fire hazards. In the face of widespread efforts to keep one's own "dirty laundry" under wraps, we cannot assign a quantitative value to that detraction, but it is still clear that it must be a negative value.

You obviously have a great deal more experience than I do with computers, Hardliner, so I say the following tentatively. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not sure the firefighter analogy is necessarily a good one. In any given program or sets of programs, there will be X date-related bugs. Some of them will be serious show stoppers and some of them will produce results that are not worth fixing. Some will be encountered early and some will be encountered later. Let us say that a company encountered 5 bugs on January 1, 1999. Two of them were show stoppers and three resulted in minor inconveniences and could be ignored. In order for the software to function, the IT department had to develop fixes or work-arounds for the two bugs. Therefore, they would only have X - 2 bugs to deal with in the future (or X - 5 if the other three could be ignored.) So fixing the two bugs did go at least part way to fixing the problem.

Of course, this is an oversimplification because in some instances the IT department may chose to replace the program entirely and this would be a wasted effort. In those situations, your fire-fighter analogy would be accurate.

How much of a distraction is this "fire-fighting/bug suppression". There is no way for us to really know. The only way I can think of to make an intelligent guess would be to look at the demand for programmers--particularly, but not limited to COBOL programmers. If this is a major distraction then I think there would be a shortage of programmers as companies struggle to hire more and that programmer salaries would skyrocket. It is interesting to note that in 1997 Jim Rivera plotted out a future of how y2k could unfold.

http://www.euy2k.com/history.htm

I don't want to call this a prediction, because "prediction" is too strong a word. He did see this as one plausible scenario. In his scenario he projected that COBOL programmers could be earning $400/hour by now. I do not know what an average COBOL programmer makes, but from the admittedly little knowledge that I have in this arena, I do not believe there has been a major increase in programmer's salaries. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

Admittedly, using programmer salaries as a proxy for the measurement of programmer distraction is far from ideal, but it is the best way I can think of to get a handle on the size of the problem.

You go on:

Not only is there no such evidence (that y2k problems will overwhelm programmers) to be seen, that statement contains the hidden implication that if the programmers are not overwhelmed, that all will be well. That is not the case either. Without attempting to argue the likelihood of such, it is surely clear that if the power grid were to fail, the programmers would be sitting on their hands in the dark until the power were restored, or if not restored at all, for much longer. True, but I consider the likelihood that the power will be down for more than two to three days to be very close to nil. I base my opinion on Dick Mills' column. There are obviously other parts of our physical and social infrastructure that would cause "major prolonged disruptions" (for lack of a better term). True again, if panic or terrorism were to strike. Based on what I see now I doubt panic will strike. I think it is unlikely to strike unless we see MAJOR failures before the new year. But this is just a Wild Ass Guess and I can certainly respect anyone who has a different opinion than I do. As far as terrorism goes, all bets are off.

You write:

Your surprise is misplaced when you say, "In fact, I am surprised you jumped all over Mr. Decker for saying the most important issue is what will happen after rollover." Mister Decker has clearly told us that all of the important issues and consequences of the Y2K problem are, and will be economic.

Unfortunately, I do not have all of Mister Decker's' posts readily accessible, but I do not believe that is his true position, at least not when one reads a number of his posts. From what I remember, he would say that the consequences are primarily economic but I do not remember him saying they would be entirely economic. I recall him saying that he was storing about a month's worth of food and I think he would encourage others to store at least two weeks worth. I'm not sure if I saw these points posted here or whether they were posted at BIFFY or Debunker. In any case, I think you are mistaken in your characterization of Mr. Decker's beliefs, but it is entirely possible that my memory is playing tricks on me.

You continue:

Now I have stated my own meager economic credentials publicly, and scant as they are, they far exceed the threshold necessary to see that if the banking system collapses, or if the supply chain collapses before the end of the year, that whatever happens at and after the rollover will be secondary simply because we will already be in the midst of a calamity of major dimensions. That Mister Decker, an economist by his own assertion, should see the events of the remainder of this year (whether they result in panic and collapse or not) as less important than those after the rollover is not credible to me. If a collapse occurs before, it is plain that such collapse will be of more moment than what might have happened, and if there is no collapse, that fact will be determinative of the future and, I hold, more important than events after the rollover if only by virtue of precedence. Whether or not we perceive panic and/or bank runs on the part of the populace to be the "greatest" threats, it is surely clear that they are "show stoppers". For Mister Decker, as one who declared himself to comprehend the workings of the economy, to assign a lower priority to those events or their prevention (and the public reports that might precipitate or mediate such events, i.e.: the MITRE Corporation and Gartner Group reports) than to subsequent and dependent events says to me that he is either stupid or dishonest. I can see no other alternatives and I do not believe him stupid.

Points well taken. You suggest that Decker is either stupid or dishonest for ignoring and/or assigning a low probability of bank runs before the end of the year. There is a third possibility, however. He may actually perceive the probability of wide-spread bank runs to be low because he believes the American people will have faith in the FDIC-insured guarantee of their accounts. There may be localized bank runs at particularly weak banks, but so far I see no reason to believe that there is a large probability that there will be wide-spread bank runs. Perhaps Decker perceives the same.

You might reply Well, if Decker really doesn't think wide-spread bank runs are probable, then why is he spending so much time here trying to calm the masses through disinformation?

It is possible that Decker could see massive bank runs before the end of the year as a highly improbable, yet finitely possible event. He may assign a 1% probability to such an event and hope that his postings here will help cut the probability down to 0.5%. I don't know what is actually going on in Mr. Decker's mind, but there are alternative explanations to his behavior besides stupidity or duplicity.

You wrote:

I submit that while my evaluation of him and his positions and his reasoning and techniques at the time you take me to task for "attacking" him was no longer by any means objective, it was one that had been reached through fair and equitable process and was the result of public and honest (atleast on my part) debate between him and me in this forum. That it was most unfavorable to him is not in question; that it could not have been and was in fact no longer objective is not in question. At that point, accuracy and equity were all that were called for. Objectivity, Robin, does not consist of starting each day in ignorance as a goose. It is a starting point from which we all must develop and build. You must not confuse objectivity with equity. The jurist who sentences a convicted killer to death may not be objective, simply by reason of the conviction. He must be equitable however, and sentence the defendant to only those sanctions which society has decided are fair. I do not believe that I have been unfair to Mister Decker and I have seen nothing to convince me that my conclusions about him are incorrect.

I disagree. To be equitable and fair in a given situation requires one to be objective. I still think your attack on Decker was excessive for his assertion that " In my opinion, the most important issue is what actually will happen after the rollover. I can not envision you jumping over Flint or Big Dog or anyone else if they had written those exact same words in the way that you did with Mr. Decker. I do not think you were fair in this situation

To be fair in a given situation does indeed require one to be objective and to be objective it often requires one to start off as ignorant as a goose. Just look at the court system. A potential juror will not be selected if he knows the defendant has been sent to jail in the past for former crimes. A defendant could have a rap sheet a mile long and under most circumstances this fact will be hidden from the jury because juries are not supposed to be unduly prejudiced by a defendant's past record.

Of course, I realize that we are here dealing with the court of public opinion and not a criminal defense situation, so you may well argue that the standards should be different. Still, I maintain that to be equitable you must be objective and you are not in a position to be equitable with Mr. Decker because of the opinions that you have developed, rightly or wrongly, about him.

You continue:

Next you take me to task for disagreeing with your perception of the situation ("Sorry, Hardliner, but I think you are off-base here."), the level of my reaction (". . .your outrage is over-the-top here."), accuse me of dishonesty (". . .But you know better, Hardliner."), accuse me of petty chicanery ("Cheap trick, Hardliner.") and suspect me of wishing to libel another (Oh, no! Not that argument again!) (". . .I SUSPECT that your misuse. . .was intended as part of a campaign to smear. . .")

I withdraw my accusation of dishonesty. It is clear from your explanation that you were not dishonest but that you proceed from a different outlook than I have. I disagree with some of your opinions, but you are clearly not dishonest.

I still think you overreacted on this one, but I suppose we will have to disagree on this.

As far as me suspecting you of wishing to libel another--you couldn't be further from the truth. I said you wanted to smear Mr. Decker, not libel him. You can smear someone without libeling him. It's done all the time in politics through the selective use of facts to put one's opponent in the worst possible light. How many campaign commercials have you seen that portrayed politician Jones as an ogre for voting against a bill that would raise $1 million for school lunch programs without mentioning that he voted against the bill because it would also cost the taxpayers $10 million to study elephant farts? Clearly, this is a smear without being libelous.

You said that Mr. Decker implied that Lisa should shut up. I just don't read it that way. I can certainly understand how you could infer if. It is not an unreasonable inferral, but I just don't believe that that is what he intended. We will have to agree that we view the situation differently and leave it at that.

You write:

. . . But he does not have the right to disparage her capabilities and character by referring to her as, ". . .lighter work... Lisa.", without clearly demonstrating how and/or why Lisa might be considered as somehow less capable or of less character than anyone else.

You are right. In a genteel debating society he would have no right to disparage Lisa by referring to her as "lighter work". But this is not a genteel debating society and that was a rather mild criticism compared to that which Flint, Decker, Poole or any other Polly is subjected to on a constant basis by the likes of Andy, Ray, King of Spain In The Ass, Will Continue and others. Furthermore, Lisa's apparent comment that the U.S. was nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme was particularly outrageous. (I say "apparent" because Lisa has since stated that she did not intend to call the U.S. a Ponzi scheme. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her intentions, but when I first read this statement I was mighty pissed.) Considering the environment and the apparently outrageous nature of Lisa's statement, Mr. Decker's use of the phrase "lighter work" is completely understandable. Maybe not just, but certainly understandable. I would have been tempted to use harsher language had I been in his position.

You continue:

Robin, is it not abundantly clear to you that his wrapping himself in the flag and invoking vague images of prayer (". . .take a moment to thank. . ."), characterizing her speech as witless ("prattle") and telling her in public that she was "bad ("spoiled child") and that she had done a "bad thing" (". . .treat poorly the freedoms. . .") and misused a gift (". . .you never had to earn.") is intimidating speech? I ask you fairly, would not such intimidation cause most people to want to shut up and make such public abuse stop?

I doubt that it would make most of the people who post in this forum want to shut up and stop the abuse. As I pointed out, this Decker's attack on Lisa was rather mild compared to the attacks that the Polly's are subjected to by the likes of Andy, Will Continue, Ray et al on this board. Do you think that they are trying to silence their opponents. In light of the constant and unceasing nature of their attacks, the case is stronger that they are trying to silence Decker, Flint and Poole than that of Decker trying to silence Lisa in this single instance. This doesn't mean that what Decker did was correct, but it hardly rises to the level of objectionability that is demonstrated here on a daily basis.

I think I understand you better, Hardliner, and I thank you for your thoughtful response. I don't agree with you on some very substantive issues, but I understand you and I can see how a completely objective person (which I am not) might think that your position is more reasonable than mine.

Respectfully

Robin Messing

P.S. I got a chuckle over your (sic) remark. I did read Celia's post that you are referring to and I thought she was being rather anal on this point.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), July 01, 1999.

Robin,

I apologize for taking to so long to get back to this, but demands in the real world have rudely intruded themselves into cyberspace and I have not had enough time for everything. This reply simply got shoved down the ladder a bit. At any rate, here it is, and I hope we can be finished with this debate now. I will continue, if you request it, but I really have no more to say beyond what I have written below. (that doesn't mean that you won't say something that will change that state of affairs)

I think we understand each other pretty well, with a few exceptions, and it seems that we at least agree on that. There are apparently a couple of things that we truly view differently, and that's encouraging. The world would be pretty dreary and life would be quite dull if everyone saw things in just the same way.

About the "behind-the-scenes-firefighting", we seem to be in the same book and even in the same chapter but there are a few more points that we must add to the discussion to make it all hang together.

You seem to argue that the effort to deal with the current failures will ultimately operate to the same end as if they had occurred later and that it all works out the same whether the bugs are fixed now or later. On the face of it, this seems quite reasonable, but in fact, it ignores the most central issue of Y2K which is time. It is time in both the sense that how we have chosen to represent it in our software is flawed and must be changed and in the sense that we only have a finite (and at this point, a very small) amount of it left in which to deal with the problem.

Let me make a few assumptions here, for the sake of clarity. My purpose is to make the example as simple as possible yet still retain the essential characteristics of the actual situation. If I do this right, you will be able, after seeing the argument, to alter those assumptions to suit your perception of the situation and see how that argument relates to the "real world".

First let's consider only one organization and only two computer systems.

The first system is the accounting system, and will experience the current date related failures that we've agreed are happening in the real world. This will represent the JoAnn Effect and will be severe enough to require the attention of one programmer, full time per bug, until that bug has been dealt with, either through re-design (complete remediation) or some form of work-around that will function indefinitely. Although it is not very realistic, let's assume that there will be only one bug, that it will show up in January of 1999 and will take that one programmer who is assigned to it, one month to "fix".

Let's have the second system represent everything else that the firm handles with computers. Let's assume that it will experience no failures until it is required to process dates after the rollover and we'll "cheat" a little here in order to make it easier to follow the example and assume that we know (but the programmers do not) that there are only 24 instances of code that will not work as desired after the rollover and that they all will fail at the rollover. Again, we'll assume that each "bug" will take one programmer assigned full time, one month to find.

Again for simplicity, we'll give this firm only two programmers and start them both working in January, 1999. All failures will be "showstoppers" for the company.

Now, both programmers begin work, and at the end of January, they've each found one bug and fully remediated it. At this point, the score is two down and twenty three to go.

On February 1st, the JoAnn Effect strikes and programmer #1 is assigned to it full time while #2 continues to march. At the end of February, the JoAnn Effect bug has been found and dealt with, and programmer #2 has found and dealt with another bug in the second system. At this point, the score is four down and twenty one to go.

On March 1st, programmer #1 is assigned again to the second system and for the remainder of 1999, both programmers continue to find and deal with the remaining bugs.

When the rollover occurs, the one remaining bug strikes and the second system fails. Both programmers are put to work on it and it should only take two weeks to find and fix since there are now two heads instead of one working on the problem. Until they do however, the company is "showstopped".

Whether or not that firm will survive even a two week period like that will depend on its contingency plan (if it has one) and isn't really the point here. The point is that the JoAnn Effect bug put them far enough behind to create the situation.

To relate this back to the firemen, there was a real fire, that took one fireman away from the fire prevention effort long enough, that he didn't find one can of oily rags which later started another real fire. If the guy had found it instead of having to fight a real fire earlier, the rags would have never started the second fire.

Now obviously, you can adjust all the assumptions up or down and change everything (except the location in time of the rollover) and come up with different results. What will not change however, is that the effort spent on current bugs will detract from the available effort to find future bugs before they "catch fire". Sometimes this will not matter in the end. Sometimes it will be fatal to an organization. Usually, it will be somewhere in between. We would think!

The problem is that we just don't really know because of the keeping of "dirty laundry" out of public view.

That we can't know, brings us to the subject of finding out. The reasoning in your idea to use programmers salaries is sound, but you fall into the same trap that Rivera did. That trap was to consider the US as a closed system. What actually happened was that huge amounts of remediation work was sent off-shore (mostly to India) and utilized what was not only a very large pool of talent, but a very inexpensive (by US standards) one as well.

Aside from the security considerations that such actions raise, they further remove us from a view of progress in the remediation effort.

Robin, I simply do not know of any reliable way to even estimate the state of affairs.

Your comments regarding the likelihood of panics, bank runs, power disruptions, terrorism, etc. are handicapped (as indeed are everyone's) by the same lack of solid and reliable information. We can only guess.

My arguments about the events of the remainder of this year do not stand on knowing what those events will be, but only on what the results of them must be. If we experience panics, bank runs etc., the results will be one thing, if we experience no panic, etc., the results will be another. In either case, those events will be determinative and thus I hold, more important than whatever comes next.

Neither does it matter whether Decker said "all the consequences would be economic" or "the consequences would be primarily economic". My memory is as subject to error as yours, and I may have read him wrong as well. Again though, in either case, the determinative events will happen during the remainder of this year. Whether you begin the chain of causation with the technical events that MITRE and Gartner speak of or jump into the middle with the social events that the Gallup organization analyzed for the Fed (which will likely be motivated by those technical events along with the "PR" efforts of the PTB), you come to the same point, and what happens next will be the result of those events which have occurred during the remainder of this year.

However Decker believes that those events will unfold, I believe him intelligent enough to see them as determinative. For him to then say that they are less important than the events after the rollover must be dishonest, unless he truly does not see them as determinative in which case he must be stupid. I argue that Decker is not stupid by reason of performance in this forum and I argue that "determinative" equates to "more important" than whatever the results of those determinative events might be.

Robin, you seem to have missed the dual nature of my criticism of Decker.

First, I criticized him as being ignorant or dishonest over the "what events were more important" issue, but certainly not with any particular fervor. I said, "Again you reveal your basic non-understanding of the technical issues involved with Y2K. (or do you perhaps understand and choose to disregard?)", and "You clearly do not understand or you ignore that fact that the failures have already begun and are having detrimental effect even now." Do you consider this excessive? I promise you Robin, I might very well have used those exact words to those that you mention, except that I probably would not have questioned the honesty of those that you named.

Second, I lit into Decker for his abuse of the military. Again, I certainly would have done the same had the offender been BigDog or Flint, but they have never (and I do not believe ever would) behave in such a manner. I am unaware of BigDog's status in this regard, but Flint has taken the same oath that I have and for that matter, so has Decker, unless he is simply "pounding smoke" about his military service. I am not kidding, Robin, I am a Constitutional fanatic and I would have treated anyone the same way who had done and said the same things. You might wish to search the archives for the post in which I took a fellow called "Sparks" to task for disparaging the men and women of our armed forces, or you might wish to review the one in which I took "Deano, The Jacksonville Troglodyte" to task for his "love it or leave it" comments to another poster. It didn't have to be Lisa, it just had to be "misuse of the flag", so to speak. Do you know that it is illegal to use the flag for commercial advertising? It's worse than that in my book to use it to attempt to deprive another of their rights.

In the matter of objectivity versus equity, we are very close, but not quite there. You say, "To be fair in a given situation does indeed require one to be objective and to be objective it often requires one to start off as ignorant as a goose."

You've said very nearly the same thing that I did, but there are two important differences. If you change your statement to read, "To be fair in a given situation does indeed require one to begin with an objective state of mind and to be objective always requires one to start off as ignorant as a goose", then we will be in agreement.

Your example of a juror is a good one to illustrate my point. We agree that he must be objective (and ignorant) at the start, but once he hears the first bit of evidence, he can no longer be objective. From that point on, he develops a bias, or makes a judgment, bit by bit. By the time he votes on a verdict, he is no longer objective at all. Now if he had begun the trial in this state of mind, we would say that he was prejudiced, but when he arrives at it through due process, we say that he has fulfilled the duties of a juror.

At this point in the trial, the jury informs the judge of its verdict and the judge passes sentence. The judge is not objective at all. He begins the process of sentencing with the knowledge that the defendant has been convicted of the offense for which he is about to be sentenced. The judge is, however, required to be equitable in the sentencing process. Even though he is not objective, he may not sentence a jay walker to death (to use an extreme example). He must assign a sentence which falls within the range of penalties that society through the legislative process had decided is fair, or equitable.

In the matter of smears and libels, it would appear that we have a different understanding of the meaning of the term smear. Your example of a political smear is clearly an example of intellectual dishonesty (by virtue of presenting only selected facts that are unfavorable to the subject) yet does not technically amount to dishonesty. That is exactly what "Slick Willy" did when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Since only untrue statements may be libel, it clearly cannot be libel. Using your definition of the term "smear", which I accept as a reasonable one, I agree with your conclusions and understand your original meaning.

I assure you however, that such was not my intention with respect to Decker. As I clearly stated on more than one occasion, my intention was to expose his unfair and dishonest tactics. I have publicly agreed with him on more than one occasion in this forum, just as I have taken him to task for his techniques (read that, faulty logic and dishonest tactics) on more than one occasion. If I have been unfair to him, it is not by design and I can, on reflection, find no indication that I have been so.

When you hold that a person should have one set of rights in a, "genteel debating society", and another in this forum and that the behavior of other parties (Andy, Ray, King of Spain, Will Continue and others) should govern or even be relevant to Lisas rights or Decker's conduct, you are clearly advocating double standards (one set of rights in such a society and another in this forum) and attempting to justify Decker's actions based on the conduct of others.

There is only one set of rights Robin, and it applies to both those genteel societies and to rough and ready places like the internet. Although the law is still unsettled and social mores are still forming in many areas concerning cyberspace, the principles are the same, and the behavior of well intentioned men will be conducted according to well established patterns.

You assert that Decker is justified in his behavior by virtue of others having done similar things yet you clearly view those others' actions as less than desirable. Are you arguing that two wrongs make a right? I think you can see what I'm getting at here. If you have a complaint against X, you may not reasonably resolve it by the identical behavior of Y. You must complain of the actions of both.

In the matter of Lisa's statement(s), it is not necessary to assume anything or to grant benefit of the doubt. We may simply examine that statement and discover by examination what she said.

Lisa said:

Indeed, what did rattle the Deck today?

"..When enough people start worry only about themselves, our Republic big-@ss ponzi scheme is in deep trouble. [snip] A patriot focuses on the commonweal...the nationfractional reserve system."

[snip]

to Diane..."While I know rational thought strains your new age mind, try this. This way you'll be free to pursue your alternative though patterns without the messy business of reality."

No wonder you're still single, Deck.

You could at least cough up some of that ABA money here to help with the disc space your malicious agenda consumes.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

You say, "Furthermore, Lisa's apparent comment that the U.S. was nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme was particularly outrageous. (I say "apparent" because Lisa has since stated that she did not intend to call the U.S. a Ponzi scheme. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her intentions, but when I first read this statement I was mighty pissed.)"

Your meaning is clear; you were confident of your understanding of her statement and it outraged you. You subsequently allowed that you might have misunderstood her based on her later statement that she did not mean what you thought that she did.

Your outrage, of course, was based on your understanding of what you read and is part and parcel of that understanding, but that reading was clearly in error to begin with and did not require comment from Lisa to be demonstrated as such. (others read it correctly, "Uncle Deedah for one)

Decker said, "..When enough people start worry only about themselves, our Republic is in deep trouble. A patriot focuses on the commonweal...the nation. . ."

Lisa did not reply that the Republic was a ponzi scheme, she told Decker, "You're not talking about the Republic, you're talking about a, "big-@ss ponzi scheme". Both her action and her intention are clear. She struck the word "Republic" and replaced it with the words, "big-@ss ponzi scheme". In like manner, she did not call the nation a fractional reserve system, she said to Decker, "You're not talking about the nation, you're talking about the fractional reserve system. Again, both her action and her intent are clear in that she struck the word "nation" and replaced it with the words, "fractional reserve system".

Decker obviously misread her words as well, and thus your argument that his reply was justified based on his outrage does not lie since that outrage (just as your own) was based on an erroneous interpretation of Lisa's words which he and he alone is responsible for (as you are for your error).

You fail to answer my question as to the likely effect of Decker's words on ordinary people, and instead attempt to invoke a double standard again when you say, " I doubt that it would make most of the people who post in this forum want to shut up and stop the abuse", yet clearly the issue is Decker's conduct, and not the qualities of his audience. There is one standard Robin, that of the common man, or if you like, the reasonable and prudent man.

Then you argue that parties other than Decker or Lisa are trying to do worse to Decker, and that that somehow justifies Decker's treatment of Lisa. Clearly it does not, and you admit as much ("This doesn't mean that what Decker did was correct. . .").

When you argue that, ". . .it hardly rises to the level of objectionability that is demonstrated here on a daily basis", you might as well argue, "Since all this boy did was rape and rob this woman and in this neighborhood murder and mayhem are everyday occurrences, we should let him go with a lesser penalty." I think you can see the fallacy in that.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 04, 1999.