Y2K Heroes, and Alternative Viewgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Well, perhaps it's time for a little balance here. I have been reading the threads lately, saying we should never forget, likening Y2K to the Holocaust, calling once again for some sort of "payback" for the most vocal doomers, and now, even one listing the "Y2K Heroes".I was a regular on TB 2000 for almost two years. I came from a non-computer oriented background. I did not then, (nor now), know how to program. I did not have an understanding of the technologies nor the techniques of the internet or other such complex systems. I was perfect fodder for both sides in the Y2K debate.
But, I listened. I read. I asked questions and occasionally, expressed opinions, which unfortunately, were often based more on my emotional makeup than on hard facts. As a doomer, I was obviously wrong in my assessment and interpretation of the dangers of the CDC. I was not, however, wrong in my actions. I still believe, that given the information we had, it was only prudent to make some preparations. I did not build a bunker, but I will not laugh at those who did, any more than I will deride those who did nothing. In either case, it was simply their decision, and their business.
Now, returning to this idea of "Y2K Heroes". I will tell you who my heroes were during those two years, but first, I would like to tell you who I do not particular honor.
My heroes would not include people who obviously had more knowledge than I, and yet only decided to perpetrate hoaxes in order to play some sort of little internet game at my expense. This type of "interesting" activity only muddied the water further, and added to the confusion.
My heroes would not include those who in retrospect, had a more accurate forecast than I, yet chose to make postings characterized by argument, name-calling, spamming, and other juvenile tactics. I came to pay no more attention to these people than I do to a brat throwing a temper tantrum in a store.
My heroes would not include those who had a greater understanding of the big picture, yet posted with such self-serving attitude that their message was obscured by their ego. These postings said, in effect, "I am right, because I am smarter than you, and therefore you must believe me in all things Y2K related"
My heroes are not those who were insiders in the computer industry; those who should have had the resources and depth of understanding to present a clearer prognostication. I still appreciate their effort to make us aware of what they perceived as a threat to society early on, but if they had the expertise they led us to believe, they should also have provided us with later, more accurate projections.
And lastly, my heroes would not include those few, who's intellect allowed them to play the "debate game". While these individuals professed to a desire to save us from ourselves, they habitually picked on the easy targets; the misstatements, and the occasional emotional outburst we all were prone to. These posters would often play both sides of the question, depending upon the debate at hand, and therefore lost creditability through their obviously twisted logic and hypocritical stance. (I remember one statement, something like "Y2K will not cause the fall of society. The stock market will crash and kill us all, but Y2K will only be the catalyst to cause the crash.) Huh?
By now, I guess, you can tell I'm not much into hero-worship, but I did find true heroes in the Y2K experience. They were not engineers. Not computer scientists, neither technicians nor writers. They were not journalists, politicians, teachers, policemen, soldiers, or housewives. They were simply people.
You see, for me, Y2K was never about what would happen to the computers, but rather what would happen to the fabric of our society if indeed, the CDC caused global disruptions. And time after time, on thread upon thread, I met, and listened, and talked to people who reaffirmed my faith in human nature; in compassion, in resourcefulness, in leadership. These people, young, old, schooled and self-educated, with knowledge or confessed ignorance, men and women, let me into their lives and let me glimpse their hearts. And what I saw there, were brothers and sisters; people who I knew would stand steadfast in any kind of storm, who would help others as long as they could help. Not because they were paid to, not because they belonged to any organized effort, not because they were Christians, or Buddhists, or whatever. But simply because they knew of no better way to face any crisis than to be concerned for their families and neighbors. These are the people I rememb
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000
....I remember. They are my Y2K Heroes.-
(damn IE)
-------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
Lon:Then you should understand that it's this sheer human resiliance you admire that should have mitigated your pessimism. Nearly every really discouraging scenario tacitly assumed a brittle society, unable to adapt to anything unusual and always on the very verge of panic and riot. Without that presumption, there never would be any dominoes.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.
Thanks, Lon.As a variation of what you said, I would include among the non heroes those who arrogantly thought that people could and should be convinced by a show of sarcasm, as well as the "leaders" who treated us like children and gave us pablum instead of real information to make our own well-informed decisions.
I would add among the heroes those who put their reputations and in some cases their well-being on the line to try to get the word out.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
Brooks,And what, pray tell, was "the word?"
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.
Flint,"Then you should understand that it's this sheer human resiliance you admire that should have mitigated your pessimism."
----
Why do you assume it didn't? Early on, I made basic preparations, even went a little overboard, (like you, I'm eating a lot of can goods) but in the last eight months or so, I gathered almost nothing more than opinion.
As the tidbits of truth made their way into my consiousness through the noise of the beloved debate, I became less and less convinced of the seriousness of sudden Y2K falures.
Of course, like most of us, I let my imagination prepare my nightmares on occasion, and like I said, I made some unfortunate posts while under the influence of melancoly. After all, this thing drug out for many months, and included the severe pessimism of some heavy hitters, and few of us were able to keep a smiley face throughout that whole time.
But, I learned to appreciate even the fears of the various posters. And I realized that the emotional outbursts were oftimes just the manifestation of these fears on both sides of the issue. I didn't find the fact that people feared Y2K as foolish, or weak, or irrational. I found our fear itself as a substantive evidence of human concern, of determination, of compassion.
I, actually, learned quite a lot from the experience of Y2K. Very little of it had to do with computers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
Decker, it was however they honestly saw the situation.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
Excuse me for presenting a TOTALLY alternative view on this hero business, but why would anyone be a hero for getting word out that something COULD happen when nothing DID happen, and why would anyone be a hero for telling folks that nothing WOULD happen when nothing DID happen?This exercise reminds me of the salesman who wanted to include fire detection in the house alarm because we COULD have a fire. Had we had a fire, one might be able to say this salesman was a hero, although one would more likely say that he was selling fire detection equipment and those who didn't have a fire don't consider him a hero. If the first salesman were followed by another that suggested we would NOT have a fire, we might be able to say he was a hero, although those who did have a fire don't consider him one. Then again, had one not fallen for the sales pitch of the first salesman, the second salesman would by default be ignored.
BTW, Lon, it's not I.E. It's I.E. on a MAC. I.E. works just fine on a P.C.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
And what, pray tell, was "the word?"http://www.capitolalert.com/news/old/capalert01_19990927.html
"People ought to prepare, but they ought to prepare early," said Koskinen.
-- (Preparation@was.prudent), May 31, 2000.
Anita,Being a "hero" is not necessarily about who had the best crystal ball.
So, you are saying that unless something bad happens, you aren't a "hero." So, like Paul Revere was not a "hero" since the British didn't actually defeat the Americans?
I'd nominate Ed Yourdon, Gary North, as well as Diane Squire and the other sysops who held the forum together during a difficult time!
-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
Andy Ray is my hero. I want to grow up and become a flaming asshole like him!
-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 31, 2000.
Excuse me, Anita, but I'm afraid we may be in agreement here.I, too, said that the warners were not my heroes, per se. I did appreciate them, as I still appreciate the hurricane forcasters, the tornado warnings, or the fireman who teaches kids what to do in case of fire.
While it's true that our civilization did not burn to the ground, I see these early warners as neither heroes nor con-men. I have no reason to think that most were sincere in their beliefs. (Of course, there were cases of fear-for-profit, but I think these were reletively few, and I am not addressing them here.)
---------- And I know it's not I.E. It should be "damn myself for not remembering to allow for it every time I post"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
Anita, what I meant was the folks who were knowingly putting themselves at risk for opening their mouths at all.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
make that..."I have no reason to believe that most were NOT sincere....."
-----------------
(damn fingers)
-------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
Consider, if it had not been for the early "doomers" like DeJager, then the problems WOULD have been much worse.
-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
I'd nominate Ed Yourdon, Gary North, as well as Diane Squire and the other sysops who held the forum together during a difficult time!The only problem I have with nominating Diane and the other sysops is the fact that they [snip --Sysop] that they felt [snip --Sysop] as well as [snip --Sysop] people just for [snip --Sysop] even though they [snip --Sysop] all along. But that's just my opinion.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 31, 2000.
BTW, Lon, it's not I.E. It's I.E. on a MAC. I.E. works just fine on a P.C.Actually, it appears to be IE 4.x on a Mac. IE 5 on a Mac doesn't appear to have this problem either. And it's noticably faster too.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 31, 2000.
Technically, Brooks, I qualify. During my time at TB 2000 I routinely faced opposition to my view, i.e., Y2K was not going to be the "end of the world." In fact, I risked my "reputation" by posting under my real name and staying with my message 'til the bitter end.Moving on, I think Anita makes a good point. For example, if someone warned you about an alien invasion from Mars, are they a "hero?" This "hero" is probably risking his reputation by raising the alarm. Without doubt, he will face opposition, even ridicule. By Lon's standard, if kind, decent, well-intentioned people circled the wagons to stand against the "Martian invaders" they would be heroes.
I wrote a post last year saying those who believe in alien abductions are just as sincere as those who believe(d) in a Y2K apocalypse. The world is full of sincere people who earnestly believe in all manner of odd things... but is sincerity of belief really the hallmark of a hero? To me, the belief matters. I reject the notion a otherwise wonderful member of the Klu Klux Klan deserves my admiration. I find a sincere, honest belief in racism repugnant.
On the whole, the Y2K doomsayers were harmless. If they maxxed the credit cards and emptied the retirement accounts to pay for Y2K preps, they really didn't hurt anyone but themselves. The belief in Y2K doom was not malignant like racism. Rather, it was a misplaced and a little silly... like the belief in alien abductions.
Lest anyone feel "abused" by the comparison, I think one can make just as good a case for UFOs as one could have made for a Y2K disaster last year.
In closing, I'm not sure anyone became a hero by scribbling on an Internet forum... at least not by my standards. The real heroes were those who fixed the Y2K problem... not just worried about it.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.
Ed Yourdon is hardly a hero. He is a profiteer that made a nice amount of money and created a following for himself through Y2k. He was smart enough to know that press, whether good or bad, still gets your name out there in the mainstream public. He had nothing to lose by being wrong about Y2k. For him, it was a net gain. He is still consulting to businesses and does not appear to have lost credibility, although trying to show expertise in areas where he had none in "TB 2000" while trying to pass off his junior economist daughter as more than she was.Gary North was nothing more than an opportunist. He created quite a name for himself (relatively speaking) through Y2K and has increased his following as well as subscribers to his Remnant Review. Anyone with an ounce of brains could look at North's history and see that he likes to capitalize on negative situations fraught with uncertainty in order to create fear and then feeds that fear. If he is a hero, he is a hero only to those who are evil. He clearly cares little about his fellow man. His reports were filled with spin, deceit, and half-truths, while he sells two-year subscriptions to his publication while predicting the demise of the postal system within 6 months. See a conflict there? We could go on and on about North. He is as much of a hero as Bill Clinton is or John Gacy was.
Diane Squire was a repulsive creature who sought to subdue opposing views and thought. This "disinformation machine" was extremely deceptive in her presentation of pre-Y2K incidents, speculating that most railroad accidents, chemical spills, etc. were Y2K related and the truth was being covered up. Since doomer allegations did not have to be substantiated with fact on TB 2000, she was untouchable. If someone disputed her, especially a known polly, the cavalry would come to the rescue. I don't know of any times that she actually proved out any of her speculations. A hypocrite in the worst sense: Accusing governments and industry of spin and lies while doing the same herself. Closer to a zero than a hero.
None of these people really aided the Y2K process. Yourdon and North padded their wallets and thickened their mailing lists. North was more subversive, and actually hoped that Y2K would be a disaster. Most rational people had no idea who North was, and fewer knew who Diane Squire was, although she was the queen of the prom in her own tiny niche. Who knows if Yourdon had any effect? What would bear that out? The primary effects of these three was to create and perpetuate fear and maintain a little club on the internet which when faced with being wrong, made up a myriad of excuses and then ran away and closed ranks.
-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), May 31, 2000.
I think one can make just as good a case for UFOs as one could have made for a Y2K disaster last year.Last year? Mebbe. Late last year? You have a better case.
But,
Most of us old TB2Kers learned about Y2K two years ago, or longer. Think back. GM was running tests in it's plants and finding that UFOs were causing problems. US Senators were warnig about UFOs, and the Senate of the United States of America was holding hearings about the possible effects of UFOs. Experts in space travel, (Yourdon, DeJager, Hamasaki, Core etc.)were talking about the possible effects of UFOs on our society. UFOs were featured on ABC Nightly News, and C-Span.
Forgive some of us non-UFO experts for paying attention, would ya?
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.
Decker: I take you up on your challenge, please, make a case for UFOs that mirrors the case made for Y2K. Please don't forget to include Sen. Bennet and Dodd, et.al.; or all the CSPAN hearings; or all the .gov warnings in December. (And anything else I omitted. Paul Milne/Gary North nutz not to be included.)Also, don't forget about the 18 months worth of "it's okay" notices I got in *each* and *every* phone, gas, electric and credit card bill every single month right up to 12/99.
-- Not now, not like this (AgentSmith0110@aol.com), May 31, 2000.
Anyone remember SETI?Many intelligent, well-qualified individuals have speculated about the existence of life elsewhere in the universe. The possibility of UFOs, however, does not warrant the assumption to think "UFOs are coming and boy, are they pissed!"
This is the same error made by the Y2K doomsayers. Most reasonable experts acknowledged the possibility of problems. These same experts felt it was unwarranted to think that "Y2K is coming and we're all gonna die!"
Y2K fooled some smart people because they failed to understand the resiliance of systems. These same people ignored the absence of the "domino effect" when a virus nuked thousands of computers worldwide. They ignored the quiet "critical dates." They ignored the lack of price signals or market signs. They ignored the river of reports saying Y2K was going to be fine. They ignored the people verifying the reports. The doomers ignored everything but a handful of speculative reports, most of dubious origin.
I will grant this... I took a heroic effort to ignore the reams of positive data and focus on fiction like "Mr. CEO." We still haven't solved the riddle of UFOs. For anyone reading with an open mind, we solved the riddle in July 1999 (or thereabouts).
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.
Oh yeah.The President of the United Staes of America spoke of the need to be aware of the UFO problem during his State of The Union Address, and chided chucklers with :"Don't laugh, it is a serious problem".
Yup, that happens a lot.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.
No Polly:The "Paul Revere" theory is highly problematical. I'm not saying it's silly, but I am saying it's very difficult to support with anything besides blind faith.
So it's your turn to consider. For people like deJager, North, Yourdon et.al. to be heroes, we must presume:
(1) That the original unremediated y2k status was far worse than what we actually experienced, despite effectively nonexistent discomfort levels in locations where remediation was not practiced, or was visibly cursory. We didn't have a spare world to leave unremediated just to see how bad things would have been, so the entire experiment had no control. What data we do have suggest that most remediation was WAY overkill.
(2) That those on your heroes list had some significant impact on the scale and schedule of remediation. Again, we have no control with which to compare, but we DO know that few of those involved in their own remediation projects had ever heard of any of these people. We have strong indication that most organizations had been aware of the pending expiration of their 19xx window for a decade, and fixed the problem no sooner than they needed to, but obviously NOT too late.
In other words, we must make a couple of VERY questionable assumptions about the Paul Reveres, both of which are by and large contrary to observation. Yet you state the resulting conclusion as though it were a FACT. No wonder you were no polly, if you must draw conclusions based on assumptions contrary to observation just because that's what you insist on hearing.
Based on actual real-world observation, it's very unlikely that any of these people had anything whatsoever to do with the eventual outcome. You remind me of the gentleman who carried an elephant gun through downtown Dallas, and used the lack of elephants as PROOF that his carrying that gun was the cause!
Most likely, the only effect these Reveres had was to frighten people like you (amd me) unnecessarily. They were playing a win-win game -- if bad things happened, they could say I Told You So. If bad things did NOT happen, they could claim responsibility for preventing it! In reality y2k was minor, well understood, appropriately addressed by those affected, and trivial.
Your assigning heroism to those who cried wolf is more self-serving than Lon's claim that the real heroes were those who quite properly ignored the whole business and never noticed a thing.
And as a footnote, I was surprised at how long it took for Yourdon's hand-picked sysops to wreck the forum completely. And what wrecked it more than any other single cause whas those SAME sysops (and their cronies) all trying to download the entire archives all at once! Your taste in heroes is warped for sure.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.
Ken,How could you be so unkind as to take Brooks at face value? You know perfectly well that what she said, deliberately isn't what she *meant*.
Her heroes were those who, like herself, got snookered by the hype and frightened people with unnecessary warnings, at the considerable risk to their reputations. Her villains were those who realized there was nothing to worry about, and nefariously *failed* to issue unnecessary warnings.
Doomism, after all, hasn't changed just because nothing happened. For Brooks, heroism meant acting in accord with Brooks' convictions, and villainy meant acting in accord with reality. "Sincerity" is easy to determine -- those who agreed with Brooks were sincere while those who knew better were not. Everything is really quite simple.
YOU might have been sincere, but that doesn't count because you were wrong. Until you proved right, but that only shows you weren't sincere in the first place. See?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.
Hi Flint,You state that in order for my choice of heros to be valid, we must accept my two assumptions, which I paraphrase,
1. The effects of an unremediated world would be worse than we experienced.
Yes. I agree. Do you recal the Y2K test of the "unremediated" General Motors plant circa 1997? It was a disaster. I am in no way saying that every system would fail if unremediated, but I am saying that the effects, worldwide, would definitely be "worse than we experienced." Countries such as Italy, that did very little, survived because things are always broken in Italy; they're used to it. People rely less upon technology, thus a breakdown has minimal effect.
2. My heros had some significant impact on the scale and schedule of remediation.
Agree. I went to my first Y2K meeting at our organization in 1997, and we were pointed to deJager's website for information. At that time he was a real "doomer," and this gave our IS Department, and other departments the necessary kick in the bottom to get hustling at remediation. We made it, but without the Paul Revere's of Y2K, how many more problems would there be? As you said, we have no control subject, so we only have inference; and I believe, no I KNOW there would have been less remediation if my heros had not spread the word. Others have attempted to discredit some of them, because of financial gain derived from publicity. Funny, I don't hear anyone NOT calling Michael Jordan a (sports) hero, because he made a few million at his game. Hypocritical?
Finally, this forum was not "wrecked" by the sysops. It was brought to its knees by the spamming and DNS attacks of LL, Pro, Doomers@, and their ilk. I suppose these misguided individuals are your heros, too?
[rant mode off]
Have a nice day!
-- No Polly (nopolly@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
No Polly:No need to rant. You raise issues subject to useful evaluation. And I like the way you phrase them, also useful. So to continue...
[1. The effects of an unremediated world would be worse than we experienced.]
I also agree, remediation accomplished a lot. No question about it. But I wasn't saying it did not, I was wondering just how bad things might have been otherwise. Yes, GM's initial evaluation showed that some things just plain didn't work. Assembly lines stopped entirely. This is a serious problem.
NOW, There are two scales by which we can measure how serious a problem is -- impact and duration. Clearly GM would have been history if this problem had persisted for very long. But all I discovered is that, about a year later, GM was claiming effective compliance (which subsequently has proved to be the case), despite their *2 billion* lines of code, not counting embeddeds!
So just how serious could their problems have been, to have them all fixed and tested a year later? If they'd done no remediation at all, would it have taken them a full year to reach minimally necessary functionality? I don't have the answers to these questions for GM, but my own manufacturing experience strongly indicates otherwise. Our assembly lines also stopped when we tested, and we had the problem fixed in ONE DAY.
Bottom line on this one: From the indications I've seen, without remediation we'd have been hurting, but not all that badly for not all that long. And your Reveres had nothing to do with the (in hindsight) relative ease with which date bugs were dispatched. Given the amazing (to me) LACK of impacts anywhere, meaning *everyone* finished enough in time, occam's razor says the whole thing was mostly exaggerated.
[2. My heros had some significant impact on the scale and schedule of remediation.]
Here I can't agree. These guys may have been instrumental in alerting YOU to the problems with EVERYONE ELSE'S code, but they had nothing to do with alerting ME to the problems with MY OWN code. I find it hard to believe that your organization would have sleepwalked into y2k purgatory without deJager's website to alert you to an otherwise unsuspected problem. Do you REALLY believe this? It sounds like your organization had already decided to act, and used that site simply as a pep talk. Be honest. These guys had as much to do with igniting remediation as rain dancers have with bringing cold fronts.
[Finally, this forum was not "wrecked" by the sysops. It was brought to its knees by the spamming and DNS attacks of LL, Pro, Doomers@, and their ilk. I suppose these misguided individuals are your heros, too?]
1)It was indeed crippled by the sysops and their cronies robotically downloading the entire archives at once. This is a matter of public record. Why deny it?
2) ONLY LL was guilting of spamming and DNS attacks, which I found reprehensible. The others you mention were NEVER guilty of this, but were *accused* of being "supportive" by the sysops. Supportive how? By using the *same* abusive posting techniques that a LARGE contingent of doomers practiced regularly, but for the WRONG SIDE!
3) Even LL's spamming was a DIRECT result of the sysops' attempts to "disappear" disapproved opinion. I think if they'd taken it upon themselves to delete every post I made, I'd have had little choice but to spam. How else could those people be heard whom the sysops decided they didn't want us to read?
It was both the sysops' robots and the sysops' censorship that killed the old forum. Consider that the SAME people the old sysops tried so hard to delete are welcome here, and we have no spamming, no DNS. THINK about this, No Polly. The old "villains" are here, with NO problems. Only your "heroes" have left, and the forum springs back to life free of problems! Now, WHO caused those problems again?
You may have strongly disapproved of the opinions of the censorship victims. You may have supported that censorship (since sadly enough, while everyone HATES censorship, the majority favor deleting anyone who disagrees with them). Nonetheless, it was the increasing (and increasingly time-consuming) censorship that ultimately killed the forum. This forum, by virtue of letting the old victims post, is living proof of what I say. Like it or not.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.
Flint, I have never questioned Decker's sincerity, either in thought or in print, so you do not speak for me.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), May 31, 2000.
Well, I had to leave for awhile, and when I returned, I was amused, but hardly amazed, that some of us are still employing our tired, but effective posting techniques.Lets just ignore the somewhat uncomfortable jist of the thread, that being, that some of us may not be held as heroes in everyones eyes. Lets turn the thread into something which will be endlessly and fruitlessly debatable, such how right we were, or how wrong you all were, or how the old forum was ruined by the sysops or trolls.
And if that doesnt work sufficiently, we can totally misconstrue the words of other posters we choose to make the butt of our rebuttals. And, oh yeah, lets not forget my personal favorite, and make a couple of unprovoked and unwarranted personal attacks on someone who was silly enough to make a candid statement of their opinion. Maybe cutesy them up a little with smug sarcasm; everybody enjoys that.
Oh, I almost forgot, lets be sure to lump all doomers into one homogeneous group of ignorant, paranoid, cowering losers. That way it is so much easier to transfer their mentality onto a cult of UFO wackos or Ku Klux racists.
But all is not lost, beloved. Mr. Decker may have once again distilled a droplet of wisdom from my fevered ravings. He said:
By Lon's standard, if kind, decent, well-intentioned people circled the wagons to stand against the "Martian invaders" they would be heroes.
Well now, Ken, I dont really recall setting that standard, but perhaps it is what I was trying to say all along. Kind, decent, compassionate people ARE my heroes in everyday life. And Y2K, for me, was always about everyday life. It was more about my kids than it was about Yourdon. It was more about my neighbors than it was about Gary North. It was more about my community than it was about the opinions of Decker or Flint, Big Dog or Diane, or even of stupid, gullible old Lon.
Also, Ken, you said your heroes were the ones who fixed Y2K. Well, what you have never understood, is that I fixed it. Thats right, I fixed Y2K. I never touched the guts of any computer, I never replaced a single embedded chip, I never testified before Congress, I published neither book nor article, but for me and my family, I fixed Y2K.
I did not just worry about it, and I did not wear a sandwich board proclaiming the end of the world. I just used the resources available to me, my limited intellect, my somewhat faulty best judgment, and my fear, and I removed the threat to my family and friends of being unprepared for the unforeseen. On my level, that was what Y2K was all about, and my efforts and my example turned out to be somehow acceptable and justly prudent.
So, I suppose that makes ME one of your Y2K heroes, Mr. Decker?
I am gratified beyond expression.
--------------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
These people, young, old, schooled and self-educated, with knowledge or confessed ignorance, men and women, let me into their lives and let me glimpse their hearts. And what I saw there, were brothers and sisters; people who I knew would stand steadfast in any kind of storm, who would help others as long as they could help. Not because they were paid to, not because they belonged to any organized effort, not because they were Christians, or Buddhists, or whatever. But simply because they knew of no better way to face any crisis than to be concerned for their families and neighbors. These are the people I remember. They are my Y2K Heroes.-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000
Damn Lon, well said. I sometimes mentioned in the forums that my wife once said that "people are more important than winning an argument." What you have written illustrates that point beautifully. You are right, she is right.
But that was my wife, and that's you. Me? Hey, I read nonsense, I refute it. Is the logical robot in me ;) I knew that I wouldn't win friends that way, but that wasn't my goal - it was to find facts, post facts, and dismiss the y2k mythmakers. On the journey, I discovered that I actually liked many of the "doomers" who posted, for I saw non-y2k related posts they made that indicated some very good and likeable qualities. They probably never knew it though, I wasn't into trading recipes or sharing stories, I was on a Y2K Truth Mission with the debunkie squad and we had all vowed to fight the Y2K hype to the death and we couldn't rest until the likes of RC, dd1light, Jim Lord, Michael Hyatt, "Mr. CEO", were but funny memories. And....they are.
To put the Power insiders threads in perspective Lon, it really is something Dan thought others might wan't to see our experiences about, and the "Heroes" thread is but one of them. I assure you, I certainly don't consider myself as a hero (the above was in jest), and I am quite certain Dan, Malcom, The Engineer, don't see themselves that way either.
I was a fart in a y2k whirlwind actually, lol. but weren't we all? :)
-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), May 31, 2000.
Gee...since I remediated code, I guess I am one of Decker's heros. And since he sat around and did nothing but dissuade preparation, pull his money out of the stock market, and kick anthills, I guess that makes him a uh, asshole.
-- programmer (programmer@code.com), May 31, 2000.
I was a fart in a y2k whirlwind actually, lol. but weren't we all? :)Now, its my turn to say, well said, FactFinder.
I remember months of polite and non-argumenative debate on the old forum. But somehow, especially toward the end, we became polarized into us and them. Perhaps too many toes had been stepped upon, too many egos had been bruised to allow anything else.
I know that some debunkers came to the forum, with hard-earned knowledge and experience, and were repulsed when the forum as a whole, or some more vocal denizen, refused to take them at face value. And I know that many doomers were incensed by being categorized automatically as ignorant, panic-stricken, or possessed of some cultish meme. Many of the posts along that time were simply unthinking or childish attacks by people using their new-found anonymity to exorcise their frustrations, or to exercise their persona agendas.
In retrospect, I wish I had been more receptive to your mission, but by that time, I had simply been worn down by conflict, of personalities as well as available information. I am sure I could have learned more from you and from some of the other debunkers. But, Im not so sure it would have made a difference in my preparations nor greatly eased my concerns.
And I really dont care if you were a Polly or Doomer, a debunker or sysop or troll. If you did what you perceived was right, if you did what you did to help, rather than hinder, you pass my test. However, its not really my acceptance or my opinion of you that matters, but rather your own.
-----------------------
Oh, and Factfinder, a final word of wisdom, if I may: Never, Never pass up a chance to trade recipies. :)
-------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
I was a fart in a y2k whirlwind actually, lol. but weren't we all? :)Now, its my turn to say, well said, FactFinder.
I remember months of polite and non-argumenative debate on the old forum. But somehow, especially toward the end, we became polarized into us and them. Perhaps too many toes had been stepped upon, too many egos had been bruised to allow anything else.
I know that some debunkers came to the forum, with hard-earned knowledge and experience, and were repulsed when the forum as a whole, or some more vocal denizen, refused to take them at face value. And I know that many doomers were incensed by being categorized automatically as ignorant, panic-stricken, or possessed of some cultish meme. Many of the posts along that time were simply unthinking or childish attacks by people using their new-found anonymity to exorcise their frustrations, or to exercise their persona agendas.
In retrospect, I wish I had been more receptive to your mission, but by that time, I had simply been worn down by conflict, of personalities as well as available information. I am sure I could have learned more from you and from some of the other debunkers. But, Im not so sure it would have made a difference in my preparations nor greatly eased my concerns.
And I really dont care if you were a Polly or Doomer, a debunker or sysop or troll. If you did what you perceived was right, if you did what you did to help, rather than hinder, you pass my test. However, its not really my acceptance or my opinion of you that matters, but rather your own.
-----------------------
Oh, and Factfinder, a final word of wisdom, if I may: Never, Never pass up a chance to trade recipies. :)
-------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), May 31, 2000.
programmer:I can't help asking. How does it feel to be an asshole's hero?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 31, 2000.
Lon,Best said. Thanks
-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 31, 2000.
Lon,I have no problem with kind, compassionate, decent people... as long as their belief system doesn't run roughshod on the rights of others. You see, Lon, kind, compassionate decent people burned "witches" at the stake in Salem. "Kind" southerners owned slaves. "Compassionate" Americans committed genocide against the Native Americans. "Decent" people supported the unlawful imprisonment of Japanese during the Second World War. Shall we talk about lynch mobs?
Basically, Lon, I don't trust your standard for "heroes." Being "nice" doesn't balance the scales against a malignant values system. (Let me reiterate, Y2K doomerism was not malignant, just silly.) The "doomers" admire people like Ed Yourdon... for agreeing with them. It's exactly this mentality that made the old TB 2000 into an exercise in "group think." On the old forum the real standard was conformity to the doomer message. This made some otherwise repugnant characters (Paul Milne) into forum "heroes." It also made otherwise decent people (Ted Hoffman) into "goats." Hypocrisy writ large.
Belief in a Y2K apocalypse was silly. Silly. Silly.
The same President you complain about Unk, is telling us the war on drugs is working. Why don't you believe him? Because you decided to think objectively about the "war on drugs" and you stopped thinking about Y2K... at least for awhile. You lost your head, Unk. We all do. But don't try to sell me soap about the President "validating" the Y2K problem.
As for those who fixed the Y2K problem, stop by and I'll buy you a drink. Through the entire Y2K debate, I expressed my unabashed admiration for the IT types pulling long hours fixing problems. Fortunately, under our capitalistic system you were compensated for your efforts.
I also said I thought the doomers with "bug out bags" were pathetic. Real heroes were the people who pulled duty on New Year's Eve. There were everyday people staying on the job ready to fix problems... not just save their own asses. Tell me, Lon, is someone ready bolt at the first sign of social unrest a "hero."
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 31, 2000.
Ken,I am a terrible soap salesman, I'm much better at ladies shoes.
I brought that point up not because Clinton is a paragon of truth and virtue, I brought that up because belief in UFOs and taking seriously possible effects from Y2K do not compare until the President and the Senate of the United States begin to address UFOs in the same manner and context as they did Y2K.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.
Do you ever go home and think "Boy, when he told me that I should have said...."Ken,
Your comparison of Y2K and belief in UFOs is just elusive enough to not be entirely refutable, yet absurd enough to drive home the point you were making. Please trust me that this next statement is said in sincerity and with admiration;
Whatever you are doing now, your true calling was lawyering.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.
Damn, Ken,You mean I missed the witch hunt? That musta been the week all us good ol boys were over to the cross burnins.
Here I thought I was just buying extra beans at Sams, and all the time I was actually running roughshod over the rights of others. Whadda ya know? Consider me chastised.
----
Ken, you could save yourself a lot of typing if you would actually READ my posts before you tell me how stupid they are. Where did I say nice balanced the scales of a malignant system? Where did I infer that the atrocities of history were forgivable because of the intentions of the perpetrators? Where did I suggest that either Yourdon or someone ready bolt at the first sign of social unrest" is, or should be a hero?
Ah, but thats O K, I realize that it must be so much easier to come across as the level-headed intellectual if you paint everyone else as members of some witch-hunting, slave owning, baby-killing lynch mob.
And its O K if you must characterize me as some mindless cult member (not malignant, just silly, silly, silly) if it helps your perception of yourself as a lone Quixote, still nobly jousting against the windmills of lingering Y2K doomerism.
After all, should you once acknowledge the possibility of individual thought and opinion other than yours, it would greatly impair your ability to make statements such as, The "doomers" admire people like Ed Yourdon... for agreeing with them. It's exactly this mentality that made the old TB 2000 into an exercise in "group think." Lord knows I was often grateful for you being there to tell me what my mentality was, and to do my thinking for me. It has always been painfully obvious that I never quite got the hang of it for myself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
Nice try Lon but it's hopeless. Decker is God, doncha know? FWIW, from a former Y2K agnostic, I always read your excellent posts. Usually skipped Decker's. Still do. They're just so tedious and lacking in art (or heart?).
-- (He's@still.here), June 01, 2000.
Yeah, yeah, I know. And I suppose an appology to the forum is in order. I usually try not to be drawn in to pesonal disagreements, but sometimes, I try to put some effort into my posts, and it just pisses me off when someone turns it completly around, then jummps me for saying what only he thought I said.Anyhow, I think I better go back to the FRL thread where I belong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
Naw, no apologies are required because AR, Decker, cpr and flint will forget. Maybe we could start a daily thread where we apologize on behalf of all the doomers who are not here. Or, we could just form a little committee to take turns posting apologies every day on every new thread. Maybe we should just sacrifice our firstborn to a volcano to appease the Gods. Oh, by the way, I'm sorry.I hope you'll stay.
-- (He's@still.here), June 01, 2000.
(thanks for the kind words. I have mmostly enjoyed the discussions here and been greatful for my opportunity to participate)But, you misunderstood. My apology would only be for being drawn into a spitting and scratching contest, not for my doomerish stance on Y2K.
And, I dont believe they (the debunkers) SHOULD forget. I dont think any of us should. We all learned something about ourselves through our Y2K experiences and I believe that is all valuable.
Whatever our reactions were, whatever our preparations, whatever our fears, we got a chance to look at ourselves in a way most of us never had. Whoever we trusted, whoever we despised, whoever we laughed at or cried with, told us something about ourselves, and our values.
Whatever we read which we thought had the ring of truth, or pushed our buttons, gave us an opportunity to examine our prejudices and question our preconceptions.
And whatever, WHATEVER, our reactions were, however we prepared, whether we panicked or prayed, hunkered down or bugged out, or just shook our head and walked away, we were afforded a unique chance to weigh our social consciousness. A dry run to test our moral fabric, if you will.
Decker brought up several atrocities of history. How would we, who experienced the TB2000 debates, now react to a rumored Holocaust? What will we say to the minor witch hunts that most surely will crop up in our communities in the future? Will we react differently than if we had not been afforded the Y2K experience, or will we act in a more complete knowledge (and memory) of our motivations.
The next time we, as individuals are confronted with any of the ills of our society, will we hunker down, bug out, or speak up? I dont know. I just know I should learn when life affords me the chance, and try to not forget the lessons.
------------------------------------------------------------
And my appologies, Mr. Decker. Your opinions and experiences are as legitimate as mine, and certainly more prolific. Although I find your postings aften disagreable, I would never seek to silence you.
-----------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
Ken, you could save yourself a lot of typing if you would actually READ my posts before you tell me how stupid they are. Where did I say nice balanced the scales of a malignant system? Where did I infer that the atrocities of history were forgivable because of the intentions of the perpetrators? Where did I suggest that either Yourdon or someone ready bolt at the first sign of social unrest" is, or should be a hero?Ah, but thats O K, I realize that it must be so much easier to come across as the level-headed intellectual if you paint everyone else as members of some witch-hunting, slave owning, baby-killing lynch mob.
And its O K if you must characterize me as some mindless cult member (not malignant, just silly, silly, silly) if it helps your perception of yourself as a lone Quixote, still nobly jousting against the windmills of lingering Y2K doomerism..
I'm LOL right now. Well said, Lon.
Which brings me to the question of heroes in the Y2K debate. My opinion is that the heroes in this debate were both the 'pollys' and the 'doomers' who talked about ideas and used verifiable sources of information to make their points.
Those who weren't heroes in the 1999 debate were the 'pollys' and 'doomers' who talked about other people, the motivations of others, and who believed their attitude and hubris should have been sufficient reason for the 'other side' to change their minds about preparing for Y2K.
And their name was Legion.
-- (People@Events.Ideas), June 01, 2000.
Silly, silly people,
Those of us who knew couldn't provide verifiable evidence without exposing ourselves and others.
-- (Tinkerbell @nd Cap'n .Hook), June 01, 2000.
All we could do is use our pathetic, worthless, incognito voices.
Smart ones knew us by our dedication.
-- (Tinkerbell @nd Cap'n .Hook), June 01, 2000.
Those of us who knew couldn't provide verifiable evidence without exposing ourselves and others....which is why many prepared to a lesser or greater extent for an uncertain y2k future, including corporations and government.
-- Not sorry (that@I.prepped), June 01, 2000.
Italics off.
-- (Off@I.say!), June 01, 2000.
"Those of us who knew couldn't provide verifiable evidence without exposing ourselves and others."Uh huh. So now that it's June, you shouldn't have any problem sharing what you "knew" and how you "knew" it. Or do you have some other convenient excuse for making unsupported statements now?
-- Pack of Lies (doomer.bullshit@cowards.com), June 01, 2000.
I agree with "Pack of Lies." What was the really good news "Tinkerbell @nd Cap'n .Hook" knew about y2k in 1998 or 1999 that FEMA, the House, the Senate and the military didn't? The government indicated some uncertainty about the outcome of y2k.Of all the semi-known or well-known y2k "experts," it seems only cpr thought it would be a total non-event.
-- What did we know and when did (we@know.it), June 01, 2000.
Lon,You seem a "decent" fellow so let me spell this out one more time. Reading your original post, you are saying you found people you admired in the Y2K debate... because of their human qualities. Bravo. I am the first to agree some fine individuals were present.
My bone of contention is simple. At least some of your "heroes" were serious Y2K pessimists. (Unless, of course, you only admired the "pollies" and haven't told us). These folks were wrong about Y2K. In the case of Y2K, being "wrong" meant having a room full of toilet paper and canned beans. You can be wrong about ghosts, UFOs, "bigfoot," etc. and still be a wonderful guy... but how does ardent belief in unprovable phenomena make you heroic?
And how, in goodness name, can one be heroic as an anonymous poster on an Internet forum that had NO IMPACT on Y2K? There were pessimists I appreciated, people who stood against the mindless personal attacks, people who resisted the censorship by the sysops. I would call their behavior admirable... but not heroic.
Most of the Y2K pessimists I knew were good people with a flawed idea. Acting on a flawed idea is not heroic. You can find the silver lining in Y2K preparations. This is an admirable quality, particularly after eating rice and beans for five months. Hey, Lon, I argued for modest preparations during all of 1999. And I was heckled for my "pollyanna" views.
Tell me you met kind, compassionate, decent people online... and I tip my hat to you. So did I. Call them heroes (the week after Memorial Day) and I think you have to make a better case for their "heroism."
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 2000.
Lon: I KNEW what YOU were saying. You just LIKE most folks. So do I.Addressing the rest of this thread, the only thing I've seen that concerns me is Brooks stating,"I have never questioned Decker's sincerity, either in thought or in print..." Please, Brooks. I embarrass myself enough just sharing what I DO. This forum wouldn't be prepared to deal with what I THINK. We don't want to go there...oh no! [grin]
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.
"it seems only cpr thought it would be a total non-event."CPR obviously understood the power of the Clinton-establishment press to manage the news better than the rest of us.
-- Lurker2 (lurker2@lots.to.lurk.for), June 01, 2000.
Ken,Thanks for the gracious reply. (Ive been called a lot of things,..but decent may be a stretch)
I think we are still arguing the comparative qualities of apples and oranges, though. You have missed the basic point I was trying (apparently, unsuccessfully) to make. That is, that Y2K can, and has been seen from two very different perspectives.
You perhaps, and rightfully so, see Y2K as a technical calamity which was avoided/prevented by heroic efforts of technical people. Whereas, I saw it as a potential social calamity.
I am not computer-literate. I cannot program. I have never seen a room full of data storage/retrieval machines, helplessly held in their own time warp. But I have seen hungry children. I have seen families living under a few sheets of rusty tin. So, I would suggest our experience dictated our viewpoint.
You ask how could an anonymous poster on an Internet forum that had NO IMPACT on Y2K be a hero?
But dont you see, for me, they DID have an impact. When absolutely no one could provide irrefutable proof that Y2K would not be disruptive, these people, whether pollies or doomers, gave daily evidence that people could communicate, that people were resilient, that people could rely on their neighbors. And that we all are neighbors.
You still ask, how does ardent belief in unprovable phenomena make you heroic? , but you still ignore my premise that belief in the outcome of Y2K, whether doomer or polly, whether proven right or wrong, has nothing to do with heroism.
You say that your heroes are the men and women who quietly worked behind the scenes to remediate the systems. The ones who worked New Years eve. The ones who sacrificed time with their families, to assure that I could continue to have time with mine.
I could counter-argue with the fact that there are thousands of people who work EVERY New Years eve, every Christmas Day; who eat every Thanksgiving dinner in firehouses, or in hospital cafeterias, or in obscure mess halls. Its their job. Its what they get paid for. Does it make them admirable? Yes. Does it make them heroic? I think so.
But, does it make them heroes in the Y2K arena? Only if you can perceive of Y2K from a societal viewpoint. Only if you believe in the value of everyday heroes. Only if you can see a civilization which is struggling to gain a value system of human rights, of understanding much different than the ideals prominent at the historic atrocities my cited. Only if you believe we can, and must, learn from our actions.
But, if your heroes must be right; if history must record them as winners, then you will probably never recognize the people I admired most in my Y2K experience. They will probably never have statues or even streets named for them. They will probably never even be remembered except in this brief thread. I doubt that they expected to. That
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
Lon, if you don't mind, I'd like to address one point you made in your response to FactFinder:
"I know that some debunkers came to the forum, with hard-earned knowledge and experience, and were repulsed when the forum as a whole, or some more vocal denizen, refused to take them at face value."
I can't speak for all "debunkers" and I personally never posted at the original TB2K, but I don't believe they were "repulsed" by what you state. What "repulsed" them was more the fact that they were posting the news "doomers" claimed time and again was exactly what they wanted to hear, but they ("doomers") completely dismissed ANY good news as lies, spin, etc. The posters were consistently labeled "shills" and "trolls". Yet some of them, such as FactFinder and Cherri (who received some of the WORST treatment) braved on.
Yes, Lon, BRAVED on. These people ARE a type of "hero" to tolerate the treatment they did, even if it was "cyber-space", and still press on to try to get the FACTS out in front.
But back to the point... What was happening was that if any "doomer" posted mere ANECDOTES that even hinted at problems, it was accepted at face value by the majority. Someone posted above that they couldn't tell what they knew for fear of exposing themselves. Well, I took that statement as meaning this poster knew "bad things were coming" (correct me if I'm wrong). If that is, in fact, the case, I see it is quite illustrative of the "anecdotes" that were blindly accepted as fact. And that occurred on the original TB2K too many times to count (I lurked). Allow me to explain.
If these people who "knew bad things were coming" REALLY "knew bad things were coming", then why were they afraid to expose themselves? If, as these people implied, TS was REALLY going THTF, then what "jobs" were they worried about losing? Wouldn't it logically follow that if TS *REALLY* HTF, there wouldn't be any "jobs" to worry about?
This is what "repulsed" "debunkers", though "repulsed" isn't a word I would have used; more like "stunned" at the disconnect that was happening; more like "complete bewilderment" that such people could not see the contradictions in their very own "arguments". Which simply led many of "us" ("debunkers") to believe that many (some, whatever) of the "doomers" WANTED a collapse of society due to their own dissatisfaction. And face it, that theory has pretty much borne itself out over the course of this "debate".
Try to put yourself in a "debunker's" position there. What would YOU have thought? Wouldn't you have wondered why these people, who were alleging that they WANTED to hear "good news", completely and pretty much automatically DISMISSED any good news? I know I wondered.
Funny part is now I see some people posting that they DIDN'T dismiss "good news". Wish I had the time or the inclination to go through the archives to disprove that, but it's not worth it. It's a dead horse; let it go. The people to whom these snippets are directed aren't going to change their way of thinking and so be it. The "INVARs" and "Milnes" of the world see cover-ups and conspiracies at every turn, and will continue to do so. Yet all they do is complain about it; not once do they ever DO anything about it; worse, they're usually hypocrites to top it off, as in a "Milne". Well, they've gotten exactly what they wished for -- their own personal "doom". Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people as far as I'm concerned.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 01, 2000.
....That's kinda what I liked best about them.(Sorry, forgot about the IE gremlins again)
------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
Lon,OK, let's look at Y2K from a social perspective. First, it was never proven that Y2K was a "potential social calamity." By the middle of 1999, the vast majority of the most reliable data suggested Y2K was NOT going to have a major impact. Responsible organizations like the American Red Cross and FEMA advised modest preparations. Only a tiny fraction of Americans believed Y2K was going to have a major impact.
If you were influenced by these people, fine. To me, this no different than the man who tells me someone "changed their life." I'm delighted you found the Y2K debate a positive experience and that you have personal heroes among the Y2K pessimists.
From my perspective, I did not see a great deal of "heroic" behavior, particularly towards those who felt Y2K might be something less than the end of the world. When pessimists talked about "bug-out bags" I didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling. Perhaps you missed the threads about shooting marauders. In short, much of the rhetoric I heard from the pessimists boild down to a simple philosophy. "When Y2K hits, I'm going to save my ass." This is a bunker-mentality, selfish and short-sighted.
Of course, there were notable exceptions... people who claimed they would feed and shelter others. I have experienced natural disasters firsthand and witnessed the unselfish attitudes of decent people towards common strangers. If your "heroes" had actually run personal soup lines during Y2K, I would stand with you and applaud. As it was, they did nothing but buy large quantities of soup.
Again, Lon, I'm glad you enjoyed the Y2K debate. As a "polly" I saw a much different side of the pessimists. I would agree people like Dave Walden, Don Florence and Helen Statten were kind, decent and compassionate. I often called these folks "thoughtful pessimists" because they carried themselves with dignity. I found much less to admire in the majority of pessimists. And I still fail to see how the rhetoric of survivalism serves the purpose of a better civilization.
Let me leave you with this thought... if the pessimists had spent 1999 making massive donations to food banks, that would have been closer to heroic in my eyes.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 2000.
Ken:"Perhaps you missed the threads about shooting marauders." This was NOTHING, IMHO, compared to the "recipe" threads.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.
Ken,I'm glad to see you mention helen, her offer to seat you at her dinner table was a noble one at the time.
I think your halo's getting a little tight. How can you justify having spent a good deal of time with so many people that you have no respect for? I recall many threads which could have gone in different directions, and your predilection to follow the most paranoid, toxic 'contributors' into an escalated flame fest. For someone of your talents & viewpoint, what was the reward for following such an easy tack?
-- flora (***@__._), June 01, 2000.
Flora,In the words of Twain, I'll take Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company.
As for a "halo," I have NEVER said I was a Y2K hero. I was just a guy who did his job. Unlike many on TB 2000, my job actually involved Y2K.
If you read my work last year, Flora, you'll see that I started a fair number of threads. In my writing, I didn't shy away from difficult subjects. I saw the belief of a Y2K apocalypse turn into a mini-religion... so I wrote about my observations. I saw Ed Yourdon making money on Y2K while acting like an objective reporter... so I pointed out the conflict of interest. Posts like these did not make me popular on the forum, but I think my points were valid.
If you really read my posts, you'll see that the same people attacked whatever I wrote, regardless of content. I ignored the majority of these attacks. When I did respond, there were "flame wars." What I don't think you see is that the purpose of the attacks was to drive me off the forum.
The bum's rush failed.
I chose to stay on the forum because there were a few people who valued my contributions. I defended myself from baseless attacks, and I'm not inclined to apologize for this. You might wonder why Helen would ask me to dinner. It's because I respond very well to charming, polite, respectful people. On this thread, you can witness Lon and I disagreeing without bloodshed.
As for the "flame wars," standing up to a bully is its own reward.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 2000.
I didn't wonder about helen, I complimented her actions on that very thread.I think you guys are talking apples & oranges here, you saw a 'bum's rush' & Lon saw folks gearing up to face uncertainty. I think in reality you'd have more common ground than it appears on this thread. I also think one's tenure on the Bomb accounts for certain attachments and perspective, and at times - lack of perspective.
-- flora (***@__._), June 01, 2000.
Im sorry Ken, but I am going to give up on our continuing debate here. I know that in your mind, you are presenting a lucid and compelling argument about something to someone. But it is evidently not me, as your arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have been saying.It appears that you have taken on the mantle of an evangelist, trying to save us all from the original sin of Y2K misinformation. Your fervency allows you only to concentrate on the negatives of Y2K, and leaves no room to see any positive outcomes.
Actually, I think thats O K. If an unrelenting desire for recognition and retribution is all you came away with, then that must be what is important to you. But forgive me if I dont sing in your choir.
Perhaps Flora is correct in saying that we may have more common ground than it appears. I was only a freeloader on TB2000. I never saw my role as that of an educator. I seldom tried to convince others of their asininity, or to cure it. Perhaps if I had the knowledge, and had chosen your road and your tactics instead, I would have a retrospect more like yours.
-------------------------------------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.
What did I see?With my series on "smart living," I encouraged people to prepare... not for Y2K, but for an economic downturn and/or a brief disruption in services. My posts were poorly received not for content, but for authorship. People like Paul Milne could write utter tripe and receive accolades. Why? Many people on TB 2000 could not separate the person from the post. If I wrote something, it just had to be wrong. If a regular "doomer" wrote something, it just to be right.
The real chuckle here is that the forum "pollies" were "doomers" by real world standards. Almost all the "pollies" advocated sensible preparations, i.e. Red Cross/FEMA. I can show you post after post where I and other Y2K optimists supported prudent "preps."
Not all pessimists went off the deep end. But enough did to make TB 2000 a pretty strange place, a virtual cult of FUD and "preps." My great sin, Flora, was simply not to believe in the myth of a great Y2K apocalypse. A few pessimists like my friend Helen respected my efforts to present an alternative "world view." When people like Andy were yelling at folks telling them to empty their retirement accounts and max their credit cards... I talked about the risks.
The cult of TB 2000 pretended the "pollies" didn't care about people. If they "cared," they would begin storing tons of rice and beans, or so the argument went. It was the old parable about the grasshopper and the ant, the "GIs" and "DGIs." By the way, I've been accused of arrogance, but I would never think to call myself a "GI" and everyone who disagreed with me a "DGI." I reject the notion the "doomers" were simply kinder, more compassionate people. I also reject the idea that "pollies" were reckless idiots or government shills.
There were people, good and bad, on both sides. I found people I liked, even admired, on both sides. There were few people willing or able to separate the issue from the personalities. Of course, this is how it usually is. No killing within the tribe... right?
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 2000.
Lon,During the Y2K debate, you "met" a bunch of people you liked, even admired. Great. Let's say you are vegetarian and I'm a lifelong hunter. If we go to a PETA convention, you'll probably find more new pals than me. Are the people at a PETA convention "better" than the folks down at the Ducks Unlimited banquet? Probably not. Are they heroes for "saving animals?" Depends on your point of view. Most folks find likeminded people strangely attractive. (chuckle)
All you have told me thus far, Lon, is that you liked the people that thought like you, and the whole thing made you feel better. Hey, you don't need an evangelist. You're already saved.
Y2K was an event were a small group of people scared themselves half witless. A positive is that some of these people (reformed doomers) learned some important lessons. Another positive is that the career doomers (and profiteers) are now easier to spot. Y2K reaffirmed the power of the free market to fix things, if left alone. It also proved that while technology is complex, it is not incomprehensible. Society is interlinked, but not a fragile row of dominos. Y2K demonstrated that static metrics do not apply to remediation and that we should think... even when a smart fellow like Ed Yourdon is talking. Oh, and we also learned to keep an eye on folks who are "telling" doom and "selling" doom at the same time.
If I wanted recognition, Lon, I wouldn't be writing on this obscure forum. All of three of four people will read this sentence. I have no desire for retribution... but I'm not going to Paul Milne's pig roast.
You choose your heroes and I'll choose mine. Hopefully, our exchange has helped us understand the other's point of view.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 2000.
Patricia,Im sorry. I wrote a response to you this morning, and then evidently did not post it. My son says that when it comes to computers I am an idiot-savant, except for the savant part. :)
I will try to recreate it now, because I appreciated your post, and believe it deserves an answer.
As an old-time TB2000 regular, I think you gave a fairly accurate representation of the last months there. The discussions were often characterized by flames, name-calling, spam, and just plain old pissing contests. ( much like Ken and I have been fondly repeating)
Many of us were indeed obnoxious. Some had personal agendas, and used the fear of Y2K to boost us upon our respective soapboxes. Some of us were just playing games.
But perhaps you can better understand some of the mentality of that time if I relate a small part of my personal experience to you. And please, I do so only as illustration to your point, not to assign blame or find fault with the people involved. As you said, it is way past time for that.
I am an older guy, and not computer-literate, as I have often said. I have a mentally retarded son and for years I have coached a little league team of handicapped kids. Quite a few of these kids are being reared by a single parent (usually mom), many had limited resources, and most were dependent upon social services of some kind, whether financial or medical or supportive.
I do not have words to tell you the depth of feeling I have for these special people, but I will say that early on in my Y2K experience, I spent many days and nights tortured by imagined hardships and my concern for them. I read everything I could, and continually searched for the flow of good news which would calm my fears.
I remember clearly Stephen Pooles first postings. I grabbed onto them like a drowning man takes a life ring. Can you imagine my feelings when later, the debunker himself, was debunked. When I learned that he was not only posting misinformation, but that it was all a hoax to test the gullibility of the internet. He had made my beautiful kids into his lab rats.
I never read another thing by Stephen until just the other day, where he was discussing how funny it was that he had caught even the experts in his little cyber-trap. He said it illustrated the susceptibility of the internet to charlatans with limited knowledge. Yeah, tell me about it; I laughed til I cried.
But the damage done by such misguided pranks went beyond my personal concerns. Several other debunkers had supported Poole, and come to be identified with him in my mind, and to my detriment, I painted them with the same brush.
How much easier, and how much more effective it would have been if the people with inside knowledge had just posted their news and views on a separate forum. If they cared so much about their mission, where was their equivalent to Gary Norths site?
For what its worth, and contrary to the beliefs of some, most of the doomers were grown people, capable and accustomed to forming our opinions. I for example, had been exposed to Gary Norths bad advice in the 70s (Prepare For the Coming Crash). My Y2k experience began in an effort to debunk his early warning to a friend. I dont worship him now, and I certainly didnt then. And I took Milne, Invar, and others with a liberal dosing of salt.
But the fact that some of us could think for ourselves, the fact that we were searching when we found TB2000, didnt particularly matter. What mattered was that some debunkers refused to believe we could be educated; that we indeed, all needed to be de-programed (if not lobotomized), and they often formulated their postings accordingly, which only added to the polarization of the forum.
To return to your posting, as I said you are quite accurate in your assessment. But I hope in the future, as you think of the old TB2000 forum, you dont make the same mistakes I made. Dont paint everyone with the same brush.
------------------
-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), June 01, 2000.