Endgame preaches only to choir (like, DUH!)

I wish the Big Fat Idiot site wasn't gone, the anal retentive could see how many facts and arguments there were against y2k doom! Hellfire, check Doc's "stand", Poole's place, Old TB (Oops! the nazi thugs deleted most of those arguments! My bad!!)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Advice for doomers: sit back and let reality sink in.

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000

Answers

For a large majority of posters on this forum, reaity has sunk in quite some time ago. Most made moderate preps just in case because they really just didn't know, and couldn't know. You may have known. Congratulations. But you keep coming off as such an arrogant asshole, that very few people want to consider whether you are right or wrong, and most have "moved on", after having learned how better to take care of their families and thenselves.

And, if you had any other worthwhile accomplishments, you would have moved on also. (note todays date)

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 07, 2000.

There were plenty of cogent arguments last year both supporting the idea that significant disruptions were likely and that significant disruptions were not likely.

Most public speakers on y2k, including Peter de Jager, had said y2k would cause serious problems if not fixed. Then it was a matter of trying to guess if some mission-critical systems would be fixed by rollover, many of them, or all of them.

There was a lot of positive and specific news by the summer of 1999 about U.S. banks and electric utilities. Unfortunately, specific info about other sectors of the economy and about foreign countries was sadly lacking, even in the second half of 1999.

I was almost certain by the summer of '99 I'd have electricity where I live on January 1. On the other hand, I didn't see enough specific information out there before the rollover to rule out the possibility of shortages or high unemployment.

Y2k is over, however, and I expect no problems down the road as a result of it. Yes, it's true I didn't need to use the preparations I got as "insurance" for myself, but I wasn't shocked by the smooth outcome because I never did rule out the possibility that y2k might turn out to only be a bump in the road.

-- (Risk@manage.ment), September 07, 2000.

Kofe,

Some Y2K doomers went well beyond "modest" preparations. In fact, on the old forum modest preparations were almost always decried as inadequate. The real reason the doomsayers missed the call on Y2K is simple. Their negative perception of modern society, particularly government, biased their analysis of Y2K data. In many cases, I found the doomsayers were individuals who strongly believed modern society was morally bankrupt and government was corrupt.

For the Constitutionalists and similar groups, these beliefs are more articles of faith than conclusions based on social, economic or political data. People like "a" use anecdotes about killer children on crack rather than focus on economic or sociological data. Based on my analysis of the data, life in America is "better" than it was 25, 50 or 100 years ago.

This was the real debate over Y2K... the optimists about American society against the pessimists. While you might find this unfair, I found most pessimists had a very nostalgic view of history, as if "The Waltons" and "Little House on the Prairie" were documentaries. The pessimists refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that early American history has chapters whose ugliness exceed anything we face today. For example, ask an African-American man if he'd rather life in Atlanta today or in 1825.

For the pessimists, we are still wavering on the brink of social and economic collapse... and so we will always be.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 07, 2000.

"Modest Preps" ?? A year for a 3 day storm? Even after the shills and the rest planted their BS to the thread, EY admits he "doesn't know". Does that deter the Cultists? Thread ends with the typical posts from "I did what I thought was Prudent" BS types swept up in something they NEVER UNDERSTOOD and the PROPAGANDA ATTACHED TO IT:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Mky

---

Ed - Flint

I want to thank you both for a truly wonderful discussion and debate. I am truly impressed by both of your opinions. This whole thread still hasn't changed my mind, though. We are prepped for a year + ...and are truly hoping that we won't need it.

Flint - I hope (and even somewhat suspect) that you are correct in most of your assessment of the y2k bug issue.

BUT - when you step back and take a look at the rest of the ingredients for the millenium cake we are baking (i.e. cyber terrorism, panic in the streets for general purpose reasons and the growing tensions around the globe) - I have come to the conclusion that 2000-2001 are going to be hard years and ones not easily put aside.

So does it really matter which straw breaks the camel's back? History will lump it all into one big (or small) paragraph anyhow.

Mr. Yourdon - I want to thank you for this wonderful forum you tossed together. I have been lurking for almost a year now - occasionally posting. I have so few original opinions that others can't express better (sigh). I liked your essay just fine. It clicked and made sense - I got it on the first try. Then flint made the comment about preaching to the choir - and, upon rereading the essay, I found that he is correct. DGIs and newcomers would have a tendency to think all or nothing. Yes Ed, there are still folks out there that know very little about the whole issue. But your essay should provide the impetus for further action on some of their parts.

IMHO - I don't think that either of you are too far apart on your positions.

thanks again. I apologize if I sound like I am rambling - insomnia at 2 am has a tendency to do that. Just know that I felt strong enough about this that I had to come out of lurker status to comment.

And it's okay to flame if you have to...my housecoat is flame- retardent.

-- justme (finally@home.com), September 08, 1999.

---

Just me,

Yes, I agree 100%. Y2k won't happen in a vacuum. It is a huge jolt of uncertainty, a splash of ice cold water below the waist. It is a time of collective introversion and reflection (as in "how the heck did we get where we are now and did we really do the right thing"), not exhuberant extroversion and optimism. Because the economy of today not only thrives on but relies on confidence and risk-taking (and tolerates nothing less), recession is inevitable in 00. Even with NO computer errors, you can imagine a situation where people, industries, and countries prepare for this Phantom Menace or exploit it to their advantage:

(1) Oil companies, anticipating y2k problems and fuel stockpiling, stick it to the customer and gouge him with 3 bucks per gallon of gas. This makes up for the lack of profits suffered by the industry since the mid 80s.

(2) Countries alleged to have bad y2k problems default on all their loans and/or devalue their currencies because they claim that the banks cannot afford y2k remediation or have had problems.

(3) Companies stockpile a large inventory to cover for the first quarter of 00 and temporarily do away with JIT. The economy sinks in January from the lack of business.

(4) Scared depositors--individuals and businesses alike--start to yank out their savings and ask for cash. Here and there, a few banks start to run out of cash amidst hyped publicity. Suddenly everyone makes a run for the bank. The Feds have to declare a bank holiday until people are calmed down, nearly shutting down corporate America for a month.

(5) Less-scared investors make a run from the stock market and buy bonds or t-bills instead. This flurry of selling sends the dow into an automatic, computerized tailspin down to 5000. Because people have less savings, they spend less on discretionary goods. Another recession.

(6) Investors divest from emerging foreign markets, penny stocks, high tech start-ups, and biotech because they perceive these guys to be "too risky." Suddenly there are thousands of bankrupcies and loan defaults, which in turn collapse the hedge funds, creating a cascade of dominoes through the financial markets.

etc. etc.

I am not including the people who believe that they are on a mission from God to bring on the apocalypse, or those terrorists or foreign enemies who think that the BEST time to strike is around new year's 00.

So things are going to be really interesting from sheerly a social standpoint. That is why I think a scenario of less than 4 is out of the question at this point. Given the real likelihood of some bad technical failures that cascade from random and unforseen places, you (conservatively) can add on another 2-3 points to the y2k richter scale.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), September 08, 1999.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 07, 2000.

Wrong wrong and wrong again.

Problem post rollover for most Y2k believers is you have no BEEF. Thus most of the arguments implode.

Where is a single solitary example of a Y2k crash that made a case for public preparations necessary? Where is even a crash resulting from the introduction of errors due to remediation? Member, many errors were introduced into systems as a result of Y2k work, so where are these crashes?

What about all the folks who did NOTHING? Where are these crashes hiding? Sure many had no risk, but did all of these laggards fall into the have no risk basket?

What about all the folks who fixed on failure? Surely some of these crashes mattered? or was there many? Tons, so where are these life threatening stories? A small defective part can crash a Jetliner. Y2k was sold as the mother defect of modern society, so one could expect many crashes, where are these hiding? All part of the ongoing cover- up?

And who is actually done? and what does done involve? If most were saying they were 90% or very very close to the impossible and undefined, "Y2k Compliant", did they all make it in the nick of time? Made it even though they had no time to Test and work-out the introduced bugs getting to the promiseland of Y2k compliancy? Did they all just get "lucky"?

So where is the BEEF?

Yack all you want, the EVIDENCE is overwhelming and it is saying Y2k was never this massive problem waiting to bring the house down, not even close. If it was, we would have many examples of people who didn't make it, miscalculated and the like with tangible examples of problems rippling thru society. We have what? In the face of a society FULL of incompetency, waste and error, and we still have what? Was not Y2k a result of many sitting on their collective hands for decades? So one is now expected to believe they all just changed their ways in a matter of a few years, months and weeks for some? they all just got their sh$t together and stamped-out the Y2k bug?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 07, 2000.

The pessimists refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that early American history has chapters whose ugliness exceed anything we face today. For example, ask an African-American man if he'd rather life in Atlanta today or in 1825.

Careful, Ken. Your rhetorical tactics are becoming a bit too obvious...

-- (Lawyers@r.us), September 07, 2000.

Decker, the federal government is corrupt. I can prove that. But if you are OK with it, then in your view I'm a pessimist. Maybe I should take an anti-depressant and get with the "program."

-- KoFE (Your@town.USA), September 07, 2000.

Doc, you make a good case for my claim of gov. corruption. The public was also misinformed by the gov also. And people with no tech. background had to sift through THEIR BS as well. I don't think that the gov. was hanging on Gary Norths words when it spent millions or billions of the tax payers money. And if the gov. wasn't "in on the scam", then they were scammed too. Who gave them their information?

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 07, 2000.

The Federal Government, in fact ALL levels of government were simply hedging their bets on Y2K. In the public sector this is fondly known as CYA. Starting in the first quarter of 1999 there began a serious re-think on the potential and severity of Y2K problems. It was left to the Y2K hucksters to keep beating the drums of FUD, for money was being made in large amounts and it just had to keep going for them. Some of them are still at it (Hyatt, Lord, etc.) and unfortunately the collection of fools they harvested prior to rollover are still being fleeced at will. To have been deceived up to 1/1/00 is one thing..to still be deceived is quite another.

KoFE, I for one would enjoy seeing the proof you possess regarding our corrupt government. Please spare us any cut & paste fantasies from Sightings or The Rense Report. As I recall, you were a major sucker last year and seem to enjoy that role immensely.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), September 07, 2000.

I have spoken, I would rather let you continue to be a sucker for years to come, than share my time and energy arguing with loyal "subjects."

On the other hand, if you choose to assert your rights as a Citizen, you can prove it to yourself.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 07, 2000.

Kofe,

Don't bother... anti-depressants do not cure faulty reasoning or paranoia. You are free to assert what you think are your rights as a citizen. Just remember, a right in your mind is not the same as a right as recognized by the Supreme Court. Just remember Camus' "Just Assassins." If you violate the laws of the United States, don't whine about how "unconstitutional" they are. Accept the consequences of your behavior and the rules made the rest of the citizenry.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 07, 2000.

Ken:

Based on my analysis of the data, life in America is "better" than it was 25, 50 or 100 years ago.

Based on simple math this means that you think that America is "better" now than it was 8 years ago. That makes you a Gorite. Funny, I always pictured you as a Nadarite. :^)

Then I knew a lot more at 38.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 07, 2000.

Another cop-out, Decker.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 07, 2000.

Doc:

You're a master at post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Yes, the date bugs were wildly overestimated by some people. Yes, it turns out that globally they were never anywhere near as devastating as perhaps they might have been. And I can call the winner of any horse race AFTER it's over pretty well too.

We have enough accounts from remediators to satisfy me that there were plenty of cases where remediation was absolutely essential. You can claim (as I often did) that companies understand their own systems, knew what would be involved after a bit of checking, and allocated resources appropriate to their own needs.

But you seem to be saying that because these organizations met their needs, THEREFORE they must have HAD no needs to begin with. The beef was really there, in many many cases. It was slaughtered and consumed before any possible stampede, but you can't say cows don't exist because there are no stampedes. You can only say the situation was addressed properly.

In a way, you are making the same error the pessimists made. Both of you began by making assumptions about the scope of what we were facing BEFORE there was enough data available to justify it. The danger of doing this is obvious for the pessimists -- they clung to their original assumptions despite a growing, and finally overwhelming, weight of real world indications to the contrary. Today, they are reduced to claiming that, even though reality stubbornly refused to ratify their assumptions whatsoever, those assumptions were *still* pretty good. Totally dead wrong, to be sure, but still "reasonable"!

The danger of assuming NO serious problems without data is more subtle, since this assumption turned out to be essentially correct. But it causes you to say that what we know now was obvious before we knew anything. This strikes me as silly.

I've seen up close and personal how people leap to unwarrented conclusions without information, and doggedly refuse to change the essential nature of those conclusions regardless of the evidence. And since most of the time the assumptions and the conclusions are indistinguishable, getting married to an assumption blindly still means a lasting marriage. Forgive me, but I believe you'd have been still insisting there were no problems had the world been collapsing around you.

As I learned, a "fence sitter" is anyone who does NOT hew to an extreme position despite all evidence one way or another. And you come across to me as an extremist who just happened to pick the right extreme and never had to change your mind. You bet on the right horse, but before the race, it was still a bet and not a result.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 07, 2000.

Doc: You're a master at post hoc ergo prompter hoc. Yes, the date bugs were wildly overestimated by some people. Yes, it turns out that globally they were never anywhere near as devastating as perhaps they might have been. And I can call the winner of any horse race AFTER it's over pretty well too. I was telling any who cared to listen Y2k was the Dud it is, 13 months ahead of the CDC fixation in their noodles. All this done starting with absolutely ZERO tech experience and an entry into the subject but 10 months earlier. Most KNEW this. That was why all the laughter next to the watercooler was about. The rolling of the eyes.

We have enough accounts from remediators to satisfy me that there were plenty of cases where remediation was absolutely essential. You can claim (as I often did) that companies understand their own systems, knew what would be involved after a bit of checking, and allocated resources appropriate to their own needs. And you state here business as usual basically, so what? What does this say beyond nothing? Course work had to be done, I have never claimed otherwise. I will say this(if I have not previous), most could have fixed on failure and would not have had little need to flush many ducats chasing issues they deal with every bloody day. But for the CDC fixation and a well orchestrated sales campaign by the Gartners of this IT world, the internet noise, they were compelled to act. Truth is, most who absolutely had to react and address Y2k issues did long before the issue ever became an issue.

Flaw in your logic revolves around the ridiculous notion of compliancy. Most who spent piles, still had a bunch of problems and fixed on those failures. Data is clear, new errors are introduced during rememdiation. I have posted Cap Gemini studies showing Y2k work results in a mere 12% gain above the error rate of doing NOTHING, why? the new errors introduce cancel out most of any advantage hoped to have been gained thru supposedly fixing Y2k bugs. Compliancy guarantees little and is undefined to this day. What exactly were people trying to do? Make their systems work, the bottom line and most just tossed the old and replaced, or tricked the old with windowing and bridging schemes.

But you seem to be saying that because these organizations met their needs, THEREFORE they must have HAD no needs to begin with. The beef was really there, in many many cases. It was slaughtered and consumed before any possible stampede, but you can't say cows don't exist because there are no stampedes. You can only say the situation was addressed properly. Addressed above and yet another meaningless paragraph. Flaw lies in the assumption doing nothing would produce undesirable consequences. Most were still in the "inventory stage" into 1999. This process ALONE answered MOST of the questions, not the "work" which for many this late in the game required a floppy and 15 minutes. Risk was minimal for most. The programmer shortage never materialized and neither did the falling dominoes. The main risk area again was addressed over decades. Those still clinging to apps known to be at risk at this late date, opted for more creative solutions they had already calculated into their plan all along. Anyone blind at this point is not running anything worth a dam anyway. If they don't care, why should you or I? There was plenty of Y2k, so what? Simplistic as all hell but like I said, where is the BEEF? We had many accidentally introducing problems unforseen, testing, rolling forward, reintroducing remediated code, a growing incidence of problems and life went on as it always does, so what? The trend was clear,,Y2k is real but damage is isolated and mostly of the nuisance vein, what was the big mystery? We had the EURO right smack in the middle of this Y2k hysteria and it was magnitudes far more difficult a feat.

In a way, you are making the same error the pessimists made. Both of you began by making assumptions about the scope of what we were facing BEFORE there was enough data available to justify it. The danger of doing this is obvious for the pessimists -- they clung to their original assumptions despite a growing, and finally overwhelming, weight of real world indications to the contrary. Today, they are reduced to claiming that, even though reality stubbornly refused to ratify their assumptions whatsoever, those assumptions were *still* pretty good. Totally dead wrong, to be sure, but still "reasonable"! Utter nonsense,,,I looked and concluded on decades of evidence Y2k was nothing extroadinary, mundane in fact. We had a growing trend of failures which produced nuisances, so what? I chose to listen to reality and not remain lost in some CDC fixation infecting the brains of some people. All this back 13+ months ahead of the OBVIOUS publically. Starting from a position of ZERO technological experience. Insiders were laughing because it was a laugher. Look Y2k was real, the scenarios of doom are and were complete fiction. One does not have to wait for a calendar to turn to know what effect a digit issue in an application will have. Why does everyone assume nobody did the obvious? rolled the suckers forward? Those who had problems dealt with them, big deal. Computing has faced worse without any prior knowledge and has the show collapsed? Why? not even close to connected to facilitate the hoped for meltdown the losers wanted. Like I have said all along,,,Y2k was NOT a common_mode_failure waiting to happen as the world is not even close to the connected structure of instability assumed.

The danger of assuming NO serious problems without data is more subtle, since this assumption turned out to be essentially correct. But it causes you to say that what we know now was obvious before we knew anything. This strikes me as silly. Why silly? When most is NOT connected, most has zero Y2k issues, and we have decades of Y2k and similar glitches showing this is NORMAL computing, why is this silly? The average person looked at a whining Y2k person and thought that silly, cause it was THAT obvious it was bs.

I've seen up close and personal how people leap to unwarrented conclusions without information, and doggedly refuse to change the essential nature of those conclusions regardless of the evidence. And since most of the time the assumptions and the conclusions are indistinguishable, getting married to an assumption blindly still means a lasting marriage. Forgive me, but I believe you'd have been still insisting there were no problems had the world been collapsing around you. If I maybe so bold you are suffering from programmers blindness Flint. The world would have collapsed a longtime before a Y2k if the scenarios had any truth. They were based on the wrong assumptions that most is intertwined like Charlotte's Web, is an unsatble house of cards, vast majority of computers had Y2k bugs, these would lead to across the board shutdowns and failures, and the task was so huge the thing was beyond fixable, it was systemic. All BS, and easy to predict Y2k would be the dud across the board it has been--FOR VERY SOUND AND LOGICAL reasons. Just because some chose to ignore them does not make it otherwise. Again, ya some had to bust their butts fixing, great here is your paycheck. Glad you all were perfect and pulled the rabbit out of the hat, is this the logic required? the leap required? The same folks who sat on their collective incompetent butts for years somehow pulled it all together in months and wipped what even the most optimistic around here figured required preparing for? The logic is non-compliant in total, it is all baloney and leads to a circle jerk of FEAR.

As I learned, a "fence sitter" is anyone who does NOT hew to an extreme position despite all evidence one way or another. And you come across to me as an extremist who just happened to pick the right extreme and never had to change your mind. You bet on the right horse, but before the race, it was still a bet and not a result. Not an either or matter. There is much middleground. The fact it fell to the good completely should be YOUR indication this was the no- brainer it was. Only reason it took me a good 10 months to GI was the fact like most I had no technical background. It seems having too much can also be a severe limiting factor for finding one's way out of the bushes to see the horizon. Y2k was not a 2 or a 4 or even a 9, it was not anything. If you think this was luck, and was unknowable ahead of time, your choice, don't let me stop you.

This was not just luck, the results indicated CERTAINTY. And I have said, based on logical reasons, not wishful thinking or hoping against what reality was showing all willing to listen. We had date after dam date pass without so much as a sneeze, what was this saying? What were the NERC tests indicating? the inventories? were these systems just different? was it being done with mirrors? why would somebody cover-up impending collapse, stay in their jobs, and risk their families lives? why was Wall Street so blind to what the masterminds on TB2000 could see as plain as day? Cause they did listen and Y2k was being dealt with and was no biggy anyhow.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 07, 2000.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 08, 2000.

Dick Puller, Flint's a fag and so are you.

-- (2homos@in.love), September 08, 2000.

Here is the monster....yawn.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 08, 2000.

Z, you are most puerile of chemistry professors. Of course we are better off now then we were eight years ago. On the other hand, the actions of government have made only a modest contribution to peace and prosperity. Of this, only partial credit is due the Clinton-Gore administration... though I give them kudos for NAFTA and welfare reform. In fairness, the election of a Republican Congress in 1996 influenced public policy. As vice president, a position usually occupied by mannequin, Gore has had almost no impact on the overall progress of civilization during the past eight years. As for Nader, you must have been snoozing through my posts over the last year. I am an advocate of the free market, though painfully aware of its excesses. Nader is just a socialist in a hemp suit.

Kofe, which is to say you have nothing to say. This is why the militia organizations wither under the glare of public scrutiny. The rhetoric plays well with disgruntled lower-middle class white males with a chip on their shoulder... but no one else is really buying it.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 08, 2000.

Decker, I think you're probably an intelligent guy, but you, like a lot of us, including myself have been lied to, and are being continually manipulated. Those who recognise it and are vocal, are seen as rocking the boat. If you want to be comfortable, you can't have a lot of boat rocking. So, its natural that you would defend your comfort zone by dismissing my argument as irrational. When people become concerned about something, concern equals action, so we have to be careful of what we become concerned about. No one on this forum has read and understood our constitution and bill of rights, because they would have said so. Instead, we have a lot of slurs and name calling.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 08, 2000.

Kofe, first, you haven't made anything close to a real argument. Try by making a statement and then backing it up with factual evidence. Then we can decide what exactly we are arguing about.

Second, the ability to read the Constitution is not the same as understanding the Constitution. This document, along with the Bill of Rights, has been scrutinized by our finest minds for over 200 years. It has been interpreted and re-interpreted by scholars, judges and our Supreme Court. There are countless volumes of case law and legal opinions on just Constitutional issues.

Now, I can believe the above as to what our Constitution "means" or I can believe what your or some other Internet crackpot says.

You can refuse to pay your taxes because you and the "Save a Patriot" folks think it's illegal. Take the issue to court and see if you win. Or lobby for changes in the statute. Rock the boat... but spare me the drum beating about preserving my "comfort zone." In my opinion, chasing your interpretation of the Constitution is a fool's errand. Why should I put my assets at risk over a tax protest I think has no legal merit? This is not a case of me not knowing what the Constitutino says or an unwillingness to "rock the boat." This is a case where I think the "militia" interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, and at worst, seditious.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 08, 2000.

Decker what you just wrote is so far out in left field, that it really is pointless to argue. The only saving grace for you is that you at least acknowledge that you don't want to risk your assets. That part I can respect. Funny how the "great minds" of the first 124 years knew something that the "great minds" of the last 87 didn't. It's quite a riddle.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 08, 2000.

Doc:

I think the problem here may be mostly semantic. Certainty makes me nervous. The only people I'm aware of who knew the future with CERTAINTY were you and Paul Milne. And Milne was a wonderful object lesson in what certainty does to one's ability to evaluate information. Future details are never certain, though the general outlines can be fairly clear in the short term.

We've filled several threads with discussions about just how uncertain the future was due to date bugs. My contention that very little remained that *could* go wrong, and therefore the range of uncertainty was well within manageable levels, has repeatedly run aground on the reefs of the conviction (of eve, KOS, etc.) that ANY uncertainty meant TOTAL uncertainty.

I have never gotten through to these people that there's a *difference* between knowing nothing and NOT knowing everything. I keep saying we knew enough to discount any serious worries, and I keep getting told that anything short of total clairvoyance meant that even the most wooly-headed fears were "reasonable", because the future was "uncertain"! The notion that uncertainty fell within a very narrow range seems impossible to communicate. *Ranges* are a complete mystery to eve or KOS. Either that, or faced with the choice between denying ranges or admitting error, they choose denial.

And I was trying to say that ranges seem a mystery to you too. You decided to become CERTAIN that nothing noteworthy would go wrong. And you were right. But certainty is the enemy of evaluation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 08, 2000.

Ken:

Z, you are most puerile of chemistry professors

You haven't been paying attention. Molecular biologist. We clone genes. Our major role appears to be to upset the more radical green factions. You have to keep up with things.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 08, 2000.

Z, you remind me why Thorstein Veblen was wrong. (chuckle) I promise not to tamper with the genetic code, if you stay out of the business of public policy... deal?

Kofe, sure. And the rest of the law-abiding, tax paying Americans are out in left field, too. Oh, let's not forget the people who have spent decades studying the Constitution. Yup, you must be right and everyone else must be wrong. Hmmm... reminds me of another event not long ago. Y2K, perhaps? (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 09, 2000.

If I remember correctly, Decker, you waffled a little on your assessment of Y2K, so you should try a different slur. Your great-grandparents were deceived into submitting 1-2% in the beginning and they did the okey-doke. And the rest is history. And you are OK with that, so enjoy the mind f__K. You earned it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 09, 2000.

Ken:

No deal. Most of what I do now is public policy. I am off soon to Oregon, Washington and BC. Fact collection, don't you know. While it makes you tired, it is nice to be in a position to influence changes on a state and national level. When I was younger, I just sat around and bitched about things.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 09, 2000.

Kofe,

My assessment was pretty stable... though I thought the economy would run out of gas this year. I was wrong about the economy, at least thus far, but I had Y2K pretty much pegged. And what do you know about my great grandparents?

Here's my message. If you don't like America... leave it, change it or deal with it. If you are one of this quasi-military militia geeks (like our old friend Arlin Adams), I advise you make your attempts at change legal. If not, you'll deserve what you'll get.

Z, Given the quality of public policy decisions in America, I cannot say I am entirely surprised. I do hope you do a better job of analysis than you mustered on the voting thread.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 09, 2000.

Decker, you have a right to be proud of what you believe is a service to your country, but I think you, like thousands of other servicemen have had your patriotism manipulated by the rogue element in our gov. which sent guys like you on another corporate/gangster adventure. It was heroin in VietNam, Oil in the Gulf War, cocaine in Panama, the Trepka mineral mines in Kosovo, cocaine again in Columbia, the gold mines in the recent island adventure; (the name escapes me) and where ever resources can be had, and money can be made; that's where the troops get sent. Of course, the "story" is about humanitarian aid or "national interests". I'm not telling you this to insult you, because it's not your fault for falling for the scam. You've got plenty of company. As for the militia thing, I don't know what you mean. And as for the remark about your great-grandparents, I should have said yours and mine, both. I figure they were of age when the BS started. And lastly, because this is my last post on this thread, My aim is to raise constitutional awareness. I know that that is all that is needed.And yes, I admit I need to work on my delivery, but I am correct, and anyone who really wants to know for sure, one way or the other, can. There are people who do know the truth, but they're not telling us. As usual, you have to figure it out yourself.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 09, 2000.

The Federal Government, in fact ALL levels of government were simply hedging their bets on Y2K. In the public sector this is fondly known as CYA.

So, it's OK for .gov and .com to hedge and CYA, but if the little people do the same thing it is evil. Nice trick.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 09, 2000.

I traveled, far and wide about the Y2K thing. Read many Congess testomials. testiomies, which each fool admitted they had not the knowledge or expertise to predict the future on 01 Jan 2000. Our elected Fools. What fools are we, to elect them, and let them remain in power. Let your voice, arise.

-- My Story (andi@sticking.com), September 10, 2000.

I never thought of you as a "little people", Unk. You're even a LOT taller than I.

While on the topic of "little people", however, I'd like to address what you folks were discussing about political correctness in another thread. I remember once being at the mall with my kids and my oldest SHOUTING OUT "Look, Mom. There's a pregnant dwarf!" There really WAS a pregnant dwarf, and SHE looked around after my daughter told the whole mall she was there. That same daughter grew up to work beside a young woman at a Boston Market for a time. The woman had bipolar disease and WAS on medication, but she STILL shouted out to an overweight woman that she should "step right up and get something for you and that baby you're carrying."

Somewhere along the line, Unk, I think we need to separate the children from the adults and the sane from the insane.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

Kofe, you're upset about our self serving foreign policies? (chuckle) Welcome to reality. You forgot about our bloody exploits in the Phillipines, the "banana wars" and many others. By the way, if you think the only reason we were in Vietnam was heroin, I suggest you take a drug screening. We were in Somalia to capitalize on the ... hmmmm ... they don't have anything. How about the Korean War? We must have been protecting the strategic supply of kimchee.

Governments do bad things. They always have, and probably always will. Governments also do good things. I certainly hope this continues. Do I agree with every public policy... not even close. Soldiers don't have the right to vote on every mission, nor should they. It is the responsibility of the citizenry to ensure our men and women do not go into harm's way for a bad reason. Rail against government all you want... we get the government we deserve.

Unk, c'mon. You're smarter than this. Didn't you read my thread about Y2K expenditures as a percentage of overall budget. I, for one, did not bust anyone's ass over modest preparation. In fact, I defended the economic right to extreme preps... just don't ask me to believe the action was "rational."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 10, 2000.

Yes I know that...but we pregnant dwarfs are a sensitive lot.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 10, 2000.

Ken:

Actually, policy decisions are quite good [you might not like them, but they are good]. An exception would be management decisions in small cities. I appears to be difficult to get quality people into those positions.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 10, 2000.

Well it WAS gonna be my last, but.... you paraphrased a lot of what I just said and then implied it was your opinion, like a typical bureaucrat. You were onto something about Somolia - nothing here, lets go home...... and since you were about ten when Vietnam was over, you might have missed something.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 10, 2000.

Z,

It's a tough call where one might find the most dead wood... among policy wonks or in academe. Of course, your presence alleviates my need to choose.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 10, 2000.