From another thread (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sT2:

What we know about Y2K is that there will be some indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is a muddle of speculation, opinion and theory. A pessimistic interpretation of this muddle has calcified into a belief system.

So has an optimistic interpretation. Like it or not, if the "religion" or "belief system" label applies to Doomerism, it applies to Pollyism, too.

So, what exactly does this kind of labelling accomplish? Except to distract people from looking at whatever facts are available....

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), May 27, 1999

Answers

Yeah, Lane, I just read through that entire thread, (it was very entertaining) and at the end all I could think was, "what was the point of this?" I found myself wondering why I had just spent 15 minutes reading all the back and forth. I got sucked in, and then realized that it was nothing more than a distraction from what I should have been doing.

IMHO, the Y2K as Religion meme really doesn't deserve all that much energy...

-- pshannon (pshannon@sangersreview.com), May 27, 1999.

Patsy -- Minor correction. Doesn't deserve "any energy" except, sadly, the need to point out the emperor doesn't have any clothes on, lest well-meaning folks are indeed distracted from the real issues. As apparently seems to happen even to some of the regulars who are taken in by it.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 27, 1999.

I think it's fair to say that the "religion" label applies to Pollyism as well as Doomerism, and I'm a polly by the standards of this board. But it doesn't seem fair to blame the sort of philosophical discussion that Mr Drecker invited in the Y2K as Religion thread for "distracting well-meaning folks from the real issues".

BigDog, you speak as if Mr Drecker had some ulterior (anti-doomer) motive in starting the Y2K as Religion discussion. Do you really believe that, or am I imagining things?

I ask because it's not the first time I've seen the more Y2K- optimistic sorts accused of trying to "distract" people from the "real" issues. The funny thing is that the doomers themselves could be accused of trying to distract people from the real issues by indulging in irrelevant what-if fantasies. I say could be accused, but I wouldn't accuse them myself. I like reading the doomers' irrelevant what-if fantasies, and the responses they provoke. I also thought that the thread Mr Drecker started was entertaining. OK, so Y2K is a serious business, but isn't there room for a little entertainment here? Is it so damaging to be "distracted" once in a while?

-- Richard Dymond (rjdymond@x-stream.co.uk), May 27, 1999.

Richard -

right around 200 days left to prepare...given that the international economy holds together that long....so yes, distraction is a problem. BTW I hold the same conclusion with regard to B.D. - decker's primary goals on this forum are to stroke his own ego through attempts at manipulating others, while seeking to distract those who are looking for hard news and preparaton alternatives - which are what this forum is supposed to be about.

Arlin Adams

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 27, 1999.

Richard -- not really an ulterior motive, Decker's been relatively clear about his motives.

He believes that Y2K is a modest if real problem, that Y2K panic is the main exposure, that the markets will solve most everything by themselves unless panic gets in the way and that it is nice to live frugally.

He has every right to his opinions and every right to promote them on this forum as vigorously as he likes.

I happen to believe his argument on that thread was theologically and philosophically vacuous. I assume I have a right to say that? Even if I don't have the time to spend on it in detail, since I don't believe Decker has an open mind on the subject?

Sincerely, is there a problem here or am I missing something?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 27, 1999.

BD stated:

"I happen to believe his argument on that thread was theologically and philosophically vacuous. I assume I have a right to say that?"

[Of course. But why can't you leave Decker alone? Think about it - if you, Arlin, Andy, Mike, et al would simply not give in to the impulse of clicking the submit button every time you see his name on a post, what might occur?]

[Might Decker's threads simply die from lack of interest? Could it be that women & children won't die off in large numbers next year inspite of the fact you folks weren't there to save them from this plague Decker is supposedly attempting to spread?]

"Even if I don't have the time to spend on it in detail, since I don't believe Decker has an open mind on the subject?"

[Forget Decker. If the subject matter of a thread interests you, post. If you feel you have something to contribute, please do. That you find Decker to be closed-minded is not a very good reason for sabotage.]

Arlin wrote: "...BTW I hold the same conclusion with regard to B.D. - decker's primary goals on this forum are to stroke his own ego through attempts at manipulating others, while seeking to distract those who are looking for hard news and preparaton alternatives - which are what this forum is supposed to be about."

[With all due respect - BULL***T!!! Now whose attempting to manipulate people? You can't possibly believe what you wrote, Arlin. Distraction? Don't distract us, Decker? Are you kidding? Have a gander at the 'New Answers' page my friend. What is the ratio of Andy's contribution to preparation for Y2K versus OT posts? Nikoli's? a's? Pick a regular, any regular.]

Now I'm pissed. Consider it a great accomplishment, guys. Damn!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

Bingo ----

"Now I'm pissed."

Welcome to the club!

What does your own rant have to do with Lane's post? Are you criticizing him as well for questioning that Decker's thread has any basic relevance to this forum? Lane thought it important enough to call that out on a separate thread ...... and I agreed. Pat Shannon agreed.

I also thought I gave a pretty good summary of Decker's basic convictions (lest people think I'm not listening) and a defense of his right (of course, duh) to post on the forum. I happen to think Decker's smooth language contains plenty of dart, barbs and bombs, IMO. More than mine by a long shot. I still defend his right to say anything he pleases.

Where is the problem here?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 27, 1999.

Bingo - the big difference between Andy & Nik vs decker is that Andy & Nik not only do nothing to disguise their motives, but they are also entirely consistent in their arguments. are all three distractions? certainly! At the very least we've managed to get Andy and Nik to mark their threads as OT in the subject lines, thus saving time for the rest of the folks. If decker would also mark his subject lines as OT, then I'd have nothing to complain about, would I?

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 27, 1999.

It's lunch and time to check in. My original post was meant to make a simple point. Once you stop searching for the facts on Y2K and accept the "end of the world" as a foregone conclusion... Y2K takes on the character of a religion. (This is my opinion, not a fact.)

***

Every so often some passes me a "stock tip." Usually, the person has some brother's friend's wife sort of linkage. Much of the information on this forum reminds me of these sort of stock tips. "I know this guy, who knows this guy, who works for this company who is way behind on Y2K."

I don't invest on "tips."

I have the "Joe Friday" attitude. Just the facts, ma'am. Not opinion, not speculation, not theory... just hard facts. What hardware and software plaforms are not Y2K ready? What utilities have failed Y2K tests? What railroad switching operations do not function due to rollover problems?

If the facts change or new facts are revealed, I will reconsider my position. Until then, I will question statements like "the code is broken" and "we started too late." Until conclusively proven and independently verifiable... they are opinions.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

I addressed the issue of 'distraction' which Lane brought up. I repeat - look at the "New Questions" page BD. What is the ratio of prep vs. OT threads? It's not pretty, is it? How many regulars have started OT threads in the past? A very high percentage.

You know very well that the implications Y2K present touch ALL facets of our lives. Decker requested some discussion on Pascal's wager applied to Y2K. Distraction! Distraction! How is this OT?

As I asked earlier - what about Andy, Nikoli, a, Rob; the list of regulars who present OT subjects for consideration is endless! I happen to enjoy the variety. I thought you did as well.

You & a select few have decided to pick on Decker. Where's the harsh words for Andy? Is he not a threat to the calm, rational discussion you (& I) desire?

The problem I have is, and will remain, this - to unfairly single out anyone as a target for personal attacks, on this forum, or in life, is shameful. You may believe this is justifiable. I do not.

Any more discussion on this will have to be done privately. I don't wish to continue berating people. In public, anyway. :-)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

Arlin,

In what way are Decker's (I'm gettin' tired of typing his name) posts, such as the one in question, OT? He's provided us (me anyway) another view on the polarization which seems to be a natural course of human events, as it relates to Y2K. You can agree, disagree, expound, to your hearts content. Or IGNORE the thread!

Disguised motives? Plausible but not proven. Nor even attempted to be proven.

I don't understand what you mean by "(Andy & Nik are) entirely consistent in their arguments". Perhaps you can enlighten me at the next gathering, eh?

Best Wishes,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

This Norm character is really beginning to fascinate me. Even the Nom de Plume is brilliant. Norm, as in "Normal," nwo, "New World Order," @hotmail.com - a Microsoft "property." -- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 16, 1999

-- Mild Mannered Reporter (clark@super.duper), May 27, 1999.

Decker said, "Until conclusively proven and independently verifiable... they are opinions."

Of course. The reason I believe this is disingenuous (but perhaps I'm wrong, it may just be an inability to grasp the subject matter through being dense) is that, with the rarest exceptions, it is impossible to independently verify anything about Y2K or to "conclusively prove" this-or-that item of data.

Either Decker knows that and uses it as a weapon to mock those of us whose opinion is that Y2K deserves the utmost preparation or he doesn't know it, which makes me wonder what planet he lives on.

That is one of the prime reasons this forum has been useful. It gives people a chance to weigh OPINIONS. And to act on them, since opinion is fundamentally the bottom line with this singularly strange problem.

Decker is entirely entitled to ask for facts, etc., etc., but to present this as though either someone isn't coming through for him with the facts (when, presumably, they could) or is wilfully expressing mere "opinions" is wrong.

I don't know anyone who has stopped searching for facts and "accepted the end of the world." Maybe Gary North, but even that is kind of a smear. Who, precisely on this forum, is doing that?

Bingo, you are accusing me, why don't you accuse Decker of PERSISTENTLY stating (as he has now for about the 100th time, if not more) that I and others believe Y2K will be "the end of the world" or that I/others "want" the end of the world or to wreck this country (which was the implication of one of his charges, I assume, yesterday). So, apparently, "I" am the person who isn't seeking facts.

And if Decker doesn't consider "we started too late" globally about as CLOSE to a conclusive fact as is available about Y2K, then there is no so-called fact he will ever accept. Do you get it, Bingo?

What a crock.

You're mystified. Fine. I'm mystified as to why his approach isn't blatantly obvious to you.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 27, 1999.

Re Andy and Nik being "entirely consistent in their arguments." They never deviate--it's going to be TEOTWAAKI, the end of the world as ANYbody knows it. However, K. C. Decker has showed somewhat less consistency.

One example: Decker began a thread musing on when preparedness becomes excessive. Subsquently, Decker contributed a piece on what he called "modest" preps, how an optimist (presumably himself) would prepare. To cut the proverbial short, Decker advocated seven days of water, thirty of food. The strong implication was that anything much beyond those numbers was excessive. Now look at this:

Dave Walden posted on the Debunking Y2K forum on May 25, 1999:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 27668269&P=No&TL=927668269

"We have prepared for about 6 months worth of "renewable" (food, wood, etc.) commodities, and about 1 years worth of "technically produced," perhaps non-renewable commodities (fuels, medicines, toiletries, etc.) . . .We have not liquidated any of our long term assets. These are items such as IRA's, 401K's, insurance, stocks, and bonds. . ."

There's more, but that's sufficient for my point. Decker replied: http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 276796 32&P=Yes&TL=927668269

". . .Your preparations, while significant, fall well short of those recommended by some. Few will argue against buying consumable household goods in bulk. (Especially for those of us who are fans of Costco.) What you called preparations, can also be defined as frugal living."

Frugal living? All I heard on those previous related threads on this forum was "excessive." "Frugal living" didn't enter into Decker's comments, yet some forumites have made that very point. More from Decker: "Stopping short of complete entrenchment indicates you do not accept the 'end of the world' rhetoric. I think you are wise to leave your retirement funds intact and continue planning for your family's future, although you risk the wrath of the ultra-prepared."

Decker apparently has not yet grasped that most on the forum talk about "the end of the world AS WE KNOW IT," (utterly different in meaning from "the end of the world") which may be a Mad Max scenario for a few but for most ranges from an inability to find acryclic nails to no Italian tires for the car to living without electricity for a few weeks to a disruption in the food supply to . . ., well, those of you who regularly lurk or participate can fill in more blanks. There are almost as many possible scenarios as there are people reading this forum! Decker continues: "There are folks like Mssrs. [sic] Milne and Hamaski [sic] who are fatalists. They are quite convinced Y2K will result in an economic and social meltdown unpredented [sic] in the modern world. Life in post-Y2K America will be worse than German-occupied Europe in 1942."

That's true--there are SOME who believe conditions will be that bad. I'd wager the majority on this forum believe the chance of such a social meltdown, while not nonexistent, is certainly not the likeliest scenario.

"Complicating matters, there are serious questions about those who both report on Y2K and profit it [sic]."

Yes, and people on this forum have cottoned on to them very quickly. Now if Decker is referring to Ed Yourdon, yes he does profit from Y2K. Does that automatically make Ed a charlatan? Having worked for a large number of nonprofits and a couple of name-brand charities in my time (mostly as a volunteer), I can tell you that many people have for over a century made large amounts of money via the insecurities (real or perceived), discomforts and misfortunes of others.

"There will always be a Y2K somewhere on the horizon. In that respect Y2K is a nonissue. If you feel you have begun a more prudent lifestyle, you need not justify it with Y2K. It will wear well for year [sic]."

I can only remark that many on this forum, including myself, have frequently said that they had intended to be a prudent stasher for years but never got around to it before now. Y2K was the catalyst. (Because, for instance, an earthquake doesn't have a definite arrival time, whereas Y2K does.)

Despite all his time on this forum, Decker seems not to have read any threads other than his own, plus OTs and other provocative posts. He appears to paint Y2K preparers on this forum with the same ultra-extremist brush. He is wrong. Now he attempts to point out that we are infected by a quasi-religious "virus". He is wrong about that too.

Perhaps the foregoing will help explain the antipathy generated by Decker. For further elucidation, may I suggest a look at the thread Decker began on the Debunking Forum (apparently in the middle of last night, according to the date/time stamp on it) which invites Debunkers to see the thread on Y2K and Religion at EY, because they "might find it of interest." Here is the URL:

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/mbs.cgi/mb237006

To all--however you perceive the effects of Y2K, if you're looking for a little reinforcement please accept my unstinting support for whatever preparations you deem necessary for your own personal circumstances and comfort level. Providing your preparations do not infringe on the rights of others, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't do what YOU think feels comfortable.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblms.com), May 27, 1999.

Bingo,

okay, it'll be easier to do this f2f at the next get together!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 27, 1999.

Every so often some passes me a "stock tip." Usually, the person has some brother's friend's wife sort of linkage. Much of the information on this forum reminds me of these sort of stock tips. "I know this guy, who knows this guy, who works for this company who is way behind on Y2K."

I don't invest on "tips."

I have the "Joe Friday" attitude. Just the facts, ma'am. Not opinion, not speculation, not theory... just hard facts.

Mr. Decker,

If this is your opinion, then why do you call this forum? You're already prepared for unexpected occurrences including Y2K. You believe the free market will solve most Y2K problems. I don't see what benefit this forum is to you.

I call here because of a simple fact...I know that many U.S. organizations waited until 1998 before they got serious about fixing Y2K. And the situation is worse overseas.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Aloha all, Seems to me the problem is that some want facts, or evidence, when sorry, knowone knows exacally what will happen. We do know there will be failures, these may or may not come to cause wider problems. (Thinking of Ed explaining the importance of differenciating "risks" from "whats at stake");Some of these guys are stuck trying to get hard facts to determine the risk, while others are past that, having determined lack of evidence contributes to the risk. We have moved to, and past the point of knowing whats at stake.(and are preparing) As Ed is trying to convince our government, and we, our neighbors, It's what's at stake, which each individual or family has to determine, thats of the utmost importance. Its dangerous to get stuck on determining the risk. These guys are a sort of distraction, but I like to think of them as a gift. we can honestly tell our friends and community that we have looked at both sides,(Isn't balance what lifes all about?) and still feel the risks are high enough to seriously consider what's at stake here.. when my dogs took me for a walk the other day the theory came to me "For every action, there is an equal or oppisite reaction"Thats all these guys are is part of the big cosmic plan! In our defenselessness our safety lies.... Love and Aloha, Justinonkauai.

-- Justin Case (justin case@Aloha.com), May 27, 1999.

This forum remind me of "talk radio."

BD and I might as well be talking in different languages. This is why he thinks I am either stupid or dishonest. And when he says none of the pessimists (with the possible exception of Gary North) take a Y2K apocalypse as a foregone conclusion... I am at a loss. Look at any of Paul Milne's posts. Hamaski, Invar, Andy, and yes, Gary North. Should I cut and paste individual comments or is it enough to simply say "7-11" and "toast?"

And the "we started too late" is not opinion held by the majority of the IT community. Should I start lining up quotes from IT All Stars who are not digging bunkers? Maybe the editors of all the major IT media. CIOs? Oh, wait, I forgot. They're all corporate shills who are going willingly to their graves to keep their jobs for another six months.

There are Y2K facts, but not enough negative ones to sate the true pessimists. In the gap, we get rampant speculation and nonsensical statements like "the code is broken."

The pros I know in the IT community laugh at the end of the world stuff. Admittedly, not a scientific survey, but listen... is BD just smarter than all these folks? I suppose we'll find out.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.net.att), May 27, 1999.

Old Git,

My two favorite breakfast cereals are not longer produced (Quisp and Quake). It is the end of the world as I know it.

By the way, I have been careful to avoid tarring the thoughtful Y2K pessimists like Faryna and Walden with my brush. If you bothered to read my posts, you might know this.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker:

Cory Hamasaki accepts a Y2K apocalypse as a foregone conclusion? The last I heard he was forecasting a 7.0. Cory is one of the thoughtful pessimists you just referred to. I suppose you disagree though because he's preparing for Y2K.

See this link...

http://www.russkelly.com/experts.html

"What the Experts Think"

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Kevin,

Do you think I want the schoolyard bullies on this forum to run me off? Do you want the "Stepford Pessimists" to have every post in perfect harmony with the next--a sea of Y2K heads nodding in assent? Should I leave the Yourdon "Members Only" Club meeting because I just don't fit in?

C'mon, Kevin. You can do better than question my motives. You can do better than quote my statement on the free market over and over. Step to the plate. Criticize the free market. Tell me the profit motive is not solving Y2K problems even as we speak. Make the case for another economic system. Engage in the discussion. Roll up your sleeves and take a swing.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Arlin,

F2f it is! Can't wait to get ya in a corner! Or under a tree, if the picnic idea comes to fruition. Any chance the soon-to-be Mrs. Adams might attend? :-)

BD,

Looks like we're never gonna be on the same page regarding Decker. No biggie. My respect for you remains strong. Thank you for trying!

Git,

Wading into the shark-infested waters, are you? ;-)

My understanding is the expectations of the majority of posters here is about a 7-8 on the scale. Various informal polls have been instigated over the past six or seven months & I believe the mean is indeed that high. Is this not economic & social meltdown for many of us?

My final, (& I do mean final) thoughts are these: Outside of a handful of regulars, IMO I perceive many posters to be extreme/closed- minded in their beliefs & posts. Not just with regards to Y2K, but also religion & politics. Too much shouting, too much "I'm right your wrong". I refrain from responding because I'd rather say something nice than find fault in their thinking, or lack thereof.

We all have opinions. The problem is we all to often write as if they are facts.

Peace to All,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 27, 1999.

Mr. Decker: What facts? When it comes to how all the aspects of Y2K are combining and will combine to affect our daily lives next year? No facts possible on that, not by anything resembling a rational definition of the word. It's a FACT that I worked in the garden today. No facts yet on how much (if anything) I'll be harvesting this fall.

Another possible religion analogy. People say you'll know about heaven after you die. (A fallacious belief, philosophically speaking, but it is said alot.) Works better for Y2K, though I doubt facts on it will be easy to come by even afterwards.

You can pile up the information people present to you as true and consider it fact. But even if it is all true, your analysis of it will not be fact. Whether good guesses or bad, all Y2K analysis is guessing.

-- Gus (y2kk@usa.net), May 27, 1999.

Bingo and that newbie double-decker et al,

Check through the archives. lately I have been posting information, NOT off topic, related to war, martial law and treason. I take an interest in the world view, and so do many others on this forum, as events overseas will impact this country for good or ill.

Things are hotting up worldwide - just read the news. You think this won't impact us? that y2k is not a big factor in the military angle?

As for more practical contributions, do your homework and check the archives - I have posted a lot of what bingo and dave walden would probably regard as more "useful" information, predominantly to do with banking, 401k's, the stock market, investing in a slump, precious metals, and the overseas angle.

In contrast Nik doesn't post too much on practical preparations - same as me now. To be honest it's all in the archives - a wealth of information.

So what's your point?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 27, 1999.

the point is Andy, that we are all religious zealots.

-- Invar (gundark@aol.com), May 28, 1999.

No, Invar, the zealots are the ones who have conceded Y2K will be the Apocalypse.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Andy,

1. please check your e-mail.

2. I am not the keeper of the forum. Who is to decide what is OT? Not I. Besides, I'm an Art Bell fanatic - anything goes. BigDog made the point that Decker's posts are OT. I replied if that is true why not take Andy, Nikoli, etc. to task as well?

Good Morning,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 28, 1999.

I may have said that Decker's posts are OT, but I don't ever remember saying this. I don't think anything is OT on this forum. ???

Bingo, why don't you ever correct Decker, even once, for continually implying that some large percentage, rather than one or two posters, view Y2K as the "apocalypse." Or for continually trying to link me to that view, unless expecting a depression is the apocalypse. I suppose THAT isn't disingenuous on his part?

I tell you what. I'm going to come up with a fresh term for how Decker's views can be "categorized" and we'll give that a shot. Decker? Bingo? What do you think?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

BD,

You'll be happy to note that I made last post "OT." Sorry you take my observations so personally... I don't think you are an "end of the world" fatalist. In fact, you spend so much time carping, I'm not sure I remember what exactly you think will happen with Y2K... but I have the distinct impression it's more than a recession. I don't think your views are indicative of the IT mainstream. Nor am I particularly impressed with your generalizations. You strike me as an angry Y2K Pope... looking at a poor fellow with a telescope.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

a, take note: Deck didn't sign off with "screw you", but came pretty close....

-- warning (10@signs.one), May 28, 1999.

BigDog,

I'm not in the correction business. ;-)

Also, my experience is a large number of posters on this forum are expecting a near apocalypse, which I rather term a deep depression similar to the 1930's economically (no I'm not an economist). As our present-day society does not have across-the-board survival skills as did those from earlier this century, I translate deep depression to mean starvation & disease - many deaths.

Now I'm not refering to the two dozen +/- regular long-term Yourdonites in the above. I refer to all who've posted over the past 8-9 months. My take.

As far as categorization of Decker's, or anyone else's views - be my guest. I look forward to your thoughts, as always!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 28, 1999.

Bingo,

I'm glad it's not just me. I agree that a large number of people think the Y2K will be a deep depression or worse. I'm not sure if you can prepare for the Apocalypse... other than getting your spiritual house in order. If Y2K is "just" a 1930s level depression, the best preparation is zero debt, a good job, a broad marketbasket of skills, etc. As I have pointed out before, it's hard to store all that beans and rice when the bank forecloses on the mortgage. By the way, in a deep depression, you are welcome to join me and a few others in my "back up" plan... a small distillery. (laughter)

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Bingo -- then why do you continually try to correct me? I'm pointing out that Decker is at least as guilty, just cleverer.

Bingo and Decker --

If depression = apocalypse, fine. But that's not the way the word apocalypse is used or understood. The word "apocalypse" is a button-pushing fear word. By contrast, those of us who are preparing for the possibility of depression want to help folks think about preparation in a positive spirit, including thoughts of preserving values useful for decades to come.

Anyone notice how Decker's post is "funny" and utterly cold about a subject that others of us have weighed with sorrow, concern, prayer and thoughts about how to help our community? Says something, doesn't it?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 28, 1999.

BigDog,

I've had enough. You're right - I'm wrong.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 28, 1999.

Stepping up to the plate...

Mr. Decker,

Any issue as important and widespread as Y2K is bound to have its share of those with fringe beliefs. Yes, there are some Y2K pessimists that that hold significant disruptions as an article of faith. But there are also some Y2K optimists that hold to the idea that Y2K cannot cause significant disruptions as an article of faith. For example, you.

Your faith in free-market economics does not allow you to believe that there could be significant disruptions due to Y2K. Your faith in the free market would be challenged, even though it shouldn't be. I do agree that although a free-market economy is not perfect, it's the best of the options available.

But no matter how much I appreciate free-market economics, I know that it has a limitation in regards to Y2K. For the free market to take care of most Y2K problems, most businesses here and abroad would have had to realize in 1996 or possibly 1997 that it was in their economic self-interest to begin working on Y2K. That didn't happen. Most businesses would have started working on the problem sooner--if they had known it was critical to the survival of their organization.

Y2K is a unique, one-of-a-kind event. Even the free-market economies of the world had trouble seeing that this problem was coming.

Mr. Decker, I do see that SOME Y2K pessimists hold the Great Undoing as an article of faith. What I have trouble understanding is how reasonable people such as yourself cannot see that SOME Y2K optimists hold the Bump In The Road as an article of faith.

Since there are a minority of people on both sides of the Y2K issue whose position is a matter of faith, you shouldn't have been surprised by the reaction to the one-sided message you started the "Y2K and Religion" thread with. You've complained that nobody on this forum wants to have a good economic discussion with you. That isn't likely to happen as long as you post messages that indicate you consider yourself to be an outsider when it comes to this forum.

There are Y2K extremists on both sides of the issue, but what does that have to do with you or me or most of the people who call this forum? Your post that kicked that thread off reminds me of the white politician several years ago who addressed the black audience he was speaking to as "you people". If you'd like more respect, treat people here as individuals and avoid harping on the obvious, such as that there are SOME people like Gary North (or CPR) who hold fixed opinions on Y2K.

After all, it would be just as easy for me to say that I do hope at least one true believer in Y2K debunking acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K debunking is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.

Governments are making Y2K contingency plans and businesses are making contingency plans. I don't see what's wrong with families making their own Y2K contingency plans.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.

Bingo... I agree with you throwing in the towel (or turning the other cheek.) Continued debate is a waste of your time, but thanks for trying.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 28, 1999.