Does GI (or Doomer) == Conservative?

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

Another question: Does GI (or Doomer) == Conservative?

Regards,
Andy Ray



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

Answers

fancy fonts do not substitute for a lack of thought.

-- ace (x@y.z), July 23, 1999.

No, GI means that you use your brain to see that you yourself are responsible for yourself and family, and take actions to provide for oneself...

As opposed to DWGI's, who are relying on and waiting for government/ the system to provide and fix everything for you.

But not always. Example: While I consider myself a Libertarian/ Conservative, Diane Squire is obviously more Liberal on the political spectrum, but we both see the dangers Y2K poses and both agree on the personal need for preparation.

There is a trend though. Those that seem to be big Socialist Liberals that believe government and the system provide for everything "good" in society, tend to be Pollyannas, because their gods are government and technology...

While those that seem to be Conservative/Libertarian self-reliant types see the handwriting on the wall about many things that may disrupt our lives, and rely on themselves to succeed in life. That's because their faith is in God or themselves, not some beauracracy.

THAT seems to be the diference.

DWGI/DGI = Blind and enslaved faith to the System

GI = I can manage without them in my life, I can provide for myself.

There, does that help?

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), July 23, 1999.


Dittoes, Invar :-)

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

No. You should have been able to see this yourself, had you bothered to diagram it out for yourself.

GI has to do with one's ability to connect information about the functioning of computers and the functions performed by them. This may seem rudimentary to you, but to those who have *never* had to make this connection in the past (most non-programmers, for example) this is a somewhat arcane knowledge.

Conservative or liberal has to do with one's analysis of political power, its legitimate source, and the best and safest means of regulating it.

I happen to think that the socialist critique of industrial capitalism exposed some very serious flaws in it, and we all should be thankful for the socialists like Eugene Debs who persevered in the face of violent opposition to their persons as well as their ideas. This undoubtedly puts me in the minority around here, as it does in USA society generally. I'm used to that.

But that fact has no connection to my analysis of the likely effects of Y2K. Y2K itself is a technical problem and as such, essentially apolitical. My politics only has a bearing on the set of social responses to the problem that I would find tolerable.

Since I have the luxury of preparing ahead of time, I find that solution to the best one available to me. It's what prudent people do.

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


Nope

z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), July 23, 1999.



I agree with BrianM and Invar.

tit-bit from Chomsky on "conservative" and "liberal"



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


stuffed up that link somehow. again..

chomsky quote on "conservative" and "liberal"



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


Not according to Stephen M. Poole. Check out his footnotes.

* As a conservative, in fact, I'm concerned that Y2K may be used as a back-door way to increase government interference in business. Let's say I'm the manager of a small bank and feel that I can ignore Y2K; I'll just hire a couple of extra people and deal with it the old fashioned way. There is a very real question now of whether the radical Y2K'ers will even let me do that!

Have you not noticed that some 60's-style radicals are becoming involved in the Y2K thing now ...?

** Howard Ruff is back! That rascal almost talked me into becoming a survivalist during the Carter adminstration. He had me convinced that TEOLAWKI (the end of life as we know it) was at hand. It was my dear mother who beat sense into my head, and of course, his predicted collapse never occurred.

(Yes, you may infer from this one of my motivations for writing about Y2K. I don't want to see anyone make the same mistake.)

-- Moderate (less@spam.get), July 23, 1999.


Poole's footnotes

-- Moderate (less@spam.get), July 23, 1999.

Please remember that Andy Ray is the same person who posted on Bonkers --

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 31205278&P=Yes&TL=931199673

and so, I have decided to remain active...

Monday, 05-Jul-1999 16:07:58

12.79.246.47 writes:

And so, I have decided to remain active at the Y2K Hysterium - those people need me. Perhaps one can be reclaimed back to sanity; perhaps one spared the utter embarrassment of being a laughing-stock for their mis-assessment of the situation and ignorance of the facts. If I can spare one person such future aggravation, the insults from all the small minds will have been worth it!

Regards, Andy Ray

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 23, 1999.



Another question Andy Ray: Do all DWGIs (or Pollys) have a Messiah complex?

Regards,
Nabi



-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.

No, it's not complex at all, it's really very simple.

-- Procopious (whynot@zog.net), July 23, 1999.

Put me on the far left politically. Was Vietnam protestor and am still on that line. I think it will be 9 or 10. My profession...horticulture, organic of course. I too prepared for TEOTWAWKI in 1974, but now believe it was damn good practice.

-- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), July 23, 1999.

Outings,

Your quote of my motives was (and remains) accurate. I posted it at a time when I overestimated the seriousness the general public was assigning the claims of doomers. My assessment of the situation has changed.

It is comforting to note the sound of silence in major media now that the inflated claims of catastrophy due to the Jo Anne Effect have offered evidence that the whole house of Y2K cards is founded upon a logical fault. And so, I have resumed asking (what I thought to be) unbiased questions - for reasons I would bet you can unearth!

:)

Nabi,

I find the percentage of 'polly's' with a messianic complex roughly 10 percent the number of doomers who engage in circular logic; and infinitely greater than the number of doomers who utilise evidence (repeatable, independently verifiable) over hearsay.

Are you attempting to inspire a messianic complex in me by 'following' me? I believe imitation is the highest form of flattery. Thank you.

Flattered Regards,
Andy Ray



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

Number Six,

I like that guy!

Regards,
Andy Ray



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


Andy Ray, would you please get you survey over with. This one question at a time polling is irritating. How about you write down all your questions over a period of time, and ask them all at one time. Chinese water torture wouldn't be one of your interests, would it?

-- Mike (Boxman9186@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

Andy,

Apparently you have no need for me to fuel your "messiah complex." But since you have decreed your purpose, then by all means, oh wise one, save us doomers from ourselves!

Sarcasm mode OFF

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), July 23, 1999.


Question: Does Andy Ray == Stupid Moron ??
Yes, I think so.

(And another thing, you jackass: If you have a list of these stupid "Does doomer = ..." questions, post them ALL on a single thread that can be easily ignored rather than wasting multiple threads. Bad enough that you are a stupid moron, but you don't have to be an annoying one.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 23, 1999.

Nabi,

I will be happy to save you from yourselves! Please answer completely one of the two questions posed in these posts:

You may also find of interest the following:
THANK YOU, Andy Ray!; and
You are very welcome, Doc.

King of Spain,

I neither share nor understand all the emotion you and others invest in the non-issue. If you choose to be bothered by simple, unbiased questions; I do not know how anything I post, or any way I post it will help; despite your suggestions and 'commentary.' Nevertheless I will continue to post questions regarding the Y2K issue, and (kindly) remind you that your rants are sure to nudge people from your side of the argument towards mine - for which I thank you.

Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 24, 1999.

No, GI = apolitical self-reliance.

-- Ontoyou (Ontoyou@transparent.tactics), July 29, 1999.

"I neither share nor understand all the emotion you and others invest in the non-issue. If you choose to be bothered by simple, unbiased questions; I do not know how anything I post, or any way I post it will help;"

Well at this time you are biased and your questions are biased toward your understanding. (which is minimal).

"despite your suggestions and 'commentary.' Nevertheless I will continue to post questions regarding the Y2K issue, and (kindly) remind you that your rants are sure to nudge people from your side of the argument towards mine - for which I thank you.

Regards, Andy Ray"

How can you be scientific if you have a side in the argument? Yours is not to argue if your motives are correct. Obviously you have a bias and are contributing to disinformation.

We will see how this plays out Andy Ray. That just might be the worst post you have typed. This of course plays into my arguement. **VBG**

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 29, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ