The Incomparable Russ "BigDog" Lipton (A.K.A. Doomers on Display, 1st installment) : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

While we wait (with hearts all a-flutter, no doubt!) for Russ to post his typical double-speak on y2k this month, here is a little trip down memeory lane, courtesy of Russ' #1 fan...(you make me lawff, dude!)

Threads by Russ Lipton

A Word About The Efforts To Destroy This Forum   msg_id=000e35 March  99
A Word to the Old-Timers About Decker-Poole and BIFFY msg_id=000no7 May  99
A Time For Cool Heads On The Forum And ... msg_id=000vWD June 99
The Simplicity of Y2K from IT Perspective msg_id=0015m2 July 99
Is the whole forum off topic? msg_id=001LA1 Sept 2 99
The Simplicity of Y2K: Lying msg_id=001POM Sept 14 99
To Non-Techies: A Word About Hoff, Flint and Y2K Impacts msg_id=001Tg0 Sept 27 99
Flint Says Y2K Problem Is Over: BITR msg_id=001C5G Aug 5 99

Not posted by BD, but *good* comments from him :-)

Why the Sudden Burst of Pollys?? msg_id=000cQ1 March 99
Can this forum be saved? msg_id=000hCP April 99
Started Too Late. Uh, Big Dog... msg_id=000sgD May 99
For you forum gawkers out there, here's a good shot of A---- getting her ti* caught in her zipper msg_id=000yVM June 99
Why Decker is full of broomer bologna msg_id=0014qT July 99
"Endgame" essay preaches only to choir msg_id=001Mky Sept 99
The Changing Y2K Argument msg_id=001ZBW Oct 99
The shoe on Hoffmeister's other foot msg_id=002Dm8 Jan 2K

Bonus Threads (too damn funny to pass up!)

Milne (nuff said, eh?) msg_id=000Qlo Jan 99
exercise your body; exorcise the New Breed of trolls msg_id=000SD5 Feb 99
Ed Yourdon: Bye Bye, It's Too Late msg_id=000t7d May 99
PAGING DECKER, PRO, HOFF, CRAIG, ET ALL..... msg_id=001G4b Aug 99
Super Bonus Thread! doubt the Yourdon forum was cult-like? read this thread!
Ever feel like you can't go on? msg_id=000BDa Oct 98

Just a drop in the bucket, but if response is good, I'll do a monthly "doomers on display" featuring all you favorite meme infected morons of Time-bombed-out-2000...

-- Psych Major (psychob@b.le), May 03, 2000


The Psych Major just lost any claims to objectivity and professionalism by using words and phrases like 'moron' and 'Time- bombed-out-2000.'

-- Don't write (my@term.paper), May 03, 2000.

I agree D.W. Sounds like Psych is just another polly with a hard-on for doomers. Some people just never learn.

Why don't you do me next month, Psych? Tell me what a moron I am, after programming for 32 years. Tell me how bombed I must be for taking reasonable precautions for a potential problem. Tell me how meme infected I am.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you just kiss my ass...


-- Sysman (, May 03, 2000.

I learned something from the Changing Y2K Argument thread. Most people had already moved away from infrastructure collapse scenarios by Oct. of last year. So why is it that whoever started this thread can't let go of Y2k and "doomers"?

-- It's time (to@move.on), May 03, 2000.

I'm actually grateful for this thread. I didn't arrive at TB2000 until June of last year and missed a lot of action before that time. I do remember Russ starting several threads about Flint [and how folks should ignore his opinions] after I arrived, but I didn't know the "Don't listen to them" threads had been going on previously.

In addition, I see now why folks who posted at other fora were treated like enemies. Russ was an influential poster at the time, and many folks on TB2000 trusted his opinions.

-- Anita (, May 03, 2000.

Hey Sysman!

You sound a little sensitive their ol'fella. Have you seen any examples yet off the massive problems you were warning us all about? Remember, "it's a Y2K problem"....giggle...

-- Y2K Pro (, May 03, 2000.

OH MY GOD!!!! Big dog was WRONG ABOUT Y2K!!!!HORRORS!!!! OH THE HUMANITY!! Oh dear God in heaven!! NO, NOOOOOOOO......

I made a lot of statements about Y2K that look rather foolish in retrospect too. Could you please spend hours of your empty day dredging them up and "expose" me too?

Get a life already.

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 03, 2000.

Sorry Unc, you're right... we're looking at your expense. But I get such a kick out of it re-reading a, hardliner, big dog, chris, taco ray (and whatever happened to little Lisa?) posts that I start laughing out loud. I apologize to you.

-- Maria (, May 03, 2000.

There IS a lot of funny stuff here. I'm SO GLAD I was wrong about Y2K's impacts - so thankful for everyone who worked on Y2K (often expressed last year).

Obviously, picking out a handful of threads that are most likely to embarrass me overlooks a few other contributions, but that's life on the web.

While I did get hot under the collar at times last year, so did most of us as I recall. I also recall stating on a key thread that some of the people I was most upset at (Flint and Decker) might well turn out to be Y2K heroes if Y2K were TEOTWAWKI while some doomers might turn out to be villains. How about someone posting that thread?

Maybe that illustrates the solidity of another statement I often made - that I didn't consider anybody on TB2K an enemy.

Not even "Psych Major".

It is kind of telling about this person, though, isn't it, that "Psych Major" describes me as a "meme infected moron ...."?

Excuse me if I don't get down on the couch and bend over .... masochism isn't one of my strong points.

-- BigDog (, May 03, 2000.

As I've had the time (which hasn't been very often lately, I've been busy, as usual), I've done a lil' bit o' lurking through here. Well, by gum, this one pulled me out of ree-tarr-mint. I enjoyed this one, thanks. :)

I've got a few favorite threads of my own, including one where Peter Errington (The ERRingman himself!) posted a statement made by me, chided me for making it .. and then (of course) didn't even have the decency to admit after January 1st that I was 100% correct. If I can find the link, I'll post it. It's a good one.

I'm working on a 6-month's recap of Y2K as I have time; check into the Web site around First of June-ish.

Uncle Deedah,

I can't speak for anyone but yours truly, but I have no desire to dredge up your statements. YOU weren't an attack dog; Russ and Bruce WERE.

People like Russ and Bruce called us anti-Doomers every name in the book. They didn't merely insist that they were right, they insisted that anyone who tried to counter their (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) "argument" was "dangerous" or some other such nonsense. Their fondest wish was that people like me, CPR, Y2KPro, et al should be SILENCED on TB2000.

People like us even tried to WARN THEM that they were setting themselves up for the dunkin' booth on January 1st (my redoubtable "Open Letter" to Ed Yourdon comes to mind), only to be called a fresh set of names.

And after reading Sysman's post just above mine, I truly wonder if he'll EVER "get it." Y2K Doom was based on several completely bogus premises to start with, promulgated by people (like Bruce) who were convinced that their work was indispensible to society and that computers were even CAPABLE of causing the types of disruptions that they imagined.

They had clue after clue, too -- which I shared in the old TB2000, only to be shouted down (or in Bruce's case, "tick-tocked" into the margin[g]).

Ex.: Look-aheads and trigger dates, which passed, one by one, all through 1999 with minimal impact. I pointed this out (repeatedly) and got roasted for it.

The best answer that Sysman could come up with was, "look-aheads aren't signficant." When he said that, I knew then that I was dealing with someone who was either (a), NOT as informed as he claimed to be or (b), willing himself to blindness in order to protect a dogmatic belief. The statement was not only incorrect on its face (in fact, look-aheads are THE MOST COMMON computer-based date calculation by far -- just ask the banking and insurance industries!), the fact that he clung to it demonstrated the depth of his disconnect with reality.

Now he's paying for it. MAYBE he'll learn a lesson from it (hope springs eternal), but given his comments above, I can't be so sure.

Another ex.: the "Chernobyl" computer virus thing in Asia, the WORST COMPUTER DISASTER IN HISTORY (hammered over 600,000 systems in a SINGLE DAY!), had virtually no impact on the economy or business operations in Asia.

That was another free clue. Big Dog and Sysman refused to accept it, and instead, denounced me for a fool for even having the audacity to use it as an example.

They made their beds, Deedah. If they find a sheets a tad itchy nowdays, well, that ain't MY fault. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 03, 2000.


Get a life. Jerks like you ought to be grateful for those of us who worked so hard to make everything work at rollover so you could make your smug comments.

-- Mr. Prog (mrp@pros.ajerk), May 03, 2000.


I don't mind somebody getting a chuckle at my expense, go right ahead, enjoy. As I stated, I've said a lot of things that look stupid now.

Psych Major must be one of those rare people who has never made an error, ever. WOW, he's without sin. Cool, hey Jesus, step aside laddie, Psych here is gonna cast the first stone.

Or maybe he just had his feelings hurt by a doomer, poor baby. Here, let Uncie kissy and make it better. All better now, run and play.

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 03, 2000.


"While I did get hot under the collar at times last year, so did most of us as I recall. I also recall stating on a key thread that some of the people I was most upset at (Flint and Decker) might well turn out to be Y2K heroes if Y2K were TEOTWAWKI while some doomers might turn out to be villains. How about someone posting that thread"

Did you mean to say WERE or did you mean to say was NOT ? I don't understand how Flint and Decker could be heroes in the context of the above.


Y2kPro worked on Y2k for several years and documented the results on the old TB2000 forum. Unfortunately, the results he saw conflicted with the majority opinion of the forum and he was trashed as a troll. He has EVERY right to feel smug. He contributed to the success of the CDC, as did several other "pollies".

-- Anita (, May 03, 2000.

Wow this is like a "Return of the oldies" thread. BD, Poole, Y2Khole....sort of like Milne's promised pig-pickin without the pig...

Hey Pro, er, Psyche - can you parody me next??

-- a (a@a.a), May 03, 2000.

Anita --

If Y2K had been TEOTWAWKI, a number of pollies would have turned out, IMO, to be heroes in their REAL communities - a number of doomers would have turned out to be selfish. I singled out Flint and Decker on a thread in the fall that was, as I recall, dedicated to that proposition.

Not surprisingly, "Psych Major" didn't select that thread ;-)

-- BigDog (, May 03, 2000.


Yes BD etc were wrong. And they defended their position, and refused to budge because they were convinced that they were right.

But as for calling names and general nastiness I think that FAR better examples could be found. Paul Milne, whom even I as a fellow doomer saw as a pompous jack-ass. INVAR, who's self-righteous holier than thou prose had no equals. Andy, who slung the insults far and wide (and who has been strikingly absent post rollover, maybe the Bildeburgers got him for exposing their plans)and 'ol Ray toejam for a few. Oh, and Will Continue was always good for a rabid attack, she never let me down, that's for sure. And let's not forget Unc, he called people names too, mostly that Y2K Pro fella. Oh, and Mr. Polly too, F-you this F-you that Mr. Polly was right about Y2K, but was still a dickhead.

Golly, there is lots of humor rich material in those archives, Psych Major will be busy for a LONG time.


-- Uncle Deedah (, May 03, 2000.

What is wrong with pointing out what people said before the rollover? The attitude they had was much more antagonistic and rude then just posting those words. The way I was degraded and put down when I tried to explain things was uncalled for, it was done with no regard to how it could have made me "feel", why was it acceptable for the doomers to spout off at the mouth and have no restrictions to how badly they degraded us when we wrote, but then now we are supposed to be polite and considerate and pretend the statements they made are not to be spoken of out of politeness, a politeness they did not exhibit when, as in my case, every part of my existence was degraded with impunity?

They have no right to do as they did and turn around and demand a consideration from us they never exhibited themselves.

Thinking that having their own words posted is wrong, while the things they said of a personal nature about anyone who did not agree with them was perfectly ok back then is really hypocritical. Do they believe it was ok for them to do what they did but when the tables are turned and they have been proven wrong about the facts, we should politely "forget" them?

No. They are not even being degraded in a personal nature as they did to us, their own words are being shown.

Post recaps of what they said, it is only fair.

-- Cherri (, May 03, 2000.

Yo, a.

You need to get out more dood, you are looking decidedly pale and sickly.

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 03, 2000.


Thanks for the explanation. You won't find ME looking up those posts. I'm too lazy to look up the posts of which I'm interested, which is why I appreciate folks doing the work for me.


I agree that there's a certain defensive mechanism in place when "What goes around comes around." I understand that you were subjected to criticism longer and even harsher than I. The criticism didn't bother me, though. When folks in real life criticize me, I consider the source. When folks on the internet criticize me, it rolls down my back. There's no source to consider.

-- Anita (, May 03, 2000.

Old home week.... Hello, folks, and thanks for stopping by. To his credit, BD did say some nice things about Flint and me. And I recall saying a few nice things about BD (and I showered Unk with praise!)

I'm not sure the characterization of Russ in the above threads is entirely fair. BD was a "holy warrior" for a faith (Y2K pessimism) that I did not believe in. Personally, if I were fighting a jihad, it would be great to have BD on my side. He is intelligent, tenacious, a vicious "in-fighter" and even sneaky. Unfortunately, we were on opposites sides of the fence during Y2K.

-- Ken Decker (, May 03, 2000.

Yes you did Ken, and it was the high point of my life so far, thank- you.

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 03, 2000.

Stephen Poole

Are you so full of yourself that you have taken your eyes off Jesus?

Sin is taking over your life man c'mon back. Your testimony is wavering.

This isn't what Jesus wants for you, turn your eyes on Jesus and the thiongs of earth will grow strangely dim....

-- I-65 north (....@111...), May 03, 2000.


Heh. The I-65 is a nice touch, by the way. (For those who don't know, I-65 is one of the main routes through Birmingham, where I live[g].)

Have a look at the little ditties Whatever Happened To Faith and OK, What Would Jesus Do?

Y2K represented yet still another case where Christians (conservatives and fundamentalists, in particular) read all sorts of prophetic overtones into the news, derived a flawed conclusion set and then defended it as a matter of faith (often engaging in attacks that were surprising un-Christian) ... only to embarass themselves terribly (and -- once again! -- discredit themselves in the eyes of the world) when they were proven, not just wrong, but resoundingly wrong.

There's something about this style of Christianity that requires a Conspiracy to worry (and preach and warn and screech) about. The moth needs the flame; we MUST have our Hidden Plots and Interpretations (not to mention Bible codes).

It not only boosts donations and listener/viewer numbers, it's just plain exciting. The pipples in the pulpits is happy.

Some of these people are convinced that the Great Commission actually reads, "go ye into all the world and warn people about impending doom, expose Klinton as an NWO android, pass No-Work-On-Sunday and anti-liquor laws, lobby for lower taxes, boycott any group which doesn't share your morals and expose the Evil Illuminati (all before dinnertime)."

My Bible (an older model, I admit it) has rather mundane exhortation to simply "preach the Gospel" in the same spot.

Go figure.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 03, 2000.

Oops. Bad link for the second ditty; try this one (OK, What Would Jesus Do?

That should answer any questions on your part.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 03, 2000.

-- a

Psych Major? Me? I wish I had the time. As far as parodying you, I can sum you up in four words: "The Milne Butt Plug"...

-- Y2K Pro (, May 03, 2000.

When I read your post above to Unc D all I see is I,I,I, and a bunch of spite, vengenance, hate, unforgiveness, greed, jealousy, and just plainly not coming from a place of love.

Lots of Christians are right about stuff all the time, its a sin when you rub everyones nose in it all the time.

You are being called to the carpet brother, cut yourself free from the chains of Satan.

Quit proclaiming how great you are and let everone know how great God is.

-- I-65 north of you (...@111...), May 03, 2000.


Ah, I've figured you out.

Sorry, no can do. I learned many years ago that I couldn't make everyone happy, so I stopped trying. I axed God how I was supposed to act, and then proceeded to do my best.

(And I did try for quite some time; I nearly drove myself crazy, because each particular Christian had his/her own perception of how A Christian was supposed to "act.")

The only one I have to satisfy is God, not you. If that offends you, sorry. Not my intention. But I'm not going to cut my hair the way you think is proper, be baptised according to your formula, sing your particular hymns, speak in the way that you sincerely believe that God would have us to speak, edit my comments to conform to your particular brand of That Which Represents Humility, or any of that other stuff.

Why? Because it's an utter waste of time. If I make YOU happy, I assure you that SOMEONE else, somewhere, will consider me a tool of unclean spirits for acting the way *YOU* want me to.

I would also remind you that it is your DUTY to love me as I am. My duty is to love you right back (which I do.) If you think I'm wrong, you pray for me. God has a whole lot better chance of straightening me out than you do.

As for my use of "I," would you prefer that I say "someone said" or "a person said?" If I said it, I own to it.

(Can you define the term "legalism?" Or the concept of nitpicking specks in the eyes of others, when you have a log in your own?)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 03, 2000.

Hey, I-65, good observation. Phoole always has enough "I's" in his posts to make a tarantula jealous. Y2k is over. Some people were right, some people were wrong, and some people were just plain confused. A lot has changed, but some things never Phoole is still a narcissistic asshole. Always has been. Always will be.

-- (++x@....), May 03, 2000.

Andy, Your back! and with yet another handle!

You sure are witty, Mr. Rowland!


(go get em Steve!)

-- (andy@namby.pamby), May 03, 2000.

Stephen your actions drive the vulnerable away from Christ.

Your testimony for Jesus on this board has been stinging criticism, the wordly " I am soo right and you were so wrong " basically flipping the bird while wearing your WWJD braclet.

When people speak of condemning, unforgiving, Sunday Morning Christians I'm afraid you have become the perfect example.

-- I-65 north of you (...@111...), May 03, 2000.

Ah, the nostalgia! While these threads are pretty hilarious, it's kinda sad seeing so many many handles that literally vanished at the stroke of midnight. Where are they now? These people provided most of the sizzle (but none of the steak), and life is much more dull without them. That's the problem with an issue with an expiration date, after it's expired. By comparison, the real world pales.

But keep up the good work, Psych. For us old farts who enjoy living in the past, there's a wealth of humor where these came from.

-- Flint (, May 03, 2000.

"For us old farts who enjoy living in the past, there's a wealth of humor where these came from. "

I agree. Can someone please provide a link to "Flint't Take"?

-- (@ .), May 03, 2000.


If I had it, I'd provide it. That's a good one too. And just for you, I wouldn't even mention that *some* of us learned better over time, and some of us still haven't. As I implied, I'm glad you're still around. You do more than anyone else here to provide a reminder of the flavor of how things used to be before we knew better.

-- Flint (, May 03, 2000.

Stephen your actions drive the vulnerable away from Christ.

Stephen's actions? As opposed to, say, declaring that the End Of The World is at hand and being branded as kooks (once again) and making the conservative Christian church a laughingstock (once again) when nothing happens?

Do you have any IDEA how *THAT* drives people away from Christ? Do you even WANT to know?

Stephen knows. It is one of the reasons why he started his Web site. And speaking as someone who was involved in active ministry and counseling for many years, Stephen can *ASSURE* you that things like this DO trouble non-believers.

Stephen strongly suggests that you read the part in the Bible about specks and logs in eyes. Maybe the stuff about judging others, too. He realizes you don't feel like that's what you're doing and you don't want to believe that's what you're doing, but guess what?

That's what you're doing. :)

(You will also note that Stephen never used a single "I" in this post. And yet, somehow, Stephen thinks that it will annoy you nonetheless.)

(Go figure.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (, May 03, 2000.

"Milne's butt plug?" I laughed so hard I nearly cracked a rib. I'd almost forgotten how "a" would take crumbs from his master's table and bring them to TB 2000. If I recall, Milne dismissed "a" like an errant "Egor" after rollover. "a" actually sounded coherent, and it was more than Milne could bear.

-- Ken Decker (, May 03, 2000.

Flint's Take -- Jan. 1999

-- You (, May 04, 2000.

Jeez Stephen, you keep turning up like a bad penny (grin).

I'm sorry that you think of me as an attack dog. I enjoyed many of our late night sessions, trading posts 'til the wee hours.

There were people that called you every name in the book, but I wasn't one of them. Oh, I may have made fun of some of your "stupid" remarks, like "Both computers in Afghanistan could fail" but I don't consider that name calling.

And when you say that I wanted you silenced, well, that's just not true Stephen. That's not how I am. I made a big stink about the banning of Flint and co. on the new TB2000 forum. Everyone should be allowed to have their say, including you.

Believe me Stephen, I "get it". You were right about Y2K and I was wrong. Are you happy now?


-- Sysman (, May 04, 2000.

"a@a.a" doesn't need a Doomers on Display© thread, just do a search of the 'uncategorized' threads on timebomb for "milne". The only thing "a@a.a" contibuted besides milne vomit, was the gratuitous personal attacks sprinkled through-out the forum!

-- former polly (sick@of.debate), May 04, 2000.


I must admitt I enjoyed the conversations with you, you were willing to consider what was written and it was clear that you did a lot of thinking about what was written. I think what I wrote actually got through to you, that you listened and thought about what I wrote. That made it worth the attempt and the BS I had to put up with in writing, I thought there were some people who were willing to use their brains and think rather than dismiss my words out of hand as some of the more vocal posters did.

-- Cherri (, May 04, 2000.

I'm still confused about the POWER some folks see behind internet words. [Bear with me on this one. I AM a polly, ya know.]

I've already stated that BigDog was influential on the old TB2000. Where is it written that one should be responsible if others believe their words? I ask this not so much in terms of BigDog, but I've seen posts today on other threads wherein Diane has been blamed for both doing SOMETHING to her peers [forgot exactly what], causing a breakup in a relationship and causing extensive grief. How does one get the power to move these mountains if the person on the other end doesn't ACCEPT this power?

-- Anita (, May 04, 2000.


I'm not shy about exchanging words with people. I think I can hold my own, and most of those I exchange with seem to feel they can too. *Provided* they're allowed to speak, of course. Over the course of time, I got to feel I knew a lot of the people with whom I'm not longer permitted to converse. Based on early returns, I wasn't the only one who felt that way. So those represented a LOT of small but nonetheless real friendships lost with Diane's (at the very least) willing cooperation. Now, what did SHE lose by doing this?

Yes, I see your point, I have no option but to ACCEPT this, so I do. But don't expect me to be all that happy about it.

-- Flint (, May 04, 2000.


Friendship, IMO, is a two-way street. The folks with whom you can't converse on EZBOARD are certainly free to converse with you here. [I trust this was what you meant.]

I'm less concerned at the moment with the bannings at EZBOARD, but the accusations extended to Diane and others about ruining their lives by their actions on the OLD TB2000 forum [assuming that folks hven't had exposure since.] What role, for instance, could Diane have played in CAUSING Laura's internet relationship to collapse?

-- Anita (, May 04, 2000.


Beyond that, I really don't know either. But it's kind of a shame that some of the people with whom I'd like to exchange ideas, while nominally free to do so here, are unwilling to "consort with the enemy" either on principle or for fear of ostracism. Given the EZboard censors' outlook and the reason quite a few people post there, ostracism is quite a potent threat, certainly not worth risking here.

So while there's a two way street, it is NOT on level ground. I view Diane (and Big Dog) as having taken special care to make sure of this.

-- Flint (, May 04, 2000.


I guess I disagree with you on the definition of "those with whom I'd like to converse", if fear of ostracism is a factor in their decision- making. I've been quite open regarding MY desire to participate in discussions with heterogeneous groups, and if not offered that option, I moved back and forth between homogeneous groups [again, quite openly.] Your statement on this reminds me of elementary school when I asked my mom if a black girl from my track team could come home for lunch with me. She said, "What would the neighbors think?"

I haven't seen diversity on the EZBOARD of late. I entered a thread on Elian and received the mad-dog attack so prevalent on the old forum. Posters that I'd once seen as middle-of-the-road seemed now bent on comforming to the philosophy of the pack. THAT was my last post to that forum.

-- Anita (, May 04, 2000.

I wandered in here quite by accident - lo & behold, I find Flint, Anita, BD, Ken, 'a', Bruce, Maria, Unk...That sound was my head snapping back, caused by the intensity of the flashback.

Just a quick, heartfelt 'howdy' to ya'll. I trust 2000 is treating you all OK.

God I hope I don't get sucked back into the vortex...

Best to All,


-- Bingo1 (, May 07, 2000.


Glad you are here :-)

Even if by accident.....

Welcome back/present?

-- consumer (, May 07, 2000.

Thanks consumer.

I was doing some house cleaning in my 'Favorites' folder & clicked on a link to the original TB2000 forum. Ended up here & of all threads to read first - this incredible walk down memory lane!

What a time it was! What an incredible mix of foolishness, pettiness, brilliance, companionship. I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Unfortunately, I bowed out in July. I couldn't take the paranoia, the power-plays (blatant & covert).

Same old, same old? Or have the inmates matured just a tad? ;^)


-- Bingo1 (, May 07, 2000.


Nice to see ya! Hang around a bit, this is a good place so far, I think you may enjoy it. Well, if you ignore Andy Ray's one man self congratulatory band that is, but other than that...

-- Uncle Deedah (, May 07, 2000.

Mr. Deedah! What a pleasure it is to make your acquaintance once again. I may just hang around a bit. Has your alter-ego made it through rollover, uh, intact?

How many of the old crew are here? To clarify, by old crew I refer to pre-abdication regulars. Any juicy bits of gossip would be appreciated. Perhaps a hotlink or two, particularly to any remorseful admissions of consistently rude, tunnel vision-like behavior & subsequent apologies to the inhabitants of the board would be most enlightening. Note: I did catch the apology posted by a. It was most impressive. My guess is not many had the strength of character to admit their transgressions in a public way.

Please understand, Im not looking to experience some sort of orgasmic pleasure through the groveling of others. I merely wish to further evaluate the character of individuals with whom I invested much time. I recommended introspection to several posters last year when I felt they were going over the edge of decent public debate. An apology issued has its genesis in introspection.

In the meantime Ill check the archives  advice we gave to newbies over & over & over again so many moons ago.


-- Bingo1 (, May 08, 2000.


I'm also pleased to see you here. Many [most?] of the pessimistic posters from TB2000 are at Yourdon's EZBOARD forum. Bigdog rarely comes here. I think he's one of the sysops on the EZBOARD forum. A few others come over using their same handle, but most of the folks who crosspost from there use anonymous handles.

This forum was created because some of the old posters were banned from the EZBOARD forum before they ever posted there. For instance, Flint was banned. *I* wasn't banned, [oddly enough], and posted to EZBOARD for a while, but I see EZBOARD becoming more and more a closed system. If one doesn't agree that the government is intent on removing our constitutional rights, doesn't agree that WND, Newsmax, etc. print the truth and nothing but the truth, one is simply called names. Remind you of old TB2000? No dissent allowed.

-- Anita (, May 08, 2000.

Hi Anita! Thanks for the info. Im almost tempted to take a look-see at this EZBOARD. Kind of like the temptation one experiences when first catching a glimpse of the entrance to the tent at the County Fair which holds the two-headed, bearded, dwarf lady & the talking orangutan. Is this site password protected?

I really have no desire to spend my time with anyone infected with rabid personality syndrome. Curiosity may get the best of me, however. Will he or won't he purchase a ticket to the show?


-- Bingo1 (, May 08, 2000.


It's definitely worth a look, and the look is free here.

To post, one must be accepted and gain a password. In addition to Flint, Hoffmeister was banned before ever posting and a few others were never banned, but all their posts were deleted. EZBOARD itself creates LOTS of cookies, so if you go there, you may watch your cookie file grow. I won't suggest EZBOARD is responsible for ALL of it, but I deleted 73mb worth of cookies the other day.

-- Anita (, May 08, 2000.

Good to "see" you again Bingo. Hope you stick around.

-- CD (, May 08, 2000.

This thread should bring you up to speed, Bingo, about what what we currently understand about why Y2K was a non-event.

'My Rather Fond Memories of Old TB2000'

-- Somebody else from the (old@TB.2000), May 08, 2000.


We're waiting with at least some interest for Big Dog's announced May analysis of what happened and what did not. He has said a couple of times since rollover that come May (and no sooner), he'd produce this. Since BD is often an articulate and thoughtful person, the essay to which he soon (?) gives birth might be notable. We hope so.

So far, the reactions of your run of the mill pessimist have been very disappointing. Their observations fall into these categories:

1) Vanishing act. This is most common. I haven't seen a single post since rollover from Andy, Ray, Lane Core, Bob Mangus, Arlin Adams, Graybear, Hardliner, Cronos and many others. Their cumulative silence has been rather deafening. One exception - King of Spain actually apologized to those he had antagonized for so long, and THEN vanished. 'a' stopped to contemplate his error, but returned (with a new handle) to call the same people idiots he always did, as though y2k never happened. Maybe learning better was just too hard?

2) Change the subject. This is next most common, sometimes accompanied by a brief "OK, I was wrong", but more usually not. Meanwhile, off we go (as Anita writes) to find the next unsupported pretext for unjustified paranoia.

This category is interesting in several respects. There seems to be tacit agreement on the EZboard that y2k is simply not discussed. It's over, see, nothing to talk about, it's boring. Suggestions that this silence is motivated by a refusal to either admit or (more importantly) *reflect* on such profoundly incorrect predictions and "analysis" are rejected. This is especially interesting in light of the EZboard people, by and large, applying the same methods and thought processes to support the latest "dark fantasy of the day". As Anita implies, anyone who might be tempted to ask "Wait a minute, isn't this exactly how we got y2k so spectularly wrong?" isn't even permitted to post to their forum!

Along these lines, those who admit error rarely elaborate. A few of them regurgitate now-discredited material, and rather comically continue to claim how valid it was despite unambiguous global experience to the contrary. There's something unsatisfying about someone who called people idiots and morons for months (for the crime of pointing out and correctly interpreting the many signs), simply saying OK, I was wrong, and dropping the subject without further ado (and then applying the same mistaken procedures to the next topic, having learned nothing). Steve Heller was most straightforward about this, writing "I was wrong, but all the pollies are STILL idiots"!

3) Those few who continue to claim that since y2k problems were a given, therefore any and all problems they can find anywhere, caused by anything, are really y2k problems in disguise, and are being misprepresented or covered up by the same people responsible for last year's obvious coverup of y2k. Since nothing out of the ordinary has gone wrong, it has been necessary to dig fairly hard to even *find* problems, before they can be misinterpreted. Lately (the last couple of months anyway), y2k has been losing ground to other fantasies as an explanation for how terrible life has been for the few who "Get It" enough to even notice.

To my knowledge there hasn't been a single pessimist other than Doc Schenker to come out and say "When what I saw wasn't what I wanted to see, I believed what I wanted to see anyway." And until this point is reached, we can't usefully address WHY some people were so determined to see what wasn't there.

At the very least, we're hoping that Big Dog will address important issues like, How late is too late to start?, and How broken does code need to get before recovery becomes a critical issue? It would be a real bonus if Big Dog actually writes about just what thought process led him to conclude that major preparations were so mandatory, when in fact nobody needed any.

If he simply writes "OK, I was wrong. Have a nice day", we'll all be disappointed. If he remains silent, even worse. In either of those cases, he'd be adding nothing his intellectual disciples haven't already done. Big Dog is supposed to be a leader of this contingent. Anyway, we're all still waiting...

-- Flint (, May 08, 2000.

There seems to be tacit agreement on the EZboard that y2k is simply not discussed. It's over, see, nothing to talk about, it's boring.

If the folks at EZboard were still discussing y2k, Flint, you know they'd be accused here of not letting go of this subject. In other words, it's "they're in denial if they don't talk about y2k," and "they're in denial if they do still do talk about y2k."

Many people prepped for y2k simply because they did not know whether problems would be mild, moderate or severe. Better to be safe than sorry. I don't notice you, Flint, making an issue of why businesses and government entities don't talk more about the precautions they took for y2k.

-- (consistency@of.logic), May 08, 2000.

Flint old man, still punishing people with your 'why use three sentences when two dozen would work just as well' philosophy? ;)

Thanks for the update. You been hammering BD since rollover? Lots of attitude coming through. I don't blame you a bit, though. You were pounded unmercilessly.

What's up with Milne? Pardon for my crudeness, but, is he still alive? If I had acted like that much of a jerk for that long a period of time, I would've sold tickets & hung myself. Andy, the old sod, should be hunted down & golden-showered upon. Course, odds are he would enjoy it. Hey, this is fun. Laughing at the expense of others. What a concept.

Oooh, now my bitterness is seeping through. Sorry folks. Not my style - then why does it feel soooo goood!

-- Bingo1 (, May 08, 2000.


OK, here's the condensed version. The majority of the most rigid, strident and abusive doomies bravely vanished at the stroke of rollover and haven't been heard from since. The remainder bravely locked themselves into a closed forum where they are answerable only to their consciences for their previous behavior. So far, their consciences haven't got around to raising this issue. Big Dog's conscience, hypertrophied as it is, may prove different.

As for Milne, he made maybe a dozen posts here and to csy2k wherein he claimed he was never actually talking about date bugs at all, but rather about some eventual economic downturn. When the catcalls died down, he owned up to being "100% dead wrong" (his world is still black and white) and announced his dunking booth would be set up on his Virginia property and the event is (I think) scheduled for July 1. Then he vanished (sometime in February, I think) and hasn't breathed a word since about the economic downturn. Maybe he got bored too?

-- Flint (, May 08, 2000.

Right on schedule.

BigDog Reviews Y2K

BTW, this was not intended as a compendium. Notice I wrote "just a drop in the bucket"? These are random selections, which I believe DO give an accurate overview of Mr. Lipton.

Also, one typo to note....that should read "...featuring all your favorite meme infected..."

Interesting to see the response just to THAT little glitch....

Carry on....

-- Psych Major (psychob@b.le), May 24, 2000.

y'all gonna yammer away about this for another 6 months?? GAFL!

-- number six (, May 24, 2000.

number six:

Since this thread was in anticipation of, and now in response to, Big Dog's opus, I assume you said *exactly the same thing* to Big Dog on the censored forum? If not, why not?

-- Flint (, May 24, 2000.

One last thing for all those who were SOOOoooo offended by that last paragraph....YOU obviously didn't read the "pollys on parade" thread on TB2000....

B informed.


Why not? These little minds went on and on about how the pollies were going to be the cause of death for millions of people by causing them NOT to prepare; it went on for at least one year.

"Payback" "Bitch"....see the corelation?

-- Psych Major (psychob@b.le), May 24, 2000.

bump to top russ lipton russ lipton

"Because we who have found grace are also sinners, we are called to love our human neighbors as ourselves, seeking their good as well as their salvation."russ lipton russ lipton

Uhh.....looks like Ol russ lipton is forgeting a few things he said and did during 98-2000 y2k debates.....poor russ lipton, wants to be the big dog, only can achieve little nipper status.russ lipton russ lipton

-- (, March 13, 2001.

bump to top russ lipton russ lipton

Russ Lipton sez: "Because we who have found grace are also sinners, we are called to love our human neighbors as ourselves, seeking their good as well as their salvation."russ lipton russ lipton

Uhh.....looks like Ol russ lipton is forgeting a few things he said and did during 98-2000 y2k debates.....poor russ lipton, wants to be the big dog, only can achieve little nipper status.russ lipton russ lipton

-- (, March 13, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ