I'm especially happy that you didn't have to deny YOUR OWN MOTHER sustenance, and WATCH HER DIE as you said you would do. (She did, after all, have the temerity NOT to prepare when you so instructed her){Perhaps someone with better IT skills than I can provide the link to Mr Milne's actual post}.

You were, Mr Milne, IMHO, quite mad then, and nothing has changed. Oh. Except YOU WERE TOTALLY & COMPLETELY WRONG. (almost forgot that..)

Actually,on reflection, I don't think you're truly mad - not in the accepted sense of the word. Just a nasty, grubby apology for a human being. But I'd better not say that lest I get deleted by others of your ilk.

-- Asking (Asking @aquestion.com), February 21, 2000

Answers

Well, thank you for sharing your resentment and vitriol with us this morning. Let's hope your day goes much better now that you've vented. Now, you didn't say--did you ruin yourself financially because you listened to Paul Milne? Or are you just ranting on behalf of unknown others you've heard about?

-- Have (a@nice.day), February 21, 2000.

No one pointed a gun to your head and forced you to read Mr. Milne's advice. Would you apologize to those you would have hurt if YOU were wrong?

-- ,-, (comma@dash.comma), February 21, 2000.

Look at the whiners STILL coming out of the woodwork, taking shots at Milne. Go on with your life, lest you become like Y2k pro, who apparently doesn't have one.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 21, 2000.

It's so nice to be wrong. Actually, I don't think I was. . . I believed y2k to be a risk that could adversely affect my family, so I did what I could about it. My friends knew I was preparing for the "manageable worst," so I did get a few smiles when the power stayed on, etc. The nice thing about it was - they were my friends before, they're still my friends now, and NOBODY tried to ridicule me for my opinions and actions. I had a 35KW LP generator on a trailer in the yard. Big and ugly dosen't even begin to describe it. Never had a complaint from the neighbors, though. They knew it would take care of me and the three houses next to me, too. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention? I paid $2,200 for it, used. Sold it for $4,800. Not too shabby, if I do say so myself ...................................... .................................................................... .................................................................... .........................................................

-- Magnolia (magnooliaa@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

As one who was splashed by the "cold water" of Mr. Milne's statements, I would have to disagree with your basic premise. He didn't lie, exaggerate or scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric and he certainly wasn't in it for the money. He's nobody's fool and a Survivor. People who say exactly what they mean are a rarity. Everybody has thought "what an idiot" at one time or another, but actually having the courage (honesty?) to say or write something like that is simply amazing. It offends most people to hear the truth.

Mr. Milne was wrong? We were ALL "wrong" about y2k. But there's more to it, isn't there? This isn't about Mr. Milne allegedly stating that he'd turn Momma away into the snowstorm (or whatever). Individuality, self-reliance and independent thought run counter to the egalitarian ideal, don't they? Anyone espousing such blatant "heresies" is a threat to the status quo.

From politicians who know what's best for us and a complacent, sheep-like citizenry, dear Lord deliver us...

-- chairborne commando (what-me-worry@armageddon.com), February 21, 2000.

Hey Asking,

Don't mistake Paul's style with his content. His message was simply that he was concerned and was taking precautions, perhaps you might want to do that too.

He scattered in a bunch of "buttheads, hubcaps, and bwahahahas". If your sense and sensibilities were offended, well, he comes from New Jersey and you know how those people are.

He wasn't giving anyone the "evil eye". He was saying that in his oh-so-humble opinion, it looked like others were engaging in un-safe behaviour.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), February 21, 2000.

Milne was wrong, but not sorry. The distinction is worth noting.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 21, 2000.

He didn't lie, exaggerate or scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric

LOL!

Okay, so what do you call the phrases

If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

or

The telltale sign will be when you are shovelling lime, into the hastily dug and shallow grave of the corpses of your children.

or

You'll be dead soon.

or

Yes, it won't be long now. Remember that while you are crying at the graveside.

Yeah, no exaggerations or hysteria there.

LOL ROTFLMAO

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

Asking, LOL, Pro, et al,

You know, it's very telling that either you don't quote or you carefully select and cut-and-paste, omitting the context. And you never include his other comments, opinions, etc.

Alas, when you're trying to "build a case" in trying to destroy someone, I guess that's what you do.

Why don't you guys,

A) Get a life, and

B) Make some positive contributions to the forum for once -- that is, if you're able.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

Milne is a sick, hateful human, who's main talent is spewing forth vile diatribe from the depths of his black heart. What is creepier still is that are those here that defend him only because he tows the company line here at TB2000, which has less-and-less to do with Y2K and being more-and-more anti-polly.

I'm surprised that while so many on this forum claim that this is "a community", and of "people helping other people" and a place where there is so much compassion, that a Paul Milne was welcomed into the fold rather than called out for being the vile denizen that he is.

One more thing: I keep hearing the same mantras, "I'm so glad I prepped," and "We/he/she didn't put a gun to anyone's head and tell them what to do." It gets old. The fact is that a lot of people here with minimal information decided that they "knew the truth" and would tell others what would happen without having actual information to back up their assertions. You told us how every government report and utility report was wrong, and how at every local Y2K meeting that the folks in charge were lying.

In actuality, it appears that the "disinformation" and "spin" came from places such as this forum, and especially from Gary North. Of course, no one here will own up to it and take any responsibility here for their distortions of the truth, of which there were many.

I'm considered a polly even though I myself prepped, with enough items for a couple of months. I did what was comfortable for me, and I didn't think that I had enough information to impose on others. I don't have a problem with people that prepped out of uncertainty. I do, however, have a big problem with those that decided they knew what was going to happen and told others that they needed to prepare, but now don't want to take any responsibility for what they told others. That is cowardice. And that happened a lot here.

Also, there are people that were hurt by prepping. A friend of ours took his in-laws to his place in the Upper Midwest. He had food for 2 years, thousands of rounds of ammo, etc. Anyway, his father-in-law had a stroke (in his 80's) and their were no hospitals within 45 miles and no major hospitals within 2.5 hours of where they were located. He died the first week of January. He was in poor health and it's possible that he may have dies anyway, but the lack of being in a place where he could receive adequate medical care gave him no chance.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 21, 2000.

You know, it's very telling that either you don't quote or you carefully select and cut-and-paste, omitting the context. And you never include his other comments, opinions, etc.

Actually, eve, it's very telling that you continually complain that Paul was quoted out of context even when people make clear to you what the context is. Here is the context so you can see for yourself. Just click on the links:

If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast.

The telltale sign will be when you are shovelling lime, into the hastily dug and shallow grave of the corpses of your children.

You'll be dead soon.

Yes, it won't be long now. Remember that while you are crying at the graveside.

Now you have the context, although I suspect you will STILL complain that he is being quoted out of context even when the context is staring you in the face. It's also very telling that you continually complain that we never include his other comments, opinions, etc. Why don't you include them then? Why don't you show us his good side since you seem to feel that he is being misrepresented?

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

I don't know Milne--- never read a thing he has posted BUT if you think Y2K is a non-event and over, you're very naive.

-- Kansas (knss@mailcity.com), February 21, 2000.

I'm bookmarking this thread. When the economic collapse comes later this year, we shall revisit this thread.

-- (@ .), February 21, 2000.

HUH? It is easy to predict disaster because disaster always comes sooner or later. And it is easy to predict economic disaster because it also comes sooner or later. The trick is to predict WHEN. Personally, I expect economic disaster this year sometime. But then I have been predicting it since the DOW got to 4000. But I know that sooner or later I will be right. It is a good feeling.

-- Richard C. Trochlil (trochlilbb@neumedia.net), February 21, 2000.

Richard:

You have a good feeling about economic disaster? Or do I misunderstand you? If you feel good about impending disaster, then you have a strange outlook on life. Why would anyone feel good about families losing their homes, increases in homeless persons, etc.?

Not accusing, just not sure what you meant by your post.

-- haha (haha@haha.com), February 21, 2000.

Interesting, lots of doomer-come-latelys around.

-- (just@n.observation), February 21, 2000.

doomer come lately

its a prerequisite of being a TBY2K poster, you must realise that

-- sir richard (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), February 21, 2000.

LOL,

I really appreciate that at least you're attempting to provide a context. Apparently you're not aware of at least two threads that I spent discussing some of these comments at some length. One of them is called "Re Paul Milne", which occurred sometime last fall, I think. I forget the other one right now (it's more recent), but Flint, Gregg, Bad Company, someone named "shovel", others and myself were involved. But I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to be continually involved in this stuff. Life is short, and there are other threads and issues that are far more interesting to me.

And it's still very interesting that you conveniently ignore his other posts. Seeing as you apparently have a lot of time on your hands, why don't you collect and read them all? Maybe then at least you'll have a hint of a smidgen of an inkling as to the complexity of a human being -- but, alas, probably not very much closer to really understanding Paul. Although I do understand the human desire (with some of us, anyway) to make superficial sweeping generalizations about people so that they can be quickly placed in a "category". But work on this --I trust that eventually you'll get over it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

I really appreciate that at least you're attempting to provide a context.

Glad you think so.

Apparently you're not aware of at least two threads that I spent discussing some of these comments at some length. One of them is called "Re Paul Milne", which occurred sometime last fall, I think. I forget the other one right now (it's more recent), but Flint, Gregg, Bad Company, someone named "shovel", others and myself were involved.

I am well aware of those threads, which is why I am aware that you continually complain that he is being quoted out of context even when the context is being presented to you.

But I'm sorry, I just don't have the time to be continually involved in this stuff. Life is short, and there are other threads and issues that are far more interesting to me.

Then why did you post here? You make an accusation with no basis in fact, and proceed to offer only insulting comments such as "Get a life." in response to our quotes. When asked to back up your claim that we are ignoring other posts of his, you provide NONE.

And it's still very interesting that you conveniently ignore his other posts.

What other posts am I ignoring?

Seeing as you apparently have a lot of time on your hands, why don't you collect and read them all?

Because you brought it up, eve. You are claiming that we are ignoring other posts that appear to demonstrate a different side to him. Why don't you collect some and show me where I'm wrong? It shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Although I do understand the human desire (with some of us, anyway) to make superficial sweeping generalizations about people so that they can be quickly placed in a "category".

You mean, like making a superficial sweeping generalization that we need to "get a life" because we disagree with your position regarding Paul Milne?

But work on this --I trust that eventually you'll get over it.

Yes, but will you?

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

LOL,

I should amplify my post above: If you do collect and read practically everything Paul's ever posted, I think you'll likely find that he just might not be the person you think he is. Not that you'll really understand him even then, mind you. But it'll be a good start for you -- kind of a "Paul Milne 101". And I do trust you'll find that exploring his posts overall will be even more interesting to you than what you're doing now.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

Another Polly Legend

"Also, there are people that were hurt by prepping. A friend of ours took his in-laws to his place in the Upper Midwest. He had food for 2 years, thousands of rounds of ammo, etc. Anyway, his father-in-law had a stroke (in his 80's) and their were no hospitals within 45 miles and no major hospitals within 2.5 hours of where they were located. He died the first week of January. He was in poor health and it's possible that he may have dies anyway, but the lack of being in a place where he could receive adequate medical care gave him no chance.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 21, 2000. "

Link Please!

-- justwondering (justwondering@tomanypros.com), February 21, 2000.

LOL,

I'll withdraw my comment that I told you guys to "get a life". Because apparently this is one of the things you like to do; it's an interesting part of your life already -- so there's really nothing to "get". Thus, I stand corrected here.

You say, "What other posts am I ignoring?"

None, ok? Gee, I guess you've just captured them all. Masterful piece of work!

Further, the accuser has the burden of proof. Right? So, we'll be waiting...but, wait! Since Paul apparently has never posted anything other than what you happened to select, and since there can't possibly be more to a human being than what he/she posts on a forum, then, it seems that...oh no, can it be? You win!! I guess Paul's just a mean ol' guy, through and through. (Hey, Paul -- I hope you're sittin' down while you're reading these posts...and not takin' it too hard.)

There, "LOL", feel better now?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

If you do collect and read practically everything Paul's ever posted, I think you'll likely find that he just might not be the person you think he is.

Why, what kind of person do you believe I think he is? I think that he is the kind of person who makes statements like the ones I've posted above. I see no reason why it should be necessary to read "practically everything" a person has ever posted in order to get a basic idea of what a person stands for. No eve, your accusation appears to be that we are carefully selecting quotes in an effort to make him appear in a bad light. I have indeed read many of his posts and have come to the conclusion that these quotes are, in fact, highly representative of his viewpoint.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree with this assessment. However, I do find it interesting that, given the opportunity to prove that these quotes are not representative of him, you have failed to provide any evidence. Instead, you simply continue to insist that I am in need of further education regarding Paul Milne's posts and that I should go and read "practically everything" he has posted in order for me to understand him better. Surely you wouldn't be simply trying to make me "go away" now would you? LOL

Still, since it appears that you have no intention of providing evidence that demonstrates where my representation is in error, please feel free to continue chiding me and telling me to "get a life." I'm sure it makes you feel much better to do so.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

Is LOL Pro in drag?

-- justwondering (justwondering@samedangeroustroll.com), February 21, 2000.

You say, "What other posts am I ignoring?"

None, ok? Gee, I guess you've just captured them all. Masterful piece of work!

I fail to see the need for sarcasm, eve. I never implied that I had captured all of his posts. I believe that what I captured was a representative sample. If you disagree, feel free to provide your own.

Further, the accuser has the burden of proof. Right? So, we'll be waiting...but, wait! Since Paul apparently has never posted anything other than what you happened to select, and since there can't possibly be more to a human being than what he/she posts on a forum, then, it seems that...oh no, can it be? You win!! I guess Paul's just a mean ol' guy, through and through. (Hey, Paul -- I hope you're sittin' down while you're reading these posts...and not takin' it too hard.)

This appears to be a reiteration of the same sarcastic comment you made above. Apparently, you believe that I am to prove that I have provided samples of the only posts he has ever made. I see no reason to prove such a ridiculous straw man argument. Once again, I provided what I believe is a representative sample. You are welcome to believe that it is flawed, or even that it has even been manipulated to appear intentionally harmful. However, you have yet to provide any evidence that this sample is inaccurate. And sarcastic comments, as entertaining as they may be, do not really count as "evidence."

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

Eve, how long have you been actively monitoring the posts on this forum? Here is the reason that I ask you this question. For the entire year of 1999 the great debate on TB2000 revolved around the two major camps: Doomers (predicting various degrees of Armageddon) and Pollies (opposing these views on the grounds that there would be little or no problems at the rollover). For months this raged on with Paul Milne (and others) leading the way for all doomers with his constant take on TEOTWOWKI. What you are failing to grasp is the backlash as a result of his very graphic predictions. For you to blindly support him is putting you in that group and open for scorn.

Mr. Milne made hundreds of these posts over many months and there should be no surprise over the reluctance of some to forgive him after one posting of admission that he was wrong. I personally admire anyone that will admit to error but Mr. Milne should expect some negative reaction. I suspect he is taking this all in stride and you might consider a similar course of action.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 21, 2000.

LOL,

You state at least twice that you have taken a "representative sample." Well, since a sample comes from a certain population, what population ("universe") did you take the sample from? And what sampling method did you use?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

"I don't know Milne--- never read a thing he has posted..."

-- Kansas (knss@mailcity.com), February 21, 2000.

This is priceless. There are quite a few newer posters here who do not know who Paul Milne is...nor care. Nor surprising, since I don't see Paul Milne here...do you? Paul Milne was never a frequent poster to this forum. These days he is a non-existent poster on this forum. Yet, the provacateurs must bring their disruption and derision to this forum by whatever obscure means necessary. TB2000 can morph and grow into a forum for alternative, in-depth reporting and opinion. Trolls cannot morph and grow into anything. They will try to fan the dying embers of the Polly/Doomer wars ad nauseum, because harrassing strangers on an internet bulletin board is what gives their empty lives meaning. It would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic.

-- (TrollPatrol@sheesh.now), February 21, 2000.

Italics off

-- (Out@damn.spot), February 21, 2000.

Sifting,

You misunderstand; I don't see myself as supporting Milne; I don't know him well enough enough to support him. I've read some of his stuff, which showed kindness and civility, as well as a hot temper and very "colorful" language. And when he gets hot under the collar, what is he reacting to? What was in the prior post? This is part of the context as well.

And then I see him stomped on; so I react to it. Maybe my reaction is premature --I don't know. But I have the feeling that many of the stompers don't know either. And this shows by their weak methods (e.g., cut-and-paste, out-of-context, etc.).

I do have to hand it to LOL, above, though. That was the first time that I have ever seen one of Milne's attackers at least offer to present a context.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

You state at least twice that you have taken a "representative sample." Well, since a sample comes from a certain population, what population ("universe") did you take the sample from?

The Usenet population.

And what sampling method did you use?

The method where I grabbed some posts.

I do have to hand it to LOL, above, though. That was the first time that I have ever seen one of Milne's attackers at least offer to present a context.

No, eve, it is not the first time. You were also presented the context in the threads you referred to above that took place some time ago. No doubt, in future discussions, you will continue to falsely insist that he is being quoted out of context. Perhaps you will continue to insult people and make sarcastic comments in leiu of contrary evidence also.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

Eve, thank you for your thoughtful response. I would suggest that this is but a small piece of the bigger picture regarding this unique forum. A tremendous amount of emotion was developed over many months and it would be unrealistic to expect this to dissipate in but a few weeks. Also, the opposing views brought forth here and fertilized on a daily basis will assure that the debates live on.

Troll Patrol seems to be suffering from the TB2000 selective amnesia syndrome. All good debates require opposing viewpoints and to label all those on the other side trolls shows a narrow band of rational thinking. True, there ARE a few so-called trolls on this forum and they can be found on both sides of the issues.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 21, 2000.

LOL,

Ok, I'll apologize for the irony that you saw as sarcasm. And my comment to "get a life", since that seemed to bother you as well.

How did you go about "grabbing some posts"? And approximately how many were in the Usenet population?

Your assertions that the full context was included in the prior threads are only that -- assertions. I invite all readers to read the threads and judge themselves. Can anyone help with a link?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

Eve, I could be wrong about this but Paul Milne was somewhat of a major doomer personality on the internet, and his statements were posted on a variety of forums and often brought to TB2000 as a cross- post or link. There can be no question as to his stated take on what was in store for all of us and his personal wishes as well. However, to the best of my knowledge, he did not engage in any Y2K commerce (Unlike Hyatt, North, etc.) so his accountability is much diminished in that regard. I guess you just had to be there.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), February 21, 2000.

Sifting,

Thanks for your input; your points are very well taken.

LOL,

I'll agree to try not to toss off any more "barbs" in your direction if you'll agree to quit complaining about them and focus only on the issues. By almost incessantly bringing them up it now appears you're trying to redirect the focus of the discussion. Is it because you think you're weak on the substantive issues? I've apologized for them; I hope we can move on.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

I don't know why someone even posted Milne's "I was wrong" thing on this forum, but I never understood why folks EVER cross-posted things Milne said to this forum. He usually only posted here when someone cross-posted something he'd stated there.

Milne posted to comp.software.year-2000. It's a newsgroup on the internet, Eve. The archives go back for YEARS, and Milne posted for MANY years there. You can review for yourself EVERY post he made by simply doing a search via Deja using comp.software.year-2000 as the forum and *fedinfo* as the author.

Is it important to do this research? It's certainly not important FOR ME, as I saw Milne's posts as they were made while I observed Y2k on the internet for several years. Is it important for YOU, Eve? I would think not, UNLESS you want to argue that the posts presented are out of context.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 21, 2000.

justwondering-

Unfortunately it's a true story, and not one that I heard through a third party. I can't prove it to you without giving you the guy's name and phone number in order for you to call him, and I'm not about to do that, for obvious reasons. I understand your skepticism, as there is a lot of stuff on forums in general that is presented as the truth when it really isn't, or certain items that can't be corroborated through news stories, such as what I mentioned.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 21, 2000.

Anita,

Isn't the burden of proof usually on the accuser? Or are you saying that I should assume he's a bad guy overall from these few cut-and- paste comments unless and until I can prove he's ok?

If the latter is the case here, and that's generally what's expected of me, then I might as well give up on this thread because I have neither the time nor the desire to go through this much material.

I do respect your personal opinion of the guy, though, as apparently you've read lots of his stuff, and you seem to be an honest person. And maybe your opinion of him would be dead-on target.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

To all,

This has been an interesting discussion for me; some very good input. Thanks, guys.

I've been in a "rapid post mode" for quite a while today, so for anyone who might be expecting another quick response, I'll be busy until sometime tomorrow morning. Hope to see y'all then.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 21, 2000.

I'll agree to try not to toss off any more "barbs" in your direction if you'll agree to quit complaining about them and focus only on the issues.

I am focusing on this issues, eve. The issue is that you believe that the quotes were taken out of context. I gave you the context, including the entire conversations in which the quotes took place. Did you read the context, eve? You also appear to believe that these quotes are not representative of Paul Milne. I believe they are. That is the issue.

By almost incessantly bringing them up it now appears you're trying to redirect the focus of the discussion. Is it because you think you're weak on the substantive issues? I've apologized for them; I hope we can move on.

No, eve, I do not think I am weak on the substantive issues. So far, I am the only one of the two of us who has provided the evidence and the context to back up my position.

Isn't the burden of proof usually on the accuser? Or are you saying that I should assume he's a bad guy overall from these few cut-and- paste comments unless and until I can prove he's ok?

It is my belief that what I have provided constitutes "proof." You apparently believe otherwise. That is certainly your right. However, the only "proof" you've been asked to provide are statements that you believe substantiate your position. You are being asked for no more than what I have already provided. Whether you wish to provide this is up to you.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 21, 2000.

CJS talks about Timebomb 2000, "which has less-and-less to do with Y2K and being more-and-more anti-polly."

I suppose CJS was trying to play peacemaker when he said on Gry North is a Big Fat Idiot board just a couple of weeks ago: "Look at the loyal following that Yourdon has created. He could take a dump in a plastic bag and probably sell it to the forumites by the ounce." http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/1961.html

CJS is a typical Biffy whiner. Biffy has turned into a TB2K-bashing board with a generous helping of LadyLogic tantrums/amateur counseling thrown in. And he has the temerity to criticize the content of THIS board???

-- Blast (from@the.recent.past), February 21, 2000.

LOL = Flint

-- Flint's back... (@ .), February 21, 2000.

Why does "blast" (AKA Old Git) feel the need to repost old stuff here? Are you trying to keep the doomer/polly/troll debate going?

Why don't you just let it die?

Milne was wrong, but he is still an ass. He always will be an ass, as long as he thinks of his fellow human beings as "walking steaks".

Feel sad for Mr. Milne, he is among men, the most pitiable.

-- sad (to@watch.this), February 21, 2000.

Hmmm! I will try again. We have a large number of people running around predicting economic disaster of which I am one. And of course, we are right. ( I never thought much of Y2K) The only problem is timing, so far we have been wrong on the timing. But sooner or later... it will happen. I will then feel good about my prediction, (after all, I have been predicting it to happen the day after tomorrow since the DOW 4000 and now I am right)but will feel very badly about the disaster. It will hit my kids and I would rather avoid that, but I don't see how because of the timing problem. But I think it will happen sooner or later...and each year I think it will be sooner. So far, I have been wrong, but sooner or later I will be right. That is the only feel-good part. BTW, when it comes, everything the government does will extend it. That is a solid prediction.

-- Richard C. Trochlil (trochlilbb@neumedia.net), February 21, 2000.

CJS

Sorry

-- justwondering (justwondering@sorry.com), February 21, 2000.

Eve:

You said: "Isn't the burden of proof usually on the accuser? Or are you saying that I should assume he's a bad guy overall from these few cut-and- paste comments unless and until I can prove he's ok?

If the latter is the case here, and that's generally what's expected of me, then I might as well give up on this thread because I have neither the time nor the desire to go through this much material."

I think we simply operate differently. I've been following Y2k on the internet for several years now, and if I heard a name mentioned, I'd research that name until I could find no more information. Why would I accept one person's opinion over another? Why would I criticize an opinion before I'd done the research [or already had the remediation background] necessary to discuss the topic?

You suggest that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Didn't YOU accuse someone of simply including out-of-contest snippets?

One of the problems I've noticed in this multi-year exercise on the internet is that most folks want to be spoon-fed information. One of the OTHER problems I've noticed is that folks agree to accept someone's information on topic B if they find themselves agreeing with what that person said on topic A. Paul Milne mixed politics and survivalism in many of his posts regarding Y2k. He may begin a post stating that a particular government type was a liar. He would then go on to say that billions would die due to Y2k problems. He would then suggest that extreme preparation measures were the only way one could avoid being one of the "billions who died."

Folks who agreed that the government type was a liar and/or agreed that folks should be prepared for emergencies couldn't help but extrapolate to agreeing that Paul MUST be right on Y2k as well. After all, the folks who are RIGHT are the folks who agree with US.

Folks working on remediation or folks who HAD worked on remediation who stated that Y2k would be manageable were ALL dismissed as pollies. Paul told them that they would be drinking dog piss out of hubcaps. These folks had been following Y2k on the internet as well, so we're NOT talking about folks who had their head in the sand.

I suggest you take NO ONE'S words to be truth regarding Mr. Milne, but research him yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, yes...I would agree that you shouldn't have engaged in this discussion.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 21, 2000.

blast-

You're right, I did say that. And my wording was probably too harsh and a bit too general. I may be wrong, but I feel that Yourdon has become somewhat of a doomigod here and there are a lot of people that hang on his words. Few here have questioned his motives or the fact that he wrote a book with his amateur economist daughter that delved into areas such as power generation, banking, etc., when he really didn't have any experience in those areas. I still think that a lot of what he did was to get recognized, and he has been on CNN, ABC, quoted in many different articles, newsstories, etc. and is more prominent than he once was. Doesn't writing books make you a part of the media as well?

justwondering-

No apology necessary. I view unsubstantiated information on the internet with a ton of skepticism. It doesn't bother me whether or not you believe it: I just put it out there for consumption, knowing that it would definitely be questioned, as it should be.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), February 21, 2000.

CJS and Blast:

Yes...of course TB2000 is moving in other directions than Y2k. I predicted that in a post on Debunkers. I do NOT, however, see pollies being treated more harshly now than in the past. Ray long ago stopped asking me who pays me to post here, and I haven't even seen Hal or Brett tossing their typical "Polly go home" line after my posts.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), February 21, 2000.

All the above is very interesting. However, the point is that Milne categorically stated that he would not assist his mother (& other close family, from memory) and was prepared to watch her/them DIE.

I ask again, WHAT KIND OF "MAN" WOULD DO THAT? You apologists for Mad Milne are just as bad. Sick, the lot of you.

-- Asking (Asking@aquestion.com), February 21, 2000.

Asking:

By the time I got to the bottom of this thread, I'd already forgotten the point you made in the beginning. I remember the post wherein Milne said this, but to actually spend the time looking in the archives for it [seeing as there's no category for folks prepared to watch their parents die] would mean "spending time on Milne". If I wanted to do THAT, I'd prefer to search for the thread wherein I mentioned why Paul bought his farm and how he was working as an electrician. Of course he responded to my post stating that I was a "lying bitch". I thought, "Hmmm...I just read his post from the csy2k archives on why he bought the farm, but perhaps he's not REALLY an electrician." Within a week he was posting here how he was working as an electrician.

Nope...if I'm not willing to seek out the thread in which he called ME a liar when I spoke the truth, I'd not be willing to seek out the thread in which he said this about his mother.

I'm assuming that your "What kindof person does this?" question was rhetorical.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 21, 2000.

eve:

Yeah, I agree with what you say about Milne. He was colorful and he was abusive and he epitomized intolerance. He rarely showed any other sides of his nature, but a ray of light sometimes shone through nonetheless. I don't consider him a bad person.

But I think he presents an excellent object lesson on how to get it (in his words) "100% wrong". I admit I read (according to the deja news count) approximately 6,000 Milne posts. I consider this a representative sample [grin]. These posts tended to alternate between misinterpreting even the haziest and most unreliable suggestions of possible problems as "PROOF" of doom, and viciously attacking anyone who expressed even the slightest doubt of Milne's Received Truth.

In all those 6,000+ posts, there was NEVER even the smallest hint that Milne had given any other possibilities any consideration at all. He entertained no doubts, recognized no probabilities, permitted no alternative interpretations (even the most obvious). He never tried to resolve contradictions or ambiguities, he simply denied they existed. If someone like Koskinen said y2k might be bad and might not, Milne would simultaneously take the "might be bad" as PROOF things were terrible, and the "might not" part as PROOF that Koskinen was an idiot. For Milne, everything was PROOF that he was correct, everything was airtight, open and shut.

Half a dozen times Milne said something so definitely and demonstrably wrong that he was challenged (by many) to either defend the indefensible or admit error. In each case, Milne simply chose to drop the subject and run away without further comment! One could not discuss or debate or argue with Milne as those terms are generally understood. Milne declaimed, and you either agreed or you were an asshole. Black and white, dead simple.

So his admission that he was wrong, while admirable (and transparently obvious), leaves a bit to be desired by those whom he abused so relentlessly. The vast majority of those Milne abused were trying to get him to THINK! Trying to persuade him that y2k was complex, multifaceted, and in a very real sense unknowable. If you trouble to read the responses to those 6,000+ posts (mostly on csy2k), you'll find an incredible effort to get Milne to open his mind, even just a little. All to no avail, of course.

And now, he says he was "100%" wrong. Not 99%, not mostly, but 100%. Y2K (and everything else in Milne's world) remains as black and white as it ever was. You will notice that Milne makes absolutely no mention of HOW he got it wrong, or what he might have done to prevent this. He simply went from all black to all white. In other words, he converted to a new doctrine, which also permits of NO variation, and which he may now defend with his same closed-minded intolerance of anything else.

And *that's* why people are frustrated with him. His position on a topic isn't the point. The point is his utter refusal to reflect or question or doubt. Converting from one absolute fixed position to another is not "learning" in any sense of the word. And I think his absolute, unthinking polarization poisoned what could have been a rewarding and ultimately accurate investigation, and turned it into a religious screamfest.

So the object lesson is, when you adopt an approach that effectively prohibits any possibility of learning, you aren't likely to get many things right, and those purely by accident. As a demonstration of HOW to be 100% wrong, Milne's example can hardly be exceeded.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2000.

well...am still glad I prepared, and am glad no one held a gun to my head to do it.

-- Salene (salene814@hotmail.com), February 21, 2000.

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/2048/3/1.html

Reasonable participants?

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum Re: The irony of "DGI" (Ken Decker) Re: Still a tempest in a teapot (Ken Decker) Date: Feb 19, 22:48 From: Flint

What reasonable participants? None of these fora exist to discover the truth, they exist to create and promulgate one. Admit it, your underlying motivation was the same as mine -- to kick the anthill and watch the reactions. And you also recognized that reasonable analysis was the most effective boot to kick with. The CPR screaming attacks, for all they preached a different doctrine, were not qualitatively different from the TB2K approach in general.

But hell, you and I chimed in at least partially to feel superior in our own idiosyncratic way. It was fun. Surely we harbored no delusions of making converts.

-- Casper (c@no.yr), February 21, 2000.

Flint, you bid a fond farewell last month. So did you miss us ants, did you want to feel idiosyncratically superior?

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/2048/3/1.html

Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum

Re: The irony of "DGI" (Ken Decker)

Re: Still a tempest in a teapot (Ken Decker)

Date: Feb 19, 22:48

From: Flint

Reasonable participants?

What reasonable participants? None of these fora exist to discover the truth, they exist to create and promulgate one. Admit it, your underlying motivation was the same as mine -- to kick the anthill and watch the reactions. And you also recognized that reasonable analysis was the most effective boot to kick with. The CPR screaming attacks, for all they preached a different doctrine, were not qualitatively different from the TB2K approach in general.

But hell, you and I chimed in at least partially to feel superior in our own idiosyncratic way. It was fun. Surely we harbored no delusions of making converts.

-- Sorry (you@said.that?), February 21, 2000.

No, of course I'm not sorry I said that. Reasonable analysis WAS the most effective way to kick the anthill. CPR-type screaming was met with mocking dismissal without exception. Reason was always more difficult for the religious to deal with. And enough people on this forum were reasonable enough for some interesting discussions.

And (referencing another thread), tolerance may be great, but not all things to tolerate or not are created equal. From my worldview, I (and all but the worst loonies on this forum) ARE superior. Milne has not yet done anything to be admired.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2000.

As a consistent and long-time dissenter to the doomer position on Y2K, Flint stands head and shoulders above the rest. You did not have to agree with him to admire his style and quality presentations. He more than any other regular has given us the definitive insight into Paul Milnes disquisition. The intelligence associated with Pigs should not automatically apply to the Farmer.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 21, 2000.

How 'ya gonna keep 'em down on the Animal Farm/ After they seen Paree?

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), February 21, 2000.

Good to see you again, Flint. It's a STRANGE concept for some to accept that an old regular would actually be honest enough to show themselves again using their own name...even stranger that they may have posted on another forum.

You're certainly in a better position than I to respond to Eve regarding Milne. I READ his stuff on csy2k, but I NEVER would have considered RESPONDING to his stuff. You did, however. [I'd add something about that making you more of a man than I, but it's pretty obvious, right?]

If I were to do it all over again, I wonder what crazy handle I would have chosen?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 21, 2000.

I was a little put out that someone would suspect I would try to sneak back here under an assumed name. I still have nothing to hide, nor any reason to do so. And who knows, I might drop in occasionally if a topic looks interesting. As myself.

As for responding to Milne, the utility depends on the venue at the moment. Certainly you wouldn't expect Milne to recognize a valid reply, but depending on who's reading at the time, someone might think. You never know. But most of the time it was wasted effort - Milne would claim day was night, and the sycophants would chant Night! Night! Night! Ah, the good old days of entertainment at its best, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 21, 2000.

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

I (still) spend a lot of time here every day, but only enough to read about one thread in ten. I do not believe that it is possible for anyone but Evelyn Wood to read every thread unless they are independently wealthy or being paid for time and overtime. It would, however, be possible to vaccuum the entire site and mechanically search the pages for occurances of someone's name.

I do pretend to know a thing or two about sampling methodology. It would be possible to obtain a representative sample of someone's posts using such a complete listing. However, it wouldn't be fair to use posts which had been pasted to here from some other forum. Such foreign would be subject to the bias of the person who had selected them from another venue. They may have been chosen for their outrageousness or for their brilliance. If someone posts mainly elsewhere but comes here only to deal with those who have summoned them for a fight, their posts here may not be representative.

If someone claims to have presented a representative sample of some phenomenon, they might be expected to explain how their sample was obtained. If, instead they reply "prove it's not representative," that doesn't lend much credence to the method.

We, who live here are under the impression that these quotes are notorious collectibles, and not typical of the broad range of opinions represented, here. There have been several surveys of opinion during the past two and a half years of self selected participants (the extreme optimists generally did not deign to participate).

These surveys tended to weigh heavily toward the middle of the scale of anticipated severity. In otherwords, most people stated that they were expecting something along the lines of a 70's style recession. Many of those who stated that they were fearing a global economic collapse stated elsewhere that they did not expect things to be quite that bad, but that nobody knew.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 22, 2000.

I should probably remind the readers that I entered this thread to respond to the following statement made by "chairborne commando":

He didn't lie, exaggerate or scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric

My point was that he did, in fact, exaggerate and scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric quite frequently and I subsequently backed up my point with actual quotes.

The suggestion was made that the quotes were taken out of context, thus I provided the context.

The suggestion was made that I am ignoring other comments that he made, no doubt comments which would make him appear less hysterical and exaggerated. I requested proof of these comments, since I know of none. No proof was provided.

As to the question regarding my statistical method, I used none. If you choose to believe that this is not a representative sample, so be it. It does, however, disprove the statement made by chairborne commando.

Regarding the fact that the posts were made somewhere else, here are two Milne posts I found in my search for eve's last discussion about him. No statistical sampling method was used here either. They are the ONLY posts I found by him in my search. Links to the original posts are provided, lest I again be accused of quoting out of context.

LINK

flint-child, As always , you are an ass. A premature ass, at that. Morons and knuckleheads like you are going to see that exactly what I stated is going to come to pass. It is the economic situation that is so critically fragile. It will not be much longer before you see huge moves down in the markets. You are going to find out the hard way like all the rest of the blathering idiots who came out too early to do a victory dance. I love to watch morons like you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Watch the markets for the next couple of days wise-ass. you are going to see some of the biggest moves in history. you heard it here first, bozo. Paul Milne

LINK

Mikey, You are an ass. January 1st has come and gone but the effects of the unremediated code have not only NOT passed but are only just getting started. I suggest that you contain your pre-mature ejaculations to your hand and your blow-up doll. Paul Milne

I never did find the thread I was looking for, however I did manage to locate this thread in which Flint does a much better job than I could ever do culling Milne quotes from Usenet. In fact, in that thread, eve herself responds with:

Flint,

Re Milne's comments: I think some were kind of innocuous, there were gratuitous personal attacks, off-the-wall predictions, and at least one outrageous comment that really disturbed me -- the one about people deserving disaster. Overall he does come across as a real hothead here. Maybe even worse, by that one comment. I'm also assuming that you've included all the context necessary for a reasonable off-the-cuff evauation. Since I still haven't read much of his stuff, relatively speaking, I don't feel I can say more than this right now.

I could have missed something here, though. I did a little skimming.

People can, and will, believe what they want, some even when faced with obvious evidence to the contrary. Nothing can really be done about that and there's not really much point in convincing those who cannot be convinced. Pollies learned that a long time ago.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 22, 2000.

As far as I'm concerned everyone was 100% wrong. Milne was 100% wrong about what he thought the consequences would be. But so was Flint. NO ONE knew what was going to happen. Embedded chips were a mystery, but IEEE and Dr. Gordon said it COULD be bad. Cohen was warning about hackers and terrorists. Koskinen was vacillating between 3 days and 2 weeks. The CIA was pulling its people out of Asia and Italy. Bennet was warning of local disruptions. Yourdon had moved to Taos.

Milne was 100% right to prepare and warn the proscrastinators in a way he felt would wake people up. I did not approve of namecalling or berating others but I'm sure his style helped people prepare. And for me that WAS the issue. You were either right or wrong about that. The POTENTIAL was always too bad NOT to be prepared. Yes, I was wrong also about the consequences as well, guessing an 8-10, and I don't feel bad for a second telling people I told folks to get prepared. I don't fault Milne either. I always had a problem with those who caused people NOT to prepare. Proverbs 22:3

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), February 22, 2000.

Hey, Flint,

Well, hello there, guy! Welcome back -- and with a very enlightening and surprising post. If I get some time later, I might want to comment on it.

Anita,

I'd like to respond to your post above where you quoted the following statement of mine:

"Isn't the burden of proof usually on the accuser? Or are you saying that I should assume he's a bad guy overall from these few cut-and-paste comments unless and until I can prove he's ok?

"If the latter is the case here, and that's generally what's expected of me, then I might as well give up on this thread because I have neither the time nor the desire to go through this much material."

You said,

"I think we operate differently. I've been following Y2K on the internet for several years now, and if I heard a name mentioned, I'd research that name until I could find no more information. Why would I accept one person's opinion over another? Why would I criticize an opinion before I'd done the research (or already had the remediation background) necessary to discuss the topic?

"I suggest you take NO ONE'S words to be the truth regarding Mr. Milne, but research him yourself. If you're unwilling to do that, yes...I would agree that you shouldn't have engaged in this discussion."

Yes, Anita, we do operate differently.

I would first make a distinction as to whether we were talking about a human being or a computer chipl. If we're researching a computer chip, then I would tend to agree with you (of course, even there we may be interested in experts' opinions).

But if we're witnessing the attempted destruction of a human being, then I beg to differ. If, for example, someone posted inflammatory remarks about you, I certainly wouldn't wait to research everything you ever said on the forum before I would respond.

You see, when people's reputations are at stake due to damaging, and possibly untrue, remarks (yes, an out-of-context quote counts as a "remark") which are posted on the forum, this kind of thing can spread like wildfire -- so time is of the essence here, and it's crucial that the accuser be called on it as quickly as possible. And the accuser should at least be asked for examples, noting that an example without context is not an example.

Also, in these cases, I think it's fine to use selected opinions of persons who, as far as you're aware, seem relatively trustworthy. Of course this can be a tough judgment call, and would depend on the circumstances.

Further, in this scenario, I think it can be very effective and legitimate to ask that an example be provided with a context and analyze it yourself. And if the analysis refutes the accusation, then the person's reputation is preserved (like plugging up a dam), at least for the time being, without getting into lumbering, time-consuming "research". I mean, by the time you emerge armed to the teeth with your research, the person could well be DOA.

So again, Anita, I agree with you in that we certainly do seem to operate differently.

You said,

"You suggest that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Didn't YOU accuse someone of simply including out-of-context snippets?"

I haven't re-read all I've written on this, but if I made a direct accusation that a specific example was in fact out of context, and I hadn't yet examined it yet for context, then I would have been wrong to make such an accusation. To the extent I communicated this, I apologize for it.

What I have been trying to get across, though, is that when someone's trying to destroy another's reputation with short quotes it is quite reasonable to suspect that there may be more to the story.

And now that I reflect on it, as I recall (I have not re-read it, so I'm kind of hazy on the details), on the thread "Re: Paul Milne", certain accusers started up with similar snippets. And it was only in mid-thread somewhere, I think after I had asked for it, that a wider context was provided. And in my opinion, this gave the lie to the snippet. Flint was involved in the discussion, and he may well disagree with my assessment. But my point is that when I ask for context, especially in cases like this, I speak from at least some experience.

Further, Anita, I note that instead of directly answering my burden of proof question, you redirected attention to me personally.

The other points in your post (paragraphs 5 - 7) are well taken; I have no disagreement with them.

LOL,

I'll get to your responses as soon as I can. I'm still pretty busy today, but hang in there.

Dancr,

Thanks for your input on the sampling issue. As of now, I just skimmed it, but it looks interesting. I may be interested in commenting on it later.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

Eve.

Your opposition to random character assassination is most honorable. However, I suggest you have selected the wrong person to campaign for in Mr. Paul Milne. In spirit, your request for a wider scope of input was admirable. In reality, only more of the same could be brought forth in Mr. Milnes case. Do yourself a favor and close this book and start another.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 22, 2000.

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

My comment above stems partly from some confusion about what thread I was in. I've been skipping back and forth in reading this thread and Regarding The "Horrid Things" said on TB2K, Or How to Cultivate Intolerance. I did realize that this thread was specifically talking about Paul. What I didn't realize it the current main thesis being discussed is whether he did "lie, exaggerate or scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric." Of course, to support this contention, one only need come up with a single example of each claim.

However, what pressed my buttons was to see the examples presented as "representative." In the sense that M. LOL means (i.e. that they're not just some fluke post out of thousands when somebody got up on whe wrong side of the bed), I agree, these are representative. I did once, a year or so ago, explore the Deja site under this author's name, thinking I would try to read all those posts. I gave up, though, after a couple hours, because I decided that I didn't need that kind of stress.

My post talks about a need to use more scientific sampling to be able to claim that some quotes from a person are representative of their opinion. I was confused at that point, thinking that we were talking about the use of his more outrageous quotes as part of a collection of quotable quotes that were being promoted as "representative of the doomer mentality." The other thread is about this.

My thinking is that such a "sampling" of quotes, to be fair, should not focus only upon the most outrageous statements of the most extreme individuals within the group. So, my answer focused first upon getting statements that were representative of the individual's overall position. Then I turned to a discussion of the surveys as a way to drive home the point that these people, including the case in point, are not reflective of the overall opinions of the group.

I hope this helps explain my comment.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 22, 2000.

BB:

Speaking of the advisability of preparation, you write:

"And for me that WAS the issue. You were either right or wrong about that...I always had a problem with those who caused people NOT to prepare. "

Whoa there, buddy. Several critical issues lurk in your convenient absolutes, hidden behind your "right or wrong" binary thinking.

Sure, let's agree that insurance is often a good idea. But the list of things you can choose to insure is nearly endless, and the coverage you choose to carry on each is widely variable. We're dealing with a very complex issue of resource allocation here.

Although perhaps not explicitly (doing algebra with paper and pencil), we all do a rough cost benefit analysis here. For each item we might insure, we consider the probability of loss and the magnitude of that loss. How likely is something to happen, and how bad will it be if it *does* happen, right? Multiply these together, and you have a rough estimate of potential cost.

Next we look at the cost of insuring this, whatever it is. In the vast majority of cases, we decide that insurance is not required -- either an item isn't valuable enough to insure (why bother to insure each pair of socks, for example), or the loss is too unlikely to bother with (why insure against being hit by a meteor?).

Clearly, most of us cannot possibly afford to insure against absolutely everything. We need to pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover.

Next, we need to decide how *much* coverage to carry on what we choose to insure. Sometimes this is easy, because the value of the insured object is well known. Sometimes it's hard to determine -- try insuring an art collection sometime!

So finally, we get to the issue of y2k. OK, we must multiply the *probability* of serious personal impacts by the likely severity of such impacts. Unfortunately, both these factors were unknown. I mean *really* unknown. The key question was always, HOW do you go about assigning suitable values to these unknowns, so as to determine whether to prepare, and how much preparation is appropriate?

Despite Milne's incredibly simplistic "thinking", this was a brutal task for any rational person. Rather hilariously, Milne's "evaluation" consisted of simply defining his current situation as ideal! He lives in the sticks, therefore the sticks are the place to be. His primitive lifestyle allows him to easily live off-grid or with few outside requirements, therefore that's the way to prepare. By amazing coincidence, it wasn't necessary for Milne to do a *damn thing* different for his "preparations" to be just perfect.

But for the rest of us, this was hard. The banks were ALL claiming they'd be OK (correctly, as it turns out), but loony Andy was claiming they'd all be hosed. Who should we believe? NERC was saying that they hadn't found anything wrong that would have tripped any plants (correctly, as it turns out), but Roleigh Martin had doubts and the loonies were screaming coverup. Who should we believe? Of the millions of IT workers, all but a tiny handful were unworried, and the most visible of those (Yourdon, Hamasaki) were making money selling fear. Who should we believe? Billions were being spent, contingency planning was in full swing, the potential for *something* to happen was undeniable but the probability was unknowable, what to do, what to do?

And now here's BB saying "you were either right or wrong" about preparation. Hoo boy, that's rich. In retrospect, preparation was unnecessary and not a single soul anywhere needed a single preparation due to y2k-induced problems. So was preparation "wrong"? If not, surely there was some point beyond which preparation became excessive. But where was that point?

Not only didn't we know HOW to spend our resources, we didn't know how much to spend. Was an extra 3 days of food appropriate? Two weeks? Was money more wisely spent on non-hybrid seeds or on a generator? Was $100 enough? $10,000? Hey, this was wide open, the sky was the limit.

The TB2K forum, in general, advised BIG preparations. In general, significant disruptions were regarded as almost certain. Preparations weren't against low-probability contingencies, they were regarded as a requirement, without which you'd suffer, possibly fatally. And this position was supported, as always, by as biased a presentation as one could imagine, into which doubts were not welcome and those pointing out the bias were not tolerated gracefully.

Indeed, those who presented the most accurate analysis, just by virtue of NOT *demanding* preparations, were regarded as advising *against* preparation. Notice BB's very careful wording here. Nobody advised against preparation, but those who failed to jump on the doomer bandwagon "caused" people not to prepare, even if (like me) they prepared themselves and encouraged preparation whenever they mentioned it. Such people were "Sunday Christians", fellow travellers who, by failing to PREACH the doctrine, thereby undermined it and "caused" onlookers to fall into the ways of sin!

So I have to laugh. BB has everyone either "right or wrong", no consideration of the complexity or the variables. Milne and I could hardly have been further apart in either approach or expectations, yet BB has us both "100% wrong". Uh, I admit to being at least 20% wrong, but no more than 30%. I admit I assigned more weight to those who warned us than was warranted. And while I don't regret doing so, I also recognize that to the extent I did this, I was in error. But I was never trying to either *trick* people or *intimidate* people into adopting my viewpoint. I was fighting to prevent people from falling prey to rigid beliefs expressed in slogans.

But folks like BB are impervious to careful analysis. It's all or nothing to BB, black or white. BB says "Milne was 100% wrong" in his first paragraph, and "Milne was 100% right" in his second! Who cares about contradictions when you have "100%" on your side? The only thing that could drive my point home better would be a biblical reference. And lo! we have one! Hallelujah!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

LOL,

You stated that you believed your sampling method was representative. Please explain your methodology. I asked you this twice previously, and got nothing but "I just grabbed some..." How did you "grab" the ones you did?

The following is a brief review of the links you provided in an earlier post of yours:

A) Steve Poole says to Paul, "If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne you're a hostage."

Paul responds, " You'll be dead soon."

My question: I assume here Paul thinks Poole will die from lack of preparation.

B) BKS says to Paul, "Be sure to let us know when (a Y2K meltdown) does start, so we don't miss it."

Paul responds, "You won't miss it, bks. The telltale sign will be when you are shoveling lime into the hastily dug and shallow graves of your children. All because you had such a big brain and refused to prepare."

My comment: It looks like Paul is warning bks, in a crude, very hard-hitting way, of the danger (as perceived by Paul) to bks' children, when (in Paul's mind) Y2K brings everything down. And this would result from bks' lack of preparation.

C) Paul says, "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast."

My comments: This looks like Paul's rather colorful way of saying we're going to be in big trouble. There is a link provided in the post, and a brief comment about the link, but I couldn't get into the site, so I need more info on this one. Is that link relevant?

D) Someone says to Paul, "It gets better every day. Won't be long now."

Paul responds, '''Yes, it won't be long now. Remember that while you are crying at the graveside."

My question: It appears Paul assumes the other person will be crying at someone's graveside -- probably the death of a loved one. And it could have been intended as a type of Y2K-warning.

My overall comment to LOL: I honestly don't understand your point here. But I'll leave open the possibility that I'm missing something. If so, LOL, would you be so kind as to tell me what that might be?

To LOL and all the rest of the readers,

Please keep in mind that I'm not, in general, trying to exonerate Paul from any perceived wrongdoing or vice. He has obviously said a lot that I'm not aware of. The only thing I'm doing right now is responding to these four specific posts, as honestly and objectively as I can. And I welcome any civil, constructive criticism of my comments here as well.

Thanks,

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

Oops... some of my "questions" above were really "comments". I guess they started out as questions...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

You stated that you believed your sampling method was representative. Please explain your methodology. I asked you this twice previously, and got nothing but "I just grabbed some..." How did you "grab" the ones you did?

eve, you really need to read what I have said more carefully. I have already pointed out that I used no statistical method to "grab" these posts. None at all. If you feel that this makes them "non- representative" of Paul Milne so be it. Dancr seems to have come to the same conclusion as I have, so I know I'm not alone in my view. In any case, the quotes serve the purpose, in my opinion, of disproving the comment made by "chairborne commando."

A) Steve Poole says to Paul, "If you live within 2 miles of Paul Milne you're a hostage."

Paul responds, " You'll be dead soon."

My question: I assume here Paul thinks Poole will die from lack of preparation.

Quite possibly. It's hard to say, isn't it? His response almost seems non-sequiter. Regardless of this, perhaps you feel that "you'll be dead soon" is a normal part of conversation? I personally do not. I believe that it is an example of exaggeration and hysteria. He didn't state that Steve might die. He said that he WILL be dead soon.

B) BKS says to Paul, "Be sure to let us know when (a Y2K meltdown) does start, so we don't miss it."

Paul responds, "You won't miss it, bks. The telltale sign will be when you are shoveling lime into the hastily dug and shallow graves of your children. All because you had such a big brain and refused to prepare."

My comment: It looks like Paul is warning bks, in a crude, very hard- hitting way, of the danger (as perceived by Paul) to bks' children, when (in Paul's mind) Y2K brings everything down. And this would result from bks' lack of preparation.

Quite correct. And again, to me, this appears to be a heavy usage of exaggeration and hysteria. Really, eve, you don't feel that drawing an image of one shovelling lime on the hastily dug and shallow grave of one's child is just a bit of an exaggeration?

C) Paul says, "If you live within 5 miles of a 7-11, you're toast."

My comments: This looks like Paul's rather colorful way of saying we're going to be in big trouble. There is a link provided in the post, and a brief comment about the link, but I couldn't get into the site, so I need more info on this one. Is that link relevant?

It should link to the same site. Basically, this was Paul's "tag- line" for many months, so there really isn't any "context" to that quote anyway. I just thought you'd need to see a post where he used it.

D) Someone says to Paul, "It gets better every day. Won't be long now."

Paul responds, '''Yes, it won't be long now. Remember that while you are crying at the graveside."

My question: It appears Paul assumes the other person will be crying at someone's graveside -- probably the death of a loved one. And it could have been intended as a type of Y2K-warning.

Yes, it was referring to that person's child. Again, a bit of an exaggeration, in my opnion.

My overall comment to LOL: I honestly don't understand your point here. But I'll leave open the possibility that I'm missing something. If so, LOL, would you be so kind as to tell me what that might be?

Certainly. The point was suggested that Paul did not "exaggerate or scream disjointed, unfounded hysterical rhetoric." I provided those quotes as examples where I feel that he had. You claimed that the quotes were taken out of context, so I provided the context, which I still believe shows his statements to be exaggerations and hysterical rhetoric. You are certainly welcome to disagree with this premise.

Please keep in mind that I'm not, in general, trying to exonerate Paul from any perceived wrongdoing or vice. He has obviously said a lot that I'm not aware of. The only thing I'm doing right now is responding to these four specific posts, as honestly and objectively as I can. And I welcome any civil, constructive criticism of my comments here as well.

Well, eve, it really does appear to me that you are unwilling to see any viewpoint but your own, even when presented with evidence that proves otherwise. In another post that I linked to above, even YOU had admited that:

Overall he does come across as a real hothead here

so I do find it puzzling that you are having such difficulty understanding what my examples are trying to indicate. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you in some way, but I'm really trying to provide you with what you have asked for, including the relevant context, even though you still have not provided any evidence of what you claim I am "ignoring." So, you'll have to forgive my skepticism if I think that you will never really understand what I'm trying to get at.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 22, 2000.

Let's not forget my personal favorite milneism -

somthing to the effect of "you'll be drinking dog piss from a rusty hubcap".

The guy was/is a lunatic hands down. Never wavered, never gave an inch to the idea that there would be minimal problems. It was ALWAYS TEOTWAWKI to milne. Anyone that remotely disagreed was referred to as an idiot of gigantic proportions.

I'm wondering if he enjoyed his crow......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 22, 2000.

Deano--another anthill-kicker, like Flint. Please remember these people are here for the fun of watching the ants' behavior, not to actually contribute anything.

Quote: 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

Unquote

-- . (Just@another.ant), February 22, 2000.

ant:

Those who can, think. Those who can't, attack. If you don't wish to be treated like an ant, why keep behaving that way? Surely you can see that I described your approach and thought process dead accurately, in one of my non-contributions?

Remember, you'll never grow any taller trying to belittle everyone else.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

Good grief, now I have someone following me around saying Yeah, me too? And attacking people? Shudder.

Uh, dotty, original thought is always welcome, for all it makes the ants scurry. Attacks should never be welcome.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

Ra (who posted right after my post to Anita),

Thank you for your kind words. Regarding your advice: I'll consider it, althought I don't see myself as "campaigning for" Milne.

LOL,

First, I offer my sincere apologies, as I apparently overlooked your purpose regarding the use of the Milne posts that you cited.

I had hastily and mistakenly thought you were trying to paint Paul as a bad or evil character, when all you were trying to do was to use some of his comments to refute some of chairborne commando's comments that he didn't exaggerate or scream hysterical rhetoric.

You wish to show that Milne used exaggeration and exhibited hysteria. Well, in terms of the four items you presented: If Paul really believed that people would die, is it really exaggeration to vocalize it? And even if he did exaggerate: Sometimes exaggeration can be an effective and legitimate way to communicate -- especially if you feel you're not otherwise succeeding in getting your points across.

Hysterical rhetoric? I don't know; I do know that at times he came across as a hothead, as was previously quoted of me. Post a definition that you feel is reasonable and we'll talk about it.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

"Of the millions of IT workers, all but a tiny handful were unworried, and the most visible of those (Yourdon, Hamasaki) were making money selling fear."

Smear. Always your best quality.

Flint, at least you're being more "honest" than you used to be. Or are you? Hard to tell when one is in the presence of a master bs artist.

Then again, you SAID you weren't going to return to this forum. Just some more deliberate misleading on your part ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), February 22, 2000.

ENOUGH, ALREADY! I read Paul, Gary, Ed, and all the posts. I, no one else, I made my decision, I stand accountable for My decision. They may smirk at me at work, you may flame me on this forum, But I make my own (hills) house payment, and I WILL NOT blame MY decision on ANYONE ELSE! Nuff said.

-- Take (yourst@nce.com), February 22, 2000.

LOL,

Regarding your method of selection: I think we can now pretty safely assume your sample was unrepresentative, correct? Therefore, I don't see how there can be any specific population to extrapolate the analysis of the sample to. So any conclusions we come to here (from an examination of the four posts you pulled) can logically only be extended as far as the sample itself.

Dancr,

Do you see any problems with my position above? Thanks.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

Big Dog:

Still in attack mode, I see. Surely you can make a more positive contribution? You used to, now and again. Hey, I was wrong about y2k also. No shame there, nor reason to be bitter. What's happened to you?

And as you should know, I never said I wouldn't return to this forum. I said I hated to say so long, but the show was over. I thanked everyone for their participation. Someone even responded to that thread *pointing out* that I'd been careful to leave the door open. But it's potentially enlightening that you remember so clearly something that wasn't said. Do you suppose this might offer you some insight into HOW you missed the boat so badly on y2k? After all, seeing what you choose to see rather than what's actually there is a surefire way to get headed in the wrong direction. Just a suggestion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 22, 2000.

Eve, laugh all that you may, call me fool for contemplating that my now complacent life has a possibility of turning into the horror of the peoples of Kovoso, those poor folks, who look like us'en. Fleeing into the night, hardships beyond our comprehension. While we are at it , shall I give you my 101 Floyd evacutee diary? You don't wanna know. We slept in the car, because no Church opened their doors. Took a Civic Group to offer us a building, bathroom, and water. You better look at real life.

-- Take (yourst@nce.com), February 22, 2000.

[Delete by sysop--poster stealing another's handle]

[NOT] LOL

-- LOL ([NOT]LOL@LOL.LOL), February 22, 2000.

You wish to show that Milne used exaggeration and exhibited hysteria. Well, in terms of the four items you presented: If Paul really believed that people would die, is it really exaggeration to vocalize it?

To me, it is exaggeration when you draw a mental picture of "shovelling lime on the hastily-dug and shallow graves of the corpses of your children." If he really believed that children would die, eve, he could have simply said that children would die. Painting the picture of "hastily-dug shallow graves" is, to me, exaggeration. It is also "hysterical rhetoric," in my opinion. Same thing regarding drawing the image of one "crying at the graveside" of one's children.

And even if he did exaggerate: Sometimes exaggeration can be an effective and legitimate way to communicate -- especially if you feel you're not otherwise succeeding in getting your points across.

This point is irrelevant, however, since the point I was refuting was that he never exaggerated. Actually, I'm not exactly sure why you are making this point, since you had already stated:

Please keep in mind that I'm not, in general, trying to exonerate Paul from any perceived wrongdoing or vice.

so, offering excuses for his exaggerations doesn't seem to fit in line with your statement above.

Hysterical rhetoric? I don't know; I do know that at times he came across as a hothead, as was previously quoted of me. Post a definition that you feel is reasonable and we'll talk about it.

How about "Hysterical rhetoric is being a hothead?" LOL. Really, eve, I don't know that posting a definition of "hysterical rhetoric" will be terribly helpful, since at this point we appear to be splitting hairs on the issue and I don't think that a detailed argument of what is and is not "hysterical rhetoric" will prove productive. Still, I personally feel that a statement is "hysterical rhetoric" when it appears to reach beyond the realm of logic and into that of emotion. A statement made more for emotional effect rather than to make a logical point. For example, when you were confronted with some of his other quotes, you had said:

there were gratuitous personal attacks, off-the-wall predictions, and at least one outrageous comment that really disturbed me -- the one about people deserving disaster.

I'd think that the comment you found "outrageous" would be a pretty good example of your definition of "hysterical rhetoric," but perhaps you feel otherwise. As I said, this will probably come down to hair- splitting and determining what the definition of "is" is. Since your tendency so far has been to be quite unwilling to actually understand a different viewpoint, I'm not really sure how productive such a discussion would be.

Regarding your method of selection: I think we can now pretty safely assume your sample was unrepresentative, correct?

No, eve. I have already stated that I feel my sample is representative of typical Paul Milne posts. I am puzzled why you continue to ignore what I have already written above. If you believe that my sample is unrepresentative, that's fine. I happen to feel otherwise.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 22, 2000.

Hey, how bout somebody post 'Flints Take' for old times sake, would ya? And Flint, I think I hear your wife calling you for target practice...

Just an FYI, the person that posted this is not me.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 22, 2000.

Milne, Milne did speak dearly, looking directly into our eyes.

But when it turned, he was burned; and his efforts we decried.

Try we must, hound to dust; this poor Virginian's soul.

For mixing song and dance, we take the lance, for this Pied Piper's drool.

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), February 23, 2000.

Speaking of the advisability of preparation, you write:

"And for me that WAS the issue. You were either right or wrong about that...I always had a problem with those who caused people NOT to prepare. "

Whoa there, buddy. Several critical issues lurk in your convenient absolutes, hidden behind your "right or wrong" binary thinking.

Well Flint my friend, we either prepared or we didn't ....now didn't we? Seems black or white to me. You either took y2k potential disruptions seriously or you didn't. I deliberately chose not to say how much preparation I thought was required but only whether or not a person prepared. Look at the size of this post. Don't you have anything better to do with your life than spend so much time on me? I'm truly honored, but your argument is with Milne not me.

Clearly, most of us cannot possibly afford to insure against absolutely everything. We need to pick and choose what to cover and what not to cover. Next, we need to decide how *much* coverage to carry on what we choose to insure. Sometimes this is easy, because the value of the insured object is well known. Sometimes it's hard to determine -- try insuring an art collection sometime! So finally, we get to the issue of y2k. OK, we must multiply the *probability* of serious personal impacts by the likely severity of such impacts. Unfortunately, both these factors were unknown. I mean *really* unknown. The key question was always, HOW do you go about assigning suitable values to these unknowns, so as to determine whether to prepare, and how much preparation is appropriate?

Flint, Did anyone tell you you would make a good insurance salesman? But is all this wordiness necessary? I swear man, you just love to hear yourself talk don't you? I'm glad because not many others do. Your philosophical extrapolations go beyond the pale. They're not necessary. They just confuse everyone.

Despite Milne's incredibly simplistic "thinking", this was a brutal task for any rational person. Rather hilariously, Milne's "evaluation" consisted of simply defining his current situation as ideal! He lives in the sticks, therefore the sticks are the place to be. His primitive lifestyle allows him to easily live off-grid or with few outside requirements, therefore that's the way to prepare. By amazing coincidence, it wasn't necessary for Milne to do a *damn thing* different for his "preparations" to be just perfect. But for the rest of us, this was hard. The banks were ALL claiming they'd be OK (correctly, as it turns out), but loony Andy was claiming they'd all be hosed. Who should we believe? NERC was saying that they hadn't found anything wrong that would have tripped any plants (correctly, as it turns out), but Roleigh Martin had doubts and the loonies were screaming coverup. Who should we believe? Of the millions of IT workers, all but a tiny handful were unworried, and the most visible of those (Yourdon, Hamasaki) were making money selling fear. Who should we believe? Billions were being spent, contingency planning was in full swing, the potential for *something* to happen was undeniable but the probability was unknowable, what to do, what to do?

The fact that billions were being spent tell you anything Flint? Tells me there was a problem. We all know they started late and we all know they were lying about their fixes and weren't doing testing. The gov. watchdogs, Horn and Bennett, were saying the government was not ready. They built a fifty million dollar bunker Flint my boy. That told me I should some kind of preparations. Your scurrilous slander against Ed and Cory sicken me.

And now here's BB saying "you were either right or wrong" about preparation. Hoo boy, that's rich. In retrospect, preparation was unnecessary and not a single soul anywhere needed a single preparation due to y2k-induced problems. So was preparation "wrong"? If not, surely there was some point beyond which preparation became excessive. But where was that point?

Yes, you WERE either right or wrong about preparation. It's easy arguing from hindsight. It is like a someone on the coast of Florida hearing a hurricane is heading their way but days away. Chances are it will miss, but what if it is a direct hit? Can a person be faulted for preparing, to whatever degree, Flint? I think not. It's easy when the hurricane turns into the North Atlantic to say, "Oh, those people were foolish for preparing." That's you Flint. Telling people they shouldn't have prepared for a hurricane after the people in the know were telling people EXACTLY to prepare for a hurricane. Milne was expecting a direct hit. Therefore, I would expect him to blow the trumpet bigtime. You make me laugh with your faulty logic. A person either made preparations or didn't. You either encouraged people to make preparations or you didn't. Some things are black or white in life Flint.

Not only didn't we know HOW to spend our resources, we didn't know how much to spend. Was an extra 3 days of food appropriate? Two weeks? Was money more wisely spent on non-hybrid seeds or on a generator? Was $100 enough? $10,000? Hey, this was wide open, the sky was the limit. The TB2K forum, in general, advised BIG preparations. In general, significant disruptions were regarded as almost certain. Preparations weren't against low-probability contingencies, they were regarded as a requirement, without which you'd suffer, possibly fatally. And this position was supported, as always, by as biased a presentation as one could imagine, into which doubts were not welcome and those pointing out the bias were not tolerated gracefully. Indeed, those who presented the most accurate analysis, just by virtue of NOT *demanding* preparations, were regarded as advising *against* preparation. Notice BB's very careful wording here. Nobody advised against preparation, but those who failed to jump on the doomer bandwagon "caused" people not to prepare, even if (like me) they prepared themselves and encouraged preparation whenever they mentioned it. Such people were "Sunday Christians", fellow travellers who, by failing to PREACH the doctrine, thereby undermined it and "caused" onlookers to fall into the ways of sin!

You are reading way too much from my post above Flint. You either encouraged preparations or you didn't. I have a problem with people who didn't. Stop reading into my words. Your argument is with Milne not me. I always left it to others to decide how they wanted to prepare. I, myself, didn't move, so I wouldn't have called a person an imbecile for living next to a 7-11. It's obvious that Milne has hurt your feelings and scarred your ego. Go attack him. But take my words at face value if you want to be fair.

So I have to laugh. BB has everyone either "right or wrong", no consideration of the complexity or the variables. Milne and I could hardly have been further apart in either approach or expectations, yet BB has us both "100% wrong". Uh, I admit to being at least 20% wrong, but no more than 30%. I admit I assigned more weight to those who warned us than was warranted. And while I don't regret doing so, I also recognize that to the extent I did this, I was in error. But I was never trying to either *trick* people or *intimidate* people into adopting my viewpoint. I was fighting to prevent people from falling prey to rigid beliefs expressed in slogans.

Again, if you prepared you were right, if you didn't you were wrong. Sounds logical to me. Has nothing to do with the complexity or variables. I don't need to understand the physics of a hurricane to board up my windows and put some water aside. Ok, some were closer to the truth about the consequences than others, but I think that was more by luck than by careful deduction. The truth about y2k will always be that no one really knew how it was going to turn out.

But folks like BB are impervious to careful analysis. It's all or nothing to BB, black or white. BB says "Milne was 100% wrong" in his first paragraph, and "Milne was 100% right" in his second! Who cares about contradictions when you have "100%" on your side? The only thing that could drive my point home better would be a biblical reference. And lo! we have one! Hallelujah!

Being a bit judgmental and self righteous here aren't we? I'm not a computer programmer or someone who was hired to find out the facts. I did hear Bennett say over and over, "What we know, is what we don't know." Nobody was saying much Flint. There wasn't enough facts or information to make a careful analysis. The secrecy and lying were enough to encourage preparations. Your logic above is fallacious. It reveals that when you try to be a 'big brain', you actually come off looking quite the opposite. So let me say it again, Milne was wrong about the consequences nobody could predict, yet right about his preparing. Got that? Good.

Flint. I must say. This post is full of bitterness, unfairness, and inaccuracy. I'm sorry Milne hurt you. I never agreed with his style, but this post is beneath your usual standards. The Biblical reference was appropriate. Did you look it up? For the life of me, I fail to get the point about the Bible reference except mockery. Good luck. Have a nice life.

-- BB (Hi@Mom.com), February 23, 2000.

just another

An anthill kicker?? ME?? Too funny. I spent 2 years on this board trying to be the bearer of good news. Each and every time I was told what an idiot I was, that I didn't know anything, that I was an industry shill. With 20+ years in the middle of IT I knew damn good and well what I was talking about. There are several quotes in these archives where I said it would all amount to nothing. The work was getting done and "Y2K would be the biggest non-event in history."

It was. No doubt about it.

For some strange reason, the majority (my guess) of this board chose to follow the ramblings of a pig-farmer and a preacher when it came to IT issues. 2 guys who OBVIOUSLY didn't have a clue to what they were speaking to. Here, they were heroes. Now they're being defended for some of the rotten things they said.

Here's a nickels worth of free advice - keep your damn mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about and it won't get thrown back in your face later.

If I had a question about pig farming, milne would have (probably) been a good source of information.

You can do better than that just another.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), February 23, 2000.

LOL,

I had said,

"You wish to show that Milne used exaggeration and exhibited hysteria. Well, in terms of the four items you presented: If Paul really believed that people would die, is it really exaggeration to vocalize it?"

You responded,

"To me, it is exaggeration when you draw a mental picture of 'shoveling lime on the hastily dug and shallow graves of the corpses of your children.' If he really believed that children would die, eve, he could have simply said that children would die. Painting the picture of 'hastily-dug shallow graves' is, to me, exaggeration. It is also 'hysterical rhetoric,' in my opinion. Same thing regarding drawing the image of one 'crying at the graveside' of one's children."

I had said,

"And even if he did exaggerate: Sometimes exaggeration can be an effective and legitimate way to communicate - especially if you feel you're not otherwise succeeding in getting your points across."

You responded,

"This point is irrelevant, however, since the point I was refuting was that he never exaggerated. Actually, I'm not exactly sure why you are making this point, since you had already stated: 'Please keep in mind that I'm not, in general, trying to exonerate Paul from any perceived wrongdoing or vice.' So, offering excuses for his exaggerations doesn't seem to fit in line with your statement above."

I employed this comment because I thought it possible that you might try to label some statements that may in fact be simply a type of exaggeration, as "hysterical rhetoric" as well. And you just did; so if it didn't seem relevant to you before, it should now.

And whether or not you still feel my statement is irrelevant -- just humor me for the moment, if you would, and answer whether or not you agree with it. A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

Further, apparently you still don't seem to understand that if someone believes a certain certain set of facts are likely and communicates those very facts, then there is no exaggeration. Perhaps you should think about this point a little longer before responding again to it.

I had said,

"Hysterical rhetoric? I don't know; I do know that at times he came across as a hothead, as was previously quoted of me. Post a definition that you feel is reasonable and we'll talk about it."

You responded,

"How about 'Hysterical rhetoric is being a hothead?' LOL. Really, eve, I don't know that posting a definition of 'hysterical rhetoric' will be terribly helpful, since at this point we appear to be splitting hairs on the issue and I don't think that a detailed argument of what is and is not 'hysterical rhetoric ' will prove productive. Still, I personally feel that a statement is 'hysterical rhetoric' when it appears to reach beyond the realm of logic and into that of emotion. A statement made more for emotional effect rather than to make a logical point. "For example, when you were confronted with some of his other quotes, you had said: 'there were gratuitous personal attacks, off-the-wall predictions, and at least one outrageous comment that really disturbed me -- the one about people deserving disaster.'

"I'd think that the comment you found outrageous would be a pretty good example of your definition of 'hysterical rhetoric,' but perhaps you feel otherwise. As I said, this will probably come down to hair-splitting and determining what the definition of 'is' is. Since your tendency so far has been to be quite unwilling to understand a different viewpoint, I'm not really sure how productive such a discussion would be."

First, your last sentence is pure ad hominem, and is also untrue. I would ask that you refrain from personal attacks and focus solely on the issues.

The first definition of "hysteria" (not the technical ones used in psychoanalysis or psychiatry) from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is:

"An uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc."

If this definition makes you uncomfortable, feel free to substitute another, if you like.

I am unable to read the purely rhetorical equivalent of this definition into the posts you have quoted. I'm not even sure that these particular posts have any emotional content whatsoever, although I wouldn't rule it out. And I assume you see the logic in warning someone about danger if you see it -- right?

I had said,

"Regarding your method of selection: I think we can now pretty safely assume your sample was unrepresentative, correct?"

You replied,

"No, eve. I have already stated that I feel my sample is representative of typical Paul Milne posts. I am puzzled why you continue to ignore what I have already written above. If you believe that my sample is unrepresentative, that's fine. I happen to feel otherwise."

You're welcome to "feel" as you please.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 23, 2000.

Eve, I have enjoyed your many posts and my admiration for your debating skills is endless. I would suggest however that you abandon this thread and seek greener pastures. You are taking the criticism from LOL way too personally and your position is spiraling downwards IMHO. Your first mistake was offering any defense for Paul Milne. Please, dont let that error blossom any further. My best to you.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), February 23, 2000.

Eve:

Again, I suggest that you go to DejaNews and do the background necessary to engage in this discussion. As it stands now, you've entered a "book discussion session" after having read a few reviews of the book.

Certainly you must realize at this point that many here have followed csy2k for several years and are not only familiar with the writings of Mr. Milne, but the writings of the other characters in the book. We understand the context in which responses were offered on ALL sides.

What have YOU read? You've read a few threads wherein someone presented a selected post from csy2k to begin a topic. Folks then debated that topic and even the selected post content. This selection process was NOT arbitrary. 'a', in particular was fond of posting selective Milne crossposts. I didn't follow those threads myself both because the replies from csy2k were not included and because I'd already read the entire discourse on csy2k.

You said you don't have the time to read the book that many others TOOK the time to read, yet you seem to have the time to "debate" the "book discussion group" based on the reviews you've read.

If you choose to spend the time on the research, Eve, I'd be quite willing to discuss your findings. Until then, however, MY time is best spent on something else.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), February 23, 2000.

I employed this comment because I thought it possible that you might try to label some statements that may in fact be simply a type of exaggeration, as "hysterical rhetoric" as well. And you just did; so if it didn't seem relevant to you before, it should now.

No, it still appears irrelevant to me. I see no reason why at least some of these statements can't be both exaggerations and hysterical rhetoric.

And whether or not you still feel my statement is irrelevant -- just humor me for the moment,

Actually, I've been "humoring" you for quite some time now, eve. Perhaps you should simply stick to the topic at hand.

Further, apparently you still don't seem to understand that if someone believes a certain certain set of facts are likely and communicates those very facts, then there is no exaggeration. Perhaps you should think about this point a little longer before responding again to it.

LOL! Using this argument, eve, one can state that it is therefore impossible to claim that any statement made by anyone is an exaggeration, since one cannot read another's mind. You can simply say, "Well, if that's what he really believes, then it's not an exaggeration." I find this argument beyond absurd. If I were to say, "In a few months, TRILLIONS of people will die!!" would I be exaggerating if I really believed this was the case, even though there aren't even TRILLIONS of people in the world? Perhaps you would think I was not, but I believe that this is an exaggeration. The same case goes for statements like "You'll be dead soon." and the various graveside, lime-shovelling, and being "toast" references.

First, your last sentence is pure ad hominem, and is also untrue. I would ask that you refrain from personal attacks and focus solely on the issues.

My last sentence is neither ad hominem nor untrue. It appeared to me that you have demonstrated no willingness to understand a different viewpoint and have, in fact, stretched your arguments beyond the point of absurdity in order to continue this conversation. If you like, I will be happy to list the many gyrations I have watched you go through in your effort to deny such a simple set of points. You had previously asked for constructive criticism, and it now appears that you are unable to handle such. Perhaps you should refrain from making such requests in the future.

The first definition of "hysteria" (not the technical ones used in psychoanalysis or psychiatry) from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is:

"An uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc."

If this definition makes you uncomfortable, feel free to substitute another, if you like.

Actually, I quite like this one.

I am unable to read the purely rhetorical equivalent of this definition into the posts you have quoted. I'm not even sure that these particular posts have any emotional content whatsoever, although I wouldn't rule it out.

That's good. Again, I believe that the imagery of "shovelling lime on the hastily-dug and shallow graves of one's children" is emotional in the extreme. I believe that if you were to make a comment like this to any parent, the response you would get would be best described as almost purely emotional. Perhaps you disagree.

And I assume you see the logic in warning someone about danger if you see it -- right?

Certainly.

You're welcome to "feel" as you please.

Great, thanks!!

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 23, 2000.

LOL,

You failed to recognize the ad hominem in your prior post, and your last post was riddled with even more. You're now interested in taking this to a personal level. Therefore, our discussion is over, and I will not be responding to any more posts from you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 23, 2000.

Umm, okay.

-- (LOL@LOL.LOL), February 23, 2000.

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

"An uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear, often characterized by irrationality, laughter, weeping, etc."

Like, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), February 23, 2000.

Dancr,

Now, there's a good example! :-)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 24, 2000.

BB's comments *should* have been the last word on this thread...if it weren't for small people wearing their rubber anthill boots, smelling like unleaded and flicking their BIC. How's tricks, Flint?

Thanks for the reality check, BB!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 24, 2000.