Does Doomer == Anti-Government?

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

Question (which I am not receiving pay to ask): Are all doomers anti-government?

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999

Answers

I don't believe you'll find a single anarchist here.

-- Wingman (-@-.-), July 23, 1999.
Are all Pollys pro government? I'm not being paid to ask this one either...

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.
No, but the government = anti-original thought.

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 23, 1999.

I ("Doomer" that I am) would probably tend to agree that generally a Doomer is less likely to accept at face value what The Government says, especially if it is clear that for The Government to say otherwise would open the floodgates for criticism of The Powers That Be, not to mention (as in the case of Y2K) outright panic.

And yes, I think that in general, the Pollyanna Outlook is one of complete faith and confidence in The System and those who run it.

Regardless, though, remember: Bad computer code does not care.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), July 23, 1999.
Are all pollys ignoring the needs of those who MUST have prescription medicine in January? I too am not receiving pay to ask.

-- (render@unto.caesar), July 23, 1999.
Andy,

One has nothing to do with the other.

I hate the term doomer. I'm just a programmer, with 31 years in the business, that is concerned about Y2K. I prefer to call myself a GI.

I'm not anti-gov, but I'm also not happy with the current situation. No, I don't want to see the gov fail, but I would like to see some changes. That's why I'm a registered libertairan. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

A-R

You Americans got to stop wrapping the flag and religion around this issue.

Why, what do you think about your own stupid question?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 23, 1999.

Not anti-Government, but anti-woefully corrupt Government

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 23, 1999.
Jack and Sysman have it right.

Aside from a few flakes, the best thing a doomer can do is figure out ways to keep the government going. Make your community tough enough and resilient enough that you don't have to ask for "help" from the NG.

Who really wants anarchy? Think it was OW Holmes who said that he wanted the legal system's "trees" to remain standing, because if they were cut down no one could remain standing in the winds that would blow.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), July 23, 1999.

Andy, our government, our country, with all of its faults (quite a list, but your's would probably differ from mine [G]), is still the only place I would live.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 23, 1999.
Jon,

You summed up what would be my answer to Andy Ray quite well.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 23, 1999.

LOL Wingman!

As for myself, just kinda disgusted with this particular government, but not kidding myself that a change of parties would turn the nation around.

-- Thinman (thinman38@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Andy, in the words of E. Coli

storing food = survivalist = militia = terrorist

or at least that's the way polly = idiot sees it...

-- a (a@a.a), July 23, 1999.

We are the government, we are a republic, we have just forgotten.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), July 23, 1999.
Brian,

I just cannot take seriously anyone who uses "got" in writing as a synonym for "have". Are you sure you're not American yourself?

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), July 23, 1999.

Andy Ray,

I'm not anti-govenrment. I'm quite happy with the structure and organization of our government (ie. balance of powers, etc). I AM anti-politicians-who-don't-respect-and-honor-the-holding-of-public-off ice. There's not a single thing wrong with this country that can't be fixed at the voting booths. Now all we have to do is get more than 38% of eligable voters to turn out at the next election...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 23, 1999.

Hey Prometheus! I,like, got a question for ya', why so serious about the grammer? This form of dialogue is essentially "chat". Better watch out, or I'll sick Flint on ya'.

justkiddinjustkiddinjust........

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

The term "anti-gov't." is too vague and simplistic. The Consitution created by the Founding Fathers did not specify executive orders (which has given Cinton almost dictatorial powers.....heard Paul Begala's famous quote? "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool") Yeah, real cool. It stated that only Congress can coin money, not a privately held bank like the Federal Reserve. (It's no more federal than Federal Express). Also, only Congress should be able to commit our troops for these UN style police actions that we're now engaged in overseas, not the President by executive decree. I could go on but the point is if our government was in concert with the Constitution very few people would have a problem with it....however, thanks to a gutless Congress and a president with questionable tendecies the gov't that we now have in place has done plenty to infuriate many Americans to a point where yes, we are anti-THIS gov't.

-- saveamerica (gfc40@hotmail.net), July 23, 1999.
Prometheus, weren't you a Greek god or something? What would your dad Titan say if he heard you were hangin' around with a bunch of colonials? Bad boy! Bad, bad boy!! Back to Olympus with you.

stilljustkiddinstill........

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

You might want to reconsider the use of such vague and "loaded" terms as "doomer" and "anti-government". These terms are of no use in civil discourse. They lack clarity and incite emotion. All you are likely to accomplish is to get us chasing our tails, or rushing about, bumping into one another and swearing like sailors.

Or was that your purpose? If so, I'm sorry to inform you that this forum doesn't exist to gratify your idle curiosity or for your viewing pleasure. The people who participate in it, and patiently answer others' questions, do it voluntarily and to be helpful. They give of their time and effort in order to accomplish some good. Please respect that.

If not, please rephrase your question in clearer terms, so I can figure out what kind of information you really want. Thanks.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 23, 1999.

Andy Ray,

I hope that you can be happy with your ignorance.

That is the only thing that allows your reality to coeexist with mine.

While you believe what your mind can not disseminate for itself, I will evaluate and decide ON MY OWN. That alone is too difficult for you to fathom.

I pray you are "happy". You may never know freedom or liberation in a personal or real sense. In essence you will always be a "slave". Not to your government, but to yourself.

Learn to think about others, and not yourself.

Father

-- Thomas G. Hale (hale.tg@att.net), July 23, 1999.

Brian,

I just cannot take seriously anyone who uses "got" in writing as a synonym for "have". Are you sure you're not American yourself?

-- Prometheus (fire@for.man), July 23, 1999.

Prometheus

No I am not American, very Canadian. Although you are right about the english and I apologize for the blanket comment to my American friends.

It still is a stupid question.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 23, 1999.

In response to Andy Ray's inflamatory question, I must disagree with Wingman and say yes, there is one token anarchist here. Most people, even well-read ones, usually have NO idea what anarchism means, so here's a hotlink to a very thorough anarchism FAQ. (It doesn't cover every single question you might have, but anarchism does propose a radically different way for basically every aspect of economics, politics and society, so the FAQ would need to be 1000's pages long to cover every sensible question. Still, it's a great read.)

An anarchist FAQ

It seemed to me that implicit in Andy Ray's baiting was the suggestion that "anti-government" people would be "doomers" or might even welcome "doom" in the hope that their political agendas might be forwarded. I can sort of understand how goddamn Marxists or Milnish Constitutionalists or Trilateral overlords or mindless terrorists might see y2k as an opportunity for their programs, but these groups are all essentially pro-government. They might not like the governments we have, but they would have no compunction in taking control of the State apparatus to force you and me to do things their way. Anarchism, on the other hand, cannot be enforced upon the world by a vanguard of revolutionaries, by it's very nature it can only come about through the self-chosen efforts of people that realise that it would work. It can only propogate through the example of succesful anarchist undertakings. Now there may not be too many of these :~}, but there've been a few that demonstrate the in-principle feasibility of the idea. Having the world fall in an ugly y2k heap won't do much to help individuals and communities to better organise a sane and free civil society. Anarchist ideas might be of great use to people in a post-y2k world, if the economy and political systems actually do fall in a heap then the people themselves are going to have to organise these aspects of life pretty quickly, or else Infomagic might be just around the corner. Anarchism has hundreds of years of thought on how ordinary people can "Do It Yourself" in these areas. But I'm not sure that a collapse of the civilisation is going to be any help in promoting a peaceful harmonious world that has done away with the twin poisons of State and Capital. Anarchist thought is just here to help - if people don't adopt anarchist practices then there's nothing that anarchists can do about it,..ce la vie...the world goes down the tubes. Anarchists would view the whole y2k schmozzle as just the kind of idiotic problem you're inevitably going to get when your social institutions are inherently stupid, i.e. hierarchical, competitive, coercive. (ps, do I still count as a doomer? I'm trying to find a good job, not a good cave.)

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

I swear that had paragraphs when I wrote it up, honest. I don't want to post it again, I feel too preachy as it is. Just follow the link sometime.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.
I wouldn't consider myself anti-government. Just like I'm not anti- hyena. Just as long as both keep their F**KING paws off ME !

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), July 23, 1999.

Nabi,

Some of the answers above indicate some think all 'polly's' are pro- government.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.
I think Clinton's a traitor and probably a rapist. He is a pathological criminal who does not deserve to be in office. That being said, I respect the office of the president and our three branches of government. I think we live in the finest nation on earth with a system of government which far surpasses most others.

I am an American and will support my country to the end. If that means literally defending her from civil chaos, then I will do that. If it means defending her from foreign invasion or terrorists then I will do that.

Just because I don't like the way it's being handled, doesn't mean I'm disloyal to my flag. Don't even think about making that argument to me.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Gordon:

Very well put. The Office of the Presidency can be inhabited by someone unfit to hold it, while the office itself remains worthy of our respect.

Andy Ray:

Myself, I often get the "feel" from the Y2K optimists among us (or those who refuse to think about it) that to even question a less than optimum outcome is to be a danger to the American Way.......

Frankly, as long as someone has researched and thought about this or any other issue, I will not try to change their minds. I WILL agree to disagree. I'll be glad to discuss it, with the hope that exposure to another viewpoint will shed light in an area I've overlooked. Or it might reinforce my opinion. Each case is different.

I have NO desire to see radical changes in our country. I would like to see some leaders for a change, rather than poll watchers. Of course, I'd like a lot more people to turn off their TV's, also. What can I say?

Well, my sweet wife just showed up, we are going shopping. Ya'all have a good evening.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 23, 1999.

Believe it or not, but some of my friends think the whole y2k thing is a joke, because "the big companies aren't going to lose money". Some of them think it's a fraud propagated by doomer supply stores and government lackeys looking for job security.

Hardly anyone I know personally (maybe 1% of the people whom I associate with) believe it's a real concern. For this reason, I don't generally talk to people about it unless they bring it up first....

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweb.net), July 23, 1999.

Doomers realize stupidity has created the Y2K problem. Most people, including those in business, and especially those in government, are stupid. I'm against stupidity. So, guess my attitude re government.

BTW, It has been reported elsewhere and in past posts here that the two-digit year format was set as a government (military) standard. So. guess my attitude re government.

Remember this acronym: EGTTTS (everything government touches turns to shinola).

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 23, 1999.

Tech32: So you get 38% (more?) to the polls. Considering that 95% of that 38% are idiots, nothing will change.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 23, 1999.
A,

Tech32: So you get 38% (more?) to the polls. Considering that 95% of that 38% are idiots, nothing will change.

I disagree. I think MOST people are just fed up with the current system and think they can't make a difference. Just about the only people who do show up to vote (the 38%) are hardcore Democrates or Republicans who would vote for a fish in a necktie if nominated by their party. The other 62% of the voting public clearly want someone else...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 23, 1999.

Tech32: Voting is obviously not the answer. When voting percentages were higher, the idiots still usually managed to pick (with rare exceptions) the worst of the two candidates. Thats why the U.S. has deteriorated politically over the years, at an increasing rate. It's called a "vicious circle" or "positive feedback" (positive in a negative sense like the speaker squeal at a rock concert when mics and amps not adjusted/separated properly).

Even if you could compel 100% voting (like they used to do in the Soviet Union), the combination of the choices available and the unerring ability of the voters to pick the worst, would continue the deterioration.

There ain't no political solutiion. The only alternative, scary as it is, is acting on Jefferson's comment about "the tree of liberty being refreshed/watered (?) with the blood of tyrants."

Obviously, not too many of us are ready for that. So, we'll just continue to bitch until they cut our tongues out.

-- A (A@AisA.com), July 23, 1999.

A,

I completely understand your frustration with the state of the world but what comes after the "revolution" you speak of?

Do we just replace it with another political system that inevitibly won't work like all the other political systems that have been tried and scrapped over the last 4,000 - 6,000 years?

I don't know the answer but I did run across an interesting online book today called Uncommon Sense: The State is Out of Date by Gregory Sams.

I haven't gotten very far into his book so I don't know for certain where he's going with his ideas (I can make a guess) but I just thought I'd pass it along to you and anyone else that might be interested. It might make interesting reading for the coming weekend...

BTW, I don't know the author nor am I making any money from promoting his book.

Sincerely,

-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 23, 1999.

I was curious about the political leanings of the GIs and the polly's.

There seems to be no overwhelmingly apparent connection between political philosophy and a person's belief regarding Y2K.

Thanks,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.
I for one, realize the need for a stable and small govt. Anarchy just won't cut it for long.

However, that having been said, I'm only for a Constititional govt, and ours hasn't been that in a LONG time. If they'd only act within the confines of the Constitition, we'd have a lot fewer problems, and a much more stable and prosperous nation.

Right now, we're collectively heading into the sewer, and I don't see a way to stop it, revolution or not. People in general (not most here, but the general public) are used to having the govt or someone bail them out of their errors, instead of having to face the consequences. People in general have an entitlement mentality - it's ok to steal from you, to re-distribute to the masses, even though they have no right to it, and don't deserve it. There isn't much in the way of morals anymore.

I'm obviously painting alot of people with a broad brush, and I don't mean to, and I'm sure that there are plenty of exceptions to what I said, but I haven't encountered many of them.

As long as the masses can work, sit down to TV and a beer or two, and pump out kids, they won't rebel. Most can't even imagine the concept. Until we can change that, no revolution has a real chance of success. We have to change the mentality of the population, and that's not going to happen, unfortunately.

I hope that Y2k brings down society fairly hard, and makes people wake up and reassess what's important in their lives. A real attitude adjustment is in order, guys.

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), July 23, 1999.

A,

Even if you could compel 100% voting (like they used to do in the Soviet Union), the combination of the choices available and the unerring ability of the voters to pick the worst, would continue the deterioration.

So you are saying that we can't have a republic with democratically elected officials because you or someone else will know 'better' than the people who should run things? A bit paternalistic dontcha think?

Just 'cause people don't care about the same things you (and/or I) do doesn't make them stupid. They may make stupid choices (like we all do) but that doesn't mean they lack the capacity to 'do the right thing' from time to time.

You know, about two years ago I was working on a project that had a very bright lady on the team who was a Chinese national (here on a work visa). One day over lunch we were talking politics and she expressed dismay at our political system. She asked "How can you have elections? How can you know you're picking the best person?" I answered that whoever we picked was the best person because, for better or worse, they represented the will of the people.

Would YOU rather have a system like in China where someone else decides who you get to vote for?

There ain't no political solutiion. The only alternative, scary as it is, is acting on Jefferson's comment about "the tree of liberty being refreshed/watered (?) with the blood of tyrants."

Actually, I think it was "..the blood of tyrants and patriots". Btw, Tim McVeigh was wearing a shirt with that quote on it when he was aprehended after the OKC bombing.

No, I don't think we need a bloody revolution in this country, at least not as long as we have the right to vote. Remove that right and I too would take up arms against our 'domestic' enemies. As long as we can 'kick the bums out' we can fix whatever is broken in this country...

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 23, 1999.

Bill,

Right now, we're collectively heading into the sewer, and I don't see a way to stop it, revolution or not......As long as the masses can work, sit down to TV and a beer or two, and pump out kids, they won't rebel....

I think the founding fathers recognized this in the Declaration of Independance when they said:

"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "

One of the reasons I respect the founding fathers so much is that they recognized that the WORLD around us would change, but that the PEOPLE living in it wouldn't.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 23, 1999.

Andy Ray said

Brian (imager@home.com): There was only one stupid response to the question.

...........................................

By your own words

>> There seems to be no overwhelmingly apparent connection between political philosophy and a person's belief regarding Y2K.

Thanks, Andy Ray >>>

As I said it was a stupid question. You seemed to be REALLY good at asking them. It is just like asking if doomers are agianst religion.

Sounds dumb eh?

Try : are Pollies agianst a good arguement?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 23, 1999.

I would like to "get back" to the fundamental precept that legislators can make only those laws to which they, themselves, will be subject. (I believe this was called the "citizen legislator." ) My comments apply to the initiative process as well. (The Founders called this the "tyranny of the majority.") Law making responsibility should return to the level of government for which it is most appropriate. e.g. East Coast legislators should recuse themselves from making laws that affect only the West. Urbanites should not have the opportunity to make laws applicable to rural people and vice-versa, etc.

If wanting to reinforce the concept of a "bottom up" dynamic in self-governance is anti-government, then I guess I am.

Right now, I feel that rural Westerners are pre-empted from self-governance. I also believe this is having disastrous results. I would like to see that balance shifted back to what I believe the Founders intended.

We do not need a "parens patria" looking out for "our best interests." We are not children. If allowed the opportunity, we are capable of making moral, adult decisions about self-governance.

This does not, however, mean that such "devolution" can not occur in a peacefull, orderly manner. As long as the Constitutional frame is not corrupted, it allows for such change through our political system.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), July 24, 1999.

http://www.alaskamall.com/Fox4/constitution/declaration.htm

In Congress, July 4, 1776.
The UNANIMOUS DECLARATION
of the
THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-- His Les (history@lesson.com), July 24, 1999.

anti government or anti current government?It would be nice if we really did live in a democracy instead of a corporate run puppet state

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 24, 1999.

Brian,

You said:
By your own words
>> There seems to be no overwhelmingly apparent connection between political philosophy and a person's belief regarding Y2K.
Thanks, Andy Ray >>>
As I said it was a stupid question. You seemed to be REALLY good at asking them. It is just like asking if doomers are agianst religion.
Sounds dumb eh?
Try : are Pollies agianst a good arguement?

Are you stating that the validity (instupidity) of a question is determined by a positive response? Are you truly illustrating one of my claims about 'GI' logic: that they only accept as credible observations that assert their premise of a catastrophic Y2K? If so, thank you.

Are you stating that you prefer attacking people who disagree with you but seek answers as to why you believe what you believe; as opposed to engaging in logical (or your perception of logical) debate or discourse? Please define what you mean by calling this a stupid question - feel free to be specific.

FYI, I have been patiently waiting for Outings to step into a cross-posting verification of another illustration of 'GI' methodology, but he/she has apparently seen through my attempt to educate new lurkers to this forum towards a more 'pollyistic' viewpoint - drats.

Marsh, His Les, and zoobie,

Thank you for your (contrastingly) well-reasoned comments in your response to my question.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.
Andy Ray is up to something.

Does Polly == Liberal? == Pro-Government?

-- (P@Q.R), July 24, 1999.

Andy Ray said;

"Are you stating that the validity
       (instupidity) of a question is determined by
       a positive response? "

Well I would go to the root of the question myself. What is a "doomer"? Alot of folks including myself like to be able to understand the threats of Y2K. It seems to be a leap to generalize like you have that "doomers" would hate governments because of a computer failures. If you had been a little more clear on your question and used G North and P Milne as a "Doomer" example and confined it to the U.S. Government then you have a reference for an answer. Other wise are you suggesting that because I look into Y2K that my feelings toward the Canadian Government, Provincial Government, Regional Government  and Town Government is suspect? Your question was far to broad.
 

"Are you truly
       illustrating one of my claims about 'GI'
       logic: that they only accept as credible
       observations that assert their premise of a
       catastrophic Y2K? If so, thank you.

Actually I am right in the middle of the GI position and consider that you have more to worry about than I do about Y2K. In my area the risks are few but they include Health, S&MEs and Food. These risks have been confirmed by my Provincial Government and could affect alot of local folk, and in the case of health there is risk to life. Catastrophic failure is likely to be local and one would have to make their own judgment call. Since water is no problem where I live, looking for the failure of it is unlikely to help. I have to look for the failures that concern my family and area. Unfortunately members of my family also live in an area that is high risk, very cold climate and chemical and refining plants very close. This could mean "catastrophic failure".  Now in what way did you mean catastrophic Y2K? Globally, locally or to my sisters family? Failure in -40 is catastrophic. One doesn't even have to GI or be a doomer to figure that out. So worrying about failure makes a person a "doomer"? I think not.

       "Are you stating that you prefer attacking
       people who disagree with you but seek
       answers as to why you believe what you
       believe; as opposed to engaging in logical (or
       your perception of logical) debate or
       discourse? Please define what you mean by
       calling this a stupid question - feel free to
       be specific."

Well stupid is a "vague" description of your question, this is true and I take it back. But your question was intentionally vague with out further reference to your meaning. If you measured the question as compared to North and Milne then people could respond. To measure it in a global sense with no level of Government and no idea what is meant by a "doomer" then it is a poor question. Just because I worry about Y2K failure doesn't label me as a doomer and as a Canadian the politics of the U.S. are not my concern.

Of course I am biased as a Canadian on this forum, the rhetoric about the US Government is heavy and often is unfavorable towards the present administration. If your question was more focused toward the US and the present administration then it may have been better. As it stands though on a international forum there was no real answer.

Thank You for asking me to respond. Unfortunately we were imbibing last night and my mind is not 100% :o). Hope this helps clarify my position.

Oh and yes I support the efforts of the Canadian Government and my Provincial Government in their efforts to fix and provide contingency plans for the general public. We are leaders on a global scale and this is comforting. This doesn't mean that I like the policies that they support in governing. But I have the right to vote and that is my responsibility to contribute to the choice of leadership of the respective governments entities that concern me.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 24, 1999.

Brian,

Thank you for your response.

The question was intentionally vague, as to elicit some response from as many people as possible. Some prefer one-liners, and I hoped to entice those to respond as well - and they did.

I hope your head feels better. :)

P@Q.R,

I am up to finding out how people feel, and how they are responding to the situation - glad you finally bit. :)

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 25, 1999.
y2k did not make me "anti-government," but it certainly made me less competant in its ability to identify and mitigate major national crises. It's been the main catalyst to make my previous libertarian sentiments and flirtations gel into actual opinions.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 25, 1999.
All right Andy what ever you are.

You may be looking for information for what ever purpose but if you like stupid questions then I could find some of the teen chat lines for you to display your intelligence.

I like calling them as I see them.

"The question was intentionally vague"

Therefor my answer was intentionally vague. It's a stupid question.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 25, 1999.

Brian,

Having someone with your demonstrated skillset and mastery of the tools of logic characterise any question, comment, or anecdote of mine as 'stupid' is a compliment! And I thank you.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
FOR MEEEE!!!

You are to sweet :o) Always thinking of me eh?

You know we really got to stop meeting like this *VBG*

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

Andy Ray do you always have to write in that disgusting teal color?

-- (barf@barf.barf), July 27, 1999.

barf,

No. I choose to, however.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 27, 1999.
No, Doomer (your term) = pro self-reliance.

-- Ontoyou (Ontoyou@transparent.tactics), July 29, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ