On the BOHICA thread, in response to whether we should concern ourselves with the possibility/probability of a y2k and oil induced recession/depression:

Denial really is the way to go, from both an economic and a mental health standpoint.

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 16, 2000.

Y2K Pro couldn't have said it better himself.

-- Pondering Pontificator (@ .), February 17, 2000

Answers

Ah, but Y2K Pro (from what I can tell) probably wouldn't have said it as briefly or as politely. At times, politeness seems in short supply on this forum.

Recession is *always* a possibility; always has been and always will be. I just can't personally justify doing a lot of "preparation" at the current time, given that preparation is not likely to help me in a recession and I just don't forsee any sort of overall social and economic collapse.

I had always thought there was room on this forum for people who believed that Y2K was a real problem, didn't think it was a hoax, thought remediation money was well spent, but didn't think the problem was "unfixable" or would cause any widespread disruption. In other words, the BITR people should also be entitled to express an opinion on this forum. After all, so far, the BITR view seems to have been correct. It is possible to be interested in Y2K and its problems without being a TEOTWAWKI doomer.

And, I'd nevere criticize anyone for being generally prepared; disasters happened before Y2K and will happen in the future. I just don't view the likelyhood of such a catastrophe occuring as being high enough to justify extensive preparation. Indeed, I've personally benefited from the "doomer" viewpoint. I spent this New Years in Cozumel, Mexico. Had a great time. Flights were cheap ($200 round trip from Minneapolis), hotels were readily available, and the dive sites were not crowded. I blame it all on the Y2K scare.

But, fair's fair. I'll make you a deal. There is always a small chance that you'll be right and that something terrible will happen in the near future. If, indeed, this year finds me huddled in the cold and dark, surrounded by looters and down to my last round of ammunition (which I will be saving for myself), in the midst of a worldwide depression, I will use the last remaining battery power in my laptop and cell modem (assuming the lines are still up)to send you an email stating I am very sorry I doubted you.

I'll do so . . . IF you'll also admit that perhaps the Y2K thing got a little overblown and that there is a high likelyhood that many (if not most) of the problems posted on this forum recently probably have little to do with Y2K

Fair enough?

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 17, 2000.

E.H.,

This is exactly my viewpoint, and I've been stating similar things since I've found this forum. Thanks for the post.

BTW, I've been to Cozumel 4 times - great place, where did you stay? I couldn't take advantage of the low air fares over rollover weekend, had to work, but would have loved to go back again. It's pretty tough to get tired of. :^)

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 17, 2000.

[LadyLogic leave--you've been banned here for prior spamming attacks--Sysop]

-- (whispering@softly.here), February 17, 2000.

E.H. (and Bemused), Greetings from a "Doomer". I've been to Cozumel twice, drift diving on the reef is great fun. I do believe in preparing for an economic downturn. This is not the easy "way to go" from an economic standpoint if the economy continues to plow forward. Lost potential gain from tech stock investment is a strong motivator to increase debt for most people. I am doing it the "hard way" by putting my money and efforts into physical assets (agriculture). Simple living is not "in style" for most people, they will ignore any signs of trouble in their unsustainable lifestyle till the very end. "IF you'll also admit that perhaps the Y2K thing got a little overblown and that there is a high likelihood that many (if not most) of the problems posted on this forum recently probably have little to do with Y2K." Sure, no problem. I've posted quite a few articles, almost none were specific to Y2K. I still think that it is too early to give the "all clear" just yet for "possible impacts" from Y2k code problems. I am very glad you are trying to set the tone of discussion back to a "balanced response". Both "camps" should try to follow your lead.IMHO

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

Anyone else have a suggestion?

Yes, I have a suggestion for all of you who think Y2K is over: since this is a Y2K forum, I suggest that you leave and don't come back. After all, why should you be here? It's over, isn't it?

As long as you hang around here, you must think that it really isn't over, regardless of your statements to the contrary. Of course, I don't expect you to leave, but you can prove me wrong very easily: just go away.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 17, 2000.

-- Steve Heller,

I'm beginning to discover that language such as that in your post is a good way for me to evaluate who's sincerely concerned/interested about Y2K and who's from the tinfoil hat crowd. It appears that you can identify the real hard cases because they divide everything (and everyone's opinion) into black and white -- you either don't believe in Y2K problems at all, or believe that the world as we know it will end soon. Any minute now. If not that minute, then the next one. Or maybe by the end of the year. Or something.

There actually are people who were and are interested in Y2K problems, believe that problems still exist, but don't believe that the societal or economic impact is going to be catastrophic. If you wish to believe in the "death of a thousand cuts" or whatever, that's just fine. After all, you apparently made a few bucks off the crisis; more power to you. You can't, however, reasonably expect anyone and everyone interested in Y2K to share your rather fringe views.

As for TEOTWAWKI, well, if its that important to you, that's fine too. As we used to say in elementary school in such a situation "yes, yes, there, there, we believe you, we really really do."

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 17, 2000.

Y2K was, and is a non-event--a BITR--no big deal!!! Glitches happen all the time, Y2K or not.

I feel like a complete and utter fool for listening to a religious nut like Gary North and M.l Hyatt and getting out of the stock market. Serves me right for acting like a scared rabbit or a mindless, follow the leader, sheep. The amount of money we lost by getting out of the market in 99' could have supported us for a year and a half. My husband will never let me forget it. But his gibes are nothing to how bad I feel for being so fearful, ignorant and silly.

This has been a good lesson for me to remember: When you operate and act from a perspective of fear and doom and gloom, you are probably acting irrational.

However, I do not regret my food preps for this has changed my long term way of dealing with food. I don't have to make long lists anymore and shop so often.

But I vow to never listen to a religious nut like North, or Hyatt and the rest of the religious right nut crowd, who have been longing for a disaster so long that they now see a boogie man in every cloud and "the end of life as we know it" with every change in the weather, dooms day in every drop in the market, and gasoline hikes a precursor to The End!! Save me!! Save Me!!

Y2K Pro and Paul Davis had it right. Hey guys the doomers were wrong. I was Wrong!! Shit happens Y2K or not. So what? My electric power has only flickered once. Everything is fine, except that I'm a lot poorer after listening to a bunch of fools.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), February 17, 2000.

Both "E. H. Porter" and the anonymous coward who uses the fake email address "whispering@softly.com" illustrate perfectly, each in his own way, the polly mentality. Porter sets up a strawman argument that tries to tar me with the "we're all going to die soon" label, as though that were my current view, when in fact my comments on this thread are directed to those who think "it's nothing", not to those who think there will still be some impact of Y2K, of whatever magnitude.

Then "whispering" attempts to frighten me away from expressing my views by threatening my livelihood. Of course, I don't believe his claim to have convinced a manager at Fry's to remove my books from the shelves; why should I, when he provides no details? But even if he had been successful in this attempt, it would serve only to illustrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the pollys. Attacking someone else's livelihood for reasons unrelated to that livelihood is a despicable act. For instance, as much as I despise some very loud and filthy-mouthed pollys, I wouldn't dream of trying to get them fired from their jobs, as their rantings on the WWW have nothing to do with their ability to perform those jobs. Only a truly evil person would take such actions.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 17, 2000.

Gee gilda, it seems you're still listening to a "bunch a fools"...or have you just not figured out how to delete bookmarks yet?

You are the "fool" honeybuns...

-- (@ .), February 17, 2000.

Gilda:

Waaaah. Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the person who listens to the fool?

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 17, 2000.

Ah, but Y2K Pro (from what I can tell) probably wouldn't have said it as briefly or as politely. At times, politeness seems in short supply on this forum.

Well, this is true. You exercised a good deal more brevity and were much more polite. It is much appreciated. Y2K Pro is obssesive-compulsive to the point of needing professional psychiatric help. He's also blatantly rude to the point of needing a solid rap in the mouth. Recession is *always* a possibility; always has been and always will be. I just can't personally justify doing a lot of "preparation" at the current time, given that preparation is not likely to help me in a recession and I just don't forsee any sort of overall social and economic collapse.

If you've got only enough money to make the mortage payment and the power bill a food storage program would be an excellent thing to have. It's only a recession when some other fellow has lost his job. We all must accept the consequences of the decisions we make.

I had always thought there was room on this forum for people who believed that Y2K was a real problem, didn't think it was a hoax, thought remediation money was well spent, but didn't think the problem was "unfixable" or would cause any widespread disruption. In other words, the BITR people should also be entitled to express an opinion on this forum. After all, so far, the BITR view seems to have been correct. It is possible to be interested in Y2K and its problems without being a TEOTWAWKI doomer.

There should be room in this forum for opinions from both ends of the spectrum, provided they are expressed in a civil manner. The civility part seems to be where the rub lies.

And, I'd nevere criticize anyone for being generally prepared; disasters happened before Y2K and will happen in the future. I just don't view the likelyhood of such a catastrophe occuring as being high enough to justify extensive preparation.

General preparedness is exactly what I think most people should do. There were reasons to prepare long, long before the transistor was invented. Perhaps you don't foresee anything happening of a severe enough nature to make it worth your while to prepare but many others do. Only time will tell who was right and who was wrong. The news media has a story virtually every day of the year about someone somewhere (usually in the developed nations no less) who could have really used a preparedness program. To think you'll always be able to see a crisis or disaster coming in time to be able to prepare for it is to think you can prophesize the future. For myself, I've been alive long enough now to know that life is uncertain and that I have no talent at scrying with certainty what is yet to come.

Indeed, I've personally benefited from the "doomer" viewpoint. I spent this New Years in Cozumel, Mexico. Had a great time. Flights were cheap ($200 round trip from Minneapolis), hotels were readily available, and the dive sites were not crowded. I blame it all on the Y2K scare.

Glad you had a good time, the travel industry and those who make their living from it certainly needed your money. For myself, I had no sure idea what was going to happen which makes me very conservative considering that I have a wife and an infant child to be responsible for. With what appeared to be a large uncertainty factor concerning what would transpire when the date rolled over for me to have gone to Mexico with my family would have been very irresponsible. If things had gone badly I'd have been one more gringo with dependents in a nation whose language I did not speak and whose people would have no special reason to help me.

But, fair's fair. I'll make you a deal. There is always a small chance that you'll be right and that something terrible will happen in the near future. If, indeed, this year finds me huddled in the cold and dark, surrounded by looters and down to my last round of ammunition (which I will be saving for myself), in the midst of a worldwide depression, I will use the last remaining battery power in my laptop and cell modem (assuming the lines are still up)to send you an email stating I am very sorry I doubted you.

This year? Not next year or the year after? I'll take your wager. But rather than the Mad Max scenario you paint let us say a tornado at two a.m. in the morning (Albany, Georgia). Provided you survive your impromptu flying lesson you might just see me, or one of my colleagues when we come around to see if you're still alive, whether you need medical aid or just a warm dry blanket (my wife and I are CERT volunteers). Call it a hurricane instead (the Carolinas), a blizzard(Quebec), flooding (Texas), or an earthquake (California). Hell, even a meteorite (Tunguska, Siberia).

It needn't be this year, nor even the next, just sometime in the course of your life. You'll either be prepared or you won't be. Preparing won't guarantee you anything at all but it does improve your odds of a favorable outcome. Just call and tell me you've survived and that'll be good enough. Unlike some few really thougthless doomers I don't wish you ill nor wish to see anyone who would not prepare suffer because they didn't so long as they don't interfere with my looking after me and mine.

I'll do so . . . IF you'll also admit that perhaps the Y2K thing got a little overblown and that there is a high likelyhood that many (if not most) of the problems posted on this forum recently probably have little to do with Y2K

Fair enough?

-- E.H. Porter (just@wondering.about it), February 17, 2000.

No need for a wager to do that. Y2K was overblown by a good many who acted as if they knew with certainty what was going to happen when they had no more way of knowing than anyone else, doomer and polly alike.

It's all about risk aversion. Many percieved a potiential risk and acted to forestall it. The particular risk (Y2K) many were concerned about did not materialize and neither did their house burn down, nor their car get stolen nor did they fall ill. They still bought home, auto and health insurance and did not feel the money wasted. Already in the forty eight days this year has been with us some hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. alone have found themselves in circumstances where a preparedness program would have been a very good thing to have. The ones who did have one were damned glad they did.

Life is not certain. It is not given to us to clearly see all that the future holds in store. I've been cold, hungry and hurting and learned powerful lessons from the experience. Others have yet to learn theirs. I hope you never find yourself in a position to have to do so. If ever you do, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do to help you start your own preparedness program.

.........Alan.

The Providence Cooperative - free preparedness & survivalism FAQ's

http://www.providenceco-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), February 17, 2000.

A number of posters here want to pretend the fundamental issue is preparedness; perhaps for them it also has been.

But for me, I have no argument with being prepared. I believe in being prepared. I just think a lot of people were wrong about Y2K's effect on the state of the world, and of these, the extreme panic- mongerers such as Hyatt and Yourdon caused real upheaval in peoples' lives with their wrongness. There was a real undertone of fear- mongering in the way they presented Y2K (read the jacket blurb on TB2K or almost anything to do with Mr Hyatt and Mr North).

It's not the preparedness; it's the Y2K, stupid.

Now a great many, such as Mr Heller, want to malign "pollies" as if they had a pollyanna approach to LIFE, instead of crediting them for being right about the (lack of) impact of Y2K, and for putting Y2K where it belonged all along: a set of computer glitches in a much larger sea of computer glitches in a much larger ocean of general glitches. That's all I'm arguing for, and the perseveration on Y2K as an issue suggests a marked inability to learn on the part of some doomers, who, if they read their OWN past writings, would feel kind of silly.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 17, 2000.

That's all I'm arguing for, and the perseveration on Y2K as an issue suggests a marked inability to learn on the part of some doomers, who, if they read their OWN past writings, would feel kind of silly.

It seems to me it is you and the other pollys who are perseverating about an issue that by your own account is meaningless or at most inconsequential. Why do you care what "doomers" think, and why do you spend so much time and effort "debunking" them/us? If you really believe that Y2K is "over", then I suggest that you drop it (and this forum) and spend your time on something you consider important. If you don't follow this advice (as I doubt you will), then you are admitting that Y2K isn't over for you. Prove me wrong ... by leaving.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 17, 2000.

Mr. Porter:

Thanks so much for responding to this thread. When I saw the thread title I could only ask myself, "Who is Mr. Porter, and how can ANYONE frame MY mentality?"

Mr. Heller:

I've seen this "Why don't you just leave" theme of yours on several threads now. I don't know about the rest of the "pollies" on this forum...[note that I didn't even know I WAS a polly until labeled such by this forum]...but some of us have followed Y2k for a very long time. As Jose Miami once stated, the habit is perhaps harder to break than a caffeine addiction.

Unlike other habits, the "observing Y2k" habit will end naturally without any impetus on my part. Y2k fora have been dying left and right, limiting the options available. Even on TB2000 the topics presented are moving in a direction unrelated to Y2k. Some of those topics are interesting to me, and some of the posters on TB2000 are interesting to me.

Contrary to YOUR philosophy, I haven't looked at posters on TB2000 that saw Y2k unfolding in a pessimistic way and generalized on their entirety.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 17, 2000.

Contrary to YOUR philosophy, I haven't looked at posters on TB2000 that saw Y2k unfolding in a pessimistic way and generalized on their entirety.

Assuming this is true, then you are not one of the pollys I was talking about. I can't imagine why that's not obvious, but I guess it's not obvious to everyone, so I'll restate it more clearly:

If you are one of the pollys who keeps repeating "It's over", "Anyone who was pessimistic was expecting the end of the world", "You're all crazy for still discussing this dead issue", and similar statements, then you are invited to leave. If not, then not.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 17, 2000.

Mr. Heller, good question.

I have my own polly/doomer story to tell. Not going to do it here. Suffice to say, at the very end of everything, I'm trying to help - by lending a voice contrary to the doomsayers, knowing that this opposition has helped at least one particular doomer in the past.

Also, to the greater question of why I'm here - because, in the end, it's fun - the debates, the good, deep thinkers - On both sides of the issue.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 17, 2000.

Suffice to say, at the very end of everything, I'm trying to help - by lending a voice contrary to the doomsayers, knowing that this opposition has helped at least one particular doomer in the past.

If you really are trying to "help doomers", as you claim, then I suggest that you post a message telling those who are interested where they can meet you for "therapy". Of course, I doubt you will get any takers, but I could be wrong. In any event, taking your "therapy sessions" (if any) elsewhere will allow the rest of us to discuss Y2K without your unwanted "help". If we are "too crazy" to want your "help", then we are also "too crazy" to listen to your explanations of why we need it. Therefore, the conclusion is the same: you're wasting your time (and ours) here.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 17, 2000.

To All,

I REALLY believe that everyone has a right to his or her opinion. I appreciate responses by those who choose to disagree with eloquence and class. We may disagree, but we can seek to understand each other and communicate in a civilized manner.

I have wondered about the mentality of the offensive posters and spammers that plague this forum. The Y2K Pros and Doomers of the world. They may be teenagers trying to have fun by stirring things up, or they may be just plain adult morons. In an arguement or debate, when one must resort to four-letter words, my Mom used to dismiss the opponent as being afflicted with, "...poverty of language." Alas, we have a few needy ones here. But the real debates are "fun."

-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), February 17, 2000.

I don't mean to trivialize the debate by calling it "fun"... I'm just telling the truth. I think I like Heller and the others - I disagree with them strongly, but I like the fact that they dig in and argue. I think it sheds a good light on everyone involved in the debate when this can happen without childishness... But to tell the truth, some of the "childishness" is side-splittingly funny!

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 17, 2000.

Quick question for Steve Heller:

When you beg the pollies to "go away", so that this forum will remain pure and unsullied by rational discourse, do they get to take some air with them - or are you still rationing oxygen for the Chosen?

Thank you for posting such a moronic question and thus contributing to the well-deserved reputation of pollys.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 18, 2000.

A number of posters here want to pretend the fundamental issue is preparedness; perhaps for them it also has been.

But for me, I have no argument with being prepared. I believe in being prepared. I just think a lot of people were wrong about Y2K's effect on the state of the world, and of these, the extreme panic- mongerers such as Hyatt and Yourdon caused real upheaval in peoples' lives with their wrongness. There was a real undertone of fear- mongering in the way they presented Y2K (read the jacket blurb on TB2K or almost anything to do with Mr Hyatt and Mr North).

It's not the preparedness; it's the Y2K, stupid.

If it were clearly stated as such then most that post in response to such statements would keep their peace and not become involved. It's when broad terms such as "you doomers" are thrown about in a literarily careless fashion that many feel the need to defend themselves. You speak precisely and achieve clear communication. Many others who post here do not. Alternatively, it may be that they are speaking precisely because they have a hidden agenda that attacking North, Yourdon, Hyatt, et al is serving.

Many people saw a risk in the date rollover and acted to mediate that risk. You can say all you want that Y2K was overblown and in the case of certain individuals this is true. Many of us however never paid much attention to North, Hyatt, Yourdon, Heller, et al but did take much notice when FEMA, the Red Cross and many military, state and county emergency management agencies began to take it seriously. I'm a CERT volunteer myself and when all fifty states and the federal government activated their emergency management centers simultaneously for the first time in history we took note of that. Combine this with the non-Y2K reasons that many of us prepare and we developed (or already had) extensive preparedness programs. Many have been blindsided because of who they chose to heed and who they chose to disregard. It's commonly only after the fact that you can know for sure who was right and who was wrong.

I'll have to disagree with you - it IS the preparedness, not Y2K, stupid. Had the agencies and organizations I named above not taken the Millennium Bug seriously then the Y2K doom prophets you attack would not have had nearly so much influence. They'd have joined the group of doomsayers who have been around for years that have a certain small influence but never managed any wide scale effect. At least not until other, more mainstream organizations also begin to sound the same message.

Now a great many, such as Mr Heller, want to malign "pollies" as if they had a pollyanna approach to LIFE, instead of crediting them for being right about the (lack of) impact of Y2K, and for putting Y2K where it belonged all along: a set of computer glitches in a much larger sea of computer glitches in a much larger ocean of general glitches.

A broad brush castigation against the pollies much like has been made by the opposing side against the doomers and just as wrong. I know several long-time survivalists who never got worked up about Y2K because they didn't see it as a threat. I've seen many times more who fall into the polly camp who really do live that kind of lifestyle where they think nothing can go wrong and that the government will be right there for them to wipe their butts if something does go wrong. Every disaster we have in this country shows us plenty of these kinds of people. It IS the preparedness, stupid. If you don't need it for Y2K then you may need it for something else.

That's all I'm arguing for, and the perseveration on Y2K as an issue suggests a marked inability to learn on the part of some doomers, who, if they read their OWN past writings, would feel kind of silly.

-- I'mSo (lame@prepped.com), February 17, 2000.

True enough. North has his own agenda and Y2K was just another approach to it. Anyone not deliberately wearing blinders could see it too. For the rest the Y2K prophets they'll hopefully learn a lesson from it. I stopped trying to prophesize the future long ago and now speak of risks. Just risks, not certainties. There's a risk of hurricanes every year but no certainty that anyone will catch one. The same for ice storms, blizzards, earthquakes, floods, fires and every other kind of disaster. However, take enough low-probability risks and spread them over a period of years (the course of your life)and it approaches certainty that one of them will happen to you. At that time you'll either be ready or you won't. The consequences of whatever you did or didn't do will be all yours to deal with.

We are all responsible as individuals for who we choose to heed. I have no problem with disagreeing with someone whose message you don't agree with or that you think has been overstated. I do that myself. Just keep in mind, though, that in disagreeing with that message you're not at the same time inadverdently transmitting your own message that no one should prepare at all.

.........Alan.

The Providence Cooperative - free preparedness & survivalism FAQ's

http://www.providenceco-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.net), February 18, 2000.

I know I should not do this but the very sight of Steve Hellers name demands some input. For those of you that may be a little new to Y2K, Heller is the Crown Prince of moronic failed doomer predictions. The very fact this widely scorned idiot would even have the cajones to show his ugly puss in public shows how little self-esteem he has. IT professionals throughout the land have labeled this dummy for the fool he is and there should be a public groundswell to remove his books from retail shelves. Hellers insistence that all so-called pollies leave this forum is simply an attempt to remove his many detractors. Not going to happen you big time loser.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 18, 2000.

Rubble:

Thank you for displaying the polly "mentality" to its fullest. You would think that the non-vicious pollys (like Anita?) would be the first to complain about your behavior, but I guess anyone who attacks me is okay with them.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 18, 2000.

Hey, @ and haha, It doesn't bother me a bit to 'fess up. I'm undoubedly the biggest fool of all. I listened to fools, scare mongers, and religious nut, government haters, and it showed up some of my own insecurities. I felt the need to let the craving for "security, that dead thing," dominate my good sense.

I despise Gary North's religious nuttiness, and Michael Hyatt was out to sell as much goods as he could. I was the foolish goose, who believed the sky was falling, the power grid failing, the stock market crashing, the banks closing, and I now look back, wearing my unterrified glasses and drink a toast to the pollies for having more brains than I and the doomers on this forum ever had.

No I'm not blaming North or Hyatt for my stupidity. I was just an adult with more fear showing than brains. And people like North, Hyatt, etc., always preach to insecure idiots. like me, in times like this.

So blast away, I deserve it. But I'll be damned if I'll go around still slobbering over ever little glitch that happens just so I can hope to still be on the *right* side. I'm glad I still have a computer running and a warm house, with lights.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), February 18, 2000.

Gilda:

I'm happy to see you still around. I enjoyed you 6 months ago and still do.

Mr. Heller:

We [individually] reap what we sow. IMO, you CHOSE to believe that there are and have been "camp" mentalities wherein each camp defends/argues the statements of even anonymous posters if their words "fit/don't fit" the definition of the "camp" mentality. I've not seen this to be true, nor do I believe in it. You, as well as Pondering Pontificator chose to paint POLLIES with a broad brush in this thread. You chose to paint anyone who chose to post on the Debunker forum with a broad brush in other threads. IMO, people are INDIVIDUALLY responsible for what they've said in the past and what they say today.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), February 19, 2000.

IMO, people are INDIVIDUALLY responsible for what they've said in the past and what they say today.

Certainly. However, it is also true that the "debunking" board and "BFI" have been sites where incredible amounts of venom has been spewed against anyone who dared to question their "revealed truth" about Y2K. People who defend that behavior are scum.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 19, 2000.

Mr. Heller:

In YOUR mind, silence is "defending." In MY mind, silence is IGNORING. When one disapproves of venemous comments, produced by ANYONE, one only "flames the fire" by giving them more attention than they're worth.

As a poster on TB2000, Debunkers, and several other Y2k fora, as well as Csy2k, I saw what YOU wrote to these fora as well as the words of others. Venom was spewn EVERYWHERE on this topic as a technical problem grew into an emotional issue. There was VERY LITTLE consideration of the majority who chose not to engage in the "pissing contests" of the vocal minority. From what I've seen of you on the internet, Mr. Heller, you were one of the vocal minority who chose to let your emotions control your behavior. IMO, your assertions of silence demonstrating agreement are ludicrous, and your statement suggesting that I [mentioned by name] should somehow come to your defense as you reap what you've sown....even MORE ludicrous.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), February 19, 2000.

In YOUR mind, silence is "defending." In MY mind, silence is IGNORING. When one disapproves of venemous comments, produced by ANYONE, one only "flames the fire" by giving them more attention than they're worth.

...

IMO, your assertions of silence demonstrating agreement are ludicrous, and your statement suggesting that I [mentioned by name] should somehow come to your defense as you reap what you've sown....even MORE ludicrous.

Thank you for attacking me in the same message in which you stated that even disapproving of "venomous statements", much less making them, is inappropriate. It's clear that you IN FACT support those vicious attacks on me, although you try to hide this behind a smokescreen of verbiage. Why bother with the camouflage, now that you have joined in those attacks yourself? In any event, you have completely discredited yourself in the eyes of anyone who can reason logically.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 19, 2000.

Mr. Heller:

I NEVER attacked you. I simply stated that you've attacked others and I've seen those attacks...adding that your desire to draw the silent majority into a defense of those attacks was ludicrous.

I'm damned by you if I remain quiet and I'm damned if I express myself. You WANT me to come to your defense. I cannot with good conscience do this. IMO, you were as guilty of throwing stones as those upon which you throw the onus. What part of "reaping what you sow" don't you understand?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 19, 2000.

I'm damned by you if I remain quiet and I'm damned if I express myself.

No, you're damned if you are logically inconsistent, and not by me, but by the universe. If you are willing to ignore vicious attacks on me because "silence is not consent" and "it only stirs them up more to respond", then on the same basis you should also be willing to ignore my comment that I would expect you to object to these attacks. Of course, you haven't ignored that comment, and have destroyed your own argument in the process.

You WANT me to come to your defense. I cannot with good conscience do this.

No, I want you to behave rationally. If you aren't going to respond to vicious attacks on me, but ARE going to respond to my pointing out your lack of response to those attacks, then you have abandoned your "silence is not consent" argument, which would have implied that you would simply ignore my comment.

IMO, you were as guilty of throwing stones as those upon which you throw the onus. What part of "reaping what you sow" don't you understand?

It means "getting what you deserve". Thus, you think I deserve being viciously attacked by scum such as the original poster. In plain English, that means you approve of those scum or at least their behavior. Of course, I don't expect you to admit this, but anyone who has the slightest respect for logic and reason will be able to draw that conclusion.

I do have to correct one error I made in this thread: clearly you are not in the group of "non-vicious Pollys".

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 19, 2000.

Not quite consistent there yourself, Mr. Heller. On the one hand you ask that folks defend you from others. On the other you ask that I ignore your specific statement to ME. I only defend MYSELF, Mr. Heller, and so far [on this thread] you're the only one who has attacked ME.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 19, 2000.

Shhh:

LOL. I agree. This has gone on long enough. LOL again. Thanks for the insertion of humor. I'll now return to my "silent" status.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 19, 2000.

On the one hand you ask that folks defend you from others.

Wrong again, Anita. I never asked ANYONE to defend me, you included. I guess your reading comprehension is on a par with your logical ability.

-- Steve Heller (steve@steveheller.com), February 19, 2000.