What's the Point, Continued

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

Back in April I questioned the "point" of the forum.

"The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation."


While I have become increasingly busy with new responsibilities, I do visit the forum from time to time. Lately, it seems an increasing number of posts are off-topic and even more are idle speculation making dubious Y2K connections to recent events. It's hard to find pieces worth commenting on.

While I often disagreed with the content of this forum, there were enough quality writers to make a visit interesting. What happened?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 27, 1999



While I don't rank myself as a "quality writer" I did post just before you something you might consider appropriate on this forum. Then again perhaps not. Anyhow, I also have been skipping many of the posts that appear OT or ??????

This does still seem to be "the" place for finding out about Y2k issues that I can't trust the media/government to disclose. Just last night my hubby and I were watching CNN and a local news station "report" on the wildfires in our area and they were spouting so much inaccurate information it was pathetic. We also watch CSPAN quite a bit and it is shocking to see how events are "reported" by various "news" agencies. So many contradictions, so much "interpretation" for us, the "poor dumb public". Even though there is a lot of negative spin/comments added to some posts here there are often links to the original matter which I can then read in context. Can't do that with the evening news or brochures from Uncle Sam. IMHO or more accurately, MTCW. :)

-- Kristi (securxsys@cs.com), August 27, 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Decker, for your ever so gracious guidance on the quality of our writings, and the relevance of our topics to Y2K. I just don't know what we will do without your continued active participation and contributions. It really worries me.

And which local government in the vicinity of Washington, D.C., did you say you were going to be the Chief Administrator for?

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 27, 1999.

Decker Do you think the starting of the "prep" forum may of had something to do with the departure of Quality? I mean alot of people who at one time posted here often only post on that forum now. I bet alot of people simply removed from favorites this forum.

With what all Stephen Poole and others did here I can see how it changed alot of people. You even seemed to loose your calmness there for awhile. You really got quite mean. Can you see how a reasonable person might say to themselves this intense bickering isn't good for my being and I choose not to take part anymore?

Glad to see you posting again and I hope you don't get beat up to bad!

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), August 27, 1999.

Yes, Mr. Decker, they are now reduced to posting stories that have no Y2K issue, but give "good" catchy titles that appear to be relevent, such as

"Bonneville Power ("y2k ready") TODAY warns us to prepare and expect loss of power this winter"

Which is an out right lie, Bonneville does not suggest possible power outages this winter.

Kinda likw saying don't drive to work today because someone might go through a red light, which will cause the car next to you to swerve into you , which you may not notice and allow to hit you, providing you are talking on your cell phone while applying your lipstick in your rear view morror.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker, you are partially right. The regulars to this forum are probably mostly complete in their preparations. The ones who are not probably spend more time in the prep forum. The debate regarding the potential effect of Y2K is too polarized at this point to be meaningful.

There are exceptions. The Paula Gordon piece was interesting. The Jim Lord piece actually made network news.

But mostly it's a discussion of PR pieces like the ABA preparing sermons. The fake NERC test next month will get some discussion also.

If you don't find the forum interesting, please leave. You have contributed some interesting and thought-provoking posts in the past. If you can't do that anymore, so be it. Hope to see you after rollover.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 27, 1999.

Hmm. Off Topic. Like this?



A former CIA officer tells Friday's DALLAS MORNING NEWS that he learned from Delta Force commandos that members of the secret Army unit were "present, up front and close" in helping the FBI in the final tear-gas assault on the Branch Davidian compound.

The former officer, Gene Cullen, tells the paper that heard detailed accounts of the military's active involvement from "three or four" anti-terrorist Delta commandos as he worked with them on an overseas assignment in 1993.

The paper reports evidence in the hands of Texas law enforcement personnel may support the account given to Cullen.

Yeah I guess that has nothing to do with how things will unfold next year.

-- a (a@a.a), August 27, 1999.

If you can't handle the quickening, get out of the delivery room.

It was nice chatting Ken. Goodbye.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

As always, there are precious nuggets here, but you have to dig for them. But, there is gold in these here hills. Online discussion forums tend to be wild 'n wooly. As an investor, I'm sure you'll want to see this thread:


I also recommend this thread if you live near a large U.S. city:


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 27, 1999.

I didn't know where else to bring this up, but since this thread is already a waste of electrons, this will hopefully help someone else:

When looking for a good chick mudwrestling video to buy or rent, DON'T overlook the "amateur" ones, which generally are half what "professional" ones cost. I have found that amateurs can actually get MORE intense, probably because they have not had as much experience, and even if they start out slow, once they get into it, man those chicks really get hot!

To put it succinctly: Sometimes the amateur videos are more better!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Decker commented:

"While I often disagreed with the content of this forum, there were enough quality writers to make a visit interesting. What happened? "

They're still here Decker.

If you can't comprehend the potential for chaos with regard to y2k by now your in deep doo-doos.

Of course, if you have a reason to SPIN then I can understand your position. Are you on coffee break??

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Hey Decklick: go read the ouvre' of Henry James. Real quality there. When you're finished, come back and breathlessly report to us. Till then, condescend this.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

As an investor, you might also find this thread of interest:


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 27, 1999.

Mr.Decker, here is hoping your voice of combined reason and intellect isn't scared away by the camp mentalities that intermingle here. When it comes down to it, no one has a clue as to what the date rollover will provide. Sadly, the overly naive and the overly gloomy have forgotten that. Their continued emotional rants and epithets directed at the clear thinkers---and each other---comes off as being somewhere in between comedy and psychological dysfunction.

With 4 months left, the more intellect, the better.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), August 27, 1999.

Bad Company commented:

"With 4 months left, the more intellect, the better."

This thought ought to go down in the annals of TimeBomb 2000.

Bad Company, looks like you've been keeping to much of it!!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Bad Company,

Why don't you drink some whiskey, take a few sleeping pills, and go to bed?

-- worse company (johnny@shooting.mouth), August 27, 1999.


You should know better Deck! Idealisim definately is in no way connected to realism(one means ideas the other is reality). Your connection between optimism and realism is too funny, that implies that the optimum outcome is the reality of the world, when in actuallity the world's reality as a whole is MUCH closer to pessimistic in nature(just look beyond America's border's for the REAL suffering). Those 3 "ist's" don't fit, unless you're trying to be oxymoronic.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Ed's new "Humpty Dumpty" discussion forum (focusing on a Post-Y2K world) is where you need to get to. A rather surprising and growing number of intelligent and thoughtful conversations are coming together there.


Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 27, 1999.

Ken the Y2K Cockroach strikes again, the Snake Oil purveyor of Disguised Despair. What's the Point, waahhhhh. The Forum's Dead. Quality Fled. OT OT OT, idle disinterested. Where's the Raid?

-- pesticide (raid@cockroach.squirts), August 27, 1999.

Comments, in turn:

Jack, I have every confidence this forum will continue. Where else could you find people to validate your opinions? It's a wonderful sandbox, Jack, have fun. And once more for the record, I do not live in the greater DC area.

Johnny, I have never visited the "prep" forum. Frankly, I think Mr. Poole's little stunt had little effect on the overall forum climate. This forum had bullies before Poole, and they're still here. As for my surly behavior, I apologized... to the forum participants who had to witness poor behavior. My willing opponents felt quite justified in their churlish ways. Old Git saw nothing wrong in comparing the forum optimists to the Nazi brownshirts. Will Continue feels good behavior is reserved for folks who agree with her. Spain continues his mission to return male-female relations to the Stone Age. Andy takes a break from cutting and pasting gold articles for childish name-calling from time to time. Need I go on?

The forum bullies are paper tigers. The bully boys (and girls) do not have the courage or decency to debate Y2K "up close and personal." They launch their salvos from the walls of Internet anonymity. Worry? Hardly.

Cherri, for the pessimists, the end justifies the means. They are convinced of a Y2K catastrophe and make every data element (no matter how much twisting is required) fit the conclusion.

"Dog," there may be a bone or two buried in the forum. While I think the Navy documents were mildly interesting, little is new on the Y2K front. The GPS rollover went rather well. Particularly when last year many pessimists speculated that the grid would fail due to GPS problems. There are interesting stories, Dog, but few interesting commentaries. As I noted above, the die-hard pessimists are simply squeezing every story for a Y2K connection... and accusing every non- Y2K story of being a cover-up.

"Spain," perfect. You have become a convincing argument of why our civilization should fall. I suggest you change your "handle" to Caligula. More fitting.

Ray, I can comprehend the potential... but not the likelihood. When we survive the millenium, Ray, what will you do then?

Spidey, see above commentary on Internet blowhards. It will save me the trouble of retyping it.

On the idealist, optimist, realist scale, please see this thread:


In the responses, you'll see an explanation linking the "ists" to my scale.

Stan, thanks I'll check it out.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 27, 1999.

Decker commented:

"Ray, I can comprehend the potential... but not the likelihood. When we survive the millenium, Ray, what will you do then? "

Well now Decker, the answer to this question depends on the degree of effort required to SURVIVE. This is the $64,000 question!!

NO ONE has he answer, but I believe that the information we are receiveing in an ever accelerating mode bodes badly for a "Happy Face" resolution.

NO Leadership = Major Problems!!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

What's the Point?

Y2K news and discussions move in waves and cycles. Or hadnt you noticed? Some daze its slower, so people tend to chat on related and not-so-related issues. Some weeks its so HOT ya have to devote a whole new category to the discussion... (125 Threads so far)...

Military/Pentagon Papers/Hot Topics (New)...

http:// www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic= TimeBomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29&category= Military%2fPentagon%20Papers%2fHot%20Topics%20%28New%29

Hang in there Ken... the fall season is about to begin! (i.e. Server even Busier).


You might even get a tad more "involved" in your new job too. Good luck!


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

The quality of this forum improves in indirect relation to your participation. :-D You begin another thread rehashing a subject that was falacious the first time around. Once more you denigrate the forum and its participants rather than to converse on the issues presented, be they on-topic or off. But it doesn't hurt to stir the pot one more time, does it? The King of Smarm has not changed his spots.

Your response to Jack is especially telling:

Jack: >>And which local government in the vicinity of Washington, D.C., did you say you were going to be the Chief Administrator for? <<

Mr. Decker: >>And once more for the record, I do not live in the greater DC area.<<

Is it a reading comprehension problem, deliberate misdirection, or are you answering those little voices again?

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker you're going to make an exceptional bureaucrat. May I be the first to welcome you to the fold.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), August 27, 1999.



Mr. Decker IS the SUPREME embodiment of every politico that ever existed!!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.


While it's true that to some extent we are all "fiddling while Rome burns", even in a time of crisis, ya gotta feed the soul.

In the absence of anything else to do, "music" makes a nice diversion.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Did I miss the appointment of Decker as Supreme Expert of Interesting Forums? What gives him the idea that anybody cares that he doesn't like the way this forum operates? What are we supposed to do, jump to it and change everything to the way he'd like to have it? What arrogance! This is like somebody walking into a comfortable neighborhood bar and complaining it doesn't have the beer brand he likes, that the customers laugh too loud and there's too much mayo on the sandwiches, when most everyone else likes everything just the way it is. Ignore him, give me a refill and hand me the peanuts.

-- Whatisthe (definition@of.interesting?), August 27, 1999.

What is the point?

Disrupt the flow?

Create a little disturbance?

Show you cannot accept a point of view different from your own?

Mr. "Microeconomics," don't let us keep you here, away from your increasingly busy new responsibilities.

Aren't we wasting your time?

Or are you wasting ours?


-- oh look, it's Decker (the.shill@disinfo.gov), August 27, 1999.

I think what Decker's trying to intimate is that we almost converted him to the doomer ranks, somehow fell short and must try harder.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 27, 1999.


I think he needs just a few more weeks.

In the next few weeks we will find out how badly off the OPEC countries are in terms of readiness, and he will start to come around.

Of course, he also keeps intimating that he's going to leave, but he never does.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

What happened? By the responses to your question, you can see that folks who had something interesting to say, left. Y2K can no longer be debated; it's obvious that we will all survive (as unfortunate as that sounds for some of you). Sorry you don't have time to post as much these days; I do miss your wit.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), August 27, 1999.

I'd like to cut and paste that asshole double-decker...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Oh my!

That andy is sure one tough hombre!!!

Talking all bad'n'shit on the internet. TAKES BALLS ANDY!!!!

Wow! I'm impressed!


-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), August 27, 1999.

Maria commented:

" it's obvious that we will all survive (as unfortunate as that sounds for some of you). "

Well now Maria, gazing in your CRYSTAL BALL again it appears??

Maybe you could enlighten us ALL as to how you KNOW this.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

It is certainly getting a LOT harder to find anything worth commenting on. Very little is on topic anymore, and most of what is on topic consists of slogans and attacks. This forum has devolved into a vehicle for a few people to tell one another how awful just everything is anymore, so they can all agree with one another that life is miserable and it's all someone else's fault.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 1999.

Flint, I've got a GREAT idea, remove TimeBomb 2000 from you Favorites List. It will be MUCH appreciated!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.

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

Dear Reader, The general utility of this forum seems to be in decline. Readers from the pessimist-survivalist-fatalist (PSF) camp appear near completion in their preparations. The idealist-optimist-realists (IOR) folks repeat the generally positive media reports and quibble with the radical elements over the interpretation.

The paranoid posters suspect Y2K connections to every negative event. The hard core survivalists continue to worry about issues like the virtues of the Ruger M-14 .223 semi-auto rifle or how many thousands of rounds of ammo to stockpile. Conspiracy buffs contemplate the all- inclusive government-business-media "spin" on Y2K. Let us not forget the Gaia-types who look forward to a new agrarian age where we live happily without the evils of technology (like state-of-the-art medical facilities). The anti-fractional reserve banking gold bugs trade notes with economic illiterates. The computer wonks (none has less than "decades" of experience with every system ever developed) argue over chips and code. Finally, the rationalists calmly point that having several tons of soybeans in the cellar can do no harm.

What is the point?

The PSF folks are better served by hardcore survivalist web pages or perhaps homesteading or small farming sites. Posts by the IOR contingent generally fall on deaf ears. Has anyone decided to ease up on preparations based on reading a post on this forum?

While I have only posted on this forum a relatively short period of time, the posts have become increasingly less interesting... at least to me. On occasion, some of the more rational folks become involved on a particular thread. Even then, one more often sees ridicule than reason. While I have seen flashes of IS expertise, the quality of thought on economic issues... abysmal.

Yes, anticipating that some readers have a grasp of the obvious, I can choose not to read the forum. I believe there are a few intelligent, reasonable people who read (and post) here. It makes it worth a mouse-click... at least for now.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 1999


-- Not a fan (of@kc.decker), August 27, 1999.

I say evaluate the message, not the messenger.

Decker does have a point, IMO. I've been around here for over a year. I am concerned about Y2K. What concerns me most is the hatefull anti-government rhetoric that's growing more common AND stronger in tone. I suspect a lot of folks concerned about Y2K simply are of the same cloth that was concerned about how to survive nuclear war in the 80's or the comming economic colapse of the 90's and 80's and 70's and ??'s. I've tended towards worrying about bad times all my life. Had to do with growing up hard. Worry about survival and shortages made me a natural to worry about Y2K. I AM the pot, so I CAN call the kettle black 'cause I tend to look on the dark side myself. This forumn has helped me learn that about myself. Maybe one day I'll be more of an optimist with hope for a bright future and someone who can enjoy just having fun more -- but I won't bw working on this until after I see what Y2K brings!

I work as a programmer/analyst for a "quasi" government organization. That makes me an employee, not a "shill". And regardless of who I work for at the moment, I do not think violent actions or violent rhetoric directed at politicians or Jewish preschoolers or any other group has any merit at all.

One of the hardest things to do in life is get to the point where you realize the world doesn't revolve around you, you are just another person, not all that significant cosmically, and you just need to live your life and be the best person you can be without trying to force your conceptions of how one should live upon other people or dislike them because they think differently than you do.

I bristle at any curtailment of freedom. I'm 100% American. I also live in a society with other people. That means I have to stop at red lights. Even if I'm in a hurry, and those driving thru the intersection are just out for a Sunday drive. Thoughts of living "free and unfetered" appeal to everyone. Problem is, we all live on the same planet and all of us both affect others by our actions and are affected by the actions of others.

Society IS different today than it was 200 years ago. It couldn't be the same. We can't "go back". We can only go forward. A stable peacefull society is one you can build upon. Shifting sands of caos, anarchy and mob rule will not result in furtherance of anything noble.

-- Anon (Anon@work.now), August 27, 1999.

"One of the hardest things to do in life is get to the point where you realize the world doesn't revolve around you, you are just another person, not all that significant cosmically, and you just need to live your life and be the best person you can be without trying to force your conceptions of how one should live upon other people or dislike them because they think differently than you do."

Absolutely, Anon. We've been trying to get Decker to think this way about the forum for a while. Maybe you'll have better luck.

-- you (got@that.right), August 27, 1999.

It looks like an entire thread devoted to kicking around some guy (Decker) who has a love/hate relationship with his fellow posters.

Not for nothing folks, but I think that one of the problems with the Y2K debate EVERYWHERE is that we spend too much time arguing amongst ourselves and not enough time focused on the issues.

Am I concerned? Just a little afraid? Absolutely! But I'm not going to fall in the gutter while wringing my hands. There are SERIOUS issues to be dealt with. Those of us who emerge safely can fight in the sandbox later.



-- Irving (Irving@privacy.net), August 27, 1999.


You numbskull, it was a simple Wildean play on words... doh!

BTW I have a question for you BEANO! on another thread.

Right up your alley - to do with Fanny Mae and banking...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

BTW this is Anon, prior to taking his medication...

"For one thing -- regarding "spin" on the issue of Y2K -- all my life I've seen "spin" on practically everything by everybody. The government, companies, lobbying groups -- even people trying to explain/excuse their behavior or influence someone. It's pretty pervasive, will be with us all our lives, and is nothing new to Y2K. What I find most ammusing is how so many of you spend your time searching for "proof" that a) things will be bad; and b) the gubmint is covering it up. The reason this is so BWAAAAHAHAHAHA to me is that you are looking to the source of your accusations! If you can't trust what they say, then why do you look to the gubmint for "answers and proof" -- sounds kind of stupid to me. I don't know what Y2K will bring. I just prepare as best I can, and will do the best I can. What more can anyone do, except to work themselves up into an anti-gubmint frenzy at how "they" dare to hide, spin and lie about the truth? I suspect those of you who do this would be doing it on account of some other issue if Y2K wasn't available to focus your emotionalism on. I don't hold much hope for those of you who are in the anti-society crowd. I find you amusing, sad, scary and just plain 'ole pathetic. Wouldn't let my dog piss on your grave.

Just for grins, I'll let you in on something. I'm an employee of a "quasi" government organization. Does that make me a paid gubmint shill? No, it makes me an employee. I'm just a Joe 40 hours a week who lurks and post from work -- although I'm sure the .gov on my address that TPTB on this forumn see when they pry is "proof" to some that I'm some kind of "operative" -- BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!! No, I'm just me. At $20 a month for unlimited internet use, do you think I would post from a .gov site if I were some shill or operative? BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Does the fact that as a citizen of the US of A who LIKES society and who is against violent overthrow of the government make me "guilty" of being one of those "secret operatives" who monitor this site to make a "prisoner list" of doomers for the NWO camp -- even though over 200 million of my fellow Americans feel the same way? Oh, I forgot -- those are "sheeple" -- their feelings and votes don't count -- it's only the elightened hate mongers who seek dooooommmmmm that "count". BTW, I think this site, and the "help and guidance" it offers on Y2K is interesting, but more of a mole hill than a mountain -- I doubt that TPTB quiver in their beds at night fearful of the "truth" exposed here. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! In short, this little forumn is not so cosmically significant. But it is interesting and people do learn thinks here -- about Y2K, about other people and about themselves. That's worthwhile. Some of you are "falling into a cult like trance" in my opinion -- fearing the XYZ agency is coming for you just because some folks lurking and posting from a .gov or .mil site at work MUST BE OPERATIVES IF THEY DON"T ADMIT IT'S TEOTWAWKI NEXT YEAR!!!!!! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I suspect it's chief use regarding Y2K is as "proof" the gubmint is bad and evil -- at least for those of you who want to see it overthrown by a lynch mob. The result or any social strife or civil war those of you who "care" about the "freedom and welfare" of our country will be a Kosovo -- not a return to "13 happy colonies". The social paradise you yearn for never has existed and never will. We can't go "back" we can only go forward. Anarchy and revolution are not the foundation to build anything noble on in this modern, nuclear world. A stable, peaceful society is much more condusive, IMO. The challenge is to be persuasive enough to both convince and motivate voters to act. To those of you who spent your time reading anti- American drivel during civics class, that's what we Americans call the "democratic process". Try it sometime. If you don't succeed, oh well. That's how it may or may not go. There are no guarantees. However, while the majority rules, it does try and respect the rights of the minority -- but never as much as the minority would like. In short, if you can't persuade 'em, you DON'T have any right to FORCE or KILL 'em!!!!!!!! Get that thru your helmet!

FWIW, I think Flint is A-OK. Too bad the reasoning level of some of you doesn't rise above emotional reactionism. I've read some "debates" in some of the threads. Flint ask for replies to his post which state issues/facts and ask questions. Those responding often just restate themselves rather than respond. Of couse, I'm sure many that dislike Flint think they "have him pegged" -- as an "agent".


I think the person whose analysis of two types of Doomers was on target. I've noticed that myself around here over the past several months. Seems like the MOA is to label, stereotype, discount and attack those who don't see BAAAAAAADDDDD TEOTWAWKI type scenarios coming about -- rather than just regarding another "estimate". I've noticed many around here getting much more rabid and reactionary. I'm surprised many of the anti-society types haven't started calling each other "commrad" by now -- and sharing a "secret smiley face" so they can differentiate between "friend" and "foe"! BWAAAAHAHAHAH!!!

Thank you! Rant off! God, it's great to be an American!!!!

-- Anon (Anon@work.now), August 27, 1999."

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Excellent points, Mr. Decker.

I too find little worth commenting upon. LinkMeister is correct, however, as there is the occassional piece here or there worth investigation.

I believe the efforts of the new moderator have helped to tone down the noise level somewhat, but it seems a nearly impossible task in this environment. There has been a marked improvement, however, as I am sure you have noted.

In it's own way, the debate is and has been finished for society's more informed for some time now. My concerns are for those who will begin their inevitable personal investigation on or around 991201. Those people will doubtless discover this forum, filled with individuals who have been primed by twelve to twenty-four months of ranting. I believe they will be repulsed, and thus avoid the fallacy and the fear. Recent polls (fueled by repeated failed prophecies of doom) validate this hypothesis, as most reject the notion they should prepare for the non-event.

Common sense usually prevails, and that seems to be the case here as well.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

Andy Ray commented:

"I believe they will be repulsed, and thus avoid the fallacy and the fear. Recent polls (fueled by repeated failed prophecies of doom) validate this hypothesis, as most reject the notion they should prepare for the non-event. "

Andy Ray, will you take personal responsibility for the well being of those individuals you convinced that y2k would be a NON-EVENT if y2k affects their well being ??

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

Decker: I, for one, am glad that you are increasingly busy with your new responsibilities. The less you're around here and the less of your useless drivel that I have to wade through, the better I like it.

Now, if someone could just find something useful for Flint, Hoff, Maria, the wretched Andy Ray, and Anita Spinner to do (hey, why dont you go remediate some code, or find an embedded to test?), discussion here would certainly be more productive.

Don't you guys get it? The people here have made up their minds that THERE IS A PROBLEM. They are merely trying to determine the scope and extent of that problem. They have no interest in some twit who says "There is no problem, go back to sleep." You will not change their minds or their actions without FACTS. And, unfortunately for you pollies, the facts, such as we have been able to ferret out here, do not support your platitudinous opinions. Take them elsewhere, you waste valuable time.


-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

My concerns are for those who will begin their inevitable personal investigation on or around 991201

Andy Ray

Don't concern yourself with those people Andy, worry about the ones who begin their investigation around 90210. They're doomed, doomed I say!

Mr Decker

I still find this place a good stop for thoughts, and even some laughs. I have always enjoyed the OT posts and now, with my preps mostly handled, I perhaps enjoy them even more. I am quite curious as to what this forum will evolve into after the storm passes.


-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Well, the usual tripe from the usual players. For "Grease," I don't live OR work in the Greater DC area. Now, let's drop the honorifics, shall we? It's obvious we share low opinions of one another and besides, I think calling anyone "Mr." Grease is asinine. And "Deano," you're right. Add Grease to the list of paper tigers. Andy and pals are full of bluff, bluster and braggadocio... safe behind PC monitors. It's a true shame none of the forum bullies will attend my Y2K gathering.

Thanks to the thoughtful commentators who have also noticed the decline in the forum. I think the comments on the increasing volume of the anti-government folks are on target. I'll wager Andy, Ray and some of the others were gold-loving, Fed-hating, tax protesting folks long before Y2K came along... and will be after. Like Gary North, Y2K is just an opportunity to vent about the sorry state of America. In March of next year, when the lights are still on, the same folks will be talking... and making just as much sense as they do today.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), August 28, 1999.

Oh, and one other thing: MOST amateur chick wrestling videos do not have mud in them. Its mainly apartment wrestling, so don't be discouraged. There are a few, you just have to look. (And the apartment wrestling ones aren't half bad either, for the price.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Knock Knock Andy Ray, anyone home??

Still waiting for an answer to my previous question, will assume responsibility for the well being of those you convinced not to prepare?? I think I have my answer!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

Well Decker, I hear the bureaucratic RED TAPE beckoning, take your time, remember service to the public takes a back seat to service to the state!!

Please bless us with a longer leave of absence than the previous one

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

If I could add my two cents worth to this discussion...it always amazes me that with your interest in economics and the fact that you are an investor, you spend so much time discussing the motivations of those who are developing Y2K contingency plans for their families.

Right now in the financial markets, it looks as if liquidity concerns related to Y2K are brewing. Here are two recent threads on the subject:

"Economic impact of y2k on markets is starting ..... look at these headlines."



"Japanese Gov. Bond Auction Flop. y2k?"


Mr. Decker, since you would like the quality of conversation to improve on this forum, you could contribute to the cause with your own observations on this liquidity situation that I'm sure you are closely following.

I and others would welcome your comments on a topic that we know you are well grounded in.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), August 28, 1999.

Hey folks, Decker is like all the other bureaucrats and government types saying one thing while doing another. Didn't I read not too long ago Decker saying that he just took delivery of 4 or 5 cords of wood? Maybe his new digs are a little drafty.


-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Although the matter of my name is hardly the point of my post, you seem unable to grasp it. If you would like to call me Mr. Grise, that's fine. I have no problem addressing you as Mr. Decker, and I have never stooped to casting aspersions on your name. Show me the same respect. But get this straight: That *is* my name. My second(?) or third(?) grade classmates realized the play on my initials and last name. Why can't you get it? Who is being asinine here? As you are so fond of saying, drop me an email, my name and address are real. (Chuckle)

We are indeed back where we started. Your much-vaunted civility is a thin veneer. Or are you inviting (or baiting) me to ridicule your name? Sorry, true civility restrains me from doing so.

To the point: It is now clear to all that you are deliberately avoiding a meaningful response to Jack's question. Since you are a "real person" and all, and have publicly volunteered your acceptance of a Y2K administrative position, why hide the name of the municipality? If you don't care to reveal the information, just say so. But cut out the transparent semantics games.

This forum can be likened to a gathering of folks who get together to discuss issues generally relating to Y2K. But, as with any gathering, discussions evolve and the subjects change. What's wrong with that? Personally, I enjoy reading the breadth of subject and opinion offered here. In that respect, the quality hasn't changed. But you seem intent on isolating a portion of the content and sneering at it in that endearing way you have. "...gold-loving, Fed-hating, tax protesting folks..." Weren't you properly taught to avoid stereotypes? If your purpose for posting here is to bait the doomers, you are doing an excellent job, but don't expect a whole lot of respect for it.

Oh, in regard to the "paper tiger" epithet, I guess I should be highly offended, right? (Laughter) What have I said that constitutes "bluff, bluster or braggadocio"? I called you on your verbal sleight of hand schtick. Whining is hardly a mature response to someone who is merely disagreeing with you. You seldom fail to point out your opponents' lack of coherent argument, but it is clear that you have trouble handling opposing opinions as well.

One last thing. I do not have a low opinion of you. I don't know you. However, I *do* hold a low opinion of some of your performances here.


Mr. Grise

-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ