Posted by Doc Paulie on September 28, 1999 at 23:46:52:

In Reply to: An Author Writes: Have I Described You Correctly? Please Comment. Urgent Book Deadline. posted by Marianne Michaels on September 28, 1999 at 19:09:06:

Marianne,

In a nutshell, nice work. And a style I found readable and enjoyable.

Now as far as describing me(we), i.e. polly types, hit and miss. I think what you are missing is we here represent MOST people now. The gap you seem to think exists, does not. This is no scale. The doom believers are extremists. These kooks have created a divide where none exists. These folks are in the twilight zone. Anyone +4 or higher on a doom-scale "expects" a major depression-ala 1929 or worse. This is utter stupidity in my not so humble opinion. Most on the glum boards are +4 and higher, many are 6 and higher, and have not wavered in months or years in some cases. Some are even joyusly predicting(expecting) the deaths of millions and even BILLIONS of human beings around the globe. This is their deliverance from a world they see as out-of-control and overdue for a genetic cleansing. What is out-of-control is their own spiritual divide which has now become a mental illness.

Now as far as Doc Paulie, I am of the belief most of this Y2k issue is a ruse, an overblown much to do about nothing for the huge majority. As I said before, If Madison Avenue is using Y2k as humor, what other evidence does one need really? Issue is for nutcases, mentally ill people. You may claim many do not know about Y2k, and thus believe it an issue only understood with study, I would say you are wrong largely. If Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel thinks Y2k a laughter, how do non-technical folks think they know better? Most technical types have given up laughing all together now and simply roll-their-eyes. If Y2k were anywhere close to what the sickos promote, where is the mass exodus out of these at risk and ready to implode, businesses, governmental agencies and the like? This alone is evidence enough Y2k a major yawner and NOT even about a 2 digit computer glitch. The start of Y2kawareness was within the Tech field. Add the internet and you have what is known as y2k.

Your analysis of web fora and free speech is mostly accurate. With regards Y2k, you seem to have missed the memetic component as described by Aaron Lynch in his essay the Millennium Contagion. This work is monumental. The internet has unleashed memes(mind viruses)in a fashion never seen before. When history is written, Y2k will be referenced as the first major incident of surreal Contagion infection over the internet. We have had the Michelangelo Virus, but Y2k has eclipsed this by miles. Y2k is many things, but none more than a fixation with the Millennium. Many issues have profiteers driving them, Y2k has had the extra push of a mental virus, known as memes. The roll-out of the EURO last January, lacked this critical component. In many regards, the EURO was far more technically difficult, and flies right into the New World Order hysteria, and was a still a complete no-show everywhere. To not include any refrence to the Millennium Contagion is to basically miss the entire picture.

I do recognize some of my thoughts in your piece and glad I could contribute. I will tell you without any hesistation, we have here at this webboard the only TRUE EXPERTS on this issue. Our collective record sits on the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot webboard for all to see. All there, all the correct predictions months in advance. All the bit-by-bit deconstruction of this issue. The "heavy lifting" passed months ago. Some brave souls have spent months on usenet and other fora answering the NOISE besides GNBFI. Months ago we were alone, not anymore. Only thing left now is the scattering of the nuts which has been ongoing now for about 4 months and is increasing. Left in the wake are piles of wasted money on fixes(?)which according to the latest Cap Gemini study indicates they have made a whopping 12% diferrence. However, the bottom-line is none of it matters anyhow, the point basically. The BEEF never showed as the 12 EXPERTS here predicted way in advance and have been called all manner of slime. My life has been threatened. We have fought the fight and I say to the glums-rot in hell.

Freedom of Speech carries with it the responsibilty to verify. We have at our fingertips a resource which eliminates the excuse you don't know. Maybe able to say I do not know how, but there is no more excuse for not knowing. Most of the Glums do not want to know. This is not even their deal. They have a need and the profiteers fill this cancer with the drug of doom which they all are blindly attracting into their lives. This IS y2k, not a computer bug. An old story, ancient in fact, replayed in this a Year2000 version.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 29, 1999

Answers

Whoa...and he calls other people tinfoils??? Scary stuff!

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

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

"Memetic components", "mental illness", "nutcases", "mentally ill people", "...we have here at this webboard the only TRUE EXPERTS [emphasis NOT mine!] on this issue ... the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot webboard."

LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

Gawd, I hope Marianne Michaels DOES publish all this stuff. ANYONE reading what that frothing "Doc Paulie" looney-toone has to say would be able to discern who the "nutcase" is, PDQ.

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

And Paul Davis (who is now owner of Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum) is newly worried about our archives and still worried about our children:

General Question - is the moderator at TB2000 reading these fora and deleting threads referenced here?

Posted by Paul Davis on September 27, 1999 at 12:40:40:

Seems to rather stretch chance all out of shape. MANY threads referenced by the various anti-doom boards disappear without a trace within an hour of being referenced. I suppose the best idea is to copy the whole thing, thereby preventing the thread from being totally lost.

But ARE they killing threads we link to? If so, it is a pretty serious matter. The Internet is for the purpose of sharing information, not spitefully removing anything that might support an opposing view.

Beginning to get very nasty out there.

ANSWER from ? (Doc Paulie? cpr?)

YES. No threads should be referenced with out saving first.

Posted by - on September 27, 1999 at 14:28:37:

In Reply to: General Question - is the moderator at TB2000 reading these fora and deleting threads referenced here? posted by Paul Davis on September 27, 1999 at 12:40:40:

Go thru the archives while you still can.

I have it on good authority that timedud is going private after the first of the year. many archived threads cannot be found anymore. they are systematically removing old predictions. They will not be able to do so fast enough in January. And concern for our children:

My concern was similar, but a bit different

Posted by Paul Davis on September 27, 1999 at 12:47:44:

In Reply to: Children of the Doomers posted by Peg on September 27, 1999 at 10:39:52:

I have just been wondering about the results of having ones parents PROVEN to be nuts of the first order.

Most kids think their parents are stupid, but these kids are going to get PROOF, in about 100 days.

And what about the characters who go into DENIAL about Y2K NOT being TEOTWAWKI, and act like the end has come and gone? There will certainly be some of these lovely types, and who will get the full impact of their insanity? The kids.

It isn't going to be pretty. There will be so much counseling time spent over this crap that I guarentee there will be a new name for it. Y2K kids, probably.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 29, 1999.

Old Git,

Thanks, you made my day. NOT!

I remember the first time that I read a Doc post, and I've been trying to forget it ever since. I don't know which is a bigger problem, Y2K, or Doc's (and his, what is it, 5 friends) ego!

OG, I luv ya, but do me a favor. Don't ever post his crap here again!!!

Websters:

Moron - see Doc Paulie.

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Is that the same Paul Davis who said doomers were selling pot to finance their preps? He sounds like a conspiracy theorist...I think the white bus may be around to pick him up soon.

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

Is this the same guy that thought the two teenage boys at Littleton were Y2k doomsayers and the press was trying to cover that up?

-- Y2k has been (WAY@too.politicized), September 29, 1999.

Oh hell, Sysman, I have to do it every now and again. It's a bit like lancing a boil. You have to do it now and again to relieve the pressure, otherwise it explodes and ooky stuff goes everywhere.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 29, 1999.

Teaching your kids to be prepared for Y2K and other events is far more preferable to me than teaching them that if they don't believe in God then they'll get tortured in hell for all eternity. :-)

(Psst If I don't believe in God or Y2K and Y2K kills me then I'll be spending time in hell a lot sooner than if I'd been prepared and I live through it, I can put off those 24 hour work days in hell for around another 40 or so years.)

Now back to your regular transmission ....

-- Simon Richards (simon@wair.com.au), September 29, 1999.

Golly Gracious,

I don't see a single thing here that refutes the facts that Doc posted. And I'm a fairly decent fellow; Mom spanked me when I did wrong as a kid; graduated high school, college twice; even go out on boats and rescue stranded animals in flood waters under dangerous conditions every now & again, when it's needed.

Guess Doomers aren't too concerned with facts, eh. (Somehow I already knew that)

reporting from a disaster area that makes Y2k look like a Sunday cakewalk in the park,

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), September 29, 1999.

Without being certain about which threads have "disappeared" on which boards etc., I can say that I know of no thread in the TB2K archives that has been deleted for ANY reason. I don't have TIME to go back and look for threads to delete because they weren't fulfilled or whatever. (LOL)

Perhaps someone might like to indicate which thread or threads they have linked to and have disappeared?? I SO enjoy comments like that, as they are like goals phrased "Improve customer relations" or "help customers more". Nothing in either that is concrete, and therefor can't be refuted. NICE JOB!
(In ref the above, URL and TITLE migh help)

And another thing,

The roll-out of the EURO last January, lacked this critical component. In many regards, the EURO was far more technically difficult, and flies right into the New World Order hysteria, and was a still a complete no-show everywhere.

for a "complete no-show everywhere" this did an awful lot of REAL damage in France, and in the economic markets in Europe, some of which came to light only after a month or more. If I understand correctly the European banks are STILL trying to reconcile some of the early transactions.

And no one has ever said that the CDC remediation was "TECHNICALLY dificult", far from it. The standard description has always been "mind numbingly boring" or some such. The assertion has always been that there was such a VOLUME of required changes that the difficulty was more in logistics, metrics and coordinating system interfaces than in technical challenge.

chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 29, 1999.

PS

Contrary to popular belief, I CERTAINLY HOPE that the damage in the coastal region makes next year look like a walk in the park on a sweet spring day. I have relatives in the general area and haven't had them check in for QUITE a while, though the last I heard they were out of the worst of the problems (inland a just few miles from OG if I understood correctly). Having WORKED National level Disasters for ARC I understand the situation there, CONSTANTLY pray for relief for your area and wonder why the mainstream media is NOT covering the ACTUAL environmental and regional carnage.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), September 29, 1999.

Doc Paulie is a Big Fat Idiot.

-- (dot@dot.dot), September 29, 1999.

Chicken Little: Go pluck yourself.

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

...many archived threads cannot be found anymore. they are systematically removing old predictions. -- Paul Davis

Now thats a hoot! (And a lie... talk about an extremest fear-monger spreading FUD, Paul!)

As to Doc Paulie, well... there are no words to describe his expertise. Unless one acknowledges his ability to waste 3/4ths of his time flaming THIS forum.

Oh, well. Cest-ce la vie.

Diane

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

Gawd, Diane, I love it when you talk French.

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

Doc Paulie is quoted as saying, " If Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel thinks Y2k a laughter, how do non-technical folks think they know better?"

Well, Paulie, can you please tell us how much money Intel spent on y2k remediation? I wonder if Craig Barret thinks THAT is "a laughter".

King of mud says, "Gawd, Diane, I love it when you talk French." Well, Kingie, "Porque no te encanta cuando se habla el espanol, pendajo?"

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), September 29, 1999.

I wonder why Doc didn't comment on this report from another Itty Bitty computer company, IBM:

IBM, Red Cross suggest safeguards for New Year's

A recent internal publication issued by International Business Machines Corp. focused on the Y2K problem, advises employees around the world to make personal contingency plans and be prepared on personal finances, including putting aside some extra cash.

...

While personal preparation suggestions are often cited by Y2K skeptics as coming from the lunatic fringe, it's quite another thing coming from IBM or the Red Cross.

...

That doesn't mean there won't be days or weeks of disruptions. What's remarkable about the IBM publication is its repeated reminders that "all markets, all businesses, all governments and all communities are interconnected."

In fact, IBM's graphic descriptions of Y2K interconnectedness and interdependencies aren't radically different from the dire falling-domino theories of such Y2K doomsayers as Dr. Gary North and Joe Boivin.

"It's not enough to convert your own business, because you're not ready until your entire supply chain is," IBM says.

"It's not enough to live in a Y2K-ready neighborhood unless all its interwoven threads -- businesses, schools, neighbourhood associations, police and fire departments -- are ready. Y2K will throw these interconnections into sharp relief."

The publication warns of the billions of embedded chips contained in such diverse technologies as oil-drilling equipment, airplanes, medical devices and microwave ovens.

It says efforts to find and fix embedded chips will continue "well after Jan. 1, 2000." Mr. de Jager calls embedded chips the wild card of Y2K.

But Y2K, according to IBM, is not primarily about the way we code dates in computer software, hardware or components. Rather, "it's mostly about how information technology has spread throughout our economy, society and personal lives."

IBM recognizes that opinions about the consequences of not being Y2K-ready "range all over the map. Perhaps the biggest problem with Y2K is that no one knows exactly what will happen."

...

Don't wait until the final few weeks, since such supplies could be unavailable, scarce or very costly.

Coming from prominent Y2K gloom-and-doomers, such survival contingency plans might appear ludicrous. But when they come from IBM and the Red Cross, maybe -- just maybe --there may be cause to take at least the teensiest bit of personal preparations.

...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Al,

Yo entiendo toda las palabras que escribe, pero que es un pendajo?

Gracias,

Diana

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

Diane,

What's your take on this?

Link

-- (???@???.???), September 29, 1999.

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

Doc Paulie said, in response to Marianne Michael's An Author Writes: Have I Described You Correctly? Please Comment. Urgent Book Deadline.: If Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel thinks Y2k a laughter, how do non-technical folks think they know better?

Appropriately cautious individuals, in looking after their own well being and that of those they love, will consider the opinions and advice of a variety of knowledgable people. Such opinions should always be evaluated with a grain of salt. That is, one should factor in any biases that the speaker might have, possible legal repurcussions, impacts on investors and employees, etc. Extra weight should be given to those statements that seem to run counter to the speaker's self-interest. Also, look not just to what someone has to say, but also to what they actually do.

Since it is not possible to know everything that may be influencing the opinion of a single commentator, it makes sense to seek out a variety of independent opinions, focusing especially upon the reasons they give for thinking the way that they do. When the cost of being wrong is high, one should also take great pains to investigate the reasoning of folks whose assessment differs greatly from our own. If someone consistently fails to give any reasons, or focuses upon irrelevancies, that fact also should tell us something.

Admittedly, the fact that mainstream media are speaking with one mind on the issue of Y2K is quite impressive, and this must be very convincing to those who have successfully relied on such media throughout their lives thus far. If the monolithic message from the media turns out to be wrong, hopefully there will be a strong push to improve the quality of information and analysis that is presented to the general public by way of these media. Better yet, perhaps people will be encouraged to get into the habit of seeking out alternative media, and to make an extra effort to listen to and try to understand the voices of outsiders.

Today, for the first time I believe, I got sucked in by an e-mail petition hoax, and forwarded it to eighteen friends. Fortunately, one of my friends quickly informed me of the debunking site where this particular hoax is unmasked. My having done such a stupid thing without first checking it against readily available counter information is quite an embarrassment, of course. Making this kind of mistake really does cause me to question my own judgement in such matters. The fact that all of the recipients were good DWGI friends is especially distressing, since this kind of mistake can cause them to all the more easily dismiss what I have desperately tried to communicate to them about Y2K.

Back in January, I read Aaron Lynches essay The Millennium Contagion: Is Your Mental Software Year 2000 Compliant? It is approximately the third thing I ever encountered about Y2K, the first thing being my own bank's fluff piece. Speaking as someone who has had a lifelong interest in psychology, I found it quite impressive. So much so that it is the only "polly" link I have included on my own Y2K home page. The lesson to be learned from Mr. Lynches article is that we must be particularly careful to investigate the reasoning behind the opinions offered by even the most respected "authorities," and to carefully document our own reasoning when we offer opinions.

I, for one, am not prepared to accept the opinion of Craig Barrett as unquestionable fact, based merely upon the fact that he knows a phenomenal amount about computer chips. If Mr. Barrett merely laughed when Mr. Paulie asked him about Y2K, perhaps it is for some reason other than that which Mr. Paulie suggests. Perhaps the laughter was meant to suggest that anybody who is sufficiently motivated could easily find what Mr. Barret has to say about Y2K at Intel's website:

Craig R. Barrett, Intel's President and CEO, Statement on Year 2000

"As I travel around the world and talk to other business and government leaders, I find very different levels of preparedness for the year 2000. At Intel, we have found almost every facet of our worldwide business to be impacted by the century transition. Therefore, we have spent a great deal of effort identifying, analyzing and preparing our products, our systems, and those of our vendors to be year 2000 capable. I believe this is an important challenge for Intel and I would encourage you to understand how it will affect you and do everything necessary to ensure a smooth transition into the next century." [Emphasis mine]

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 29, 1999.

Well, I must say that I do agree with most of what Doc says, 'cept I kind of like most of you nutcases (well, at least those of you who have a sense of humor), but I don't want you to rot, I just want you to get over Y2K, its almost a done deal and it's not gonna be the "event" you want or expect... :)

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), September 29, 1999.

FactFinder,

I do have a considerable respect for you and your opinion. I do appreciate all of the Y2K research that you have done, esp. on euy2k.

But do you really agree with Doc? I'll admit that I haven't read very much of his stuff. Every time that I have visited the forums where he posts, all I found was a kindergarten level of name-calling and non-sense. Those sites make this place look like Harvard. The things that I have read just seem to ramble on, not saying anything.

Please don't consider this a flame. I'm interested in any and all educated opinions on Y2K. Can you point me to a few of his posts that have anything constructive? If you can, maybe I'll change my opinion of him.

You're not a bad guy for a "polly" FactFinder (grin). IOU a couple, and I am willing to reconsider, if I can find any signs of intelligent life.

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 29, 1999.

Factfinder, "event" is too tame a word for Y2K. Try "catastrophe" or "debacle".

-- Event? (noone@nowhere.com), September 30, 1999.

ELE, Extinction Level Event. Stocking Ensure ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 30, 1999.