The way of the Net is still not well-understood by many. I don't claim to understand it all that well myself. The ideal of quiet, friendly conversation is real but Net forums take place in a public space. It is only an illusion that your posts are directed at trustworthy people. People prove their bona fides by their demonstrated honesty and consistency.

Unfortunately, while it is obvious that profanity and disgusting speech is trolling, equally or more damaging effects on conversation are made by those who are clever and smart, especially those who are smarter than you/me.

The Biffy and Debunking Y2K forums (gee, did you get the name?) have had as their avowed purpose the destruction of the conversation we are engaged in and, in some cases, the destruction of the forum itself. Compared to the wild variety of tolerated views and the still-amazing ability of Yourdonites to disagree while continuing to talk, those forums are inhabited by real yahoos.

Of COURSE, most of the trolls in the past few months represent people from those forums. I say, of COURSE. Do I know for a fact? No, of course. It's a judgment. A sound one.

I can't see inside Decker-Poole's heads, thank goodness. It's probably a mix (towards us) of condescension, a desire to "help us" recover (Decker's "work" here as he described it) and (don't underestimate this) sheer pleasure at the entertainment of manipulating us wherever possible. They all delight in comparing notes on their forum about our idiocy. Whether Decker-Poole personally want to wreck this forum I do not know.

I know that any protestations on their part are hypocritical. Any honorable person who wanted to participate here wouldn't participate on those forums AT ALL and would utterly disassociate themselves from them. By doing so and supporting their aims (cf Poole on CPR's explicit desire to destroy this forum, he feels CPR should be "given a medal" for his efforts to debunk Y2K), they ARE hypocrites.

I sincerely don't understand why some here don't understand. At the same time, this IS a free forum (not in theory but in actual practice). So I can live with not understanding. While I WISH Decker-Poole and the trolls would go away, I don't expect this.

The reason I have kept up this debate for a while is because it is wider than Decker-Poole though it includes them. Later this year, the quality and trustworthiness of those who are communicating here on this forum will be critical to all of us. It is entirely ON TOPIC to debate this at times, especially when facing egregious posts like the one Decker made on the "Debunking Y2K" site. If you want to trust Decker, cool. He's too boring to me, at least, to argue with indefinitely. But I want to be sure I have been crystal clear before this is dropped. For now.

Rest assured, when Y2K heats up AND IT WILL, AND IT WILL, we'll have plenty of time to debate such things as

.... Yardeni's poll last month of IT techies across many enterprises and their broad pessimism about Y2K outcome.

... Koskinen's remarks in Singapore

... and ... and ...

"It's still Y2K, stupid." Decker and Poole are wrong, but that's trivial. I think some of the pollys here are wrong, but I respect them anyway. I see no reason to evidence any respect for Decker-Poole-Biffy.

I feel certain that there are probably quite a few old-timers that are disappointed or mad with me. I sincerely regret that. I'm not a fool. I know my views have come to command, if not respect, at least attention. I'd like to believe I have earned it. But, what I'm saying is, I'm not looking for agreement per se. Chuck, for instance, whom I respect, thinks Decker is swell. So do others of you. I simply feel I need to be as clear as possible on why I have kept this up, lest it be thought to be something "personal". No. Decker is CHARMING (so is Slick himself by the way), very intelligent, etc (cf Slick).

Why do I namecall Decker by comparing him to Slick? Only to say, look inside the package. Decker's actions speak far louder than his words.

(laughter)

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 07, 1999

Answers

I understand Decker has belittled and sneered at the postings I make (and, by extension, those who read and enjoy them). Unfortunately, my sharp mind breaks the surface only occasionally these days and I can no longer indulge freely in complicated discussions, although I've tried to add useful information to the shipping and a few other threads. But I CAN find and post useful and practical ideas and information to help us all survive ANY disaster, not just Y2K. And isn't that what this forum is about--surviving Y2K?

When I read your first post on this subject, BigDog, I recall Decker boasting to his minions that a rehash of postings he made to some debunking forum attracted, what was it? 55 pages, I think. Well, I hope Decker enjoys eating those 55 pages when the food runs out and he has nothing left in his stores and no knowledge of what to eat from the wild or even from his backyard.

As noted above, the primary object of this forum is to bring Y2K GIs together to discuss how to come through the experience unscathed; it is not to throw rotten fruit at the performers. When I uncover information helpful to me and mine, I share it. What has Decker shared? His superior intellect and vocabulary? Somehow I don't think those two characteristics are going to be in the Top 10 Y2K Survival Characteristcs List. But, then, if you don't believe Y2K will be a problem, why should anyone care?

I said I wouldn't waste any more time on this but I saw your good post, BigDog and wanted to add my strong support for your views. Now back to practical and useful information.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), May 07, 1999.

By this time, I think most folks are pretty tired of reading his attacks and my defense. I apologize for the time this has taken from the business of this forum.

If you doubt this is personal, read BD's posts. I have been called a hypocrite, liar and coward. Because I visit and post on other fora, I have been called dishonorable... even though I have taken a moderate stand and asked extremists on both sides to stay on the issues and away from personal attacks. My last (and I think only) post on Debunker was twisted maliciously in an attempt to discredit me.

If you disagree with what I say or how I say it, fine. I don't mind a rough-and-tumble discussion if we stay on the issues. The quick jump to personal attacks bothers me. I don't think you have to trust me personally to read what I have written and make a critical judgement. Even if you think I'm "swell," you may think I am totally wrong about Y2K. (Right, Chuck?)

In truth, I don't think Big Dog wants a discussion. I am already "wrong" in his mind. For me, the jury is still out on Y2K.... As I said in an earlier post, it's the second inning. Yes, I have some opinions. Yes, I do think some of the stuff posted here is utter garbage. Calling someone a child molestor is contemptible.

I want to go back to talking about Y2K, but I am not willing to just let gratuitious personal attacks go unanswered. If BD is willing to bury the hatchet (somewhere other than in my head), we can move on.

Again, I apologize for the distraction. I hope this is BD's final word on the subject and that he can simply avoid my "boring" posts in the future.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

Old Git,

Since you apparently didn't bother to read my response to your attack:

"I realize many appreciate you providing the online, one-post-a-time version of Carla Emery's Encyclopedia of Country Living. Out of respect, I want to politely ask you refrain from your attacks. This appeal would be lost on Andy and Big Dog, but if you have country manners. you may hear what I am saying. Now, can we be neighborly about this?"

For the record, I am a Carla Emery fan and have recommended the book to folks interested in self-reliance. Most of what you post here can be found in her book. If you thought I was being sarcastic, I apologize. I think the rest of the post explains itself.

Oh, feel free to drop by my little place anytime. I think you'll see I can weather most storms that come along.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

BigDog: You have earned respect, at least from where I stand. We all deal with the same things in different ways. I have chosen, right or wrong, to simply ignore what I find either not very interesting or not productive. It is just the way I have reacted and it is right for me. Besides, so many of us pop in here for a few minutes to just check things out and we each individually go for what we think will be worth spending our time on. Time is after all what this is all about. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know how I felt. Looking forward to some more great posts from you, Rob.

BTW, I don't feel now is the time for TBOTWAWBI 2 so I haven't started it yet. Do you prefer to just use the old thread or think it would be better with a new one?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), May 07, 1999.

Old Git ... I LOVE YOUR POSTS!!!!!!

There.

It's okay BigDog. Decker's created the lovely illusion of mannerly hypocrite.

Ignore him ... he ain't worth it.

He and others, who know who they are, deliberately provoke, to side- track emotions and issues. Quite pointed and obvious. Once they get you in a defensive position, they feel like an "alpha" dog. It's temporary. Stay on target instead.

Keep your nose and tail pointed towards the goal ... to get through Y2K as elegantly as possible, helping as many as possible, preparing and helping others understand the ramifications, as they surface.

And smile.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Dear Big Dog,

We quiet but sincere lurkers thank you.

Wallflower

-- Wallflower (Y2KWallflr@aol.com), May 07, 1999.

Big Dog,

I don't care if Decker and others are laughing at me behind my back. Plenty of people laugh at me to my face . But I think that your warning about trolls is well worth noting by newcomers to the forum. Don't get lulled into not preparing because everything seems quiet at this point in time.

I'm not inclined toward conspiracy theories in general, but I am truly amazed by the way that Y2K is being downplayed by the press. Look at a thread such as the one on Alan Greenspan's remarks in Chicago yesterday (May 6) and then go look for yourself at news reports on the web to see how his Y2K remarks were virtually ignored. link

Then read E.L Core's well researched article on how the newsmedia drops the ball in their coverage of the electrical power industry. link

Trolls (I let you recognize yourselves),

If you don't want to prepare for Y2K problems, you're only putting yourself and your family at risk. If you lull others to sleep, you will share responsibilty for any harm that may come to those inluenced by your rhetoric.

Old Git,

Keep up the great tips on gardening. I'm a novice to gardening and I need all the help that I can get.

Alexi@not-in-the-dark.com

-- Alexi (Alexi@not-in-the-dark.com), May 07, 1999.

BigDog, so how will you deal with their disagreements? Many times, posts will strike a nerve with me and I resist the temptation to hit that submit button. Will you ignore chasing them or continue? Just curious.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 07, 1999.

In my opinion, the Biffy and Debunking Y2K boards exist for a few reasons.

Because of the lack of tolerance on this board for anyone expressing an optimistic point of view toward Y2K. Anyone suggesting anything less than an 8.0 on the doom scale has always been quickly SHOUTED DOWN for as long as I've been reading this forum (since about this time last year I think).

Gary North has an awful lot to say about technical issues which he obviously knows very little about. He deserves to have his views challenged.

If both Biffy and Debunking Y2K seem extreme to you it is only because the majority view here and the views of Gary North seem not only extreme to us but misinformed.

I often don't express myself very well. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have found it disheartening that it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion here unless you believe that Y2K possibilities justify preparing for a total breakdown of civilization. The amount of animosity thrown my way for simply suggesting that something short of that level of preparation is more appropriate is amazing. Oh, and woe to anyone who suggests that some of the possible impacts of Y2K have become less probable.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 07, 1999.

But, Buddy, the plan backfired. Misfired.

You and your people finally hit the nerve. The forum knows your mission statement. Now it can't be accomplished.

As Mutha says, but neater-looking, AH HA HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH.

You lose. Y2K Pro: pack it up and get that smelly mess out of here.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), May 07, 1999.

Big Dog,

I think you allow your cyber feelings to be too easily bruised. You consider yourself an Old Timer on this forum but I, who have been coming here since the forum began, don't recognize your name or any of the other current regular posters as being from the "old days." I haven't posted in a loooonnnnng time but I like to drop by and view the debates. I wouldn't bother to enter this site if it were merely a mutual admiration society regurgitating clips from news articles. If you are a real old timer (I realize you may have changed your name) then you have to have noticed that the the so-called middle ground opinion about Y2k consequences expressed on this forum has moved closer to societal survival and farther away from societal meltdown. If it were not for some talented and intelligent people pointing out the flaws in the doomer projections then this movement wouldn't have occurred. I continue to expect a severity in the neighborhood of a 6 but the brilliant posters on this forum have frequently been able to move me anywhere from .5 to 1.5 on the scale in one direction or the other with new views on various aspects of the Y2k challenge. Frankly, the folks who have always had the greatest potential to destroy this forum are the ones who insist that their opinions are the only opinions worth expressing. How long would intelligent people continue to visit this forum and contribute if it became a mutual admiration society where the only acceptable remarks are something like the old mantras from the early forum days: "The systems are broken and they can't be fixed! The power grid is definitely going down....! There aren't enough programmers.....! The telecoms won't make it.....!, etc., etc. I have enjoyed watching this forum mature and am reminded of Henry Fords words when he said: "If two people in business always agree then one of them is unnecessary." Keep up the good work Big Dog but take it easy on those who don't share your views because the rest of us are counting on the extremists from both sides to help us formulate our own predictions. Final note a real old timer got blasted on this forum for predicting that some of the leading Y2k soothsayers would begin to moderate their tone. That was weeks if not months before de Jager became a traitor to the GI's by predicting that the worst case scenarios are no longer likely to occur. With my expectation of a severity of 6 I was once a full-fledged Poly but now with the same prediction I can almost qualify for GI credentials. We live in interesting times.

-- Oscar Swischne (OS@usa.net), May 07, 1999.

Oscar,

A post like your makes it worth wearing my my signature-edition Chuck the Night Driver Nomex pajamas. Excellent.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

I think we will always have people on this forum with agendas, and not all of ours is the same. I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Decker, because I would have thought he would have gotten a little less glee out of politely disagreeing with most here.

On the other hand, it's not that hard to skip past the disruptors. I thought Stephen Poole was an intelligent counterforce to my concerns when I first visted this place.

Now I realize that he is a close-minded agenda-driven bonehead. Mr. Decker is more complicated. He can and does provide helpful information. You just have to realize that he thinks he's providing it to fools.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

Buddy writes

"I often don't express myself very well. I guess what I am trying to say is that I have found it disheartening that it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion here unless you believe that Y2K possibilities justify preparing for a total breakdown of civilization. The amount of animosity thrown my way for simply suggesting that something short of that level of preparation is more appropriate is amazing. Oh, and woe to anyone who suggests that some of the possible impacts of Y2K have become less probable."

Buddy's reading skills need work. During this past year I've seen many posts here which fall far short of assuming TEOTWAWKI (including my own) -- without incurring animosity or flames. People here, posters and lurkers alike, are all over the scale. Insults generate insults in return -- not the best of all possible worlds, but entirely predictable.

Out of curiosity, I have to ask (rhetorically!): what genuine interest can anyone have in discouraging the radical doomers (surely a tiny minority) from their presumedly clueless preparations? Minor children and adults needing supervision won't have the resources to make any such moves -- the rest of the population are fully grown and responsible for the consequences of their own actions. In a population well over 200,000,000 (U.S.) a few thousand folks bolting for the bosky with two years worth of supplies simply can't affect anyone but themselves and their families. So what's the beef?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 07, 1999.

Tom,

Just yesterday, while in a Y2K meeting with one of my company's dept. managers (I'm the Y2K project analyst) the manager asks "What about cars?" Then he says that his son came home the other day and told him he should take all of his money out of the bank. This is an intelligent manager, he is in charge of a scientific laboratory. I hear more internet rumors making it into everyday life as the weeks go by. So, nobody can tell me that the doomers' rumors aren't affecting anyone else.

As for my reading skills, if the majority view here is now more moderate, then why haven't you moderates debunked the extremist idiots yourselves? You don't think uninformed extreme views need to be debunked?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 07, 1999.

Buddy-

You don't think uninformed extreme views need to be debunked?

I guess I'm an idiot uninformed extremist who is making preparations for a disrupted world. I don't mind being debunked. It's a pain in the butt to prepare my family. I don't think I'm an idiot, and I know I'm more informed than my neighbors who say "yk2" is no problem.

Debunk, but don't insult.

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

How do you know what I "think." (Is this a return of the Amazing Kreskin?)

There are many people on this forum I disagree with, but happen to respect. If anyone asks an honest question, I'll try to provide an honest answer. I have talked about my favorite multi-tool ("The Wave"), firearms and other preparation topics... with some experience.

I do not think a person willing to ask an honest question is a fool.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

Sorry, I deduced what you think. My intellectual powers may be deficient, so my conclusions could be wrong. Admitted.

I still wish you hadn't stated what you did on the other forum. It doesn't discredit any of the comments that I've seen you make here, but it does raise doubts in my mind about your motivation for being here. Would you have ever posted those comments here?

Let me put this another way. A reasonable person might conclude that Mr. Decker thinks that folks who are truly concerned that life might change drastically for the worse next year are foolish.

Fair statement?

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 07, 1999.

Alexi,

Thanks for pointing out that Media & Electric drill reporting article on Westergaard. Excellent!!

Diane

In case you missed it earlier ...

World Wide Web Coverage of the April 9 NERC Drill
By E. L. Core
May 6, 1999

http:// y2ktimebomb.com/Media/lcore9918.htm

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 07, 1999.

Just scroll past those who you don't find interesting. In the first sentence I can tell if its a post I wish to read or not. I never read the polly posts because they are inherently unuseful to me. Why? I have already committed to preparations. The only thing I care to read has to do with preparations or new/current status reports. The snippets with old and new wisdom are most appreciated. Honest questions and answers to those questions are most appreciated. All else is scrolled past. Bye-bye...

Ever person makes their own bed. I have made mine and will lay in it. Otherws will lay in theirs. I'm just glad I will not have to put up with the 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' when the polly's find out that they are WRONG.

-- David (C.D@I.N), May 07, 1999.

[OK, (rolling up sleeves), Big Dog deserves a reply, and issues like this need to be addressed.]

The way of the Net is still not well-understood by many. I don't claim to understand it all that well myself. The ideal of quiet, friendly conversation is real but Net forums take place in a public space. It is only an illusion that your posts are directed at trustworthy people. People prove their bona fides by their demonstrated honesty and consistency.

[I'm not sure how this is meant to be interpreted. To me, someone is dishonest if they say something they believe isn't true. (As opposed to saying something incorrect in fact, due to bad information or faulty analysis.) I haven't seen any of this. I've seen a great many statements I believe are false, to the point where I seriously question the sanity of the poster, but it's also clear that the poster actually believes their nonsense. But demented isn't the same thing as dishonest at all.

As for consistency, this is a bit much to ask. Some days I think all will be well, other days I can't see any way to avoid disaster. Our information is hopelessly equivocal. It comes to us from three sources: Those selling calm, those selling products, and those (the media) quoting sources of their choice (with little technical understanding) and adding overtones of their own. This information, taken together, simply cannot be rectified into anything resembling a consistent big picture. The result can only be doubt and confusion.

Now people don't like doubt. It doesn't sit comfortably in the mind, and it doesn't point clearly to any particular courses of action. It is abundantly clear from reading this forum that people have chosen to 'cure' their doubts in one simple way -- pick an opinion and do everything possible to distort the contradictory information available so as to support that opinion.

The ramifications of this approach are clear. (1) It leads us to the conclusion that our opinion accords with the 'facts'; (2) it helps us see that those with very different opinions must distort the available information to fit them; and (3) It blinds us to the fact that we have formed our opinions using the VERY SAME methods.

Being honest with yourself is damn hard, but a good goal. Being consistent in the face of contradictory evidence is itself inconsistent.]

Unfortunately, while it is obvious that profanity and disgusting speech is trolling, equally or more damaging effects on conversation are made by those who are clever and smart, especially those who are smarter than you/me.

[I wish I could read your mind here to know what you really intend to say. Granted, a lot of the posts here are extremely childish, consisting of little more than name-calling and ridicule. And these posts are gratifying if you agree and infuriating if you don't, but ultimately useless. But if you find informed, thoughtful, well- reasoned posts threatening, this should start a useful thought process. It's always potentially valuable when clever and smart people disagree with you (and me). Regarding such disagreement as damaging (rather than valuable) may soothe your ego, but it short- circuits your intellect.]

The Biffy and Debunking Y2K forums (gee, did you get the name?) have had as their avowed purpose the destruction of the conversation we are engaged in and, in some cases, the destruction of the forum itself. Compared to the wild variety of tolerated views and the still- amazing ability of Yourdonites to disagree while continuing to talk, those forums are inhabited by real yahoos.

[Well, the debunking board starts at the top saying y2k is real and deserves serious consideration. (Not that it actually gets much on that board, of course). The goal isn't to destroy conversation, but to encourage it (not that you find much encouragement there either). I've seen numerous posts on this forum along the lines of, Why doesn't everyone who disagrees go away so we can all agree on the coming doom without all this annoying evidence to the contrary being shoved at us?

The debunking board is nearly moribund because of *exactly* what these shortsighted people are asking for. Where there is no debate, you are never challenged to *support* your opinion, so you never have occasion to examine it. Your thinking can never improve if you aren't reaquired to *do* any.

This is not say that the Yourdon forum isn't well-populated with thoughtless people, whose idea of 'defending' their opinion is to tell everyone else to go away, or just call them names. But the vigorous debate here is healthy, and there are many pearls to be found here despite the many swine who cannot appreciate them. This isn't destruction, this is real value.]

Of COURSE, most of the trolls in the past few months represent people from those forums. I say, of COURSE. Do I know for a fact? No, of course. It's a judgment. A sound one.

[It takes a brave soul indeed to declare your judgment sound and admit lack of knowledge at the same time. Your imagery should give you pause for thought. You call those who disagree 'trolls'. This label lets you dismiss them in peace. They are 'from' an enemy forum, so they must be wrong too. You can legitimately disagree with their viewpoint. But doing so by calling them names and attacking their 'origins' is not honest disagreement. It's a standard application of a key rule of disinformation.]

I can't see inside Decker-Poole's heads, thank goodness.

[I can't either, but I wish I could. I don't treasure my closed- mindedness, and I'm disappointed that you do.]

It's probably a mix (towards us) of condescension, a desire to "help us" recover (Decker's "work" here as he described it) and (don't underestimate this) sheer pleasure at the entertainment of manipulating us wherever possible. They all delight in comparing notes on their forum about our idiocy. Whether Decker-Poole personally want to wreck this forum I do not know.

[Situational psychology at work [g]. Poole's arguments are sometimes unsound, and I regard Decker's attitude as supercilious at times. But compare this to some of the mindless doom-ranting and personal vilification by some others here, and by comparison it's not bad. And I don't regard some of this 2-year-old screaming as damaging to the forum, I just consider it useless. I have no objection to treating as children those who behave like children.]

I know that any protestations on their part are hypocritical.

[In what way? How cleverly you've painted yourself into a corner here. You say "these guys are dishonest. I KNOW this. Therefore, anything they say to defend themselves must also be dishonest. Therefore they can't defend themselves." Can you hear your mind's door slamming?]

Any honorable person who wanted to participate here wouldn't participate on those forums AT ALL and would utterly disassociate themselves from them. By doing so and supporting their aims (cf Poole on CPR's explicit desire to destroy this forum, he feels CPR should be "given a medal" for his efforts to debunk Y2K), they ARE hypocrites.

[Demonization at work. Us against Them. You sound a lot like the dissenters in the report by the Commission on Pornography. The said "We don't care what the survey results were. We don't care about court statistics. We don't believe *any* of the experts. We *know* that if you wallow in filth, you get dirty." This is a Policy Statement.

Notice that you do not even attempt to counter the arguments made by Poole or CPR. Instead, you choose to smear them with guilt by association. Do you really call this honest argument? Are you really preserving your purity by not posting elsewhere, or are you just more comfortable posting where the large majority agrees with you (and you want the rest to go away)? Hard to tell if this is insecurity or just laziness. Why *not* go over and point out where the biffies are missing the boat? Who knows, some lurkers might be enlightened?]

I sincerely don't understand why some here don't understand. At the same time, this IS a free forum (not in theory but in actual practice). So I can live with not understanding. While I WISH Decker- Poole and the trolls would go away, I don't expect this.

[So that everyone here can agree, right or wrong? Once again, go over to the debunking forum and see what happens when everyone agrees. The Yourdon forum gets more posts in 15 minutes than the debunking forum gets in a week. You want this?

Sincerely questioning your own assumptions is a lot harder than butchering hogs. It's a soft life if you don't have to do this. So calling them child-molesters and asking them to go away might help you preserve this soft-minded life, but is this also really what you want?]

The reason I have kept up this debate for a while is because it is wider than Decker-Poole though it includes them. Later this year, the quality and trustworthiness of those who are communicating here on this forum will be critical to all of us. It is entirely ON TOPIC to debate this at times,

[This is true. We desperately need to examine what's happening from every viewpoint we can find. We need to have open minds, and think clearly, and reject what seems clearly incorrect (rather than never seeing it at all).]

especially when facing egregious posts like the one Decker made on the "Debunking Y2K" site. If you want to trust Decker, cool. He's too boring to me, at least, to argue with indefinitely. But I want to be sure I have been crystal clear before this is dropped. For now.

[After reading that post many times, I'm still at a loss as to what there was about it that pressed your hot button. Some of the people here are loonies. There is indeed a presumption about the future that underlies much of what is written here, and that presumption is all too often accepted blindly. There are even those who claim such blindness is their *goal*, and regard the sighted as the enemy.

Yes, I must tailor my preparations to my best guesses about the future, knowing that they are guesses. With effort, they can be educated guesses. This requires education, not fixed policy statements. I challenge opinions I don't agree with because the responses to my challenges are always valuable. If the response is good information or clear thought, I try to improve my guesses. If the response is nothing but name-calling and ridicule, I regard my challenge as unanswerable and dismiss the opinion I was challenging as unsupportable. And this helps too.]

Rest assured, when Y2K heats up AND IT WILL, AND IT WILL

[words spoken twice are not doubled in meaning, even when shouted.]

, we'll have plenty of time to debate such things as

.... Yardeni's poll last month of IT techies across many enterprises and their broad pessimism about Y2K outcome.

... Koskinen's remarks in Singapore

... and ... and ...

"It's still Y2K, stupid." Decker and Poole are wrong, but that's trivial.

[No it isn't. If they are indeed wrong, we need to understand how and why if our preparations are to be most appropriate. Beyond that, simply stating that they're wrong is just another way of justifying ignoring them. Again, it's much easier to ignore disagreement than to learn from it. Learning is painful. But as the old saying goes, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.]

I think some of the pollys here are wrong, but I respect them anyway. I see no reason to evidence any respect for Decker-Poole-Biffy.

[Doesn't mean that what you can't see doesn't exist, you know. You appear to have made two complaints against them: that they argue what you consider the 'wrong' side cleverly, and that they don't suffer what they see as fools gladly.

Yet you make the strongest case you can for what you consider the 'right' side, and you clearly don't tolerate what you consider fools either. Yet I don't see them starting posts urging that you go away because your position isn't worthy of respect. So your goal isn't to learn, your goal is to win, whatever it takes. And this is of questionable honesty too.]

I feel certain that there are probably quite a few old-timers that are disappointed or mad with me. I sincerely regret that.

[Don't. If you think you're right, say so. If we're disappointed with you, just consider it the price you pay for being right.]

I'm not a fool. I know my views have come to command, if not respect, at least attention. I'd like to believe I have earned it. But, what I'm saying is, I'm not looking for agreement per se. Chuck, for instance, whom I respect, thinks Decker is swell. So do others of you. I simply feel I need to be as clear as possible on why I have kept this up, lest it be thought to be something "personal". No. Decker is CHARMING (so is Slick himself by the way), very intelligent, etc (cf Slick).

Why do I namecall Decker by comparing him to Slick? Only to say, look inside the package. Decker's actions speak far louder than his words.

[Wait a minute. All we have is Decker's words. I regard Decker as kind of a bellwether here. His posts are mostly polite, unobjectionable, thoughtful, informed, and innocuous. The amazingly vitriolic abuse he attracts simplifies the process of sorting out those here to think, from those here to prevent thought.

Basically, Decker's contributions help separate those who view this forum as a school, from those who view it as a church.]

(laughter)

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 1999.

Doug,

I posted at Debunker under my name. It would have been just as easy to use a false name. Since the barrage of criticism, I have re-read my Debunker post several times. I can see how one can misinterpret my words... but bottom-line--I went onto the "Debunker" board and said the pessimists here on EY did not warrant ridicule of abuse.

Yes, I did paste my "rant." But I still have questions about the blown Y2K predictions. We have sailed through the supposed litmus tests so far. Right now, I bet most Americans have heard of Y2K. It has made the cover of national magazines... awareness is HIGH. But we still haven't seen the foundation crumblings predicted by some of the Y2K "experts." I think these issues deserve discussion, don't you?

I think what upset some people was that I actually posted there. Hey, I go to the Frugal Squirrel survivalist web page on occasion... it doesn't mean I am building a bunker (with grenade pit) on the back 40. I am not going apologize for asking questions... or for defending myself. I am sorry, though, that I chose to use my old BFI Charles Emerson Winchester III style. (Some would call it pompous, arrogant or 'smart ass'). While posting on BFI, I tried to be painfully polite. In real life, I am a rather informal person. But BFI was so plagued with shrillness, I felt the only antidote was a return to High Manners. OK, it was fun as well.

In retrospect, I am glad I posted on Debunker. The fallout has shown me exactly where people stand. With their calm, reasonable approach, the stock of some pessimists has risen greatly... at least in my eyes. The name-calling has been very public... and I'll let you and other decide what to make of it.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

And you wonder why the Serbs and the Kosovars can't get along? Jeez!! I still say that if you guys were on the right end of a hoe out in the garden we wouldn't be seeing all this mud slinging. Lets try and keep it productive. THIS IS A Y2K GET IT FORUM. I wonder if the Jewish forums have Christian trolls? I can't believe this stuff.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), May 07, 1999.

Ummmmmmmm...... Probably wouldn't quite use the term "Swell", as I tend to reserve that level of reference for people with whom I've had the pleasure of wrapping ourselves around more than a couple pints each of some reasonably good stout. Particularly if they were doing the buying (LOL). And, yes V., there is more than one good stout (SAM ADAMS and SARANAC come to mind immediately).

Having said this, I also need ot point out a couple other things before I go to work today.

First, one of the things I enjoy about Mr. Decker's contributions is the fact that, in most cases, I don't have to wade through 5 attacks, 3 of which are borderline obscene, and fully over the line of civility. OK, I am NOT as old an old timer here as some, since I started here last summer, but I have understood the ground rules to be the same as I would have found at my Mother-in-Law's kitchen table, where the coffee pot ran constantly, and you could meet some interesting characters. There, the language sometimes gets working- class, but no one really takes offence because no offence is truly meant. I'm pretty sure we've all been to a poker, or pinochle, or (fill in your own brand of cards, eucher, canasta, etc) party, where the atmosphere gets fairly well lubricated, and nobody REALLY ought to drive home (doesn't stop us though). These can be fairly rough and tumble affairs but certain common decency "rules" don't get broken (except for the canasta parties, where the character assasination can reach amazing levels due to the use of needle like rapiers of words, LOL. Ain't heard nuttin' til you've heard 7 old Italian 'ladies' playing canasta and "What ever happened to .....?") At any rate, I like to refer to this as "Kitchen Table Rules". We seem to have forgotten how to do this anymore.

Secondly, I will take INFORMATION from ANYBODY, be they Old Git, Andy, INVAR, Flint, Koskinen, Old Scratch, Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, whoever, I don't care. I may discount some of this from the source, and may get verification for info from some of the above, but I'll take it from anybody.

Thirdly, I may be in the extreme minority but I happen to NEED to hear varying viewpoints. I vary from 4.5 to 9.9+ depending on what I have read, heard, seen, that day. Depending on where my head is that day, how tightly wrapped I am, or how much I am seriously pissed off about something that day. I have never represented myself as a "fixed at 10+" doomer, though there are days this looks more the reasonable position than others. I show up here to get that exact interplay that I need to continue my CRITICAL asessment of what I need to do for my family.

Fourthly, lest anyone begin to wonder, as I become slightly less present on the forum, I will be starting to curtail my participation in June, as Racing Season starts the weekend of the 2nd and ends in September, with the SCCA Runoffs truly closing the season in October. This means that my bride and I will be spending a LOT of time at the track (Mid-Ohio, for you non-roundy-round race fans) and I will be obliged to get a bit more of the house work done. (And, as I just said to someone privately, before anybody starts, the ring is brass, well polished with a very shiny gold wash, and I'm DA*M proud of it (LOL) though it does get in the way of shaving the non-existent mustache.)

So, the clock just yanked my soap box and, as I fall to the ground, lets see about getting back to where we need to be, Kitchen table rules, fewer flames, more data, more support, less closed minded ness, more flexibility, more light, less heat.

Chuck, who is surprised to find that he can rant with some of the better of them.

PS Please excuse the fractured gramar and spelling, it's VERY early in the morning, to me. These late nights are gettin OLD (or I am)!!!

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 07, 1999.

I'll second that, Taz. This place is an exercise in mental masturbation. I've lurked for a long time now, and this thread is the last straw. I quit.

Bye.

-- Charter Member Lurker (getting.ready@for.it), May 07, 1999.

BD - yeah I think most of us had figured it out. I still get a kick out of how the trolls (and that includes decker-poole) write their own supporting responses under never-before-seen psuedonyms.

Thanks for keepin this thread going - the longer the trolls have to respond here, the less time they have to mess with the newbies!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 07, 1999.

Arlin:

You accuse Poole and Decker of writing "their own supporting responses under never-before-seen psuedonyms".

That's a pretty serious allegation. Can you supply the pseudonyms that you believe Poole and Decker have used. I'd like to check the archives.

By the way, the reason I say that it is a serious allegation is that whatever one may think of the content and tone of Poole and Decker's posts they don't seem the types to hide behind pseudonyms.

-- Johnny Canuck (nospam@eh.com), May 07, 1999.

Poole is a conceited ass who thinks that just because he was able to memorized the resistor color code, y2k is easily solvable. Decker is an arrogant windbag who eloquently states nothing, other than the drivel that "market forces" will solve the world's problems, or at least the ones they created.

I rather listen to BigDog any day...

-- a (a@a.a), May 07, 1999.

Oh forget it. You doomers still seem to think that you are the sole caretakers of Y2K truth.

-- Buddy (.@...), May 07, 1999.

Not only do I post under my real name... and only my real name, I offered to fax Arlin directions to my neck of the woods. Arlin is just making an unfounded accusation without a bit of proof. By the way, the suppportive posts have been wonderful as have the emails. Thanks. (And Buddy, hang around. We all get to see what happens in 238 days.)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

(And Buddy, hang around. We all get to see what happens in 238 days.)

Now don't start spreading those wild-ass ideas that there are 238 days left until 1/1/2000. There are only 120 or so, just ask Andy! [g]

-- RMS (rms_200@hotmail.com), May 07, 1999.

I'm reposting this from an earlier thread that Decker participated in. I never had the chance to respond to his answer. (BIG SMILE) I read this sight because of threads like this. Everyone loves a good argument. So both sides need to quit trying to out-pious the other. All of you need to admit that you enjoy delivering an intellectually clever insult. I know I like reading them. As a long time lurker, here's a little pattern I've noticed. Most (Polly's, trolls, whatever) first posts to this forum have been inflammatory to the extreme. I don't know if they come here thinking they'll have some fun with the Y2K idiots, or what their motivation is. I do know one thing, they quickly find out they underestimated their opponents. These doomers are anything but idiots. So things didn't turn out exactly like they planned. Instead of finding easily mocked prey, they became the mocked ones. Next, the tone of their posts moderate a great deal. They become the "voice of reason", but the old time posters don't forget their first derogatory posts. If one were a new participant of this forum, it would seem they're being abused. The next step seems to be to open a new thread like this one. "Why are those mean old doomers picking on poor l'il polly". The answer is simple, their earlier behavior demands it.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), April 06, 1999.

RB,

So, "they" get what they "deserve." I must differ. There is no excuse for churlish behavior. My first post (one that I actually provided) received about 50 pages of responses. (I printed them to write a follow up article.) A klansman would have had a more civil reception at the Million Man March.

Flint is quite correct. Some posters seem to be "hardcore" survivalists. These individuals talk "New World Order," "black helicopters," "'K'linton," "martial law," "Waco," "government conspiracies," etc. Oh, and there have been comments tinged with racism along with threats of violence.

Reasonable words seem wasted on the extreme.

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 06, 1999. end paste So Decker, I made an observation of trends I've noticed about this forum and you managed to associate me with every Justice department boogeyman you could think up. Lofty rhetoric just can't disguise the fact that you are here to disrupt any talk of preparation for Y2K by associating any one concerned about it with extremists. By the way, to address your intellectual snobbery, you are not even close to being the most intelligent participant of this forum. I realize I'm being extremely CHURLISH, but I just can't help it. We lower classes are sometimes like that.( grin )

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), May 07, 1999.

Just can't seem to cut and paste correctly to this forum.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), May 07, 1999.

BD, thanks for the attempt to elucidate your thoughts on this matter. It's a tough one. As one who generally keeps his opinions to himself, I nevertheless feel obliged to break said habit.

Background: My family is prepared for an 8+. I've been coming to this forum since July of last year. I believe I know the players pretty well. Unlike the proclamations of some folks here, I DO NOT know the probable outcome of the Y2K computer problem.

You stated above, "Unfortunately, while it is obvious that profanity and disgusting speech is trolling, equally or more damaging effects on conversation are made by those who are clever and smart, especially those who are smarter than you/me."

I too abhor the use of profanity in public. What did you mean in the second part of the above statement? Do you refer to folks with specific agendas which may be enhanced through attempted manipulation by means of deceit? If so, perhaps, as so many have mentioned time & again, it would be best to exercise self control & skip reading the offerings of these (in your eyes) offenders.

By entering into name-calling & even worse, character assassination, you demean yourself in my eyes. Why do you put yourself in the position of 'defender of the forum'? You have a responsibility to ID people who are not worthy of your time. Do so & move on. I don't need you to point these folks out because - guess what - our criteria just might be different.

Now please don't get me wrong, BD. I know there are a few others on this forum who keep a constant vigil, declaring dissenters as trolls without so much as two neurons firing before they hit the submit button. IMO, you are most certainly not of this ilk.

I support your right to post your opinions. I hope you refrain from future forays into 'keeper of the forum' territory. I would hate to scratch your posts off my must read list. ;-)

Blessings to ALL,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 07, 1999.

I appreciate most of the posts that have been made on this thread. Over time, honesty-deceit tend to "out" as I, of course, think they already have in the case of Decker-Poole-BIFFY (namely, deceit, perhaps some of it self-deceit).

I'd rather be wrong than right about Y2K and I'd rather be wrong than right about Decker. Since many of you know that I am indeed a Christian, I say solemnly before Him as my judge, God is my witness about both of those "rathers" on my part. But wanting to be wrong and believing I am wrong can never be identical, until persuaded.

I have a strong conviction that Yourdonites, doomers AND pollys, are a lot shrewder than most anyone I've seen on the Net. There is scarcely a polly here I wouldn't be willing to have alongside of me post-Y2K. You'll make up your own minds over time on this subject of trolling, Decker-Poole and BIFFY, as you should.

Heck, I don't actually want Decker to go away. I just want him to be honest.

See you on other threads. Unless Decker slips his cover big-time again, I'll kick back and let things ride.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 07, 1999.

circumstantial evidence. having seen supporting posts from previously unknown posters - each name always different- pop up within five minutes or so after a troll post...as well as similarities in writing styles...

old military intelligence saying: "once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action."

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 07, 1999.

RB,

I differentiate between "trends" and the buzzwords of the extreme right. Sorry, but I don't remember your original post, but I stand by mine. Some people on this forum are extreme. How do I define extreme right?

Rhetoric about the United Nations working to establish a "new world order" or a "one world government." Militia that promote illegal activities. Neo-nazis, white separatists or the Klan. Black helicopters, government-sponsored mind control projects or secret deals with international cabals. Waco and Ruby Ridge as part of a systemic government effort to eliminate domestic opposition. Need I go on? Read, RB. There are people who post here who believe all of this stuff is dead on true. I think if you believe all of this, you no longer are in the mainstream of political thought in America... ergo, you are extreme. The neo-leftists who think we should have a social democracy with universal goverment are extreme. If any of the leftists show here, I am sure they'll bring buzzwords too.

You can call me wrong, RB, but the way I see this one is the way most of America sees it.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

Arlin:

Perhaps if you see something suspicious in future posts you could raise an alert and let the forum decide if skullduggery is being perpetrated.

-- Johnny Canuck (nospam@eh.com), May 07, 1999.

RB...

As a libertarian, I guess I am extreme, too. Ouch!

Big Dog,

Listen, I hope by now you have read enough from others... including some people I think you respect, to see that there is more than one way to read my Debunker post. It is hard to bear a grudge against you. As I said a few moments ago in another post, I think you are a gentle soul. Anyone who has the neighbors butcher the hog must have a sensitive side. You are also a man of faith, if rather acid tongued.

My invitation to the Middleton Tavern stands. Oh, and bring Arlin. I'd like to work up a thirst before we start drinking.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

Johnny Canuck, here is an example of Mr. Poole posting as someone other than himself. Not to support his own response, just his website. As usual! Poole's youshould

-- none (none@none.none), May 07, 1999.

Decker,

There you go again, assigning extremist leanings to anyone who rebutts you. You just can't stand for anyone to point out your hypocrisy. At no point did my post give any indication of my political leanings. Yet your reply attempts to link me to these groups. This is your SOP for anyone who disagrees with you. Thinly veiled condescension is irritating, and will get you flamed on this forum. Try speaking to the people here as intellectual equals and possibly they might be civil in their responses.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), May 07, 1999.

You want intellectual equality... read more carefully. I said I did not remember what you wrote. So, my response was not a personal attack against you.

I responded to what I wrote! To summarize, there are extremists here, at least by my definition. Are you one? I don't know BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU WROTE. Cut and paste your "trends" and I'll look at them. If they are about black helicopters, save your time. You already know what I think. Oh, I forget to mention, I don't think aliens landed at Roswell or that the CIA killed Kennedy or that Vince Foster was murdered.

Put some ideas on the table, RB. You know, a theory, a hypothesis, a hunch... I'd settle for anything substantive. Then, we can move past what you think me, personally, and maybe engage in a discussion. This is my SOP, RB, to try to move away from attacks and towards real discourse.

[I guess I am spoiled by the high quality of previous attacks. When a really poor one comes along, it bothers me.]

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

wrong answer decker - I only voluntarily deal with gentlemen. Here's a clue: gentlemen do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do. As you may recall, when previously confronted concerning your veiled threat to B.D. you spinelessly attempted to lie your way out of it in your response to me...and THEN you had the gaul to attempt to claim to be a gentleman in the same post. HAH!

I make a habit of never, ever, trusting someone who fails the tests of honesty and courage - and you have failed them both. It would be foolish in the extreme to walk onto your turf with prior notice, since your lack of courage in this instance suggests you'd most likely either have fled, or left some sort of cowardly ambush behind. nope - you wanna play, you have to come to Northern Virginia and play on *my* turf.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 07, 1999.

Decker, To clear up any misunderstanding, my post from April 6 started at the (big smile), so you don't have to remember what I wrote. It's right there. Maybe YOU SHOULD READ before responding. To be such poor attack, it sure seems to have gotten under your skin. It seems to have knocked the veneer of civility off of you a little. Regarding your 'substantive ideas' goad, I've stayed totally on topic for this thread. It was, after all, about you. You were the one who took it off into 'conspiracy land'. But, enough of this, I'll let you have the last word if you respond. Logging off now.

-- RB (R@AR.LIST), May 07, 1999.

Arlin,

Northern Virginia... excellent choice. I can drive there in less than two hours. There's a couple of gyms in DC, maybe one in Alexandria with a ring. I know I keep suggesting the squared circle but far be it from me to suggest something illegal like a brawl... particularly one where you might be tempted to use a weapon or have the boys in your band of merry men tip the odds in your favor. Let's say our lack of trust runs both ways, hoss.

You see, Arlin, even if you show up six six and made of strapped iron... I've never mixed it up with giving a little in return. In your case, it's a thought that makes me smile.

[By the way, all of you that are shocked... tough. Going a few rounds is a time-honored manner of settling a dispute. Particularly for hard-headed men like Arlin and me. If Arlin is any measure of man, he'll buy me a beer after we exchange our opinions.]

Now, are we going to get this done or are you just teasing me?

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 07, 1999.

Ooooooooh, I just love it when you boys get your testosterone in an uproar! Makes me faint and dizzy.

Can I watch?

-- Richard Simmons (Who,me@well.maybe), May 07, 1999.

Removal of sophisticated veneer and substitution of redneck by Dialectizer.

Arlin, No'thern ole Virginny... excellent choice. ah can drive thar in less than two hours. Thar's a couple of gyms in DC, mebbe one in Alexan'ria wif a rin'. ah knows ah keep suggestin' th' squared circle but far be it fum me t'suggess sumpin illegal like a brawl, ah reckon... particularly one whar yo' might be tempped t'use a weapon o' haf th' fellas in yer ban' of merry min tip th' odds in yer favo'. Less say our lack of trest runs both ways, host. Yo' see, Arlin, even eff'n yo' show up six six an' made of strapped iron, as enny fool kin plainly see... I've nevah mixed it up wif givin' a li'l in return, as enny fool kin plainly see. In yer case, it's a thunk thet makes me smile. [By th' way, all of yo' thet is shocked, cuss it all t' tarnation... tough. Gwine a few roun's is a time-hono'ed manner of settlin' a dispute. Particularly fo' hard-haided min like Arlin an' me. Eff'n Arlin is enny measure of man, he'll buy me a beer af'er we exchange our opinions.] Now, is we a-gonna git this hyar done o' is yo' jest teasin' me?

-- translator (takeit@off.com), May 07, 1999.

no, no, decker, that's *not* what this is about. I'm not here to play macho games, and simply beating on someone for a while solves nothing. I tell you what, I'll make it easy for you. you already know I live in the NOVA area, and I've been here a while, so I wont be that hard to find. You just come find me and take your best shot. I'll be here, same as I always am, and I'll defend myself, same as I always do. I promise I wont even make the first move, if that will make you feel any better. Oh, and decker, I keep *my* promises.

A word of caution: when you attempt to locate me, I'd suggest that you be careful about trusting the y2k kiddies over on the debunking board - a while back one of them tried to shock everyone here by posting supposedly current data on my address...data that was the better part of a decade out of date. ah well we all knew they weren't that bright anyway, didn't we?

Now if that's all too over the top for you, well that also is your problem. You see if you'd actually read the interview A.E.P. did with me in that newspaper article, you'd have realized that I already live with the knowledge that there are some rather nasty people who would prefer I was no longer among the living. Next to that, your cute little prep school boxing/sports competition suggestion just doesn't hold a whole lot of water. I'm sure given your claimed military background, that you understand.

In the meantime let's get back to the real point here. You're intentionally misleading people. You play silly little innuendo games and then when called, you attempt to back out of them thinking you're only playing with words. That is where you are so very, very wrong.

You're playing with people's lives here decker. There will be disruptions, there will even be serious problems in some areas, and there will be significant economic ripple effects which will take several years to die down. Note I am NOT predicting a TEOWAWKI scenario, but rather one of serious effects the precursors of which can already be seen in the y2k related issues which have surfaced in the news (i.e. pirated software in the PRC; estimated 15 percent drop in real GDP predicted for Taiwan due to y2k related issues; ongoing problems and discoveries involving the French reactor facilities, the East European reactor facilities, and so on...oh and last, but not least, of course the ongoing problems in many rural areas (and more than a few entire states) regarding such issues as drinking water, and rural electric cooperatives (all of the above news articles are posted here in various threads on the TB2K board - I know, because I posted several of them myself, and the others I copied from here for distribution to my mailing list). Your version of 'everything's alright' just happens to be wrong, next winter some of the folks you are misadvising now could very well end up dead. When they do, you will have been partially responsible for persuading them not to properly prepare.

Don't get me wrong - all your protests aside, you have every right to not prepare for yourself - I'm sure you'll schmooze your way into surviving somehow anyway. What I *am* challenging is your pretense of contributing to this forum while constantly seeking to sabotage the dissemination of accurate information. You do this both by drawing attention away from valid warning data, and by playing sophomoric word games with people rather than simply admitting that you do not like what we are doing here, and that your intent is to be as disruptive as possible. To the extent that the y2k kiddies are more direct in their actions, they are actually more honest and open than you are...you might want to think about that. In any case, if you keep playing word games, I'm going to keep calling you on them...questions?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 07, 1999.

Arlin,

I have stated here several times that I post under my own name. My web site clearly identifies me, and my email address is provided both there and here. I state my opinions and -- agree or disagree -- you can write and tell me what you think (or, post to me here, of course).

Actually, if you'll do a quick head count of the regulars here, it would appear to me that the "Polly/DGI/[insert gratuitous label here]" side posts under its real name more often than the "Doomer/GI/[insert gratuitous label here]" side. But that's just me.

To your credit, you provide a name and email address. To MY credit, I do the same. :)

a,

I've not only memorized the resistor color code, I can stand on one leg in a strong wind, catch peanuts on the fly from various unreasonable angles, and [drum roll, please!] ... type on this here keyboard thingie and make pixtures and words appear on the TV screen thingie!!!!

And then I roll that ball-and-cord thingie and click the left button where it says, "submit" and the words appear here for everyone to see!

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 07, 1999.

Y'know, when the pillows were still full of feathers this thread was ok. And then things started down hill. I see the rules are still being reasonably adhered to, but it looks a lot more like wizend old ladies playing canasta with speech recog software turned on than a rousing discussion, which is what I LEFT AT NOON!!!!!!! WHAT GIVES??? SHEESH! C

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 08, 1999.

Chuck & Mr. Poole,

Sorry, Arlin and I just have some unfinished businesses. Arlin is a card-carrying member of one of the quasi-military brigades... a "psyops officer." He doesn't really want to discuss Y2K because he KNOWS what will happen. And because I do not agree, I am evil and must be destroyed. We bumped heads on an earlier thread, and, reverting to my primordial Montana phase, I asked him to step outside.

Legally, of course. I have no desire for Arlin to hire the pasty- faced "JAG" lawyer in his brigade to sue me for threatening bodily harm. I thought someone like you, Chuck, could play Mills Lane and that Arlin and I could "get it on" without breaking any laws.

You see, I think members of the extreme right often demonstrate paranoid tendencies (read his quote about people wanting to kill him) and bullying behaviors.

There's only one way to deal with a bully.

Now that I have made numerous offers to Arlin, and he has wiggled his way out of the situation. (I have no desire to "look you up," Arlin. To do so would suggest I was interested in illegal activities like kicking your backside around your neighborhood.)

My point is proven. Arlin does not really want a piece me.

I apologize to you both if this has been a distraction.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 08, 1999.

Removal of sophisticated veneer and substitution of Elmer Fudd by Dialectizer.

Chuck & Mw. Poowe,

Sowwy, Awwin and I just have some unfinished businesses. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Awwin is a cawd-cawwying membew of one of the qwasi-miwitawy bwigades. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! .. a "psyops officew." He doesn't weawwy want to discuss Y2K because he KNOWS what wiww happen, uh-hah-hah-hah. And because I do not agwee, I am eviw and must be destwoyed. We bumped heads on an eawwiew thwead, and, wevewting to my pwimowdiaw Montana phase, I asked him to step outside. Wegawwy, of couwse. I have no desiwe fow Awwin to hiwe the pasty- faced "JAG" wawyew in his bwigade to sue me fow thweatening bodiwy hawm. I thought someone wike you, Chuck, couwd pway Miwws Wane and that Awwin and I couwd "get it on" without bweaking any waws. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! You see, I think membews of the extweme wight often demonstwate pawanoid tendencies (wead his qwote about peopwe wanting to kiww him) and buwwying behaviows. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Dewe's onwy one way to deaw wif a buwwy. Now that I have made numewous offews to Awwin, and he has wiggwed his way out of the situation, uh-hah-hah-hah. (I have no desiwe to "wook you up," Awwin, uh-hah-hah-hah. To do so wouwd suggest I was intewested in iwwegaw activities wike kicking youw backside awound youw neighbowhood.) My point is pwoven, uh-hah-hah-hah. Awwin does not weawwy want a piece me. I apowogize to you bof if this has been a distwaction, uh-hah-hah-hah.

Wegawds,

-- Mw. Deckew (kcdeckew@wowwdnet.att.net), May 08, 1999.

-- translator (takeit@off.com), May 08, 1999.

Stephen - my appologies for misinterpretting your intent as less than honorable - not to say I don't disagree with your interpretation of the factual evidence, but I shouldn't have included you in the same category as decker and the y2k kiddies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

why decker, you've entirely misunderstood my post yet again...look if you have some sort of learning disability, just say so up front, and I'll back off - having studied such things, I understand about adult reading problems, and I certainly wouldn't want to think I was taking advantage of a handicapped person...just say the word, and I'll start using double spacing, simplified sentences...

now let's get this straight - I have no need to destroy you, your ego will do that for you sooner or later. You just wanted to play little macho games, so I upped the ante, guess you're not the man you claimed to be, since you obviously can't meet the bet. oh well. Real life has that effect on some people. Poor little decker.

In the meantime, you still haven't dealt with the issue of your personal responsibility in the suffering of those who will not prepare, in part because they listened to your false assurances. Now you obviously don't have the courage to face me, but will you have the courage to face *them*?

More immediately, you also haven't dealt with the fact that you are intentionally lying to people and then attempting to misdirect their attention in the vain hope that your lies will not be noticed. Your contributions here are meant primarily to be disruptive, that's evident from the crosspost BD provided from the y2k kiddie board...

Stop and think for a minute, decker - doesn't it tell you anything that you are hanging out on a board populated by overweight adolescent males with personality problems? They aren't even adults. Doesnt' that tell you anything about their judgement? Those are the people you are interacting with as peers.

Ah well, In any case, the plain fact of the matter is, decker, that you are not good enough to pull that sort of deception off for any length of time. you're not much of a man, and you're not much of a liar. You've been detected, so I guess we'll all just sort of have to pitch in and work to keep you in line...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 08, 1999.

Stop and think for a minute, decker - doesn't it tell you anything that you are hanging out on a board populated by overweight adolescent males with personality problems? They aren't even adults. Doesnt' that tell you anything about their judgement? Those are the people you are interacting with as peers.

LOL Good one Arlin! Hey CET, that goes for you too. LOL

-- a (a@a.a), May 08, 1999.

The discussion is a bit too gamy for me, however, I do have first hand experience with testosterone. My girlfriend complains that I got two doses when they handed it out. Since my semi-recent conversion, I have taken great pains to pray more and bark less. I get a lot of help from God. Thank goodness. Sure, on occassion I still bark at the other cars on the road. And I may bark at the cars as they speed on by the house.

If I'm in the yard.

It's too easy to get your feathers in a ruffle, online. It's easy to misunderstand. It's hard to know a person by text alone. It's hard to treat a person decently when you are typing at the text. I've been typing for years now and have more hours logged than I care to admit. I think I've mastered this typing thing: trying to type to people as opposed to typing at the text. Yet, I still make too many mistakes.

Not just in spelling and grammar.

I think a Northern Virginia meet is a good idea... as long as Mssrs. Arlin and Decker leave the irons and gloves at home. I'll wager this will clear up some confusions. It might even make friends of us all. Won't we be surprised to see one another face to face. The darling sweet college girl will meet the fat old man, etc. Whatever we look like and however loud our bark, we'll find some things in common.

Perhaps, we'll have humanity in common.

I can bring a muzzle and a choke chain if there's need for it. If these be, indeed, gentleman or ladies, I am willing to take their word about having left their six shooters, derringers, and flap jacks at home. Of course, a roll of quarters for show and tell will be seen as suspicious. (grin) If these be, indeed, gentleman and ladies, I expect a fairly decent showing, a grand affair, and brilliant conversations.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 08, 1999.

(I've been off line for the weekend -- just catching up here.)

Buddy writes -- "...if the majority view here is now more moderate, then why haven't you moderates debunked the extremist idiots yourselves? You don't think uninformed extreme views need to be debunked?"

Setting up a straw man, then knocking it down, is a familiar part of the toolbox of "debunkery". For the record:

I made no case that the majority view here is more moderate. (In any case, the meaning of "moderate" will vary from person to person.) I wrote simply "During this past year I've seen many posts here which fall far short of assuming TEOTWAWKI (including my own) -- without incurring animosity or flames. People here, posters and lurkers alike, are all over the scale." This still seems to me to be the case.

As for whether "uninformed extreme views need to be debunked", it's my opinion that those who hold such views are motivated by something other than a desire to learn, and are largely immune to change. I am not an evangelist.

Neither am I trying to change Buddy's views, only trying to present some sort of balance for the hundreds (?) or thousands (?) who visit the forum, most of whom remain silent.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 10, 1999.