can't explain this one....

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

This is based on comments read in an earlier thread: "public vs. doomers dichotomy"...

For whatever reason, after having read and contributed (occasionally) to this forum for many months, I feel compelled to speak up for the GI's that ARE NOT DOOM AND GLOOMERS!!!

It seems that pollys lump all opposing views into this category and it just isn't fair.

I, personally, have an incredible amount to lose if, and I say IF, all heck breaks loose. I started a small international telecomm business five years ago with another person...we live, breathe, eat, & sleep POSITIVITY: GROWTH, WEALTH, HEALTH, SUCCESS, BALANCE, ETC, ETC. And we've been quite successful thus far!

If, and I say again IF, ONLY the int'l telecomm systems go down, we are definitely OUT OF BUSINESS come January. (unfortunately, telecom isn't in a bubble, eh?)

Some incredibly intelligent points were made on the above mentioned thread, particularly from "R", describing characteristics of the GI's. I'm a college-educated gal who can actually think outside the box, often! Since I work for myself, I'm sure you can guess that I have a healthy disdain for authority. But most importantly to me, I can read "facts" and visualize an outcome using common sense & intuition (gut feelings that I adhere to).

Unfortunately, my intuition radar is raging right now. I have read the facts and guess what Pollys? I've made enough preps to last my family 2+ years. And if nothing happens, no harm done whatsoever. I just won't be grocery shopping for the next decade! :)

I DO NOT desire "teotwawki". Why would I? Why would any sane, rational person? So please quit accusing us of doing so!

-- I'm (with@itude.com), June 14, 1999

Answers

Polly's can not, or will not, ask, or answer the question, what if i'm wrong!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 14, 1999.

Their stated purpose is to shut down the board. There are only about 7 actual human beings behind this agenda. Don't expect honor from any of them: you'll never see it.

If you participate here, you are considered the enemy, even if you're technically less "doomy" than they are.

Don't let them get to you: they've bitten off more than they can chew and they know it.

Not a doomer, either.......

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 14, 1999.


If you weren't a doomer at heart, you wouldn't put up with the crap that the radical doomers spew out. If you still believe the "10" theories are plausible, then you're still a doomer.

-- no name this time (not@this.time), June 14, 1999.

Lisa, your succinct and correct response renders you the winner of the OutingsR "McCauliffe Award." (Gen. McCauliffe was the guy who answered "Nuts" to a German demand for surrender at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge -- he successfully held out.)

Do you mind if OutingsR quotes you frequently?

The doomer label, as defined by Der Boonkah memes, does not fit OutingsR either. So there.

-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 14, 1999.


Hi "I'm",

I see things much as you do. In a way, I think self-employed people can view this situation easier because we wear so many hats in operating a business. However, the real benefit of having that life experience is understanding how many points where we are vulnerable.

Another benefit of wearing all these hats is we tend to have a greater appreciation for the entire spectrum of possibilities from "bump" to "brick wall." I want that "bump" but because of my responsibilities I must be aware and even prepare for the "brick wall."

Every person I run into that is self-employed tends to be a GI with only a few exceptions. Every person I've run into that will not even consider the "brick wall" a possibility works for someone else.

I have another reason why I want things to not just remain status quo but get better. I have a three year old son. I want him to have more, bigger, better opportunities in his future than I had. I want the world to be safer, more in balance, more ecologically sound.

I'm not a doomer. I am, however, also a realist.

Mike ============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), June 14, 1999.



no name,

I can understand your thought process here but, their are some points that should be made about a Less Than Doomers' mind set. I can only relate this from my own perspective so appolagies to the LTG's that hold a different view. I have made predictions here as to what I thought a 10+ would do to civilisation, the POSSIBILITY exists. I do not however exspect a 10. Therein lies the difference between those who believe that TEOTWAWKI (in the most catistophic scense) is upon us and those who are stocking tuna (now sardines). S**t IS going to hit the fan, no doubt, but how much and how big is the fan? Our freind Flint prepares, while naysaying the worst. Draw your own conclussion there. The majority of us LTG's accept the fact that our crystal balls are a bit foggie and go with our best intuition. It's all a matter of degrees.

Still worried about keepin' that mayo cold

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.


Dear I'm,

Please keep offering your wisdom. Your thoughts are important and helpful to to those who listen. Thank you. Any attack on you by a polly is a really a compliment. I have learned this from long experience; I will not be controlled by ignorance.

-- Not Again! (Seenit@ww2.com), June 14, 1999.


Certainly the danger is real. At least part of our efforts here are to evaluate the *degree* of danger, not whether it exists. Of course it exists. There is no dichotomy, except in minds that impose one onto a subject where it makes no sense.

There does seem to be an underlying assumption that there cannot be any genuine, serious difference of opinion among informed and honest people. Therefore, those who seriously disagree must be some combination of ignorant, stupid and evil. Since some of them are clearly not stupid, and are clearly informed, they must be evil. They must be out to disrupt and shut down our forum! They must be trying to discourage preparation because they like to watch people suffer!

Conversely, those who expect the worst are assumed to desire the worst, at least among people who don't see the evidence to support the worst. This is equally false, and also an artifact of one's frame of reference, not describing reality.

But of course, reality is hard to describe. We don't have nearly enough information, and all the information we do have is filtered through agents of spin, sometimes several times. "R" is notorious for picking some horrible future, and stringing together as many false assumptions as required to get there! This does indeed seem to be a common trait among those who think they can see the future, whether they be optimists or pessimists.

There is simply no end to technologies we rely on, such that IF that technology fails completely and permanently, we're out of business. This has been true for some time now; it's nothing new. I've found it incredibly difficult to move any discussion away from how awful things will be IF they fail, towards an analysis of what failures (if any) seem most likely, and what's being done to prevent them.

News I've seen about telecommunications isn't that earth-shaking. Only a few devices have compliance issues, and those issues are not directly threatening to the actual process of communications, but rather concern logging, record keeping, maintenance, flow monitoring, and the like.

Most technologies are in the same boat. Total, complete and permanent collapse of any of them isn't in the cards. We're dealing instead with questions of relative degradation. Or at least we should be, if dichotomous thinking didn't force everything into an all-or-nothing box. The real world is much tougher to grasp, dealing as it does with things being a little better or a little worse, here and there, now and then, for some people and not others.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.


Question for a polly: If ignorance is bliss, how come there ain't more happy people out there?

-- Deep in Thought (polly wann@cracker.com), June 14, 1999.

Deep:

Maybe they are happy, but they just don't know it!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 14, 1999.



Over and over again it seems that we all jump to conclusions about y2k. It is terribly difficult not to come to conclusions about how bad it might be, yet make preparations. It requires us to hold in limbo what we think will actually happen, (for lack of information) but we must take steps to protect ourselves.After a while it develops a life of tension that feels like it has got to be resolved one way or the other. Keeping it in limbo is too emotionally painful. Hence we then get polarized, take a stance, and bingo, become a target for others who come to a different conclusion.

-- Charlie (cstewart@ime.net), June 14, 1999.

Flint,

My Psuedo (sp?) polly freind. I don't have the time at the moment to dispute your individual comments. Start to champion what you DO believe if it will help your fellow man (as in the human race for any PC's offended). I don't EXSPECT a 10 yet I do not try to convine the 10er's it won't happen. Why do you? You are preparing, and I've asked you to exsplain to what degree, but you haven't honored us with a response. Keep posting, but please, get focused, you CAN do more good than harm. Panic now or panic 01/01/2000 would be damageing to civilization, but not equally so. Panic on 01/01/2000 would be REAL TIME panic. Their is an signifgant difference. Let's start the ball moving NOW, the potential disaster can be lessend.

Polly's don't buy sardines

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.


Mr. Flint, in reading your post, I seem to find myself thinking that perhaps you believe the problem with y2k is simply "computer oriented". Problems arising will be related to the code only? Would you please enlighten the rest of us about the multitude of other factors relating to y2k that have an obvious potential for catastrophic outcomes?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 14, 1999.

Never mind, Flint. I honestly don't think I could stomach one more of your posts anyway....I just ate.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 14, 1999.

Well it seems are psuedo polly Flint has taken to the wind. But not to worry, he'll be back. Just waiting for him to answer the "preparedness" question I posed. "Snip, snip" . Hey Will, anyway to put that hair to use.

Your friend (assumption)

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 14, 1999.



Midwest...anybody who isn't up to their armpits in bull-shit, relating to this problem will always be a friend of mine. Besides...I love salmon w/mayo. I also love anybody with "guts". No wimps allowed!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 14, 1999.

Imagine the bandwidth that could be saved -- imagine the time that could be saved --- imagine the adrenaline and the energy that could then be used for something constructive -- if we lost every post that boils down to either one of these two thumbnails:

He thinks I'm wrong, and I can't stand it.

I think he's wrong, and I can't stand that either.

But I'm dreaming, right? Never happen.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 15, 1999.


Don't know what to tell you, Tom. Stamping out dillusional misinformation on one of the only legitamate public forums on this subject....is, in my view, *most* constructive and *very* neccesary.I suppose there are many who simply show up here with the desire to "chat" and flex their literary skills, however. They truely need to look at their calendar. *JUNE 1999*

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 15, 1999.

Outings, I just received the highest compliment, I guess... Doc Paulie has decided to TOS (termination of service) over at Der Bunkah.

Must be gettin' hot...................

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 15, 1999.


"I'm":

Something about your post read very true (and sobering). I'm an organic chemist working in a particularly compicated area. One can trace it back to about 1906. Since that time it has become very prominent laboratories around the world. If their is one thing that I am well known for is the ability to think outside the box. When I started digging into this field in depth I found that absolutely everything -- EVERYTHING -- was not as it appeared to be or was said to be. On a daily basis we discover that decades-old dogma is wrong. This is why I have no trouble accepting that the whole world is nuts but me (and you guys on the forum).

Secondly, I have found through the years that there is no correlation whatsoever between education and intelligence. Although I'm surrounded by folks with high SAT scores and valdictorian honors, the smartest guy I ever met was a migrant worker. Bottom line: some are GI's and some are not.

One last point. My definition of a GI is a person who understands that y2k poses a risk. I don't care what level of risk. The DGIs don't see the risk.

Just some random thoughts.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 15, 1999.


An organic chemist who apparently cannot type.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 15, 1999.

Flint writes..."News I've seen about telecommunications isn't that earth-shaking. Only a few devices have compliance issues, and those issues are not directly threatening to the actual process of communications, but rather concern logging, record keeping, maintenance, flow monitoring, and the like."

You MUST be talking about domestic telecom, because if you've ever made calls FROM Africa or Venezuela or India or even Germany, you wouldn't believe what you hear in the "news". The PTT equipment in these countries, and many others, is sooooo incredibly antiquated. When this crashes, it will effect us dramatically (i.e. division of labor issues). Who cares if ATT is up and running so you can call Mom; if we can't communicate with our global neighbors, well...do I really have to spell it out?

-- I'm (with@titude.com), June 15, 1999.


I'm:

Maybe you should spell it out. We've been told often enough that really antiquated communications equipment is analog, and not subject to y2k bugs at all (though it suffers many other problems, and antiquated tends to mean generally unreliable. But the reliability level won't be affected by y2k).

So if analog equipment is unaffected, and digital equipment has few to no killer y2k problems, then where does your cascading failure come from? Certainly I recognize the *importance* of communications, and the difficulty if it gets worse. But I'm not asking you to spell out WHAT will happen IF it fails, but rather HOW it will fail, in the absence of any evidence indicating it will.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 15, 1999.


No, just not going to do it...wouldn't be prudent...

-- I'm (with@titude.com), June 15, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ