Hey people!

I've been doing some posting over there at the debunkers forum, and actually enjoying it.

Some of you have to realize that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. I have noticed that some of you condemn them for doing the same things you do. For example, trying to force YOUR opinion about Y2K down their throat the same way they are trying to force theirs upon you.

Some of them have some valid reasons to be worried about some of us, the same way we have reason to think the same of them.

What we have here is a theory I came up with called the..

doomer - anti-doomer effect.

For every level of preparedness there is an equal level of anti-preparedness. Sit and think about what that REALLY means!

As for what side is the RIGHT side of the "spectrum" to be on, that is purely PERSONAL OPINION.

If you feel the need to prepare...then do so. If you do not, then DON'T!

I still feel that I should help explain to people why I think preparedness is a VERY SMART thing to do. I will present my argument the best I can, try to share the information I have, but Im not going to judge them if they chose to blow me off. What good will my judgment do anyway? Will it make me feel superior? Why do I need to feel superior?

I for one do not want to walk into the next millennium with my finger pointed at someone!

peace out!

finishing up my preps....

Cory

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 27, 1999

Answers

Uh, Cory...it seems to me like they're all getting a pretty big kick out of you.

-- (laughing@you.too), October 27, 1999.

Okay Cory, we are all waiting with baited breath... what information do you have?

-- (mr@r.again), October 27, 1999.

Oh no wait, I know already.

You have a formula that looks something like this:

If 1 Then (&WS-Check) = Good

If 0 Then (&WS-Check) = Bad

Preparedness = 1

No-Preparedness = 0

Really stunning stuff Cory, hang on a minute and let me get you the link for Popular Mechanis and NOVA. I'm they will be very interested in your theory.

-- (a jovial@mr. R), October 27, 1999.

"Uh, Cory...it seems to me like they're all getting a pretty big kick out of you."

Don't you see? I DON'T CARE! There are all differnt levels of thought on that board, the same as there are here. Some of them will hear what I am saying, understand and respect me for it, while still chosing to disagree. THAT is the point im trying to make.

I'm only making 3 months worth of preps. Some of you who are preparing for 1 year or more will think im nuts. I peronsonally think that preparing for a YEAR (FOR MYSELF) is crazy too....but do I sit here and judge you for that?

Many of the so called "debunkers" have some preps, but they set their own standard of what a "doomer" is.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 27, 1999.

Cory, you are getting more wishy-washy with every passing moment. You better quit now while you're behind or wind up like Michael Hyatt.

-- (ya?@_._), October 27, 1999.

I still feel that I should help explain to people why I think preparedness is a VERY SMART thing to do.

Why do you feel that you should explain to them something they already know? If you were to say to them that being prepared is, in general, a "smart thing" I don't see how you would get much of an argument except for "Well, DUH." However, if you were to couch your explanation in some sort of irrelevant and condescending "auto insurance" analogy or other such nonsense, then you shouldn't really be surprised if your "explanation" is not appreciated. Try just saying what you mean instead of coating it in some clever self- important BS and you might be surprised at the response.

-- (duh@duh.duh), October 27, 1999.

Ummm Cory - Ex-Lax is very stimulating too, but I don't go out of my way (usually) to find out just how much so it is....

-- Sir Thomas Crapper (john@biffy.head), October 27, 1999.

Cory - If 12 months, or even 3 months of preps become necessary, then I am screwed if my community is not also prepared. Back to the question of what do you do if someone comes to your door, and if you do share, then how many months do you really have?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

Many optimists are supportive of preparation... in general terms.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 27, 1999.

As I continue to demonstrate...

Seems that a lot of the people hanging out on EITHER forum live in world where if you disagree with them...YOU ARE SHIT!

I guess I need to find a forum where people are a litte more comforatble with themselves.

Define wishy washy.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 27, 1999.

Part of it Cory, is that we doomers have little to relate to in the real world. Ever try and talk to a family member about (shudder) Y2K? Soooo, when we come here, its nice to have a meeting of the minds, and quite annoying to get more of that polly want a cracker mentality thrown in our faces. We can get that anytime. Plus, Y2K is serious, and most people haven't the foggiest about what's really going on. Sad.

Owl

-- Owl (a@a.com), October 27, 1999.

Part of it Cory, is that we doomers have little to relate to in the real world.

LOL!!!! Truer words were never spoken.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), October 27, 1999.

I'm not sure there is a working definition of wishy-washy in Webster's. But as far as I can tell, a person who is wishy-washy is someone who really takes no sides in anything, argues both pro and con for BOTH sides, and then apparently does not care about anything anyway.

Yes, you're wishy-washy, by your own admission.

You don't care what effet your words have, if any at all. This way you never really have to feel like you lost. Which if that were true, you would have never have shown up here in the first place. Face it, he who takes sides, without taking sides at all, is definately wishy washy.

You would have been a better person to have never have said anything at all.

Hmmm, was it Shakespeare who said; "Better to appear as a fool, then open your mouth and remove all doubt".

-- (and@that's. all), October 27, 1999.

Cory:

It's a VERY common misconception that the optimists (or debunkers) discourage prudent preparation for an emergency. I've not seen one yet on debunkers that discourages such a practice. Debunking has all along been about exposing the folks who lead some to believe that Y2k (the computer glitch) is equitable to [choose your favorite disaster scenario.]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 27, 1999.

The comparative ying and yang doesn't hold water when it comes to consequences, though; I can give food away (with little or no damage done) if I HAVE prepared, and there is NO catastrophe; my counterpart on the other side of the balance, however, will starve if he DOESN'T prepare and there IS a disaster.....

-- Jay Urban (Jayho99@aol.com), October 27, 1999.

I have been to the debunking board several times and to be honest it was so negative that I'm hard-pressed to find a reason to return. Granted, this board gets its share of bull-headed bozos and extremists but the general tone is of helpfulness and info-sharing. It was my perception that the only reason the debunkie bd exists is to bad mouth EVERYTHING over here. But in the interest of goodwill and hopefully learning something, I will go back now and then. Maybe I just hit it at bad times.

-- hopeful (rcarver@inacom.com), October 27, 1999.

Actually Jay, you are wrong.

Preparing can lead to disaster, especially when undertaken by amateurs. That is, someone who tries to rig up an entire house to a generator who has never had any professional experience with electricity.

Or, somone who wants to put a little extra propane away. Someone who doesn't realize that propane should under no circumstances be stored inside a dwelling.

Or, some poor soul who canned some sweet yams a year ago who has no technical skill with canning. Oooh, botulism... I hate when that happens.

Or, Mr. and Mrs. Jones decide they want to arm themselves for Y2K. You have any idea how many gun related accidents there are every year? For those of you who say "well there are gun accidents EVERY year", I say... yes, but Mr. and Mrs. Jones have never had guns before, and had it not been for Y2K induced FEAR, never would have owned one, or exposed themselves to the potential danger that lies within ownership.

I won't even get into the one handed, hook sporting Rambo types that have Unabomber delusions and pipe bomb injuries. No, Y2K isn't to blame for those types, but I guarntee there is at least one dope who has made some bombs for the New Year specifially because of the fear of what Y2K might bring.

There you have it...ying can be just as dangerous as yang.

-- (do@you.comprende?), October 27, 1999.

Cory, most of what you see here is fear driven while most of what you see at Debunkers is humor driven. School is almost out and it's time to place your bets big guy.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 27, 1999.

Or put another way Carlos, most of what you see here is driven by intelligence, while most of what you see over there is driven by stupidity.

Owl

-- Owl (a@a.com), October 27, 1999.

Owl, the inquiring, self chastising nature of this forum indeed produces better thought than Debunkers but I wouldn't call them stupid. Humor is a God given gift to pursue and enjoy and certainly they do. That aint stupid. Unfortunately the price to themsleves will likely be less than to those they've influenced.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 27, 1999.

"Yes, you're wishy-washy, by your own admission.

No, I just don't simply JUMP on the first side that sounds good. I start up debates and ask questions..then after much introspect, I decide what my position is.

I guess you think that is the wrong way to live my life, eh?

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 27, 1999.

Cory, the debunkers have a long and unpopular history on this forum. I don't have time to go into it all, but the major difference of opinion seems to be that the Debunkers fervently believe we Timebomb 2000 adherents are all possessed by an infectious thought process called a meme, something like a religious fanaticism. We don't even know we have it, but we can pass it on to poor unsuspecting newbies who then pass it on--well, you know how that goes. The original planting of the meme was done by those who make money off Y2K, such as those who sell survival foods, Y2K books, etc. If we are not deluded by the meme, then we are actual shills for the food and book industry. In addition, this forum is just a front for extremist groups who want armageddon.

Attempts have been made by the debunkers to take over this board to save us from ourselves, and save the newbies from us, by saturating it with provocative posts. Someone over there recently said they thought it was their "patriotic duty" to deliberately disrupt TB2K. Doc Paulie said he was perfectly justified in using any means to disrupt this forum.

It goes on and on and is very wearying to chronicle. Just be assured that the old-timers here are fully aware of the motives and tactics of the Debunkers and, not surprisingly, become a little testy when someone suggests some of the Debunkers will change their minds when presented with rational arguments.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 27, 1999.

Well said, OG! From one old-timer to another.

Just 'cos I love to say this sort of thing over and over, I'm going to say it again. There is a cultural myth that predominates mostly in the US, but can be found all over the post post-modern world. It is: that it is 1)possible to change the mind of another person, and 2)that it is a good thing to change the mind of another person, if were it possible.

The better part of valor remains: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig. This is applicable to both sides (all sides) of the endless, mindless, and banal doomer polly question.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 27, 1999.

with this type of thinking abound, we might as well all kill ourselves now.

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 27, 1999.

An unprepared person could be DANGEROUS in January.

-- goldbug (Goldbug@mint.com), October 27, 1999.

Cory, Charles P. Reuben, the cpr who has been calling you dipshit, bongo, retard, crypto-survivalist and freaking idiot, among others, has taken off the last two and a half years from his business (real estate salesperson) solely to debunk "extremists" like us. That alone tells me Charles is dedicated and cannot/will not be convinced he is at all in error. His associates at Debunking have been around for almost that long and do not sway from their notions. I do not disrupt him or his friends at his board and I wish they would not disrupt us at ours.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 27, 1999.

Old Git--well said, nothing else to add.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), October 27, 1999.

Old-Git; Where are these turkeys? Let me at 'em? I should like to see of what sort of stuff they are made. -.-

-- (...@.......), October 27, 1999.

" No, I just don't simply JUMP on the first side that sounds good. I start up debates and ask questions..then after much introspect, I decide what my position is. "

You decide what your position is after researching which side appears to be winning, and then taking that side. Your the kind of person who waits for the coin to land before you call it... possibly even the kind of person who would pick it up and toss it again if it didn't land on a side you liked.

But anyway, your a waste of time. Actually, more like a living Epic of Wasted Time.

Wait a sec... What the hell am I doing...?? the World Series is on...

I'm outta here!

(It ain't over till it's over. -YB)

-- (Mr@_.R), October 27, 1999.

OK guys. Debunkers must be an inside joke. If I'm missing something important here clue me in, but what else can you call this otherwise humorless bunch bored enough to put up with each others company? Patricia and Anita aside, they're on rails. Choo-choo, puff-puff and nobody touch a switch. Gnite.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 27, 1999.

Don't make fun of my inbred friends at Debunkers. We have 'inside information' that Y2k will be a non-event.

-- Dr. PollyDork (DrPollyDork@moron.com), October 27, 1999.

URL for Debunking Y2K board:

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

-- DBs brains (are.all@eaten.away), October 27, 1999.

Cory --

Good luck on your mission. I have to admire both your courage in being willing to put up with what appears to be an unrelenting stream of personal attack, vituperation, and general stupidity, and your perseverance in the face of it.

I sometimes lurk over there. I personally find very little of what passes for 'informed dialogue' there amusing.

I believe that this board was established to exchange information about what MAY happen on the first of next year, and after. The pollies on this board tend to serve a useful purpose, keeping it 'real', if you will. Sometimes, they will point out flaws in arguments, or information which would otherwise have been missed. None of us is in a position to be able to afford to miss these things. Generally, only a few of the folks here are of the rabid 'you don't believe what I believe so therefore you are a dork' school. There are a few, but they can generally be ignored, as they just don't take up that much bandwidth.

However, I don't believe that I have seen any post on the debunking board which didn't include some sort of ad hominem attack, or resort to strawman arguments, or other unsound 'debating' tricks. So I just go and read, as much as I can stand, then return to a somewhat more reasoned atmosphere.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that is posted on this forum. I don't believe in conspiracy theories. (I mean we're talking about the government here, the same folks who can't 'conspire' to successfully deliver the MAIL for crying out loud, and that is LEGAL and most everything else is still WORKING, and we are worrying about them declaring martial law after the PHONES go out? What are they going to use, pony express? relay signal fires? carrier pigeons?) I don't care about the stock market or the gold markets. (I don't have any stocks at present, and haven't had since about Feb. Don't have any gold, either). But the bandwidth used on these topics isn't a great deal, and they are entitled to their opinion, and under certain circumstances what they are talking about *could* happen. So let the discussion roll on.

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 27, 1999.

"You decide what your position is after researching which side appears to be winning, and then taking that side. Your the kind of person who waits for the coin to land before you call it... possibly even the kind of person who would pick it up and toss it again if it didn't land on a side you liked.

But anyway, your a waste of time. Actually, more like a living Epic of Wasted Time. Think what you want. I went over to that board, gave them a listen, and decided that a few of them are not very different from most of us, and that the rest of them are equally radical as even our most hardcore "doomer" over here. I just laugh at people like Ruben. He has no life, and will probably crawl into a little dark corner after Y2K has come and gone, and he has nothing else to do. Either that or he will start chasing down and debunking UFO sightings or something. He is obviously a very biter person, and has probably developed some nice, high blood pressure for himself. On "picking sides": There are many issues which I have looked into that I NEVER CHOSE A SIDE. I happen to believe that many times BOTH sides of an issue have valid points, and if neither are to my liking, then I simply don't chose a side. Chosing just for the sake of being able to say Im on one side or another is rediculous. One example: UFO sightings: I believe I saw one when I was in 8th grade, but I could be wrong. Be that as it may, there are some very valid points from both UFO chasers, and the debunkers. While it is very possible in my mind that some people have seen UFO's, it is also very possible that those people simply saw some sort of advanced aircraft that our own government is testing. I also beleive that BOTH things could be happening simultaneously. There isn't enoughg proof of ANY OF THE THREE for me to "pick a side". You may be willing to just CLOSE your mind to one or the other, but I prefer to take my time. Y2K: I think there are some good arguments for TEOTWAWKI, and some very good arguments for "bump in the road". I have never chosen a side with Y2K, however I find myself in this forum because in the face of uncertainty i believe it is logical to prepare for the worst. There wil never EVER be enough proof for me about Y2K for me to swing one way or another. I won't know the outcome until the time comes. If that is "wishy washy", then Im proud of it. I KEEP AN OPEN MIND TOWARD ALL THE POSSIBILITIES. Would you send a man to prison for life just because someone "thinks" they saw him kill another person, or would you wait for some evidence to be shown? You can continue to attack me personally all you wan't. As you can see it doesn't really phase me, and actually just causes me to talk even more. So if you don't want to hear from me, don't respond to my posts. Thank you for your input! Cory

-- Cory Hill (coryh@strategic-services.net), October 28, 1999.

Well said Cory.

Old Git--your posts are always a pleasure to read and full of new thoughts.

Donna--with deep apologies over my last rant in which you may have felt singled out--I admire you greatly and believe that what you have to say here is extremely important. And yes you do sometimes change my mind if not make me ponder new possibilities, which is, in fact, one of the greatest joys in life.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), October 28, 1999.