WD-40:

This is getting frustrating. When I talk about the big picture (of which the IEEE letter was a very small part), you complain because I'm not focusing on that IEEE letter. When I focus on it, you turn around and complain that I'm evading the question!

Yes, I agree there was cause for concern. Yes, when I began my preparations in early 1997 there seemed to me to be a LOT of cause for concern. At that time, date bugs were known to exist in very large numbers, but nobody knew exactly how large, or where they might be, or what sort of problems they might cause, or how difficult they might be to fix. Potentially we faced pandemic breakdowns of unknown impact and duration.

At that time, the public at large was at most only hazily aware that any such problem might exist at all. Over the course of the next two years, general public awareness of the problem gradually grew, until (I think) most people had heard of it, and some of them could even identify it as "some kind of computer problem they're taking care of."

During 1999, media coverage of y2k increased considerably. There were a couple of 60 Minutes segments about it. Marilyn vos Savant first described it as a "terrible mess", and subsequently reported that the problem had, in practice, turned out to be highly tractable and well under control. Even judging by the citings at Larry Sanger's site and deJager's site, media coverage was quite overwhelmingly optimistic. The usual article started by describing the problem, and ended with interviews of those actually fixing it who were nearly invariably optimistic. Just go back and LOOK at all the hair-tearing that went on in TB2K that the "Klintoon-controlled media" were engaged in an orchestrated coverup!

Meanwhile, large corporations and the federal government were issuing a steady stream of "good news". The TB2K emphasis on Horn's "report cards" was a different world from the actual government press releases, showing that everyone was on schedule and projected to be finished in plenty of time. Only an extremely tiny minority of the general public paid enough attention to y2k to work up any genuine worry (and only among those who worry habitually).

What I'm desperately trying to do here is provide a perspective. Yes, the Red Cross and FEMA were saying to prepare for 3 days to 2 weeks. This is what they *always* say, and have been for decades. On TB2K, the pessimists (rather amusingly) simultaneously used Red Cross and FEMA as "evidence" that things would be terrible while accusing them of being part of the "coverup" for not advocating more extensivepreparations. In the real world, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who even knows what FEMA is, much less what they were saying about y2k. The general public is reactive, and there was *never* anything to react to.

So OK, the general public remained blissfully ignorant of y2k's details. Some of them did buy some extra food and supplies, but not enough of them to cause any persistent shortages of even large and slow selling items like wood stoves and generators.

During 1999, genuine reasons for concern diminished. There were many glowing progress reports and test results. There were NO incidents or newsworthy failures. The much-ballyhooed spike dates were a total bust. No, I'm not saying ALL legitimate reason for concern vanished. But without question the extent, the *degree* of possible impacts was strictly constrained. The general public response was a combination of mild relief (since they were never very worried in the first place), and a loss of interest in the issue. In the public eye, it had been handled (and indeed it was).

By the time the IEEE letter was posted here (but not in many other places popularly read by the public), TB2K had morphed from a forum of shared geniune concerns into opposing armed camps. While this was partly due to Yourdon's truly egregious choice of moderators, I believe it was mostly due to the actual y2k situation on the ground. As remediation continued, tests were performed, progress reports poured in, spike dates were busts, it had become clear to *some* of us that while there was STILL cause for some concern, enough informational holes had been filled in so legitimate fears of very serious impacts had faded away like a coat of cheap paint.

This in turn forced the hard-core pessimists into a very defensive posture. Rather than concede that their original (and valid) fears had been mostly (but NEVER completely) neutralized by actual empirical findings, they became yet more virulent and intransigent. When they weren't hurling imprecations at the "evil pollies", they were busy with flagrant propaganda driven by Applied Paranoia. ALL positive reports were violently dismissed. ALL speculative concerns, regardless of source, were held up as Doom Gospel. ALL ambiguous information was interpreted in the worst possible light, however far-fetched or irrational. For them, Y2K had ceased to be a phenomenon to be investigated and progress noted, and had become an Article Of Faith, not to be doubted.

What Andy Ray (and Y2K Pro) have been addressing is NOT the legitimacy of valid concerns. They are addressing the issue of rigid extremism, an entirely different animal. Your entirely reasonable observation that the IEEE letter was cause for concern delicately avoids the question of how that letter was USED.

First, Andy Ray's quote from Rob Somerville had Rob saying that one could even ignore ALL other indications, because this letter constituted proof of doom all by itself. Somerville writes "I beleive that of you ignore THIS EVIDENCE that NOTHING will convince you of the gravity of the situation short of a miracle." He goes on to write "I am very angry at the moment about all the LIES that are banded about concerning Y2K. As Paul Milne has said, this will KILL people."

NOW, does this sound to you like someone making a sincere effort to evaluate the significance and meaning of the IEEE letter, and understand its context? To me, this had the distinct tone of desperation, of someone who carefully ignores both the immediate context (as a political lobbying effort) and the general context (of increasing good news on all fronts). Somerville has found ammunition to defend a position he recognizes is crumbling ("forget Gary North"), and he uses it, NOT as yet another data point in a larger picture, but to *defend* the fact that "that I have been a steadfast 8 for the past 18 months, and I was convinced that I would remain that for the rest of the duration."

Second, this *kind* of position is what Andy Ray is talking about. Maybe 98% of the public never heard of this letter, 1% understood its context, and 1% did a Rob Somerville with it. He says himself that he is determined to remain an 8 no matter what.

We're NOT talking here about the wisdom of "preparation" per se. Hey, the Boy Scouts know to Be Prepared at all times. And only the forum optimists ever talked about targeting preparations appropriately to the nature and magnitude of the threat as most reasonably assessed.

The issue here concerns those who abandoned all rationality in their absolutely non-negotiable demand that everyone go WAY overboard, preparing as though there were no tomorrow. Those who twisted what little support they could find beyond all recognition, and then called it "irrefutable". Those who called everything else "LIES" and even cited Paul Milne as an authority. Those who went ballistic (and very abusive) at ANY suggestion that they mitigate their fanaticism by observing reality.

Are such people really worth being all that concerned about? I can't answer that, but I CAN point out that the remaining voices on this forum urging that we drop the subject and forget it, were without exception those who were among the pre-rollover fanatics and their supporters.

And it's disturbing that so many such people continue to deliberately misinterpret a battle against extremism as a battle against preparation, however reasonable. Hey, reasonable preparation good. Extremism bad. OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000

Answers

Flint, you said,

reasonable preparation good. Extremism bad. OK?

Although not addressed to me, I agree with this completely. For my information and piece of mind, could you say whether or not FIFTEEN consecutive posts on the same topic represents "reasonable" posting or "extremism" (as far as being fixated on something)?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

You are not conversing with a normal individual, but rather a doomer. Logic won't work (though I applaud you for trying). If it doesn't fit nicely into his or her delusional perspective, it must be denied. It's a meme in action.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

Other than drinking coffee and shooting your gun, do you have a life?

-- Huh (well@do.you?), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

Sorry, make that SIXTEEN consecutive posts.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Oops,

Make that "Threads" not "posts".

Wasting storage space,

Frank \

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Well said, Flint. Although I never considered myself a "doomer" I was a "middle of the roader" at 5 on the infamous scale. I have to admint that I bought into a lot of the doomer thinking (you and I exchanged emails about it at one point) and became borderline obsessed with the more negative possibilities. My reasoning was that while I expected a "5" I could not afford to avoid the "7" through "10" possibilities. I am glad that it never even reached a ".5", although I did lose some credibility with some people who trusted me.

Fortunately, my family and my circle of influence did not do any preps that we could not "live" with. I got out of debt, I learned how to safely handle a hand gun and we are saving a lot of money on groceries. No big loss.

Thank you Flint for you always lucid posts. And for the record, you were right!

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), June 02, 2000.

Frank:

Your question isn't as simple as you seem to think. I'll do my best to answer what I infer you're trying to ask, though.

Andy Ray, as one of his (so far) 16 quote posts, quoted KOS. Now as you surely recall, KOS made literally *hundreds* of pre-rollover posts extolling the inevitability of catastrophe, and vigorously attacking those who had the temerity to doubt either the inevitability or the catastrophe. In this respect, KOS was numbingly repetitious. Indeed, most of those Andy Ray is quoting were prolific in their efforts, and among them produced many *thousands* of doom- oriented posts and personal attacks.

But I don't recall you ever making a peep about any extremism or fixation on the part of KOS or anyone of his persuasion. Yet by comparison, you say that 16 posts (about the number of fanatical doom posts that showed up PER HOUR before rollover) is extreme!

I think it's not particularly strange for me to conclude that it's NOT the *number* of "consecutive posts on the same topic" that's bothering you. The old TB2K forum had on the order of 350,000 posts, and *at least* 80% of them were of pessimistic orientation. By comparison, 16 is NOTHING.

So OK, if you're complaining about the sheer count of repetitious posts, your observation is ludicrous. I presume therefore that it's the *content* of these posts that disturbs you. What is there about the content that might strike you (and many other former pessimists) as unreasonable?

Indirectly, Andy Ray's complaint is that the remaining ex-doomers are still (in his eyes) unacceptably recalcitrant. They not only refuse to admit error, they're unwilling to reflect on it. They wish those who remember what it was like here would just go away, so they could pretend it never happened in peace. With that outlook, of course they consider a mere 16 posts as "unreasonable", whereas they saw nothing unreasonable about 300,000+ posts they *agreed* with in principle.

Consider that while I raised numerous meaty issues in my essay, in response I get NOT discussion of any of these issues, but rather various bickering from those who just don't want to hear about it. Surely you can see that you are illustrating exactly what Andy Ray is saying? He's saying you can't face it and attack instead. And right on cue, those who can't face it attack!

All by itself, this is an interesting topic for discussion.

(And as a footnote, at least each of these threads is a different quote illustrating a different aspect of doomerism. For perspective, go back and count the number of verbatim threads Stan Faryna started to present the same sales pitch. Which was of course against forum rules, but I never saw you complain about that either.)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint:

My greatest "moment" with KOS was when he uttered something about the Pollies interrupting serious discussions to ask a stupid question. My response was, "You mean like...Do you like to mud-wrestle?"

I can't fault the guy, however. He fell for the hype, and he still can't seem to get answers as to why the folks he counted on misled him. He was the first participant in Ed's aftermath forum, but, AFAIK, no one gave him an appropriate explanation. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If one wants information on a particular topic, one should NOT consider ONE forum a school.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 02, 2000.

Anita:

Are you kidding? KOS was a solid 10. He was misled because he systematically (and enthusiastically) rejected anyone who said anything not congenial to his convictions. He unabashedly used his conclusions as his axioms, and blasted anyone who did otherwise. He was a poster boy for impenetrability -- a closed and sealed mind.

And NOW he wonders what went wrong? Where is he? Do you suppose he still contributes, carefully hiding under one of the many new handles the ex-doomers have concocted? I'll be glad to talk to him (and I think you will too) if he should show up under his prior nom de plume and participate. Pending that, what can we tell him?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

Pre-rollover, no one KNEW there wouldn't be any problems, most people in the community didn't think so, most people on TB2K did. In any event, assuming people really *believed* what they were saying, I don't think that it would be considered excessive to keep posting a belief *about Y2K* on a Y2K forum, any more than it would be excessive to repeatedly post on Pokemon on a Pokemon forum. Remember, that was PRE-rollover, and Y2K was the reason for the forum's existance.

But now? Y2K is OVER. Nothing happened. No one posts "OT" in front of their posts anymore, even though almost NO posts (except, I suppose, for Andy Ray's 16) have anything to do with Y2K. To me that means that the forum has moved on, and is no longer really a Y2K discussion forum. Therefore, repeatedly posting on Y2K is the same as repeatedly posting about anything else.

On this forum people DID complain about Al-D repetitively posting his every thought on Christianity, why should this be any different? At least Al-d would make up something to say, A.R. is just posting quotes. You said,

Indirectly, Andy Ray's complaint is that the remaining ex-doomers are still (in his eyes) unacceptably recalcitrant. They not only refuse to admit error, they're unwilling to reflect on it.

Who *on this forum* are you referring to? If no one (for example, I haven't seen KOS post here) what good does it do to post this here? I really don't see what the guy is trying to gain.

Consider that while I raised numerous meaty issues in my essay, in response I get NOT discussion of any of these issues, but rather various bickering from those who just don't want to hear about it.

This is kind of what I was getting at, although I didn't know it. If Andy Ray had posted one or two threads, I'd check in on them to see if anything meaningful was going on. But when repeat threads keep coming, which thread should you check, all of them, the odd numbered ones? If anything the repetitiveness serves to dilute any point he is trying to make, and makes people like me less inclined to read and respond to whatever's there, as there won't likely be any feedback, since people will go on to view the next posted thread rather than keep going back to the early ones.

He's saying you can't face it and attack instead. And right on cue, those who can't face it attack!

What is the "it" you are referring to? The fact that some doomers haven't admitted they were wrong? What do I care? They don't post here, so they won't care either, or even know he's trying to get them to admit they were wrong. If he's waiting for KOS to apologize and KOS no longer posts here, does that mean he's going to copy ALL the 300k+ posts from TB2K? Since KOS doesn't post here, and won't know he's doing this, when will it end?

With Regards to Stan, I have a very practical excuse. For the past several months I've had LOTS more free time than is normal for me, so have in part gotten much more involved here.

Hey wait, I just got an Idea that may solve this whole thing....

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Oh Andy, all us doomers, especially me, are very sorry we were wrong, and will never be bad again. Promise.

KoS

-- WhatWasIt (KingOfSpain@AOL.cum), June 02, 2000.

Frank:

I'll admit I don't entirely approve of Andy Ray's tactics. In my opinion, he should raise and discuss what he considers worthy issues, and illustrate his points with quotes as required. Just dumping quotes without providing any real context is pointless.

But I infer that he really is, albeit poorly, trying to address the nature of extremism. And this is a real issue, directed at the potential fanatic in all of us, and worth consideration. It's not helpful to simply point out that y2k is over, nothing happened, let's forget how involved and upset we all became, and pretend this never happened to us.

Frank, there were some incredibly closed minds posting here. They weren't "expressing concerns", they were defending *at all costs* convictions no longer anchored in any sensible reality.

I believe there's a bit of "in interneto veritas" going on here. Without the compunction to behave (and comport onself) as we do in normal face-to-face social settings, with effective anonymity, people are free to express themselves unedited. And LOOK what they said. WHY? Have you no interest in a psychological profile that adopts blind bias, tunes out reality, attacks criticism violently, and then runs away? I do. I wonder what inhibits the maturation process.

Yes, y2k is over. Nothing happened. The pessimists were demonstrated to be unambiguously wrong, and we've "moved on". Yet many of the former doomers, so very eager to "put y2k behind us", continue to make preposterous assertions and defend them with attacks.

Frank, they were clearly, wildly incorrect about y2k. They are equally wildly, if not so obviously clearly, incorrect about their latest silly convictions. There is a *technique* for getting things wrong, and it involves (IMO) lack of critical thinking, lack of knowledge, lack of willingness to admit either. In its very lack of ambiguity, y2k was a marvelous and serendipitous opportunity for these poeple to come to grips with what was shown to be a *failed method*.

And instead, they just blunder on ahead, y2k is over, nothing to learn there, let's attack, mock and belittle anyone who tries to learn from history. Can't you see this? Doesn't it bother you even a little that you are so willing to abandon this opportunity, simply because you are so well placed to take advantage of it, and therefore apparently afraid of it?

It bothers me, and I think the fact that *every one* of these people has always used a fake name and and address and now uses a different one shows that it bothers them too. They think they're hiding from us, but who are we anyway? They're hiding from themselves. Why?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 2000.

Flint,

Yet many of the former doomers, so very eager to "put y2k behind us", continue to make preposterous assertions and defend them with attacks.

On *this* forum? There really aren't many chemtrails-type posts here. I'm not arguing here, but could you give one or two examples (just thread titles, I don't want you to waste time at it)? My point is that if the people he's railing against aren't here then it does absolutely no good to post this stuff HERE, he should post it where they'll see it.

Frank, they were clearly, wildly incorrect about y2k. They are equally wildly, if not so obviously clearly, incorrect about their latest silly convictions. There is a *technique* for getting things wrong, and it involves (IMO) lack of critical thinking, lack of knowledge, lack of willingness to admit either.

Now I see where you're coming from, and I agree if a pattern of behavior is continuing HERE, we should work to change it before we (I) repeat the same mistake we (I) did with Y2K. What is happening NOW that we should change, and what does it have to do with digging up every old post on TB2K, rather than just making the eloquent point you just made?

Will check in late this P.M.,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2000.

Frank,

Once again, best said.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), June 02, 2000.

Frank, I think I can answer your question.

On the one hand, I have to agree that it is seemingly pointless for Andy Ray to be posting the quotes, etc. HERE because *apparently* the people who SHOULD be reading them are not here.

Note I said *apparently*. Just a hunch, but I'll bet they ARE in fact here, either lurking only or posting under brand-spanking new anonymous handles (what a novel concept).

Then again, you have to remember.....he, along with many of us, are NOT ALLOWED to post to Ezily Bored (thank you kb8...), so this is a somewhat logical place to post them.

I know it does seem as if he's "preaching to the choir", but we don't really know who's out there, now do we?

Just my rambling thoughts........

-- Patricia (Patricia@lasvegas.com), June 03, 2000.

Patricia,

I'm not saying there's something WRONG with his posting quotes, but now he's up to what 16? To me it seems excessive, is all.

You said,

so this is a somewhat logical place to post them.

Unfortunately, as an "uncensored" forum that's true of everything :-(?? :-)??

Carlos,

Thx.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2000.

But I infer that he really is, albeit poorly, trying to address the nature of extremism. And this is a real issue, directed at the potential fanatic in all of us, and worth consideration. It's not helpful to simply point out that y2k is over, nothing happened, let's forget how involved and upset we all became, and pretend this never happened to us.

Well said Flint. There is much to be learned from such a monumental event/non-event. Meme's are still at work on a new audience of unsuspecting victims. It is their unhappiness with THEIR life itself, perhaps, that drives them to dictate to others what is right for them. Control freaks personified.

For myself, I am grateful to be reminded of the battle that was waged, for in retrospect I can see the flawed reasoning and alterior motives of those that sought to enslave us to their agendas, whatever they may be.

I can guarantee you (thank you Patricia?) they are lurking. Control freaks don't give up easily. How can they participate in this forum openly, when they have lost control? LOL!

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), June 04, 2000.