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

There are several people on this forum who have suggested that those who are warning the public about the possibility of problems with the rollover should be held accountable for what they are saying. Usually, this is said while leaving unspecified just how the warners will "pay." Sometimes it is claimed that a lot of people will be eating crow on January 2nd, as if the full extent of all problems will have been discovered by that time. While these words are used in order to sound good-natured, the level of polly anger is already high, even before anything happens. They sound as though they are vividly imagining some unlucky chaps being dangerously force fed dirty uncooked birds, feathers and all.

Meanwhile, this kind of talk discourages folks from posting bad news here. I fear we are being baited into saying something we will regret about what may happen to politicians who continue to say "Don't Worry, Be Happy". I also wonder if some of those who are talking about stocking rope are planted to make us look bad, or to provide an excuse to declare that all or at least some of us are terrorists in need of a calming visit.

Some of those who are warning about potential problems hope to convince the public, using nothing more than their own personal sexiness. Others point to how they are supposedly channeling the supernatural. The really wacky ones resort to using (get this...) mere evidence and logic, and have the nerve to encourage people to think for themselves! As far as I'm aware, none of them has offered any kind of guarantee. Who are they kidding? Is that any way to sell an idea in this day and age? There's got to be a law against promoting anything without a guarantee, non?

Pollyticians, on the other hand, do seem to be offering a guarantee. By harping on the "three day storm" analogy, they imply that government will step in to take care of your family in any kind of emergency. In actuality, though, the government is not a real guarantee against calamity (although they do play one on TV).

What kind of guarantee would have value in this situation? Unlike soldiers who are proud to receive a Purple Heart for battle wounds, civilians would probably not be satisfied with a Purple Feet Award for honorable amputation due to frostbite. Nor would they be happy about getting the Purple Sunken Eyes Award for en vogue starvation. Death by dehydration cannot be watered down with a posthumous Purple Tongue Award.

Alternatively, people could be threatened with "negative reinforcements," such as ridicule, privacy invasion, harassment, confiscation, or scapegoating. One poster seemed to suggest that anyone found to be "hoarding" (i.e. providing for the future) should expect to be shot! Well, isn't that special? Actually, this is a fairly typical government and public policy in times of famine. Is there any reason to believe that it won't happen here? ("Here" being where ever you happen to live)

Many public officials are pledged (not to mention paid) to protect us from foreign and domestic threats. None of them can realistically claim to have been unaware of this problem. To the extent that they knew things were broken, hid important information from the public, hypocritically "advised" folks to not prepare (while secretly stocking bunkers), or knowingly targeted innocent people as scapegoats, yes, there should be some accounting. To that end, we should all (every one of us) be independently documenting the evidence, backing it up to portable media, and hiding copies in safe places. Some pollyticians may find themselves defending their actions in a court of law, whether that be under the current government or the next one.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 20, 1999

Answers

First you claim no one is listening, and we're all going to die. Now you complain when someone listens and (God forbid) plans to quote you when you prove to be wrong (as I do).

Next you complain about the lunatics who suggest people be shot for hoarding food for what they imagined to be an approaching crisis. But you refuse to decry the dolts who authored stories depicting the cooking and eating of pollies who disagreed with your side of the debate.

Hypocrisy is a good word for it.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

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

This question is a general case, with Andy's Question on gloating being a special case. Horses laughs are another method of holding someone accountable for what they have said.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 20, 1999.

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

But you refuse to decry the dolts who authored stories depicting the cooking and eating of pollies who disagreed with your side of the debate.

Never heard of it. Reference, please. Could be a faker.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 20, 1999.

Andy: See I need a little help with my mythology.... Is that where you saw it maybe?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 20, 1999.

Dancr,

Some people can't tolerate open discussion or debate. This is unacceptible and we won't accept it. On the other hand, officials who refuse to disclose public information to the public ought to be held accountable and dismissed from public life.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 20, 1999.

Where is Linkmeister when you need a link to something really useful?

Questioning Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

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

I wrote an essay tonight which has some relevance to the questions raised here: On Being Wrong

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), October 28, 1999.