The "Doomers" are losing. . . : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Yesterday, a newspaper account in the Austin American Statesman was posted here which revealed that the City of Austin, Texas is spending three quarters of a million dollars on 25 additional emergency electrical generators, even though that city owns and operates its own electric utility which has declared itself "Y2K Ready"!

That thread received eight replies.

This thread, was basically an argument started with "Troll Maria" as to whether or not she knew what she was talking about and whether or not she had told the truth about telephones.

That thread has (so far) received 64 replies.

In the event that it has not yet occurred to you, I will point out that those who may wish to disrupt the forum do not have to convince you of their viewpoint, they do not have to present any particular viewpoint, they do not have to "win" a debate in order to achieve that disruption.

All they have to do is get you to respond.

In this one example, an anonymous "polly" (who, BTW, didn't even start the thread!) has so far managed to generate eight times the heat and light that a confirmed report of actual governmental action in anticipation of Y2K did!

In the one case, the subject is unverified and unconfirmed information and baldly asserts that "the phones will work".

In the other, it is verified and confirmed and strongly suggests that the electrical power in a major city may not be as reliable as some would like us to believe.

On the one hand, it is quite easy to hide your thoughts and beliefs with words.

On the other, actions speak louder than words and there can be few meanings behind the purchase of emergency generators.

To those of you that rush to confront the trolls, for whatever reason, I suggest that you will be more effective in achieving your purpose by practicing a bit of restraint.

To those of you that don't, I extend my sympathy.

-- Hardliner (, July 28, 1999


Good point Hardliner.

They are trying to RAISE a response from preparers, and some fall into the trap everytime...

gettin' a drink...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert, July 28, 1999.


You're right, and I apologise.

I foolishly kept thinking that a reasonable person would be willing to accept when they have been proven wrong with their own words -- or shown the falsness of their reasoning.

That the trolls on this forum respond to neither the embarassment of their own mistakes, nor the evidence of their illogic, should have been clear to me a long time ago.

I am sorry.

Anita Evangelista.

-- Anita Evangelista (, July 28, 1999.

As a follow-up, I re-sent an email to the ERCOT Y2K Coordinator (originally sent 12/1998) with a portion of the AAS article pasted... he has read it (I have read-notification set to "yes") but has not responded as of yet.

Will post response when/if he does.

-- Lisa (, July 28, 1999.

By the dictates of human nature, each of us is enamored of our own prose and each of us fervently wishes for the approbation (responses) of others.

Several weeks ago, after a brief verbal confrontation, Hoffmeister said he didn't care whether I read is posts are not. I submit that he told an untruth. Of course he cared. Otherwise, he wouldn't post at all. He could just jot down his thoughts, sit in a corner and read them aloud. Everyone who posts wants everyone else to read that post.

I decided several weeks ago that I would not respond AT ALL to any troll post. I've kept that promise. It plays right into the troll's hands. It's mission accomplished to distract and to waste bandwidth.

It's almost August, folks, and time grows short. If you truly are interested in performing to the guidelines of this forum, it's time to ignore the trolls and the pollys with a self-professed mission of distraction.

Try this: For just a week, don't respond AT ALL to the disruptors. See what happens.

Pay attention to Hardliner. He knows whereof he speaks.

-- Vic (, July 28, 1999.

Vic, agreed, and please post your experiment idea as a new thread.

-- lisa (, July 28, 1999.

There are additional options, Hardliner, such as starting a new forum...

TB2K Tracks Y2K Neatly and An Offer 0019Ol

Whatca think?


-- Diane J. Squire (, July 28, 1999.

Hardliner, I am a little perplexed at your post. Let me give you some basic background: I am a newbie I am not a doomer I am not a polly I do not wish to embrace either 'camp's' philosophies, and I think the truth lies somewhere in between those philosophies I have made basic preps (couple months of food, water, et al)

Let me get to the point: for someone on the fence like me, I tend to enjoy optimistic articles and also pepper my optimism with articles that state that not all is well. In this way, I think I have some sort of grounding in reality.

Since I have been reading up on y2k for well over two years, I have learned to question the sources from which reports eminate. You probably know that most sources---be they internet or not--have some sort of agenda with regards to y2k. Worse still, many news outlets do their reporting with an ear towards 'rumor' and 'professional opinion', in effect, substituting news content for the words of some talking head who proclaims himself to be in the know.

I don't feel the need to join a camp and I don't feel the need to lambast news stories that are posted from people in either camp. While I don't think the continuous posting of stories will ever validate one's mindset in this issue (it's my opinion that no one--regardless of their expertise---truly knows what will happen next year), but I do appreciate seeing both sides.

Jeez, is it so hard to get along?


-- Bad Company (, July 28, 1999.

Ignoring the trolls would work if they posted here to convince us we're wrong or if they wanted to annoy us. But that's not why they're here. They post here to warn newbies that we're dangerous nuts, and they admit that in innumerable posts on the Bonkers site. That's why you see them repeating claims, even if they've been disproved over and over. They hope one newbie will read it and leave, never to return, and they're probably very successful with that tactic. BigDog's idea of a new troll-free forum for serious discussion is wonderful. OutingsR will then disappear -- happily.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), July 28, 1999.


While the trolls' stated purpose may be to scare off newbies, no one can convince me that there's not an annoyance factor involved. I'm conviced some of them have a good chuckle when a GI loses it and starts flaming.

If a newbie comes on this site, reads a troll post and leaves without further and deeper investigation, that newbie is a lost cause anyway.

Again, time is now the critical factor.

While I like Big Dog's idea, I will continue to frequent this forum, picking and choosing the threads that interest me. I'll even read the troll threads. I'm just not going to play their game anymore.

I reiterate that

-- Vic (, July 28, 1999.

The truth is "Doomers Do suck". But that's not to say that all of you are doomers and that is a mistake made by the trolls and admittedly by myself. Even you forum regulars must admit that there is an increasing element at TB2000 of extremists. I'm not talking about preparing. I mean the all out, bunker mentality, land mines in the front yard, trip wires on every window, ten thousand rounds of 50mm amo type extremists. The "down with the government", "storm the bastille", "elect Paul Milne for President" type extremists.

I made the mistake of carpet bombing the forum to try and flush out the true whackos and I apologize, sincerely. I still think that there are some real nust out there in cyberspace that gravitate to forums like this because it fits into the apocalypse scenario. IMO, respectfully, Gary North is one of those types.

I learned my lesson and I don't intend on trolling anymore. I used to be a big time "GI". But I had a change of heart and mind. Now I'm a Polly who thinks it will be a BITR. But regardless, I won't facilitate the hard feelings anymore. I screwed up the approach and wound up making myself look worse than the doomers. Oh well, live and learn. I will however keep my handle because it's the truth and if it doesn't apply to you then you shouldn't be upset by it. (And yes this is the original

-- (, July 28, 1999.

I mean the all out, bunker mentality, land mines in the front yard, trip wires on every window, ten thousand rounds of 50mm amo type extremists. The "down with the government", "storm the bastille", "elect Paul Milne for President" type extremists.

Good thing you've rethought. You'd be hardpressed to come up with a large number of people saying what you've paraphrased above on this forum, except for obvious trolls. It is a common human failing to react to extreme outliers as though they were typical. Makes life more interesting. So now we think high-school kids are all running around shooting one another, while millions of high school kids pass their time in school safely and uneventfully every day.

-- Ct Vronsky (, July 28, 1999.

Holy cow, Doomsuck, are you back on that coffee again? Gawd, your blood pressure must be ferocious, dude, its a wonder your fingers can even type. Now, no more today, get a good night's rest, tomorrow morning try orange juice and maybe just a little mint tea. Think happy, chipper thoughts, and post back with us then.

-- King of Spain (, July 28, 1999.


Another forum for another narrow, specific purpose may well suceed, if it's a private forum as BigDog has proposed. If it's another public forum, you'll have the same problem.

The problem is one that is inherent in a free society. In real life, it's a problem that manifests itself as KKK marches with police protection, with the burning of the American flag as a protected right and with the sanctioned publication of "hate" websites on the internet.

Yes, some of you may form a private forum and lock out those who have things to say that you do not wish to hear but make no mistake, you will at the same time lock yourselves in.

To the extent that such a forum serves as a place to escape the trolls for awhile, it will be successful, but it will not solve this forum's problem and if such a forum becomes a habitation for participants from this forum rather than a retreat it will simply accomplish the trolls original purpose.

Pat Shannon provides an extremely valuable insight when he says, ". . .I also believe that as OT and nutty as this place gets at times, it's important to have this highly popular glimpse into unmoderated (or barely moderated) attitudes.

This will tell us much as far as what to expect from people if there are disruptions. Understanding the wide range of attitudes is part of being prepared..."

Diane, you are doing just fine here. The more vicious and persistent the personal attacks against you become, the better you are accomplishing your task. Personally, I find the image of the trolls wailing and gnashing their teeth and stomping their "cyberfeet" in frustration quite an amusing one. They have no power over Y2K. The die is already cast. If the trolls weren't such destructive creatures, I'd have some pity on them but as it is, I have none. They will simply get whatever they have provided for themselves, as will we all.

And to "(",

If you are sincere, I suggest that you change your "handle", publicly and to a non-confrontational one. I, for one, shall consider you a troll each and every time you post using your current handle.

-- Hardliner (, July 28, 1999.


I guess I'm not a doomer, thank's for clarifying the term. I wonder what catchy word I can call myself. I'm at the 6-7 point on the 1-10 scale, maybe instead of a doomer, which I'm obviously not, I should reffer to myself as a "hardtimer" or "badtimer". Since I think y2k will be a 6-7, that would mean that "hardtimes" are coming, what do you think?

-- CygnusXI (, July 28, 1999.


I appreciate your perspective and I think you have some very valid points.

Here's the twist.

The "doomer" label was really something "handed" to anyone who thought Y2k would be something more than a BITR. From what I have read from you recently it's obvious that a BITR for you may well put you IN the "doomer" camp to some "pollys".

Honestly, I'd just assume lose the labels and get on with discussing the issues while trying to remain somewhat objective.

I can handle honesty and the posts you've made here I view as both honest and positive.

It's the threads that are started by trolls that contain nothing but personal attacks or place a condescending blanket over all who believe that Y2k will bring more than a BITR that I find seriously destructive.

I want to read all views and I'm more than interested in good news. However, the trolls, some of whom are very good at manipulation, lump everyone in the "doomer" camp together.

Hardliner's points are great ones. I choose restraint. I've NOT hit the submit button many times after writing a post. It's a great excercise and actually very positive to write a post and express feelings and then simply choose NOT to post it.



-- Michael Taylor (, July 28, 1999.

Fence-sitting titles: preparer, GI, MOR (middle of the roader), moderate...

sleepin' on the kerosene heater box...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert, July 28, 1999.

When I first heard of Y2K, I thought it was going to be TEOTWAWKI. After I continued to read, I gradually moved down the scale. It seemed there was the "land mines, down with the government and hell fire and danmation" crowd, and on the other side the "everything is going to be fine, just a bump in the road," crowd. Finally, I decided for myself that it won't be as bad as doomers are forecasting, nor will it be as rosy as the polly are hoping. Therefore I'm a middle of the road 5, and will probably stay there unless things change radically.

Things will probably be bad, but there is a lot of ingenuity and common sense among the group I was raised in. Many of us have already lived without electricity at some point in our lives, and raised our own food. We didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

-- gilda (, July 28, 1999.


That is exactly what I mean. I forget who said it first but the basic idea is that you are treated in exactly the way you let people treat you. If i call people "doomers" and they blow up about it then I'd have to say I was right. For those of you who ignore those remarks then your probably not in that category. I don't want to start a long winded argument here about what a doomer is and what isn't. But I was just saying that when I was trolling I was using that idea as a basic litmus test. I won't anymore, it was a bad idea and it stepped on people's feelings. Why I don't know. If the shoe doesn't fit then you don't have to worry about wearing it. If your not a Doomer then yu don't have to feel insulted now do you?

Yes the debunking sites are truly hell bent on destroying your reputations. But that is why I am here instead of there. I want to debate on a level field and even on "enemy territory" so to speak. I'd prefer neutral territory, and I was hoping that the new forum BigDog was talking about might resemble that.

But the handle stands as it is. You can consider me a troll because of that, Hardliner, but it only be to your disadvantage. Doomers do suck. The Heaven's Gate group sucked, the Manson Family sucked, Jonestown sucked, Osama Bin Laden sucks, and Gary North's Dragon Ranch sucks. Maybe it's a childishly semantic way of describing them, so what? Would you rather I be politically correct and give them some sort of pre-packaged, generic respect? No, I don't think so, they don't deserve it. You can pass me off as a troll as you see fit but I'm trying to be civil from now on. I guess I could change my handle to "Doomers should try to be more @ Optimistic from now on .com ", but that's too much to write every time.

-- (, July 28, 1999.

Dragon Ranch is cory hamasaki, not gary north. Get your facts right.

-- Ct Vronsky (, July 28, 1999.


Thank you for putting into words and posting some of the things I've been thinking lately. I have a rule for myself that I will answer a disruptor/heckler only if I can do so with verifiable information. Answering a heckler with attitude but no facts only increases the noise level, and answering with attitude only makes it easier for these disruptors to convince newcomers that this forum is not about Y2K but about "millennium madness."

We all need to keep in mind that hecklers know that they aren't going to change our minds about prudent preparation for an uncertain future. Their goal is to influence the opinion of those new to the Y2K issue. When we respond to a disruptor with attitude but no facts, we may think everyone knows other things the same disruptor has said in the past, but there are always newcomers who don't know about the repeated pattern of heckling.

We should not be answering posts by disruptors that we know are insincere. If we do answer, it should be with verifiable information. When we post, we should think about whether our answers would be helpful to someone who has only been on the forum for a few days.

This forum's greatest strength is that it's a source of breaking Y2K news that is verifiable. Let's build on that.

-- Linkmeister (, July 28, 1999.


I want to agree with you, though at the same time I must admit that they get under my skin.

I feel personaly attacked and diminished by a stab at my intelligence, compasion, loyalty to country, etc.

I am a College Grad. I majored in Politics, am a registered libertarian, and I'm Catholic. I have been a Registered Representative and Licensed in several states.

I have seen through my education how our government has changed and the public along with it. I dread what it portends and while I have until recently been an optomist about all things I see no realized solutions to the country's ills.

My views on Y2K are that it will likely be a 6-7. Though, there is every possibility that it will slip to an infomagic.

I have great difficulty ethically with letting trolls haunt the attempts of GOOD people to carry a dialogue in an effort to understand, learn, support, and to form a "community".

It is that "community" that has become lacking in today's society.

I support your proposal, and I am open to any sugggestions or thoughts on how best to further continue this OPEN forum.


-- Thomas G. Hale (, July 28, 1999.


I'll work on that.


-- Thomas G. Hale (, July 28, 1999.

The following observations are from my own experience. I don't think so called "doomers" are a cult. I see many similarities in the approaches of people who post here with the approaches of people in small business faced with regulatory change. I think it is more likely indicative to people with a certain type of personality, rather than the so-called "meme" mentality.

For example, I work with the process of introduction of new regulation on an industry comprised of small family operators. When the regulation is first proposed, I will provide extensive input to try and influence a re-write or re-think in areas where I see problems. I will try and educate others and get them to voice their concerns or support.

Most of the people who will be effected by the regulation, either are unaware of it; too busy to care about something that is only "proposed;" or feel that they can't do anything about it anyway. They will take no action. Only a small handfull will write a letter, make a phone call or attend a hearing.

When it appears likely that the regulation will go into effect, some people will be too busy to care; some will prepare proactively by begining to make the changes they anticipate will be required; some may form groups to make their level of protest louder; some will deal with it by "entrenchment." (This is where the response to all regulation is I will not let them on my land, period. They cannot see what I am doing to cite me for any violations and they cannot enforce their regulation, etc., etc. you get the picture.)

When the regulation is finalized and effective, the ones who were "too busy" will remain largely unaware until it directly effects them. Then they will be shocked and angry. The ones who were aware, but felt they couldn't do anything to influence the process will keep a low profile, hold their breath hoping that they won't be the one to "get caught." The ones who entrenched will become more angry and volatile, dealing with the individual threat of the regulation by associating it with another individual group, class. The ones who were proactive may have hoped to largely address the problem, rendering the regulation unecessary, or they may have wished to spread adjustments or the costs of adjustments over time. They probably had the regulation change in mid-stream and ended up doing the wrong thing, spending tons of money and making their neighbors pissed for drawing attention to their own operations.

With this framework in mind, I can see several different categories of response to change that could fit both "doomers" and "pollys" at the same time. Therefore, I find those categories entirely unusefull. Their sole purpose of use seems to be to discredit sources of information and enflame passions.

-- marsh (, July 28, 1999.

"Doomer", I appreciate your honesty and candor. Since you seem to have a better connection to the "pollys" maybe you can answer a question? Why do they want to hurt the reputation of people that feel it's important to prepare? What is to be gained? I'm seriously looking for an answer. I simply don't see what there is to be gained. Thanks in advance

-- (, July 28, 1999.

It's not about discrediting "preparers". It's about the Doom crowd that has been wishing for something like this to come along ever since they were old enough to say "oppression". Unfortunatley, good people like yourself get lumped into the same category as these whackos because you all stand generally in the same area. Sort of guilt by association as it were. I'm sorry it has happened and I don't know how it can be avoided without withdrawing from the Y2K debate entirely.

I am sure many of you can admit that Millenial Madness is a real thing, and that many deluded religious zealots are in a position to create mass havok in the early days, weeks, months of the year 2000. Those are the disturbed individuals that Pollys want to discredit, disban, disown from the human race, whatever.

I am not against preparing and neither are most of the debunkies. But somehow that assumption has been spread widely around here? By who? I am guessing by the extreme alarmists I mentioned before who , for whatever reason, wish to facilitate TEOTWAWKI by hook or by crook.

-- (, July 28, 1999.

For some reason, "Thad" keeps flashing through my mind.... Nice handle.

-- lisa (, July 28, 1999.

-- ( commented,

"Those are the disturbed individuals that Pollys want to discredit, disban, disown from the human race, whatever. "

Gee Nitwit, I'm sure glad you and the rest the NUT CASES over at Der Bonkah have taken this worthy cause on. On what basis do you make your decision as to who is and who isn't one of these folks?

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (, July 28, 1999.

Are there two Doomers@sucks? If not, either the one here is an imposter or the one now posting over at Debunking Y2K is an imposter. Or perhaps there's just one Doomers@suck who's schizoid. See for yourselves:

-- Old Git (, July 28, 1999.

Geez I don't know Ray, when do you draw the line between murder and self defense? It's not as simple as black or white, Polly or Doomer. There are circumstances and indicators that differ from person to person, community to community. BUT, if you can't see what I'm talking about then you need to be a little more open minded to the fact that there ARE people who are "Doomers". There is a difference. I'd say it starts somewhere with a person who stockpiles a month or two worth of supplies and the person who stockpiles for a ten year disaster with guns, ammo and a printing press to print out anti-establishment flyers. I think you can see the difference if you a reasonable man. If you can't then maybe your not as objective, or unbiased as your Polly "enemies" are.

Besides, you have taken it upon yourslef to warn the human race of an impending disaster. What gives you the right to take on such a mission? And what do you use as a template to determine who is in need of warning and who isn't? It's not a simple question, and your foolish to think that I'm going to be able to answer your saracstic question in a few paragraphs. Hopefully I've touched upon it enough to satisfy your curiosity.

(No reason to resort to name calling either)

(PS: I was just listening to the radio when I wrote this and I heard a segment about Y2K where a woman was demanding that EVERY system be declared Y2K compliant on EVERY level before possible widespread Y2K failures are ruled out. Now THAT is the type of alarmist mentality that is too prevelant these days. I challenge you to show me anything that is 100% perfect in every aspect before it is released to the public)

-- (, July 28, 1999.

Sorry -- (, your post is not worthy of a response. Try harder next time !! Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (, July 28, 1999.

Old Git,

That is me...

I told you before, I use certain tactics over there and I try to be as civil as possible over here. My views about *some* of you people don't change, my expression of those views change with the forum I'm posting to. Different guidlines for different communities. And just because I refer to some people here as extremists and Cultists doesn't mean I am refering to ALL of you. Do I have to make that distinction every time I post anything?

The people over at Debuker respond to one side of the opnion I have, and you people over here respond to the other side. Over at Debunker they don't care how nasty I get, over here you do. So in the spirit of diplomacy I try to respect your guidlines.

I am sure you will jump all over me for this but I don't care. I told you I would try to be civil over here, and I am. If that is a moral crime then I'll stop posting here.

-- (, July 28, 1999.

Well Ray, I guess you arnen't as reasonable as I thought. And your pretty foolish too because although you say my post wasn't worthy of a response, you felt the need to respond to it with a post saying you don't need to respond. It's true, people are judged by their actions and not their words. Sorry I had to get sarcastic there but your obviously in no mood to be nice. But anyway I'm done playing your little game. I made a good point and your blinders keep you from seeing that. If you find a way of getting them off then maybe we can continue.

-- (, July 28, 1999.

At risk of sending you back to your old personality, I'm going to call you on this stuff. Until today, you have sounded like a raving nut (much more so than the serious "doomers"). You have attacked everything in sight. Your change in attitude is extremely fishy and leads me to believe that the old "" was a fictitious personality. I like the info AND thoughtful debate. Keep it thoughtful and I'll read your posts.

-- Dave (, July 28, 1999.

I have elected, effective today to fight the pollyidiots with a similar if not standardized question that they REFUSE to answer: Name any software project ever completed on schedule, under budget, and bug free in the history of large scale programming. When this question is answered, which it never will be, I will fade quietly into the darkness; although I'll probably do that anyways since I have been warned by a friend at FPL.

-- John Galt (, July 28, 1999.

-- John Galt (, July 28, 1999.

Hardliner, the doomers are losing. You're so right about this. (I amaze myself, I thought I'd never say that). But your reason is wrong (ah, back to normal). You refer to me as the troll. Sorry to differ but George and Anita were the trolls on that thread. George baited me and yes I took it, why I don't know. His title was very troll like and I just ignored that and responded. When I did say "I don't know" to one of the questions, he jumped all over me. Sorry, starting out a sentence with "for Christsake..." is jumping all over me. I didn't know the context of his questions but he assumed I did and refused to explain himself. That to me epitomizes troll behavior. Anita did the same thing. She said she couldn't understand why pollys (me) can't admit "I don't know". But refused to re-read my post to see that's exactly what I said.

Ok enough rambling. Here it is. The doomers are losing because the doomers are acting like trolls. They do the jumping and screaming much more than any polly could. But this is nothing new, Hardliner. You know when I first come to this forum how everyone attacked me. I don't care about the attacks that doesn't bother me. It's the discussions that keep me coming back.

BTW, my remediation project was on time and under budget. I know you'll want the proof but there it is. Further, we installed a training system for the DoD on time and under budget. That's two. Sorry can't come up with any more, but that's another thread.

-- Maria (, July 28, 1999.

Maria, the procrastinators are losing.

-- Randolph (, July 28, 1999.

Ahhh, Maria, master of lies. Where's your pal Lisa??? Shouldn't she be coming out about now???

-- (ha@ha.ha), July 28, 1999.



Nuff said.


-- Critt (, July 28, 1999.

The doomers will never give up without a fight.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray's Biggest Fan (, July 28, 1999.

Response to The "Doomers" are losing. . .

Maria: Congrats on your good news! And all my patients with cancer have been cured. I know you'll want proof, but there it is. And all the patients with hemispheric stroke are completely recovered. That makes two.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), July 29, 1999.

Attempted font repair. . .

-- Hardliner (, July 29, 1999.

Hardliner: is there any way I can forward an email to you via BigDog?

Got a fascinating response and I'd like to share it with you.

-- lisa (, July 29, 1999.


I can help in forwarding as well.


-- Diane J. Squire (, July 29, 1999.

When I see more attacks from the Doomer side (particularly George who has become as obnoxious as Andy), I agree with the title of this thread. When I see the number of repeated threads that are off topic, I agree with hardliner. When I see the logic spining round and round, not focusing on the points, I agree. Doomers are doing themselves in by the constant illogical ranting and raving.

-- Maria (, August 17, 1999.

Obnoxious, moi...?

-- Andy (, August 17, 1999.

illogical ranting and raving? ok Maria, whatever. How about we can start a thread titled, MCI Worldcom sucks

-- you argue without (ever re@lly saying.anything), August 17, 1999.


-- The ("Doomers"@re.losing), December 10, 1999.

Hardliner: Good to see you back. Hope you are well.

The doomers have already lost the battle to raise awareness and promote preparedness. No significant increases in either of these areas are possible any longer. The propaganda campaign has been successful, and the event will begin as scripted. The time for discussion of this strategy is over.

We are in the countdown phase, and the stage is set. The major players are in place, making last minute adjustments to their costumes and make-up. The next act will be Thomas Barnett's 'The Trigger Zone,' compressed, it would seem, into the last few days of the year. And then 'The Attack.'

There's alot of chatter and babble in the audience as they restlessly await the curtain. Shhh... the lights are starting to go down...


-- Pinkrock (, December 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ