All comments on this introduction to my upcoming book that are posted on this thread before October 2, 1999 will be seriously considered.

Posters: Alert your neighbors! Grab a flak jacket! Here goes:

Introduction to:

The Toilet Paper Chronicles: Gallows Humor from the Y2k Underground Publisher: SCI. ISBN Number: 0-967-49271-8

What do I think about Y2k? Beyond assuming you will read this book in the comfort of your own home, rather than in a U.S. Military Relocation Camp, to which you will have been transported in a white bus with mysterious markings, I make no Y2k predictions.

Instead, this book is intended as a documentation of what many well-read, computer savvy people are/were thinking during the final countdown toward historys most relentless deadline. As an experienced journalist, I know they are well-read because I asked the right questions and studied their writings intensively over a period of one year. Their computer literacy has been investigated in the same fashion. This book is the culmination of nearly three thousand pages of notes gathered over twelve months. In most cases, I have decided against posting the real handles and e-mail addresses of those who are quoted, for obvious reasons. After all, according to CBS News, are not gun sales up--potentially--as a result of Y2k? [Grin] In other instances names have been changed to protect the anonymous.

Many of those whose writings appear in this book are programmers or engineers of one sort or another. Some of them deal with software, some with enterprise systems, some with experience in embedded microprocessors, etc.

Others are simply astute observers from various professions. Most are familiar with the fundamentals of argumentation and debate. Nearly all have a keen interest in politics, government and the media. Most are Americans. Some are from Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Ive included their optimistic views, along with their views from dark side, i.e., If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, youre toast, etc. After all, what would Gallows Humor be without the specter of a hangman? The television series M.A.S.H. wouldnt have been funny if not set in the Korean War.

Without question, there are people for whom the millennium bug represents a source of fear and loathing. Some of them have indeed sold their homes and moved to rural locations, where theyve stockpiled up to a years worth of supplies, dug wells and prepared to live long-term off the electric grid.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe Y2k induced computer failures are and will be no different than the failures currently taking place. They look at current technology and its designers and users as part of a system burdened by incompetence, inefficiency, and plain stupidity. They think its amazing that anything works now. Successful work-arounds are and will be the order of the day.

Somewhere on the outside edges of these two extremes are the people who search interstate highways for evidence of New World Order white buses as they await the end of the world, and those who think there never was a Y2k problem; that it was something consultants and freeze-dried food salesmen made up to extort money from corporations and the public. Exchanges between these last two groups have been particularly funny.

On the interior fringes and also in the middle of the spectrum are those who dont know what to believe about Y2k. Who could blame them, considering the schizophrenic media coverage of the past year? On one day, all is well, depending upon where one lives. The next day there is trouble on the horizon, depending upon where one lives. This group seems to be united in the belief that preparing for the kinds of emergencies that have historically occurred in their geographic areas is just common sense. So, for this group, perhaps the most confusing element of Y2k has been the admonition to find out what the situation is where one lives, which implies that one should trust the answers to the difficult questions asked of utilities, etc., who are admittedly self-reporting year 2000 readiness to those government entities who have taken the initiative to ask for these types of reports. The U.S. Senate has admitted that self-reporting on behalf of government and industry is the equivalent of students grading their own papers. Thats why these folks are confused.

An additional element of confusion for this middle of the road group is that Y2ks impact--whatever it turns out to be--will be global. Many of these people have experienced downsizing first-hand. Theyve seen jobs go overseas to countries where labor is inexpensive. They understand that some of Americas leading companies could experience problems as a result of Y2k problems out of country. They fear another Great Depression. Anyone whose parents or grandparents went through that particular period of American history understands precisely what that means.

With the exception of the fringe of the fringe groups, what most of these people have in common is that they are part of a growing crowd of citizen columnists, people who--thanks to the Internet--have a new public forum in which to express their opinions, but choose to do so only after taking into account first-hand experience and analyzing information from sources they respect and can articulately quote.

In a 1993 Wired Magazine article, author Michael Crichton wrote, Debate is interesting. It's a form of exploration. . .And where can you find this kind of debate in today's media? Not in television, nor in newspapers or magazines. You find it on the computer networks, a place where traditional media are distinctly absent.

While traditional media organizations are more present on the Internet today than six years ago, their general news coverage indicates they have not yet infiltrated the very best debating societies, including the Y2k watering holes where every year 2000 readiness report from government and industry groups is first dissected, then condemned or supported.

For me, observing the Y2k debate has been fascinating, educating and hilarious. Second City has nothing on these people. I look forward to talking with them further some day.

Then again, I live four miles from a 7-11. . .

(Apologies for any mistakes in formatting)

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Sincerely,

Marianne Michaels

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 28, 1999

Answers

If I read the book after the first of the year, it will be in the safety of my bunker...

Although there is humor, there is also a deep underlying sadness. So much pain could have been eliminated, had various groups taken notice in a timely manner. Similarly, many preparations have been discouraged by those who "are trying to avoid panic."

Perhaps we could just supply some punchlines:

() With a full year for testing...

() We're 95% complete...

() There is no reason to panic...

() Prepare as you would for a three day winter storm...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), September 28, 1999.

Please delete.

-- JOHNNY (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), September 28, 1999.

Why not let us all in on your research? If you have examined the issue as closely as you say, you realize that you're not gonna make squat from sales of your book. 3 months to go, mama mia....

Teetime

-- teetime (b@a.com), September 28, 1999.

Johnny, Why do you want this thread deleted?

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), September 28, 1999.

Nice name.

Just for the record, no relation.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 28, 1999.

Marianne,

I think you've covered it pretty well. I hope we can all read it next year, and have a good laugh at each other.

I really hope so.

Please DO NOT delete!

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 28, 1999.

"Ive included their optimistic views, along with their views from dark side, i.e., If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, youre toast, etc. After all, what would Gallows Humor be without the specter of a hangman? The television series M.A.S.H. wouldnt have been funny if not set in the Korean War.

Without question, there are people for whom the millennium bug represents a source of fear and loathing. Some of them have indeed sold their homes and moved to rural locations, where theyve stockpiled up to a years worth of supplies, dug wells and prepared to live long-term off the electric grid.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who believe Y2k induced computer failures are and will be no different than the failures currently taking place. They look at current technology and its designers and users as part of a system burdened by incompetence, inefficiency, and plain stupidity. They think its amazing that anything works now. Successful work-arounds are and will be the order of the day.

Somewhere on the outside edges of these two extremes are the people who search interstate highways for evidence of New World Order white buses as they await the end of the world, and those who think there never was a Y2k problem; that it was something consultants and freeze-dried food salesmen made up to extort money from corporations and the public. Exchanges between these last two groups have been particularly funny. "

______________________________________________________________________

I feel like I'm being ridiculed ala :"andy ray" "Stephen Poole"

____________________________________________________________________

" Thats why these folks are confused."

No these folks are confused because they haven't been told the truth from their Government on everything from the truth about y2k to c4i to China to the real threat here at home come December '99 and January 2000. _____________________________________________________________________

The Toilet Paper Chronicles: Gallows Humor from the Y2k Underground Publisher: SCI. ISBN Number: 0-967-49271-8

The Toilet Paper Chronicles?

and this is serious?

_____________________________________________________________________

Listen I served in the Marine Corp. from Beirut to the Gulf War and I've reached some conclusions:

Your Government will lie to you.

Your Government will lie about you.

You are as expendable to your government as Chinese are to theirs.LOL=LOSS OF LIFE. Its factored in. Get it?

-- JOHNNY (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), September 28, 1999.

I sincerely hope I will be able to enjoy your book sometime after 1/1/00. What you wrote here seems unbiased with no obious axe to grind.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), September 28, 1999.

Marianne,

The content of your post seems too brief to support any particular answer to the question "Have I described you correctly?".

Meanwhile, the proposed title and subtitle of the book suggest a work of humor. There has been much to tickle funny bones in the debates about Y2K. I suspect, however, that the book may encounter either or both of two potential problems: 1. readers who have not gone through the debates may not understand a substantial amount of the humor, and 2. depending on which Y2K problems do occur, and what their effects are, some of what may seem humorous at time of publication may not seem humorous at time of reading.

In any case, may we all be smiling through the rollover and beyond.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 28, 1999.

To JOHNNY and everyone else who has commented thus far:

I really appreciate your comments. That's why I posted this thread.

JOHNNY, I understand where you're coming from. I'm a journalist and also a military brat.

Thanks in advance to all of you.

Your comments will be read and considered.

One way or another though--the book is going to print.

October 2, is the deadline for comment.

Thanks again!

Marianne

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 28, 1999.

Follow the toilet paper trail-if theres a big sale=we ok.

-- got magazines? (dogs@zianet.com), September 28, 1999.

The y2k 'movement' represents an unconcious perception on the part of 2% of the population that they are on the brink of assimiliation into a fully mechanized and controlled society. Such people, many of whom had not been politically aware,and certainly not radical, needed an overt, concrete and plausible trigger to galvanize the translation of amorphous anxiety into action. The actions taken, basic emergency prepartions, are good for earthquakes and other disasters, so no harm done. y2k itself however, is probably too little too late to bring technological civilization to its ruin.

And is final assimiliation into the machine necessarily a bad thing ? What has the history of the human-centric world been but slavery, war, poverty, disease, famine, hatred, torture, and what you will? Now we are already in a symbiotic relationship with our machines. We are caring for them, nurturing them. Soon they will interpenetrate us. y2k cannot stop this process now. The remediation is not perfect, but it is good enough. How many of us already take prozac, live in air-conditioned or heated environments almost exclusively ? We need the "life support" that our machines provide. We have become aliens on our own planet. Will there be a great die-off ? I think not, not until the machines no longer require our physical labor for their maintenance. Are not biological systems frail, messy, and ugly compared to the sleek silent machines ?

Buddhists have written 'the eyes hunger for color,the ears hunger for sound'. These hungers are used by the machines to draw us, to make us dependent. It has worked well, we are being assimilated. Computers are in accord with the old science fiction cliche, they are a new form of life, one that requires symbiotic care now, like sensitive Chinese silkworms, but that has a blind Darwinian mandate to encroach. And we, the last of humanity, in our boredom and fear, welcome first metallic touch,the cold but exciting grasp, the inextricable embrace.

-- Layla (Layla@Italian.Alps), September 28, 1999.

Are the contents of the book taken from this forum? If so, and if you have anything I have written, please feel free to use my real name. But not my e-mail address.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 28, 1999.

From your description,your book takes no authoritive position and blindly bounces from"polly" to "doomsayer".Information freely available in a thousand forums on the net.The title is altruistically appropriate.

-- intelligent minority (sorry_but_true@you_asked_for_it.com), September 28, 1999.

Marianne: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 28, 1999.

Oh boy, a concept book with a hook. And one for which you only need to do one-fifth of the writing... You take people's public posts and publish them. While it may be legal, I have a slight ethical problem with it.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 28, 1999.

Yes, there is something to laugh at here, but more importantly, there are also very important ideas and issues that were talked about, debated, examined, and (sometimes) changed lives (and mostly for the better, I like to imagine). This is what is no joke.

I am not sure I like the idea of the possibility of my words being included in your book without my having reviewed what words of mine might be included. Generally, such a courtesy is extended and there is time to review it. Are you willing to extend such gracious courtesies?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 28, 1999.

To: intelligent minority,

"altruistically appropriate?"

I'll take that as a compliment.

King of Spain,

I would only mudwrestle with my husband if he asked. Maybe. Probably not.

Mara,

You and I are friends from another incarnation. Please do not prejudge this book. I am nothing if not an ethical journalist.

Consider, please, the original question.

Smilies to you all.

Thanks!

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

Stan,

I don't believe any of your comments are included in this book.

Take care.

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

So, what are you going to do with the typo's and misspellings?

You appear at least condensending (sp), if not outright snide and uppity in your attitude towards the more important goals of training and preparation. How are you going to reconcile the facts that many see hundreds of false statements, "happy" conclusions from incomplete and misleading statistics, and outright manipulation from the national government about a worldwide event that may lead to many problems affecting people's jobs, their econmy, their health, their comfort, the homes, and perhaps their lives?

When events come out and the world re-stabilizes - in perhaps March, maybe February or maybe May - what will you print, what will you do to update/modify/correct your manuscript?

---

You asked "Does this describe you?" No, of what you printed, it doesn't describe me, nor my concerns.

It does cover many who describe themselves as "pollies" - and to the degree it appears to present a "politcally correct" image denigrating those of us who are trying to get others to prepare for an uncertain future against the failures caused by this administration's lies and false premises, it does seem to meet the administration's needs.

Your further comments are welcome. Or perhaps I could ask for a few paragraphs to present an opposing view of your conclusions.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 29, 1999.

There've been a number of books consisting of netmail on whatever topic, bbs postings, etc. as their primary content. They are boring, hard to read, poor sellers, and they date very quickly. Like fish,they don't "keep" long.

If yk2 comes down 10, nobody'll care about this book. Conversely, if y2k fizzles, well, let's just say Americans aren't real big on "ancient history", if you get my drift.

See you in the remainders pile,

-cv

-- ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 29, 1999.

Well, it looks like something in this thread got Layla to let herself run amuck! While I often like to encourage people to double check their premises, in Layla's case I would suggest quadruple checking premises. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne:

The CONCEPT for the book certainly has merit -- reminds me of that classic, "Up The Down Staircase", where the reader is presented with a collage of various letters, memos, diary accounts, snippets from bulletin boards, etc., without benefit of a real narrative. That was a best seller, too, followed by a movie starring whats-her-name who died young.

Problem is, as Count Vronsky points out, the ONLY people who care about this stuff are people who care about Y2K. Actually, more like people who care about Y2K and have nothing better to do.

If I were you, I'd dump the book project. But I bet you could really get into mudwrestling. Why don't YOU ask your husband about it, it might be the best thing that you ever did!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 29, 1999.

Seems like book in search of an audience. Serious preparers won't be interested in it because they've spent their money on, well, serious preps. DGIs are already sick of the topic, having been nagged to death by their GI friends. Middle of the roaders will be burned out on the topic before long - most already are. The people for whom the book would be relevant at all would be those who know the Pollies from the Doomers without a scorecard. And we've been there, done that in real time. It's all there in dejanews and email archives, if we want to relive it.

Are you self-publishing? I'd be surprised if a mainline publisher would invest in a narrow-targeted novelty book on a potentially catastrophic (not humorous) issue at this late date.

Seriously, and I mean this, like, in the most caring way: save your money and buy some tuna. Very soon the topic may be funny like Hurricane Floyd is funny to folks in North Carolina.

-- Fiver (fiver2000@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

The spirit of this fine place will NEVER be captured in any book. Ya just had to be here...Good luck anyway!

-- Gia (laureltree7@hotmail.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne,

I like being an obscure doomer. I like that alot. Thank you, Marianne.

I had tossed around the idea of writing a book from what I have read and learned about America here. I would do all the writing, however. I'm still thinking about it.

Can I get an advance review copy of your book?

Good luck.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 29, 1999.

King -

Up the Down Staircase starred Sandy Dennis, who went on to do Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Out-of-Towners, and passed away in 1992. What "died-young" actress were you thinking of?

Ms. Micheals -

Not sure what your purpose is in writing the "Chronicles", but good luck anyhow. How are your preps coming along?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), September 29, 1999.

Marianne:

This is my gut feeling. I really didn't read too far before I began to get this impression of you: Someone who would see this as an opportunity to make a buck at the expense of those who see this country going down, in big trouble, while most of the population is in a narcotic induced, brainwashed slumber.

If you can lurk this neck of cyber countryside and still feel objective and detached from the characters that inhabit these parts, detached about the issues discussed then I suspect that you DGI (really). You're not concerned with any of the issues here such as the future of this once great nation, you are not motivated by such grand concerns. You see this forum as someone doing a science project or a term paper - as a collection of odd little people under your microscope and wondering how they got to be so wierd from the rest of society.

I see your type on Good Morning America or one of those stupid mass pablum, narcotic serving, airhead hosted TV shows while hyping your book and mocking those who are preparing for Y2K and marginalizing them in the public mind. Everyone shakes their head, has a good laugh and the host turns to the camera and sums it up by demonizing rednecks or Christians, or 2nd ammendment advocates, or those CRAZY CONCERVATIVES or ??? whatever slant the TV execs determined would get a good rating and a thumbs up from the leftists. "Look, they're hunkerin' down in their basements in fear with their guns n beans n rice n water. Say they'll shoot first n ask questions later."

I'm not impressed.

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 29, 1999.

spelling! "Crazy Conservatives"

sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), September 29, 1999.

sdb,

Got the same impression. Cyberslumming as it were.

-- Nowi (Nowi@Jose.com), September 29, 1999.

Mac: Thanks for the info, including the links; yeah, Sandy Dennis. And according to her bio (links), she died at 56 (ovarian cancer), I'd say thats kind of young.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 29, 1999.

Wow! I guess Im the one who needs a flak jacket!

Mr. Cook,

You wrote:

How are you going to reconcile the facts that many see hundreds of false statements, "happy" conclusions from incomplete and misleading statistics, and outright manipulation from the national government about a worldwide event that may lead to many problems affecting people's jobs, their economy, their health, their comfort, the homes, and perhaps their lives?

This will be addressed in two chapters. One chapter will chronicle reaction to what weve heard from government over the past year.

Another chapter addresses the debate over messages conveyed by corporations and their trade associations.

You also wrote:

When events come out and the world re-stabilizes - in perhaps March, maybe February or maybe May - what will you print, what will you do to update/modify/correct your manuscript?

Plans are in place to update the book.

I hope that answers your questions Mr. Cook.

Fiver,

You wrote:

The people for whom the book would be relevant at all would be those who know the Pollies from the Doomers without a scorecard.

Perhaps. Im including a scorecard though. [grin]

Stan,

You wrote:

Can I get an advance review copy of your book?

If you are a professional book reviewer, the answer is yes.

S. David,

You wrote:

If you can lurk this neck of cyber countryside and still feel objective and detached from the characters that inhabit these parts, detached about the issues discussed then I suspect that you DGI (really). 

Actually, Ive done more than lurk, here and elsewhere. Ive participated in many forums quite frequently in addition to conducting interviews.

On a personal level, I do not feel detached from the characters that inhabit these parts, nor from the issues. I see valid viewpoints on all sides.

Given what you wrote about current TV shows, I think you might enjoy my chapter on the media.

____

Thanks again, all, for your comments. I look forward to receiving more answers to my original question before October 2, 1999.

Now, its off to find that hair shirt! (If it will fit under the flak jacket.) [Grin]

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne-- How extensive are your preps and on a scale of 1 to 10 what level of disruption are you expecting? 1 being BITR and 10 being Infomagic.

Have you ever used the handle "Andy Ray" while doing your research or interviews?

-- JOHNNY (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), September 29, 1999.

Marianne,...one of the things that occurs to me as I read all the responses to your post is that folks on this forum, other sites like this one have been among those cast in various media as kooks at best, and instigators of panic at worst. It is a tad late in the game, after all that name-calling and stereotyping for many of us to feel comfortable when someone waltzes in and says (in effect): "Hi...I've been studying you and your ilk for my book." I suspect many would respond: "Where've you been? Why not announce your presence earlier in the process? Have you learned anything about personal preparation/self-sufficiency? Nice to meetcha. 'Bye."

Once burned, twice shy, ya know. I don't see what we do here as a quaint turn-of-century/millennium fad. I see it as part of a well-engaged cultural transformation. Perhaps it's only coincidental that Y2K is happening on Planet Earth at this time. With or without Y2K, what we do/discuss here has bold and loud implications for the future of "The Happy Planet". I hope your treatment of our 'event' is not trivializing.

--She in the sheet, upon the hilltop,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 29, 1999.

Well, Marianne Michaels,

Good luck on your book-writing venture. Well find out--possibly--if you are an investigative journalist, even with your toungue-in-cheek Y2K title. Or not.

;-D

As one of the oft overlooked Middle Grounders, I do recommend you re- read Arnies essay...

Y2K And The Erosion Of The Middle Ground

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

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), March 19, 1999

The Middle Ground is the land of grey. There is little Y2K black or white, only shades. No pat answers, no guaranteed outcomes, no reason to believe that *some* kind of workaround wont/cant be devised. It all depends souly on the local people involved and the depth of their community spirit.

When all the rhetoric, spin and counter-spin is digested the underlying message always appears to be... Be Prepared... for anything! Expected the Unexpected.

Then just when you think youve got it all pegged, remember... Shift Happens.

Often, in the most unusual ways. (North Carolina and the Floyd flooding aftermath is a prime example).

Y2K is NOT about computers and embedded chips failing. (A claim which goes against the grain of common belief). The final lesson is about how a planet-full of challenged people remembers their humanity. Or fails to.

Stay tuned. Could be a bumpy night.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

JOHNNY,

As mentioned up top, I am making no predictions about what Y2k will bring.

With regard to "Andy Ray," LOL!

No, I've never used that handle. As for which one I used, I will only offer up one hint: I posted many times, contributed much information, and was only flamed once. I deserved the flaming, and I apologized.

Donna,

I understand your concerns.

Please understand that despite the book's title, I take the subject seriously. I am doing everything I can to produce something of substance that will endure.

Thanks again!

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne,...After rereading Arnie's great essay and responses (referenced above by Diane) I remembered the TransparencyNow site with the writing of Ken Sanes. His analysis of post modern journalism is thought-provoking, and hard-hitting. This one in particular may have application to anyone attempting to portray Y2K discussers/preparers. Once made aware of discrediting techniques it becomes impossible to miss them.

Common Disquises For Discrediting Attacks, by Ken Sanes

http://www.transparencynow.com/news/disguises.htm

--She in the sheet, upon the hilltop,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 29, 1999.

Marianne sez: "... despite the book's title, I take the subject seriously." WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE????

Donna: Forget the sheet, do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 29, 1999.

Of course, you also have to note that ANY sort of discussion of ANY point whatsoever will also invoke the discrediting rules. The only thing Sanes allows is yes men, happily yelping along behind him with their noses in his a**.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

There was a thread once before about this book. The other thread, started on September 13th, is at the following link:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Ozk

"The Toilet Paper Chronicles: Gallows Humor from the Y2k Underground"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 29, 1999.

Andy Ray described his book on this thread:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00102V

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 29, 1999.

>>>>The only thing Sanes allows is yes men, happily yelping along behind him with their noses in his a**.<<<<

Really, Paul. And how have you acquired this understanding of what Ken Sanes wants? I bet you'd have a lot more successful dialogues if you didn't immediately resort to ad hominem attacks upon others. Or is the above statement only your opinion? At least state as much.

KOS,...no mudwrestling so far. Pretty dry out in S. California these days...check with me again during the rainy season. :)

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 29, 1999.

One day ol' QOS is gonna run up against a boy named Sue........

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne, I'd like to ask you, why are you doing a book on this ? Why not just post your writing on a website ? With links to the original posts ? Is your commentary and analysis needed ? If so, make it a web book rather than a dead-tree book. My question is: are you motivated by ego, or rather by greed ? If ego, the web will serve to get your brilliant analysis diseminated to the digiterati (like they really care right?). If greed, well, as I said above, you'll be lucky to sell 10,000 copies of this book (or maybe you'll have to split the 10,000 potential buyers with Andy Ray), at your author's royalty of what 80 cents a copy or something ? Not worth your valuable time. Better take paid advertisements on your website ! If y2k fizzles (the only scenario under which your book has even a theoretical possibility of success), there's be a dozen well-done websites chronicling the whole debacle, e.g. Declan will probably transform his y2k culture site into such a humorous chronicle of those unwashed nervous nellies and nattering nabobs of negativity who so laughably fell for y2k (as they are perceived by the powers that be and the uber-class in this country). These websites will be competition for your book. Why not jump in and just compete directly ? Of course, I do know there's nothing like the ego rush of seeing your name on a dead-tree cover is there - even if its just the torn off covers in the boxes being shipped back to the publisher for lack of sales.

-- count vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 29, 1999.

Any stylistic resemblance?

In response to the requests for more facts, I have some questions: Why? Why attempt to offer the first bit of conclusive evidence? What difference will it possibly make in any individual who might read the information here? People on Y2K bulletin boards only take the word of post-ers who regurgitate what they want to hear. They only quote articles and links to articles with which they already agree. There is no science in what they do - it is myth and hope and dream. The rest are classified as "happy-face" reports, or some such pithy adolescence - basically calling all reports of successful testing "lies" from a treachorous conspiracy of big business and government.

The critical burden of proof is not on my side - in whatever degrading or insulting term you choose to characterize it - but lies on yours. Have any of you watched one critical system crash? Have you personally participated in the testing of anything remotely related to a mission-critical/-sensitive installation? Or are you blindly gobbling up all the hearsay, secretly wishing for the "system" to come crashing down on the heads of those who enjoy it's benefits most? Because that would surely show them, wouldn't it? And then, maybe things would be put back together the right way - in some Randian fashion or other - yes?

The truth of the matter is ever-clear. I was worried about public reactions six months ago (when I began collecting quotes), now I'm not as worried about the general population. They have wisely disregarded the hype and hysterical claims foisted upon them. My concern now is for those who are attempting to perpetuate the dying cause. In a reply, someone stated I should be worried about the people who have not prepared when disaster strikes. My observations of these situations leads me to believe that people pull together and help each other in uncertain times, so I do not worry about a largely unprepared populace in a disaster because of rational and normal human behavior.

However, when nothing really big happens at the stroke of midnight this 31 Dec, the situation will be thus: There will be a small, militant contingent of well-armed, well-stocked people coping with disillusionment as they realise that no one will ever believe a word they have to say about anything substantive again. That is the only reason for concern I can locate.

Regards, Andy

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.

-- Mrs. Robinson (kookoo@ka.choo), September 29, 1999.

I am still with you. Business forced a few travel/meeting days, but I am happy to check in from a lovely coastline during a pleasant, albeit brief holiday.

I began this entry by refuting all the psychotic, baseless, and paranoid assumptions apparently derived from the relatively little anyone can possibly know about me; then I realised who would be reading this and the futility of such an exercise became obvious...

I have considered authoring a book on the subject, and will devote part of the remaining holiday to some study of this proposition. It could center on the over-reactions of people who were obviously misinformed and chose to act on any information that supported their claims and hopes about Y2K. The working title I have now is "ShowDown @ the Y2K Corral: a study in 'cybernoia'." What do you think?

If I do not pop in to respond every day, it is merely because this issue (and non-event) is demanding less and less of my time as the facts of the matter become ever-clear. Most of the rest of the planet is engaged in other activities, as well. And so, after the Y2K- ers are marginalised by their sensational claims, I suppose they will form some sort of social bond, and continue to meet and converse online after the non-event; predicting yet future disasters....but I should save such comments for the book...

Regards, Andy Ray

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

-- Mrs. Robinson (kookoo@ka.choo), September 29, 1999.

Mrs. Robinson, no.

Marianne (if that is your real name), regardless of how I might feel about your book, your means of obtaining material is distasteful to me. It's somewhat Linda Tripp-esque, at least in my opinion. Ultimately she was an unsympathetic character reviled by many for her betrayal of friendship and trust. Good luck with it anyway.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 29, 1999.

Marianne-- Only one small comment...

After participating at this fascinating and frustrating place for a year, shouldn't the thread title be:

"An Author Writes: Have I Described Us Correctly? Please Comment. Urgent Book Deadline."

Good luck

-- PNG (png@gol.com), September 29, 1999.

RUOK,

I certainly respect your right to express your opinions, but how can you be so certain that my "means of obtaining material is [are] distasteful," without complete knowledge of the means I employed?

Hint: I have a telephone. I used it.

Another hint: I often speak with humans face to face.

And as for utilizing information from this forum, consider the following quote from Ed Yourdon:

"As far as I'm concerned, all of the messages and threads posted here are in the public domain, so you're welcome to do whatever you want with the information. There is, of course, the ethical question (and perhaps a legal issue, too) about getting formal permissions from anyone who has posted a message with his/her real identity."

In short, RUOK, is RUOK your real name? If I email you, will it create a problem for the sysops?

Thanks for your comments, regardless.

Still looking for that hair shirt!

Best!

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

PNG! From Japan? If so, welcome back!

You are correct. Pity I can't retitle the thread.

Thanks!

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 29, 1999.

No, sorry, you haven't. I'm much taller and better looking in person.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

All I can say to Marianne and Andy Ray is: "authors" are really desperate for book "ideas" these days, n'est pas ? Where are the Gibbons and Tolstoys of today ? Well, marketing uber alles, as they say... Geez! Are we so desperate to kill trees and see our puny names in print that we need to scrape the bottom of this barrel ? Well if your publishers' marketing department will buy it, more power to you, I guess.

-- ct vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 30, 1999.

Marianne--

I'm not sure who you are (or were... or will be... or should be... ) but do let us know who you were - and when you were that person??!

Anyone who has taken the time and energy to archive this place (with or without an agenda) should be commended for their persistance.

Linkmeister (who may have received his moniker from me) and Craig (I hope I remember correctly) and now Marianne.

If you don't like what Marianne has written -- write your own book!

-- PNG (png@gol.com), September 30, 1999.

Have a sneaking suspicion about who I think Marianne is, and if so, she's not Andy Ray. (What a relief!)

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 30, 1999.

Here's a question for you to ask the pollys. Try this on a debunking site. I'd really like to know to help me understand them. I've come across many strange sites on the net with far-out points of views such as flat earth societies or people who believe Clinton is part of an alien takeover etc.

I glance over their sites, decide they are either stupid or just being silly and then I click off and do not return. What I do not do is click onto their sites every day to challenge their points of view. If they want to believe the world is flat, hey, enjoy. Go with it. I have no trouble knowing there are people out there who study each picture of Clinton to see if his human make-up is slipping or are trying to develop methods of studying the underside of our flat plantet.

Why then do the pollys who disagree with those believing y2k may create problems that need to be dealt with, feel the compulsion to examine every posting for the purpose of debunking it? Why not, after having found a forum full of "weirdos", just move on?

The streets have always been full of people wearing signs announcing the end of the world is near. Most people just write them off as nuts and walk around them. The pollys seem to me like someone who follows this "nut" around screaming to other pedestrians not to listen. Perhaps it's just me but his behavior seems even stanger then the original end of the world nut.

The doomsters believe they may be saving lives by warning others, but what is the pollys motivation? If they truly believe it's no big deal then what is the harm in ignoring it. In 93 days everyone is going to know they're right. Am I missing something? Are there flat earth debunking sites? Is there a web site I can go to where I can read posts by dozens if not hundreds of individuals each offering proof that the president is human? I'm having trouble understanding why the pollys not only post on y2k sites but have gone so far as to create y2k debunking sites. What is the cause of their obsession?

-- thomas thatcher (jabawaki@erols.com), September 30, 1999.

>>I'm having trouble understanding why the pollys not only post on y2k sites but have gone so far as to create y2k debunking sites. What is the cause of their obsession? <<

I have no definitive answer to that...I would suspect there is more than one, as there are to all questions of any kind. I have some conjecture on it though. 1) Good training, AKA, the incessant drone of cultural conditioning; 2) Fear; a look at the psychology of obsessions of all sorts will yield roots in fear.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 30, 1999.

Thanks again to all of you for your responses. By the way, I finally found that hair shirt. It's a little musty having been in storage since the dark ages, but what the heck. The flak jacket on the other hand is a newer issue and I've discovered it keeps me quite warm. I'm seriously considering it as an alternative to my regular fall season outer garb. [Grin]

On to other things:

PNG,

Thank you kindly sir.

Count Vronsky,

In the back of my mind today, I was thinking about Hamlet and that oh so famous quote regarding "protesting too much."

That thought occurred to me, because I found it curious you felt compelled to post to this thread THREE times in order to state your opinion that this book will never, ever sell in a "dead tree" version.

Well. If you are indeed from www.anna.com, perhaps you might make me an offer for a website to host my writing?

thomas thatcher,

If you want a sincere answer to your question, post it at:

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/board.html

(Perhaps "linkmeister" can provide a link)

Note this, however: I emphasize the term "sincere."

Again, thanks so much to all of you. It's been scary but revealing.

Deadline for further comments is October 2, 1999.

-- Marianne Michaels (scipublic@aol.com), September 30, 1999.

Here's the link for Marianne's suggested URL. I must admit I'm intrigued by the offer of a "sincere" answer to Thomas' question(s). Sincere as opposed to what?,...she wonders. :-)

Marianne's suggested URL

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 30, 1999.

Here's #: I protest so much because the arrogance and vanity of minor talents never ceases to amaze me, when many great ones languish in obscurity.

-- count vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), September 30, 1999.

Marianne, why should you need anna.com ? Such pretensions! Just join AOL, you'll get your free member's space, enough for the whole text of Anna Karenina.

-- count vronsky (vronsky@annakarenina.com), September 30, 1999.

Thanks to Marianne Michaels for the site. I found this sincere crossposting 'over there'.

quoting:Posted by Doc Paulie on September 30, 1999 at 00:06:40:

From the crosspost to response to Marianne Williams, a "chatter" with an equally verbose and rambling website spent all of 2 minutes clipping Mr. Barrett's responsible PR statement on Y2k as some Proof, he has concerns. Thus to counter Barrett's more candid quotation I used and sits on my website. A-typical in at least this Tracie, known as Dancr, at least made some attempt at doing more research. Unfortunately she is ill-equipped to fully understand and suffers from the same low intelligence level common at TB2000. Most do not understand Doc Paulie, since most have not the brain-matter necessary. If Tracie had gone and read the latest SEC disclosure(below), she "may" have understood. Now she just looks the complete picture of the moron she is. end quote

I dont know this guy, Doc Paulie, but I've known other folks who referred to themselves in the third person. Many of them were in locked wards on heavy tranqs. Whoever it was who called the troll a troll in response to this thread was probably not too far off the mark. Honestly, this is so much junior high.

-- Crone (cronish@humansnever.learn), September 30, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Thanks Crone. The above snip comes from a much lengthier post by Doc Paulie at the Debunking Y2K forum, entitled TimeBomb packrat Tracie thinks she knows better than Craig Barrett, CEO of INTEL.

This relates mainly to this post of mine on another TimeBomb2000 thread, entitled Doc Paulie responds to Marianne Michaels which Old Git started by pasting something which Doc Paulie had posted at the Debunking Y2K Forum as Re: An Author Writes: Have I Described You Correctly? Please Comment. Urgent Book Deadline..

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 01, 1999.

> On the interior fringes and also in the middle of the > spectrum are those who dont know what to believe about Y2k. > Who could blame them, considering the schizophrenic media > coverage of the past year? On one day, all is well, > depending upon where one lives. The next day there is > trouble on the horizon, depending upon where one lives. This > group seems to be united in the belief that preparing for > the kinds of emergencies that have historically occurred in > their geographic areas is just common sense. So, for this > group, perhaps the most confusing element of Y2k has been > the admonition to find out what the situation is where one > lives, which implies that one should trust the answers to > the difficult questions asked of utilities, etc., who are > admittedly self-reporting year 2000 readiness to those > government entities who have taken the initiative to ask for > these types of reports. The U.S. Senate has admitted that > self-reporting on behalf of government and industry is the > equivalent of students grading their own papers. Thats why > these folks are confused. > I believe I fall into this category, but wouldn't say "confused" is the correct word to use. Disgusted is a good place to start. Disgust for the way it seems the news media to be servant to the spin machine in Washington. Why is it we don't hear words of skepticism on CNN or MSNBC the way we have with other newsstories that are beat to death? How is it that contradictory remarks made by Koskinen are not throw in his face for explanation?

With everyone who's truthful having to state, "I don't know exactly what's going to happen.", how can those who are referred to as "polys" fail to at least consider making some preparations?

I hope that you've not only been taking notes within these forums, but have bothered to capture the sub-committee testimony. IF things do go badly and it can be shown that Koskinen and NERC and various Dept. heads had information that could have helped motivate people to prepare long ago, I hope you will be one of the journalists who will help nail their hides to the wall.

My feelings with less than 100 days to go also include empathy. I truly feel for those I see post lately that say, "Now what am I going to do?" with a sense of fear coming through. There are many who would have been able to slowly stash away some canned goods, etc. if they were given a message with some continuity to it. Many will become afraid of the unknown and will have no recourse because they live hand to mouth month to month.

What I believe the outcome will be, no matter what failures do or do not manifest themselves, is that "we the people" will show what's really in our hearts. In fact, I think we might even surprise ourselves. Although our nation's taken what I believe is a backstep from our Christian foundation, I believe we'll see the golden rule shine thru anything that's thrown at us. Above all, "In God We Trust" has to be more than wording on our currency.

beej

-- beej (beej@ppbbs.com), October 01, 1999.