Excellent article from Y2KNewswire that discusses why some of the Powers that Be fear the concept of preparing for Y2K.

"Political leaders who discourage preparedness are setting the American people up for a crisis. Many such leaders, in fact, are already casting blame on those who prepare, accusing them of "causing a panic" simply by storing extra water, for example. It's no stretch to conclude that our country's political leaders simply don't want people to prepare. The only question has been: why?"

We ask this about our Pollyanna visitors daily, no?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 20, 1999

Answers

"They will not prepare, but they will remember."

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 20, 1999.

Lisa

and for that matter . . King of Spain.

"It's no stretch to conclude that our country's political leaders simply don't want people to prepare. The only question has been: why?"

We ask this about our Pollyanna visitors daily, no? "

Ask whatever you wish about your political leaders. It strikes me as tantamount to the "have you quit beating your wife yet" question, but you have every right to ask.

However, the assertion (oft repeated) that "pollies" are likewise advising people NOT to prepare, can be answered more directly.

Lisa, you particularly should know this, as I called you on it just a few days ago in another forum, and you coincidentally disappeared shortly after, neglecting to respond.

WHERE IS THE POST FROM A "POLLY", ON THIS FORUM, OR ANY OTHER, WHICH TRIES TO PERSUADE PEOPLE NOT TO PREPARE.

Provide the evidence, and we can discuss it. No evidence, no grounds for debate. (But I suspect debate is truly the last thing youre looking for).

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

"Wolv3rin3" asks:

"WHERE IS THE POST FROM A "POLLY", ON THIS FORUM, OR ANY OTHER, WHICH TRIES TO PERSUADE PEOPLE NOT TO PREPARE."

I'll answer that question AS SOON AS THERE ARE NO POLLYS DISRUPTORS ATTEMPTING TO DISCREDIT PREPARATION HERE ON THIS FORUM.

Sir: your motives, sickly green as they are, are not concealed beneath your sickly sweet demeanor. They are as apparent as the stripe down your back.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 20, 1999.

Synopsis of Naval War College Y2K scenarios...

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

Navy: DOD Must Balance Y2K Preparation, Public Perception (i.e. Dont Make Panic Waves)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000p4o

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

By belittling, maligning, and labelling the "doomers", the polly crowd is implicitly framing the preparation arguement: "You doomers are crazy/stupid/survivalists/wackos/etc..."

Who wants to be "one of those"? So, by inference, any "rational, thoughtful person" would NEVER want to PREPARE, and in so doing become part of the "wacko" crowd.

Yup. The polly crowd would NEVER resort to OPEN warfare. It's guerilla all the way, for them. Here's an interesting article on "The 25 Rules of Disinformation". Think of it as the polly bible:

CLICK HERE.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 20, 1999.

Lisa

Nice cop-out. Are you and Diane related ?

One more time for the record . .

1) I use this forum because I am concerned about Y2K and its potential impact on myself and my family. (see the forum posting guidelines if you are unsure of whether this qualifies me).

2) I wish to participate in discussions about breaking Y2K information, good and bad, in order to make my own independent assessment of the degree of preparations which are relevant to my circumstances.

3) I have not engaged in "trolling" activity, and if you can provide hard evidence that I have done so, please attach it to posts in future where you accuse me explicitly or implicitly of such offences. If you are unable to do so, dont make the accusations.

Now, bearing this in mind . .

1) What right have you to cast aspersions about my motives for using this forum, and thereby avoiding a specific, fair, open question in response to an unfounded accusation of yours ?

2) Why cant you answer my question directly, either here or in other fora in which you participate ? Perhaps because you dont HAVE an answer ?

Diane,

further to my request on another thread today. As it is clear that you have time to post to this forum, please explain why you have not as yet responded to my direct questions regarding your administration of this forum.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

And again, Wolverine.

Read the Guidelines and read About. And/or leave. Period.

 Delete assessment of TBY2K SYSOP(s)--is final

'Nuff said.

Diane, Sysop #1

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

Hey W,

What are you stupid?

Oh no, I used a weak ad hominem attack. As I said before, get a life!

Lisa said: "It's no stretch to conclude that our country's political leaders simply don't want people to prepare. The only question has been: why?" We ask this about our Pollyanna visitors daily, no? "

You replied: Ask whatever you wish about your political leaders. It strikes me as tantamount to the "have you quit beating your wife yet" question, but you have every right to ask.

If you would care to explain what wife beating has to do with preparing for Y2K, I think I might want to hear it.

Let me see if I can follow your feeble analogy. Asking a politician if he has "quit beating his wife" assumes in the asking that he beats his wife. Well, aside from being a personal question, it might be an appropriate one to ask a politician if there is a criminal record of prior arrests or even charges (see O.J. Simpson). You imply that this is a ridiculous question to ask any politician.

Are you saying that asking a politician why they don't want people to prepare for Y2K assumes in the asking that Y2K will be a problem? I think it's pretty easy to establish (via IEEE statements or the Senate Hearings reports) that there is a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen with Y2K among the "experts". There actually might be problems. It would therefore be a legitimate question to ask any politician why there has not been a greater effort by the federal government to get people to at least prepare for a week's worth of problems as they have in Atlanta.

You say that you want to be "reasonable". Relating Y2K to wife-beating is not "reasonable". GTFOOH. Think about it.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), July 20, 1999.

W Mr.Pooles blaming abortions on preparations is that discouraging enough for you?

An Open Letter To Ed Yourdon

Ed,

If any one name is synonymous with "Y2K," it would be yours (save, perhaps, for Gary Norths'). That has made you a target, and yes, I've poked fun at you quite frequently on this site. Maybe you think I've gone too far at times.

Yeah, maybe I have. I'll admit it. I'm even willing to do something about it; read on.

You have a large following (even at this late date). With a following comes responsibility; you can't escape this. Whether you like it or not, you are responsible for how many of your followers are behaving.

Here's the problem.

These people have read Time Bomb 2000 and the materials at your Web site and, in some cases, have decided to quit their jobs and spend their life savings preparing for Y2K. But that's the least of it; I have received email reports of girls who've had abortions because they didn't want to raise a child in Y2K. I've heard from senior citizens on fixed incomes (they can't prepare, not they way your followers recommend!) who've lived in constant fear since this whole thing started. There have even been suicides.

You know these things are happening, Ed. It's time for them to stop.

And the spotlight now falls on Ed Yourdon: you can be the hero.

It might surprise you to learn that, when you made your predictions for January 1, April 1 and July 1, I actually agreed with you. I felt that these dates would be critical tests of how well IT and CS professionals around the world were handling the Y2K problem.

You knew it, too -- otherwise, you'd never have made the predictions in the first place, right?

You can sit back in silence now and watch people like Cory Hamasaki and Steve Heller play down these non-events, but you know better.

Repeat: you KNOW better, Ed.

I'm calling on those decades of experience now. Forget these other people. This isn't even between you and me; forget Stephen Poole. I'm just a noisy guy who lives in Alabama.

This is between you and the Truth (with a capital "T").

Ed, you know that the lack of substantial failures on these dates means that Y2K isn't going to be nearly as serious as you originally believed. The fact that dozens of foreign countries -- many of which are "Third World" nations which are supposedly farther behind us in remediation -- haven't had any major problems is an even bigger indication.

This may be something that you'd really prefer not to admit, but deep down inside, you know. And it's time for you to state this publicly.

It doesn't matter if you add the provisio that people should still prepare for some disruptions. In spite of what my detractors say, I recommend that myself. I don't expect you to become as much of a Polly as I am.

It's not enough to wait until next year and then say, "I was wrong." By that time, it'll be too late for a lot of people (and your reputation).

Here's the deal: you do it -- word it however you like; leave in the need for modest preparations, whatever -- and I'll remove any stuff from this Web site which you might find personally offensive.

You don't even have to contact me: as soon as I see you join Peter de Jager in denouncing the radical, fringe Y2K crowd, it'll all be zapped: the silly Flying Pig Award, the "Y2k Authorities" page and all that other stuff.

You have my guarantee on this.

So: what'll it be? You can be a voice of calm and reason now, or you can wait until next year and try to salvage your professional reputation.

The choice is yours.

But it's time for the madness to stop -- and I can think of no one more uniquely suited to help stop it than you. In the name of sheer honesty, if nothing else, it's time for you to speak out.

Yours,

Stephen M. Poole, CET

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), July 20, 1999.

Nothere

My apologies, I thought the "wife beating question" concept was well known, but apparently I need to spell it out.

Asking a politician "Why dont you want people to prepare for Y2K" is the same, in principle as the question I quoted about wife beating, in that it is a question based on an assumption, which the respondent cannot easily answer without giving credibility to that assumption.

If you answer "Yes" it implies that you used to beat her, and have now stopped, whereas answering "No" implies that you still are beating her. The only way out is to answer "I never have beaten my wife", but answering a closed question with a compound answer gives the impression of trying to wriggle. Its a no win situation.

A fair way to ask that kind of question, (in both cases), would be . .

Case 1) "Do you beat your wife ?" (where the simple answer NO, would provide a simple, categorical, informative answer.)

Likewise, on the issue of politicians allegedly trying to stop people from preparing, a fair question would be . .

Case 2) "Do you in any way wish to dissuade people from preparing ?"

In the same way, the simple answer NO can be applied.

I hope this helped.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

I use this forum because I am concerned about Y2K and its potential impact on myself and my family.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

Could of fooled me!

-- (dont@believe.it), July 20, 1999.

I have read some opinions from various sources on "why?" The one that made the most sense was to buy as much time as possible.

No one really knows what the impact will be. It is reasonable to assume that the sooner panic mode hits the general public, the less time industry and government will have to remediate and test their systems, the less time they will have to fix as many of the potential problems as possible before they hit in critical mass. Once panic ensues, programmers will bug-out, parts suppliers will face disruptions, reason will take a sabbatical and focus will shift to cut throat self-interest. Remediation, testing and replacement under these circumstances will be nigh impossible.

Each of us still preparing has realized this on a personal level. How much time do I have to order, receive, etc. before the general public awakens and I will have to compete with millions of others for limited goods and services? It has been referred to as the "Game Over" or "drop dead" point. If you are still preparing, you hope that panic is forestalled as long as possible so you can be set in the best position possible to respond to whatever y2k brings.

My self interest, industry's self interest, government's self-interest. The general public's? Well, maybe. Is it in their self interest to have as much remediated as possible? Can we save them all if it is a 7-8? What about gradually bringing as many as possible on board in phases? (brake, gas, brake, gas in information distribution.) If there is not enough supply capacity for each to prepare individually, is it in the public's interest to give emergency services the longest possible lead to prepare on a community level? What if it is only a 1 or a 2 in impact? Will panic create an impact far worse than the problem?

What a hell of a moral delemma for any leader. You can tell it haunts Bennett. Suppose you were in his shoes. What would you do? (and would the "powers at be" allow you to do it?)

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), July 20, 1999.

In my opinion, it is the height of arrogance, and small mindedness, to assume that just because someone isn't making the exact same preparations, or interpreting information on the same basis that you are, that they are unconcerned about the issue. I get the impression that you are a very young person, with little experience in dealing with people of differing opinions.

The concept of "tolerance" allows for people with different interpretations of an issue, or different opinions, to co-exist, and discuss areas of common interest. You make it very plain that your ability to exercise such tolerance is non-existent. That reflects badly on you, but not on me.

I will not lower myself to that level. I hope you are happy with who you are, and I wish you the best of luck in whatever comes during the next 5 months. Maybe one day you will look back on how you are behaving now, with the benefit of experience and maturity, and feel some regret for the attitude you demonstrate.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

Researching Wolv3rin3 takes time.... but anyway,

Here's where W. dicusses the finer points of being a DeBunker - and how debunker awards should be structured, and then

W's hints/tips on discouraging doomer trolls but then

Wolv can't resist scrapping with them, either

Oh, and if we're gonna doom about something, he

Encourages us to worry about Asteroids before Y2K

Lots more where this came from.

Now, Wolv3rin3, you were upset that I questioned your motives, you say?

NOTE: THESE POSTS ARE ALL AT GNIABI, WHICH TAKES EONS TO LOAD.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 20, 1999.

But here's a really precise look into the Wolv3rin3's mind.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 20, 1999.

In the midst of a long pollyanna blurb, the position was taken that senior citizens (and by implications many others) cannot afford to prepare. Here is my answer to that assertion: (from my website www.y2ksafeminnesota.com)

Finding Time and Money to Prepare For Y2K

This part of my site is addressed to anyone who sees a yawning chasm between his current resources of time/money, and what he believes he needs available in order to set up his household for Y2K.

There is a guideline used by dieters to appraise behavior. It involves judging every action in terms of whether it is a step forwards or backwards in terms of the overall goal. If you apply this in terms of preparing for Y2K, you will quickly find that you (and those members of your household whose behavior you control or influence) have many current diversions of time and money that you can quickly dispense with, freeing up resources for preparation.

You don't need to...

1.Buy another anything that plugs into the wall, including computers, video game anything, music anything, TVs, air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, electric snowblowers, lamps, power tools, hairdryers, curling irons, dishwashers, clothes washers/dryers, electric heaters, etc. Possible exception: food dehydrators. 2.Go on vacations out of town. 3.Fly instead of driving. 4.Take any class that won't be useful in 2000 (or pay for anyone else to take any); classes that fail this test include most college classes, such as art/music/drama/history; any gender/ethnic stuff; any kind of advocacy; psychology, physics, advertising/marketing, anything theoretical, journalism, philosophy, social work, anthropology, cosmetology, sports anything, environmental anything, geology, aviation, law anything, oceanography, sociology, floristry, interior decorating, public relations, counseling, education, political science, most foreign languages, many business classes, tax anything, or any major mostly used in government employment. Classes that might pass this test: small engine repair, first aid/other (nonquack) medical, some chemistry courses, computer programming, public health, local wild plants, electrician/plumber/masonry apprenticeships, vegetable gardening/horticulture/practical agronomy classes, welding, firearm repair, locksmithing, Spanish, English (if you don't speak it well now), local entomology/pest control, animal husbandry, milllwright, process control technician, mechanic, logging/rough carpentry, hydraulic/chemical/electrical engineer, food safety, marksmanship, martial arts, fence construction, blacksmithing, farrier, bowmaker/fletcher/archery, candlemaking, butchering, nonelectric sewing/clothes mending... you get the idea. 5.Go to movies or rent them. 6.Keep any TVs in the house; sell them or at least store them a few miles away (and remember to get the cable turned off, too). TV for most people is like a full-time job with no paycheck, and it's even worse for your kids. 7.Attend sporting events/cultural events/amusement parks. 8.Contribute any time or money to political or charitable groups (your family comes first). 9.Buy/read most fiction, e.g., romances, westerns, detective stories, fantasies, erotica, People, The National Enquirer, most best-sellers, most magazines, etc. 10.Go alpine skiing/snowboarding, or buy equipment for it (sell the skis/boards; other people will be selling their equipment for pennies in a few months, anyway). 11.Play video/computer games, cards, boardgames, assemble jigsaw puzzles, or fill out crossword puzzles. 12.Do a whole lot of housework, especially if there is anyone in the house over 12 who is unemployed. 13.Use credit cards that cost you interest (or any, ideally). 14.Buy restaurant meals over $7.00. 15.Buy knicknacks such as figurines, mobiles, stuffed animals or windchimes (anything "cute" that performs nothing). 16.Go snowmobiling, or spend any money on the sport; instead, sell your snowmobile; between their embedded systems and the expected long-term petroleum refinery shutdowns, snowmobiles will likely be snow-covered lawn ornaments in early 2000 anyway. 17.Hunt anything you can't eat. 18.Plant anything you can't eat (exception: thorny plants for security). 19.Buy potpourri, incense, perfume, air freshener, or the like. 20.Buy or use most cosmetics (exceptions: women in some jobs, actors); no one needs them for school. Exception: a very few people with birthmarks/injury scars sufficiently severe that they effectively cannot function outside their dwelling without them. 21.Use the services of a taxidermist, prostitute, masseuse, manicurist, most counselors or therapists (exceptions: marriage or chemical dependence), fortuneteller, astrologist, tattoo artist, body piercer, etc.; the last two are not only money-wasters and health hazards, but they make you less employable; this will be especially undesirable next year when (in my opinion) unemployment can be expected to be about 50%, and employers will not be forced by labor shortages to hire people they would rather not use. 22.Use tobacco, consume beverage alcohol, or have anything to do with any illegal drugs (Y2K preparation is particularly difficult if fined into bankruptcy or imprisoned). 23.Drive or park in a way that results in a ticket. 24.Have the thermostat above 60 degrees in winter. 25.Have a radio/TV/music device/light on in an unoccupied room (exception: burglar deterrance) or one in which all occupants are asleep. 26.Behave in a manner that results in late fees (rent, utilities, library book overdues, etc.). 27.Voluntarily do anything involving photography unless it is your well-paying primary job. 28.Buy another animal (except perhaps a nonfragile dog) or buy "things" for the animals you have. 29.Buy gifts or attend social occasions for people who mean little to you (includes some relatives). 30.Participate in gambling, including casinos, the state lottery, office sports pools, raffles, etc. 31.Undergo elective plastic surgery (facelifts, liposuction, nose jobs, etc.). 32.Visit a chiropractor, aroma therapist, acupuncturist, traditional/ Asian medicine person, or Indian medicine man. 33.Decorate in any way for any holidays/occasions (home or work) or in any other way spend time or money to celebrate them. 34.Buy a fur anything (I'm not against furs normally; they're just prohibitively expensive). 35.Buy anything to put on the wall. 36.Buy caviar, pate, lobster, expensive cuts of meat, or other expensive foods or beverages; you don't have to eat meat or desserts every single day, either. 37.Visit a beauty parlor/barber/stylist for anything except infrequent simple & inexpensive haircuts (no curling/straightening/coloring of hair). 38.Do any motorboating/sailboating/ice skating/rollerskating/ skateboarding; sell the equipment (possible exceptions: sailboat IF you live on a really big lake, or small boats you can row/paddle). 39.Buy any kind of ornamental plant, whether live or plastic, yard or potted. 40.Buy a new (or otherwise expensive) car; you only need one that will run until the end of the year. 41.Buy fireworks, car ornaments, cut flowers, jewelry, sports memorabilia, collectibles, chewing gum, or drinking straws. 42.Buy carpeting; if anything, you should get the carpeting you have ripped out and replaced with ceramic tile, vinyl tile, or linoleum (in descending order of desirability); the reasoning is that you won't be able to vacuum in 2000, but you will be able to sweep and mop, and cleanliness will be even more important than now (think disease prevention). 43.Settle lawsuits out of court if 1/1/2000 will intervene before they will come to trial. 44.Cosign a loan or pay bail/fines for anyone not in your household. 45.Have only one job, unless it either consistently gives you lots of paid overtime, or you are actively studying something that passes the test of item #4. 46.Have anyone in the household over 14 unemployed (even 70-year-old Grandma can find something to do that brings in money). 47.Buy new (or much) furniture. 48.Build on to your house. 49.Drive children to anything fun. 50.Use full-service fuel pumps at service stations, even if the weather is unpleasant. 51.Buy exercise equipment; instead, keep your eyes open for equipment that has been discarded (expensive nongated suburbs and near private colleges are good areas to look); best of all, start walking to get in shape; practically everyone can do it (in 99% of weather conditions), and since you'll probably be unable to avoid walking your tail off next year, you might as well start getting used to it now. 52.Buy herbal supplements; 99% of them are a total waste of money, and often hazardous to your health; also, having once worked in a place that packaged them, I can tell you that herbal supplement quality control stinks. 53.Badger your doctor into prescribing you a prescription for antibiotics when he thinks you have a viral infection and don't need them; besides the waste of money (assuming your family has to contribute to their purchase cost), there are health detriments to needless antibiotic use. 54.Buy formal/fancy clothing (unless your job requires it). 55.Buy stocks or bonds (of any type); I expect that losing half of their value during the next eight months and becoming unredeemable for years is the best situation you can hope for if you own these for too much longer; if anything, sell every one of these you own before their price drops (and while you still are able to sell them). Don't buy short options, either; by the time the effects of Y2K would make them highly profitable, I expect that collecting on them will be difficult or impossible. 56.Have more than one phone line (unless your business/work requires it); believe it or not, you have no legal or moral obligation to allow children to have access to a phone. 57.Make personal long-distance calls instead of writing about 95% of the time; as a good rule of thumb, reserve it for occasions that require wearing a suit (weddings, funerals, got a good job). Also, never use a cellular phone when a regular telephone is available; I can't count the times I've observed someone chatting away about obviously non-urgent personal matters 20' from a regular phone that was not in use. 58.Conceive or adopt a child. [Note I did not use the "A" word.] This applies to everyone in the house. This may be the most important advice I give you. 59.Take on any new obligations or debts (monetary or time), whether they are your idea or someone else's.

You get the idea. If anything makes it harder to ensure your family comes out the other side of Y2K, it stops now. Your family deserves no less.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 20, 1999.

Lisa

Great detective work.Why do I get the feeling that the Polly's are a very small organized group.Sort of like a terrorist cell?

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), July 20, 1999.

Desert98: yeah, sorta.

Deceitful bunch.

Comin' from the low road.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 20, 1999.

Y2kNewswire using the word "stretch"- How fitting!

-- CD (not@here.com), July 20, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3 asks Diane: "please explain why you have not as yet responded to my direct questions regarding your administration of this forum."

Simple Wolverine, IT'S NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS! How she administers this forum is her business and the other SYOPS' business alone. If you do not like it, TOO BAD. Go and haunt another forum.

As far as your challenge to provide proof that Pollyannas discourage preparation, I offer the following:

" Oh Great Y2K, I beg for your justice! Please get me out of miserable life, for I cannot do it alone, as I am weak, and outnumbered by people who I don't like. I will stock up on rice, beans and water in your name, O Great Y2K, and with your blessings I shall inherit the Earth, for my kind are as meek as they come ".

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 20, 1999.

*********************

Here's the problem.

These people have read Time Bomb 2000 and the materials at your Web site and, in some cases, have decided to quit their jobs and spend their life savings preparing for Y2K. But that's the least of it; I have received email reports of girls who've had abortions because they didn't want to raise a child in Y2K. I've heard from senior citizens on fixed incomes (they can't prepare, not they way your followers recommend!) who've lived in constant fear since this whole thing started. There have even been suicides. (so he says with no proof or documentation to back-up his claims). Stephen M. Poole, CET

******************

Face it, y2k was already supposed to be breathing fire down our necks at this time. That was what ED, and Scary Gary, and the rest told us a year and two years ago. But no, it's not and it IS being managed. So do you really want to continue listening to these people and go on screwing yoursleves? People that have been wrong time and time and time again??

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 20, 1999. (screwing yourselves refers to those taking the advice of Ed and North - and preparing for Y2K. In other words...you are screwing yourself by preparing for Y2K because you're listening to a couple of false prophets. Sounds like discouraging any preparation for Y2K to me...)

***************

Right now it's obvious there is no fear about Y2K as there isn't any proof of TEOTWAWKI. How come you Doomers just can't see that? Your going to prepare for a BITR? Fine go ahead, it's called making a shopping list. You think the world is going to come to a screeching halt because of one computer bug? Your nuts, get some help.

-- (doomers@suck.com), July 19, 1999.

************************

A "doom zombie", as defined by the lunatics and cretins on the "Y2K Debunking Board", is someone who has determined, by his own reading and thinking about Y2K, that we are likely to see a major disaster next year and that it would be wise to prepare for this possibility. In other words, the famous "prudent man".

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), July 10, 1999.

********************

But people have moved from preparation to paranoia.

As 2000 nears, there are people who have built the equivalent of a bomb shelter--stocking ammo and guns alongside the canned tuna, water and first-aid kits......

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 18, 1999

***************

That's just for starters. Digging in the archives for gems of wit from Jimmy Bagga Dougnuts, Y2K Pro and other wonderful "non-doomers" about what they think of folks that are preparing by stocking up on food, water and "ammo" is a real eye opener. Discouraging preparations....I would place ridicule, scorn and scoffing at the notion of preparing as discouraging preparations, yes.

But I'll assume in advance that these snips will not be sufficient "proof" for you that pollies discourage preparation.

But we get the point anyway. If you stockpile for Y2K, you are a Paranoid, delusional Doomer and will cause a panic that will collapse the infrastructure. At best, you doomers are making those that put their predictions into book and newsletter form rich, and that's not fair!!!!

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), July 20, 1999.

Lisa . .

Is that the best you could come up with for your attempt at a character assassination ? Towit . .

1) An attempt at HUMOUR with regard to how a debunking forum copes with the headache of continually having to respond to the same "I just came from gary north's site and youre all wrong because . . THE SKY IS FALLING" posts ? It seems a common symptom with some "pessemists" that they are forced to undergo a "sense of humor bypass operation" prior to acceptance into the flock.

2)A calm and measured response to a provocative post which contained nothing other than direct insults regarding the regular forum posters, and equated nicely to the "disruptive troll posts" as exampled by INVAR further down this thread. Note please that my response was a call for the forum regulars not to get into a slanging match with the troll poster. Not a call for deletion, nor a cuss- filled rant in reply. Compare this to yourself, and your colleagues in here, and the way in which they respond even to posts WHICH CONTAIN VALID CONTENT. I think my method stands up quite well. (But of course you didnt post the messages which I was replying to did you ? Because maybe that would have undermined the already weak case which you were trying to construct).

3)Again, a response posted out of context. Indeed, a response to a harsh ad-hom attack on me. Did you think that in my reply I exhibited the kind of offensive and insulting attititude thats common here ? Would you have been so mild considering the content of the post which I was replying to ?

4)Um . . that post simply says "I think its a problem, and a big one, but I also think we have the resources and the talents to manage it and reduce its impact". Is that message too provocative for you ? Its simply another point of view. Again, theres nothing in there that I feel undermines my position, or that I regret, or that can (I feel) be taken as an indication of some shady hidden agenda on my part.

So Lisa, nice try, and I'm sure you worked hard to dig out those old posts and to try to present them as a smear, but in context, I dont think it worked. Of course, thats up to the impartial to decide. Let me know when its my turn to scour the archives of all the other fora, and pick out a few of your choice postings to cross-post out of context and illustrate just where YOU are coming from. At your convenience of course.

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

Nah, Wolverine, I spent about 5 minutes.

You sound like you're already starting to get irritated.... and we're just beginning.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 21, 1999.

Lisa

My old granny used to say (and she was rarely wrong about these things) . .

"Self-praise is no recommendation"

You seem to think you've scored some kind of point. How exactly ?

And as for me being irritated. Uhm . . nope. Why would I be irritated at the sight of you washing your dirty underwear in public, when mine remain unsoiled ? The overwhelming emotion is . . sympathy perhaps. In amongst some amusement certainly. :)

You could of course stop playing silly games and just answer my question, rather than continually trying (and failing) to smear me, in the hope that the question (and the questioner) will sneak away in the night. They, and I, wont. Not until I have an answer.

But like I said, and youve done nothing to make me reassess this supposition . . it simply seems that you just dont HAVE an answer. So why not play like a grown-up and just say that ?

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.

My old granny used to say (and she was rarely wrong about these things) . . if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - trust your intuition. I could be disastrously wrong, but I'm pretty sure we all know why you're here at this forum.

OK, now what was your question again? Please, please, keep it 25 words or less: as you are no doubt aware, I possess the attention span of a gnat.

I'll do anything to have you sneak away into the night.

Thank you in advance, Sir.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 21, 1999.

Lisa,

No you wouldnt, you'd miss me if I was gone. :)

Anyway, whats the point in my restating the question ? You CANT be pretending you've forgotten what it was. Pay attention. I'm already being accused of "flogging a dead horse" elsewhere in here. Besides, YOU wouldnt dare answer it. Not without permission from "high- command" anyway, (and she's busy doing that thing where you cover your ears and yell "LALALALALALA" and hey-presto, no more annoying question).

Your self-stated job description is clear enough . .

"I work the "opposition" for a living "

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 21, 1999

But I for one still think back to the good old days, and the delights to be found in your many (Many!) cozy postings on De-Bunky. (Which reminds me, you still havent said when it'll be my turn to "out" your postings from there, as you were so quick to do with mine. Strange, I wouldn't have thought you'd have the first care about what I did with your past postings. Hm ? Oh well).

Regards

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), July 22, 1999.