Has Dennis lost it? (Part 2)

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

In an earlier thread, Dennis went on thus:

Mr. Dymond:

POLLYANNA <> GENERAL PUBLIC (they're just uninformed/apathetic)

A pollyanna (my personal definition) is a person who 1) thinks the whole issue is a hoax, 2) actively advocates NO PREPARATION or consideration of the issues, and 3) claims they KNOW that everything will be "okay".


I feel that the polly crowd should be muzzled. Their arrogant presumption that nothing will happen is an extremely DANGEROUS line or reasoning. If their beliefs prevail (and they ARE, at least to this point) and BAD THINGS happen, millions could end up suffering, whereas a bit or preparation might have saved them.

But the pollys are too wrapped up in themselves to allow these random thoughts of reality to intrude. The more people who listen to them, the more that will suffer *IF*... Yup. Great thinkers and leaders all. I think the term used on this board is "BIG BRAINS".

Idiots, one and all.

And BTW, I have the right in this country (1st amendment, remember?) to be as angry as I want, and to express it verbally in any way I please, as long as I don't threaten a specific person. And I have that right free of second guessing by YOU Dymond, or ANYONE ELSE.

Just don't come to MY house begging for food. I hope you (and those pollys like you) suffer greatly for your arrogance and abject stupidity. IMO, you people are all sub-human, and deserve to be treated as such (*IF*).

Dennis, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I do not satisfy any of your criteria for pollyness. I do not think the whole Y2K issue is a hoax, I have never advocated no preparation (just stated that I do not consider it worth while for myself, which is a decision I am perfectly at liberty to make) or consideration of the issues, and I do not claim that I know everything will be OK. In fact, I think you would be hard put to find anyone who, by your definition, is a pollyanna. Does that mean you are in fact angry with no one? Or are you simply misjudging everyone whose beliefs about the potential threat of Y2K are not as gloomy and pessimistic as yours?

I never questioned your right to verbally express your anger, contempt or whatever however you please. By all means go ahead and rant away. I'm confident enough that people of your sort are in a small enough minority that I can afford just to laugh at you and your despicable attitude.

This was the best bit:

I hope you (and those pollys like you) suffer greatly for your arrogance and abject stupidity.

What can I add to that? It speaks for itself.

And don't worry: whatever happens, I'll be coming nowhere near your house begging for food. I would also recommend that others avoid doing so too.

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 19, 1999


Richard, the concept of Doomers wanting their fellow human beings to "suffer" is a common theme here on Y2Krackpot central. Poor simple-minded Dennis is just another example...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), July 19, 1999.


What exactly is the point of your rehashing this all over again? The very same post was the focal point of your FIRST thread on this. It seems to me that you have a problem with Dennis personally. Wouldn't it be better to take this personal war offline? Is a public forum the place to engage in personal wars? *I* don't think so, which is why I simply don't respond to anyone who seems dead-set to engage in a public "pissing contest." I would advise Dennis to ignore this thread. He rarely heeds my advice, but I sure hope he does in this case.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 19, 1999.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ............ !!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 19, 1999.

yada, yada, yada ...Do something or get off the (pity) pot.

-- Woodpile (whynot@zog.net), July 19, 1999.

Thank you Anita. I'll take your advice (this time!)


Wassa matter Dymond? Slow day for ya buddy?

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 19, 1999.

Richard D.

If this is the best you can do buddy, move on and try gardening or something eh? You need to get out more.

What a waste of bandwidth.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 19, 1999.


I didn't consider this to be a "rehash". I considered it to be a continuation of the previous thread. But I admit that it was getting to a point where there was not much else to say. I suppose what provoked me into starting a Part 2 was Dennis's idiotic definition of "pollyanna", by which he insinuated that I think Y2K is a hoax, I am trying to persuade people not to prepare, and I think I know what is going to happen. Forgive me, but sometimes when I see that same old nonsense spouted over and over again by various doomers, I find myself chafing a bit. I should just ignore it, I suppose. And ignore Dennis.

Consider this chapter of Olson v. Dymond closed.

Can't promise that I won't re-open the case later, though...

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 19, 1999.


I hope you (and those pollys like you) don't have to suffer greatly for your arrogance and abject stupidity, but if you do suffer I may not be able to help you.


Doomer and Y2K pessimist. I see no reason to believe that a catasrophe can not happen. When in doubt, prepare for the worst.

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), July 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ