The essence of a flint pollyanna:

There will be Panic.

"What constitutes panic? If five people are upset, is that panic or does it take six? How long can they be upset and it is still a panic? Can they be upset for two day and there is no panic or do they have to be upset for a minimum of three or more days? "

Businesses will fail.

"What does failure mean? Does it mean they can only ship half of their merchandise or ship none at all? Have they actually 'failed' if their suppliers don't deliver or does their 'failure' have to be stricly internal? "

People will die.

" What actually consitututes death? Are they dead if they stop breathing or do their brain waves have to cease? If they are resuscitated, do we count them as having died or were they just sick?"

flint is an idiot. He always will be. He can not see the forest for the trees and will merely spend his time here in pointless obfuscation. It is his stock and trade.

" What constitutes idiocy, mere IQ or actual behavior? How many trees does it take to make a forest? What is the difference between pointless obfuscation and obfuscation that DOES have a point? Is it stock AND trade or can it be stock AND/OR trade; or is either stock OR trade sufficient?"

'Nuff said.

Paul Milne "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast"

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), October 10, 1999

Answers

Paul Milne is the voice of reason.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 10, 1999.

Voice of reason? LOL! Hmmm. Milne's ego must need a little massaging today. This is the second thread I've seen with his name attached to it. I haven't read what he posted (I stopped reading his crap months ago), but seeing his name here reminded me of yet another old adage...

Once you accept his assumptions, even a madman seems reasonable.

-- CD (not@here.com), October 10, 1999.

Where are the facts Mr. Milne?

-- Geoff X. Weevenbaugh (gwee@paynada.mail), October 10, 1999.

Paul Milne, by posting such nonsense, you are making yourself, and everyone else who has valid concerns about y2k, look like fools. Please calm down, take a deep breath, and go back to your bunker.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 10, 1999.

I liked the humor Paul, but it would have been better if you had ommitted the namecalling. Flint is one of the more intelligent people I have met in the forum (far above mine, but that's not saying much, lol). Not that you might not be a genius too, I just haven't read many of your posts to have an opinion.

I do find smart (and not so smart) people with varying opinions on Y2K, it's more of a perspective thing that an intelligence issue. My own theory based on observation is that those working directly on Y2K are for the most part optimistic based on their first hand knowledge, while some of those removed from the findings are basically pessimistic. Just a theory ;)

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), October 10, 1999.

Actually, Paul and Flint, the correct phrase is "stock intrade", no if's, and's or but's.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), October 10, 1999.

Believe it nor not, a few weeks ago Flint responded to a post regarding pollies "not being able to see the forest for the trees" by declaring the expression to be nothing but "doomer codewords". Flint is definitely in a different universe.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 10, 1999.

FactFinder,

Okay, let me get this straight now. I don't want to be mistaken. Those of us who are working on the problem, and have a clear and certain conviction that there is absolutely no way that we are going to get it done, and that there is probably no way we can begin to hold it together in the face of ever increasing problems, even if everything doesn't go to pieces on the 1st, these happy warriors, doing 80 and 100 hour weeks, have a *positive* attitude. I would presume that this is because we have all made preparations for a BITR that lasts for approximately the next 10 to 100 years, and that all the pointy-haired manager types and beady-eyed bean-counters that got us into this situation seemed unable to grasp the concept that just because they say it, it doesn't mean that it is true, and will therefore all starve to death in the cold and dark.

Is this the premise?

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 10, 1999.

just:

I suspect Milne's increasing and comical desperation is at least partially a 'radar' problem. If things were anywhere near as bad as he claims, we'd have see a LOT showing up on that radar, yet there's no sign of it.

For example, we should be seeing problems by now much worse than we are. The predicted spike dates should have caused a lot more trouble than they did. And literally millions of technicians, programmers, engineers and technical managers should be well aware of our hopeless plight. These folks have resources out of proportion to their numbers, so should have affected the stock market (still over 10,000), and the market place (only a few key supplies were in short supply only for a short while). They should be pulling enough cash out of the system to create a noticeable squeeze given the multiplier effect of the fractional reserve system, and it's not happening. They should be bidding up prices for rural properties, and no such thing. They should be bailing in droves from their death marches, yet they are staying put and we read about no death marches. Instead, we read that remediation projects are winding down all over. Technical journals at the very least should be reflecting growing concerns, yet these journals confidently predict rising sales and profits through 2005 without even a dip. You almost never see a y2k editorial or op ed piece in such publications, which should have their fingers on the pulse of what the engineers and programmers' concerns are. You can go on an on with this list.

Is it any wonder someone like Milne must stoop to mindlessly attacking anyone who notices these things and looks beneath the surface for an explanation? What else can he do?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 10, 1999.

Flint, I'm going to get a polly name tag now, I suppose, but I think your examples are very cogent ('though I can't say as I read trade magazines)

I am glad you have remained a contributor to this forum. You're a good foil to some of the radical pessimists (and I call them pessimists not because they are prepping, as I also have done, but because they obstinately refuse to give credit to virtually any piece of information that contradicts their fears, or hopes, in some cases, that the world will come to an end on 1/1/00. Oops, we're starting to get nervous about that date, as there is so much optimism in the media, etc. so now we are seeing a backing off of the date all the predictions will come true.

Anyhow, I still am not convinced that everything is going to come up roses, and for this reason, I am maintaining my preparedness. However, due to the apparent successful work done by so many power companies, I have shelved my plans to buy a solar powered water pump for my well.

I did get a siphon set up; if I didn't have such a high static level, I would certainly put together one of the miriad hand pump set ups that are described here frequently. But I really believe that any power outages will be brief enough that I can get by on my 2500 gallons of stored water, or at least refill my storage tank by running my AWFUL gas generator, which I already had on hand.

I do believe that there WAS a potentially disastrous problem, and that those of us who pointed it out have made a big difference insofar as how many poiticos, businessmen, and so forth have corrected problems. For this I believe we have accomplished something very positive. But I believe y2k will not be an 8-10, as was at least a possibility a couple of years ago.

I do still have a lot of concern for Venezuela, Paraguay, and many other "third world" countries, and, for this reason, I have concern for the US as well. But not to the extent I had last Jan. when I first realized the potential for disaster y2k had for the US.

Thank you for taking so much heat from so many radical loud mouths (no, I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with Flint is a loud mouth radical.) But a lot of you are....

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 10, 1999.

Paul Milne usually presents an artice written by a qualified expert and then shows how this backs up his stance, ie we are going to have some serious problems.

Flint then responds with a good deal of confusing wordiness so that by the time you are finished reading it, you don't know your elbow from your ass.

It's like you are kneeling by a pond, Paul comes along and starts to show you something interesting on the bottom and then Flint sticks his hand in and muddies the water and says to you " You know that thing you just saw ? You really didn't see it "

Groucho Marx had a saying " Are you going to believe your own eyes or me ? "

-- Stanley Lucas (StanleyLucas@WebTv.net), October 10, 1999.

I just have one question, Flint: How does it feel to be "The Great Satan" of TB2000?

I haven't made an actual count, but it does seem your name turns up in more thread titles, than anyone elses. It also seems that a majority feel that you have nothing worthwhile to say, yet those same people seem unable to ignore you. It's definitely a unique niche you fill, on this forum.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 10, 1999.

On the subject of communications, Flint could learn a lot from

Harpo Marx.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 11, 1999.

>> I haven't made an actual count, but it does seem your name turns up in more thread titles, than anyone elses. <<

Naw. Ken Decker has Flint beat on that count. The goldbugs especially like to start threads with Decker's name embedded.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 11, 1999.

the pointy-haired manager types and beady-eyed bean-countersJust,

Just how young are you anyway?

-- Cherri (Sams@brigadoon.com), October 11, 1999.

More "doomer code words:" hunger, accident, disinformation, disaster, cold, chaos, darkness, winter, fire, wood, earth, garden, seeds, water, cans, storage, reliance, lies, spin, panic, beans, toilet paper, disconnect, workboot, propaganda, hammer, concern, ostrich, practical, sheep, thoughtful, chicken, hazmat, rumor, and pas de deux.

-- Spidey (in@jam.tether), October 11, 1999.

You nailed it, Stanley. Perfect.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

Flint said, a says:

For example, we should be seeing problems by now much worse than we are. The predicted spike dates should have caused a lot more trouble than they did.

Already debated. This indicator is inconclusive.

And literally millions of technicians, programmers, engineers and technical managers should be well aware of our hopeless plight.

Many are. Wake up.

These folks have resources out of proportion to their numbers, so should have affected the stock market (still over 10,000),

Just because the y2k-induced pop of the market bubble hasn't occurred, you assume it simply won't? What an idiot.

and the market place (only a few key supplies were in short supply only for a short while).

It's called SPIN Flint. No major problems, a three day storm, leave your money in the bank, remember that?

They should be pulling enough cash out of the system to create a noticeable squeeze given the multiplier effect of the fractional reserve system, and it's not happening. They should be bidding up prices for rural properties, and no such thing.

See above.

They should be bailing in droves from their death marches, yet they are staying put and we read about no death marches.

They will stay as long as things are calm. Like I am doing.

Instead, we read that remediation projects are winding down all over.

According to inside sources, including Cory, in most cases this indicates that business has thrown in the towel.

Technical journals at the very least should be reflecting growing concerns, yet these journals confidently predict rising sales and profits through 2005 without even a dip.

Technical journals will be out of business if the mad dash for new technology hits a significant bump. You think they are interested in publishing their own obituary?

You almost never see a y2k editorial or op ed piece in such publications, which should have their fingers on the pulse of what the engineers and programmers' concerns are.

It's called spin Flint. You don't see many in the popular press either.

You can go on an on with this list.

Please do. And while you're lulling us to sleep, tell us again how well things are going in Paraguay.

-- a (a@a.a), October 11, 1999.

I am wondering why so much attention is given to Flink. He seems to post the same arguments over and over again, and giving attention to him just encourages more useless repetition.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), October 11, 1999.

Dave, Dave, maybe if you'd ever pay attention to Flint, rather than dismissing everything he says out of hand, playing "ya but", you'd learn something. No, Flint is not the know all of y2k, but he does give us very credible arguments for a less disastrous outcome of y2k than some of the polydooms.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 11, 1999.

'a' presents the classic doomy case of forcing ANY evidence to fit foregone conclusions. The fact that his arguments are so weak probably escapes notice among most here, however.

Let's say you were (just hypothetically, of course) to approach y2k with an open mind, and examine indirect evidence (since our direct evidence is so untrustworthy).

If your evidence is to lead to your conclusion, you should logically decide in advance what evidence leads to what conclusion. For example, you might decide (in advance) that if companies are ramping up their remediation efforts and entering death marches, this is a Very Bad Sign, and y2k could be awful. Conversely, you might decide (in advance) that if most companies are ramping down their efforts, letting remediators go, underspending their budgets, then this might be a sign that things are pretty much under control. If you approach the issue this way, you will notice that efforts are indeed ramping down in most places, budgets are mostly being underspent, and remediators are begging for work. OK, maybe y2k won't be so bad, right?

Alternately, you can use the 'a' approach of selecting your conclusions first, and forcing your data to fit. Using this illogical approach, you decide that y2k will be just awful

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 11, 1999.

'a' presents the classic doomy case of forcing ANY evidence to fit foregone conclusions. The fact that his arguments are so weak probably escapes notice among most here, however.

Let's say you were (just hypothetically, of course) to approach y2k with an open mind, and examine indirect evidence (since our direct evidence is so untrustworthy).

If your evidence is to lead to your conclusion, you should logically decide in advance what evidence leads to what conclusion. For example, you might decide (in advance) that if companies are ramping up their remediation efforts and entering death marches, this is a Very Bad Sign, and y2k could be awful. Conversely, you might decide (in advance) that if most companies are ramping down their efforts, letting remediators go, underspending their budgets, then this might be a sign that things are pretty much under control. If you approach the issue this way, you will notice that efforts are indeed ramping down in most places, budgets are mostly being underspent, and remediators are begging for work. OK, maybe y2k won't be so bad, right?

Alternately, you can use the 'a' approach of selecting your conclusions first, and forcing your data to fit. Using this illogical approach, you decide that y2k will be just awful NO MATTER WHAT the data happen to be. NOW, you notice that companies are ramping down their remediation. You conclude that they must have given up! and y2k will be bad. You notice they're underspending their budgets, and you conclude that they must therefore be way behind! so y2k will be very bad. Remediators are begging for work? You conclude that companies must be too stupid to know how much trouble they're in! so y2k must be very bad.

And let's say someone asks you how companies can be too stupid to know they're in trouble, yet so aware of their trouble that they've given up. Isn't this inconsistent? How do you answer?

Simple. You call your *questioner* an idiot!

And you will notice that 'a' argues that companies are *simultaneously* so aware they've given up, and that the people who gave up are so unaware that they've been fooled by spin! Once you start with a foregone conclusion, you don't need to make sense, I guess.

So I tried to paint a big picture showing how many disparate trends are all consistent with small problems and inconsistent with large ones. And the best 'a' can do is absurd, inconsistent special pleading against each part of that picture. A sad demonstration.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 11, 1999.