What's Up With Pollys?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

From an earlier post:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boonkah Watcher is right --
http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/1115/1/1.html
SSSHHHHHH
Forum: Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot Forum
Date: Apr 08, 03:14
From: Cherri
Just between you and I and the lamp post (C.S. Lewis) we are planning on taking over and defusing the timeBomb.
-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999. ----------------------------------------------------------------
We all have opinions, okay?
But I'm really having trouble with this.
Could one of these individuals who frequent GNIBFI or "Der Boonkah" please explain why you feel so strangely compelled to "defuse" this forum?
As I see it, the existence of this forum costs participants nothing (no profit motive for forum providers); requires only as much time or energy as the participants wish to supply (participation is not demanded or mandatory); is securely covered by freedom of speech provisions (nobody is forced to listen); and provides a means for like-minded individuals to discuss topics of interest (just like sites devoted to fast cars, asteroids, or religions convicitions).
The forum can easily be skipped or ignored if you have no interest in y2k preparedness topics -- in the same way that I don't go to sites devoted to other's interests (such as golf), and try to convince the participants that they are wasting their time and money on a non-issue. And, sorry to all duffers out there, but golf IS a non-issue to me -- but you'll never find me trying to convince YOU of that!
I'm really confused about this.
Why the overfocus on "defusing" what is a non-issue/bump/hype?
Why not just leave it alone, and let it "die of it's own weight" in half a year?
Wonderingly,
Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 02, 1999

Answers

Beeeccccaaaaaaaauuuuuuse........... they understand the "doomers" are correct enough in their Y2K expectations such that the collapse of the FRS is a distinct possibility. CPR's justification is "I am not going to let these wackos take down the USA" or something to that effect. If what this forum knows were mainstream, the Fractional Reserve System probably would burn.
Which is why they want truthful observations stifled.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 02, 1999.

One ot two reasons - they are being paid by the powers that be to remove an irritation to the federal governemnt - Koskinen promised a diinformation scheme in November, the FBI in September 1998 (head of domestic terrorism office) was planning on an active campaign again survialists and militia begining in Jan 1999 - particualrly those "hiding behind locked doors" and "iunder the guise of churches".
The administration's hatred and fear are self-evident against the religious Christian communities, conservatives in general, and their absolute - gut-rendering fear is a "run on the banks."
Nothing else matters to the federal government (w/r y2K) except keeping the depositors' money in the banks - so they will take any method to be sure that happens.
Second possiblity - there is no rational reason, but consider that these people are themselves so scared of the possiblilties of failure that they will resort to anything to make themselves "feel better" - more powerful, more "omni-impotent" that they choose to vilify and attack religiously anything (and any person) who dares expose their fears.
That is, they are so scared that they drop into denial mode - and see no way of justifying their denial in the face of facts that they can only stand on the sidelines screaming insults and throwing manure at those who chose to prepare.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 02, 1999.

Could it be that they're just simply jerks?
Remember in grade school, right before class let out on Friday, there was always one kid who'd remind the teacher that "you forgot to give us homework"?
Wellllll... that little piece of excrement is all grown up, hasn't changed much, & owns a computer.

-- it's (just@that.simple), June 02, 1999.

As long as Robert Cook has been around this forum I'm with him on this one!

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), June 02, 1999.

Good question anita, and deserving of an answer. Even though I wasnt involved in the above conversation, I think I can assume the rationale easily enough.
NOTE, these arent my opinions necessarily, just what I glean from co- posters at de-bunky. (which you frequent and therefore should also be clued up to, but your reasons for asking are your own, and if an answer is needed, this is as good as anyones).
The majority of information on Y2K ANYWHERE is noise. The lack of hard facts is a contributory factor to the doubt many people feel about what may happen. This factor annoys those on both sides.
Much of the hard information on Y2K now seems to point to an improving situation, and less or no likelihood of TEOTWAWKI. (now watch me get flamed to all hell).
Another risk factor in the equation is public panic, fed by a diet of doomer noise. The extremists on this forum are as good a case in point as youll find. Those in the moderate ground on both sides could probably sit together over a beer and come to a close understanding of each others positions. But the internet is not best designed to allow this to happen. So what happens is what has been happening in here. Moderates of every opinion try to discuss issues, and end up being drowned in the high-pitched scream of the extremists with cries of NWO conspiracies and black helicopters. (Case as above with Mr Cook trying to suggest that people who hold as passionate views as you folk do, but on the opposite end of the scale are SPOOKS IN THE PAY OF SOME SHADY GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY DEPARTMENT. Pure delusion and paranoia. Do the polly's come accusing the hardcore doomers of being terrorists in the pay of the PLO or similar ? They sure seem intent to do all they can to destabilise the existing "system".)
So Y2K becomes an arena for anyone with an axe to grind to come along and make lots of noise, thereby making the bare facts of the issue harder and harder to ascertain. CPR and many others are contemptuous of people who form such assured opinions simply by surfing the web for information. To an extent i agree. If I board a plane, and the pilot tells me its been well maintained and is unlikely to fall out of the sky, I do not accuse him of participation in a conspiracy and demand PROOF because of something I read on the web about air safety.
Likewise the people who work in the vital industries such as the utilities, and indeed the government, are committed to protecting their families too, only they choose to maintain their posts and work WITHIN the system, and not step outside and try to tear it down from the foundations on up.
So if the folk on the other side of the looking glass get a tad tired of the constant demands for proof of their arguments, when nobody from this side ever makes the effort to prove a darned thing, then maybe we can be compassionate and try to understand that. If they perceive a threat from people who overtly claim a desire to destroy the system as is, whether due to Y2K, the NWO, their religion, the NRA or anything else, then I guess they have a right to speak out. If you believe that they should be silenced, participate in the thread concerning the moderators committee and what changes would benefit the forum, and suggest it.
But bear in mind, on that side of the fence just as on this, the occasional injection of humour does occur.
RE-NB- The above thoughts and conjecture do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the author.
Best wishes.

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3: The interesting thing about the Illuminati Conspriacy is that by the time you actually understand it, you have realized that you are part of it. :)

-- a (a@a.a), June 02, 1999.

Anita,
I think they see an opportunity to do mischief, and can't bring themselves to pass it up. Maybe it's the cyber equivalent of tossing a rock through a window, or making crank phone calls? Some of it is fairly sophisticated, some of it is pure polly, most of it is plain od-fashioned trollery. I certainly hope that we have not come so far as to be the target of an active disinformation campaign (but I wouldn't rule out the possibility).
It has certainly become obvious that most of the folks you mentioned do not have the best interests of people here at heart. They are in fact not at all interested in discussing potential problems or solutions to them but only wish to discourage and disparage those who are. It's not a question of differing opinions, it's a case of twisted motives.
Newbies take note- legitimate, considered opinions on y2k vary widely. No one knows what will happen, how bad it will be, how long it will last. Do your own homework, find your own reliable sources of useful information. Make up your own mind according to that information. ACT ACCORDINGLY. Some here will be glad to help you. Others wish you no good for some bizarre reason or other. Be sure you can tell the difference.

-- Lee (lplapin@hotmail.com), June 02, 1999.

You know what? There are ssoooo many different theories about the actions of these people. I'm TOTALLY with, it's!! That would be far too simple for some to accept, people tend to want to over-analyze. LOL...good one, it's! I might also add that there are people posting on this forum who are not worthy of the usual level of respect. Any of you who seem to think that ALL opinions should be greeted with consideration and thoughtful responses must have grown up as an only child. When one of MY children is acting like a "jerk", I let them know it. There really isn't any arguement about this, at this LATE date, anyway. Any Newbie that would take them seariously isn't going to make it in time, anyhow. BTW, is that cherri with a shhhhhhh OR cherri with a cha, cha, cha? Don't you just hate it when parents do that to thier children?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 02, 1999.

Wolverine, I think you got your Anitas mixed up.

-- ... (just@n.observation), June 02, 1999.

Welcome to the world of paranoia! Jesus Christ people it was a damned joke, nothing more! It was my first time on that forum and that was just a welcome response. A joke. No biggie! You foks try to read something into everything you come across. It's freakin' hilarious to read the crap you guys come up with! People getting paid by the governemt to torment this forum???? Do you have any idea how fucking ludicrous that sounds??
And to think there are folks out there that are actually taking advice from yall. I hope you lurkers think long and hard about heeding advice from these paranoid individuals! Giving up things you've worked your whole life for because some internet whimp thinks he has it all figured out. What a joke!!
Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 02, 1999.

Deano needs some Beano

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), June 02, 1999.

It is chumming, the official police-y

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 02, 1999.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter WHY they are doing it. The biggest problem as I see it, is people on this forum are allowing them to succeed. How? By giving them the attention they crave. (I'm not referring to you, Anita.)

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), June 02, 1999.

Gayla, wish it were that simple. The only way to successfully ignore them is if everybody knew all of the handles/personas they masquerade under (this takes research) and wrote something like "did you hear something?"...whenever one pipes up. They are on a mission: what they do is not solely for entertainment, as is the case with a true troll.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 02, 1999.

Deano,
you make life so easy. no brain strain trying to figure out an answer to you. FUCK YOU!
see, easy. in a language you can understand.

-- Still (Still@trying.com), June 02, 1999.

Anita,
Perhaps you have seen the stages of personal struggle that someone goes through when faced with some horribly bad news, such as serious cancer, and how they deal with the fact that this is going to change their life. The stages are: 1- Denial, 2- Anger, 3- Bargaining, 4- Depression, 5- Acceptance. From what I have seen, the Polly position is stalled at step 1, 2, or 3. The majority of those on this forum have gone thru all that and arrived at step 5. The biggest fear in facing the truth is best expressed by Deano, above, when he says "Giving up things you've worked your whole life for because some internet whimp thinks he has it all figured out." That's the basis of their fear and the basis of their reactions. They are fighting back against the facts, and the fear, and they don't know who to attack so they pick some target like this forum. They are stalled at steps 1, 2, or 3. If you read their posts carefully, you will be able to pick out which stage each of the Pollys is stuck at.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 02, 1999.

I can't help but notice that none of those 5 steps is *thought*. Most of you people remind me of a bunch of middle-ages priests discussing among themselves *why* God made the whole universe revolve around us. Every now and then, it's necessary to shift gears long enough to wonder what strange madness must possess those who point out that it doesn't. Can't they *see* everything going around us? How could they possibly be so blind?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 02, 1999.

Thanks to all who have given such thoughtful answers. I appreciate your consideration and efforts to clear up this issue.
For Wolverine, who said:
"NOTE, these arent my opinions necessarily, just what I glean from co- posters at de-bunky. (which you frequent and therefore should also be clued up to, but your reasons for asking are your own, and if an answer is needed, this is as good as anyones)."
I think I made it pretty clear that I don't go to sites, such as "debunky" which are non-issues to me.
As someone else pointed out, you must be thinking of "another Anita". Although you also made some interesting points, you still didn't address why you would bother to come to this site to convince GIs to convert to some other viewpoint. As I suggested, I don't go to golfing sites to try to convince them the game is a waste of time and an extreme waste of money. I figure we're all adults here, and can have whatever peculiar "paranoid and delusional" ideas we want. According to what you believe, the issue will be utterly dead in six months anyway, so why waste your time?
CPR may be correct that some people form opinions by surfing the web -- but that's what people do. It isn't illegal. It isn't immoral. It might not be the best way to acquire information, but that doesn't mean it is a poor way to do it. Once again, we're all adults here. We don't have to "protect" people from "wrong ideas" -- adults can make up their own minds.
I'm also sorry, Wolverine, that I can't subscribe to the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of those who deride y2k preparedness -- it simply isn't happening. The most common response I see in my work at a hospital, and among my friends, is y2k-apathy. If you have any hard evidence that a panic is underway due to "paranoid/delusional" forum participants, I would very much like to see it!
This forum is home to....what?....maybe a couple dozen regular posters, and a few hundred lurkers. These few individuals can hardly be said to be able to topple the nation -- yet you said, " If they [Polly posters] perceive a threat from people who overtly claim a desire to destroy the system as is, whether due to Y2K, the NWO, their religion, the NRA or anything else, then I guess they have a right to speak out." You "perceive a threat" from a handful of ill-advised web-surfers with wacky ideas? What was it you said about paranoid?
You said, "Another risk factor in the equation is public panic, fed by a diet of doomer noise. The extremists on this forum are as good a case in point as youll find."
Wolverine, nobody is panicing. And we must remember: even extremists have a right to their point of view. It may not be a view you share -- but that doesn't mean you have an obligation to convince them they are wrong. I wonder why you feel you must do so! Surely, you cannot believe that an "extremist" viewpoint, held by only a small minority of forum participants, is so powerful that it will cancel out all reason in our society, will blow the supports from under a "robust" economy, or do anything beyond enriching MRE salesmen.
But, if you cannot believe "extremist" ideas are that convincing, (you have already "seen through them") why are you so afraid of it that you must continually fight it? Don't you think other people will be smart enough to see though it as well?
Deano, at least, said that to him it's all a "joke". I imagine this means he only comes to this forum to poke fun at people's ideas and try to humiliate them. I guess he finds this humorous. That's really kind of sad.
Thanks again to other posters for the ideas and comments, which I am digesting. I'm beginning to make more sense out of this. Now, if only Wolverine would be so kind as to address the questions above, I think I'd be a lot clearer on the issue.
Anita Evangelista ("The Other Anita")

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 02, 1999.

Hi Anita, just wanted to say I enjoy your books - very informative! They've been a big help around my household. Thanks.

-- jill (jdance@mindspring.com), June 02, 1999.

IMHO the reason the pollyannas are so enraged by this forum in particular, and steadfast hardcore GI talk in general is: 1) We disagree with them, and continue to do so even after they have indicated they disagree with us. We show this by our preparation actions as well as talk, and actions are much louder than any words. Few people like it when you tell them they are wrong (especially if they have some secret doubts about their position), and we are doing just that. 2) Most people dislike change, and Y2K certainly represents a truckload of that. Merely mentioning the possibility that pollyannas will very possibly have to work three times as hard next year to live one-third as well as they do now is highly repugnant to them, especially since the brighter/better-informed among them are often actually at least a little educated about the subject (and may actually worry about it from time to time...). 3) We are taking action based on what we perceive as most likely to better our chances to stay alive, and the corollary is that non- preparers will be rather less likely to come out the other side of Y2K in good shape. That people whose viewpoints pollyannas despise (and often they directly despise GI people as well) would assert THAT is revolting to them in the extreme. 4) We are in effect changing the channel from what they are interested in. The parent who tells a young child to go to bed in the middle of a good movie will never be met with thanks. "Let the good times keep rolling" is their philosophy. Many of them appear to have little understanding about the facts/lessons of the less pleasant parts of history, and often rationalize that somehow those lessons could not apply to them. This type of thought process resembles how people informed about the hazards of tobacco use can still defend continuing their behavior. 5) Most people have fairly short attention spans, and Y2K cannot easily be demonstrated in the space of a TV sound bite. If Y2K is not proved to DGIs before they run short of attention span, they fault the position and/or the messenger, rather than considering that their abilities to understand may be deficient.
my site: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 02, 1999.

I like the conspiracy theory idea...that some of the Pollys are paid to disrupt. Can I offer to sell my services (under an anon. e-mail addy, of course)? There are a few preparations that I just can't quite afford. (That 50' schooner would be great for fishing!)
Seriously, though, I find the conspiracy theory a bit unlikely. Too many perverse people are around; conspiracy is unnecessary.

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 02, 1999.

My, you really are a paranoid bunch. It was meant as a joke. How could you take it seriously? Lighten up guys.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 02, 1999.

OK, here are the posts in that thread --
1115. I think I'm home now..... by Deano, Apr 07, 14:35
1. Hello Deano by Jonathan Latimer, Apr 08, 01:28 1. SSSHHHHHH by Cherri, Apr 08, 03:14 1. Count me in...... by Deano, Apr 08, 07:44
2. That sounds like fun! by Maria, Apr 08, 13:53
1. I did......just hard to find the time.... by Deano, Apr 09, 08:28
3. Now, now Cherri, you know how the good folks at EY..... by Morgan, Apr 09, 08:25
2. Thanks dude! A little background for yall..... by Deano, Apr 08, 07:56
1. Feel free by Doc Paulie , Apr 09, 00:06
[Doc Paulie is neither a doctor nor a Paulie and is the chief Der Boonkah meme.]
Following is the first post in the takeover thread, follow links from here --
http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/1115.html
Read the entire thread in context and judge for yourself whether it's just a joke.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 02, 1999.

Anita,
It's a question for which there is no answer. But, I really enjoyed the way you asked it, and your response to Wolverine. Good stuff! Quite some time ago, on this forum, Ed Yourdon posted the following:
"If you've read all 70,000+ messages on this forum and concluded that, to the best of your knowledge and experience, Y2K is going to be a non-event (aka bump in the road, winter-snowstorm, or whatever the phrase du jour happens to be), then it seems to me that you might as well say to yourself, "Well, I may be wrong, and I may rue the decision a few months from now, but I've decided that I don't have to pay attention to Y2K." And at that point, it seems to me that you should bid adieu to the forum and go back to whatever you were doing beforethe ongoing arguments about whether Y2K is going to be a "0" versus a "10" on the scale are getting pretty boring at this point" Ed Yourdon
I liked it so much that I copied it. For awhile, whenever Norm, Y2K Pro, and their friends started new topics I would paste it in as a response. I kind've hoped that others would pick up on it and, by extension, let this forum's originator speak for himself. 'Course it didn't do a bit of good...nothing will, of THAT I am convinced. Why? I have no idea.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 02, 1999.

Shields up! Ready phasers! Ready photon torpedos! Warp 10!!!

-- Kirk (captain@enterprise.III), June 03, 1999.

Oh well, at least I'm honest...
Kirk, aka... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

In honor of the final episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Raise shields! Charge phaser banks! Ready quantum torpedoes! Engage cloaking device!!! The Defiant was a baaad ship!
I'll miss DS9 tremendously. It was a good run - 7 years. If only Judzia (Terry Farrell) had stayed on for the final season...
Sorry for the intrusion :-)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 03, 1999.

To Still - good one buddy.....think that one up all by yourself?? Very impressive!! You can sum up your IQ very neatly......I like that!!
Anita - I never said this was 'all' a joke. What was said was that particular, extremely brief, conversation was a joke. Pretty much like this one. Do I come here to poke fun? Of course not. When I see something positively ridiculous I will speak up. I've noticed that same mentality from most who post here. But, as usual, if you don't think we're screwed for whatever reason, it doesn't matter what you say.
All you lurkers pay close attention as they dismiss each piece of good news as spin and lies. Happens everyday on this forum. Didn't you know they're all out to get us?? Paranoia can be amusing........
And yes Anita, it's comical at best on this forum for the most part.
Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 03, 1999.

Gordon - just read your brilliant interpretation of my post. Wrong! See what paranoia does?? Again, very humorous.........thanks!!
Outingsr - you are just one cuttin'n'pastin' fool man!!! Come on, do it one more time right here, right now, right below this one. Just for me! I bet you even have it saved in your clipboard.........that's actually kinda scary when you think about it......
Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 03, 1999.

Not only that Deano, but outingsr has pasted the same thing over and over again. Not much of a researcher, just a paster. Looks a little like Chris (catsy pond), never adds constructive.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 03, 1999.

Maria - he's a real winner that outingsr! I'm more and more impressed each time he presents that special little talent of his........
Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 03, 1999.

Wow! Anita E, just looked at csy2k, saw an answer to your question:
-------Copy cs2yk post, For Educational Purposes Only -------------
"Isn't Dechert doing work for Sacramento County? Hey, Al! Are you responsible for this mess?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/local07_19990602.html

11th-hour effort to fix child support: DA gets funds for better computers

By Robert D. Davila, Bee Staff Writer, (Published June 2, 1999)
Faced with a Dec. 31 deadline, the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office is spending $1.3 million in a desperate effort to replace its antiquated child-support computer system for the second time in less than a year.
County supervisors approved funding Tuesday for the DA's Bureau of Family Support to convert to CASES, an automated system used by a consortium of 22 California counties to track and manage child-support cases.
Time is of the essence. The bureau's existing computers do not meet year 2000 requirements and will not be able to process checks for the county's 78,000 child-support cases on Jan. 1, according to a staff report.
CASES is intended to replace another child-support system called KIDZ, an automated project used by 29 counties that Sacramento joined last August. Since January, KIDZ has been plagued by software problems, missed deadlines and an 80 percent cost overrun for the consortium, staff said.
Continuing with KIDZ is "a risky venture, and I'm not prepared to put these kids and their custodial parents at risk," District Attorney Jan Scully told supervisors.
Sacramento and other counties are scrambling to pick up the pieces following the spectacular crash of a state computerized child-support project. After spending eight years and $111 million, California officials canceled the plagued Statewide Automated Child Support System in November 1997.
Because the federal government requires automated tracking of deadbeat parents, the state is now trying to establish four computer-system consortiums for counties that can communicate with each other.
The consortium using KIDZ, which was developed by Kern County, includes Placer and Ventura counties. CASES, the second-largest consortium, is headed by San Francisco County.
The automation fix is only temporary. California officials are expected to award a contract in November 2000 for another stab at creating a statewide computerized child-support system.
The federal government is expected to reimburse two-thirds of the cost to join CASES, staff said. Under pending legislation, the state would pick up the rest of the local cost. Meanwhile, Sacramento County's share to operate the computer system would be $60,000 next fiscal year.
The county also expects to be reimbursed for most of the $400,000 already invested in KIDZ because the decision was based on state approval of KIDZ as the best interim system, Chief Deputy District Attorney Cindy Besemer said. ..... "
*********** and then comments by Cory H: *****************
This is the funniest thing I've seen here for days. It's not just the way Tim and Tom are ping-ponging on Al, it's the build up over time.
> Tim May wrote:
> > Sabotaging the "child-support check" computers...now _that's_ a noble thing to do.
> > Way too many useless eaters on the public dole.
> Yeah, but with Dechert's vaunted Left-Wing credentials, I find it far more likely that he would have wanted to create this screwed-up sytem than to sabotage it.
-------------
Al is on the "no problems" side of the fence yet we find an article that his organization is franticly trying to remediate software and is failing.
Why don't they just fix it in, oh, 2 or 3 hours? Why is there emergency funding? Aren't programmer rates falling? How much of the extra million or so bucks is going into Al's hip pocket? Why don't they just get some yellow pads and bic pens and write the checks by hand?
How can Al be a Polly while his organization is a public laughing stock because of a Y2K remediation failure? If they're doing so poorly, what about places like Miami, DeeCee, Boston?
I just reread the article, they're not trying to fix software; they have a package developed by a consortium of counties and are trying to *install* it. Can it get any better than this?
Will he go on the tube to shake his finger at the camera?
"I did not flubnutz the Sacramento welfare system, Al Dechert"
..and it's "for the children". The irony is too much. For this screwup, he's getting "Good job, attaboy Al"s from Tim May. (Nobody is saying that Al is personally responsible for this, we all understand that there's a lot of good natured kidding going on.)
Sadly, this scenario is being played out across the country and setting aside one's political and social issues, the heart of the matter is that the remediation failed some time last year.
When a king-Polly's organization can be a public laughing stock for Y2K problems, this is an indication that the doomers have accurately reported disasters. Perhaps they didn't feel that they could offer details, perhaps a few clung to the hope that by increasing their personal efforts they could save their organization or their client.
I know several code-heads who are working through lunch and are putting in a extra hour or two a day to try to make the schedules. Most are not billing for the time.
Are the Polly's busting a sweat or are they kicked back, drawing a big consulting rate, while the doomers turn the crank on the remediation mills.
Maybe I should turn Polly, publicly say "No Problem" while the legislature votes 1.3 million bucks for Y2K remediation, make the check out to:
cory hamasaki 211 Days, http://www.kiyoinc.com/current.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So there we have it. Incredibly irresponsible and disgusting. Even those who work on these systems, screwing up and costing mucho taxpayer $$$$$$$, who KNOW it won't and can't be fixed in time, continue to pestulence Preparation Boards and spread the life-threatening misinformation plagues.
God is a God of justice. Wise to fear His justice and walk in Truth in every way.
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 03, 1999.

that article broke me into a sweat. real life examples say more than all the bickering. naysayers have some nerve to keep blathering nothing when real problems are snowballing. more beans

-- longtimelurker (lurk@distance.bean), June 03, 1999.

Good catch, Leska.
Man... just shaking head. I've learned so much about government ineptitute while studying Y2K issues.
More rice.
Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Thanks to all who replied, again.
Something someone on another list (not y2k-related) said cleared up a big chunk of the "Why are Pollys here?" question for me. Paraphrasing to fit TB:
'They only exist because we exist. Without us, they have no reason to be at all.'
I was really baffled why so many Pollys were outraged and enraged when Ed Yourdon decided enough was enough -- geez, if someone I disliked that much got out of the business, I'd have been dancing in the streets with a party-hat on! I would have been so deliriously happy, I would have blessed the guy and congratulated him on his wisdom and on "seeing the light"!
Yet, what we saw instead was an outpouring of bitter recriminations, angry denunciations, and really malicious character assasination (most of which was so outlandish that even a NASTY Polly should have seen through it). Why were they so angry at the one guy whose leave-taking should have made them the happiest????
Because, without Ed (and by implication this forum), they cease to exist. There is nothing for them to argue about. Nothing obvious to fight against....
Because, they can't fight y2k. Look at this thread! The moment a post is made that is sound, negative, and articulately stated -- they're outta here.
Is it possible, then, that Pollys coming to this forum are fighting their fear of y2k the only way they know: attacking those who understand? That, at the very foundation of the Polly position, there is a deep, profound, dark terror.....that all this may actually be real?
Without this forum, they could cease to exist.
The end. The worst. Death.
In a way, we're all fighting the same enemy....the possibility of personal extinction/destruction/ruin, generated by y2k.
Sadly, the Pollys seem to need to project the source of this terror onto this forum -- instead of into y2k uncertainties, where it belongs.
Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 03, 1999.

Anita,
Good points.
'They only exist because we exist. Without us, they have no reason to be at all.'
Puts me in mind of yin-yang juxtapositions. In the West, they are seen as opposing forces. In the East, as complimentary.
Balance in all things.
Diane
(She says, taking off hiking boots and slipping into moccasins)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Anita:
I doubt your theory holds much water, though on paper it sounds intriguing.
Personally, I'm willing to take Yourdon at face value. I'm getting a little burned out on this too, and I'm hardly running around on speaking tours and writing books and talking on radio shows and moderating forums and everything else Yourdon was doing. And my wife isn't sick either. If he says he's done all he can and it's time to make his preparations complete and move on with his life, that sounds reasonable to me.
But I think the rabid polly reaction comes from a different viewpoint. To those people, Yourdon has been standing right near the exit to the theatre, shouting FIRE at the top of his lungs. Now that the theatre patrons are starting to stampede, Yourdon says Oh, I didn't really mean it, sorry, I'm outta here. And if you're a die- hard no-problem person, it's obvious to you that there haven't been any big problems yet and there won't be in the future either. And if it's obvious to you, it must be obvious to Yourdon too. The timing (to the rabid polly) smells fishy. Yourdon's predictions fell flat, and his book sales window is closed to any further updates. He rode the crest, he made his boodle, and he's dropping it to return to his 'real' work (which of course makes no sense if the world as we know it is coming to an end anyway). To the rabid polly, this behavior is reprehensible. The captain piloted his shop onto the rocks to make big money, and how he's slipping off quietly while his es-passengers go down with the ship. Why couldn't he wait another 6 months and *then* admit error? To the rabid polly, Yourdon did what the US did in Vietnam -- recognized a lost cause, declared victory and left.
Again, I don't argue this position. But this is what the pollys are complaining about. Yourdon is regarded as a rat leaving the doomer ship which is obviously sinking rapidly right now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 1999.

Flint,
There are times when I wish we were face-to-face, so I could toss my hot latte into yours.
No. You're not a "rabid polly." Not you.
Then you end with... "Yourdon is regarded as a rat leaving the doomer ship which is obviously sinking rapidly right now."
Obviously, Flint?
Just re-read Ed's Sayonara, Y2K essay and quit trying "be so reasonable." Then take another spin on the United Nations site and half a dozen other international info sites.
Then decide what's "obvious" Flint.
Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

And don't bother to say again... "I don't argue this position."
When you "obviously" just did.
Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 03, 1999.

Diane:
Please, please make *some* effort to read what I wrote.
How many times did I need to say this was *not* my position. How many times did I need to REPEAT AND REPEAT AND REPEAT that I was trying to explain the position of the rabid polly.
And finally, in the last paragraph, I omitted the obligatory, many- times redundant insistance that I was explaining someone *else's* opinion, and sure enough, you claimed it was mine.
DIANE!!! WAKE UP!!! And you claim to hold the middle ground? Can you say 'malicious distortion'? I don't often get this blunt, but you demonstrated either total dishonesty or total stupidity. And you're not that stupid. Are you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 1999.

'Corrected' version for the hopelessly thought-impaired:
Yourdon is regarded BY THE RABID POLLIES, WITH WHOM I DISAGREE, as a rat leaving the doomer ship which is obviously sinking rapidly right now.
Jeez, no wonder people on this forum can't see anything but doom. They see what isn't there, read the opposite of what was written, and interpret what clearly wasn't meant.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 03, 1999.

Folks, Folks, PLEASE do not feed the TROLLS, especially the PRINCE of TROLLS. If you want to chase your tail then banter back and forth with Flint otherwise there are many more produtive things to spend your time on.
Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.cc,), June 03, 1999.

Thank you, Flint, for clarifying the "rabid Polly" perspective.
This is very intriguing to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the basic argument is that Ed Yourdon is yelling "fire" just to make a buck -- selling all those books, you know.
It's a position that appears to me to be unlikely to hold much water -- why, for instance, would someone with an otherwise unsullied reputation in the computer world actually choose to make himself look like a nut case for a few bucks?
As you may know, I've had a handful of books published (one which is the publisher's second-best seller), and not a one of them has earned me more than the 2 weeks salary that I make as a nurse. Typically in publishing, a book earns 12% on net sales -- on a $20 softcover, that works out to about $1 per copy...less if it goes through a discount seller like amazon.com. Remember, too, that Ed's book's profits have to be shared with his co-author. And, if he has an agent, 15-20% off the top will go to him or her. Ed's "best seller" probably didn't earn him more than $40K -- the value of a moderate-quality new car or RV. I really can't imagine this guy, who wasn't exactly broke before TB2000, selling his reputation for the equivalent of a new RV. It plain doesn't make sense.
Of course, there are people who think that anyone who has a book published becomes an instant millionaire (which is, of course, false), and some of the "rabid Pollys" may fall into this category. Their ignorance of the truth can be excused. But, could there also be a little envy over Ed's perceived "success"?
Also quite interesting to me is the "rabid Polly" idea that 'Ed yells "fire", gets the crowd stampeding, then leaves'. I simply cannot imagine how even a Polly can see any kind of stampede, hysteria, panic, or other overreaction to y2k in the world at large. It just isn't there. As I said earlier, most of what we see is y2k-apathy. People don't care. The minute number of participants on this forum hardly represent a panic or stampede.
So, in a way Flint, it looks to me like the "rabid Polly" position is fanciful and, in fact, likely to believe in "evil purposes" (i.e., 'make a buck') behind even the most innocuous and benign behavior (e.g., Ed is tired of the whole thing). They won't even give Ed the benefit of the doubt.
Now, what this suggests is an effort to obscure facts to suit a purpose. Not consciously, mind you. But, if Ed is seen as the "head" of the y2k movement as represented by this forum, shouldn't "rabid Pollys" be deliriously happy that he has been cut off -- that should mean "the end of the lies".
If "rabid Pollys" have been "fighting lies" (as represented by Ed), his departure should be praised. Not castigated.
By condemning Ed, they seek to engage him -- to call him back -- to demand answers, to explain himself.
Why? I thought they wanted him to shut up!
I think they want Ed back. I think they want Ed back, because they then have a "thing", a "person", a "focus" that can take their hostility and anguish.
As long as that "thing" is there, they don't have to really think about the uncertainties of y2k. They only have to think about the "thing".
Without the "thing", they must FACE y2k itself......with all its doubts, and questions, and possibilities.
That's where the real terror is. That's why they must rail and fight so viciously (and in such juvenile fashion) to derail conversation -- and especially to cast doubts on preparedness. Preparedness means that something bad might happen.
Flint, as one who has taken the steps to prepare, you KNOW how it changes your thinking. You KNOW that you must first acknowledge that a real, physical risk does exist (and we could even just be talking about ice storms or earthquakes, here).
I suspect THAT is the step the "rabid Pollys" don't want to take -- acknowledging that y2k is risky, possibly may entail some hardship, and might even have some life-threatening elements.
It's so much easier, more obvious, and without risk to beat up on Ed Yourdon, or others on this forum. I think, once again, the fact that no "rabid Pollys" have taken on Lane Core, or answered Cory Hamasaki's post re: the goofed up payment system -- is an elegant "proof by retreat" that y2k's actualities are what they really fear....and for which they have no real response.
Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 04, 1999.

Lemme tell you what's REALLY aggravating the pollyannas/trolls: that this forum operates rather independently of Mr. Yourdon. That is, you could move this forum to a beanie babies' site and it would continue to flourish. For some reason, their cultish mindset assumes that Y2K analysts (everybody here and at other boards) cannot function without a "leader" of some sort.
They assume this is a cult of personality: and they're shocked to find that it's STILL Y2K, STUPID.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 04, 1999.

Anita,
clap clap clap
Lisa,
:)

-- RUOK (RUOk@yesiam.com), June 04, 1999.

Anita:
Sounds to me like you're facing in the right direction, but you need to take a step or two backwards to get the perspective you're looking for. I don't know how much I can help, because I'm also fighting to comprehend a viewpoint that I don't much agree with. But I'll try.
First, and most important, your analysis is making an essential hidden assumption. You are assuming that any detailed, objective analysis of the available evidence must always lead to the conclusion that we have real big problems ahead. Since the rabid pollys have (presumably) done this analysis, they must somewhere, deep in their hearts, agree with your position.
From there, your efforts seem off track to me. You are basically asking why these people, who really know better, are making such a fuss. This forces you to conclude that it must be from either fear or mendacious motives. What else could it possibly be? And off we go into denial based on fear and other such psychological interpretations.
NOW, let's try to turn this completely around, and see it through the eyes of the rabid polly.
Let's assume that some people have considered all the evidence as objectively as they can, and have genuinely come to the conclusion that not much will happen. Oh sure, there will be problems here and there, and maybe a few will really inconvenience some people. But life as we know it will pretty much carry on, and after maybe six months of firefighting, y2k will be reduced to an occasional minor blip. And most people will never notice a thing in real life.
From there, your efforts must be directed towards trying to figure out what might motivate the nutcases who think the world is coming to an end. Certainly the evidence doesn't even come close to supporting any such conclusion (remember, you're a rabid polly now!). You can't help but notice that in order to feed their panic, the doomists have been forced to abandon all rationality. They dismiss good news and exaggerate warnings into facts. They notice that prior predictions have all been dead wrong, but they ignore this too. They notice how extremely hard it is to get anyone else concerned enough to prepare, and they conclude that everyone must be out of touch except themselves. And their response to anything close to a balanced viewpoint is violently abusive. They are truly bananas.
NOW, what have we here? We have Yourdon, who was smart enough to recognize that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and who decided to try to catch the wave by selling panic. Not to say he actually got rich from his books and speaking appearances and published articles, but obviously his motivation was to cash in on panic. (Please remember that you're *still* being a rabid polly here, OK?).
And what happened to Yourdon? Well, the moneymaking opportunities have pretty well dried up. Remediation is winding down, success stories are pouring in from all quarters, speaking opportunities are dwindling in frequency and purse, Yourdon's predicted warning dates passed uneventfully, book sales have tapered off. Bottom line: y2k income has dropped below income Yourdon can make from other endeavors, so it was great while it lasted, but he's smart enough to quit while he's ahead.
Please remember, ALL of this is based on the sincere conviction that y2k has been hyped beyond recognition, and won't amount to anything more than mild and mostly amusing problems for the vast majority of us.
The rabid polly has two concerns: WHY the nutcases have gone off the deep end with all the irrationality that entails, and WHY Yourdon dropped out when he did, rather than waiting until the real problems begin (at which time perhaps many more people would listen to him and moneymaking opportunities would be much better, right?).
To these questions, the rabid polly has two aswers: Some people will fall for anything, and Yourdon knows when to cut his losses as it becomes increasing clear (which it IS to the rabid polly) that y2k isn't amounting to anything.
As I see it, most of the problems people have with pollys on this forum don't arise from a difference of opinion directly. They arise from fundamentally different assumptions about what's happening and what will happen. Remember that the rabid polly KNOWS nothing much will happen, just as surely and sincerely as many on this forum KNOW the end is near. Each side has by now given up trying to *explain* why the other side is wrong, and has moved to trying to figure out what sort of mental pathology has led those on the other side to such wildly incorrect conclusions.
And we have a failure to communicate.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 1999.

So, Flint,
IF Y2K is "no big deal" that the "pollys" have so throughly investigated... WHY do they keep coming back here?
Their behavior just doesn't make sense. Why do they "plan" to defuse the TB Forum?
Unless, there's "another" reason.
What do think is the real "reason" they come here Flint... since you know them so well?
BTW, Anita, great assessment.
Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

I keep coming back here because I enjoy reading your arguements, Diane. It's fascinating!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 04, 1999.

I keep coming back here to see when Maria is going to learn to spell. Argument has NO E after the U!

-- none (none@none.none), June 04, 1999.

None:
I've noticed that bad spelling seems indifferent to one's opinions about y2k. It's an equal-opportunity menace. When someone starts to point out my misspellings, what I can I assume except that there's nothing more substantive to criticize. When someone's position and presentation are beyond reproach, then those of small mind attack spelling. A glass house.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 1999.

Flint- are you Maria out of drag? It was Maria who misspelled, but you took it personally. Is that you under the crewcut, Maria?

-- Confused (but@only.about.Flintaria), June 04, 1999.

confused:
I didn't take it personally. I pointed out that criticizing spelling is the last resort of the desperate.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 1999.

Flint, there you go with that diarrhea of the mouth again. It was supposed to be funny Flint. P*A*R*O*D*Y You do know what parody is, right Flint?

-- none (none@none.none), June 04, 1999.

To the educated polly/trolls
Yardini April 12, 1999
SURVEY SAYS I.T. CROWD FORESEES Y2K CRISIS 87% See Global Trouble. The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) claims to be the only trade association representing the broad spectrum of the world leading US information technology (IT) industry. ITAA includes over 11,000 direct and affiliate members from Americas largest corporations to the entrepreneurs building the blockbuster IT companies of the future.1 On January 20, 1999, ITAA issued a press release describing the results of a Y2K poll conducted by the organization of its members during December 1998. 2 The press release put a rather positive spin on the findings. However, on closer inspection, there was plenty of material suggesting that a negative spin is more accurate. Even the upbeat press release noted
Eighty-seven percent of survey respondents said the Year 2000 problem is a crisis for the nation and the world. Fifty-two percent think the Millennium bug will hurt their companies; only 29% disagree with this notion. Over one-third said the bug has already started to bite, triggering failures under actual operating conditions. Of those reporting specific failures, these included data exchange errors (34%), accounting errors (27%), errors in Y2K ready commercial software (28%), errors in tested software causing rework (25%), data base file corruption (21%), and computer crashes (18%). In test mode, 71% of respondents are finding failures.
US Government Mostly Meets Deadline. Partly as a result of these puzzling redefinitions, officials of the Clinton administration were able to brag that 92% of the governments mission-critical computer systems have been fixed, undergone an initial round of Year 2000 tests, and put back on line, complying with the March 31 deadline set 16 months previously. Thirteen of the 24 agencies reported that 100% of their critical systems have been deemed compliant for operation in 2000. Now the tough part: The next phase, called end-to-end testing, would be difficult, consume huge chunks of time, and add to agency costs. In such tests, agencies are trying to determine if their systems can reliably exchange data with other systems after Year 2000 changes have been made to pieces of hardware or lines of code. Experience shows that when systems undergo multiple changes, as with Y2K, programmers inadvertently make errors that require still more debugging.
MISSION-CRITICAL DROPOUTS The table in Appendix II shows the number of mission-critical systems reported by the 24 federal government agencies every quarter since May 1997. The total number is down a whopping 25%, from 8,589 during November 1997 to 6,399 in the February 1999 progress report compiled by the Office of Management and Budget.4
So Whats The Story? The AP story observes that in mid-February 1999, the government would have been only 55.6% compliant rather than 79%, as reported, had 3,323 systems not been dropped or redefined.

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), June 04, 1999.

"A joke. No biggie!"
This whole thing is just a big joke to the polly crowd. "Let's have some fun and go pick on the wacko cult." I hope they're enjoying yourselves now, because in a little while, the joke may very well be on them. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

err, themselves...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 04, 1999.

Sysman:
Not a bad philosophy. First, prepare until you're comfortable. Then, enjoy every minute while you still can. And if nothing much happens, your minutes will be even more enjoyable for a while.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 04, 1999.

Flint has this just exactly right. That's not to say that Anita is wrong, just that they're talking about two different things.
For Feller, before I go off on a different tack here, I hold (as I believe Flint does as well) that surveys and/or polls are tools for manipulating thought as opposed to objective reports of existing conditions. As such, I disregard them all, whether they be published by Yardeni or the government or whoever.
In the case of the blind men and the elephant, each man reported honestly what he had experienced. The problem was that each had experienced a fundamentally different thing and so each reported something different.
When people consider the Y2K situation, very few of them begin at the same place. Unless everyone had the same experience, the same education, the same mental abilities and the same "whatever for as detailed as you'd care to get", it is nearly impossible that they would arrive at the same conclusions regarding it.
Anita's analysis "makes sense" to us for two fundamental reasons. First, we largely agree with the assumptions about Y2K that she starts from. Second, her logic is accurate. As I have pointed out before however and as Flint is trying to explain above, accurate logic only guarantees a valid conclusion; not a correct one factually. It follows that if you are convinced of the truth of your fundamental assumptions and you reason correctly, you will be convinced of the truth of your conclusions as well.
Now I'm sure that Anita will verify that if you successfully achieve the degree of hypnotic trance wherein the subject is completely amenable to your suggestions, place him on a stool two feet above the floor, inform him that he is on the edge of a 1000 foot cliff and order him to jump, that he will refuse (unless he is suicidal to begin with). By the same token, if you place him at the edge of the actual cliff and deceive him into believing that he is only on the stool, he will likely jump. The subject will accept both suggestions in spite of the physical evidence that his eyes and other senses may be presenting to him.
The point of all this is that to challenge a person's belief successfully is nearly impossible. It takes an extraordinarily open-minded person to even consider arguments seriously that go against what they believe to be true.
I'm sure, for example, that Paul Davis is quite sincere and believes all that he says. I'm just as certain that he's "wrong" because it conflicts with what I believe. (I picked Paul because he has been consistently free of the more negative behaviors we associate with "pollys" (and to be honest, "GIs") and because he usually has no trouble reasoning in a straight line).
One of the ways that a salesman manipulates you into doing what he wishes you to do, is to cause you to go into an emotional state as opposed to a rational one. Once he achieves that, he has won because in the matter of emotional decision making, we are all susceptible and more to the point, predictable.
Some of the more adept "polly/trolls" (such as Decker) are quite cognizant of these principles and quite good at putting them to work. I shall refrain from naming those "GIs" who do so out of self interest (I have, after all taken sides) but you all can clearly see them for yourselves.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Flint and for his opinions, in large measure because he not only reasons so well, but because he, more often than I, succeeds in keeping his passions in check. In like manner, I have a very great deal of respect for Anita and her opinions (despite a violent disagreement about a certain individual) because she not only reasons well, but she is willing to listen to an opposing view and consider it once she calms down! (just kidding, Anita, but see what I mean about the emotional state folks?).
While I do not see these "flame wars" as productive in terms of Y2K (or any other subject for that matter) neither do I see us as failures because we are unable to help ourselves from being sucked into each one that strikes our particular fancy in a negative way.
That only makes us human.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 04, 1999.

Alas, I was away for the weekend, and see that this thread has been relegated to history. For the sake of posterity (and, perhaps to get in the last word?), I'll attempt to answer a few points.
Flint said:
"First, and most important, your analysis is making an essential hidden assumption. You are assuming that any detailed, objective analysis of the available evidence must always lead to the conclusion that we have real big problems ahead. Since the rabid pollys have (presumably) done this analysis, they must somewhere, deep in their hearts, agree with your position. From there, your efforts seem off track to me. You are basically asking why these people, who really know better, are making such a fuss. This forces you to conclude that it must be from either fear or mendacious motives. What else could it possibly be? And off we go into denial based on fear and other such psychological interpretations."
Since the premise is the starting point of the argument, this needs to be emphasized here. You contend that I erred in assuming that any detailed reading of the y2k situation leads to a conclusion of potentials for big problems, and that Pollys have made this conclusion (etc). To answer this, we need only look outside the y2k-box for examples of how people behave when faced with threatening information that is "known" but not "accepted".
As you know, I am an RN. I see many people with end-stage lung diseases that can be traced to one single cause: smoking. As a culture, we are very, very frequently treated to the widespread information that smoking contributes to a miriad of diseases and complications of diseases. Lung, heart, stomach, colon, skin, even the ability to smell are all affected. Everyone who smokes is affected in some fashion by inhaling cigarette smoke. Everyone. The evidence is very clear that there is a relationship between smoking and disease --- BUT, not everyone who smokes will suffer any specific condition.
As with y2k, the evidence is present -- BUT we cannot be certain that the effects will be universal. I think you will grant that.
So, we must ask: why would anyone who knows about the potential dangers of smoking go ahead and keep smoking?
"Smoking Pollys" tend to fall into two camps:
"I like it". Favorite among the young, the fashion conscious, and those who routinely fail to think about possible consequences -- very short term thinking;
and the "It won't affect me" crowd. This is denial.
The "won't affect me" group, as I see it, is the equivalent of the Pollys we see on this forum. Like our determined smokers, Pollys have access to information, evidence, and serious questions about the dangers inherent in the situation. Like smokers, the Pollys have decided to bring forth their own evidence -- great grandpa who smoked a pack-a-day for 80 years and is still going strong; or that Phillip Morris says "there is no demonstration that smoking causes lung cancer" (but leaves out "emphysema, COPD, gastritis, heart disease...etc"); that many people have lung diseases and never smoked (i.e., computers break down all the time, and no TEOTWAWKI from that); and so forth.
These "smoking Polly" arguments are all quite valid, but each is applicable only to *specific circumstances*, *specific individuals*, or *specific times periods* only. Overall, looking at the "big picture", smoking is bad. No Polly argument changes that fact. It may be "less bad" for some, but it is still bad.
BUT PEOPLE KEEP ON SMOKING!!!!
Some smoke defiantly, aggressively, with an attitude of "you can't make me stop" -- we just buried a 23 year old asthmatic man, whose smoking, whose defiance, meant more to him than his life.
Similar examples from history abound -- we could cite dozens. Just a single case: when Mt. Vesuvius spent five years spewing increasing amounts of smoke, shattering the ground with more frequent and more violent earthquakes from 74-79 AD, the residents of that Riviera of it's day, Pompeii, just kept on with their daily lives. The evidence was obvious -- and even they had a long record of prior, destructive eruptions to draw upon. People who left Pompeii were described as the modern equivalent of "weenies, whiners, and cowards"....the ones who stayed behind reviled those who left. Much in the same way y2k-Pollys attack Ed Yourdon.
Human nature hasn't changed perceptibly. People will act and react as they have done in the past.
People who smoke know the dangers -- they just don't think it applies to them. Y2k Pollys, especially those who are computer saavy, know what bad computer breakdowns can put a company on its knees -- but, somehow, y2k doesn't apply to them. It might affect those guys "over there" (foreign, other companies, different fields), but at MY place, we're okay. Notice that Cory's link above gives an excellent example of that very thing....a computer guy who claims his company is compliant, even while his entire system put in place for y2k is utterly goofed. How could he be that blind?
What makes a Polly take that leap (or turn that blind eye)?
Well, let's assume they're not stupid, ignorant, or mendacious. What's left?
They're just afraid.
Terrified, really. Feeling cornered, threatened, set upon by circumstances over which they have no control -- FIGHT BACK!!! There is no problem!!! It's all overrated!!! Look! There is the source of our problems!!! It's Ed Yourdon! Get him, guys! No, No, it's that forum! They're fools, idiots, they'll bring down the system!! Get them! Defuse them!!!
A mad and frightened dash from straw man to straw man....and as long as they keep running, and brandishing their swords, and shouting, and gloating over their victories --- well, then the whole horrific aspect of y2k's uncertainties simply doesn't exist.
A terrified animal, backed into a corner, becomes a vicious snarling snapping creature.
That, in a nutshell, is where the Pollys seem to be coming from.
Now, bear in mind that I AM NOT saying that Doomers are all saintly or without their own various states of confusion. However, there is a general willingness to recognise that bad things may happen as the direct result of y2k-problems (levels of badness vary). Taking appropriate preparedness steps is only a logical outcome of feeling at risk.
So, Flint -- as one who has prepared -- you must have interally acknowledged that serious risk exists, even if we are only talking about potentials here. I am willing to prepare for "potential risks", knowing that whatever occurs I am ready for it, just as you have. Knowing the security and flexibility of this position -- why would someone avoid taking the steps of preparedness? Why would someone ignore the value of stored provisions that protect against hunger and thirst caused by ANY inconvenience?
Only because they don't wan't to face the IDEA of that threat.
Only fear, Flint. Only fear.
How many times have we seen newbies say, "I used to be terrified, but now that I am preparing, I feel like I have more control"? The control may be illusory, but the fear is real.
The answer isn't attacking the "thing"...it is preparation.
Anita Evangelista
PS: For Hardliner. We disagreed, yes -- but, it was never VIOLENT. It never come to blows, in any case. BTW, I was so proud of you for keeping your word about not disparaging a certain individual's ideas....uh, but there was that recent post....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 07, 1999.

Anita:
Your smoking metaphor is a good one, and I think we should follow it a little and see where we go.
First, please notice that I never claimed the rabid polly argues that y2k is a hoax or a myth, or that there are no date bugs out there. If you read the intro at the debunking forum, they start out by saying that y2k is real. This reality is denied by nobody. What's at issue isn't whether y2k is a threat or not. What's at issue is the *size* of the threat.
So we can say that the rabid polly does NOT make the claim that smoking is harmless. He admits that it causes, contributes to, or exacerbates a long list of health problems, several of them potentially fatal. Nor does he deny that the depredations of smoking are real, causing public health concerns and a measurable economic loss due to sick time, early death, publicly supported hospital care or other medical program expenses, etc.
Instead, what the rabid polly denies is that smoking has had (or ever will have) any devastating impact on the global macroeconomy. Smoking is bad, yes, but it won't cause people to die by the billions, it won't make life insupportable for everyone, it won't force everyone, smoker and nonsmoker alike, to make extraordinary preparations or take outlandish precautions. It won't cripple the global economy, or have any macroeconomic influence we can detect.
So the rabid polly laughs at (or becomes upset by, depending on personality) the chicken little smoker doomists, running around frothing at the mouth, claiming that if you don't liquidate your retirement to hide in the country farming behind armed barriers, you are guilty of MURDERING your CHILDREN because other people, somewhere, are smoking.
So they say, yes smoking is a problem, but it's minor. Yes, it will hurt some people, but it's not a pandemic. Yes, it causes expenses, but they're relatively small (in the big picture) and we bear them almost without ever noticing.
Please understand that the rabid polly doesn't take this position out of fear in any way whatever. He takes the position by observation -- smoking is one of life's minor ills. All in all, it's less destructive of life than automobile or firearm accidents (for the young), or than coronaries or cancer (for the older). Those who prefer to smoke ought to recognize that they are making a tradeoff, trading the pleasure of smoking for the much increased risk of medical problems and likelihood of a reduced lifespan. No big deal.
At this point, the metaphor breaks down badly. HOW does the rabid polly know y2k won't amount to much? We know smoking is unhealthy, and we know it doesn't destroy nations, industries, economies or infrastructures. We have a lot of good, solid data on smoking.
Y2K, by contrast, is a future 1-time event. From anyone's viewpoint, y2k is amorphous, poorly monitored, and fast-changing. It is fundamentally ambiguous. Virtually all the evidence we have about y2k is indirect, suspect, spun, hypothetical, or potential. The only *solid* evidence we have is of problems already encountered. Since y2k is itself still in the future, past experiences are less than completely useful.
So looking from here at y2k always reminds me of Joni Mitchell's song 'Both Sides Now'. "I've looked at clouds from both sides now / from up and down and still somehow / it's clouds' illusions I recall / I really don't know clouds at all."
And looking at the vast morass of y2k material available to us is much like Joni Mitchell looking at clouds. All we see is our illusions. The see-no-evil pollys look at it and it confirms that we'll have no problems. The paranoids look at it, and it confirms that their paranoia is justified. No matter WHAT you expect from y2k, you can take exactly the same evidence and make a satisfactory case (satisfying to you, anyway) that the same material overwhelmingly supports your expectations. Of course, to do this you must interpret the material appropriately, but if nothing else, our y2k material is amenable to endless interpretation.
And tomorrow, you can change your mind about what you expect, change it drastically, and examine the same material through your new set of interpretations, and sure enough, it confirms your new convictions just as overwhelmingly as it did your old ones yesterday!
But if I've learned anything in life, it's that the ability to see things as others see them is a very rare gift. Most people pick a single interpretation, and refuse to recognize that there can possibly be any other. I suspect that for most here, it just isn't worth the effort. Much easier to consider other viewpoints to be 'the enemy' and engage in personal attacks rather than exert any effot to understand how sincere and well-meaning people could see things differently.
Anita, when you look in a mirror, you see yourself. When I look in a mirror, I don't see your face at all. To explain this, you come up with psychological theories about fear and denial. After all, mirrors show *your* face every single time you look into them. What other rational conclusion could you come to, except that mirrors show your face and nobody else's? You have incontrovertible evidence from your own eyes! Anyone else who looks in a mirror and claims they don't see your face must actually see it (you know it's there), so they must be suffering from some mental pathology!
To me, the y2k evidence we have, has a lot of mirror qualities. It does a really lousy job of telling us what's coming, but it does a great job of reflecting the personalities of those who look into it. And I have no idea which set of interpretations will eventually turn out to be most accurate. I think most likely we'll see some of all of them. I believe that some fear of what's coming is clearly justified. But the abject terror exhibited by the attack crowd here is mostly reflection.

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

Hoo boy. Smoking costs mega $$ in health costs, for all of society. Taxpayer black hole. Huge drain, and so preventable, avoidable.
Death from smoking is THE WORST! Yes, the worst. COPD, emphysema very bad ways to go.
Used to see bone cancer as the worst, but lately new technologies can get a semi-lid on the pain.
But smoking deaths are prolonged and terrible. Ugh. We've been turning those cases down -- too traumatic.
Details too gruesome for a public Forum.
Don't smoke.
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 07, 1999.

"There are times when I wish we were face-to-face, so I could toss my hot latte into yours."
Diane
Allow me to quote Some guy(Eddie Murphy?) in some movie(48 Hours?)
"The bitch be crazy"
Allow me to add my own quote. "and the biggest phoney on the planet"
Where were you in '65 Squire? I'm thinking CIA.
It's a laugh riot watching all you doomers grasping at straws. 6 months ago there were like 2 or 3 of us pissing into the gale of hysterical jabbering that is this collection of hostility which is so incapable of rational thought. Now that Mr. Chubby Cheeks has messed himself in front of the U.S. senate and closed up shop I hope the more extreme of his disciples hang around for target practice.
Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts The Khalil Gibran of Bakeries

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), June 07, 1999.

JBD,
What you have in common with Kahlil Gibran could be inscribed on the head of a pin with a ball peen hammer.
Anita,
Just to keep the record straight, I meant intellectually violent, not physically violent. I am aware of the current impossibility of physical violence in cyberspace and of the difficulty of implementing it through the medium of cyberspace in the real world. In any case, I would only offer you physical violence in self defense.
As to "keeping my word", what I said (on this thread), was, "I shall render you the courtesy of a reply, but this is my final reply to you." This was the only "promise" that I made.
You asked, several postings later on that thread, "In the general spirit of urgency, charity, and gentlemanly good manners, can we put a moratorium on North-bashing for a mere 14 months?"
I never did reply specifically to you, but I did consider what you had said and concluded that you were generally correct in that we all had better things to talk about than Gary North's fantasies about rewriting the Constitution. Several postings later in that thread, I made the general remark, which was addressed to the forum at large, "I'll shut up about him now (I think you've all got his number anyway)." It was never my intention to bind myself to silence about North for any particular span of time or on any specific matter. If I was not sufficiently clear, I apologize, and hope that matters are now clear.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 07, 1999.

Oh my, Flint.
It is fascinating how you managed to take my smoking analogy and alter it sufficiently that you lost the essential detail in your version -- just as computer failures happen every day, smoking deaths occur constantly. But at the period known as y2k, it will be as if the ORDINARY smoking deaths were compounded by an ADDITIONAL unknown number of individuals who sicken or die. Who are these individuals? Your doctor? Half of Congress? Two-thirds of truck drivers? Will these additional failures disrupt JIT delivery of supplies? Overwhelm already-exhausted hospital/hospice workers? Be sufficient to shut down a small town/industry/country?
It seems that we can take an analogy and go anywhere we like with it.
However, with your "mirror" example -- and, for one who apparently dislikes "psychological" analysis of y2k situations -- you have provided a perfect description of a psychological concept: projection. In a nutshell, projection is an unconscious defense mechanism by which an individual attributes his own unacceptable traits, ideas, or impulses to another.
Certainly, on this forum, we have seen projection in action, especially of late. Pollys project onto Ed Yourdon their own greed, cowardice, and anxiety in the most blatant fashion, failing to perceive that the man's behavior reflects the exhaustion of someone fighting a losing battle with public awareness.
In the same way, we see the general hysteria on this thread increasing dramatically. I've been here since March of 98 -- and I have never seen the kind of vicious Polly behavior that I am seeing now. If Pollys truly, deeply believed there was little to worry about in y2k (as you suggest), they why bother with the y2k-loonies on this forum? Why bother trying to convince the mentally impaired about something that will disappear in six months anyway?
It isn't only the viciousness of the behavior -- it is the astonishing lack of logical development in the arguments of Pollys that most amazes me. One Polly demands that another poster provide extensive product numbers and failure rates (which is neither logical nor feasible, considering the time constraints); another Polly declares his interest in this forum only for the laughable qualities; another promises a discussion of big iron for WRP, but never provides it; one more states she lives a simple lifestyle, but derides Doomers whose y2k-focus is leading them to the same lifestyle; several simply call forum participants vile names and make rude comments. Certainly, Doomers have sunk to their own juvenile level -- but, at least, it is in their own y2k-preparedness backyard.
Fear, Flint. Fear. Fear doesn't always come with shaking knees and clammy hands - - sometimes it comes with angry recriminations, with bitter disputes, with refusal to believe, the character assaults, and with behavior that looks like ANYTHING other than fear. That's projection in action. We can hide behind our anger; we can hide behind projection. Then, we never have to deal with what we fear the most....
And, no, I cannot believe that most Pollys read the existing negative news about y2k -- the proof, once again, is the lack of Polly argument against the Lane Core thread previously mentioned. Many Pollys apparently do the same thing they accuse Doomers of -- seeing only what they wish to see, reading only the information that confirms their preconceived notions. Too often, when something becomes too fearful, we just shut it out, refuse to consider it, deny it is real. This isn't reprehensible behavior -- we ALL do it at one time or another.
Even you, Flint. You, who evidence a certain understanding of the situations potentially inherent in y2k -- you may wish to fall back onto the "I don't know" position -- and logically, this is correct. Logic provides no crystal ball to the future; logically we can ONLY say, "I don't know." But life is not all logic -- and the y2k situation is hardly logic in action. Logic would have had this matter repaired before it ever came to public attention. A person can hide behind logic, just as they can hide behind anger.
You MUST have a "gut feeling" about this matter, Flint. Maybe, for you, that's where the truth is.
Anita Evangelista
PS for Hardliner: Take it easy there, big guy. If you meant "for now", I guess you meant "for now." I just thought you were a man-of-your-word, is all....

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), June 10, 1999.

Anita:
As for the personal attacks, I don't see either side as being relatively overrepresented there. I'd say pessimists outnumber optimists by about the same margin that pessimists' attacks outnumber optimists' attacks. All are just people, reacting the same way. On balance, I feel that the average pessimist attack tends to be a bit emptier and more purely personal, but certainly there are some vicious optimists.
As for my gut feeling, I freely confess it changes daily. One day I look at all the dire warnings and can't see any hope. The next day I notice that all these warnings are speculative and presented by people with an agenda, and I feel better. The next day, I realize there's just *too much* bad news, even if most of it is bogus, and there's no hope. Then I read a lot of success stories, and I'm back up again. And so it goes.
And anyway, I've prepared as well as I'm able, which is pretty damn extensive. At this point, I'm in the same boat as everyone else -- we ride out whatever's coming with whatever preparations we've made, and we pray we overestimated the dangers. Knowing maybe we didn't.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ