During in the Y2K debate, I described the following spectrum:

Idealist - Investors in tech stocks Optimist - Y2K BITR Realist - Y2K Recession Pessimist - Y2K Depression Survivalist - Y2K Depression with massive social unrest Fatalist - Clinton elected to third term

Humor aside, the irony of the online debate--most of the participants were "realists" and "pessimists." The majority of Americans may have noticed Y2K, but few reacted. An the other extreme, only a handful of Americans went full "doomer." Most of this vocal minority (Gary North, Bruce Beach, etc.) were digging bunkers long before Y2K.

Those who participated in the online debate took the issue seriously enough to spend a signficant amount of time discussing it. Most of the "pollies" were veritable "doomers" by real world standards. So why the acrimony?

If one can accept the pessimists sincerely believed we were about to crash, one can understand the emotional volume. Unfortunately, I think some of the Y2K pessimists missed an important point. The "pollies" felt the issue was important enough to discuss. And unlike the rest of the civilized world, the "pollies" actually engaged in the debate.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 24, 2000

Answers

Those who participated in the online debate took the issue seriously enough to spend a signficant amount of time discussing it. Most of the "pollies" were veritable "doomers" by real world standards. So why the acrimony?"

Ken, a more enlightening question might be, why, nearly 4 months after the defining event, are the same people (including you, Ken)still spending a significant amount of time here...posting away, flaming away, debating away? Sure, there's an occasional rational discussion, but, take a stroll through the top 10 threads on the recent answers page, Ken. Then, answer the question, why?

-- (insanity@is.contagious), April 24, 2000.

TOP TEN THREADS

IS IT LEGAL TO BURN AMERICAN FLAG? (10 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
Where does the money come from? (7 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
"We will not turn this child over - not in Opa-locka, not in any 'locka'. They will have to take this child from me by force" Lazaro Gonzalez said (11 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
Now we have to worry about Bin Laden's "radiation bombs?" (2 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
MARISLEYSIS SIGNS DEAL TO APPEAR IN PLAYBOY (49 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
My Life Couldn't Be More Perfect: Thank you, OTFR. (14 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
Ellian relatives and Senator Bob Smith to be on C Span today at 4:40 P M. The Government handling of this is a disgrace. Where is ALGORE on this? Why do the Democrats (15 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
Hawk working on getting banned from EZBoard! (41 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
the Elian case proves the our system of checks and balances post y2k is no longer working properly (7 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)
Was the Crucifixtion a Fraud? (23 new answers, last on April 24, 2000)


-- (Why ask@why?...), April 24, 2000.

Insanity:

Social interaction . It's fun. When it is no longer fun people will leave. There must be more. OK, the same reason people talk with people. I'm sure that you have observed this.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Why ask

Just checked. Your list is already outdated.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Ken don't you have some peonies to take care of?

-- (...@...), April 24, 2000.

Z,

No argument here.

Ken said, "Unfortunately, I think some of the Y2K pessimists missed an important point. The "pollies" felt the issue was important enough to discuss. And unlike the rest of the civilized world, the "pollies" actually engaged in the debate."

I think that Ken is the one who missed an important point all along. We could answer Ken's question..."Social interaction. It's fun. When it is no longer fun people will leave."

-- (insanity@is.contagious), April 24, 2000.

There once was fellow named Decker

Whose ego he stroked like his pecker.

With each boring post

He chimed "I'm the most!"

As he came all over his spellchecker.

-- Where's Ra when you need him (@ .), April 24, 2000.

LOL!!!

That was the funniest limerick I've read so far here. Thanks!

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), April 24, 2000.

That may be the funniest thing that I have ever read!

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 24, 2000.

Here is a good way to get flamed on this thread!

Ken:

I would like to point out two things.

1. I read all of your posts; don't always agree, but I appreciate the effort. Keep it up.

2. Put the back slash before the anchor unless you are going for the world's record in link size :o).

As always,,

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

RA., LOL, have you considered writing for money. Send some of these to Playboy. They are hilarious.

Hey Decker, you make a valid point. Gee, I wish I could go back and do it all over. I'd be a Polly.

Ra, can't you write one about fools like me that fell for the Y2K drivel.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

Most of the "pollies" were veritable "doomers" by real world standards. So why the acrimony?

1. It wasn't only about how bad Y2k might be; the disagreement had a lot to do with whether the average non-Net using citizen was too concerned or not concerned enough about possible Y2k problems, and what the government should do about Y2k awareness.

2. "Pollies" had their own message forums, yet they also came to a Y2k preparedness forum (TB2000), trying to change minds. One reason the "polly" sites might not have been more attractive to those prepping was that instead a good supply of hard info on Y2k progress, the "polly" sites had a habit of talking about personalities on the TB2000 forum.

-- One (point@of.view), April 25, 2000.

One,

"'Pollies' had their own message forums, yet they also came to a Y2k preparedness forum (TB2000), trying to change minds. One reason the "polly" sites might not have been more attractive to those prepping was that instead a good supply of hard info on Y2k progress, the 'polly' sites had a habit of talking about personalities on the TB2000 forum."

TB 2000 was NOT a preparedness forum. It was an open forum until Ed Yourdon gave the keys to a group of hand-selected sysops. Yourdon's invitation was clear. TB 2000 was designed for ANYONE with questions about Y2K. The forum sysops tried to convert it to a "prep" forum. In frustration, Russ "Big Dog" Lipton created another LUSENET forum dedicated entirely to Y2K preparation. The "prep" forum basically fizzled.

Furthermore, the single most important "preparedness" issue was accurately gauging the impact of Y2K. Because TB 2000 had both "pollies" and "doomers," it produced some of the better dialogues on assessing the impact of Y2K... including the Hoff-Heller debate.

Unfortunately, few of the TB 2000 regulars "got it." Some, including the sysops, tried to squelch dissent.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

One, I never came here trying to change anybody's mind. I came here to try to understand it. How could anyone conclude the end? I ask that question a gazillion times and never got an answer.

BTW One, you have to admit that some of the personalities were worthy of discussion. Bob Mangus, KOS, Taco Ray, Will continue, and we can never forget jail bird Andy and Nik. All of them worthy of discussion.

Yeah Ken, hard to believe that I was a doomer.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2000.

Maria and Ken,

I discovered this forum in late January (thereabouts) and wish that I had found it last year. I sure missed out on a lot of pre-Y2K discourse and therefore am not knowledgable about what went on back then.

As a moderate Doomer at that time I was motivated by my learned distrust of Government and Big Business (50+ years), and by the significant lack of almost ANY detailed information provided to the general public. All we got were dull platitudes about how everything was going to be Just Fine. Never any details to back it up. Over the years I've learned that most of what the vested interests tell us is not the real truth. I suspect that a lot of other moderate doomers took their view for the same reasons.

I'm rather happy with my preps, but not at the consequences of buying perhaps 10 years of "neat stuff" that I had always wanted anyway, in a single year. My wife wasn't/isn't happy about it either.

I found that a lot of people just couldn't deal with the possibility of an economic or social meltdown, and went into heavy denial. This is my DW's usual pattern of dealing with things, so nothing new there except for the realization that there are lots more like her out there. Statistically, believing that the status-quo will continue indefinitely is a much safer position to take until it changes.

What I still am trying to understand is the need exhibited by some Pollies to keep browbeating Doomers now that the Pollies were proved right. My wife will undoubtedly never let me forget it, as I stood alone taking a controversial position and taking steps to protect her, her children, and her extended family. She won either way, with no effort. I was raised to believe that it was a man's responsibility to protect and provide for his family. I guess along with the New Economy, we also have New Roles, too.

At any rate, I appreciate the discourse that helps us to better understand what happened.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 25, 2000.

Ken

You asked "Those who participated in the online debate took the issue seriously enough to spend a signficant amount of time discussing it. Most of the "pollies" were veritable "doomers" by real world standards. So why the acrimony? "

It seems to me that common courtesy has gone out the window sometime in the last 20 years. Also, debating skills are no longer taught, it seems. Lacking the tools to discuss the event civily, the debate quickly degenerated down in to name calling and bile. Foolishness.

But then, discussion of national issues in recent decades are hardly what I would call reasoned debate either. Most issues are pushed on emotional appeal. The public discussion that would allow us to weigh an issue on it's logical merits is absent. Logic and debating skills are just two more tools that should be in every citizens tool kit if they want to preserve a Democratic Republic. The First Amendment is to be brought to bear long before the Second Amendment is to be considered.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), April 25, 2000.

Flash,

I have often contended the Y2K pessimists nearly always had a pre- existing disposition. You aptly prove this point. And I must disagree with the information available about Y2K. We had reams of data... the "doomers" simply rejected all data that did not fit the theory. If you were expecting raw test results from the local bank, I am sure you were disappointed. But you also chose to ignore (or simply did not discover) the findings of the FDIC, Federal Reserve and other entities responsible for monitoring the progress of Y2K remediation.

You also demonstrate the bias I saw all last year. The "doomers" claimed the "pollies" just could not deal with the possibility of meltdown. Please. The real denial was from the Y2K pessimists who thought a post-meltdown world would look like some combinatin of "Little House on the Prairie" and "Mad Max." The real folly was those people who thought a Mossberg 500 and a few hundred rounds of buckshot would assure their personal safety against "marauders." Or people who thought survival depended on a metric ton of rice and beans.

The "doomers" never wanted to have the dialogue about the folly of extreme "preparation." They didn't want to think too hard about what might happen if their child needed an emergency appendectomy... or an antibiotic... or any of the other minor miracles of modern technology. They didn't want to face the reality of what would happen if a lone family (or band of families) tried to defend a fixed position. The Y2K survivalists wanted to talk about "survival" without any of the unpleasant details. Instead, it was envisioned the world would slide back into the 11th century and allow them homestead quietly. For the most part, the Y2K pessimists failed to have a meaningful discussion about "preparation," at least as it would apply in real situations.

Eyes, When I stumbled onto TB 2000, I met an immediate buzzsaw. My first few posts were savaged and I was branded as a troll. For the better part of a year, I tried to stay polite... and failed on occasion. We could have all done better.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Watch Six:

You do come up with some gems:

"It seems to me that common courtesy has gone out the window sometime in the last 20 years. Also, debating skills are no longer taught, it seems. Lacking the tools to discuss the event civily, the debate quickly degenerated down in to name calling and bile. Foolishness."

This is true in many many cases. I have, however, been involved in some threads over the last few weeks in which people did exercise courtesy and showed good debating skills. The art is not dead. You just have to look harder to find it.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 25, 2000.

TB 2000 was NOT a preparedness forum. It was an open forum until Ed Yourdon gave the keys to a group of hand-selected sysops. Yourdon's invitation was clear. TB 2000 was designed for ANYONE with questions about Y2K. The forum sysops tried to convert it to a "prep" forum.

This was the stated purpose of the TB2000 forum both during and after the time Ed Yourdon was the moderator...

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/policy.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20% 28Y2000%29

This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.

-- (A@bou.t), April 25, 2000.

Ken

I disagree with your judgement of myself, and your apparent propensity to catagorize everyone who disagrees with your view as some sort of extremist. I lived in Silicon Valley last year and personally discussed Y2k with a wide variety of people in various industries, both in IT and non-it positions. What I found was most disturbing. The people closest to the work were often very unsure that they would be ready on time and that their systems were not going to crash. As I mentioned in my previous post, all we got from official sources both in government and business were lots of paternalistic reassurances devoid of any substance.

You are correct about one thing. People who were worried and most likely did some sort of prepration probably share certain characteristics. As I mentioned before a learned distrust of government and big business head the list. Those of you who are/were pollies tend to believe that everything will always be fine and that you can believe what government, big business, and the press says is usually the truth. Our current Administration is living proof to the contrary. Since Clinton and his crew seem to have difficulty telling the truth across such a wide range of issues, why should a thinking person decide to believe them about Y2K.

As I said before, I'm not privy to what went on this board prior to the end of January 2000, and so missed most of what must have been some pretty vitrolic interaction between extremes of views.

It is unfortunate that myself and many others were not tuned in to TB-2000, were not aware of the views of people like yourself, Flint, and others who took a more moderate stance. But you are being overly simplistic in categorizing all who prepared as being of the same pre-existing disposition and mind-set. It's similar to the situation on another thread where there was a lot of categorizing of anyone who professes to be a Christian as extremeist and supporting all sorts of bad things both historically and to day. It's simply baloney.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 25, 2000.

Ken

I remember your first post. Highly relevent to a "doomer". I was suprised that more people didn't incorporate the useful information it provided. Or maybe they did and maximized the effectiveness of the new information by keeping mum on how they used it.

FutureShock

Yes, some of us behaved. I bet it was mostly us old farts, though. Why, is this thread starting to sound familiar? *grin* Take good care of your self-disipline practising self.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), April 25, 2000.

About,

Yourdon's original "teaser" for the TB 2000 discussion invited ANYONE intersested in discussing Y2K. I have a copy on disk somewhere. The "prep" spin came letter as Yourdon moved into selling his books, video and MLM venture. Furthermore, how can you "prepare" for an event unless you have some grasp of the event itself?

It's like someone saying, "We're going to drop you off somewhere in the world... and you have to find your way home." Using this analogy the reaction the Y2K pessimists was to assume the worst. They started packing for Antartica, the Sahara and the dark side of the moon. The optimists simply acknowledged that no one could adequately prepare for some scenarios (dark side of the moon). They also realized Y2K may be a BITR or slightly worse. To use the analogy, it's like someone dropping you off a few miles from home. You may not particularly like the walk, but it's hard the "end of the world."

It was possible to determine the most likely impact of Y2K. The serious pessimists simply failed to do so. It was also possible to prepare for the most likely outcomes (BITR to recession) without spending hours fretting over the virtues of various brands of kerosene lanterns. I wrote many posts last year about preparation... my essays simply failed to reach the appropriate level of panic for some pessimists.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

True about Yourdon sending folks from HIS website to the discussion strictly for the purpose of discussing Y2k, Ken. That's certainly what *I* read when I came to the forum in June of 1999. I didn't even know about the "About" until I saw it posted by someone.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

Ken:

I've always had a hard time with your catagories, they seem too neat and clean.

The polly/doomer & optimist/pessimist lables left me cold as well.

In many regards the *ugh* 'optimists' or 'pollies' made the reactionaries look as if they were pikers. I seem to remember Flint writing that he had stashed something like 8 cofee grinders!

As for survivialism, your Gaines Burgers recommendation always set you ahead of the fray.

Now, here's a dumb question: I was always taught not to argue {not fair, now I know my mom was on the debate team in college}.

I've never taken debate courses, or logic courses - so I'm at a distinct disadvantage here. Riddle me this Batman, if you can define the debate by labeling your allies and your adversaries, doesn't that give you an unfair advantage? As someone else might say, I think this is beneath you.

-- flora (***@__._), April 25, 2000.

Flash,

By your own admission, you had a pessimistic outlook about "big government" and "big businesses." I do not think this makes you an extremist. Many of the Y2K "doomers" shared your apparent cynicism about modern culture and institutions. I simply suggest many Y2K "doomers" were predisposed towards distrusting the "establishment." Furthermore, this bias may have influenced their (and your) analysis of Y2K.

I do think some "doomers" were extremists. Some folks went screaming right over the edge, buying tons of food and stocking guns and ammunition. Last year, I defended the right of every person to make his or own decision about Y2K... and spend money on whatever one's heart desired (short of tactical nuclear warheads).

Returning again to the data, there were reams of SUBSTANTIAL information on Y2K readiness. You may have found the tone paternalistic, however, the information was proven quite accurate. If you like, I can provide a multitude of web sites where Y2K data was provided. To borrow from the X Files, the truth was out there. It just took some effort to find the source data, and minimize the skew of sources like Y2Knewswire.

Moving on, your characterization of "pollies" is far more troublesome than anything I have written on this thread. The world is not neatly divided into two camps... those who believe the government et al and those who do not. This is naive and rather silly.

Most of the Y2K optimists had nuanced views of goverment... and expected the largest amount of Y2K problem to occur in the public sector. I do trust people (and institutions) to act out of self interest. Businesses (and government) had huge incentives to fix Y2K problems. They did.

During the Y2K debate, I met pessimists I respected a great deal. Dave Walden and Don Florence were the "thinking man's" doomers. And I encountered "pollies" who I thought were pretty idiotic. I was one of the few to challenge the legendary Charles Reuben (CPR) for his antics.

The Y2K pessimists were not monolithic... nor were the "pollies." In fact, the point of my original post was that we had more in common than most.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Decker Unit: Professional Ant-Hill kicker. Decker Unit: Professional Dead-Horse Kicker. Decker Unit: Professional Dog Catcher

-- SaluteToThe (TheDeckerUnit@Forever!.com), April 25, 2000.

Geesh, Decker...don't you have anything else to do but write essay after essay about pollies being right and doomers (levels 1 through 1,000) being wrong?

What's so hard to understand? Some thought it would, some thought it wouldn't. I thought it "would." And yes, sometimes to the point that I thought there'd be a 3rd term Clinton...!

I was wrong. Not disappointed in being wrong, though.

At least in 5 or 6 years, I'll be able to look back at all this and laugh. In 10 years I'll be able to use Y2K as a great ... "I remember back in 1999 I was so worried about the world coming to a crashing halt, yada, yada..." And then we can all roll on the floor and hysterically laugh about it.

But until then, I'll remain in the closet...*smile*

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

Agent Smith:

Geesh, Decker...don't you have anything else to do but write essay after essay about pollies being right and doomers (levels 1 through 1,000) being wrong?

That isn't what he SAID . What he said was that the doomers and pollies that got together on Y2k fora and DISCUSSED Y2k had more in common than mainstream America, where the topic wasn't discussed at all. He's right. I was a polly by TB2000 standards, but just the THOUGHT that I was investigating Y2k on the internet labeled me a doomer by IRL friends.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

Not now,

You wrote:

"But until then, I'll remain in the closet...*smile* "

I really don't understand why. You might find much more camaraderie and comfort if you come out from your self-imposed pseudo exile.

-- flora (***@__._), April 25, 2000.

Flora,

I doubt anyone ever fits neatly into a given "label." Humans are inherently complex. During the Y2K debate, I tried to avoid "doomer" and "polly" as I found them pejorative. If you'll note, on the rare occasion I used the terms, they were within quotation marks. The determining factor (for me) was not personal preparations, but expected outcome of Y2K. Flint hedged his bets with personal preparations, but generally leaned towards a modest Y2K impact, ergo I think of him as an optimist. Economist Ed Yardeni predicted a 70% chance of recession, 5% chance of depression, but (to my knowledge) did not buy eight coffee grinders. I thought of Yardeni a bit pessimistic... particularly as compared to all other economists.

My intent in creating the labels of Y2K optimist and pessimist was not to "win" a debate. There were simply handy terms for describing two different outlooks on the impact of a technical problem. On reflection, I think most folks preferred "pessimism," the proverbial ant that prepared for hard times.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Smith, As Anita aptly notes, my original post was simply an observation of the irony. The old regulars on TB 2000 hated the forum "pollies." Ironically, they had much more in common with their foes than with the rest of the known universe. Subtle point... give it time.

Next, here's a challenge. WHY were you wrong about Y2K? Despite my reputation, I really don't think I'm any smarter than the Y2K pessimists... you included. There are reasons some people were right and other were wrong. If it isn't intelligence or dumb luck, than what?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Hi Ken,that last question of yours deserves a new thread.It sure got me thinking.

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), April 25, 2000.

Why ask

In the Kingdom of the Blind the one-eyed man thinks he is a prince and the denizens should welcome his rule. He is always amazed when instead he is treated like a fool.

In regard to why this is still being debated and discussed (ala Insanitys question) I think the answer is because the date was set and the outcome definitive. In most debates: Such as are there UFOs or was there a conspiracy to kill Kennedy (pick one) facts and factoids can be debated at will and ad infinitum. With Y2K it is rather readily apparent what happened. Or to be more correct, what didnt happened. Of course there are still people who believe that it was all a big cover up or that clocks were secretly (its always secretly, isnt it?) set back. But the reality of the humdrum and ordinariness of continuing everyday life sticks in their craw. Indeed the reasoning, or lack there of is the most interesting aspect of Y2K.

Flash, (Jay Garrick, Barry Allen, or Wally West?)

One of the things I was fascinated by was something you inadvertently pointed to. If you live in Silicon Valley you live in an area that has a high probability of experiencing a major earthquake. The question I found to be the most interesting was why people who hadnt done anything (or much of anything) to prepare for a major event that has a high probability of being disruptive to their neighborhoods, communities, area, state, way of life etc.. could become almost paralyzed with fear over Y2K. Certainly you can see the logic that if you had prepared for an earthquake you would have been prepared for Y2K. Ditto with people who live in Florida or other hurricane areas.

There was one post on the old TB that illustrated this point. It was from some fellow living in either Wisconsin or Minnesota who stated that he was out a ways from town, had experienced power outages in previous winters of up to several days, but hadnt thought of purchasing a generator until he heard of Y2K. Anyone else see the faulty logic here?

To address the second part of your statement about the lack of information. This raises the second point of the Y2K debate. Why were so many people so willing to discount everything the government or big business said and yet so willing to believe anything North or Yordon stated? The standard of proof that was demanded of the former was 100% certainty. Yet excuses were made for the latter when all of their earlier predictions proved no-shows. Ed was believed because he wrote a book and was a (former?) software guru. Yet he wrote on areas well outside of his area of expertise. No proof was demanded by the believers.

Finally, lets face it there were (more then a few) people in it just for the money. And maybe the potential fame.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Engineer,

People in Silicon Valley pay little attention to the chance of a major earthquake in spite of the obvious risk. The State, County, and Local governments periodically issue warnings but almost no one does anything to prepare. They all think that "it can't happen here." Even my DW never made any preparations before we were married, despite the fact that her house was damaged and her family traumatized in the Loma Prieta quake. I had made some moderate earthquake preps prior to Y2K, but not on the scale of what I decided I wanted to do for Y2K. I think the difference in people's reactions to potential quake risk vs potential Y2K risk is bacause Y2K had a finite deadline that was approaching fast. Wishful thinking allows them to believe that the next big quake will strike somewhere else. They couldn't postpone the inevitability of 01/01/2000.

Regarding why some people disregarded what Government and Big Business had to say, I think it was because they never gave any specifics or details, while it was understood that GN and others didn't have any and that they were constantly asking for these entities to provide them. It's easire to keep questioning and professing doubt than to provide facts. I also think that fear of Legal action was one of the major reasons why businesses kept silent.

I agree than there was definitely a financial motive involved for many of the major doom-sayers.

By the way, I don't know any of the persons whose names you listed in parantheses, and none of them is me. As I stated earlier, I'm a relative newcomer to this forum. I wish I had discovered it last year!

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 25, 2000.

flora:

I must confess that my wife had that collection of about a dozen antique coffee grinders when I met her many years ago. All we did for preparation there was to try them out. One of them actually did a good job, and we now use it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.

Flash

They are the names of the comic book characters The Flash. Golden Age (1940s) Silver Age (1950s and 60s) and present.

What you stated is precisely my point. A quake has a high probability of happening, but no one knows when, with serious consequences. Y2K was problematical from the first and as time went on became less and less of a threat. Yet the concern was, and is almost the exact opposite of what it should have been

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Anita: my point was how many essays can Decker write on this topic? (No matter what the "slant") That's all, no big deal, just my "take" on what Decker KEEPS writing about... Love your posts as always, roni

Flora: I like my closet *grin* You like the sunshine--to each his own. Always enjoyed your posts and I *do* feel comadarie (sp?) even with my new name ;-)

-- Now now, not this way (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

Ken, Why do you continue to discuss this subject?

Good question. Have any of you been involved in emergency response planning? I just finished one. [I will be cryptic here, ie I will over simplify]. From a lot of information, one develops a worst case scenario. It represents the most extreme possibility. One keeps this in mind for future use if the situation changes. Then one makes a determination [by evaluation of the data] of what is probable and develops a response plan for that.

For rollover, it is my observation that some people collected a lot of information, developed a worse case scenario and assumed it would occur [completing only the first part of the process]. I see certain people repeating this process on other subjects, to this day.

Therefore a continued discussion must be warranted. It's not just Y2K. Of course that wouldn't be any of you :o). At least I don't think so.

Best wishe

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

Z:

These people didn't simply fail to complete the second part of the process -- they violently rejected the very concept that there might be any other part. Not to mention they methodically and systematically exaggerated the first part.

Your model is a good one. It just bears absolutely no resemblance to what was done. Other than that, it's fine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.

Agent,

I suppose I could write until you get the point... but I'm not sure I have the tenacity. (chuckle) I'm still interested in Y2K. If you're not, why bother?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 25, 2000.

Ken, This board has evolved into "more" than Y2K, which frankly, I'm tired of. It has evolved into Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" It has evolved into the discussion of time and what "time" is. It has evolved into "If God gave us free will, then is it really free?"

Those are the topics I come here to read. I honestly don't need you to explain things to me. I've been reading "Decker" posts since Y2K never happened and I frankly am wondering why you, time and time again, keep bringing up the issue of pollies and doomers the way you do. It's a rhetorical (sp?) question.

*smile*

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

Engineer,

Thanks for the scoop on the real Flash. Unfortunately my moniker doesn't derive from him, but rather from my propensity to attract lightning bolts, and occasional intuitive flashes! I used to put up radio antennas in a place which gets a lot of summer thunderstorms.

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 25, 2000.

Ken, This board has evolved into "more" than Y2K, which frankly, I'm tired of. It has evolved into Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" It has evolved into the discussion of time and what "time" is. It has evolved into "If God gave us free will, then is it really free?" Those are the topics I come here to read. I honestly don't need you to explain things to me. I've been reading "Decker" posts since Y2K never happened and I frankly am wondering why you, time and time again, keep bringing up the issue of pollies and doomers the way you do. It's a rhetorical (sp?) question. *smile*

-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

I have been here longer than Flint or Ken. I remember when Diane first appeared. It has never been about *only* Y2K. Not even in the beginning.

I am not speaking for Ken, but, the question of the process that people used to come to conclusions about Y2K directly reflects on how they will make decisions on other subjects. It deserves discussion. By the way, you missed TS Eliot :o); better poet.

Best w

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 25, 2000.

Early Ken Decker

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

-- (Y2K@nd.Risk), April 26, 2000.

Wow, thanks for the link. I almost forgot about Hardliner (more appropriately, hardhead) and a (the simple minded as his name implies). It brought back many memories of the illogical circular discussions back then. So what's wrong with continuing discussions on Y2K? Nothing. It brings a little closure on the topic that consumed us (me in particular since I worked it) for three years.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 26, 2000.