***The polly-troll plan for "taking over and defusing the timeBomb"***

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

There are many new participants in this forum, many of whom are unaware of the "Polly-Troll Takeover Plan" discussed on the Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum. For many months GNBFI was rarely, if ever, visited by anyone from Timebomb 2000. Most didn't even know of its existence. During those months were posted gems from many of the pollies we all know and don't love. They talked as if nobody but themselves could access the site and so expressed themselves very freely. The players have insisted and no doubt will still insist the plan was all a joke. In light of the most recent of many salvos of polly-troll "incomings," you be the judge.

I think I'm home now..... - Date: 1999, Apr 07 - From: Deano - Have heard quite a bit about this place and now I see the time is limited. Bummer. Name's Deano, Y2K project manager at a Fortune 500 company that has completed everything. Even made the 12/31/1998 deadline. Spend quite a bit of time arguing with the doomers over at yourdonefors place. They're not too fond of ol' Deano over there but I have a little fun with'em anyway. Never was one to warm up to a raving lunatic anyhow. / Just wanted to let yall know that there are plenty involved in the game that really and truly 'get it' (to use one of their phrases). - Deano

Hello Deano - From: Jonathan Latimer - For what it is worth, welcome. The more the merrier, though it has been scarce since the announcemnt went up on the 15th. However, whatever posts you can make before then would be appreciated. / Keep smiling, - Jonathan

SSSHHHHHH - Date: 1999, Apr 08 - From: Cherri - Just between you and I and the lamp post (C.S. Lewis) we are planning on taking over and defusing the timeBomb.

Count me in...... - Date: 1999, Apr 08 - From: Deano - I'm in.

That sounds like fun! - Date: 1999, Apr 08 - From: Maria - I thought you knew about this place Deano. Sorry I should have pointed it out over at Eddie's place. Cherri, count me in. I understand you took up Cory's challenge. If you need anything, just ask.

I did......just hard to find the time.... - Date: 1999, Apr 09 - From: Deano - Nice to see a familiar face! I had heard about it but never really had the time to check it out. With testing winding down and all, results being distributed, things are a bit more laid back now. Actually have some time to surf a little. Made it over here and kicked myself for not showing up sooner. A lot of those folks at Eddie's tend to rub me the wrong way. We certainly have different views on life. I prefer to enjoy mine as much as possible. You seem the same. Funny how optimism can do that to a person. / I'm really looking forward to the rollover and subsequent non-event. I will have to laugh. They keep saying they won't have to grocery shop for a year. How fucking long can a person eat beans and rice?!? Especially if LongHorns is serving ribeye's and t-bones right down the street! I'm not even sure they realize how long it takes to cook dried beans. What, 6-8 hours?? How much fuel will that burn for a friggin' pot of beans?? / Enough ramblin' for now.......see ya Maria and thanks! - Deano

Now, now Cherri, you know how the good folks at EY..... - Date: 1999, Apr 09 - From: Morgan - .... get their knickers all in a bunch when there's a sudden influx of 'pollys'. Upsets their vision, y'know. - Morgan

Thanks dude! A little background for yall..... - Date: 1999, Apr 08 - From: Deano - Thanks! Nice to feel welcome. - I've been involved in this thing for well over a year now. Work for a mortgage banking service bureau [BIG SNIP]

Feel free - Date: 1999, Apr 09 - From: Doc Paulie - to come over to a little alternative to this forum. Debunking Y2k webboard / You'll find me there, I am the Moron and Jackass who's current deal is asking if Y2k is indeed the scam and hoax prior tarred and feathered ones like the Reader's Digest head and Nicholas Zvegintzov said years ago. You will also find many from here, there etc.

Note: the gentleman immediately above with the memorable e-mail address who, I understand, is not named Paul nor is a doctor, is the creator and host of the Debunking Y2K forum.

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



They're not much to worry about. All they usually post is opinions. The only folks who care about their opinions are themselves. How sad. No-life losers hanging out here instead of with their fellow losers at CPR's forum. Too funny. Coming over here to try to persuade others not to prepare, as if it was any of their business of what others are doing. ROFL. Must be sad to be a troll polly.

The above group does not include the pollys who present facts in their postings. These people have given us opposite viewpoints to consider, and they have added to this forum. It's the postings by Y2k Dimwit Pros, the You Know Who's who share their sarcastic, smarta-- opinions that are the waste around here. As if anybody gave a da-- about their opinions. ROFL. What boring lives the polly trolls must have.

-- X (X@X.com), October 29, 1999.


Troll sat alone on his seat of stone, And munched and mumbled a bare old bone. For many a year he had gnawed it near, For meat was hard to come by! Gum by! Done By! For many a year he had gnawed it near, For meat was hard to come by.

Up came Tom with his big boots on, Saying "What's that, Troll, you be munching on?" "I ain't got beans, and I ain't got rice! So I eats GI's and they does taste nice." Taste not! Waste not! "I ain't got beans, and I ain't got rice! So I eats GI's and they does taste nice!"

-- mrunderhill (prancing@pony.com), October 29, 1999.

Hey MrUnderhill, Let's go stay at Tom Bombadills' until Y2K passes. We'll be safe there! 8-)

-- pizzaman (cjwarner@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

Oh Golly Gee O'l Git,

I have said it over and over that I do not expect anyone to take me at my word, that I believe they can decide for themselves from the information they read. Does the fact that I give some information that is different than what usually gets posted here bother you? You wouldn't want to deny people the right to see both sides of the coin now would you?

Is this my "punishment" for pointing out how you like to bury some of my posts under the same old re-posted information when you feel threatened by it? Otherwise why do you do it?

The post about my intentions have been posted here more than a few times, I do not deny it. I do not tell anyone not to prepare, I've been as prepared if not more than a lot of people here for decades. As a matter of fact I do not tell anyone to do anything. I state that they are free to read or not to read what I post.

What about any of this is bothersome to you? That I do not demand anything?

That I get nothing out of it?

That I haven't even posted what I think will happen?

That the people here are free to learn from me if they choose and what I have posted may have eased some of their minds, if even just a little bit?

If you are secure in what you believe then I should not be considered a threat or even be considered a bad person?

Actually I am greatful you posted the above copy from Biffy, I had thought I had posted on the old debunking board and it had been lost.



-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 29, 1999.

Remember Mutha Nachu and Super Polly, Cherri?

-- Prepare (but@prepare.early), October 29, 1999.

The above post presents to newbies an insight into the periodic disuptions on this forum, nothing more, nothing less. Any other take on it is solely in the psyche of the beholder.

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

Old Git,

Just as an exercise in balance, fair play and open mindedness (how very British). . here is a suggestion for you.

My challenge. . .

1) Use those amazing skills you have for researching and organising archived data to dredge through the annals of posted threads on this forum, looking for all threads where one of these people . .

**Myself, Andy Ray, Stephen Poole, Flint, Hoff, Cherri, Doc Paulie, Maria, Mutha, Deano, J Latimer**

. . have initiated (or made an early contribution to) a thread by either . .

a) asking a valid question about a belief or opinion held by a forum regular or Y2K "personality", or

b) stating a polite, well-drafted position on a Y2K issue.

Then . .

2) Itemise every example you can find (and accredit the author) where one of the following people . .

**Yourself, Andy, INVAR, Bigdog, Will Continue, @, Diane, or any other forum heavyweight)**

. . has responded with a blatant, ad hominem, distracting, content- free provocation, thereby dragging the conversation down into a pointless, childish, unproductive, uninformative slanging match, thereby "killing" the thread.

Im sure, "polly", "doomer" and "lurker" alike, there are many here who would be interested to see just how many examples you could find.

If you truly wish to present the idea that this forum is a genuine, unbiased, open discussion environment which welcomes views of all kinds and allows adults to debate, explore, and formulate opinion on this isse, which a group of disruptive "pollies" want to destroy just because they are evil people - then I'm sure that this challenge will present no problem to you. It could only reinforce your case, right ?

Unless of course, youre worried that by doing so you will shed too much light on the true nature of what happens here.

Its up to you. Do you take the challenge ? Or will you welsh ?

Kind Regards


-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.


Don't be so patently absurd, dear chap. Do your own research.

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

P.S. "To welsh" is a racial slur, indicating that the Welsh are dishonorable. Not very British of you.

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

Ill take that as a *NO* then.


So long as its clear that you're NOT seriously trying to assert that this forum is open, unbiased and free. (Then again, how COULD you, based on the evidence ?)

In which case, we can only conclude that it is in fact a den of bias, imparity, prejudice and discrimination, designed to disseminate one- sided, illigitimate propaganda with the aim of misleading innocent people. And thereby, it deserves to be resisted by any right-thinking individual.

So what was your point ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

I'm sorry, I can't formulatew a sensible answer and can't type properly becuase I'm laughing so cmuchb. You really are an unbelievably pompous and irritating ass, Wolfie! Go and get another cup of espresso from the nice man behind the counter and stop boring people. And, no, I won't answer any more of your preposterous little rantings.

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

The above post presents to newbies an insight into the periodic disuptions on this forum, nothing more, nothing less. Any other take on it is solely in the psyche of the beholder.

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

Like I said, I do not tell people what to think or what I think they should do. You on the other hand choose to not only dictate what they should think nothing more, nothing less but presume to dictate the validity of their own individual minds.

One thing about America, Ol Git, is that we came here to get away from where we were being dictated to. From birth, we are given the freedom to use our own minds and not have those minds ordered to think a certain way.

You should try it sometime.

Fortunatly our government is one WE choose, not one that is subject to the mind of one by the accident of birth.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), October 29, 1999.

I guess they've got to find something to do. They don't get more that 10 threads a day, last time I checked. Seems that they can't find much "good" Y2K news, so they find other ways to spend their time. Would be kinda funny, if it wern't so sad...

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

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

i don't know, old git, seems like wolverine was fairly polite in his question, and not only did you refuse, but you jumped on his head with both feet.


just my 0.02

-- only a lowly lurker (lurk@lurk.lurk), October 29, 1999.

Response to ***The polly-troll plan for "taking over and defusing the timeBomb"***

Forum wars. Who'da thunkit? We need to coin a new word to describe "an assault by one ad hoc forum on another."

-- Spidey (in@jam.neologism?), October 29, 1999.

Sysman . . you're confusing quality with quantity.

Do you judge a good forum by the amount of posts it receives ?

Take out the "OT - Black helicopters", "Ad-hom attack", "repeat" or "outdated news" threads from here, and you'd have about 5 people left yelling "we're right arent we ? yes we are . . Very right" at each other.

Maybe you were brought up in the "Never mind the quality feel the width" school of fabric appraisal. Does it get cold there at night ?

Kind Regards


PS: Old Git . . Your answer to my reasonable challenge was still a no, and no matter how much you attack me, it will remain a visible climb down on your part, so long as you (and the other forum "attack dogs") permit this thread to survive. In the words of your fearless leaderene . . ."Nuff said"

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

As is true whenever the DeBunkie trolls are cited for "destructive acts" they try to change the subject. Their desire to destroy this forum was/is on record. They continue their efforts to do this through repeated, anonymous posts. End of story.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 29, 1999.

Pollys call doomers idiots, doomers call pollys idiots. Each side attacks the other, you would have to be brain dead to not see that.

But, since pollys post on this board in much higher numbers than doomers post on polly boards, it's another no brainer to figure out who is going after whom.

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

If you are secure in what you believe then I should not be considered a threat or even be considered a bad person?


It's not your beliefs that bother people, it's your personality.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), October 29, 1999.

It's about time that thread was cross-posted again!! Yall are slipping bad. It's been at least a month.......

Must have been a boring night huh......too funny!


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

First, we're in the middle of "Y2K: The Movie".

Now, we're in the middle of "West Side Story".

Gee, Officer Krupke...

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), October 29, 1999.

'Mornin, Deano. I'm recalling midsummer when you were explaining how your company was busily engaged in cleaning up that 12/31/99 end-of-file thingy. Clearly a Y2K problem. So you weren't finished by 12/98, were you? Maybe some other problems you overlooked as well in your report to us?

Deano - "Ready With Exceptions", like everyone else.

-- Had It (With@This.Troll), October 29, 1999.

If the pollies post information that enlightens this important subject of Y2k, then they add value to this subject and are to be commended IMHO. If they (or anyone, come to think of it) have nothing to add but smarta-- opinions, then they need to get lives. For those pollies who have brought intelligent arguments to the table, then your contributions definitely are appreciated and you are to be commended. For those pollies who don't have anything but mindless and repetitive 'attitude' postings, then take your opinions and shove them up the bodily crevice of your choice. There and only there will they be where they rightfully belong.


-- X (X@X.com), October 29, 1999.

Personally, I take the conversation (as posted by Old Git) more tongue-in-cheek humor than a serious "take over" plan. Of course, I had post where my sense of humor was completely missed by the ever vigilant Russ Lipton (aka Big Dog.) Oh, and in the same post, my defense of some pessimists on this forum was completely ignored. Imagine that.

One possible explanation... some people have a lousy sense of humor. (And to think of the effort I put into "Wreck of the Y2K Heralds.")

As for Old Git, her primary contribution to this forum has been to provide a second-rate online copy of Carla Emery's "Encyclopedia of Country Living." In truth, you are far better served buying Ms. Emery's book. (It is available through Amazon.com and I understand the paper and ink are Y2K compliant.)

As for informing "new" posters, let's go to the well one more time and discuss Old Git equating "trolls" on this forum to Nazi brownshirts. In this discussion, our ill-tempered forum Martha Stewart dazzles us by speculating some restrictions on free speech might have stopped the Nazis. (I guess in Old Git's mind, you are not jackboot if you take away the rights of others and she AGREES with you.) She also compared the behavior of anonymous internet posters with the Nazi thugs who terrorized the Jews.


Oh, I have tangled with Old Git on other occasions. In my opinion, she has been a narrow-minded, dogmatic woman with even less country manners than country knowledge.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 29, 1999.

Poor Ken, always civil (cf the charming characterization above of Old Git's many contributions to helping people on this forum), always misunderstood, just wanting to help us deluded souls see things optimistically.

As for me, I'm just a "religious zealot", you see. Hard to tell from Ken's civility whether that has been a sustained attack on me personally or on my Christian faith. Probably both.

Of course, he only "attacks" in "defense". As I said, he is "misunderstood".

Let's try once again to get back to the simple point of this thread:

"As is true whenever the DeBunkie trolls are cited for "destructive acts" they try to change the subject. Their desire to destroy this forum was/is on record. They continue their efforts to do this through repeated, anonymous posts. End of story."

Old Git posted this thread for newbies and then said,

"The above post presents to newbies an insight into the periodic disuptions on this forum, nothing more, nothing less. Any other take on it is solely in the psyche of the beholder."

I agree.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 29, 1999.

Had it

My company WAS ready as of 12/31/98. Still is. We're anxiously awaiting the New Year. If you remember correctly (obviously you don't) I work for a mortgage banking service bureau that was purchased by a phone company over 5 year ago. We are separate in our businesses. The phone campany is ready now also. They had a June 30 target date that they made.

Troll??? I think not. More like someone from the inside that has gobs of good news that you prefer not to believe. Probably doesn't fit into your fantasies of maybe becoming SOMEONE after the rollover.

Sad as hell, really........

Ken - it was definitely toungue-in-cheek. Nothing more nothing less (obviously) as this forum is as whacky as ever. Doesn't look to me like anything has been 'defused'. I honestly can't recall an attempt was actually made to defuse.

I believe the term we're looking for is (you guessed it!!!) - PARANOIA. That was pretty easy wasn't it........:-)


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

Their attempt failed miserably, anyway.

It's a karma thing.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 29, 1999.

This forum is 95% anonymous posters. The doomer-trolls outnumber the polly-trolls by a long-shot.

Get real!

-- This place is nothing but trolls! (trolls@bound.here), October 29, 1999.

Old Git,

The doomers have stated over and over that this message board is about preparing. What does your post have to do with this subject? Are you so bored that you have to cross-post information from other boards? Maybe it's time to go out and get some fresh air and not take it all so seriously.

-- (PT@barnum.com), October 29, 1999.


The difference between the legitimate members of this forum and the illegitimate posters is simple to explain.

Those who come here in a spirit and attitude of harmony, tranquillity and freedom from disturbance are sharing this forum in the American tradition of freedom of speech. Wherein, no party may utter words which are in violation of the law and yet are free to honestly share thoughts and opinions of interest to those assembled. IN THIS FORUM as in the public at large, Americans must obey rules of conduct which allow the needs of the group, thus assembled, to communicate as the group honestly seeks. Those who would devise or act to disrupt such free and open discussions, should in the American tradition be warned first to desist. AND IF THEY CONTINUE, THEY SHOULD BE EJECTED.

The illegitimate posters have ill intent toward the legitimate members of this forum and as such have differentiated themselves by their own definitions and actions. The ill will that they intend and act upon, as a group is unwarranted and unwelcomed. They are clearly here to destroy and disrupt. THEY SHOULD BE EJECTED.

Freedom of speech is a two edged sword which cuts both ways.

I say lets let it cut them now and be rid of them!


-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.


If your company is ready, will they put a written guarantee on it to their customers? If not, why? And please don't wiggle on this with legalese excuses. I'm simply asking a question only because deeds, not words, speak loudest. If they really believe their efforts are successful, then they will put it in the form of a written guarantee.


-- X (X@X.com), October 29, 1999.

Listen: when Deano snapped to the black heartedness of the debunkers, he took his exit swiftly.

Do not confuse him with the dark side.

I personally have a soft spot for him.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 29, 1999.

Hey Everybody!!! Little Kenny opened the door....lets all give our opinons on HIS personality!!!! My opinion of his personality, as reflected by his posts: arrogant, condescending, yuppie twit, know-it-all, smart ass, hateful, shallow, haughty, self-important, superficial, nervous neurotic control-freak that is about to be out of control. To sum up: a narrow-minded, dogmatic person with even less manners than Will Continue. Anyone else want to have a go at "poor" old Kenny?? I have yet to see ANY post from him that wasn't purposefully insulting to someone.

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomfeeder.net), October 29, 1999.


We DID put out a letter to all our customers in January after our testing was completed. We shared results will all our customers. The OTS and OCC were in here from the Fed. Our clients hired a 3rd party to review our entire project from beginning to end - they were in here 8x over 3 years). We split the cost for that 3rd party review with our clients - to the tune of $250,000.

Our clients are welcome to come to Jax and review our contingency plans anytime they please. Several have.

I think we're about as open as any one F500 company out there.

Sure hope that clears it up for you.


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


And I for you. Thanks! :-)

Must be that 5-lb black bass wish of yours. There's just somethin' really special about that!


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


-- SH (squirrel@hunter.com), October 29, 1999.

And so, as usual, in wade the big guns. The attack dogs.

And why ?

Because someone dared to voice disagreement to something a fellow attack dog posted? What nerve !!

Which kinda proves my point and at the same time explains why OldGit will NEVER EVER EVER take my challenge.

Because in this case I didn't actually come in and post an argument, or a counterpoint to the thread topic. I posted a challenge, in the form of a question. Who's arguing with the content of the accusation ? Nobody. But that isnt the end of the story BigDog, cuz its the context that matters.

Yes, in the debunking forums there was once a thread discussing, humourously, the de-fusing of the TB2000 bomb. 100% true. No argument. In the same manner as the endless Fruitcake threads in here, debunkers also crack a smile from time to time. If some of these attack dogs had a sense of humour, they wouldnt bother mentioning it at all. What did they think was being discussed ? Armed revolt ? (On second thoughts, knowing some of them and the degree of paranoia which rules their lives, thats probably exactly what they did think . . or worse).

In the same way that you are irked by the disruptive trolls, (Y2Kpro and the like), debunkers are irked by the attack dogs. Debunking is, after all, partly about correcting the erroneous outpourings of the most vociforous element propagandizing the airwaves. Who should they debunk ? The lurkers ?

No, this thread isnt really about that insignificant old tongue-in- cheek conversation at all. Its an attempt, in the absence of much bad news or accurate doomer info lately, to get back to the confident ground of "Its the fault of all those pollys". Happens every time theres a surfeit of optimistic news. I suppose it gives the hardcores something to talk about.

The last time I locked horns with OG and the other attack dogs, over the blatant injustice (at the time) of the system of moderation (which, since chuck asserted some influence, seems vastly improved), I received a fair number of private emails FROM FORUM REGULARS, sympathising with my position, and lamenting the fact that a few fundamentalists have to barge around like the board is their private playground. Most felt they did as much harm as good. I tend to agree.

Is that so hard to understand ? If you believe in your position, then you can bear to have it examined by folk who DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU. If you do that, and they cant argue the point with logic and counter information, then you probably have quite a strong position. If however, you are AFRAID to debate your opinion, and do whatever you can to stifle any voice of opposition, then people quickly notice they are being propagandized. OG may claim that she has the support of the people. Im sure that the other attack dogs support her, and maybe many others do too. But I KNOW how many moderates just roll their eyes to the ceiling every time they see that handle.

And its a shame. Cus this issue, by its complexity, deserves every ounce of debate available. The stakes are high (by which I dont mean life or death neccessarily, just that however you respond to the issue, you're spending some money and adapting your life to some degree). By taking the extreme position, I am sure that just as many people ARE PERSUADED AGAINST SENSIBLE PREPARATION, by the impression you give that Y2K is simply another internet conspiracy theory. How are people expected to take your advice seriously ? Sure, you catch a few, but how many do you miss ? Paul Milne may scoff, but next time you see a guy on a street corner yelling about the day of judgement, take a look at how many ordinary people cross the road. And that doesnt make the road-crossers irreligious. Its just that very few people trust a frothing-mouthed preacher. It aint the message, its the messenger.

Kind Regards


-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

So how does one apply for the position of attack dog?

-- lisa (lisa@sharpening.fangs_want_the_job), October 29, 1999.

Lisa Lisa . .

As if you dont know. With all these energetic appearances you must be crawling pretty high up the pack these days. You growl with the best of them. Sad, in that your old postings which contained some substance were usually pretty thought provoking.

Kind Regards


PS - You only come by to play with lightweights these days ? Your name has cropped up from time to time in much meatier threads, but it seems you dont conjure as easy as you used to.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.


Without commenting on the merit of your argument, I do find fault with your notion that since you made the challenge that Old Git is now bound to do the research. Therefore, I now challenge you to the exact same thing that you challenged Old Git. You do the work.

Now do you see why your challenge might meet with less than rousing acceptance? Why trying to put the onus of actually doing the work onto someone else is doomed to failure at the start?

If you truly believe what you stated in the challenge, why don't you do the work and publish the results?


-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), October 29, 1999.

Thanks for the sweet insult, W.

You aren't going to win at whatever you're trying to win.

Give up already.

Have a nice Halloween.

[hunger to rip big chunk of W]

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 29, 1999.

George . .

You got a deal.

I'll give you 5 top examples, within a week.

OK ?


PS - Lisa, I'm not trying to *WIN* anything. I'm simply someone of a moderate position, who isn't too disinterested or too shy to speak up when I see some of the stuff that happens in here. Maybe you could tell me why that *bothers* some people in here so much ?

-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

Oh, and George . .

Couldn't resist this. .

Without commenting on the merits of the paradox within your response, Old Git doesnt seem too work-shy when it comes to endlessly chronicling and reposting archive threads when the subject suits HER.

Eh ?

Kind Regards


-- W0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

W, we're trying to 'win' in that we want people to examine what snaps, albeit temporary, in the supply chain pose a threat and should be prepared for.

You and your pals are small fry compared to the Rendon Group, our true competitor.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 29, 1999.

"Yes, in the debunking forums there was once a thread discussing, humourously, the de-fusing of the TB2000 bomb. 100% true. No argument."

You call it humorous, but there was nothing apparently humorous about it as it was posted there, nor was it/has it been described as humorous since then but rather as a civic duty. Nor does there seem to be anything "humorous" about CPR (and others') threats against Yourdon, Hyatt, etc. I guess I'm lucky that all Y2K has done is COST me money. Y2K is already a public loss for me -- I accept that cheerfully as something that comes with the territory.

"If you believe in your position, then you can bear to have it examined by folk who DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU. If you do that, and they cant argue the point with logic and counter information, then you probably have quite a strong position. If however, you are AFRAID to debate your opinion, and do whatever you can to stifle any voice of opposition, then people quickly notice they are being propagandized."

This is such a canard, at least in my case -- and yet I seem to receive many of the most vicious attacks, including your post, I suppose (or am I not one of the "attack dogs" you accuse)?

How many times must I acknowledge, cheerfully, contributions made by various pollies (e.g., Fint, Hoff, Davis -- though not recently -- even yourself as I recall) as well as specific points of agreement I have had/do have with various pollies?

The answer is that no number of times is enough to satisfy.

How many times do I/others need to assert how happy we will be for all (not least, our families) if Y2K is a BITR before the endless mocking about that stops?

The answer is that no number of times is enough to satisfy.

By contrast, I'm not sure even one finger would suffice for times when Hoff, Decker, "Poole", yourself or other pollies have ever admitted learning something from me or other "doomers" (Cory, Yourdon, Hyatt, North, Milne, etc). If the answer is that you HAVEN'T learned anything (positive, obviously, not the mocking lessons you cite), then that speaks for itself as to your convictions and intentions. I will except Flint who has honorably acknowledged learning much in specific cases, however else he and I may go at it.

And if there are "single" cases on the polly side, contrast that to numerous ones where I have publicly acknowledged agreement.

Are there doomer trolls? Yes. I regret that. I can't control it. But tote up the evidence and it's hard for me to see where your beef is.

My simple consistency has always been ---

"Y2K is likely to be an 8-9. I may be wrong. It might be less. It might be worse than I expect. A wise person, IMO, should prepare for an 8-9."

While I am more optimistic than I used to be about core infrastructure (repeatedly stated on this forum), I still see nothing to change that overall assessment. Why is this consistency such a big deal? If I honestly believed/come to believe before rollover that this was/is wrong, I will say so, ECSTATICALLY.

For instance, I'm laboring to find a way to believe that the vast disconect between public PR and my experience means my experience is wrong and the PR is correct. I just haven't been able to get there so far.

As always, the pollies aren't satisfied with that, because they want to believe that there is some sort of personal joy, pleasure, ego, wish for Y2K to bring things down. A few doomers do seem to wish for that. I don't and have never stated that I do. Watching people suffer and die, even if they brought it on themselves, will only cause me pain. As a Christian, I am very well aware that my own "salvation", as I understand that, is entirely unmerited.

Get your attack dogs off of ME, Wolfie. It's fundamentally misplaced and always has been. I'm merely a husband and dad who is doing his level best to provide some simple preparations for them and his community if TSHTF. And trying to be a bit of help "virtually" for others who want to prep.

I continue to pray that a combination of faithful work by many around the world and a miscalculation on my part regarding Y2K impacts proves me wrong.

I HAVE SAID ALL OF THIS FROM MY FIRST POST. If this heartfelt hope that Y2K is a BITR, but ongoing preparation for a worst case, is "consistency", I'm guilty as charged.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), October 29, 1999.

You're wasting your time with these idiots Russ.

You know what they're doing, you know what they're about.

Let them continue with their zeitgeist propagation.

It's pointless to argue with them, especially at this late date.

It won't matter what you say or whether you never post again...you'll continue to be maligned and slammed.

Call it the Ken Starr Treatment.

Pearls before swine Russ, pearls before swine. Be wise like the serpent, you've already shown the dove nature.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 29, 1999.

W, you posted this:

"If you believe in your position, then you can bear to have it examined by folk who DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY AGREE WITH YOU. If you do that, and they cant argue the point with logic and counter information, then you probably have quite a strong position."

That is not logical. Logic suggests that there are more reasons than that one available to explain the lack of debate. Do not limit the possiblities with Occam's Razor. [sp?]

Just because it is the simplest explanation doens't mean it is the right one.

I am all for debate, and I find it annoying when a thread is littered with the, shall we say, 'dung comments?' That point, everyone agrees on, I believe.

So, here's to looking forward to your research post.

I am always looking for a perspective which outweighs mine.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), October 29, 1999.

Thank you, Old Git, for re-posting this. It is indeed good to help new folks understand that there is a definite disruptive element of trolls that infests this forum, most of whom have once again have made fools of themselves on this very thread (e.g., Deano, W, et al).

These trolls have but one purpose: to prevent YOU from personally preparing for what is coming. Two months to go, don't get taken in by double-Decker and the rest!!

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

Ah, is this the same Russ Lipton who cried foul so loudly? The same Big Dog who answered my first post on this forum with, "Moron," and little else? Who leveled the accusation of "coward" and gave me the option of choosing between "dense" and "decietful?"


You are too much, Russ. Just a "Father" and a "Husband" trying to muddle through this whole thing... by rabbit punching anyone who disagrees with you. When I call you a zealot, Russ, it's not an attack on your version of Christianity. It's a commentary on your dogmatic approach to the issue. I remember fondly your defense of Yourdon's "Sayonara" even before the ink was dry.

I am convinced you believe in preparation, Russ. Ironically, I don't take issue with your desire to prepare for Y2K... or any other catastrophic event.

What I don't particularly like is your tactics. I have the same bone to pick with Invar, Old Git, Andy, Will Continue, etc. Since you enjoy my frank approach, it makes me ill when you bat your eyelashes and act like Snow White. Give me a break, Russ. You know damn well you've engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against the forum optimists.

Gloves on, gloves off... it doesn't matter to me. But spare me the hypocritical posturing.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 29, 1999.


I don't see where I did any such thing.

That honor is ALWAYS reserved for you. And you always so graciously accept and never fail.

I'll just sit back and take 'lessons' from an old pro like you......


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

Oy, vey!

What a waste of perfectly good brainpower! I find it sad that all of you good people are wasting your time and energy taking shots at each other like this. Go outside and breathe, or something. Take a walk, enjoy the day, do something other than this!

-- (pshannon@inch.com), October 29, 1999.

pshannon you are correct!!

Isn't the Internet a wonderful place? We can all sit on our asses and stare at a screen and type nasty messages to people we have never met.

What a useless waste of time. Death to computers! I want my childhood back again..... running through the cornfields with my cousins on a hot summer night.

I hate technology.

-- (HeavenHelp@us.com), October 29, 1999.

Y2K has never been about egos

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 29, 1999.

I wonder if THIS version of "Family Feud" would make it on T.V.? :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), October 29, 1999.


Congrats on completing what probably was a frustrating project, at least at first. Good luck on the rollover. May your 'pager beeps' be few.


-- X (X@X.com), October 29, 1999.

Heaven Help Us' post is probably the most postworthy one here! Wish I was a few years younger too! (not to mention the...ah...hairline)

-- X (X@X.com), October 29, 1999.


Thanks! Frustrating doesn't quite do it justice. At times, it was much worse. I have found out just how much I dislike 'contingency planning' these last few months.

I'm one of the 'lucky' ones that gets to work New Years eve. Quite honestly, it can't get here quick enough for me!


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

I can't reference this to anything, I've read so much the last year. In any event, I'm quite sure I read somewhere (Navy contingency planning?) that the "government" would use the internet to manipulate readers to their point of view during this very time of year.

Is it possible that "they" are going all out now? How do you call the misinformation specialists? Shills?

I could be wrong about this so no attacks are required. I cannot prove a thing, nor do I care to.

-- booann (keepthefaith@hold.on), October 29, 1999.

Gloves on, gloves off... it doesn't matter to me. But spare me the hypocritical posturing.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 29, 1999.

Chuckle :o)


takes one to know one :o)


I am still offering to set up a real forum for you if it will help. Why not have a decisive, positive web site for those that would read it.

Or have you the information to back your meaning?

You are a personal sniper. Back up your words. Obfustication doesn't count.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), October 29, 1999.

More lies from the Timebomb crowd. And they will just keep lying. It is the ONLY way they can make converts. Sheesh.

Just incase anyone gets taken in by this charade, you need to keep in mind that Old Git likes to lie. She cross posts information, then attributes it to someone else. She did this in her 'outingsr' get-up, and tried to get people to believe that CPR had made a post which he did not.

The moderators here have also been caught red handed trying to frame "pollys" by making up posts and attributing them to optimists.

The regulars here just can't deal with reality, so they try and scramble everyones perception of anything optimistic regarding y2k.

"attack the poster, ignore contents of posts." This is the battle cry of the diehard tinfoilers.

kinda pathetic. Just like the regulars that do nothing but post doom and gloom predictions day after day. And are wrong, day after day.

Must be a tortured life you doomers lead.

I feel so sorry for you.

-- Old Twit (gagon@spam.ifyoueatit), November 01, 1999.

I went to the site and checked it out and those posts about planning a takeover of this forum **are** there, right where they're supposed to be. Nobody made up or changed those posts. Here's the site so you can see for yourself.

-- A regular (who@checks.things), November 01, 1999.

Never the claimed the posts weren't there. It is plain as the nose on your face that those posts are jocular in nature. They are only missing the little "(:" or "[g]" emoticons. This was discussed at length months ago on this forum....yet OG continues to sell the lie.

One has to wonder why....or not. The position of the pessimists is so fragile and indefensible I can see why they are so touchy.

I just think the truth should be placed in these type of pure ad hominem threads....so that lurkers aren't swayed by pure garbage.

Case in point....When Doc Paulie called for timebomb to be removed from MIT servers, there was a resounding "NO!" from the debunker group. Doc even explained (on his new board) that he didn't want this group censored....just moved from public funded servers.

Is that ever mentioned by the liars of timebomb? no. They continue to perpetuate the lie that somehow.....the debunkers want timebomb shut down, and have some "organised plot" to do same. Laughable.

But, if the only way the y2kult can gain converts is through lying (waitaminute...isn't that how ALL cults gain converts?.......), then I guess they will continue to misrepresent, spin, tell half-truths and outright lie. THEY have to live with themselves....not me.

-- Old Twit (gagon@spam.ifyoueatit), November 02, 1999.

Old Git, You're a genious!

With just a little good stink bait, you managed to troll up most of the disrupters to spout their little ego-defensive arguments on this single thread.

Subsequently, all the other threads reached a level of intellegence they have not had for days.

(Of course, I haven't been around much, so that may have contributed to that last part, as well)

If I only had a brain......

-- Scarecrow (outstanding@inmy.field), November 02, 1999.

Then there are the rocket-scientists like Scarecrow here, who dismisses the outright lies with a handwave and "spout their little ego-defensive arguments".

I guess some people would prefer to tolerate lies about those they disagree with, because they cannot stand to hear that they may be wrong.

What is it like to go thru life with your eyes closed and your ears stopped up? Do you have a little tranciever that feeds disinformation directly into your head, so you don't need to think for yourself?

I'm glad Old Git is so transparent in her attempt to discredit others. Thinking people will read this tripe and say...."wow. this person can't debate so has to resort to mudslinging!"

-- Old Twit (gagon@spam.ifyoueatit), November 02, 1999.

Hi Scarecrow, good to see you back.

No, I think this troll is far too clever to fall for a ploy such as you describe. I'm pretty sure he's the same person who wrote this:


Re: Old Git is a lying sack of sheep *$#%

Posted by ( Mr. R on October 28, 1999 at 13:17:08:

Reminds me of Ted Bundy. A serious nut case who just so happened to be very charismatic, to the point where he could convince you the fucking sky was purple if he tried hard enough.

It wouldn't be so sad if these people weren't so convincing in their insanity. But then again, how smart does a person have to be to fool a fool? Just a little smarter than your average fool, which puts the intlligence level of Old Git somewhere around rock salt.

(End cut and paste)

So you see, Scarecrow, he's got my number. By the way, did you notice the sky was a beautiful shade of aubergine today?

-- Salty Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), November 02, 1999.

Yep, Old Git. You're right, you're right, you're right.

This person is just too smart for us. His eloquently developed arguments are obvoiously indicative of a person of great character and fortitude. He must be one of the Seekers of Truth that we have recently been so blessed with.

Since we all know this forum is in it's death throes now, I say let us capitulate while there is still a hope for mercy. Let us fall prostrate before the All-Knowing, and plead to have our defective meme replaced by their perfect and shining one. Let us pull the plug on this den of doomosity, and all gather round the feet of the Leader of Leaders at the Debunking mountaintop, where we shall be enlightened by the true revelation of the Media Most High.

Come along quietly now, thou fooler of fools, and renounce thy doomerish demons. Verily, I say unto you, help is at hand.

Oh, and pass the salt.


-- Scarecrow (outstanding@inmy.field), November 02, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ