In an earlier thread which he had created, Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com) offered what I thought was excellent advice to those who have only recently begun a serious investigation into Y2k.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0014Bo

I posted a reply to Rob and suggested he expand his advice into a detailed list. Rob liked the idea and has requested the discussion to be brought to a new thread. Copied below is my reply to his original post:

=========================

Rob, I think you've given some good advice in your opening post. It was well balanced without a slant towards either the polly or doomer positions. At one point you wrote: "So how do you go about formulating opinions about Y2K for yourself?" I think it would be extremely useful to newbies if you expanded on that and put together a list of things they should be cautious of when investigating Y2k. Some examples of items we would all agree on are: Be wary of "self-reported" publications. Be wary of "anecdotal" stories Consider what "hidden" motivations may be behind the statements made by individuals, businesses or organizations Review statements from "experts" on the (neutral?) Russ Kelly site Remain "open-minded" to new information Etc. (Perhaps the best way to list these items would be to make two lists; the doomer cautions and the polly cautions. I'm sure you could solicit this forum and receive plenty of suggestions.) Personally, I would have loved to have seen such a list when I first began investigating Y2k. It took wayyy too long to learn how to sort out the trash. Most people here already know what to look out for, but the newbies whom you are addressing this to do not.

Just my 2 cents

-- CD

========================= [note: Rob had covered much of the same ground in a more general way]

If you feel there is any merit to developing such a list(s) I invite your suggestions. If you feel this would not be useful, please explain. If you feel that compiling an impartial/objective list using suggestions from people of such differing opinions is vitually impossible...you may be correct. If well received and feasible, perhaps such a list could be posted on a regular basis.

An exercise in futility or a "community project" which could benefit newbies? You be the judge.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 10, 1999

Answers

Dear CD,

I think it is a good idea.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 10, 1999.

Here is the beginning of a list from CD, of things newbies (and also all of us) should be cautious of when investigating Y2k.

Be wary of "self-reported" publications.

Be wary of "anecdotal" stories

Consider what "hidden" motivations may be behind the statements made by individuals, businesses or organizations

Review statements from "experts" on the (neutral?) Russ Kelly site

Please feel free to add to this list. Maybe we can actually come up with something useful that can help folks. Thanks, Rob.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), July 10, 1999.

Rob:

While superficially your list has merit, these pieces of advice have unfortunately been used systematically to discredit good news. We have a declaration of substantial compliance? Beware, it's self- reporting. We had a successful test? Beware, it's a PR demo. We haven't read much about lookahead failures? The media are a tool of government spin. Sadly, what sounds like common sense has been turned into the Game of Doom.

So I'll add some advice, why not? First, beware of extrapolating from speculation. Very little of what can happen actually will happen.

Second, be aware of probabilities.

Third, watch out for specious reasoning, simplistic arguments, and chains of thought built on questionable assumptions.

Fourth, keep in mind that very little is posted here purely to inform. Almost everything is cited in support of one position or another. Getting a balanced assessment of y2k on this forum is like getting a balanced view of gun control at the NRA website.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 10, 1999.

CD commented:

" Personally, I would have loved to have seen such a list when I first began investigating Y2k. It took wayyy too long to learn how to sort out the trash. Most people here already know what to look out for, but the newbies whom you are addressing this to do not. "

CD, after sorting out all of this "trash" for this waaay to long period what conclusions have you come to?

ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 10, 1999.

When researching links don't be swayed by what they may be promoting/selling until you have made a decision about what preparations you may want to make.

Maybe you can say this clearer, but you know what I mean.

-- sue (deco100@aol.com), July 10, 1999.

whenever, i start to wonder'if the so-called doomer,s are o.d- ing on y2k, ialway,s come back to the ??? if y2k is no-biggee?? why they spending all that money?? that ain,t natural. money-talk,s-b.s. walk,s

-- just-a-thinkin (dogs@zianet.com), July 10, 1999.

Here is something everyone should be aware of: Feds Plan y2k Spin Control

You can bet your bottom dollar they that includes internet forums!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 10, 1999.

Ray wrote: "CD, after sorting out all of this "trash" for this waaay to long period what conclusions have you come to?

I'm not quite clear on what you are asking me Ray. Conclusions as to what constitutes "trash"? Conclusions as to Y2k? Can you re-phrase the question so I can understand it better.

-- CD (not@here.com), July 10, 1999.

CD, I just thought that since you had been through the process you might share with us your conclusions with regard to y2k and it's effect on our country and the world.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 10, 1999.

(continuing with Flint's itemization of do's and don'ts)

Fifth: Beware of Flint because (a) Flint is very intelligent and (b) Flint is a most talented wordsmith of the English language but (c) he either lacks y2k perspective and/or (d) has a very specific hidden agenda by which he has prepared more than anyone else but does everything possible to avoid awareness and preparation of anybody else but himself. Quite bizarre, to say the least. Flint's line of thought sounds factually scientific and looks attractive at first sight, but under Y2K circumstances it is definetly dangerous.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 10, 1999.

And the winner is ............... (D) Hidden Agenda.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 10, 1999.

I'll be happy to share my conclusions with you Ray. Not on this thread though. I'd like to see this thread reserved for it's intended purpose.

(Tell ya what, I'll put my thoughts down in writing and if I see that you ask me again in some future thread, I'll drop 'em off there.)

-- CD (not@here.com), July 10, 1999.

The intent of this thread is really just to try and answer the question: How do you sort through all of the information available on Y2K, including the trash, to come up with an informed opinion. This is specifically in the context of helping the newbies, not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Flint or anyone else. I think we would all agree that time is of the essence. If by putting this list together we can save people new to Y2K some time, and show them things that we considered in determining if information was relevant, it will be well worth it.

Asked another way: Of all of the info you have assimilated, what criteria do you use to deem it's usefulness in formulating your Y2K opinions, and subsequently your corresponding actions? In other words, how do you sort through, and more importantly recognize the garbage and questionable material. I know, I know, trash is in eye of the beholder.

We are just trying to put together a list that may be helpful. Let each pick from the list those things that makes sense to them. If you think you can add to it, please do so.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), July 10, 1999.

Flint wrote: While superficially your list has merit, these pieces of advice have unfortunately been used systematically to discredit good news.

If you'll notice in my original post, I suggested the possibility of two lists; one from the polly and one from the doomer points of view. The goal is to help the newbies learn how to sort through the trash. Perhaps a list from both camps will help? Or would a list from both camps merely muddy the waters further? (Hmmm...so far this is definitely indicating a judgement of: "exercise in futility".)

-- CD (not@here.com), July 10, 1999.

CD, weak mighty weak, you claim to have been through the process but don't want to share your concliusions here. On the other hand you are going to share with us the things YOU feel we should be wary of.

Maybe just maybe you have a hidden agenda and we should be wary of that !!

Folks have an uncanny ability to figure it out on their own. Sometimes it takes a little longer but they figure it out.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 10, 1999.

(Sorry Rob. I posted the above prior to seeing your comments. We must have posted at nearly the same time.)

-- CD (not@here.com), July 10, 1999.

CD, Rob, everybody:

The answer to all your questions is as ugly as Y2K itself: Time and Effort (with capital T and capital E).

That means, in order for newbies to get to know what to do about Y2K they need to invest TIME and EFFORTS. Ugly? Sorry. Welcome to the uncertainties of the 21st. century in a context of constant change.

Don't try to sweat a 'Y2K list' of anything(s). The answer boils down to time and effort.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 10, 1999.

Excuse me fellas, but, has anyone looked at the calendar lately? This is *JULY 1999*. Help newbies 'wade through the trash'? It's taken some of us over a year to collect, analyze, discuss, formulate conclusions, develop strategies, budget, carryout and produce preparations (on various levels of concern). Your tips will be of little value, because there just aren't any 'shortcuts' to getting it. If they're on this site....they have some basic knowledge unless they stumbled across us by accident. Americans have been dealing with our pres.....presi.....presiDENT for years now. They've seen the King of spin in action. If they can't figure out SPIN in *JULY 1999* they will need more than canned goods, let me tell you what! All you need for studying Y2K....is a SPIN detector, plain and simple. I shall leave newbies with another bit of advice:

"Let go your conscious self. Act on instinct."

YODA, Jedi wisdom in *JULY 1999*

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 10, 1999.

In Buddhism Without Beliefs, by Stephen Batchelor, the Buddha is quoted (in Batchelor's translation from the Kalama Sutra):

Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjectures or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else's ability or with the thought "The monk is our teacher." When you know in yourselves: "These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise, and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness," then you should practice and abide in them....

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), July 11, 1999.

I stand corrected Jonathan, LOL. My son has a Pizza Hut placemat with Yoda on it and quotes of Jedi wisdom....just got such a kick out of each of them, guess I lost my head,"judge me not by me size and let the force flow through you"......hahaaaaahoho

My apologies to Obi and all others on different planes......

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 11, 1999.