Why did BigDog complain about polly 'gloating'? here is a recipe from last summer

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

posted by the bigdodger himself

Recipe for Steamed Decker:

1 Decker or equivalent (Flint acceptable in a pinch) big pot of water, include enough to cover a fat head marinade sauce (two parts "a", one part Milne) sugar for adding sweetness

Mix, set aside in a dark place and marinate until 12/15/99. Put in Dutch oven on your wood stove. Turn the heat up, just enough to simmer, until 1/15/2000.

Remove and say, "I told you so."

Decker-Flint will then be ready to be put to work around the old homestead, next to "Pa" and "Ma".

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 13, 1999.

It sure looks to me like he was ready to "gloat" when the time came, IF he was right!

-- sittin' (fatNhappy@kitchen.chef), April 12, 2000

Answers

To which Mr Decker replied

HUMOR:

Big Dodger's Black Helicopter Bottom Pie

Do not preheat oven. You started "too late" and the "oven is broken." Coat a tart pan with "grease." Dust lightly with Andy's pansy flour and set aside.

Prepare a pastry crust with flour, Spanish lard and water. Close eyes while cutting in lard (respect for hog.) If squeamish about lard, shortening may be substituted... the shorter the better.

Roll out pastry crust with an inflexible iron roller. Sing the St. John's college hymn for flakier crust. Place to one side and ignore while making filling.

In a large bowl, create a custard by combining cliches, tautologies, heavy cream, eggs and a thesaurus. Whip... repeatedly. In a separate bowl, mix NWO, ZOG, "constitutionalism," and rum.

Line the pie tin with the crust covering grease and flour. Carefully spread the viscous "black helicopter" bottom. Cover with custard. Place a thin layer of pie crust over the pie. Brush with egg white.

Read Debunker forum, place head and pie in oven and bake.

When the crust has a pleasant, shiny veneer remove from oven. Label pie, "Apple," and use as a decorative centerpiece. WARNING: This pie is not meant for consumption!

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 13, 1999.

Which recipe do YOU like better? LOL!

-- sittin' (fatNhappy@kitchen.chef), April 12, 2000.


Anyone who knows me or followed the forum throughout last year knows that I would have dreaded gloating and said so dozens of times explicitly, because of all the people who would have suffered as a result - but I do think Decker's recipe is definitely wittier.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 12, 2000.

You are a class act Russ.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 12, 2000.

Hey BD, if you ever decide it's safe enough to, umm, assess the Y2k situation, give a holler over here, would you?

I'm still somewhat interested in your take, but can't exactly participate over at the new hangout.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), April 12, 2000.


If BD had been "right," I'm not sure there would have been a forum he could gloat within. And while I clearly have not been a fan, I do not consider him inclined to gloat. I think he looked down on the Y2K optimists last year, much like a wise shepard looks down on his foolish flock. Had we been wrong, I think he would have seen us exactly the same way. In fact, he may have even felt inclined to help us... despite our misspent 1999.

In my life, I have known few zealots... mostly religious in nature. Like BD, most seem to have rigorous codes of conduct. Unfortunately, these codes often include a provision for stomping heretics, though it is usually a matter of duty rather than pleasure. Gloating is not normally done out of a sense of obligation. Perhaps I am growing soft, but I do not think BD's profound sense of duty would allow him to gloat.

And he's right... my recipe was wittier.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2000.



ROFL! This I hadn't seen, and it is a very witty and funny showcase of male chest thumping.

Decker's seems wittier, but he had the advantage of replying and taking his time for a "one up'ing". I doubt that BigDog would have been less wittier if he had been the one replying.

Decker had a lapse in logic in his recepe though; since he started out with a broken oven, implying that it couldn't be fixed since it "was too late", the pie and head couldn't be cooked to a golden flakyness.

Creative flaming can certainly be entertaining.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 12, 2000.


Ted,

It's good to see your alive and well. We talked about you over on the Steve Heller nonapology thread. Your debate with Heller was a defining moment for several optimists. I suppose, upon reflection, we owe you dinner. If you make it to the Mid Atlantic, feel free to impose.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2000.


Hoff -- I do intend to speak up analytically about Y2K in May, as I had 'promised'. You'll recall I said last year that I found your analysis provocative and possible and I do believe you nailed part of what did happen. On other areas about which you have spoken and, particularly people, I remain in profound disagreement. You'll understand this is all I will say about it here for now.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), April 12, 2000.

Hoff,

BD is still unhappy about your characterization of EY. I do think the development of EZB supports your original contentions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2000.


Ken said,

(In my life, I have known few zealots... mostly religious in nature. Like BD, most seem to have rigorous codes of conduct. Unfortunately, these codes often include a provision for stomping heretics, though it is usually a matter of duty rather than pleasure. Gloating is not normally done out of a sense of obligation. Perhaps I am growing soft, but I do not think BD's profound sense of duty would allow him to gloat.)

CODES OF CONDUCT??? Does that include allmighty censor and benevolent deleter??? Or does that just come with being one of ed's boys.

I would not have gloated either if that were the case BUT I also wouldn't retreat into a sacred little board to hide from my miscalculations and I CERTAINLY would NEVER act to shut out an opposing opinion.

Yea,I used to like bd's posts,actually learned a couple of things in the process.But like the rest of eds lackeys they are void of honesty,credibility and a true belief in the Constitution the rest is BULLSHIT.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 12, 2000.



Ouch Cap! You post this just after I mention on another thread that from what I've read from you, lead me to think you had a "functional" ego ;-P

Simple truth to ponder; gloating is mostly a risky behavior and best never to engage in it. This from an atheist.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 12, 2000.


Chris,

I just posted a reply to the other thread.

There is a difference in gloating about others errors and me calling someone on being a censor,errors are no biggie BUT intentionally trying to shut people up is socialist and I will not back down from these convictions.

My intentions are one thing,my actions are quite another.If things had gotten bad I was more than prepared to help many,fortunately life is good and we were wrong, why be a sore loser? And an asshole in the process.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 12, 2000.


Cap, I see your point. And notice my emoticon at the end of my comment to you, was meant to be conveying that I was not serious about the sterness of my admonishment.

It's hard for me now with this new attitude I have post-y2k not to appear to be "kicking the anthill", as I think I'm doing pretty much the same thing as Flint is/was, that is looking at every angle of the issue and picking out what I see as illogical or coming from an emotionaly laden viewpoint. So forgive me here for pointing this out to you; you said "why be a sore loser? And an asshole in the process." You've shown some "sore loserness" with your emotional reaction to Bigdog's viewpoint and beliefs in censorship. You "lose" in that you can't force EZboard's sysop seeing it your way, and me too btw, as I agree with you on censorship. (Granted we're not losing much, and it's more annoying than anything else that we percieve we can't enlighten others as to the obvious detrimental aspects of censorship.) I tend to see that kind of response as the ego rearing it's ugly head. Just another attempt on my part to make sense of the dinamics of flaming not conductive to understanding.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 12, 2000.


Substitute 'urinate' for 'marinate' and you've got it!

-- The (Recipe@King.com), April 12, 2000.

Cap,

Censors rarely act at random. Most have a very specific agenda. The religious right wants to ensure we do not see material that might arouse our prurient interests. The liberal left does not want us to see materials that might make us question their pervasive social policies. Both groups are confident in the "rightness" of their actions.

You may not approve of BD's particular ethos, however, I think he has one. In his case, I think he felt fully justified in acting as a forum censor. If the question is BD gloating, my interpretation of his "code" suggests he would not. Nor do I think BD would engage in a negative behavior unless he felt a larger issue was at stake. I don't think BD censored TB 2000 for his own amusement, but because he believed it served a higher purpose. This is why I do not think he would gloat. By the way, Cap, socialist political philophy has little to do with freedom of speech. It's much more about free market versus planned economies.

Chris,

There is a difference between analysis and opinion. You have offered a great many opinions on how we might be nicer folks. (You and Brian should get along splendidly). I imagine Cap is aware that emotional outbursts are not terribly productive. Ironically, since he already knows this, your opinion to Cap is not terribly productive.

Is it not egotistical to assume you can convince others to change their behavior because of your insights?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2000.



Hey Big Dog, nice to see ya. I miss a lot of you folks over on EZ, but I hang my hat here as a matter of principal, mainly that of freedom of expression for all.

As for me, I would not have gloated, gouged maybe (hey, that's fifty cents PER ice cube, Bubba!) but no, not gloat.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.


Ken

Yeah, still kicking. Lurk for the most part, when time permits.

Saw the Heller thread, and his "admission" didn't really surprise me. Steve made it blatantly clear last year his main purpose was to generate whatever free publicity he could. Like some others, his main goal appeared to be to keep his name "in play".

BD

Oh, I "understand" fairly well. I never had any doubts why I was banned, and if it was just me, the censorship issue would be pretty boring.

But the other bannings are very revealing. Especially those such as Patricia and Jonathon Latimer, people who rarely, if ever, posted at the old forum.

The fact that you and the other censors steadfastly refused to divulge the reasons people were banned, was even more frustrating. And in retrospect, even more revealing.

I hope you enjoy the selected grouping there, BD. I'm sorry you can't see that, by perpetuating the "only like minded people" aspect of the old forum, you are repeating the same mistakes that lead to so many totally misreading the Y2k situation.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), April 12, 2000.


"Chris,

There is a difference between analysis and opinion. You have offered a great many opinions on how we might be nicer folks."

If you think of "analysis" only in terms of scientific, well established rules of science, and not the broader and less formal meaning that includes such other terms as "hindsight", "effective communication" etc., then I could understand why you seem to see a significant difference between "analysis" and "given opinions" when applied to my own input and contributions. It can be said that anyone posting on this forum is also only giving opinions. If you want to know however, why I keep giving my opinion on "how folks could be nicer", then it should be obvious to you that my aim is to facilitate communication and understanding.

"(You and Brian should get along splendidly)."

I've always found Brian to be analytical and not afraid to give his own opinion either, and I haven't butted heads on that with him so far.

"I imagine Cap is aware that emotional outbursts are not terribly productive. Ironically, since he already knows this, your opinion to Cap is not terribly productive."

I agree that it's "not terribly productive" or more specificaly that it is perhaps redundant having said what I said to Cap, as I too believe he understands the effects of emotional outbursts, but since him and I had engaged in discussion, I felt it appropriate to point out what I viewed as his own inconsistencies which could also benefit the hapenstance reader, since my aim is to help all of us with more effective communication.

"Is it not egotistical to assume you can convince others to change their behavior because of your insights? "

This last comment tells me you still don't understand the differences between a disfuntional ego and a more functional one. The term "ego" by itself has no evil conotation, it is simply a mechanism of the psyche used to protect ourselves. When put to use appropriately, it is said to be doing its job, hence "functional".

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 12, 2000.


Yes Hoff, I was one of those who listened to the Y2K Doomer idiots. I suppose I will be considered a poor loser, but frankly I don't give a damn. I wish I'd listened more to you, LL, Flint and others.

That stupid forum did influence a lot of people, including me, who spent a lot of money and time, that could have been better spent on other things. I could overlook that, but the constant battering I and many others, received when we dared suggest that bashing pollies was an ignorant thing to do really got to me.

I was wrong as hell and I admit it. That's what I get for listening to doomers and religious nuts and sinking into FUD. They were wrong too, but are still hoping for something to happen to justify their ranting. Capn' Fun, you got it right saying, "the almighty censor and benevolent deleter." I got rather weary of Big Dog's holier-than-thou stance, so why is it not surprising that he would rather hang out on a forum where he can play God by censoring posts. Of course God doesn't have to explain his reasons for deleting and censoring.

INVAR the Idiot was never deleted, no matter how nasty he was, and I could name others in that category, but he knows that.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 12, 2000.


Chris,

You are obviously well intentioned... and inevitably the well intentioned seem to do the most damage. If you insist on "helping" folks with their communication skills, let me respectfully decline before you become too invested in helping me. I gave at the office.

As for ego, I am quite well versed in Freudian psychology. Please note, I used to word egotistical, not ego. To borrow from Websters, a synonym is "conceit." I think it is conceited of you to think you will change the behavior of others. Cap, having formed his behavior and attitudes over a lifetime, is quite unlikely to have an epiphany because you decide to write a few paragraphs of helpful advice. It is also conceited because the act of providing this advice presumes he is not aware of his behavior (and you are) and that the guidance you provide is sound. For all we know, Cap is a practicing psychiatrist who is blowing off some steam on this forum... a practice the vast majority of clinicians would find rather acceptable. (Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and call it sublimation).

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 2000.


Ken, I'm almost tempted to say "lets agree to disagree" at this point, but something prevents me from it. Not really sure why. Could be because I enjoy the challenge you present me.

"you are obviously well intentioned... and inevitably the well intentioned seem to do the most damage."

I'd refer you to the thread in which I confront Hawk with "projection", but that would be running the risk of insulting your intelligence.

"If you insist on "helping" folks with their communication skills, let me respectfully decline before you become too invested in helping me. I gave at the office."

I respectfully will backoff from offering you any further help with communication skills, since you view it that way. I respectfully will point out to you here though that I will continue to offer my opinion on my views, as respectfully as I can manage.

"As for ego, I am quite well versed in Freudian psychology. Please note, I used to word egotistical, not ego. To borrow from Websters, a synonym is "conceit." "

Pardon me for not having been so clear as you in parsing the words ego and egotistical from the start. Still, I'd like to point out to you, always respectfully, that "egotistical" is derived from "ego", and that "conceit" is also synonym of "disfunctional ego".

So then, returning to your comment "Is it not egotistical to assume you can convince others to change their behavior because of your insights?", my answer was to point out that I viewed a difference between a functional and disfunctional ego. To clarify my answer further here then, I'll say that no, I don't view this as egotistical, nor conceited, anymore than you view your own insights and knowledgable opinions as such. My disagreement with you revolve around how you view yourself, and your own ability to (or inability in my view) to get your point across in a meaningful and positive way with your audience.

Where functionality and disfunctionality begins is a grey area, I'll concede. So perhaps you and me are not the best judges of where we stand in this regard, as we are both enmeshed too deeply in this personal debate involving character and personality.

"Cap, having formed his behavior and attitudes over a lifetime, is quite unlikely to have an epiphany because you decide to write a few paragraphs of helpful advice."

Since you bring Cap into this debate, I'll mention that as for Cap, it would be perhaps best to respect the readers to whom my opinions are directed, to decide for themselves whether I am conceited or not, as you yourself are doing. Cap IMO, does not need to have his own intellectual abilities defended.

Also, as I mentioned on the thread you just started, I'd like you to explain this comment to me "There is a difference between analysis and opinion. You have offered a great many opinions on how we might be nicer folks." When in that thread where Flint gives his take on the doomers/prep mentality, you praise him for his "analysis" of it.

I detect an unjust bias there.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.


Chris,

Sorry, I missed the emoticon.

To me Y2K is the past,there is no sore loser thinking in my ego,anyone who wears the flag of virtue and then sully's it will recieve my 2" worth and then some,especially when censorship is involved.BD knows this tactic is wrong,that is why he seldom comes out from under his rock(SLEZ board).I have the right to challenge his views on censorship and have no aspirations to change his point of view,only to make my voice heard to him if he chooses or not to listen.

BTW,I fail to realize where we have lost anything in this dialogue.

Ken,

If BD had an ethos it would not include censorship,especially after the danger had subsided(please enlighten me!)I have not been talking about the censorship before rollover,only as it was instituted at SLEZ board, what larger issue is there?Fact is,there is nothing larger than basic American tenets,which they so boldly hold up when the shoe is on the other foot.

For that matter Ken, I have challenged Chuck,Sysman and now Big Dog on the censorship issue and the only thing I have heard is silence.I personally do not have any stake left in Y2K but the censorship crap puts a burr in my saddle that I will respond to when it is brought forward.If you have noticed, I do not instigate these tirades but I will speak my mind.

As a side note; have you ever noticed how socialists have a way of muting dissenting opinions and could give a shit less about the esoteric dichotomies.

I do know that emotional outbursts are non-productive;but if your talking to the deaf and it makes you feel better,what the hell.

Cool refresher anyone? : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 13, 2000.


Cap, "BTW,I fail to realize where we have lost anything in this dialogue."

I guess I was being uneccessarily wordy. I used "lose" in a figurative /rhetorical way. I did say we're not losing much.

You could say I'm losing myself in my own orgy with words and enjoying it too much. Ken should pick up on that and score a point against me with his contention that I am being conceited thinking I can help anyone with effective communication ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.


Chris,

I don't think you are being concieted at all,that was your impression of the conversation at that moment.We have to go through those times in a conversation where we line each other out.Youre cool as far as I'm concerned,no problem.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 13, 2000.


Ummmm, just as a record straightener, BD was not an active SYSOP on TB2000. He DID run the corolary Prep forum as a tightly moderated goal oriented forum.

# 3

-- Number 3 - I WAS a number (sysops@re.nolonger.us), April 13, 2000.


Chris,

With all due respect, I do not find your writing particularly clear, concise or cogent. As an open forum, you may pursue your goal of helping others reach some sort of higher plateau of understanding or self awareness. I appreciate you excluding me from this assistance program and online personality analysis.

While I find the whole matter somewhat amusing now, I imagine it could become very tedious very quickly. Your insights will not change my communication style, my personality or choice of breakfast cereals. Forgive me, but there are few folks I find more boorish than zealous missionaries who do not want to leave one's doorstep.

You see, Chris, I find some missionaries rather conceited as well. They presume to have found some mystical insight that I do not possess... and they are bound and determined I should receive this "good news." In attempting to convert me, they operate on the belief they are right. Your observations on my "dysfunctional" ego are based on your belief that you are right... and I am wrong. That seems a bit conceited to me.

I have no desire to knock on the door of local missionaries and bother them. They have every right to their beliefs. I just wish they would extend me the same courtesy. Unfortunately, they are commanded by their God to continue proselytizing.

I agree we should move beyond Cap and to Flint. I have read Flint's work for over a year. I've met him in person and admire his keen intellect. When Flint has an opinion, I have generally found it grounded in firm analysis. As such, I tend to treat even his rants as having some basis in an objective analysis of the situation. You can call this bias, but to me, Flint has earned a degree of credibility. You have not. To know, I have only read a modest amount of your writings. With all due respect, I have not noticed any brilliant analytical skills or keen insights. You seem like a nice person who uses the tedious language of pop psychology. (dysfunction, enmeshment, etc.) If you write about Y2K or related policy issues, I will engage in debate while completing ignoring your sincere and earnest personality. If you write something of breathtaking insight, I will be the first to congratulate you. In the mean time, please respect my wish to remain unreconstructed.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 13, 2000.


Big dodger strikes yet again

"Mix, set aside in a dark place and marinate until 12/15/99. Put in Dutch oven on your wood stove. Turn the heat up, just enough to simmer, until 1/15/2000.

Remove and say, "I told you so.""

naw, no gloating there.....

You go, Russ.

-- Someone who DID follow the forum for 2 years (and can @lso.read the archives), April 13, 2000.


Your opinion is as valid as mine, Ken, and you're right that this is becoming tedious.

I wasn't aware I was using "pop culture" lexicon, I thought I was using my knowledge of psychology. If psychology has become mainstream, so much the better. I've always felt that it should be required courses starting in highschool, as well as for any graduate programs post HS.

As to you comparing me to a missionary, the same could be said for your own "mission" to enlighten the "Yourdonites" since your arival here.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.


Recently I was at a meeting where one of the participants spent so much time trying bring about "effective communication," that someone finally said, "Why don't you quit trying to get everyone to agree and let us have our say." After that things got worked out.

Chris I don't mean that you are doing this, but IMHO, it's close. Sometimes people have to say what they feel without having phrases like effective communication, or constructive dialog, or productive exchanges thrown in to cloud the issue. I worked for many years for a man who often said, "Sometimes you have to stir the shit to get the air cleared.." I think some of us feel we need to express how the whole situation affected us, and how we could have been so wrong. I would certainly say and do things differently after this experience.

Some people don't like me because I'm so blunt sponken, but it cuts the crap, and gets to the point. And I certainly don't think anyone has the right to censor another's point of view, no matter what it is. I don't intend to start thinking in a politically, socially, sexually and spiritually correct mode, for it just isn't the real me.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 13, 2000.


Gilda, totally agree with you. Notice that I don't pick on you either. This whole thing between me and Decker started when I told him I was annoyed as his egotistical and arrogant behavior, and it grew out of hand from there.

Call it a fancy long-winded flaming back and forth between him and me ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.


Damn, gilda. I don't know how many times you can say exactly what I'm thinking.

She's right Chris. People have to say -- what they want to say -- the way they want to say it. It would be nice if everyone spoke and wrote as respectfully as you do, but everybody's different. (Different personalities, different amounts of computer time, different values; whatever.)

As long as there's no censorship, people will work things out. We've had people here attacking personality traits of individuals for how long now? Certainly as long as I've been on the board, and that's been ~5 months. As long as I've been here, Heller is attacked for being arrogant, Decker is attacked for being pompous, Hawk is attacked for being foul, I'm attacked for being crazy. Well, admittedly to some degree, all of those character attacts are correct :o( However, I realize it's hard for others to ignore that aspect of my personality, so I've learned to just ignore the attacks, because I can't change who I am, and I doubt the rest can do anything either.

Capnfun,

I hate the way you space things, but I sure like your ideas :o)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 13, 2000.


Ken,

"For all we know, Cap is a practicing psychiatrist who is blowing off some steam on this forum."

That Is Too funny!!! Been accused of being psycho a couple of times but never a psychiatrist : )

Laura,

Thanks,but as far as the spacing goes it just feels better kinda open?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 13, 2000.


This is my second "go" at a post on this thread, but that's good. I'll attempt to be more concise.

Thanks, sittin'. I felt I was there in July of last year, but I missed this post. Gloating ABOUNDED on that forum in 1999. In addition to gloating, the guilt-raps were astounding. *I* was personally responsible for the deaths of MILLIONS simply because I stated that I'd seen remediation completed at several sites.

Bigdog never got in MY face. The only thing he ever said to me was that as a programmer he didn't understand why I WOULDN'T be scared. I'd enjoyed his essays until he began the anti-Flint threads. The message was always clear in those that Flint should be ignored while Bigdog should be revered. I found that disappointing, and mentioned same.

I DO have a question, however, that I'd like to throw into the mix. I think it's already been established that folks who feared/hated government in general, feared/hated corporations in general were more prone to see Y2k pessimistically. I'd be curious to learn if anyone has noticed an association between rural versus city folks. It seems as though I saw a lot of folks who lived in rural areas or small towns see Y2k more pessimistically than folks who were more of the city-slicker mentality.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.


I watched the forum go through a metamorphisis from June '98 on. At that time there was usually just a handful of threads -- from people looking for information mostly, one guy unsuccessfully trying to hawk food, and a lively religious debate that resulted in the spinoff Pastor Chris forum.

Y2k came into my horizon in late May or early June I happened to catch the end of an interview with Ed on a big Cap cities radio station. The host is a fairly middle of the road moderator. I only remember his wrap-up as being something to the effect of 'well, I don't know, but you did make me think about some other things such as watches and cars'.

At the public library De Jager's 'Doomsday' book and 'Timebomb' happened to be in the new non-fiction bin so I picked them up.

My opinion is that how and when you became exposed to the information determined to a degree the trajectory of your interpretation and response. When Gary would go on Art Bell, or link to a thread on the timebomb it had a definite impact on the amount of posters, and the likely opinions or fears that they had.

It also seems to me that many of the so called pollies were actually reformed doomers.

All in all it has been a very interesting time, and I'm glad we can take a look at it here & compare notes.

-- flora (***@__._), April 13, 2000.


Anita, which type of "folks" do you mean in particular? Do you mean everyone who read/posted TB2K, or only the IT and other related Y2K fields people?

If you mean the former, I'd say the more pessimists were from all walks of life and geographic locations. No stark differences ever struck me, i.e., more pessimists in Y2K's outcome coming from rural/small towns. I you mean IT professionals, I don't really know, as I never paid much attention to that either. I'd take a guess that most would be in suburbs/city areas, since that's where most of the IT related jobs are.

I don't believe residential locations had much to do with wether one was optimistic or pessimistic about the outcome of the roll-over. IMO, many complex factors were at play, including education, tech background knowledge, age, family responsibilities etc etc.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 13, 2000.


"BTW, we are long past "interpretation" necessity with pre-Y2K, anyway. "Right action" is full-scale prep, finishing by August 1 at latest. See "dancr" post on Faryna's "Milne goes 10" thread for superb example of right action based on transparency.

.... in a best case (BITR, ha!), she has some nice antiques, maps and some fabric ....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 11, 1999.

-- (BDw@s.doomer), April 17, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ