What was their real motivation?

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

Could it be that Hyatt, Anderson, and Sanders were keeping something from us?

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000


I haven't read anything by these three people that influenced me, so they couldn't have kept anything from me. I read the article and find the author bases his so-called "conclusive evidence" on a statement made by Sanders that he had supper with Hyatt and Anderson 18 hours after the rollover. Because the article is headed, "Michael Hyatt Admits That He Knew Y2K Was A Hoax!" and there is no quote at all from Hyatt, not even a paraphrase, I don't give the author any credence.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 13, 2000.


Marty Lasley has done a wonderful job exposing Michael Hyatt as the fearmongering food pimp that he is. In the next few weeks you will see some major developments regarding the truth behind the Y2K gurus. They should take their own advise and head for the bunkers while they can.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 13, 2000.

Yep,they should run while they can. 10 min. after this was posted,Hyatts site is unavailable.Will probabaly delete the article and pretend it was never there.

-- watcher (tg@ji.mn), January 13, 2000.

Watch this thread go away!!!!HA HA!!!

-- lp (gg@home.net), January 13, 2000.

I noticed that. When I attempted to get any quotes from Michael Hyatt at all for Old Git, I could not access any of his sites. I noticed that the last WorldNetDaily article from him is dated 12-30-99, and they seem to have dropped him entirely as of the new year.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

hyatt is still hardcore doomer pusher,still pushing dry food. All of his remarks suggested he would hunker down for the rollover. Didn't take him long to come out of the bunker mode!! I guess git doesn't git it.

-- cd (a@b.c), January 13, 2000.

Etta, it was Lasley--not you--who wrote the subject article--there was no quote or even a paraphrase in his article to support his accusation. The only evidence he has is that the three people mentioned had supper 18 hours after rollover. Lasley uses "Hyatt ADMITS" (emphasis mine) in his header. I am not defending Hyatt; I don't know much about the man and he hasn't influenced me. All I am saying is you cannot say someone admits something and then produce your "conclusive evidence" as being Sanders said (allegedly) he had dinner with Hyatt and Anderson 18 hours after rollover.

Lasley wrote the article and accused Hyatt of ADMITTING he "knew Y2K was a hoax." My point is: in Lasley's article, LASLEY (not you) produced no other evidence for Hyatt's "admission" than somebody said somebody had dinner with two other somebodies. There is no admission here, only Lasley's fertile imagination. If Lasley cannot produce a statement from Hyatt on which his accusation is based, then I am wasting my time in further discussion on this subject.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 13, 2000.

Old Git, I see where you're coning from, but I believe the author's charge of "Michael Hyatt Admits..." is that these three folks implied their admission of deceiving the public based on the fact that they did not follow their own advice. If a three year old has cookie crumbs on his shirt, he is admitting to eating out of the cookie jar, even if he does not explicitly say so.

I appreciate your civility throughout this discussion. Thank you.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

"Hyatt implies by his actions Y2K was a hoax" is a hell of a lot different from "Hyatt admits Y2K was a hoax." I repeat: If Lasley cannot produce a statement from Hyatt on which his accusation is based, then I am wasting my time in further discussion on this subject. Implication is not admission by a long stretch.

I do not wish to waste more time and shall not return to this thread. If Lasley comes up with a credible statement showing Hyatt actually admits Y2K was a hoax, please start a new thread.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), January 13, 2000.

It lives on!!!!My mind is made up!! Don't confuse me with facts.

-- meme (memetracker@home.com), January 13, 2000.

Yup, it was a hoax alright. The author forgot to add co-conspirators such as Lawrence Gershwin of the CIA, The guy from GOA, John Koskinan, Senator Bennett and Congressman Horn, and... let's see... who else was in this damn conspiracy? Ah! yes... Chuck Lanza of the MIAMI-DADE office of emergency management, Most of Great Britain's government as well as Australia's, Russ Kelly, Dale Way, Paula Gordon and ME!!!!! YES ME!!!

I encourage people to prepare!!! What a dork I am! What an evil man! I decieved my family and friends and convinced them to prepare 2 to 3 weeks of emergency food and water!

Give me a break. Conspiracy therories are flying RIGHT and LEFT. This truly is millennial madness.

At worst, Ed Yourdon and Mike Hyatt were wrong. At best, they tried to warn us of a real problem that may yet rise up to bite us. Perhaps the y2k threat and the embedded chips problem was misunderstood and greatly exaggerated. To imply that it was a conspiracy is just as paranoid and idiotic as implying that the govenment and big business conspired to lie to us and cover up a y2k "disaster."

Yk2 has obviously brought out the worst in many people.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

Who are the sheeple?? Good financial planning supercedes y2k. http://www.americanwasteland.com/y2kmodels.html

-- hu (A@m.n), January 13, 2000.

Whatever, when Hyatt's site comes back up (I can't seem to get to it at the mo) I will be curious to see whether the article in question has been dropped.

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Hyatt and Anderson were having dinner together? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

-- (busybody@inquiring.mind), January 13, 2000.

Anybody who would put any credence into the junk that this lawyer posts on his americanwasteland.com probably believes the Hillary has alien space baby types of story. Get a life!

-- rumdoodles (rumdoodles@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

The connection of the router to the server is down. They are working on it now. It will be back up as soon as it gets fixed.

As far as this story goes. There is some mis-information given that may change the premise of this author's idea. Karen Anderson lives in Tennessee within miles of Hyatt. Not sure about Mr. Sanders. Nothing unusual about dining with friends and close neighbors is there?

Richard, I'm surprised to see you still here reading and posting. You must miss us all!! Y2K is an addiction that's hard to break isn't it? Best to you over there in England.

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Anyone maligned in that article should immediately visit their attorney and file a libel suit against D. Marty Lasley, the purported author of the published work, which clearly libels all mentioned therein.

Fabrications, calumny, innuendo and defamatory statements, such as these, should not go unchallenged.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

Loon, you are incorrect. As you can see from her very own bio, "Karen and her family moved from the D.C. area to Texas in 1990. She and her husband, Steve, have been married for 23 years and have two teenage daughters. They also have a Wheaten Scottie dog named McDuff (who's cute but not the brightest dog in the world!). They are members of Colleyville Presbyterian Church (PCA)..."

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

OH MY GOD, you mean those people actually EAT! What is the world coming to! LOL... Marty Laisey is an IDIOT and he's proven it with this editorial... IF he has something of interest to say to the world, why doesn't he DO it and stop beating a dead horse issue. Because he CAN'T! What a concept--actually GIVING something positive to the world. Man of God-HA. gimme a break! He is NOTHING less than a self-appointed BULLY with NO redeeming purpose.I personally hope he burns in his Christian hell.

Some people CAN'T read an article before making ASSES of themselves in reply. Other people yearn for fame and cannot achieve it on their own merits (tooo STUPID) so they attack others hoping to make a name for themselves. (insert picture of Laisey).

The only use I have for this editorial is tearing it into reasonable strips for bathroom tissue replacement!

-- hesawaste oftime (laffin@thejerk.com), January 13, 2000.


Well, surprisingly enough, there seems to be life in the "Y2K will (still) be a Big Thing" theory yet. It's true that my interests in other unconventional theories (such as "HIV is not the cause of AIDS", "Aspartame kills", and "Reptiles rule the earth") occupy most of my attention these days, but I still have a soft spot for Y2K.

Got trigger dates? :)

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

DINNER!!!! They had DINNER? Oh my heavens. If you had said lunch--but DINNER!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Sorry, Etta, you probably sing great, but you aren't reading the latest info on Karen Anderson, she lives about 20 miles from the Hyatts. I believe she still maintains a residence or at least has family in Texas.

The sleazy innuendos are to be expected from some, sadly, but from what I heard of this dinner, Michael Hyatt's wife and five daughters were also hosting the get together.

It is truly sad that some people can't feel important unless they are trying to tear someone else down.

-- Dorrit (Dorrit@michaelhyatt.com), January 13, 2000.

No Etta.....I'm not wrong......you are. You must be reading some dated material. Next time get your facts straight before posting slanderous material.

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

So what Dorrit? There can be a hundred explanations of why she was in TN. None of necessarily support a "conspiracy therory." I agree with hesawasteoftime, the author of this article is an irresponsable idiot.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

Oops! Sorry Dorrit, I intended to direct my comments to Etta.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

I'm sorry, Loon. Perhaps it would be easier to get my facts as straight as yours if you would post links, as I do. I was basing it on her own bio.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.


I think the responsible thing to do before posting would be to have emailed Karen or Hyatt to verify where they live before posting this incorrect theory story. Not all information comes with a link. Some times all you have to do is ask.

-- LOON (blooney10@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Loon, you're right. I'm sorry.

-- Etta James (ej@umkc.edu), January 13, 2000.

Hoax? HOAX?? Y2k was not a 'hoax.'

-- Critics should choose their (terms@more.carefully), January 13, 2000.

Hold on there Etta! As you can see by the response to your posting of the Hyatt article, there are 2 or 3 different camps going here:

(1). The folks that agree with the mainstream attitude regarding Hyatt's shamefull activities as a Christian fear monger and preparedness supply saleman. Now is the time to call these charlatans to task for their fleecing of the weak of mind.

(2). Those such as 'Dorrit' who are simply part of the Hyatt scam team and will shill whatever line that Hyatt instructs them on. Pathetic little pimps that Hyatt uses for his own financial gain.

(3). The morons that Hyatt, North, Yourdon and others have brainwashed and are much too stupid or embarrased to admit they were decieved. This is the group that will suffer the most when their gurus flee and the reality of Y2K smacks them upside the head.

Group number 1 will make sure that these Y2K pimps don't run off with their scammed assets without accountability. For those that continue to support these low-lifes your punishment is your own stupidity.

-- Time2 (pay@the.piper), January 13, 2000.


FEMA Urges Consumers To Keep Y2K Preparedness Items

While the Y2K bug didn't bite, the preparations Americans made just in case are still valid. FEMA Director James Lee Witt is encouraging those who bought bottled water and extra food, batteries, flashlights and other equipment in anticipation of Y2K problems to keep the items on hand.

"FEMA recommends that families always have a disaster supply kit that contains items you'd need if services were unavailable for a few days," said Witt. "Those families that prepared for Y2K were doing the right thing whether those supplies were needed over New Year's or not."

Some news outlets have been reporting that people are returning batteries, flashlights and generators, among other Y2K preparedness items.

"Being prepared for a winter storm, a hurricane or earthquake is good policy," Witt said. "We congratulate those who prepared for Y2K and urge them to begin the new year prepared for any eventuality."

Witt added that those who bought more food than they can easily store, might want to consider donating it to area food banks.

Disaster Supply Kit Information

Updated: January 6, 2000


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 13, 2000.

Well....here's my 2 cents on all this...

In a message dated 1/6/2000 5:04:24 PM Central Standard Time, Chris.Rohrs@sf.frb.org writes:

<< Subj: Re: [uk-bcp] FYI - Millennium Bug prophet receives death threats. (reply) Date: 1/6/2000 5:04:24 PM Central Standard Time From: Chris.Rohrs@sf.frb.org (Chris Rohrs) To: SMeyers33@aol.com

Reference: Posted 05/01/2000 4:00pm by Thomas C. Greene http://www.theregister.co.uk/991231-000005.html

Thanks, Steve I finally found it. "Defrocked Prophet of Y2K Doom" really bothered me because de Jager has never been a doom prophet. Guess they wanted to ring a few people's bells.


You are welcome Chris......

Yes, very disturbing that some individuals can find nothing better to do, other than to tear down someone who is so intelligent, and more so, obviously a very caring person. He seemed to miss that about De Jager.....*and all the other* precise, brilliant, caring people who gave Y2K the serious attention it deserved. They did their very best, they were honest; they did real work, hundreds if not thousands of hours...because they cared.....and *that* is what counts.

So few are able to admit that the central problem with Y2K were the *unknowns*....NOT what we 'knew' about it. We were all quite lucky....at least so far (no major chemical or nuclear accidents)...that was my prime concern, above all others. Like I said, "Who needs to try to dodge *those* icebergs...when there are already so many other potential Y2K problems to navigate? It would only complicate matters that much worse."

Obviously, the idiot that made that statement about De Jager had no comprehension of what a Y2K breakdown would mean....in terms of human suffering, here or elsewhere. Or its implications for social instability...a very ugly, hurtful thing...(care to visit Russia or Calcutta today?)...and/or greatly accelerating existing ecological problems. What folly.

At best, 'sophisticated egos reduced to intellectual sword fighting'...devoid of human compassion and completely missing the negative potentials involved in Y2K. Very upsetting that someone could 'shoot from the hip' and (attempt to) discredit someone of the caliber of De Jager, and by implication, all the others working at his 'level' as well. Then threaten him? How encouraging, no? To anyone who still has a brain, or a shred of Heart left in them, this individual only draws attention to themself and how much is lacking within...they are saying very little about de Jager, and a great deal about themselves.

Sorry I'm a bit upset here, but I am. For so many to have worked so hard to insure the safety of Humanity...only to have other *very* small people take pot shots at them...is disgusting. That all the years of focused effort...could be reduced to "eat crow in public" because we *didn't* have a disaster?? Are these people insane? Unbelievable.

It makes me think of Rudyard Kipling's "IF"

'If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools....'

That about sums up my view of the individual who saw *nothing* of value or benefit in what De Jager and many others did. They missed what is most important about 'the Man' as a human being...and all he did, his contributions. We are quite lucky to have the De Jager's, Gordon's, Kappleman's, Yordon's, Barnett's, Jim Lord's, Koskinen's, David Spinks/UK, Dale Way, etc. and *so* many others who helped get us this far. Yes, even Gary North deserves much credit, even if only as "Devils Advocate" to make people stop and think twice. He did. Gary North is a brilliant individual and a straight shooter; much insight, much excellent analysis; very hard working, dedicated, caring individual. He certainly is nobody's fool. Gary played 'the part' very few have the guts or tje brains to pull off. He didn't cause the problems...he tried to solve them. That takes a lot of caring...that is what I see about the man.

Everyone did their part and made a difference. North got many people to prepare...and had the situation turned out differently, his work would been seen in a very different light today. They seem to miss the connection between those who kept the pressure on...and how much *did* get accomplished; (more than what most expected it seems). Yes, any informed person knows very well we are not out of the woods yet...still more hills and valleys to traverse before we 'Know' we are in the clear. We are not at that point yet...only 1 week into Y2K. There is still more to come it seems; let's hope it's manageable.

I would much prefer that people were "over concerned" and erred on the side of safety, spent extra money, etc....than some half-ass approach which could have resulted in incomprehensible levels of suffering for millions...had the pressure not been on continuously. How people can miss that..is beyond my understanding.

In my view, hats-off and kudos to all those who cared enough to do everything they could, individually and collectively, to insure the safety of so many. We are all very fortunate (so far) and *that* ought to be the understanding that comes out of this "Y2K thing".

What about the he individual efforts AND the cooperation which took place...world wide. When is the last time Russia & the US sat down together to make sure their nuclear weapons didn't go off at each other? How did all that get lost...what...because 'we *didn't* have a massive breakdown' on Jan 1? Y2K helped us realize we are all in this together...and that we depend on each other, and that we need each other....how could that recognition not have significant, lasting value in our fractured world? To ignore all that and more.....and then tear down the very people who worked tirelessly to cover all bases? My, aren't we an enlightened species...

Actually, Y2K was a good 'practice run' for the ecological problems we are now facing, which arguably make Y2K look quite 'trivial' in true context..(see below)...if only they would open their eyes. The information is there, but who knows if they have the emotional guts to look at it for what it is, and not go back to sleep.

Sorry for all my opinions, but that's they way I see it, based on thirty years of comprehensive, global-environmental research. The data on the environment speaks for itself...doesn't need me or any 'authority' to 'validate' it. It's there, and we better face up to it like we just did with Y2K. This is not the 'end' of our problems which need solving...only the beginning.

Anyone who cares to argue that one.....would be a certified fool.

For a short briefing, see:

http://www.bashar.com/GSP/rachel.htm http://www.bashar.com/GSP/sciwarn1.htm. http://www.bashar.com/GSP/articwarm.htm http://www.bashar.com/GSP/water.htm http://www.bashar.com/GSP/oceans.htm http://www.arkinstitute.com/htmls/update.html http://www.bashar.com/GSP/treedying.htm http://www.bashar.com/GSP/butterfly5.htm http://www.chem-tox.com/chlordane/default.htm http://www.trufax.org/fluoride/isfrextracts.html http://www.foe.co.uk/camps/indpoll/0198ape.htm http://www.bashar.com/GSP/erthstat.htm http://www.sierraclub.org/cafos/map/index.asp http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97jul2/29jul-radioactive2.html http://www.bashar.com/GSP/chernobyl3.htm

I invite anyone to read *all* the articles, take them *as a whole*...and put forth their 'assessment' of "what it all means" as far as "infrastructure problems". Good luck..(smile)...because we are going to need it even more than what we have just seen with Y2K. It will be quite interesting to see how many "experts" will still be standing after Y2K, or...if they truly learned anything about 'infrastructure threats', or... if it was just well- intentioned "academic posturing"...specialists lacking true context, depth and comprehensive analysis. How convenient. Denial is just such a wonderful thing.

The only problem with 'seemingly making it through' Y2K....is that we probably will not really learn anything lasting from Y2K, and continue unabated, pedal-to-the-floor, racing towards ecological disaster as we have been...under the false impression that we are so smart...."Now, we can lick anything." What a dangerous illusion...and lost opportunity to really "focus up" about the truth of our present global environmental situation: Our planet is dying....and we are pretending (or are being told) that nothing is happening. Uh huh. (My, what a brilliant species...so smart.) Think we can fix those problems as easily as a four digit date field? Keep dreaming.

I like Robert Dean's assessment: "If you are not concerned about these issues, then you are simply uninformed."

and "Why are these issues so important?"......Make no mistake: it's because one of the things at stake...is the future of Planet Earth...."

(Contrary to popular myth, there are real solutions IF we got down to it with the same focus as Y2K, we might even surprise ourselves...and 'make it.' see http://www.bashar.com/GSP/door- solution.htm

In very short order...we'll see how much we really learned from all this, or if 'sailing through Y2K' (as so many now think)...actually turns out to be 'a curse in disguise'. Maybe if things had broken down a bit more...we might have directed our attention to the other threats to our True Infrastructure...our bio-sphere...and Man's destructive impact on it, pursuing short-term profits for the few, at the painful expense of the many.

Those are the real issues, now that we are past the Y2K '10 yard line'. 90 yards to go before we reach the finish line.

Let's hope we care enough about ourselves, each other, and future generations...to get the job done. We are way behind schedule as it is. Any doubts? Read the above articles and, please, show me where I'm wrong.

Best always,

Steve Meyers Global Strategies Project http://www.bashar.com/GSP SMeyers33@aol.com

-- Steve Meyers (SMeyers33@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Also see this thread:

"Hyatt's Reponse to D. Marty Lasley"


-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 13, 2000.

What comes to my mind is this:

"The punishment of self-deception...is paid within."

"And wherever Mr. Lasley goes.....that's where he finds himself. And that is punishment enough."

Amazing that the only way some people know how to prop themselves up....is by tearing down others around them, and usually, instinctively...someone who has more character...

Wilhelm Reich had great insight on 'why' and 'what kind' of people are predisposed to do such hurtful things. see:

"The Murder Of Christ In Giradano Bruno" "Listen Little Man" "Sex-Pol"

(Etta: please re-read lines 2 and 3 above)

Maybe we could find things to say that bring the best out of people, instead of the worst.

PS. thanks Linkmeister...

-- Steve Meyers (SMeyers33@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

re: all this handwringing & whining & Y2K backlash

Firstly, what is meant by "Y2K was a HOAX"?

Given that Y2K means just about anything you want these days, what facet of the past 5 years was a hoax?

Y2K, by my definition,use & understanding, is about the long standing habit of humans to be lazy, understand context & use two digit years.

The Michael Hyatt/survival food peddlers crowd was just jumping onto the available bandwagon as it went by. Nothing wrong with that. It's the American way. If the crowd demands snake-oil, sell 'em snake-oil.

Can we seperate Y2K (the software mismanagement issue) from the Millennial Madness (The Rapture/End Times/Apocolypse/whatever) junk.

Do please remember that FUD (feat, uncertainty & doubt) has a loooooong standing tradition in the sales process. The guy (name forgotten) that founded National Cash Register & trained Thomas Watson , Sr taught his folks to sell with fear. The primary pitch for going to expensive mechanical cash registers was to the owners fear that his clerks had their hand in the till... so the pitch was the machine would allow the owner to closely monitor the cash drawer.

The pity with the confusion of Y2K (one occurance) and Millennial Madness (several occurances) is that no one in the established media ever took the time to seperate the two.

For the media, "Planes to Fall from Sky" makes a wonderfully catchy soundbite... the fact that no one ever said it, except in the negative is just simply forgotten.

-- David Eddy (deddy@davideddy.com), January 13, 2000.

More insights on all this...posted on Roleigh Martin's listserve

>------- >Dear Group;

>With regard to the frequent incidents of post-Y2K anger turned >on those of us who were attempting to help communities and others >prepare for whatever eventualities Y2K would bring, here is one >explanation of the interpersonal dynamics that might be helpful in >understanding the phenomenon. > >Doug Stewart >________________________________________________ > >POST-Y2K ANGER: THE KARPMAN TRIANGLE STRIKES AGAIN > >Along with the puzzling smoothness of the Y2K transition, one >of the more perplexing Y2K social phenomena is the turning of the >those who prepared on those who urged them to prepare in the first >place; i.e., anger directed at those whose basic intention was to >help. In psychological terms we say the Victim has turned on the >Rescuer. >In Transactional Analysis this dynamic is termed the Karpman >Triangle, after Stephen B. Karpman, who originated the concept of many dramatic events being played out by the roles of Victim, Rescuer, and Persecutor. In this case, the threat of Y2K disruptions was the Persecutor, preparation advocates were the Rescuers, and many of the populace perceived themselves to be Victims (of Bill Gates, the government, greedy businesses, 3the hoax,2 etc.)

>The drama of the Karpman Triangle occurs when the rescue is >apparently completed: the roles change and the Victim turns on the >Rescuer. What we9re now seeing is the former Victim (now the >Persecutor) accusing the former Rescuer (now the Victim) of all sorts of nefarious doings. Smooth and surprisingly innocent Y2K has now become the Rescuer, lauded by the new Persecutors as 3See, there was no problem, you fakers!2

> As many of you know, this drama was predicted by the Civic >Prep Task Force at least a month before the roll-over. Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon trait of human nature. It became so prevalent in our litigious society, in fact, that it led to the passing of the Good Samaritan laws - doctors and nurses were no longer stopping to assist at accidents for fear of being sued by the rescued victims and what that was doing to their liability insurance rates.

>The causes of this role-reversal dynamics have long been >debated in psychological circles, and there is no clear-cut answer. >It may be the embarrassment of needing to be rescued in the first >place; i.e., the unwillingness to take personal responsibility for the >situation and lashing out at the closest target, the Rescuer. A >version of this may be that the victim wants to blame somebody - >anybody - for a threatening situation, and again the Rescuer is >handiest. It is also predictable that the role shift always occurs >AFTER the rescue is complete and the threat is over.

>Being attacked by the apparently rescued Victim is often a >shock to the unsuspecting Rescuer, who typically responds in >amazement, 3But I was only trying to help!2 And so they were.

>Is there a defense for the maligned Rescuer-cum-Victim? No >logical defense, because the attack is emotion-based. Responses >therefore range from turning the other cheek to questioning if in fact the former Victim is now at least somewhat better off for having been rescued, to explaining how you feel about being attacked for having attempted to do a good turn. Don9t expect much of a change of heart on the part of the new Persecutor, however, for in this drama, emotions run deep and logic runs shallow.

>How do I know? The former managing editor of the newspaper >for whom I wrote a pro-bono Y2K column for a year has now urged the >publisher to 3pillory Stewart in print - he took up all that valuable space and nothing happened!2 Fortunately, the publisher9s cooler head has prevailed.

>The dynamics of the Karpman Triangle can make for powerful >drama, strong films, suspenseful novels . . . but it can be startling and dismaying when it happens to you.

>After all, you were just trying to help. > > > > >* * * >Question from a reader: "The only thing is... how long does it take for the victim-turned-persecutor to come around? (Translation= how much longer do I have to wear this armor?)" > >Answer: How long does it take the Victim-cum-Presecutor to give up >the new role? No simple answer to that one, I'm afraid. It depends >upon a) how deep the emotions are /were running, b) how forgiving is basic nature of the new Persecutor, c) is the blaming a convenient cover for a deeper set of emotions that aren't so easily made public, d) how soon they're distracted by a new situation-du- jour, e) how the new Victim responds to the blaming (in their dismay, do they add fuel to the fire?), or f) all of the above. In other words, there are a lot of independent variables.

>Perhaps the best response is to just drop the armor ("Look, >I'm defenseless!"), smile demurely, and respond gently,

"Hey, I was just trying to help." > Good luck! >

-- Steve Meyers (SMeyers33@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Thanks Steve Meyers! You've made our day! Great posts. We see this "turning on" reaction all the time in Hospice. The patient comes back to thank us after they have passed over, while the family screams that we "gave too good a care and the patient lived too long."

The heavenly thanks makes it worth it! :-)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), January 13, 2000.

Outside of a dozen or so people on the internet, no one really cares about Hyatt. I've read a tremendous amount of material on Y2K, but I can't recall reading anything by Hyatt. I really don't think he had that much influence on anyone. As far as selling goods to people that they don't really need, that is what marketing in this country is all about. People spend billions of dollars each year on things they don't really need. Hyatt is really an insignificant player.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

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

...anger directed at those whose basic intention was to help. In psychological terms we say the Victim has turned on the Rescuer.

Unless we have reason to believe that someone was actually convinced to prepare, and did so, I would tend to believe that those who are complaining about having been missled now are mostly (if not exclusively) polly trolls in disguise. I have not yet seen anyone whose handle I recognize calling for appologies on their own behalf. So far, the people I've seen attacking those that they perceive as "leaders" are ones who say that they are doing it on behalf of "victims" that they claim are too embarassed to speak up for themselves. Thus, the mainstream story of the day becomes a supposed groundswell of resentment by "doomers," that does not even begin to exist.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 13, 2000.

Dancr, I think you may be missing the point here. People that perceived major problems resulting from the Y2K Bug, for the most part, populate this forum. Their thoughts and actions were heavily impacted by the writings of Yourdon, Hyatt, North. Etc. Even so, the overwhelming majority gave Y2K little or no attention and many found their way onto this forum to deride the foolishness and question the motives of these so-called experts and gurus. Now that these clowns have been exposed for the money grubbing scum that they are, many are demanding that they be held accountable. Why is that you say? The very fact that you would pose this question confirms your membership in this weak-minded group that would follow anyone that can articulate a message, be it valid or not. The fact that these folks made a lot of money by scaring you with false predictions seems to bother you not. I suspect that most intelligent people are offended by your stupidity and just plain cant help themselves from commenting. What can be next?

-- Time2 (pay@the.piper), January 14, 2000.

The fact that these folks made a lot of money by scaring you with false predictions seems to bother you not.

A lot of economists and meteorologists make a decent living in spite of 'false predictions.' False predictions do not automatically mean there was an intentional scam.....

-- It's not what you do, it's *why* (you@do.it), January 14, 2000.

Check Lasley's website now - he posted a copy of Hyatt's response (see several posts above this thread), and proceeded to draw his very own special conclusions.


-- hiding (behind@rock.com), January 14, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ