There's been a lot of talk lately about the sheeple. Not just here. I'm guilty of it. However, I don't believe that fellow travelers are worthy of contempt simply because they choose not to, or don't have the capacity to build mental models of complex scenarios about a future that is uncertain at best and quite painful or potentionally deadly at worst. True, our society is overstimulating and many of the things that people spend their time and energy focused on are, well, stupid. Life and death matters are disconnected from most of our daily lives, and there is an almost tragic absurdity in the amount of time, energy and money that we spend as a civilization on frivolities.

But the sheeple...the sheeple are our friends and coworkers. They are our families and ourselves. We are the sheeple. We all live in the same place, right next door. We all have cars and bank accounts. Or season tickets and GapWear. I wear boots and you wear sneakers. I have a Mac and make entreaties on discussion forums and you have a PC and download pornography.

Some of us have taken a superior position at times towards others, most likely, because we are afraid of our own shortcomings. It's easier to blame someone else for their blindness than it is to help them see. Many of us know how difficult and frustrating it can be to try to convince other people that we may be facing tough times or even disaster, and when they refuse to see through our eyes, a typical human response is to brand them inferior.

There's also a certain religious overtone to it, which in and of itself isn't necessarily negative. But an analogy from two thousand years ago comparing the mass of humanity to a herd of sheep needing shepherding, doesn't necessarily apply in this day and age. There must be a better analogy.

I know it will continue, and I'll probably participate. Just keep the image in the back of your mind of sheep being slaughtered and sacrificed, and also keep in mind that it's possible (though unproven?) that human beings have the potential to individually and together create a better world. Or not. And the fear of that failure might be what we fear the most..

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 07, 1998

Answers

Hi P.S.

couldn't comment on it from your perspective, but from a Christian point of view, we're all sheep in God's eyes...ain't none of us so smart or so clever that we can get along all that well on our own...just something I try to remember whenever I find myself tempted to make the sh--ple reference...

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 07, 1998.

pshannon, I know exactly what you mean. The sheeple are also humans.

On the other hand, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of humans are, well..screwed. I use the term "asleep" to describe them, in contrast to "partially awake", "sometimes awake", "sometimes partially awake", "awake", and "very awake."

The asleep people watch 3-4 hours of TV a night. Not intelligent TV, but the 6 pm news with all the cute stories about lost dogs and babies who can count. This to them is news.

The asleep people my age think that sex is the meaning of life. Most haven't had any, but they still "know" enough about it to make it their primary concern all day. I'd hate to see what these people do alone in their bedrooms. They think any member of the opposite sex who is even remotely attractive is something to be drooled over.

The asleep people think the recent Godzilla was a good movie.

The asleep people think the rich should be taxed heavily because "they've always got more money where it came from, they'll scam out of it anyway and they don't work as hard as we do in the first place." (if they didn't work as hard, how did they become rich????)

The asleep people agree with further government restrictions, tougher penalties for drug dealers and so forth, and then complain when the price of dope goes up due to increased risk for dealers.

The asleep people agree with huge taxes on everything in order to give single mothers and other welfare recipients, more money. They then whine about prices being so high and demand handouts.

The asleep people think that $49.99 is a lot less than $50.

It's possible to awaken. I did. But most sleepers are complacent. They think they're happy when in fact they're only being placated. Read Educating Rita to see this phrased far better than I'm trying to.

And to be totally honest, I do not believe it would be an immense loss to the world if the "sleepers", the "sheeple", died en masse.

And I don't think it would be an immense loss to them, either.

--Leo

-- Leo (leo_champion@hotmail.com), December 07, 1998.

WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Are you a troll, pshannon?

-- citizen (drop@thecrack.pipe), December 07, 1998.

Baaaaa....Baaaaa.....Baaaaa....

ZZZZZZZZZZZ Huh, what? Oh....ZZZZZZZZZ......

-- Uncle Deedah (oncebitten@twiceshy.com), December 07, 1998.

I like sheep, they're really good bar-b-qued

-- Clem (clem@sat.net), December 07, 1998.

From your first sentence I knew it was you Leo. No need to look at the signature whatsoever ;)

Pshannon, you have a heart it's obvious. But I think when the term "sheeple" is used it's to differenciate those who have the capability to get it and between those who don't. (Leo did a good job of describing an average sheeple) Whitch is the masses in general. Ofcourse it goes without saying that we all have to help each other out, sheeps and shepards alike. Sheeps feed and clothes the shepards.

But I have to let you all know that according to Leo I don't qualify as a sheeple, because I don't watch t.v. more than 15 minutes a day, spread over the day, and that's to catch a CNN headline or see what my kids are watching, then I go right back reading my book or ranting on this forum, or sometimes I'll take 10 minutes off my busy schedule to pick up some dust bunnies to add to my collection. I don't think about sex more than once a week, as the dutyful wife I am, and I always round out $49.99 as $50 and so miss out on all those fabulous sales. Plus, I drive a z28 Camaro, so I can't car pool my kid's friends. Maybe I'm a black sheeple.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.

Thank you pshannon! I, too, am getting tired of 'sheeple'. Like there is a inferior life form over there, the 'sheeple', as opposed to the superior enlightened humans on this and similar sites, the 'GIs'. The arrogance makes me want to baaaa right along with Uncle Deedah. And Leo, where do you pick your friends? I have teenage sons, so I know quite a few guys your age who have a lot more on- and in- their minds than the ones you seem to know. Maria

-- maria (encelia@mailexcite.com), December 08, 1998.

Those who look down upon others are treading on dangerous territory.

I might like to remind these people who are coming up with this "sheeple" stuff that this an extreme movement which can never find any favor with right-thinking, sane people. If those of us who are Y2K aware are ever going to communicate anything to the public at large, it won't be by equating them with animals...(as in, DUH)

-- John Howard (Greenville, NC) (pcdir@prodigy.net), December 08, 1998.

Leo, I've used the "asleep" thing also (being a fan of Gurdjieff as well as a fan of Ayn Rand, read some of his work sometime...) and I think it's a gentler image.

I particularly liked the line - "The asleep people think that $49.99 is a lot less than $50."

Oh, and then there are the trolls. They ARE worthy of contempt...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 08, 1998.

ps -- what about "SLEEPLE"?

That may work for the concept of people not yet awake to the reality of Y2K... and it also extends the meaning alittle to include the concept of the sheep-like behavior of people following the pack.

-- Sara Nealy (saran@ptd.net), December 08, 1998.

"The Sleeple!" That's beautiful...

Still, it's probably better to use references like "people who are not aware of..." or "individuals who have chosen to ignore..." or even "the mass of humanity..." etc. But as far as shorthand goes, "Sleeple" is pretty funny...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 08, 1998.

Sleeple! I love it. Catchy as Y2K, yet clearly says "people asleep". We should submit this to Wired Magazine for it's "Wired - Tired" jargon colum ;)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.

Are there other "y2k sniglets" that anyone would like to share?

Add to thread "Y2K sniglets"

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), December 08, 1998.

Darned tags

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), December 08, 1998.

Unfortunately people en masse act completely differently than sane individuals. I always remember going to a football match at age 6 and feeling that my personality was being submerged by the crowd. I found the psychology described in a book written by Wilhelm Reich called the Psychopathology of Fascism. You can see how extremist regimes are fostered by the crowd mentality.

I suppose you could say that sport can be a harmless "outlet" for this feeling, I don't agree. It is one serious flaw in the human psyche, it is the main reason we let disturbed individuals with charisma have unbridled power.

People will be sheeple unless they guard against it, no-one is immune.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 08, 1998.

Are people who squander their freedoms for a little temporary comfort worthy of our contempt?

Are people who willfully remain ignorant in order to evade responsibility for themselves and their government worthy of contempt?

When they are given facts about Y2k and respond with childish denial and attack the people who tried to warn them, are they worthy of our contempt?

We're all one big happy Family of Mankind until these people show up at your door post-Y2k, demanding food. Or until they turn you in as a "blackmarketeer" for not giving it to them for free. Richard Dale got it right: most people don't take the responsibility for individuation. They take every opportunity to avoid independent thought, and submerge themselves in a group identity. This makes them not only less than human, but more dangerous than any (other) animal.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 08, 1998.

E.xcellent questions...

"Are people who squander their freedoms for a little temporary comfort worthy of our contempt?"

- I suppose that depends on whether or not you want to spend your life seething in contempt...

"Are people who willfully remain ignorant in order to evade responsibility for themselves and their government worthy of contempt?"

- But, do we lump those who do not have the capacity to understand themselves and their behavior, let alone the workings of government, into this category?

"When they are given facts about Y2k and respond with childish denial and attack the people who tried to warn them, are they worthy of our contempt?"

- There are people that I love who treat me exactly the way you describe...does that mean I should stop loving them for their positive qualities? Could it be that there is simply too much in this life to think about? and that this very obscure problem is unfathomable by most?

It's not that I'm a softass; if things become lawless, I'm prepared to shoot to kill anybody who messes with me and my family, and I think about that possibility often. And it doesn't frighten me. My biggest fear in that kind of scenario is what to do with the body.

"Richard Dale got it right: most people don't take the responsibility for individuation. They take every opportunity to avoid independent thought, and submerge themselves in a group identity."

- I've certainly got no arguement with that statement. It's simply a matter of how you frame these things in your own mind. Are they pariahs? are they pathetic? Is it a bunch of assholes running around ruining things? or is it a tragic flaw in human nature that we, the slightly less blind, should be trying to subtly point out to people so that they can have an opportunity to grow.

Is the best way to deal with the Sleeple to call them names? Or to attempt to wake them up (and yes, sometimes that requires a slap in the face or a kick in the ass). Or should we just hope that they all die off?

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 08, 1998.

Thank you pshannon for you response to E.'s questions. I couldn't have said it better.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 08, 1998.

I too prefer the term "sleeple." We on this forum woke up at soem point, many others will in the months to come, and some will not until 01/01/2000 (if then.) I have talked with scores of folks (family, friends, members of my church, and co-workers) over the past few months. I've helped a few of them to wake up and the number grows each day, for which I'm most grateful. Patience and basic respect are required - "no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care." We are not superior because we've awakened; we're simply blessed (or lucky, if you're of a more random worldview) and are now faced with the task of helping others to open their eyes. Lead by example by preparing. Pass along little easily-digested pieces of Y2K news as the opportunities present themselves. But remember: relationship is what really allows the educational/awakening process.

That and a Grande from Starbucks. 8-}]

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), December 08, 1998.

Very well said Pshannon.
Feeling contempt for people because they don't get it, can't get it, don't want to get it, get it somewhat, is like feeling contempt for the retarded, or anyone below one's own IQ or abilities. And I'm NOT saying that don't-get-its are retarded or have low IQ's! I don't "get" calculus, but I don't consider myself retarded. I don't "get" how to compose orchestra symphonies, but I don't consider myself dense. I've never studied neither.
There is no need for every non-techie to "get it", to understand the technicallity and complexity of the problem. What is needed, is this country's leader to WARN people that there is the potential for a disaster and be prepared. But that won't happen, as we know. Instead of contempt towards DGI's, GI's should feel anger and act to push the leaders. And feel some sympathy and patience with DGI's.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.

In my neighborhood, DGIs openly accuse people who prepare for Y2k of being "alarmist," "extremist," "religious fanatics," ad nauseam. Those of us who recommend taking money out of the bank are accused of "trying to cause a bank run." I have been tarred with the same brush as David Koresh and Timmy McVeigh. As far as I'm concerned, these smug, sarcastic herd animals can EAT their dirty looks when TSHTF. Even Christ didn't waste his time trying to convert boneheaded pharisees when there were crowds of people who sincerely wanted to hear his message. I mean, he submitted humbly to mindless abuse, but he didn't go looking for it at the expense of his true followers. As long as there are people who are aware and concerned, like those in this forum, I will be putting my energy here. My neighbors, friends and family who DGI and persist in their ignorance have simply used up my patience. The smallest contribution I can make here is worth any amount of time spent trying to convince the foolish, abusive DGIs in my life. They'll GI soon enough, and if they want my help they'll have to get it through this forum.

"Poor little DGIs, let's be gentle with them!" They DGI, so they'll be in line for govt cheese. They'll be showing up at your door for a handout. They'll be ratting you out for selling restricted trade goods, or "hoarding," to get in good with the cheesemasters. Right now they're calling you a "nut." In two years, they'll be calling you a "criminal." Calling this type of person a "Sheeple" is being generous. Blame atrocities on our leaders if you will; without this kind of cowardly, unreflective follower, they would be powerless.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 08, 1998.

E. said: "In my neighborhood, DGIs openly accuse people who prepare for Y2k of being "alarmist," "extremist," "religious fanatics," ad nauseam."

I sympathize E., although the worst I have been called is "obsessed with Y2K" since I don't tell people TEOTWAWKI is coming (although I can see the "alarmist" label in some faces even without being a total doomsayer). Maybe the accusations are based on other things said while discussing Y2K? I don't mean to criticize your views on other issues. I just think that maybe there needs to be a disconnect between the urgency of Y2K and any other issues. We can't solve other problems while dealing with Y2K. This is something every company is finding out during their Y2K project. Dealing with this crisis is going to require the cooperation of everyone regardless of their backgrounds, agendas, or political views.

Sheep will always scatter when approached by a lion.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 08, 1998.

When I talk with people one-on-one about Y2k, there is indeed no room for anything else. If you can't get them to recognize there's a problem with the code, it doesn't do any good to start talking about martial law, etc.. The reaction I've gotten is so perfectly sheep-like; it's the fear of stepping outside the bounds of normalcy by storing food. A glimpse into the mind of a sheep: "storing food=survivalism=militias=terrorism. Terrorism bad. The shepards will solve everything and if I try to solve my own part of it myself, I'll be cut from the herd." Once this "thinking" kicks in, people will make - usually elliptical- comments to dismiss any kind of concern about Y2k as "millennialism," or "paranoia" or start talking about militas preparing for the second coming - whatever bedtime stories the cable feeds them. Elsewhere I've heard about the psychological barrier to storing food. It's a revolutionary act in itself: you're making a commitment to yourself, and a statement that you don't intend to eat from someone else's hand, a handful at a time. You're saying that if the herd goes over a cliff, you're not going to follow. That's pretty strong medicine for most sheep.

If I'm talking to people who are afraid of storing food, I'm not going to start talking about the Bilderburg Society, or Project Paperclip. Merely to get them to prepare, I have to get them to find their spine, one vertabrae at a time, and I'm saying the effort is too great. Giving time to them is truly wasteful, given our deadline. They are sleeping and don't want to be awakened. Let them wake with the general alarm.

Ultimately, there is no "disconnect" between politics and Y2k. Y2k will change everything. I figure if your mind is open to Y2k, you might want to know where the money is going, analyze a significant trend or two, read some history not written by a CIA operative, etc.. The causes and effects of Y2k are intimately bound up with the forces that make history, make or break nations, control economies. But if you aren't there yet and distrust your masters only enough to defiantly store some toilet paper, that's okay - at least you aren't a total sheep. And maybe, someday when the t.v. is cold, you will start asking the "wrong questions."

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 08, 1998.

E. coli, you are right. People have to suffer the consequences of their decisions- including the decision to delegate responsibility to others. There is no way people can expect a government(or anyone else)to take over some of their responsibilities if they are not also willing to give government the authority that government (or any other person or entity) needs to do that job. It doesn't come free. It is always a trade-off and I am constantly amazed at how much responsibility people are begging to have taken off their hands, with little evidence that government, etc. will do a better job. I can understand getting really, really frustrated when people don't even listen. And yes, you then have to leave them to the consequences of their choices(Tough love). If you care deeply, this is hard. But I can't see the basis for contempt in all this. Pity, yes. Because they'll have to suffer the consequences of following the crowd and (as in so many other areas of life) that could mean suffering or worse that could have been avoided. Now you could help them, but if y2k gets really bad, you will no longer be able to. I can understand anger- I get angry when I am helpless. By the way, I love the name- myhusband did his PhD on coli! Maria

-- maria (encelia@mailexcite.com), December 08, 1998.

...well...if you put it like that...;)

I understand what you're saying E. There is indeed a sort of herd mentality, a click tendency, just as when we were in middle school, if you didn't dress like the others or talk the same jargon you were "weird" and not to be trusted, but ridiculed.

I guess I haven't tried to reach that many people myself to have experienced what you have.

I don't understand why the term "alarmist" is so negative. Is it because it ends in "ist"? Would it sound less negative if it was "alarmor"? To alarm people of danger, is that so bad?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.

Maria, "But I can't see the basis for contempt in all this. Pity, yes. Because they'll have to suffer the consequences of following the crowd..."

this is what I was thinking in my previous post, pity instead of contempt. Anger, frustration and pity. Contempt to me sounds inhuman. Giving up on humanity because they are not up to one's standards.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 08, 1998.

Gotta go with E Coli on this one. "Sheeple" is really quite descriptive of a passive herd mentality.

-- Dave (dwood@southwind.net), December 08, 1998.

E. sez -

"Poor little DGIs, let's be gentle with them!"

I suppose one thing I'm concerned about is not so much sparing the feelings of the DGIs and the sheeple as much as the notion that we should be gentle on ourselves. Negativity spewed comes back to haunt you in the long run. You become a victim to your own negativity. I know it sounds like a bunch of new age crap, but I think there's truth to it. If you're an individualist, then you understand you are responsible for yourself, and part of yourself is your attitude and perspective and the way you treat others...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 08, 1998.

The other thing I find myself thinking is: Can we afford contempt? Other people's unwise choices do affect us, after all. Contempt (self-righteousness)may feel good, but it won't protect us from political, historical consequences of community behavior. And if we insist on dwelling on uncomfortable questions and awkward facts, why should we expect to be treated any differently than those who played that role in the past? Bringing bad news has never made anyone popular. I guess that unless you are totally self-centered and sufficient unto yourself, you've got to make the attempt. And otherwise, you won't feel justified in saying 'sorry, can't do anything now' if it gets really bad. Maria

-- maria (encelia@mailexcite.com), December 09, 1998.

Here are some reasons why people are DGIs:

They have not worked on y2k.

They regard computers as black boxes that work (most of the time).

It is too esoteric a subject for most people.

It is too boring a subject for most people.

They cannot extrapolate the effects of wholescale and simultaneous computer system failure.

They don't realise how dependent we are on computer software, even to support apparently concrete processes.

They think that systems are well-written and robust.

They think it an idiotic or trivial problem.

We cannot provide them with absolute cast-iron certain evidence of our version of the possible outcomes, nobody can provide any certain proof of any outcome.

They don't understand why computers should use dates apart from display.

They think that it will be fixed.

They want it to be fixed.

The powers that be tell them it will be fixed.

The powers that be want it to be fixed.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), December 09, 1998.

About sheep and people: I remember the original text said something about the shepherd noticing that one sheep was lost (a sheeple, if you will) and spent a lot of time and energy bringing that lost one back into the fold. Every one of us knows a lost sheep, out there bleating that Y2K will be no big deal and why should they prepare...The Good Shepherd didn't desert the lost sheep, and neither should we.

-- Karen Cook (browsercat@hotmail.com), December 09, 1998.

Good list of reasons Richard.

Look, I've been married to the same man for 20 years, I KNOW he is intelligent. He is a general contractor, very successful in all his entreprises, resolves problems with the same ease he puts on his socks, and has a 500 mhz scientific calculator implanted in his brain. But he is befuddled by a desktop computer. Has no interest to learn how to use it. He has a total aversion for anything that the word "program" might apply to it. Such as programing his digital phone. The VCR. Even our latest model microwave oven. He leaves all this to me, because I actually LOVE doing it. But I don't think of myself as more intelligent than he is. We just have very different KINDS of intelligence. Both of which are very useful in our marriage relationship, as well as for giving each other a different perspective in our very different careers. I view my husband an intelligent DGI victim through no fault of his. And certainly not a sheeple.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 09, 1998.

On "Contempt": A few months ago, I was about a "7". Now I'm a "10." I think that, given the proliferation of NCB weapons of mass-destruction, the destructo-clock is closer to midnight than it's ever been - without Y2k. There are bio-weapons in existence with kill rates in the 90th percentile. Think on it. We're in a global depression now, our market a grossly inflated bubble, our economy propped up by refuge-seeking capital. That's without Y2k. So I'm a ten. I think Y2k is going to plunge us into a dark age. Look at all the reasons why people DGI - most of it boils down to laziness. I didn't get it for a long while, then I got "slapped" by Gary North, and it saved my life (maybe - we'll see). I don't believe, with Milne, that people should be roundly abused, or that they "deserve" Y2k. But I do believe that if someone you love, at this late date, still doesn't GI, you should look them in the eye and tell them they are making a big fat mistake. They are WRONG, and they will SUFFER, and CAUSE SUFFERING by their denial. If they aren't predisposed to understand computers (assuming that's necessary for them to respond to the crisis with the amount of cautionary expert opinion now available), well, they had better drop whatever else they're doing, and LEARN. Make it clear to them that if they don't respond to this, they are worse than useless to you. If they GI, they will thank you for it. And if they still don't get it, leave them in their lazy boy recliner, because there are other people in your community who want to survive and thrive, and they need your cooperation. It's not a case of writing people off the list of "human beings" - it's a case of treating them according to the severity of the HUGE MISTAKE they're making. WE ARE ON A SINKING SHIP. MANY PEOPLE WILL DIE. "Contempt" is strong medicine, but it is entirely appropriate. It's a case of "tough love" - something that will not be in short supply in the next century, I assure you.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 09, 1998.

E.

You are a deliberate, organized thinker and an eloquent writer. I agree with the bulk of what you have said here and on other threads. Still, I must disagree with you on this notion of contempt. And, I must do so, not because I think the contemptee should be loved unconditionally, or any of that kind of mushy gooey crap, but because I think it is negative for the contemptor.

My goofy new age psycho-babble training (and my credentials in this area are impressive. to those who care about that stuff) teaches me that any superiority is paired with an inferiority. Pretty simple stuff, really, if you believe it. The superiority of name calling or holding someone in contempt is a mask for a related inferiority (again, if you believe that).

The point is - you can choose how you view others, and that will be how you view yourself. If you believe that's how it works. I do...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), December 09, 1998.

Good point, pshannon.

I, too, have a part of myself that is in denial. Wants to turn away from preparation and pretend it isn't happening. I accept this part of myself, in a sense, but I deem it inferior, as something with negative survival value. Something unworthy of me. I hold it in contempt. I rise above my weakness, reinforcing my choice of values with a modicum of personal pride - just enough pride to emphatically let every facet of my psyche know just who is in charge. I think this is a sane and wholesome approach, and it is going to save my life, and hopefully a few others.

I apply this same discipline to the people in my environment. It doesn't hurt me to hold others in contempt. It doesn't mean that the basis for the relationship is not one of love and compassion, fundamentally. If they are being stupid and weak, it does them no good to let them persist in that, or pretend, for the sake of their affection, perhaps, that they are being clever and strong. Some of the best people in my life let me know, at one time or another, that I was being stupid or weak in some way. This is how we gain character: getting feedback from the environment, or developing self-insight, to flush out and remedy our deficiencies. I see myself in DGIs; I correct them, I correct myself.

I am unshamed of my contempt for weakness and stupidity. By the same token, I think I know the circumstances under which to cut slack for self and others. But can we agree that the deck of a sinking ship is not the time or the place for a group hug?

If you're going to try this contempt thing at home: don't seeth; breathe. Acknowledge stupidity and weakness as such, correct it if possible (and politic), if not, move on. You may save a life.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 09, 1998.

E., I've tried everything with husband, I've said it all what you said, in anger and frustration and also fear, I even threatened divorce. For a while I was seeing another man in him, I had doubts as to his intelligence or courage. That was during the worse stage of my y2k emotinal roller-coaster.

"I, too, have a part of myself that is in denial. Wants to turn away from preparation and pretend it isn't happening."

Well, as you admit, denial is a factor, even for yourself. Do you feel contempt for yourself? No? why, because you see yourself as having courage? Well, my husband sees himself as being "rational", and the rest of us not. I bet you you're more emotional in person than my husband is. I certainly am myself. He thinks we're loonies, those who mention TEOTWAWKI.

Blah. Gotta make dinner.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), December 09, 1998.

Chris,

But I do despise myself, to a degree. Then I move on, "bright with mistakes," as a friend used to say. I also despise others. Then I delight in them again - especially if they get a clue as to what the hell is going on! I recognize the limitations of my own wisdom and judgement - but who else's judgement can be relied upon? Spirit voices? A Book of Rules? Our Glorious Chairman? Nope, I'm stuck with myself, like it or not.

You tried despising your husband, getting angry at him, doubting him. Those can be useful. But they haven't worked, so you need to ignore him and prepare by yourself. If he doesn't let you, or gives you grief about it, you have a decision to make. If I were in a relationship with someone that oblivious, I would not feel very secure about it's future. I would prepare for the family, but I would also prepare for myself. That man should be on his knees thanking you when TSHTF; if not...

It's not a question of whether I'm "better" than someone else. It's a question of what values I want to affirm; whether I'm willing to compromise what I believe in order to accomodate others (who, let us remember, are behaving foolishly and endangering themselves and others thereby). I'm not better. But I'm me. I'm in charge of me, first. If I "think of others first," I'm not going to be in any shape to help others. I can let people's horrible, dangerous mistakes go by, but I'm not going to internalize their mistake. I'm going to feel revulsion. It's how I remain a self-possessed adult. If we are honest, every loving relationship contains a certain amount of revulsion and contempt now and again. It's just nature's way of reminding you that you are an individual, that you shouldn't get "lost in the sauce." What do we bring to relationships and communities? Only ourselves.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), December 09, 1998.

I was rolling on the floor from the beautiful "mind of a sheep" comment, that was TOO funny (storing food = ... = terrorism). That was a fantastic post, nearly at the writing level of George Orwell. My neighbors are wealthy and "successful" but appear to have not the slightest awareness of y2k as a potential reality in their lives. I try to continually mentally work 'em like cattle, but the prod is ALWAYS: 'natural disaster', 'natural disaster', 'natural disaster'. If I mentioned y2k openly around here, in practical prep terms, they'd definitely call the local BATF or FEMA or the FBI or God knows what (air strikes?) in on me.

-RC

-- runway cat (runway_cat@hotmail.com), December 09, 1998.

E: I also enjoyed the storing food=...=terrorism line - a great post! would praise it more but my carpal tunnel is acting up..

-- a (a@a.a), December 10, 1998.

Sara , A large number of sheep are referred to as a Flock ..not a pack (wolves) or Herd (cattle ) :o)

-- Mickey (Mickey@homestead.com), December 10, 1998.

Mickey,

Somehow, "following the flock" sounds too weird. But, as a friend of mine says, it's no stranger than a "gaggle of geese."

-- Sara Nealy (saran@ptd.net), December 10, 1998.

BAAAHHAAAAAAA!!!!

-- tora tora tora (Stillwrong@it.com), November 19, 2002.

Computer hitech ,I.E., Code writing is not the alphea & omega of life.Get over it already!!!!!

-- See,nothing happened (Itolduso@hyatt1998.com), November 19, 2002.