A helping hand for the King of Spain

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Spain is obviously intnet on asking some questions from the "doomer" perspective. His last post was a bit convoluted, so here's an assist from an old nemesis.

1. Why is spending money on "serious" Y2K preparations anyone else's business?

2. How is this choice less "rational" than spending money on a $100,000 sports car or a $1,000 bottle of wine?

3. How is believing in the possibility of an economic or social meltdown less rational than believing in a particular religion?

4. The Y2K doomsayers were selling Y2K preparation items based on emotions. How is this materially different than the tactics used in mainstream advertising? Don't Fortune 1000 companies use the same methods to sell us goods and services we really don't need... or encourage us to buy "designer" brands for more money when the generic brands are of equal quality?

5. If one is to err, isn't better to err on the side of caution. For the vast majority of "doomers," preparations did not actually hurt anyone else. And how is the impact of unused preparations "worse" than losing some money in Vegas or Atlantic City?

I hope this helps you, Spain.

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

Answers

It does indeed, Ken. I have provided a link to your thread from mine.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 10, 2000.

Oh, goodie! Another test.

I must be "convoluted" as well, because Spain's original questions made perfect sense to me. But, as I have about ten minutes to kill, what the hell.....I'll answer these too :-)

1. Why is spending money on "serious" Y2K preparations anyone else's business?

It isn't. But (for the umpteen thousandth time) that wasn't the issue.

2. How is this choice less "rational" than spending money on a $100,000 sports car or a $1,000 bottle of wine?

Just off the top of my head but, most people who would buy "a $100,000 sports car or a $1,000 bottle of wine" probably can afford to buy "a $100,000 sports car or a $1,000 bottle of wine". Seriously though, Someone Claiming To Be A Y2K Expert warning people about The End of Society As We Know It hasn't told you that you NEED "a $100,000 sports car or a $1,000 bottle of wine". (Yes, I am aware this is a Sales Tactic for Luxury Items; but one's LIFE is not being "threatened", however falsely.)

3. How is believing in the possibility of an economic or social meltdown less rational than believing in a particular religion?

Depends on why one believes "in the possibility of an economic or social meltdown". But then, I suppose it also depends on why one believes in a particular religion, doesn't it? Then again, some people took "Y2K Preparation" to the level of religion as well.

4. The Y2K doomsayers were selling Y2K preparation items based on emotions. How is this materially different than the tactics used in mainstream advertising? Don't Fortune 1000 companies use the same methods to sell us goods and services we really don't need... or encourage us to buy "designer" brands for more money when the generic brands are of equal quality?

Why, yes, in fact, they do. What insight. But (and call me a nit- picker) most people are aware of advertising tactics. When you have someone claiming to be a Y2k Expert telling you that The End of The World Is Nigh, so you should Stock Up On The Goods He's Selling, well, I think you can see the difference there.

5. If one is to err, isn't better to err on the side of caution. For the vast majority of "doomers," preparations did not actually hurt anyone else. And how is the impact of unused preparations "worse" than losing some money in Vegas or Atlantic City?

Oooh, good one. Combining two different principles into the same "argument". You want to know why it's different to spend money because Someone Who Claimed To Be An Expert told you that Society As We Know It (or A Significant Part Thereof) was All Going Away; versus losing money gambling.

Kind of answers itself, don't you think?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.


Patrica,

In my estimation, many of the folks consuming luxury goods are doing so with the benefit of credit. Be that as it may, fear is used to sell many goods and services. "You have a lot riding on your tires?" Purveyors of alarm systems exagerate the risk of crime. Most warranty programs are utter ripoffs. How about the life insurance kiosks in airports? (chuckle) To exagerate is the very essence of advertising. I just wonder why you (and Reuben) are so shocked by the Y2K doomsayers. Whatever you say about people's "awareness" of these tactics, they still work... or companies wouldn't spend money on them. I am just as offended by those selling children's funeral insurance as the peddler's of Y2K doom. Do you ever watch infomercials?

Moving onto religion, it is difficult to argue the belief in a Y2K apocalypse is more or less rational than any other faith-based belief system.

Finally, we all believe in experts to some degree. Unless you perform your own surgery or dental work, you trust your doctor. We know also know some doctors and dentists are incompetent. It is up to you to carefully select your professional advisors... including social prognosticators. If someone picks a naturopathic healer, so be it. It's their health, not mine. Fraud is difficult to prove, and nigh impossible with soothsayers. If you can prove Gary North defrauded you, sue him. If you haven't been harmed, you have no cause for action. I'll bet you cannot conclusively prove North or any of the other doomsayers were lying. If you cannot prove North damaged you, we're down to your personal moral outrage.

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


Patricia:

Although I also raised an eyebrow at the word "convoluted", I think that Ken's questions are indeed more general and flexible. Mine were definitely "doomer-skewed". (But, then again, would you expect otherwise?)

Once again recalling the plight of poor CPR: If somebody wants to really do some GOOD for the world and take two years off to do it, there is a lot of GOOD that can be done. I mean, if he had just volunteered his time walking dogs at his local animal shelter, he would at least have SOMETHING to show for it.

And as Ken points out: People waste their money -- and I mean REALLY waste their money -- on all kinds of crap, often depriving their children to satisfy their gambling/booze/drugs/whatever cravings. Extra food, supplies, gold, etc., may not have been the OPTIMAL way to handle the family finances in view of Y2K turning out to be a dud, but one surely could have done worse. A LOT worse.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 10, 2000.


Patricia, WHY wasn't the prepping the issue? I keep asking because I don't understand why non-preppers were upset with preppers. It looked like the argument fell on either side of the question of whether preps were necessary or not.

-- helen (b@t.d), September 10, 2000.


NONE OF THE DEBUNKERS CARED ONE IOTA .......if **YOU** "prepped".

What we cared about was that you did not DEMAND that EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH do the same at considerable cost to Families and Governments, Corporations to small businesses.......FOR A PROBLEM THAT RELIABLE REPORTS .......from the Senate on down claimed would be "a 3 day storm" and by Fall, 1999...........A BUMP IN THE ROAD.

LIKE RELIGION ,,,,,,,,YOU CAN BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE.......DON'T **DARE** TRY TO FORCE IT DOWN ANYONE ELSE'S THROAT

YOU are entitled to act like FOOLS and you all did. FEW *VERY VERY FEW** felt like JOINING YOU IN YOUR FOOLISHNESS. CPR The Real One.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 10, 2000.


Helen, I can't speak for anyone but myself; my "problem" (if you will) was with people like Ed Yourdon. Because of his background and prior IT-type experience, he more or less "demanded" (in a way) that people listen to him vis a vis Y2K. And people did, for just that reason. Yet, despite the mounting "good news" evidence, and despite the fact that he was well behind the "technical times" as far as expertise was concerned, he basically never moderated his position. Sure, you can argue that he went from his "Beirut" stance to the "10- year depression" theory. But that's just semantics; he consistently blew off any "good news" as "conspiracies". Again, perhaps not in a matter of words, but I think it's a safe bet that most understood his meaning.

Further, I had a REAL BIG problem with people such as Paula Gordon who, despite having no embedded systems experience whatsoever, nor any IT experience, wrote a nine-part white paper on the the Y2K "threat" to embedded systems; in effect, passing herself off as an "expert" in the field. (Her "expertise" as far as I am aware, is in Public Administration; quite a leap there.) In addition, despite repeated queries from people with actual embedded systems experience, she was never able to produce one verifiable example of a "chip" that would fail due to Y2K. (In fact, AFAIK, the only one she eventually cited was the infamous Motorola chip, which they themselves published on their web site.) Now this year we have Paula Gordon "assuring" the world that there are "massive embedded systems failures due to Y2K happening every where", yet once again she can produce no evidence to back up her claims. She states she "cannot reveal her sources". Mr. CEO, anyone?

There were others in the "Y2K spotlight" who, IMO, were guilty of exactly the same offenses as the two examples I have put forth. THAT is where my "problem" has been all along.

Lastly, you refer to the "two groups" as "preppers and non- preppers". Who said "non-doomers" didn't "prep"? And therein lies one of the biggest problems between the two "camps" and the two "boards" in the Y2K debate. How many people from TB2K I actually bothered to read anything on Debunker and/or BFI? Or did they just "take the word of" such as Diane and Old Git? And please don't use the "CPR" excuse; if *I* could read through the likes of those who would discuss the "starvation of millions of pollies" and "thinning out the herd" and the rest of the "militants" on TB2K I, seems to me anyone can read through the likes of CPR and his rants.

KoS, I really don't care what people waste their money on, nor do I care that they DO waste their money. Again, my "problem" all along has been the impetus for the "wasting of their money". And I'm not talking about "prudent preparations" such as one would have on hand NORMALLY for events like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc. I'm talking about stashing 6 months worth of rice and beans because Joe or Jane "IT Expert" said the World Was Going To Hell-In-A- Handbasket and that Everyone Who Said Otherwise Was Either Lying, Covering-Up The Truth or was a Shill for the Evil Dot Gov.

I know nothing of your background and/or expertise, but I do believe you fell for their spiel as well, didn't you? Doesn't that kind of tell you something?

Ken, I appreciate your response. But as I've stated above, most people are aware of the "alarm bells" consistently rung by advertisers. Likening a Michelin campaign to the "FUD" spread by people such as Yourdon and Gordon is absurd. Well, perhaps not as absurd as I first thought, but I'm fairly certain you can see the "apples and oranges" comparison.

Frankly, I'm appalled by "children's life insurance" and "life insurance kiosks at airports". Yeah, there's a place you want to have those. How confidence-inspiring. And my sensibilities are just as offended by these tactics as the Y2K examples I cited for Helen. I don't really see too much difference there. Point taken.

I have to wonder whether or not you've ever actually read anything I've written to this point, and the reason I ask is because you seemingly put me in the same category as CPR. Where did I ever say I was "shocked"? The only thing that "shocks" me is the fact that so many people (at least as far as the Internet told) fell for the nonsense and, despite their claims of "thousands of hours of research", seemingly overlooked the credentials (or lack thereof) of those to whom they paid the most heed. But I will concede that's quite possibly my naivete as well.

You go on to once again, IMO, make unjust comparisons between the so-called Y2K "experts" and actual professionals such as doctors. Come on, Ken, surely you can see this is ridiculous! A doctor (basically) has to be educated and licensed. While I'm fairly certain both Yourdon and Gordon are/were educated, I don't see a "license" involved. (And let's not get into the semantics of those who shirk the licensing procedure; it's not nearly as prevalent as people who claimed to be "Y2K experts".) Yes, fraud is difficult, and at times, impossible, to prove. But as laypeople, we trust our health-care providers, yes? Well, what do you suppose the non- technical community did? Why, they trusted those who called themselves "IT experts" of course.

But, as I've told CPR on a number of occasions, people like that will always be with us. The best one can hope for is accountability. And perhaps a better-informed "audience".

BTW, you will note I have not mentioned North once, and that was intentional. Personally, I thought he was the least of the problems because even a rudimentary examination into his "credentials" would have turned up "what he is really all about". Additionally, I honestly believed that when people saw that he was offering two-year subscriptions to the Remnant Rag in 1999 despite claiming "it was all going away in 2000", they would conclude that he was nothing but a mass-marketer, with a far-right (even of the "far right") religious agenda.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.


"[KOS,] I know nothing of your background and/or expertise, but I do believe you fell for their spiel as well, didn't you? Doesn't that kind of tell you something?" -- Patricia

Yes, I "fell for" a spiel, but it may be a different spiel than you think. The spiel that I "fell for" was that we had a lot of experts (like Yourdon) disagreeing with other experts, a deadline was fast approaching, and the realization that having a year's worth of extra food and supplies on hand was not going to ruin me. And my grocery bill this year reflects that.

The spiel that I "fell for", I call "common sense". And I would probably fall for it again.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 10, 2000.


The semantics are confusing. I was a heavy-duty prepper, which I thought was the same as doomer, which you say is not because non-doomers prepped. I prepped heavily because I believed that with support, most of my neighbors would survive and return to normal fairly quickly. So does that make me a non-doomer?

Where do you guys keep the beer around here?

-- helen (b@t.g), September 10, 2000.


KoS, re: "...The spiel that I "fell for" was that we had a lot of experts (like Yourdon) disagreeing with other experts, a deadline was fast approaching...".

FWIW, a completely understandable set of circumstances (as you said, "common sense"). (And that's why a lot of my "problem" lies with people like Yourdon; how is it possible that he didn't know and/or realize this? Add to that the fact that, in a lot of ways, it was much easier to believe it was "all going away".) And perhaps it's my own somewhat myopic view of the "great debate" (I am aware that a good part of my "Y2K debate experience" was Internet-based and therefore did not necessarily represent "the real world"), but I was not aware of any other "experts" that many on TB2K I had heard of, much less paid any heed to. Most of what I saw being discussed was Yourdon's words, Gordon's words, etc., and anyone who disagreed with that POV "didn't get it".

We all saw how people like Hoffmeister and Cherri and Anita and Ken Decker were treated; it was a more-or-less "natural conclusion" to draw. Further, it appeared to me that it didn't much matter who "said it", if it was negative news, it was accepted blindly; no "verification" was ever called for (how many times were the "my brother's girlfriend's sister's boyfriend's mother's hairdresser...." stories just accepted at face value?). Yet, let any of the ones I mentioned or anyone else pop up with at "positive" story, it was basically blown off (at least in public; e.g., on the board) even if verifiable evidence was presented.

Remember Jim Lord's "Secret Navy Papers"? (I do realize not everyone fell for that one; but there were a good number of people who blew off the explanation as so much "cover-up of the Truth".)

Yes, it's a generalization, and I apologize for that. However, that was what I personally witnessed. Perhaps it simply comes down to the fact that we just see things differently; a concept not completely "unheard of" :-)

Helen, I'd like a six-pack myself right now. Sorry about the way that came out "on paper". (I want a preview feature, please.)

What you did was quite noble. It is my understanding that there are a number of people who followed the same lead; incredibly giving and unselfish.

What I was trying to say was that a lot of the so-called "debate" seemed to center on "prepping". As far as I saw on TB2K I, the regular posters there were under the (mistaken) impression that people who thought the rollover wasn't going to be much of anything didn't "prep". Perhaps the difference is WHY a person is prepped or WHY a person DID "prep".

Most of the "optimists", "pollies", "Debunkers", "whatever-the- name-du-jour-might-be" who I know/knew were ALREADY "prepped" for emergencies as a matter of normalcy. (I'm Italian. I NORMALLY have almost a month's worth of food; besides, I HATE to run out of anything. It's Who I Am.) Many of "us" live in places where hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, the odd blackout, etc. are a matter of course. Consequently, these people have emergency supplies (or "preps") on hand anyway.

Others ("doomers", "preppers", "whatever-the-name-du-jour-might- be") "prepped" simply because they were led to believe Y2K was going to be a Really Bad Thing.

I never cared that people DID "prep"; I cared about WHY they did. And maybe that doesn't make any sense to Ken (or anyone else, for that matter), but it made (and still makes) a world of sense to me. I DO care when people are "taken", for whatever reason. No, I can't change the world, but I can sure as hell try to change "my little corner of it".

Did I explain that any better this time? (I hope, I hope.)

Actually, forget the beer. Where's capnfun and the margaritas?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 10, 2000.



Patricia:

You just don't "GI." Good news on Y2k presented meant [to some] that folks wouldn't feel the seriousness of the situation [as THEY saw it];therefore, one who presented good news was automagically anti- prep. Actually, Flint and Paul Davis had the best preps going, with both accommodating 6 months to a year. Both were labeled "pollies". Flint was oftentimes met with "Don't come to MY house expecting a handout." Flint got those supplies due to his fears of Y2k that later diminished, and Paul simply has a wife that feels uncomfortable [and always has] if she doesn't have tons of food in the house.

Helen: Many of the folks who labeled folks pollies had very little in the way of preps themselves. I remember pointing out a conversation on Debunkers wherein folks discussed their food purchasing habits, etc. I sent Lisa@work to that thread for a read and she came back and reported that the pollies had more preps than anyone she knew. Personally, I had more food in my house than Old Git [although I don't have pets, and she stocked up quite heavily for them.]

I don't think it's any of my business why folks decided to prep for Y2k or not prep for Y2k. I think what's important is how you feel about yourself when it's all over. There was one poster on TBI [can't remember his name right now, but he makes his living as a recruiter or in some employment-oriented capacity] who pulled up stakes in the city and moved to the country, got some goats and other animals, etc. I think he'd really wanted to do this all his life, because he LOVES it. Y2k fear was his IMPETUS, but what difference does it make? He's still working as a recruiter, enjoys the country life, and in HIS case, I think Y2k fear prompted him to make a life- style change that he wouldn't have considered previously. If folks are happy NOW with what they did, isn't that what really counts? If folks are NOT happy NOW with what they did, dontcha think they learned a lesson without anyone telling them they were WRONG?

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


Patrica, Ed Yourdon was a careful writer who bascially wrote a comprehensive "what if" book. He didn't "demand" anyone prepare. He didn't even "demand" you buy his book. Yourdon cashed in what little credibility he had left in 1999 to become a Y2K guru. Caveat emptor.

Paula Gordon is just an inflatable academic. Do I respect Gordon? Of course not, but she is entitled to express her opinions, however misguided. So are the rest of the Y2K doomsayers. Again, unless you can prove they defrauded you, it was just a group of people with stupid ideas.

Stupid ideas and flawed theories are not confined to Y2K and the "Sightings" web site. For example, many environmental theories (like global warming) are hotly debated. The environmental community is guilty of FUD and they have cost the world FAR MORE than the Y2K doomsayers.

Some of the folks in the "green" movement have more degrees than a thermometer, but they also have an agenda. They use fear to change public policy, even if this fear is based on bad science.

The real core issue here is that we live in a free society with an open marketplace of ideas. Gary North is still free to spout his nonsense, and you are free to believe (or not). Are you equally upset by the people talking about alien abductions? Bigfoot? The healing power of crystals? The people that fell for the Y2K doomsayers hurt no one but themselves.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


Helen,

The huge walk in cooler at the end of the hall,help yourself : )

It's the y2krazy stash!!!

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), September 11, 2000.


I don't think it's any of my business why folks decided to prep for Y2k or not prep for Y2k.

Anita, it's probably none of MY business either, but these are just my opinions. Like I said, I'm not out to change the world, just my little corner. And frankly, for me anyway, all this bull had died down, and I was simply answering some questions that were posed. I really DON'T care any longer. It's done, over, fini; but I do enjoy the odd "Y2K" conversation now and again.

If folks are happy NOW with what they did, isn't that what really counts? If folks are NOT happy NOW with what they did, dontcha think they learned a lesson without anyone telling them they were WRONG?

If they're happy, more power to 'em (and I've said that all along). Hell, in some ways, I think some of the "doomers" came out on top (e.g., paying off their debts, not having to do grocery shopping for a while, etc.). It was not my intention here to tell people "they were wrong", though I do realize that's what it amounts to. Like I said, just answering some questions. And again, this is just my opinion.

Ken, I get the feeling you are deliberately being a bit obtuse. Yourdon most certainly DID "demand" people LISTEN TO HIM based on his however-many-years of "computer experience" (what else would you call his penchant for referring to his theories on software project management?). One does not have to actually say "LISTEN TO ME!" in order that they "demand" that people do. Again, however, I do think you are aware of this, but I can't fathom why you seem to miss this point.

I never stated that Paula Gordon was NOT "entitled to express her opinions", but misrepresenting one's self is another story entirely. Where were her disclaimers (e.g., "I don't actually have any experience in this, however...")? I don't recall ever seeing one. Freedom of speech isn't simply a right; it's a RESPONSIBILITY.

I am well aware that "stupid ideas and flawed theories are not confined to Y2K"; but we were discussing Y2K here, not "environmental theories" or the "green movement" or "Bigfoot" or the "Sightings" web site. Again, I'm pretty sure you know this.

I am also well aware "that we live in a free society with an open marketplace of ideas". But contrary to your belief, that is not the "core issue" here; it is Y2K. I don't give a rat's patout about "Gary North", and thought I clarified that fairly well in my last post.

Yes, those who "fell for the Y2K doomsayers" did hurt themselves (many did not; reference my comment to Anita). But you are wrong in stating they ONLY hurt themselves. It's true that the percentage of OTHERS that were hurt is small, but I don't think it's for anyone other than ME to decide what "bugs me".

And THAT "bugs me".

It's not like I'm sitting here 24/7 thinking up ways to obtain "justice"; I'm not a Great Crusader for The Little People (well, OK, there was that little subway thing in NYC some years back [g]), nor do I (really) play one on the Internet. We were having a discussion; you posed several questions. I answered them. The Y2K stuff, the "Sightings" stuff, the environmental stuff, the corporate stuff, it all BUGS ME.

As I said before, I'm not out to change the world, but I'm damn well going to try to change my little part of it. And I start where I have the most experience; to this point, it has been Y2K. Tomorrow it might be something else. Tomorrow I might actually learn to drive the stupid truck I now own.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


Patricia,

I am not being obtuse; you are being naive. Yourdon used an appeal to expertise to sell his books. How is this "demanding?" Or do you find George Foreman "demanding" you buy his grilling machine? (laughter)

The core issue is Y2K... but the highwater point of your argument is your moral outrage over Yourdon, Gordon and others. How dare they write a book and sell it! How dare they misrepresent their credentials! Wake up and smell and the coffee, Patricia. This is America and there's a huckster on every corner. If you want to be outraged by them all... fine.

Just do me a favor, Patricia, don't try to change things. The existence of hucksters, shills and barkers suggests we still live in an open economy. What makes me nervous is people like you who are so easily "outraged" at the perceived misbehavior of others. It's a small step from this anger to wanting to "control" what others say and do. "We'll make sure Ed Yourdon never write another book" or "We'll take Paula Gordon's doctorate away." If you can prove fraud, have at it. If not, consider your foot stomped in utter indignation.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.



Excellent discussion! A nice change of pace, hope it continues....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 11, 2000.

KC,

Talk about naive, geesh look in the mirror pal. You may have some fooled, not me.

The existence of hucksters, shills and barkers suggests we still live in an open economy. What makes me nervous is people like you who are so easily "outraged" at the perceived misbehavior of others. It's a small step from this anger to wanting to "control" what others say and do. "We'll make sure Ed Yourdon never write another book" or "We'll take Paula Gordon's doctorate away." If you can prove fraud, have at it. If not, consider your foot stomped in utter indignation.

This coming from a yourself, a Bureaucrat means little. Course you would advocate others remain in a Sheeple condition. "If you have proof-sue", spews forth from the Decker Unit. This is America. We have the right to Free Speech(for a dam good reason). Problem is YOUR KIND of love-it or leave-it extremist nuts who think it all part of some convoluted meaning of a free economy. Guess again, we are as strong as the market of diverse contribution. Your mentality is about helplessness and its promotion. The result is you sit and defend outright hucksters under some reasoning which has the sheer arrogance to say Patricia is operating under a moral highroad? Dam right, bout time a bunch of people stood up to your kind and said...shut-up.

No Ken, the existence of a Yourdon indicates we are quite aways from an open society. It is an indication ignorance is widespread. If the channels(press)were actually free, it would not take a small group of citizens to stand against hundreds of thousands, as the Debunkers did, and say Y2k hysteria is utter BS. Reality was the Capitalist PR machine most think of as the Press, provided no balance and MADE hucksters like Gary North/Ed Yourdon/Paula Gordon names. To the point their FUD of Baloney made it into Congressional Testimony.

Is this the reality YOU are looking for? And if North and Co exist, are these Y2k hucksters the end of the line? Hell no, as you know MOST issues are controlled by extremists and those who profit from such. Your answer is to sit on your lazy butt and wait til one has legal remedies? Waiting that long IS the problem.

Do me a favor Ken, get a clue. Moral outrage, dam right. If a Gary North is not a moral outrage we are in trouble. You counter a North by opening a window not filing lawsuits after the streets have been washed clean of the blood.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


Ken, I don't really see what can possibly be gained by addressing the points in this last post of yours; it is nothing more than your assumptions about me (most of which were wrong), and I feel I addressed these things in prior posts on this thread (especially the "naive" part). I suppose we can just chalk it up to different ways of looking at things; you do not see a difference between George Foreman selling his "grilling machine" and Yourdon selling his "opinion" (NOT his book; I never said anything about that). I see a huge difference.

I would like to just clarify one thing here. Simply because something "bugs" me doesn't necessarily mean I am "morally outraged" by it (which, coincidentally, was why I used the phrase "bugs me" versus "am outraged by").

And there's really no need to be concerned; I have no designs on Taking Over The World, Pinky :-) At least not today. Can't really say how I'll feel tomorrow though; if I get that "driving the truck" thing down....... (my turn for "laughter")

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


"We'll make sure Ed Yourdon never write another book" or "We'll take Paula Gordon's doctorate away."

WHO said this???? WHO spit this from his noodle? Oh ya the guy trying to convince others he is this witty balanced voice of the good-old USA, ROLFLMAO.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


"WHO said this???? WHO spit this from his noodle?" -- Doc Paulie

Doc:

The idea that some people should be considered DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS and DEPRIVED of their right to speak, or have their academic credentials stripped away, is simply the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that any reasonable person would reach after reading through your HOGWASH. All Ken is saying is: Look, we have a system in place, and the system -- though not perfect -- provides for action if it is warranted. If North has committed FRAUD, there are legal avenues available. If Paula Gordon has commited academic dishonesty, again there are avenues available at the professional level.

Bottom line, Doc: Where is the BEEF? As Ken pointed out, in a free society such as ours, you really don't have one.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 11, 2000.


"Your mentality is about helplessness and its promotion." Get a clue Doc, Ken's thoughts on this thread come no where near this statement. Your interpretation indicates a very convoluted path. Ken promote freedom of speech and freedom of consumers to buy whatever they want. Grow up you mental dwarf.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.

"...is simply the LOGICAL CONCLUSION that any reasonable person would reach after reading through your HOGWASH."

Except Ken reached that conclusion PRIOR to "reading through [Doc's] HOGWASH"; he assumed that was MY intention, though I neither stated nor implied those ends (hence my statement to Ken that I didn't see a need to address his "assumptions" of me, as I felt that I had already clarified my position).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


DP,

With you and Reuben as spokesmen for the "polly" cause, I am not surprised that some people believed Yourdon. I am not advocating anyone remain uniformed, but to learn or not is their choice. If someone wants to make decisions based on a Magic 8 Ball, it's none of your damn business. Individuals have a right to choose, even when the basis of this choice offends you. People also have the right to express opinions that you might find silly or even dangerous.

As Spain observes, we live under the rule of law. People defrauded or harmed have a legal venue for redress. What are the other options? Censorship? You had the same right as Gary North to make your case last year. So what's your problem? That North said something you didn't like? Please.

You had your chance to "open a window." News flash: Nobody cared. Only a handful of people ever visited the Debunker sites, and these folks were hardly in a position to influence major public policies. Far more people read the IT trade rags for Y2K progress reports.

Your view of the world is just as extreme as any doomer. Most issues are not "controlled" by extremists. In most public policy debates, the extremists get more than their share of press... but the great center dominates almost all actual policies.

The Y2K doomsayers had a moment in the public limelight, but no one really payed attention. There were no bare shelves at grocery stores or runs on banks. A handful of people went overboard on preparations for a nonevent. So what?

Patricia, see above.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


Ken, how does the "above" relate to me?

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


"We'll make sure Ed Yourdon never write another book" or "We'll take Paula Gordon's doctorate away."

Your reply needs no reply frankly, you are clueless and still to this day think Y2k demanded worldwide mobiliztion and literaly BILLIONS flushed chasing shadows(font size="-2">The Y2K doomsayers had a moment in the public limelight, but no one really payed attention. There were no bare shelves at grocery stores or runs on banks. A handful of people went overboard on preparations for a nonevent. So what? ). No Kenny it was not about a person's right to PREP as we said ad nuasem but you, using your well-honed power of analysis it is not surprising you missed as much.

As to your claim nobody listened I say baloney. Debunking Y2k had in excess of a million page views in the 4 months of active service (Oct1999 to thru Jan2000)5 million hits and over 13,000 posts. Might also help if you know CPR represented less than 2,000 of these as well. All this after all the ???? had basically been answered. All this from a few raving maniacs(Patriots) and one guy who could barely slap together some webpages and operate an antique webforum script.

Had many regular lurkers at Debunki from gartner, ciga, capgemini, dot govs, dot mils and most state.dots. We were spidered by all manner of obscure dotcoms which do not operate search portals, what were they doing? playing? To this day, Debunking Y2k gets over a THOUSAND hits a day and has not been touched by me in any real way since Feb1. You don't know, I DO. Do you just think it an accident even de Jager finally brokedown and posted Lynch's article in late 1999? No it was because of the efforts of some of us, not YOU.

and to Maria,,,,sue me.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


Sorry, Patricia, it may or may not apply to you. Personal jabs aside, our disagreement is simple. You see the Y2K doomsayers actions as different from mainstream advertising. In your words, we all "know about" advertising, but apparently we didn't all know about Gary North and pals. I think it's pretty hard to separate North from countless other examples of psuedo-experts. Why should I believe a professional boxer knows anything about cooking appliances? You also see the "threat to life" as a factor. I contend that advertisers use this threat, overtly or covertly, on a routine basis. I also think you distort the doomer position. It was almost never about "surviving" Y2K, but about living comfortably through disruptions in basic services. I don't recall ever hearing North or Yourdon say, "If you don't follow my advice, you are going to die." In fact, I think this is your hyperbole of what was actually written.

My response to DP boils the issue down to a simple response... so what? Rhetoric aside, what will you do about the Y2K doomsayers? Are you simply going to bitch about them until the next great faux crisis? You can't shut up the hucksters in a free society without getting into the game of censorship. If you are going to let them talk, and sell, one option is to make an alternative case. DP did this last year, although no one really paid any attention. If the hucksters do defraud people, there are legal remedies. It is not a perfect system, but I'm open to suggestions. If you have a better way, please weigh in.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


DP,

Remain a legend in your own mind. You and Reuben can bask in the glory of saving the world from Gary North. The number of hits or page views means very little. TB 2000 had far, far more posts and I doubt one person in 10,000 could identify this web site today. And I am sure the dot govs were impressed with Reuben's profanity-laden tirades. Why, just print out the post and distribute them on company letterhead! (laughter) Personally, I think de Jager realized what the rest of the world had months earlier... and he did a quick about face to save what was left of his reputation. But hey, DP, it's your fantasy life... don't let me intrude.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


I, obviously, need to get out more. What was the little subway thing in NYC? George Foreman is selling a "grilling" machine? Wasn't he a boxer? What, on earth, is a "grilling" machine?

Regarding the academic dishonesty and Paula Gordon, isn't she doing the Y2k gig outside of whatever the hell she does at the University? It seems to me that she's emphasized several times that she gets no money to do that stuff, so she's just another PhD [like Gary North] who makes a hobby of getting into areas outside of their expertise. If the University were paying her to provide facts [based on her expertise in a given field], THEN I'd suggest academic dishonesty. So far, she's tooted her horn [rather poorly], and some folks think she knows what she's saying because she has a PhD in [What DID she study again?].

Patricia, I forgot to add a grin after the "don't GI" remark I made. I KNEW you were only expressing your opinions. What else CAN we express?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 11, 2000.


Ken,

get back to work...I doubt the good folks of your small Hamelt want you wasting their tax dollars telling the world we all need to be "the expert".

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


I didn't pay much attention to North or Yourdon or the debunkers.

My honors level programming class was tough. Honest efforts resulted in low grades. Confusing the code and documentation got me chewed out, but if the program looked like it worked, I got a better grade. I probably spent more effort hiding the fact I couldn't do it right than I would have actually learning to do it right. I didn't invent the idea. Most of the guys in the lab had done it. Cyber freud alone knows why I got into that.

I cheated. My classmates cheated. The guy who showed me how to do it was actually pretty good, just too busy to mess with his assignments. I was just incompetent. My friends in IT places tell me stories about the incompetence they encounter on a regular basis. They see messed up code with no documentation and know it was done that way deliberately. They say nasty things about it.

So...it didn't matter what Yourdon or Gordon said. I didn't care what their credentials were or were not. I didn't tell you I knew a bit about IT, and I didn't place faith in what you told me about your expertise. You don't know me and I don't know you.

I know I cheated. I know others cheated. Just in case the cheating was a bit more widespread than the "good news" would suggest, I prepped. I prepped for a whole bunch of people. I felt like I owed it to them.

I'm not sure "I'm sorry" covers this...but I am sorry.

-- helen (p@cking.up), September 11, 2000.


helen????? CHEATED??????? I am both OUTRAGED and SHOCKED!!!!

No more champagne in YOUR mud, young lady!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 11, 2000.


Paula Gordon's website from George Washington University, free of course unless you are the taxpayer.

Her wonderful leech-sucking do-nothing Bio. And Decker attacks Patricia for some moral highground he thinks is evident? Calls her a Book-Burner and Credential stripping whiner?

But to be expected here. KOS is so dim he defends a guy who reposts (translates) HIS words with the in-your-face arrogance found in the best snotty Country Clubs around the world and gets defended for as much. Just how asleep are most here?

for Maria:::Dubya fading fast, so sorry.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


Want a quick laugh? View Source on that Gordon BIO link. Says it all, and some think this woman understands embedded systems? Maybe her webmaster, but geesh if one needed any other evidence of what a GWU produces than Gordon and Bory Kamasuki this be it.

So nuts there is even a full paragraph of it between the headline and her "accomplishnots, WHHAAAAhahaaaWhhooeeehehaha.

and what is Gary North's Phd in? Oh ya History, again BHHHahahahaaaa. One's best rode to becoming THE EXPERT is first learning to ignore these imposters.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


"Paula Gordon's website from George Washington University, free of course unless you are the taxpayer." -- Doc Paulie

Of course, I guess that means that it must be free for CPR, since without an income, presumably he does not pay income taxes ... SEE

"Gawd! It only gets funnier: CPR's latest lame explanation as to how he lost $400K due to his Y2K concerns..." (King of Spain, madrid@aol.cum, 2000-09-09) http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=003mY2

Which brings up an interesting question, Doc: Just HOW MANY of you "professional" Y2K de-bunkers, due to your OWN needless FEAR- UNCERTAINTY-DOUBT about the REACTION of people to the Y2K non-event, essentially took the Gary North route and DROPPED OUT of society??? Like CPR, have you also thrown your career down the tubes, due to your EXTREMEST reaction to Y2K FUD?????

Bottom line: What's up, Doc?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 11, 2000.


Whats up with what? How it is getting to you? How you are unable to factor-in Charlie's revenue from his income properties he no doubt holds? Charlie can make as much money he wants any dam time he wants. The figure is tossed around to "impress" the simpletons like yourself wrestler(like who doesn't get THAT? apparently you and a small group of others with an itch to scratch).

I did not toss sh*t for Y2k. In fact I am FAR BETTER off now than before, how does that grab you? How? none of your dam business to coin a Decker phrase.

As to your professional label, this is truely laughable. See like many you looked the OBVIOUS in the face and denied it. "What possible reason would one be a Debunker?" was heard around these parts for, God what, a year? Gee beats me Martha maybe cause these supposed wacko-Debunkers care about others? their Country? and get a little pissed off by historic aholes like Gary North and other spewers taking the money of honest neighbors and such? Causing our institutions alarm which resulted in the flushing of BILLIONS of dollars chasing the OBVIOUS Y2k bugs, doubt it--look around will ya, the horror! We cared enough to stand-up and call the Fudsters on their crap, criminal I know. You don't seriously think any of us did what we did pitching books/newsletters/memberships or overpriced beans in fancy Gladbags do you? Shouldn't this ALONE maybe make you question who you are listening to and why you believe what you do?

Why would we do what we do? Reading my stuff alone should be clue one I bash ALL OF THEM, even CPR, like I care? He don't either cause it about our country, not you, me or your grandmother. We share a love of America from opposite ends of most everything, so what. The enemy is stupidity, ignorance and many sleepwalkers around playing tapes from some very dishonest creatures as if it were handed to them by God himself. This pollution, this garbage must be constantly cleaned up by opening windows, literally.

Our country is strong because we have diversity. The ONLY threat EVER is this balance. Waiting for legal remedies is way too late, the process is ever vigilance. Does not take everybody, just a few to echo others who think and operate the same dam way.

Here::read the disclaimer sitting on Debunking Y2k. I would also like you to know this was written with the entire board in mind. I personally thought and do that Y2k was an overblow pile of do-do not even worth mentioning let alone preparing for, and you can quote me on that. Course the evidence now 9 months past the doomer date supports who?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


Doc,

I am off today, so relax. And if you are going to attack me, at least take the time to read. I never called Patricia a "book burner." I suggested she was a potential censor. I have found people who are "bugged" by what others do are often tempted to try to control what others do. This might be quite wrong in Patricia's case, however, I am suspicious of anyone "bugged" by someone else's exercise of economic freedom.

Unlike you (or Reuben), Spain showed a little class after rollover. Of the doomers I saw, he accepted the nonevent with some level of grace.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


Doc, do you ever read what you write? "The enemy is stupidity, ignorance and many sleepwalkers around playing tapes from some very dishonest creatures as if it were handed to them by God himself. This pollution, this garbage must be constantly cleaned up by opening windows, literally." Truth, justice and the American way, eh Superman?

Stupidity may be the enemy in your mind but even stupid people have the right to be and remain stupid. Misinformation permeates the net, buyer beware. Are you going to try to correct all these wrongs? Have a good time. But people are entitled to their opinions and choices no matter how stupid. And North and Eddie have their rights to pursue legally a buck.

BTW, it's not over til the fat lady sings in November.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.


Anita, (took me a bit to stop laughing) I'll send you an email on the "NYC subway thing". George Foreman has been touting this Lean Mean Grilling Machine thingy for awhile now. Supposed to be a "healthy" way to enjoy formerly fried-type foods.

And thanks, but it didn't require a [G]; I read it into the sentence as soon as I saw "DON'T GET IT" :-)

As for Gordon, I believe her degree is in Public Administration. BTW, I never mentioned "academic dishonesty" because I never thought she was "academically dishonest". I just thought (and think) she's a fraud.

Helen, (finally stopped laughing over that one, too) what on earth are you 'sorry' for?!?!? Jeez, "noble" doesn't cover it! I've been in the IT world for over eight years now. You can imagine the stuff I've seen as well. I guess we just looked at the potential consequences differently.

Ken, I can understand how you would experience some trepidation over someone being ""bugged" by what others do" in the light that they "are often tempted to try to control what others do". But that does not apply to me.

However, as far as "free speech" and "economic freedom" are concerned (again, I had NO PROBLEM with selling books or any other "economic freedom" thing; YOU read that into my words), I notice you, along with the "patriots" who claim to be Defenders of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, never once mention any RESPONSIBILITY.

These are not simply rights, Ken; they are RESPONSIBILITIES. And until that little tidbit is accepted and taken into consideration as part and parcel of "the package", you are justified in your fear of those who are "bugged" by the dishonesty of others, whether it be under the auspices of "freedom of speech" or "economic freedom".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


Patricia, I happen to agree with you. Eddie and Paula (and people like them) should take responsibility for their "teachings". Now what? Do we force them to take responsibility? What form does this responsibility take? Should it be retribution to those stupid people who believed what they spouted? When Ken referred to the foot stomping, I think he's right. You can't do much more than that.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.

1) "Charlie [CPR] can make as much money he wants any dam time he wants." -- Doc Paulie

Right, of course he can. Legally, and without the aid of a printing press, I would hope.

2) "I did not toss sh*t for Y2k. In fact I am FAR BETTER off now than before, how does that grab you? How? none of your dam business to coin a Decker phrase." -- Doc Paulie

Yes, of course you are. Undoubtedly, it has to do with your outstanding contributions to the field of medicine.

3) "I have a small weekly grocery bill and about 6.5 more months of stored food to chomp through." -- King of Spain

Exercise for the class: Rank the above statements in the order of their believability. Then ask yourself, who would you believe in general? -- a realtor who isn't working; a doctor that is not a doctor; a king that is not ... uhh, a king that is fair and just.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 11, 2000.


This idea of a tribual is as unpalatable as the old rant about 'pitchforks' for officials from the old bomb. I don't understand the aggression here at this point, other than to suspect that it's fueled by embarassing mistakes one made on their own. If someone else made you do it, then you have a boundary problem.

Maria,

At the time, Flint came out and directly addressed Ed, asking for an explanation. The lack of an explanation was pretty damning in my eyes. Anyone paying that much attention should have taken note at the time. {Not that it matters, but that's why he was banned - not the ant thing - IMHO}. Now I still felt there was enough concern to be prepared for the rollover, as did my state. OES plans were in place from mid- Dec thru Jan.

Hopefully all those plans & drills will be a boon, should we ever need them. Would our fire departments have gotten the bio-chem training without urban warrior? - prolly, with time.

-- flora (***@__._), September 11, 2000.


Maria, I don't have any "easy answers", but I'm pretty sure "foot- stomping" is just a bit less than what one can do.

In Yourdon's case, he's already getting his just desserts; he has, for all intents and purposes, zero credibility left with those who used to be his "peers". How many people do you think "took advantage of" the Cutter CONsortium newsletter @ (what was it?) $800/year? Well, it couldn't have been too many if he subsequently offered a bunch of the white papers for free. Can't really ask for more than that.

As for Gordon, she will probably continue to "troll" the halls of DC and Academia in search of grant money and visiting professor- ships. She will probably continue to get both.

But that doesn't mean that we have to sit back and allow her to spout without countering her nonsense. Holding her accountable (as in, if she's going to continue to claim "massive failures in embedded systems due to Y2K are happening all around us", she damn well better ante up some verifiable evidence) is probably the best way to deal with her.

As I said in a post way towards the top of this thread, people like these two will always be with us. The best (most?) we can hope for is accountability and a better-informed audience.

BTW, how about we replace the word "stupidity" with the word "ignorance"? This is much closer to the truth of the matter.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 11, 2000.


Patricia, a friend of mine found some interesting info on EPA sites regarding the number of pipeline failures within the past couple of years. Maybe it had nothing to do with embedded this or that...maybe the pipeline manufacturers cheated in engineering...but the number of failures rose considerably in the first quarter of this year -- I think that's what she said. Maybe y2k-related failures are ongoing. At least almost all systems seem to be working almost all of the time, so I'm happy.

KOS -- Have you ever mixed mud with olive oil...?

-- helen (b@t.h), September 11, 2000.


Maria,

Sue me.

Here is something NEVER spoken, sit you will need it.

What if, what if the criticism of North and Yourdon was for their own good? Would it not have been better for Gary to be a living reflection of his Christian beliefs instead of an example of what he claims he hates? Spending 30+ years proving his phoniness?

Would it have not profited Ed Yourdon to spend the last decade adding value to the IT industry by keeping up with the exploding technology, or writing fictional Literary RoadApples based on some minor Y2k threat? Would he and the industry have been better off? Who was around suggesting to Ed he maybe going off track and his crisis was because of his age and not Y2k bugs? Don't know if it would have made a difference, not our concern, but we do play apart in the process and remaining silent is counterproductive and not honoring self.

Now as you must know, most of us critics are not motivated completely by such noble ends even most of the time consciously, but suppose something else was. Easy to bash the critic, they deserve it is the conventional wisdom. But in very rare cases is criticism given without a basic desire by the critic for improvement, it is not a negative activity. It is actually a great sign of affection. Most are sick of the fake-ass "GREAT!" or the ever popular "are you listening"? we miss the deeper meanings inherent in criticism. Easier to live in a delusion that we are what we secretly know is bs. We have been brainwashed to think it best to just say nothing. To actively deny our awareness. It is not good to speak ones mind we teach our kids. Our educational system is about pounding in, not drawing out.

I KNOW at deeper levels everyone on this board is decent(ducks), even me the ranting maniac superman spewer. I also know when one reaches a point as a North or Yourdon, they need ACTIVE untervention. They need open criticism and many saying you are wrong and hurting yourself and now us and our country. These folks are living in a massive delusion, they are insane, out of step with reality. Yourdon "sounds" intelligent as he lays out the case for his TEN Year Y2k inspired Depression. Only depression is Ed's, not in some impending economic cycle, and somebody needs to tell him so.

As I have said before, Y2k was a complete flop. Why? Because it was baloney almost completely. Nobody bailed or even talked about as much cept the sick ones around here who followed their equally insane profits of doom.

As Decker said, who cares? Well Ken many did even if you think it was off the radar screens. To ignore this is again slipping away from reality. Back last year Y2k was on everyone's mind but the folks yet to get on the digital revolution. Now of course Y2k is so what, and rightly so, but the basic issues live on. Never was about the code anyhow.

I doubt apathy and indifference are qualities we want to promote in this country. We NEED arguments, discussion whatever form it may take short of speech which is actually abuse like spamming or trolling. Everyone needs a good reality-check as well as kudos when warranted.

The comment about Gordon's website's HTML alone speaks and mirrors just how naive and lost in the woods a Gordon is. This stuff is in your face constantly and most, thru going with the flow have become dead to it. Here is a woman claiming to understand embedded computer systems, doing so from a webpage made with a WYSIWYG html editor program which adds unneeded tags and weight to a page to force anothers browser to hopefully conform to a format the author wants. Easier ways to do that, and that Netscape's way introduces problems, addresses little and is outdated. A classic example, a mirror if you will, all but staring Gordon in the face and saying, it don't matter Honey and whatis already takes YOU into consideration and we live with it. We are beyond you Gordon, wake-up!

One could correctly conclude one like me an extremist, out of step with reality, I beg to differ. Y2k was not an event in the future. The basic point all along BTW. Why some missed the clues needs to be pointed out.



-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


OK, North and Yourdon are enjoying their just desserts.... This is the price all soothsayers pay when the are wrong. On the hand, P.T. Barnum was right. The doomsayers will find new threats and new audiences. There is little you or I can do to stop them.

As for responsibilities, Patricia, you must have missed the thread where we discussed a requirement of military service in exchange for the franchise of voting. Of course rights come with responsibilities. But answer the critical questions. Who determines what these responsibilities are? How does society enforce these standards? It's all nice sounding rhetoric, but show me how it works. If I want to vote based on a secret letter code given to me by the channeled spirit of an ancient Mayan goddess... what are you going to do about it? How can you force me to act responsibly? Punish me for failing to learn Bush's education plan or Gore's policy on social security?

As for you, DP, when we need to elect a new diety, I see you are comfortable with the work. Who are you, exactly, to judge the value of Gary North's or Ed Yourdon's life? I may disagree with North or Yourdon intellectually, but for all I know, both sincerely believed what they were saying. The simple fact is you don't know either. You don't know if they are good husbands, or fathers, or members of the community. And you think I am arrogant.

As for last year, I didn't say people were unaware of Y2K... they were unaware of you and the Debunkers. Just as they are unaware of this conversation.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


Doc, "They need open criticism and many saying you are wrong and hurting yourself and now us and our country." And so the debunkers told him "the truth", while many (many more) doomers were telling him how wonder, selfless he was.

"We have been brainwashed to think it best to just say nothing." I think you know me well enough that I don't follow this at all; I will give my opinion any time, any place. And I don't believe that anyone should hold back in speaking their mind.

"We NEED arguments, discussion whatever form it may take " You're beginning to sound like a conscienceness raising group. No argument here on this statement.

So when you bashed me on my opinions on Clinton, you were actually promoting my right to voice my point of view. Gee, you had me fooled.

Anyway what point were you trying to make in all that? If you think your a defender and truth seeker, get over yourself, Doc. But then again I'll defend your right to speak your mind, dwarfed as it may be.

Flora, I'm glad you were able to see Eddie for what he was. I had tried to tell doomers that his conclusions didn't hold water but no one wanted to hear it.

Patricia, sounds like Eddie reaped what he sewed, not necessarily the same as taking responsibility. Karma has a way allocating pay back. However, you still haven't pointed to what more you can do besides foot stomp. (My definition of foot stomp is to point out errors in Eddie's logic; it doesn't extend to "responsibility")

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 11, 2000.


Who am I to judge North and Yourdon?

An American Citizen you MORON that is who. Thanks for the all the wonderful names on this thread folks. Brought to you by the masterminds who think we just went and fixed that darn Y2k thing with our wonderful Capitalist Economy which also we learn grants us all our Freedoms as well, I have been confused, not.

For YEARS/Decades the twin towers of TOXIC spewing have bashed everything this great nation stands for. They have belittled and openly badmouthed the honest working folks which make up this country. This GIVES me the dam right to dissect these yo-yos down to their skeletons if need be. BTW this analysis is EASY. Yourdon a good father? Who cares? Like who cares? does this somehow wash away his public display of insanity, and my right to counter his public crap? His daughter to refresh your memory is the one who wrote the intro I think in your copy of TB2000 there Ken, and the one who does her Y2k research and bullshit spewing on her lunch hour. She learned well from pops. Predictably she has now vanished with most of the leeches and know-nothings who had it all figured out.

What you need to know and may have been missed by my massive giving of slack in the last post is this. BOTH North and Yourdon KNOW better about Y2k, North without ANY doubt. These two know they spew crud, and do not give a hoot what types like me say because we are outnumbered by the buyers many factors to one, this you have correct. These types crossed the line long ago and do not live in our world, they are insane. Psychopaths about sums it up for you Ken. These two "know the drill". They are experts at going just so far in their work to avoid the holes. They ARE toxic agents to a free society if left unanswered, thus my dam right and responsibility to answer no matter how dam small the audience.

Course you maybe would know about the twin orbitting eightballs if you had done even the most basic of research Mr. Decker, this is NOT even debatable this. Look at Yourdon's books of the last 20 years, does this indicate a man even close to anything but a wind-checker? How is it even remotely possible someone like Yourdon could not understand computing is BUGGY as hell and has been forever and is thus factored in ALWAYS? Y2k? like this is something unique? Yourdon knows better, end of conversation. Other plausible explanation is Yourdon is very untechnical, who is to know for sure? I remember his post about all his Virginia hits to his website and him saying it indicated the Gumbit was visiting. Course AOL is based in Virg and that was a given explanation but Eddie may just be a complete and utter technical moron. Again, more than Yourdon, I am honoring many around who do know better and thought highly of Yourdon once, no longer.

North likewise needs no explanation. Fact Gary vanished 3 days after the rollover should have been your clue to his depth and caring nature. He is a tabletop publishing fear monger. So good at what he does he laughs at his own followers and they still love him.

And I still think you are arrogant and have provided nothing on this thread but restated the obvious and promoted helplessness.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 11, 2000.


OK, since no one else wants to say it, I guess I will:

.......... Doc Paulie talks funny ..........

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), September 11, 2000.


DP,

Good people can have bad ideas... and vice versa. Some of the Y2K "doomers" were decent, kind, caring people that simply reached the wrong conclusion. I know this because I met a few personally. I never met Yourdon or North. I strongly disagreed with North's religious philosophy and his conclusions about Y2K. I disagreed with Yourdon's book and his shallow analysis. The dispute was intellectual, not personal. I don't find Yourdon's Y2K book any worse than much of the crap pushed by mass production publishing houses. And he has every right to write a lousy book and sell it.

North has been pushing CR and doom for two decades with no noticeable impact on the the Republic. Yourdon actually did some productive writing in software theory before reinventing himself as a "guru" of the programming scene. If you really read TB 2000, it's just a series of "what if" scenarios. Yourdon wrote more carefully than many of followers read. TB 2000 doesn't say, "Prepare or die." It says the following scenarios are possible. Slippery, but hardly evil.

North's writings suggest religious fanaticism. Yourdon's work is much more benign. At worst, he's a huckster who cashed in his limited IT expertise for a quick buck. Hey, seen it before and will see it again. Is it unfortunate? Sure. But that's the price of a free society. Liberty is giving people a chance to make up their own minds.

If you really want to convince people, you might learn how to parse a sentence and structure an argument. Rabidly demonizing North and Yourdon make you sound just as fanatical as they ever were.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 11, 2000.


Oddly enough I sort of agree with both Doc and Ken. North has every right to sell his crap to whoever will buy it, and Doc and company have equal right to debunk it. If North, or any other guru (see Jim Bakker) engages in outright fraud the court will decide if that is so, and what the accountability for it should be.

Speaking as one who exercised his RIGHT to stupidity for believing far to much of the FUD for far too long, the RESPONSIBILITY for doing so is 100% MINE. Again, speaking as one who was snookered, I would much prefer living in a society that allows a few Norths to ply their wares than to live in one where censors decide who has, or who doesn't have, the right to do so.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 11, 2000.


WD-40: ROTFLMAO!! You know, I almost commented about that, but refrained. Must be getting civil in my old age....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.

Unk,

I have never argued that DP or Reuben don't have a right to "debunk" others. Freedom of expression runs both ways. What makes me nervous is when people start muttering about holding North, Gordon, Yourdon and others "responsible" for their actions. As you correctly note, we have a legal system to provide a venue for redress. This only works, however, if you can prove you have been damaged or defrauded by one of the Y2K doomsayers. Unless DP was damaged (or acting in loco parentis for one of our "doomers"), he has no cause for legal action. Reuben, DP and others seem frustrated by this... but it's the way our system works. As your astutely note, it's far safer to live with the hucksters than to give power to censors.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 12, 2000.


I don't see where anyone here has called for censorship. There are many ways to hold people responsible for their actions. Debunking their BS is one way.

I view the doom leaders such as North and Yourdon in the same way that I would view somebody yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is a fire alarm hanging on the wall next to them. Procedures are in place in our society to deal with crisis. These two and others encouraged folks to ignore the existing emergency infrastructure and ignore other systems that are in place for dealing with crises in our communities. They encouraged distrust of professionals in many professions, distrust in our system of government, and distrust of people's reactions in times of crisis. For that they deserve every criticism they've gotten and then some.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.


What a thread!

Looks like many of the old combatants from Yourdon and debunkers are intelligently revisiting old memes and the FUDmasters of yesterday. But wait..you are forgetting about the most despicable charlatan of them all.Michael (Gods Food Salesman) Hyatt. Under the guise of Christianity, Hyatt and his band of scam artists made a ton of bucks from the flock of followers that bought into his daily diatribe of impending doom. The worst of them all.

-- I (h@ve.spoken), September 12, 2000.


Buddy,

"These two and others encouraged folks to ignore the existing emergency infrastructure and ignore other systems that are in place for dealing with crises in our communities. They encouraged distrust of professionals in many professions, distrust in our system of government, and distrust of people's reactions in times of crisis."

Here's where the rubber hits the road for North for me. Exploiting folks with a sense of vulnerability, for his own agenda The kinda crazy cockeyed dream of the opportunity to take it all down & start over. That part alone was a heck of an education in mass dynamics, as well as how susceptible we may personally be - given the right set of circumstances.

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


"These two and others encouraged folks to ignore the existing emergency infrastructure and ignore other systems that are in place for dealing with crises in our communities. They encouraged distrust of professionals in many professions, distrust in our system of government, and distrust of people's reactions in times of crisis." - - Buddy

I'm not quite sure that I see what the problem is here.... You mean, this is BAD???

Anyone ever visit the Holocaust Museum in D.C.? You should. Then re- read Buddy's naive paragraph above.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


Buddy,

I have often criticized the writings of Yourdon and North. Unlike DP or Reuben, I do not consider them to be the "antichrist." As for "shouting fire," you do not give Yourdon enough credit. He let his followers spin his writings to the doomsayer extreme. The people who read North and Yourdon were often predisposed to distrust government. All a Yourdon had to say was, "What if gov't is not telling the truth?" From there, folks like Russ "Big Dog" Lipton could say, "Gov't is lying to us!" It was less the Yourdon's or North's who spread FUD and more their disciples. Criticize away, Buddy, and let's watch it all happen again.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 12, 2000.


"These two and others encouraged folks to ignore the existing emergency infrastructure and ignore other systems that are in place for dealing with crises in our communities. They encouraged distrust of professionals in many professions, distrust in our system of government, and distrust of people's reactions in times of crisis." - - Buddy

I'm not quite sure that I see what the problem is here.... You mean, this is BAD???

Anyone ever visit the Holocaust Museum in D.C.? You should. Then re- read Buddy's naive paragraph above.

This is naive? I don't think so.

What does the Holocaust Museum have to do with it? This isn't the Nazi government we're talking about. Sorry, say what you want about some of the people in our government, but I still believe and have faith in our system of government.

Yourdon openly criticized and even has shown contempt for his peers in the information technology industry. That always rubbed me the wrong way. Sure, some people can't be trusted, but all professionals in a particular profession? That is naive.

Some people react poorly in times of crisis. But history has shown that most people pull together and help each other out. This is what the doomers would never admit.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.


Ken,

There's more to Yourdon than the one book Timebomb 2000. The man has spread plenty of FUD on his own. His entire testimony to congress for Y2K was one big fear-fest.

I really don't understand why you would want to defend him.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.


It was less the Yourdon's or North's who spread FUD and more their disciples.

That's just it Ken. Those who are best at this sort of thing, make it seem like YOU thought of it. A smooth presentation, ball in your court now, exhortation to "make up your own mind" etc. Not many directly bought the full extreme of GN's mesage; but many did take the ball, carried it and passed it on that he was someone worth "at least listening to." That is all he needed. Gary North in particular is VERY good at this. It is certainly a worthwhile endeavor to point out the tactics so others may see them for what they are.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


"What does the Holocaust Museum have to do with it? This isn't the Nazi government we're talking about. Sorry, say what you want about some of the people in our government, but I still believe and have faith in our system of government." -- Buddy

Yeah, Buddy, or to put it another way: "It can't happen here", right?

The SYSTEM of government in Nazi Germany was not the problem, it was the PEOPLE who administered it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


I wouldn't say "it can't happen here." It could, especially if somebody like Gary North has his way. I disagree on the point that the system of government in Nazi Germany wasn't the problem. Both the system and the people running it were problems. Our system, so far, has been able to keep those types of people out of power. Let's hope it stays that way.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.

Ken,

I agree with you about personal responsibility for personal actions. Yet, I can't help but remember reading North's 'relocation forum'? These things were set up for a purpose, his purpose. That helps me define my own opinion of the person who set that spin in motion, and more importantly, the individuals' reactions who were involved.

As for Ed, sometimes I think he could have made an honest miscalculation, but he also could have stepped in to the forum to moderate the way the train continued to run.

Spain,

The biggest eye opener for me has been travel, and native companions who took the effort to teach me what happened during WWII - between neighbors and community members, the government stuff was big & imposing - the person-to-person stories made it terribly real. And seeing what forces are still burbling along, especially in the youth.

I understood Buddy's point to be distrust of the emergency plans in place to pull your fat out of the fire, come natural disaster, terrorism, accident or what have you. There are people out there every day who are trained & willing to put their lives on the line for others at a moment's notice. I don't think they all drive white busses. Instead of 'community' working together stuff, we're left with the 'man in calamity' freak out & protect your own. Let 'em pry your firearm from your cold dead fingers. I've been through more than my share of natural disasters, & we have firearms. What I'm trying to say { & poorly! } is that the roles that were set for people to play out, the trajectory that most were set on were at the very least unproductive, maybe even potentially dangerous - at least for the individuals involved. But they served soeone else's purpose. You brought up the holocaust, cogitate on demagoguery for a spell.

Buddy,

"Some people react poorly in times of crisis. But history has shown that most people pull together and help each other out. This is what the doomers would never admit."

I was there, I was a doomer, I tried to tell folks this over & over. Sheesh, even A & L encouraged CERT training. Put that broad brush back in your pocket, big boy.

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


Flora,

I understand what you're saying. I don't mean to use a broad brush. I am referring more to the "leaders" who perpetuated the fear hype. Instead of "doomers" maybe I should have used a term "FUD-mongers", "fear-leaders", "scheisters" (sp?), or "hucksters".

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.


Buddy,

OK, but those leaders have moved on now & we're still here slinging that stuff around. If whatever panic had come to pass { & there were those concerned on both sides of the provebial fence } I'd have chosen to spend my time in TEOTWAWKI with Lon or Rob Michaels or some of the other 'doomers', rather than some of the most virulent pollies. Some doomers seemed much more resilient and courageous.

I think we all have something to learn here, there will be a 'next time' of some kind or another, for us or our children, where we can benefit from this experience.

I'm gonna pose a question to you Buddy, a flip flop of Cooke's idea of improved communication to an uninformed public. Is there a better way that the public sector could have handled increasing confidence in emergency plans witout inspiring more paranoia?

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


Flora,

Hey, I've moved on too. But that doesn't mean I can't take a look back at what happened and examine why we did what we did.

As for the question: "Is there a better way that the public sector could have handled increasing confidence in emergency plans witout inspiring more paranoia? "

I'm not sure. By public sector I assume you mean governments. I think they did all they could. Their message was "3-day storm preparations" and most people accepted that.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 12, 2000.


"Hey, I've moved on too. But that doesn't mean I can't take a look back at what happened and examine why we did what we did." -- Buddy

I think that is IMPORTANT that we do just that. Remember the expression: "You fool me once, shame on you; you fool me twice, shame on me."

Of course, I think the Holocaust Museum sort of had that expression in mind too....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


Buddy,

"I think they did all they could. Their message was "3-day storm preparations" and most people accepted that."

Most folks to my knowledge flat-out ignored it, though there were others who 'sensed' something more ominous. It was a perception problem, and it seemed that the debunkers at the time felt things were 'outta control'. Some of the posts on this thread allude to control, after the fact. I just thought you might have an idea. {It does seem to me that your mind has snapped shut a bit}.

Spain,

If the concerns about the evil overlords were appropriate in this case, how come they didn't use this golden opportunity to further their goals? Or did they? -{Insert Bernard Hermann soundtrack here}.

Just kidding - kinda.

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


That's just it Ken. Those who are best at this sort of thing, make it seem like YOU thought of it. A smooth presentation, ball in your court now, exhortation to "make up your own mind" etc. Not many directly bought the full extreme of GN's mesage; but many did take the ball, carried it and passed it on that he was someone worth "at least listening to." That is all he needed. Gary North in particular is VERY good at this. It is certainly a worthwhile endeavor to point out the tactics so others may see them for what they are.--Debbie

Waste of time Deb. You are responding to a man who knows of what he speaks. He has exhibited a good portion of his tactics on this thread. To the point of claiming most on here are just stroking themselves cept him. Y2k was no biggy, a waste of time. Course this did not stop Ken from wasting his time, but ignore that.

He has accussed others of being Book Burners. Of lacking writing skills. Claimed ones' only redress in an Open Free Society is to hire Gloria Allred and sue. He has downplayed Y2k. He has said I am more fanatical than even a Gary North. Course he never says this directly,,,,only "suggests" as much like all good BS Artist do he will claim. In his mind, he actually thinks us "peasants" are buying his lines. He says it directly, but when confronted he will deny it 3 posts below the evidence staring him and all in the face.

He puts words into others mouths. Just today he claims I think Gary North the AntiChrist. He has reduced Ed Yourdon to a poor little misquoted author of What-If books and placed any blame squarely on the others. Hell, Ed Yourdon ought sue the participants at the olde TB2000 for defamation of character, following Decker's reasoning.

Hell you don't need North, Yourdon or even Michael Hyatt to see the tactics in action, Decker provides most of them for study right here, right now.

Decker spews some Economic Freedom theory while sitting soaking-up taxpayer monies at his J-O-B down at City Hall. He is no doubt doing the work he was hired for...post to obscure webboards where others think speech has any influence on anything but doesn't. Ken's Job is to spread this information to the participants of these wankerbars in hopes they will see the light, the error of their ways.

The man is the embodiment of Hypocrisy. He concludes what a North or Yourdon do is just fine, cause it is Economic Freedom! So please folks, next time a telemarketer interrupts your day to inform you of the latest timeshare opportunity, please sit and listen you will be doing your civic duty.

He abhors censorship, but operates with the arrogance of all good control-freaks. "Criticize away, Buddy, and let's watch it all happen again" spews forth. Or the ever popular,,"The Y2K doomsayers had a moment in the public limelight, but no one really payed attention. There were no bare shelves at grocery stores or runs on banks. A handful of people went overboard on preparations for a nonevent. So what?" Clearly examples of basically calling others naive. Course then Ken will proceed to explain it all to you.

"The existence of hucksters, shills and barkers suggests we still live in an open economy." Yep and that sums up the thinking of a fellow huckster, and that be Ken Decker. No Ken, the existence of these types in significant numbers indicates THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of your economic model. It indicates controlled markets. Efficient balanced markets expose and dispose of fakers pronto. Just wanted to point out just how wrong you are. All your speech chilling rebuttals and sly censoring personal put-downs cannot hide the fact you are living in dreamland. Hell you think Y2k no biggy, what else needs to be said? Oh ya, I am nobody but YoU aRe?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


"Oh ya, I am nobody but YoU aRe?" -- Doc Paulie

Uhhh, Doc, are you trying to say that Ken posted as our well-known dIeTEr?????

Ken, with that lastest blast from the good doctor, I guess you could say that you have defintely come "full circle". Starting out pre-Y2K being accused of being a shill for all the powers that tried to minimize the belief of Y2K disruptions, post-Y2K you now stand accused of being a shill for those that tried to maximize the belief of Y2K disruptions. Who was it who said (more or less), "When the commies claim you are a fascist, and the nazis claim you are a pinko, you know you are doing JUST FINE."?....

flora, you (and Buddy) keep missing the point. I claim that, in view of the Holocaust as but one example, having a general skepticism if not mild mistrust of the world in general is HEALTHY. It does not mean that you have to believe in chemtrails or that white busses marked "U.N." are waiting to get you.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


Flora,

I just have to add this. The "doomers" spent all their time planning on "bugging" out... essentially saving their own collective asses. I fail to see how this was courageous or resiliant. To me, it seemed selfish and cowardly.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 12, 2000.


Your Highness,

In general I would agree, but there was a fine line that was crossed over & over again. Gotta side with Debbie on this one. Someone very adept put the ball in play, and let others think they were carrying it from there.

Look, as a for instance - several departments on this coast prepared for incident command with oil spill scenarios prior to the 9/9/99 date. If that had been picked up on the old bomb, how do you think folks would've interpreted it and why?

I realize to some extent we're just talking past each other here, sorry I'm not doing a better job on my part.

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


I guess I was born to be sucked into this Y2K mess, for better or worse.

BooHooho poor Ed Yourdon, what a shame.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


Ken,

The folks I was thinking of did no such thing. Maybe they had discussed BOB bags, in my neck of the woods similar things are always suggested by emergency services. I advised folks who were considering bugging out that the prime locations were already populated with others already & that those scenarios weren't realistic & could very well be downright dangerous.

I think w

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


Sorry about that!

Where did the Bug Out 'meme' start anyway?

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


(splutter!) B-b-but Ken! I handed out maps to my house! You didn't get one because I thought you were better able to care for your needs than I could. Actually I had in mind to make you commander of my troops but I didn't think I could afford your fee! Doomer I am, but bugger I'm not! >:)

-- helen (b@t.k), September 12, 2000.

The SYSTEM of government in Nazi Germany was not the problem, it was the PEOPLE who administered it. --King of Pain

Care to explain yourself for us less educated tYpeS? in the interest of that ridiculous concept of Free Speech and exchange.

And the TypE example has nothing to do with suspecting Decker of being DiEter, that be your paranoia again KOS I suspect. Only trying to point out in a vague way how a Ken dECKer and other intellectuals use their arrogant requirements of SPEECH to chill speech. I don't wirte no good, I sound funnie, gee really? Like I care or am surprised? Some here sound INSANE to me no matter what dam way they express themselves, should I require they check themselves into the nearest mental ward or try and understand their points beyond the petty style issues?

Does any of that CRAPOLA matter? Well ya if one is a Yourdon or Paula Gordon trying to fleece the masses with cowchips, one is best advised to to be witty, clear and coherant. That way one will "appear" to know much even though they know they don't.

I can't understand Metallica lyrics, should I write them and suggest they slow down a bit? or write lyrics that match Yourdon's prose?

Most doctors cannot even write a legible prescription. We have national Stores called "Rite" Aid and WalMart(one word) and these people like Decker have the nerve to say I need to learn to write for his benefit? Who can even read the freaking Bible clearly?

MOST people cannot write well. MOST here participate at a reduced rate, if at all cause of the Deckers around who will nit-pick their grammar and then claim this voids their opinions. I say we must respect ALL OF IT. Hell these grammar police are in the vast minority anyhow, go away. These arguments by Decker ARE censorship thru arrogance.

We are not computers. We do not require exact syntax to communicate. And yes it would be swell if we all were the same////NOT.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


Doc -- I can read the freaking Bible...

"...love your enemies and do good and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great..." (Matthew) This means be good to everyone and chill out, recognition might not come until after you're dead but it will come.

The gospel according to

-- helen (b@t.l), September 12, 2000.


Gad Doc,

I thought Ken made a good point. If I could write like that - I could take over the world. {Well, OK, at least Spain}.

-- flora (***@__._), September 12, 2000.


flora, Spain WANTS to be taken over. :)

-- helen (b@t.m), September 12, 2000.

DP,

If your goal is to communicate with another person, then writing or speaking skills are important. Ranting and raving only tarnishes good ideas. Do you think Reuben changed any minds with his tirades? Or did he just make us all thankful he wasn't sitting next to us on a long plane ride?

During the entire debate on the old forum, you'll not find one example of me correcting another author's spelling, though I was tempted. On this forum, I have made a few modest suggestions, but you'll note that I have generously tolerated your incorrect spelling of "damn" during this entire thread.

If you really want to convince people of a point, show that you care enough to pick up a dictionary. Take enough time to make a logical argument from beginning to end. Express complete thoughts in paragraphs and reflect before posting. If you don't care enough to give your work a cursory glance, how do you expect others to take it seriously?

By the way, DP, I am criticizing not your writing style, but your near obsessive loathing of Yourdon, North, etc. I do not discourage you from writing. In fact, I think you stand a better chance of convincing more people of your point if you do not distract them with Reubenesque tantrums. (Forgive the pun.)

When you start defending ignorance and illiteracy, you begin to sound very much like the people I debated all last year... the hardcore Y2K "doomers."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 12, 2000.


Doc, I use the word "damnation" in place of the word "damn", ensuring that I never misspell that word. Then I go back and delete the suffix "ation" -- just be careful and don't delete the entire word "nation".

I hope this facilitates communication in the future.

-- helen, dictionary at hand (b@t.n), September 12, 2000.


Ken:

Your observations don't apply very well here, or in most places where clarity of thought or logical presentation or cogent arguments articulately presented simply bounce off the intended recipients without any visible impact. Indeed, those attributes engender resentment more than anything positive.

Except for the rather minor variation in their targets, I can't see any difference between DP and Paul Milne. Both rant unintelligibly, neither can build a logical case, both are thin skinned and interpret anything but effusive praise as a vicious attack in some degree of disguise, both deprecate rather than learn skills they lack. Both are members of the school of thought that the way to build oneself up is to tear others down.

Nonetheless, around here your communication skills are secondary to your opinions. Those who agree with you will admire you even if you rave nearly at random, those who disagree will only dislike you all the more for expressing wrong opinions well. DP is at least comic relief, so long as he doesn't spam too badly.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 12, 2000.


I find myself agreeing with KOS, Patricia, and with Ken. Obviously something is wrong here!

1) It was never a question of preps an preps alone: It was a question of why people who didnt think of preparing for normal disasters got so bent out of shape about Y2K. This also ties into what KEN wrote about the effects of The Greens and bad science. The same logic (or lack of same) that propelled people to hyperventilate about Y2K is the same type of thinking that enables The Greens to sell bogus science about cancer causing power lines, cell phones.

2) Advertising is one thing a Ponzi scheme is another: Yes advertisers exaggerate and I think we all expect that. But its quite another if someone tells you that if you send them $100 and so on then youll get XXX dollars back. These types of scams are continually in the news. We (as a society) dont just shrug our shoulders and say Caveat Emptor. There is a parallel with the claims that drug makers and the food supplement business are allowed to make. The later are allowed far more leeway then the former yet for all that they arent allowed to claim that their products can cure diseases.

3) But they werent experts: KOS it wasnt a war between sets of experts. Most of the doomsters were not experts and those that might have claimed some type of expertise couldnt in the fields they were writing about.

4) Did they cross the line, sure. Can you prove it? Probably not: As Ken said Big Ed used his reputation of expertise to sell a book based on careful what ifs. Did he know what he was talking about? No. Was it fraud? Not by any legal definition. Neither was what North or any of the others wrote. Does that mean it was right? No. They might have been moral or ethical frauds but you cant take them into a court of law for that. Only the court of public opinion. Which is what this forum is, in its own small way.

5) Yes you are correct Ken, there are a lot of pseudo experts out there. And that is the problem. Part of the problem (IMNSHO) is that the press (i.e. the Media) looks at what companies and advertisers say and expresses skepticism. But it takes what the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc say at face value. I saw a lot of Y2K as a microcosm of this. And unlike George selling BBQ grills I think that is a BIG problem.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), September 12, 2000.


Flint,

Care to comment on this:::

Buddy,

I have often criticized the writings of Yourdon and North. Unlike DP or Reuben, I do not consider them to be the "antichrist." As for "shouting fire," you do not give Yourdon enough credit. He let his followers spin his writings to the doomsayer extreme. The people who read North and Yourdon were often predisposed to distrust government. All a Yourdon had to say was, "What if gov't is not telling the truth?" From there, folks like Russ "Big Dog" Lipton could say, "Gov't is lying to us!" It was less the Yourdon's or North's who spread FUD and more their disciples. Criticize away, Buddy, and let's watch it all happen again.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 12, 2000.

Now does this indicate one with any grasp of Y2k or even reality?

Spam Flint? we stand at 80+ responses on this thread. Some lurkers have even returned here to add thanks and appreciation for the discussion. The discussion you in your wisdom like to refer to as mindless Milne ranting in good part. One will also note in excess of 60+ posts to the Unk Deedah thread where another heated discussion has been transpiring. You think this is all accidental? No, it is called exercising one's FREE SPEECH.

I find it difficult to follow Decker since his issue is his fat ego and never any specific issues beyond "Hi I am Ken Decker Love me". He flops and flips more than Ed Flipper Yourdon himself, or is it easier on your noodle to say...flips and flops???

Again care to comment on Ken Decker basically calling Ed "MLM" Yourdon a VICTUM??? Can you muster the brainmatter required to answer? Is this material for "debating"?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


OK, I guess I agree with ... eenie meenie miinee moe ... Doc Paulie! When he said: "I don't wirte no good, I sound funnie, gee really? Like I care or am surprised?" Way to go, dude!!! Gawd, I'd give anything to see you and CPR conversing about that article regarding the deplorable state of the literacy level of kids in the public school system that he posted a few days ago. You know, you guys are just TOO much. Really.

Ken: Already covered, but I can't believe that you could have missed all the many, many "be sure and buy extra food for your neighbors" type discussions that were quite prevalent on ye olde TB2K.

flora & helen: Yeah, earlier this year I recommended that Spain declare war on the U.S.A., then after being easily defeated, this would allow me to be deposed with a big fat golden parachute. Unfortunately, it turns out that Peter Sellers already tried that stunt in the movie "The Mouse That Roared", circa 1960, so I figured we couldn't get away with it. (Damn. And I was really hoping to be able to finally afford to convert my entire VHS mudwrestling video collection to DVD, too. Damn. DAMN. D-A-M-N.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


K'O'Pain,

So is this your explanation about the Nazi Government????

The SYSTEM of government in Nazi Germany was not the problem, it was the PEOPLE who administered it. --King of Pain

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


Doc:

(Gawd!) You are right, you asked, and I did not answer in that last post. Have you ever considered trying to actually organize your thoughts and putting them into some kind of orderly fashion? Rather than your usual "shotgun" approach????

OK, I will try to address your question as best as I can, even adding "Doc speak" where it seems appropriate. (Wuz up Wit dat.)

Very few, if any, governments operate with laws and by-laws that are actually written to the effect, "The citizens have no rights whatsoever, and at the whim of any government official, can just be used or abused in any manner, shape or form whatsoever." Which, in a sense, is sort of unfortunate, because if they were and everyone agreed to abide by the law, presumably we could simply focus on some changing of the laws. (Wat is WRIT is not the DO.)

But no, what happens is the system itself is relatively "fair" on paper, but people tend to lie and fudge so that it can be quite unfair. A good example in the U.S. would be voting requirements in Mississippi prior to the mid 60s. Were blacks specifically FORBIDDEN the right to vote? No. But there were "residency requirements" designed make it very difficult for blacks to qualify. (This be UndErsTooD by da NOODLE?)

So, my point is that it ALWAYS ultimately comes down to the people who are charged with administering the system under which we live. We would like to think that abuses are infrequent and isolated, but many times we find that they become essentially the "unwritten" law. For example, when a major metropolitan police department -- in L.A., California, specifically -- is considered a racketering enterprise due to their standard operating procedure of shaking down many of those that were arrested. (Bad boy bad boy, what you NOT do, BUT they cOmE for YoU.)

So, I sure consider it prudent to have a very HEALTHY mistrust of those in power, not to blindly and without question assume that they are playing by what you THINK are the rules. (Ask NOT yer COUNTRY?)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 12, 2000.


DP:

Sure, what the hell. This might be amusing to deconstruct.

[Now does this indicate one with any grasp of Y2k or even reality?]

Absolutely. Indeed, I find it so obvious as to be dull. Yourdon is a professional writer. He knows how to waffle and present alternatives and otherwise preserve "plausible deniability." As Ken points out, you'd be hard pressed to find one single recommendation in his entire book and claim Yourdon came out and preferred it. I suppose you could point to Lipton and Squire and make a strong case that by both selecting them and never correcting them, Yourdon implicitly approved of what they were saying. But once again, you could never PROVE it, Yourdon is much too slippery for that.

Conversely, claiming that those with whom you disagree have no grasp of reality was one of Milne's stock lines. ANYONE who disagreed with him, Milne said had no grasp of either y2k or reality! Shame on you for stealing Milne's schtick, Doc.

[Spam Flint?]

Nope, that's in your favor. You don't spam, only rant. You may have noticed some people bothered by CPR's posts comprising half the total new threads. Some people consider this borderline spamming, but I don't. So far, the forum remains perfectly readable and others' contributions are not crowded out intolerably.

[we stand at 80+ responses on this thread. Some lurkers have even returned here to add thanks and appreciation for the discussion. The discussion you in your wisdom like to refer to as mindless Milne ranting in good part.]

Nope, only the Milnesque ranting, which is your part. Your part is not the good part. Hey, extremists are what keeps the forum interesting and spicy. I just agree with Ken that coherent extremism is more interesting, because the sentences can be parsed and the thought process can be followed.

[One will also note in excess of 60+ posts to the Unk Deedah thread where another heated discussion has been transpiring. You think this is all accidental? No, it is called exercising one's FREE SPEECH.]

And what Yourdon wrote was not? How about North? From one side of your mouth you defend free speech, from the other side you condemn those who use it to say things you don't like. I'd suggest this is hypocritical, except I can see that you react to everything thoughtlessly, and haven't considered your own contradictions any more than you've considered consulting a dictionary.

[I find it difficult to follow Decker since his issue is his fat ego and never any specific issues beyond "Hi I am Ken Decker Love me".]

More Milne tactics. Attack the person, make unsupported allegations, offer no examples, and change the subject. I also notice you attribute a direct quote to him that he never said, so we can add dishonesty to the Milne repertoire. You make my point very well.

[He flops and flips more than Ed Flipper Yourdon himself, or is it easier on your noodle to say...flips and flops???]

On the contrary, he has been very consistent, while you have been the opposite. When he defends your right to speak, he flips. When he defends Yourdon's right, he flops! He applies his principles generally, while you don't seem to have any to apply.

[Again care to comment on Ken Decker basically calling Ed "MLM" Yourdon a VICTUM???]

Not until you can basically give any indication he ever did so. My interpretation is that Ken Decker called Yourdon a clever manipulator, tricking those less intelligent into doing his bidding while giving every appearance of keeping his hands clean. Putting words into people's mouths, *especially* when wildly distorting their intent, is yet another Milne tactic.

[Can you muster the brainmatter required to answer? Is this material for "debating"?]

And we end up with the usual Milne insult. Now, let's assume that you had some point to make in there, *other* than simply lashing out at those who have criticized you. Where is it?



-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 12, 2000.


thought to self:why do I waste my time on these morons?

It was less the Yourdon's or North's who spread FUD and more their disciples.

Is this clearer for you Mr. Flint? I have taken the liberty of deleting out the rest of the Decker's post which maybe confusing you. Note the word>>>maybe.

One could "maybe"...(""indicates a point you have to stop and ponder- may want to scratch your nuts or whatever here)...make a case Yourdon was a victum of an issue already in the hysteria stage. I disagree. To state Gary North an innocent or even a victum is sheer stupidity in my humble opinion>>>It was less the Yourdon's or North's who spread FUD--Ken Decker on quote.

One must also remember it was Ed Yourdon who sat in front of the United States Congress in late 1999 and continued to recommend public mobilization because of the Y2k "uncertainty"(again a point for reflection--timeframe centering--remembering this was months passed his "I am thru with Y2k folks" flip).

There IS NO question "his disciples>>and shills" did most of the footwork as it were. This is what all the discussion the last 2-3 years was about. This information from Decker is OBVIOUS and simplistic to the extreme. It addresses none of the larger issues. It rests on the outdated notion that Gary North is nobody, ignoring the fact the Internet changed all that and made him somebody no matter how much some here would like to ignore that.

Decker cannot understand Patricia or Buddy. I claim he has no interest in doing so for anybody.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


KOS,

I have no clue what in the hell you are rambling on about and few others do as well. Any who do understand I am sure will now volunteer to rip me a new one. Claim your post is well organized and all that baloney.

And they say I am a ranter? at least SOME of my rants make some sense.

Ya KOS up to all of us pal. We are but a lucky coin toss from everyone freaking out and sending their neighbors to the gas chambers!

BTW, don't bother responding I have a headache now as result, show some mercy.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 12, 2000.


Doc:

After I factor out your usual apoplexy, I think you might be trying to address the issue of who was responsible for how much and which part of the FUD. Yourdon and North were opinion leaders to be sure, though they had large influence over the opinions of a very small minority, had little influence at all over a larger minority, and the large majority of the public never even heard of them.

My take is that Yourdon and North were more responsible for the U and D, while their disciples banged the drums for the F. These disciples were more the grass roots campaigners, and they had no uncertainty or doubts anymore than you did. For them all, just like you, the future was certain. But for them, of course, it was certain doom.

Nowhere has Ken said, suggested, implied, intimated, or otherwise hinted that Yourdon or North was a victim of anyone or anything. He has repeatedly claimed both were hucksters peddling FUD for their own separate purposes. Ken says (and I agree) that both Y&N tried to leverage the fears of the gullible to achieve their own ends. Ken says (and I agree) that this was highly unethical and undoubtedly painful for some of the suckers, but it was NOT illegal and shouldn't be.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason nobody could understand why Ken called Y&N victims, is because he *never did* call them victims? You created this misinterpretation out of your own fanaticism. Try to understand that everyone else isn't a moron just because YOU can't think any more clearly than you can write.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 12, 2000.


No Ken, the existence of these types in significant numbers indicates THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of your economic model. It indicates controlled markets. Efficient balanced markets expose and dispose of fakers pronto.

How so Doc?

Who decides which guru is the faker, which is the merely misguided, and which has simply made a miscalculation? Do these ideas extend to religious beliefs too? There are lots of kooks and charlatans in that bunch, should the ones who run a "cult" be disposed of too?. And then how are they "disposed" of?

Yeah, your words are a bit chilling Doc, as was Patricia's earlier statement that they "must be held accountable". Held accountable by whom? Punished how? Are not Yourdon, Gordon, and North (hey, catchy name for a rock trio there!) being held accountable by the free market of professional scorn and ridicule? Beyond that in a free society there is not much you can do fight kooky ideas with sound ones. It is the basis of freedom.

I think Ken has this point right on, in a free market there will be folks who espouse kooky ideas and schemes. In a controlled market things will be less messy simply because they are, in fact, controlled. Give me a free market any day, and let ME decide if I wish to spend my money getting ready for the UFO to take me away, thank you very much.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), September 12, 2000.


Free Market, yes, to those who have eyes to see, and these eyes were bought at a price. How Can you not see your fellow traveler? Those in your neighborhood, who lost their house, those on the way side, without a job? Only happens to someone else, right? Look around you, and finally see, those most unfortunate. I can not keep this up forever.

-- Rose Colored (Gl@sses.com), September 13, 2000.

Flint,

"Did it ever occur to me"? Ya sure it occured to me Ken never said what you think he did not. WAY past that. The intent from Ken has been clear from the get-go on this thread long before I showed up.

Did it ever "occur" to you in January-Feburary-March 1999 that Y2k was a pile of baloney? Even now do you get that? Course not, so why should anyone trust your judgement? Why would anyone believe a Gary North? A freak wrongo for decades? and a History Phd to boot! Or an Ed Yourdon who clearly has little technical background for as long or longer thought of as any source of anything solid? Or buy a Bill Clinton when he replies with the same old pile he has been using since College..."I did not inhale or have sex with that there woooman"? Once one knows what their history is the game is over in any dam parse one is reading.

3 on this thread don't get it from ME or the other Debunkers who have participated, too bad for you. Don't then claim I am unreadable or a Milne clone. May I be so bold as to say your claims I am unreadable are more likely your inabiltiy to understand much of anything not laid out like simple building blocks? That your insistence one conform to whatever version of American English you are using is severly hindering your ability to understand much of anything not in conformity to your way?

To understand the Decker comment requires much more than the paragraph cited. This should be the first thing you understand. Context matters almost completely as it is far more solid a picture. Dissect all you want, you are shifting details Flint covering the pattern.

Once I knew who Garee North was, what else needed clarification? If you do not understand the significance of his presence in this thing I doubt you can even begin to understand how utter asinie the Decker comments are. The sheer lack of depth to the understanding evident. And ya, I already factored in the personal responsibilty stuff and all them thingees. Those, while important, are only pieces and complete but an outline of the puzzle that was Y2k. Both of us bought the Y2k saga in some form, I just got over it quicker, even with my clearly illiterate ways.

Go ahead, believe what you want.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 13, 2000.


Unk,

The conditions which produce a Y2k are the result of a Phony Press. A Press standing infront of many other Phonies in Government and large industry. The cynicism runs deep, especially amongst those attracted to the frontier of the internet. Most on the internet are rebels even if they claim otherwise :)

Problem thus is a controlled Press by and large. The result of failed FCC policies and a Federal Government in the business of watching over and working for special interests. Giving lip service only to the public interest. FCC auctions off our airwaves to a select few at pennies on the dollar. Advertising slips in and seals the monopoly.

Toss a bunch of disenfranchised couch potatoes on a freeforall without limits like the internet, without the ability to do, or even understand what critical thinking is, couple it with their lazy ways of needing everything in sound bites, and Y2k is predictable. Not a certainty, as many other factors come into play, but as a result of a controlled brick and mortar press media, we had Y2k. Most would not know what the concept of balanced reporting was if it hit them square in the head.

We are not equipped, by and large, to handle the power of this medium. In a sense, it could be described as the opposite of a complete monopoly. For Decker to claim IT IS OUR fault is correct, but is rather shallow and does not offer anything one can really learn from.

I doubt the lack of BS Meters amongst internet surfers was the result of a truely free press.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 13, 2000.


Thanks, Flint, for doing yeoman work on this thread and a nod to Unk D as well.

While DP has not expressed this idea explicitly, I think he suffers from what I'll call the "Reuben Delusion." In this fantasyland, the Y2K doomsayers were part of a grand conspiracy. North, Yourdon, Hyatt, Hamasaki, Gordon, etc. were in league to use Y2K for evil purposes like the overthrow of the free world or some other bad thing. This diabolic plot would have succeeded if not for the heroic Debunkers. Reuben, DP and a handful of others were not fooled by the evil doomsayers. Nay, they (and they alone) unraveled the sinister plan and then shifted the tide of FUD by running a web site and sending emails to reporters. Is the job done for these super heroes? Of course not, because North, Yourdon, etc. still roam freely. The Debunkers must remain ever viligant, if somewhat incoherent and profane.

If this is an accurate description of the debunker mindset, it explains the obsession with the Y2K doomsayers.

Moving through last night's writing, the Engineer is right. The Greens and their bad science are more "dangerous" than George Foreman's grilling machince. In my opinion, this is because the environmentalists have wedged their bad science into places like K-12 schools where there is no "marketplace of ideas."

DP, I watched Yourdon's testimony before the Senate. With his few minutes of fame, he basically asked for "better information." Some of his disciplines were stunned and disappointed. There was no clarion call to arms. There was no dire warnings. Yourdon simply said there wasn't enough good information available about Y2K. Oh, he did try a ham-handed arm twisting by suggesting not being on the right side of the Y2K issue would cost votes in November 2000. Otherwise, it was a pretty dull speech. You just don't give Yourdon credit for being a smart huckster... and he most certainly was. North was no slouch either... he's been selling doom for two decades and is still making a living.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 13, 2000.


Rose: Do you like to mudwrestle?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 13, 2000.

Flint,

<>

Unc wrote, "Who decides which guru is the faker, which is the merely misguided, and which has simply made a miscalculation?"

These two statements sum up Doc's ranting. He believes he is the superman who will decide the fakes and "stand up and say so". He will make sure that these fakes need to be shown as fakes. Further these fakes do not have freedom of speech until they can prove what they say. He will uncover their falsehoods because he knows the truth (his opinion IS the truth).

Sick, demented Doc (that's my opinion and I'm free to speak it but of course Doc will say I'm wrong and one of the fakes)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 13, 2000.


KOS said: "having a general skepticism if not mild mistrust of the world in general is HEALTHY"

True, to a point. But I think that most of the "doomers" went far beyond this. In fact, I would say that the "optimists" in the Y2K debates had more healthy skepticism than the "pessimists" did.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 13, 2000.


This is the 100th post I think to this thread. Now its time to ask, "what is going on with td here?" and "why is spain back?" and WHO IS TRYING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY AGAIN?

I love it. Now *I* have to ask the Zombie question, "Why is TD back again and what is he "really up too?". This thinly disguised support for a spain and OPEN SUPPORT FOR YOURDON IS SILLY. Did Decker even understand what EY wrote? Did Decker understand that EY in over 2 years of marketing NEVER MADE AN EFFORT TO CORRECT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THE BOOK OR THE POSTS ONLINE? NOW...........WHY WAS THAT IF Yourdon was merely "doing what he thought was best for his family?".

AS FOR NORTH.........GARY NORTH IS A SEDITIONIST WHO MOST LIKELY WOULD BE IN PRISON OR PAYING FINES FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN ***MOST CIVILIZED COUNTRIES***. Try his crap in Germany today and see how far it would go. IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, he might find his tounge cut off and his fingers "digitized" after a one hour trial for "crimes against the State". It is a tribute to the FIRST AMENDMENT he is allowed to try to eliminate it.

And that from someone on the Experts list that defended both North's right to write and speak and his right to be on the list. After all, who could be more of an expert on FUD than the FUD-Meister??

My behavior and that of DP or MARIA (remember the sneering "Troll Maria" she turned around on them?) is supposed to be "elevated" for PEOPLE WHO WALLOW IN........TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULL SHIT AND REJOICE IN DOING SO.

When I am in a social setting, business meeting or go to Church you may be certain I do not use "street language" but given the FACT that TB I and GN's list not to mention Hyatt's dictatorship forum were populated by Street People, I saw no reason to try to "elevate them" to my Private mode. Rather,,,,,,,,I adapted what I continue to believe is a method that they understand. It is clear that Decker does not. He would have one waste time as he did trying to "discuss" or "debate" with IRRATIONAL PEOPLE GRIPPED BY FEAR. FACT............MY TARGETS WERE CORP DECISION MAKERS, I.T. AND MEDIA TYPES AND NOT THE FEW ZOMBIES YAPPING AT A DECKER OR FLINT. Those targets were addressed PRIVATELY with lists and private E- Mailings. And for proof of that I have dozens of emails from Media thanking me for giving them the stories of the Doom Zombies. I also NEGATED MIKE ADAMS LAST EFFORTS (remember the 7 days in December plan). I merely sent that to 100 members of the Press before he launched it and within hours of the start he was getting calls from Press telling him to turn off the SPAMMING from his list. The Washington Post wrote that up as did all the services they passed it to.

ADAMS' "program" endorsed and aided by Hyatt, North and Lord Dumbo was "still born" and ended before it was supposed to.

Meanwhile DECKER "debated".

WE the de-bunkers and the concerned people TOOK ACTION. STILL WE GET "DECKER's STRAW MEN".

ANOTHER DECKER "straw man" concoction from someone who now appears to have obtained his "news of Y2k" from online and the popular media. He will never understand that my "public" posts have nothing to do with the work that many of us did off line. The "reason" I used profanity and called the Doom Scenario BULL SHIT is simple.

IT WAS BULL SHIT. Calling it a "cow dropping" might make it a bit more palatable for the Church Lady but I know Pastors that called Gary North's rantings BULL SHIT. And some did it on public list serves that Gary read (see the CR lists for data). QUOTE: While DP has not expressed this idea explicitly, I think he suffers from what I'll call the "Reuben Delusion." In this fantasyland, the Y2K doomsayers were part of a grand conspiracy. North, Yourdon, Hyatt, Hamasaki, Gordon, etc. were in league to use Y2K for evil purposes like the overthrow of the free world or some other bad thing. This diabolic plot would have succeeded if not for the heroic Debunkers. Reuben, DP and a handful of others were not fooled by the evil doomsayers. Nay, they (and they alone) unraveled the sinister plan and then shifted the tide of FUD by running a web site and sending emails to reporters. Is the job done for these super heroes? Of course not, because North, Yourdon, etc. still roam freely. The Debunkers must remain ever viligant, if somewhat incoherent and profane.

While you were wasting bandwidth on TB I pontificating, the de- bunkers were sending the most ludicrous posts to people who could do something to counteract the garbage. HOW that was done is none of your business. Doc Paulie had nothing to do with such effort save for the fact that he got copies of a lot of the stuff we were forwarding. He did dig out North's partner (Meyers) and the little seminar GN and Meyers held for the Faithful "How to make money on the Net and the Y2k Crisis" (ticket: $500 for the day).

Now for DECKER: a. You "left" TB how many times now? b. Why have you returned to "help" spain the clueless with your rather week points above that Patricia easily dismissed. c. DO *YOU* have a second job that you would like to tell us about? SEE, the game can be played all ways.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 13, 2000.


off

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 13, 2000.

One last note about "street language". Using it and embedding it in the middle of posts has an interesting effect. My words couldn't be cut and pasted elsewhere or extracted/snipped. The former prevented people from using them out of the "thread context" and the latter would insure that poster would have to "put the link" to the source online.

BOTH had the effect I wanted. Getting people back to BIFFY (in particular) or any place else I might have posted. DE-bunker was MINOR vs. what BIFFY did with its lead position in Yahoo. For months if you searched on Gary North or Gary North and Y2k up would come: GARY NORTH IS A BIG FAT IDIOT (BIFFY). Gary wasn't the only one who knew how to play the Web game. The 22 yr. old at BIFFY could give him lessons. AND DID........LOLOLOLOL.

-- Doomzies-Be-Them (buytexas@swbell.net), September 13, 2000.


CPR: Please get a job.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 13, 2000.

This be de 100th post Ah dink t' dis thread. Sheeeiit. Now its time t' ax, "what be goin' on wid td here?" and "why be spain back?" and WHO IS TRYING TO RE-WRITE HISTORY AGAIN?

Ah love it. Now *I* gots t' ax de Zombie quesshun, "Why be TD back again and whut be he "really up too?". Dis dinly disguised support fo' some spain and OPEN SUPPORT FOR YOURDON IS SILLY. Dun did Decka' even dig whut EY wrote? Dun did Decka' dig dat EY in ova' 2 years o' marketin' NEVER MADE AN EFFORT TO CORRECT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS IN THE BOOK OR THE POSTS ONLINE? NOW...........WHY WAS THAT IF Yourdon wuz merely "doin' whut he dought wuz best fo' his family?".

AS FOR NORTH.........GARY NORTH IS A SEDITIONIST WHO MOST LIKELY WOULD BE IN PRISON OR PAYING FINES FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN ***MOST CIVILIZED COUNTRIES***. Try his crap in Germany today and see how far it would go. IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, he might find his tounge cut off and his fingers "digitized" afta' some one hour trial fo' "crimes against de damn State". It be some tribute t' de FIRST AMENDMENT he be allowed t' try t' eliminate it.

And dat fum someone on de 'Sperts list dat defended both North's right t' scribble and speak and his right t' be on de list. Afta' all, who could be more o' an 'spert on FUD dan de FUD-Meista'??

Mah behavio' and dat o' DP o' MARIA (rememba' de sneerin' "Troll Maria" she turned around on dem?) be supposed t' be "elevated" fo' PEOPLE WHO WALLOW IN........TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULL SHIT AND REJOICE IN DOING SO.

When Ah am in some social settin', business meetin' o' go t' Church ya' may be certain Ah do not use "street language" but given de FACT dat TB Ah and GN's list not t' menshun Hyatt's dictatorship forum wuz populated by Street Suckas, Ah saw no reason t' try t' "elevate dem" t' mah Private mode. Sheeeiit. Ratha',,,,,,,,Ah adapted whut Ah continue t' reckon be some method dat dey dig. It be clear dat Decka' duz not. He would gots one waste time as he dun did tryin' t' "discuss" o' "debate" wid IRRATIONAL PEOPLE GRIPPED BY FEAR. FACT............MY TARGETS WERE CORP DECISION MAKERS, Ah.T. AND MEDIA TYPES AND NOT THE FEW ZOMBIES YAPPING AT A DECKER OR FLINT. Dose targets wuz addressed PRIVATELY wid lists and private E- Mailings. And fo' proof o' dat Ah gots dozens o' emails fum Media dankin' me fo' givin' dem de stories o' de Doom Zombies. Ah also NEGATED MIKE ADAMS LAST EFFORTS (rememba' de 7 days in Decemba' plan). Ah merely sent dat t' 100 members o' de Press before he launched it and within hours o' de start he wuz gettin' calls fum Press tellin' him t' turn off de SPAMMING fum his list. De Washington Post wrote dat up as dun did all de services dey passed it t'.

ADAMS' "program" endorsed and aided by Hyatt, North and Lord Dumbo wuz "still born" and ended before it wuz supposed t'.

Meanwhile DECKER "debated".

WE de de-bunkers and de damn concerned suckas TOOK ACTION. STILL WE GET "DECKER's STRAW MEN".

ANOTHER DECKER "straw man" concocshun fum someone who now appears t' gots obtained his "news o' Y2k" fum online and de damn popular media. Sheeeiit. He gots'ta neva' dig dat mah "public" posts gots nothin' t' do wid de work dat many o' us dun did off line. Sheeeiit. De "reason" Ah used profanity and called de damn Doom Scenario BULL SHIT be simple. Sheeeiit.

IT WAS BULL SHIT. Callin' it some "cow dropping" might make it some bit more palatable fo' de Church Lady but Ah know Pastors dat called Gary North's rantings BULL SHIT. And some dun did it on public list serves dat Gary eyeball (see de damn CR lists fo' data). QUOTE: While DP gots'ta not 'spressed dis idea 'splicitly, Ah dink he suffers fum whut I'll call de "Reuben Delusion." In dis fantasyland, de Y2K doomsayers wuz part o' some grand conspiracy. Ya' know? North, Yourdon, Hyatt, Hamasaki, Gordon, etc. Sheeeiit. wuz in league t' use Y2K fo' evil purposes likes de overthrow o' de free world o' some otha' bad doodad. Dis diabolic plot would gots succeeded if not fo' de heroic Debunkers. Reuben, DP and some handful o' others wuz not fooled by de evil doomsayers. Nay, dey (and dey alone) unraveled de damn sinista' plan and den shifted de damn tide o' FUD by runnin' some web site and sendin' emails t' reporters. Be de job done fo' dese supa' heroes? O' course not, a'cuz North, Yourdon, etc. Sheeeiit. still roam freely. Ya' know? De Debunkers must remain eva' viligant, if somewhat incoherent and profane. Sheeeiit.

While ya' wuz wastin' bandwidth on TB Ah pontificatin', de de- bunkers wuz sendin' de most ludicrous posts t' suckas who could do sump'n t' counteract de damn garbage. Sheeeiit. HOW dat wuz done be none o' yo' business. Doc Paulie had nothin' t' do wid such effort save fo' de fact dat he gots copies o' some lot o' de stuff we wuz forwardin'. He dun did dig out North's partna' (Meyers) and de damn little seminar GN and Meyers held fo' de Faithful "How t' make bread on de Net and de damn Y2k Crisis" (ticket, dig dis: $500 fo' de day).

Now fo' DECKER: some. Ya' "left" TB how many times now? b. Sheeeiit. Why gots ya' returned t' "help" spain de clueless wid yo' ratha' week points above dat Patricia easily dismissed. Sheeeiit. c. Sheeeiit. DO *YOU* gots some second job dat ya' would likes t' tell us about? SEE, de game kin be played all ways.

-- crp (buytexas@swbell.not), September 13, 2000.


I could not have asked for a better example of the "Reuben Delusion." Reuben obviously feel he (and others) played a critical role in debunking the evil doomsayers and their minions. And his proof, ladies and gentleman, are emails from his grateful fans. What irony. This is the same type of "proof" used by doomsayers like Paula Gordon. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), September 13, 2000.

OK, Ken, don't believe it. But the fact is it's the truth. And there are no delusions of grandeur either.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 13, 2000.

"I don't give Yourdon credit for being a smart huckster?"

Sure I have several times on this very thread. Yourdon cannot even figure out his website's Virginia traffic is not the "evil gumbit", but from AOL.

Ed Yourdon has been WIND-CHECKING and providing written commentary to a small portion of the IT community for decades. It is what he does. Unlike CPR, I believe Ed never corrected his What-ifs because he never UNDERSTOOD the issue technically. But even giving him this slack is weak when one understands the significance of the supposed trigger date issues and his "I am done folks" deal from the summer of 1999, and then his return.

Ed Yourdon is a very good CONman is what he is. Most of the voices from the Y2k Donner Party were. They didn't need to understand the issues since their followers didn't or cared to. Chances of them ever being found-out was low. Only threat to their schemes are folks like us Debunkers who stand up and speak out. Freaking entire IT industry should have stood up and told Ed Yourdon to GET LOST OLDMAN.

Arrogant ignorant assholes on this thread then act the part of all good Nazis and call me names. Even have a Nazi on this very thread explaining how we are but a couple of corrupt people away from sending fellows to the Gas Chambers. He has now rewritten Charlie's post using all the good stereotypical language all racists know so well. Course the monuments of liteary parse are too blinded by their own brilliance to see the OBVIOUS and will goose-step behind the wrestler. See they missed all the other clues from the Conmen so to expect them to see a Nazi in front of them is really nutso.

Poor Maria, looks the record in the face and has but the retort I am Superman, or is it Mental Dwarf? Unable to have had an original thought or insight herself, she attacks any who have, as being somehow at a level above human. Look Maria, I am NOBODY, basically a major point of my deal all along. I do not even use my own name ya MORON. Like I care if you love me? I am not even in IT in ANY capacity. I represent the average Joe who would be handed the Y2k papers and say...Geesh what NONSENSE. And guess what, they freaking DID while you and your waffling pals here played with outright CONMEN and HUCKSTERS. I am no Superman, but I am smart enough to know when somebody is "playing me" and you have been turned over and done real good.

Maria you are pissed off because I bagged your boy Dubya. I reflected most Americans opinion on the Lewinski nonsense. Hey you got a grudge. Well BooHoo for you. This is cyberspace, America honey, WELCOME.

We are Americans exercising our Free Speech. We take no money for ANY of this. We do not have tapes-newsletters-beans or generators to hawk.

Are we a tad bit too committed? Well no kidding, like this is somehow being hid? Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot, does that sound like we care if the dumbf*cks on this webboard get it? I don't write for you. I write for an idea, called FREEDOM.

In fact, I know beyond any doubt, a KOS or a Ken Decker are INCAPABLE of ever getting it. One thinks a Nazi return as close as a few corrupt individuals, and the other thinks an indicator of a healthy economy is the presence of good amount of Conmen. Would take YEARS to open the eyes of these dimbulbs if one had that much time to waste.

Ken Decker posts from his governmental Job about the beauty of a Free Economic model. Recommends that everyone has to be the expert. If done wrong, you hire a lawyer. He gets paid to sit around and post here, just like Paul Milne does thru his tax-breaks. And they call me a mirror of Milne?

Course exercising one's rights is going to look very bizarre to the types round here. Freedom is BIZARRE, is RADICAL, is rare. More attractive the folks who play to your weaknesses. Who stroke your fat egos. Who pander to the worst in people.

First Amendment is the BALANCING factor against all manner of Baloney. It is the tiny alternative to a COURT TRIAL which in Ken Decker's DELUSION appears from the darkeness as his ONLY alternative if done wrong. Lack of awareness causing one to hold Deckerisms.

The price of Freedom and Liberty is constant spraying of the baloney which hitches a ride along with truth. All here have the dam right to spew any old thing they want, including those who stand up and confront it. This process is Freedom, legal remedies come into play when folks have sat and remained silent and offer little.

Leave you with a snip of the last paragraph-Newbie link, from Debunkers.."You have not even begun to "get it" if you think the information here looks "strange", I can assure you." verified by the fact Y2k was not something even close to being fixed, it never was the big monster sold.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 13, 2000.


Did it ever "occur" to you in January-Feburary-March 1999 that Y2k was a pile of baloney? Even now do you get that? Course not, so why should anyone trust your judgement?

Quotably Quoted - What the 2/99 Senate Report Really Said...

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HW8

-- What we knew (in@February.1999), September 13, 2000.


Doc, I know the average Joe and you're no average Joe. You are sick and demented.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 13, 2000.

You do huh, well you gots a Nazi right under your nose and miss that, so thanks for your analysis. It means ZERO just like the outdated Senate turd meant ZERO for those of us IN reality.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 13, 2000.

Oh great. Somebody posts the Senate report, no not the Senate report, a link to an interpretation of the Senate report, an interpretation that was quite wrong by the way, for the umpteenth time. Big freakin' deal! When I first read their report I thought OK, they know what we know--that Y2K may cause some problems, but nothing we can't deal with. When the doomers read it, they found all kinds of problems that weren't even there! Major disconnect here, and it's still going on.

And what the heck happened to you Maria???

Did it ever occur to any of you that some posters style might be the result of the fact that we're trying to say what we want to say in a short amount of time? I don't, and I'm sure Doc Paulie doesn't, have time to re-re-re-read what I write and clean it up. This isn't a novel or a news article, it's opinion. You may have all day to reflect on what you're writing, but all I have is a few moments to get a point across.

By the way, I still want to know if I'm right about the name "Doc Paulie"...does it mean something like "Doc Polly" ?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 13, 2000.


I thought about "standing up and saying so" to fight truth, justice and the American way and decided you weren't worth it. You're welcome to your ranting.

FWIW Stephen, (I'm wasting my time with this bozo), for the record I wasn't played by "my pals". I am IT, worked Y2K remediation, knew from the start it wouldn't be the end, disagreed with everything Eddie had to say, and worked on New's Year to watch the fireworks that didn't occur. You're such a dip.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 13, 2000.


OK, gang, looks like the party has moved to yet another room. See you over at:

"The Reuben Delusion" (Ken Decker, kcdecker@att.net, 2000-09-13) http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl? msg_id=003nk0

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 13, 2000.


. . . .Y2k was not something even close to being fixed, it never was the big monster sold.

I take it you're saying there never could have been significant problems even if there had been no attempt to fix it.

That's something easy to claim now after $300 billion or more was spent to fix Y2K. Most responsible and seemingly informed Y2K speakers were saying before the outcome that Y2K was something that had to be addressed. For example, Peter de Jager said this in 1998...

http://www.csis.org/html/y2ktran2.html#dejager

Let me reiterate something that Senator Bennett said. If today were December 31, 1999, and our systems were in the current state they are in today, tomorrow our economy worldwide would stop. It wouldn't grind to a halt. It would snap to a halt. You would not have dial tone tomorrow if tomorrow were January 1st, year 2000. You would not have air travel. You would not have Federal Express. You would not have the Postal Service. You would not have water. You would not have power. Because the systems are broken.

I know you don't like hearing it. I know it is classed as hype and exaggeration. The problem is: it happens to be a fact which you yourself can verify.

Very few problems occurred in January 2000. I don't know how much of that can be attributed to Y2k being fixed and how much can be attributed to Y2K not needing to be fixed. I don't think you do either, Doc. But the idea some things had to be fixed was the prevailing one in the late '90s, and it was never clear even later in 1999 that all of what needed to be fixed worldwide had been fixed.

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), September 13, 2000.


ANOTHER JUNIOR GRADE........."LINKMEISTER" POSTS A LINK TO THE ANTIQUE ***CSIS**?? CSIS?? CSIS........YOU DARE USE CSIS as an example when THEY WERE ONE OF THE FIRST GROUPS TO TURN OFF THE.........FIRE ALARMS?? AND THEN THEY GOT ***ALAN SIMPSON*** TO START HEAVY DUTY PR TO CALM NERVOUS NELLIES DOWN??? AND SHOW THEM HOW THE "SPIN CONTROLLERS OF Y2K " HAD GONE **WHACK-A-DO0****.


WHAT IS NEXT........."THE SENATE REPORT"

FOLLOWED BY WHAT? "THE FINAL SENATE REPORT"??



-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 13, 2000.


I take it you're saying there never could have been significant problems even if there had been no attempt to fix it.

Hindsight,

You can take it anyway you want. I have a few hundred posts explaining my position at Debunking Y2k.

Still get a thousand or so hits over there so somebody is finding some value, maybe you will too.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), September 14, 2000.


YOU DARE USE CSIS as an example when THEY WERE ONE OF THE FIRST GROUPS TO TURN OFF THE.........FIRE ALARMS??

You've completely misunderstood what my point was, cpr. On purpose perhaps? That quote from Peter de Jager was not an attempt by me to imply he was still rather pessimistic about water and power at the end of 1999. It's well known Peter de Jager said in Jan. 1999 enough had been fixed that TEOTWAWKI (a collapse of society) had been averted.

I was speaking in response to Doc Paulie who believes Y2k was never a big deal. You should have picked up on what I meant when I said

Most responsible and seemingly informed Y2K speakers were saying before the outcome that Y2K was something that had to be addressed. For example, Peter de Jager said this in 1998...

http://www.csis.org/html/y2ktran2.html#dejager

and then after de Jager's quote when I said

Very few problems occurred in January 2000. I don't know how much of that can be attributed to Y2k being fixed and how much can be attributed to Y2K not needing to be fixed. I don't think you do either, Doc. But the idea some things had to be fixed was the prevailing one in the late '90s, and it was never clear even later in 1999 that all of what needed to be fixed worldwide had been fixed.

Cpr, you also said

WHAT IS NEXT........."THE SENATE REPORT"

FOLLOWED BY WHAT? "THE FINAL SENATE REPORT"??

Take a look at the 1999 Senate Y2k hearings.

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), September 14, 2000.


(Continued)

The hearings show what we did and what we did not know about Y2k at different points during 1999. There was more uncertainty and doubt about Y2k last year than you're willing to admit, probably because you want newcomers to believe only people at 'doomer' internet sites were concerned about Y2k

There was a lot good news about U.S. banks and electric utilities by mid-1999. Short- or long-term supply chain disruptions and the stock market taking a big hit were still plausible scenarios, however, even in the second half of 1999.

There was the matter of international Y2k readiness. What was known about it in Oct. 1999 wasn't exactly optimistic.

http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/991013/

-- Hindsight (is@20.20), September 14, 2000.


"Still get a thousand or so hits over there so somebody is finding some value, maybe you will too."

Uh Doc,

How many times a day do you click over there to check?

Just kidding - kinda

-- flora (***@__._), September 14, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ