"From now on, you're on your own" say Experts.... "...Dr. Simon Peavy, vice-president of the National Association of Experts. "Since you don't seem to care about things you don't understand, screw you. We quit." .... ..."Go ahead, America," Peavy said. "You don't need us. Watch all the topsoil go down the Mississippi. Transport your children in baskets on top of your SUV deathmobiles. Keep playing with your cute and cuddly pal, the atom. Press your nose against the TV screen for even more educational 3rd Rock From The Sun enjoyment. Use plentiful gasoline to burn book- readers at the stake. Don't eat anything but sugared pork lard. Do whatever you want." ... ..."My final piece of expert advice," Peavy added, "is that all of you people should just go fuck yourselves." ... ...Because the experts' advice was barely followed, the mass resignation is expected to have little impact on the lives of most Americans. ...Despite its negligible impact on the population at large, the sudden dearth of experts is expected to be devastating for the American media, particularly TV newsmagazines, which have come to heavily rely on experts for their incisive, time-filling punditry. ...

Click Here for Complete Story

-- PLONK! (realaddress@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999

Answers

A little too weird for me....

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), June 16, 1999.

Look at the source, The Onion. This site is based on pure satire and in nothing but a joke, but obviously some people still believe the National Enquirer is an excellent place to get your news. This site has been pointed out in the past on this forum.

-- ~~~~ (~~~@~~.~~), June 16, 1999.

Ha! Guess the exhaustion and boredom we're all feeling with trying to reach 'n teach the determined idiosos is doing the 100th monkey sindrone ;^)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.

Moore Dinty moore wrote: "A little too weird for me...."

This reminded me of an observation and a question I have for quite some time...

There are a number of shows/persons such as Art Bell, Ed Dames, Jeff Rense etc. that present stories of the bizarre. Stories revolving around "secret science", "grand revelations", UFOs, time travelers, conspiracies, coverups, extraterrestrials, extrasensory powers, etc. These persons/shows are quickly dismissed and relegated to "nonsense" status by the mainstream public. (Even the most die-hard fan of this genre has to admit that 99% of the stuff is bogus and would make world headlines if it were even remotely true.) I think the majority of us here would agree that those who actually BELIEVE these persons/shows are quite naive. There are however, a number of people who enjoy this stuff simply for the entertainment value it delivers. Afterall...the presentations are often quite plausible and there's a certain "thrill" derived from wondering... "what if that were true?" Regardless of the reason, it's obvious that some people are more drawn to this type entertainment than others are. It is my guess that the majority of people on this forum would fit into this catagory. Which brings me to my observation. During the last few months of lurking in this forum I have noticed that a number of people have either quoted or made reference to these persons/shows. It is with those people in mind that I pose my question... Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that you may have been drawn into the "darker" side of Y2k because you are predisposed to this type of "shock theater"?

To anybody else that responds with an attack, please indicate if you "subscibe" to any of these persons/shows regularly, or even occasionally.

As I said, I've wondered about this for quite some time and am genuinely curious...

-- CD (not@here.com), June 16, 1999.

Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that you may have been drawn into the "darker" side of Y2k because you are predisposed to this type of "shock theater"?

Not me. I don't pay any attention to any of it except to look in amusement at the covers of some of the newspaper tabloids while I'm waiting in line at the supermarket.

And the same will be true for the vast majority here I'm sure. Y2K is nothing like Bigfoot or Space Aliens and I think you insult the intelligence, perhaps not deliberately, of those here by posing it.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), June 16, 1999.

We don't listen to the radio or TV. We're usually beside a dying patient and need our ears open just for them. But, we *do* like to be entertained!

However, our concern re Y2K is 99% on the cold hard fact of computer failures and their impact on the infrastucture of the info age humdrum.

The fact that Nostradamus, Catholic, and other visionary prophesies, even Sir Newton, have gravitated toward 2000 adds a bit to the wondering.

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.

oops, sorry 'bout that, wrong thread! too many windows open ;^)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.

oops, right thread after all! LOL, time to turn the darn puker off.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), June 16, 1999.

"Afterall...the presentations are often quite plausible and there's a certain "thrill" derived from wondering... "what if that were true?" "

--CD

Huh?

CD not to insult but, just how long did it take you to figure out this was satire? Geez man get real.

Delete....

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

A & L -- "the exhaustion and boredom we're all feeling with trying to reach 'n teach the determined idiosos..." Ha! Determined idiosos. I'm convinced it's a trance of some kind, maybe fallout from the contrails or EMPs from HAARP. Lately, I've been referring to this surreal time-space we find ourselves inhabiting as "Oblivia." All I know is the paradigms are slip-slidding away as fast as the deadlines.

Hey, CD, I listen to Bell now and then. Like to check out the whole spectrum of contemporary culture. Have rooms lined with (insulating, many burnable) books on hundreds of topics. Family of engineers and health care people, a minister, a farmer, a manager of a production line full of embedded chips, a teacher, assorted wonderful rascals.

My observation is that the regulars on this forum are of above- average intelligence, and I include emotional intelligence as well as cognitive. They're educated, thoughtful, responsible, involved, humane folks. They have families and careers or a good retirement going for them. Before they started studying Y2K, they had powerful dreams for a dynamic and positive future for themselves, for their kids, for the human race. They saw challenges, of course, that would have to be overcome. But they believed we would overcome. It is our nature to realize our potential.

Unfortunately, we have the potential to be collectively stupid really big time. And after looking in depth and at length for data that would reveal the path around or over this Y2K challenge, people who are emotionally/spiritually/mentally strong enough will tell you this particular adventure is the all-time Big Winner in the stupid category.

I would wager that many here have walked the planet long enough to have experienced life's dark nights of the soul. All we have dreamed of and spent our lives working towards may be about to disappear, maybe for a very long time. That includes our best hopes for humanity. When you seriously look at what is at stake here, there's no thrill to it, CD, just an unspeakable sorrow.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), June 16, 1999.

Dog Gone wrote- Not me. I don't pay any attention to any of it except to look in amusement at the covers of some of the newspaper tabloids while I'm waiting in line at the supermarket. And the same will be true for the vast majority here I'm sure.

Well "Dog Gone", I guess under the circumstances we won't know who's estimate is closer. I'm sure many who DO subscribe to this are hesitant to admit to the fact. It remains however, that a number of people HAVE made references to these persons/shows in their messages posted to this forum. (Without refutation from the "regulars" here I might add.) Although I appreciate your feedback concerning my comments, my question was directed primarily to those folks.

Midwest Mike wrote- "CD not to insult but, just how long did it take you to figure out this was satire? Geez man get real."

Sorry Mike, I really don't have a clue as to what you are trying to say here. Care to clarify?

-- CD (not@here.com), June 16, 1999.

Thanks for the well thought-out response Faith Weaver. Appreciated.

CD

-- CD (not@here.com), June 16, 1999.

CD,

Opening words from the complete "article":

"WASHINGTON, DC--Citing years of frustration over their advice being misunderstood, misrepresented or simply ignored, America's foremost experts in every field collectively tendered their resignation Monday."

Nuff said? Again, no insult intended.

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

MidwestMike-

Scroll up and re-read my original post. I think that will clear-up your confusion involving my comments. BTW, no offense taken.

-- CD (not@here.com), June 16, 1999.

The onion has wonderful spoof and satire articles. But I would really like to see people get as worked up about the wholesale destruction of the Earth, as they do about y2k. Not bloody likely.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 16, 1999.

I don't like to abuse space but we can't seem to uderstand eachother just yet so here we go...

CD posts:

This reminded me of an observation and a question I have for quite some time...

There are a number of shows/persons such as Art Bell, Ed Dames, Jeff Rense etc. that present stories of the bizarre. Stories revolving around "secret science", "grand revelations", UFOs, time travelers, conspiracies, coverups, extraterrestrials, extrasensory powers, etc. These persons/shows are quickly dismissed and relegated to "nonsense" status by the mainstream public. (Even the most die-hard fan of this genre has to admit that 99% of the stuff is bogus and would make world headlines if it were even remotely true.) I think the majority of us here would agree that those who actually BELIEVE these persons/shows are quite naive. There are however, a number of people who enjoy this stuff simply for the entertainment value it delivers. Afterall...the presentations are often quite plausible and there's a certain "thrill" derived from wondering... "what if that were true?" Regardless of the reason, it's obvious that some people are more drawn to this type entertainment than others are. ****************************************************************** ****HERE IS WHERE I DRAW EXCEPTION.................................... It is my guess that the majority of people on this forum would fit into this catagory. Which brings me to my observation. .................................................................. ****************************************************************** During the last few months of lurking in this forum I have noticed that a number of people have either quoted or made reference to these persons/shows. It is with those people in mind that I pose my question... Have you ever seriously considered the possibility that you may have been drawn into the "darker" side of Y2k because you are predisposed to this type of "shock theater"?

The section I marked is complete bullshit (for those of you "skimming", you have to read all of the above).

CD, I'm sorry we just can't understand each other......anyone out there willing to give me a hand here?................. Maybe I'm dense.....

-- MidwestMike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

CD: My wife and I were able to understand Y2K and grasp its implications quickly because: 1) We have substantial backgrounds in science, which teaches you to THINK; most people get little training in that these days. 2) We know how poorly decisions tend to be made in corporations and gov't. 3) We have a good idea (from history, if nothing else) how frequently they lie, even when the truth would work better for them. 4) We have seen over and over how little technical knowledge the suits tend to have, and how incompletely/infrequently they communicate with the people in their organization who DO have technical knowledge (and understand what is really going on...)

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), June 16, 1999.

Faith

thank you

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), June 16, 1999.

MS;

You just hit the polly nail on the head!!!!!!! You were trained to think. The polly's let the computers think for them. Good morning HAL.

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), June 16, 1999.

"MinnesotaSmith"-

Care to comment on my original question? [See 4th message on this thread]

-- CD (not@here.com), June 17, 1999.

Thanks Faith.

Wonderful response... CD still doesn't GI. Oh well.

NO, CD it is not a predeliction with the "dark side" of Y2K but a growing understanding that the obscurity being perpetrated by our respective government agencies, large corporations, state and municipal governments, and all those with vested interests, et. al., has become a darkish question in need of some light and clarity.

As for the other topics, you just don't pay attention, do you? Or study and research much. There is more going on on this planet than meets the naked eye. Time will tell. Start with the Sphinx.

Now, back... to Y2K.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 17, 1999.

It's obvious even to the casual observer that CD gets it all too well, Diane. Some (maybe not all) of you doomers are drawn to the dark side for whatever reason.

-- Someone (smarter@than.you), June 17, 1999.

good one.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 17, 1999.

well, I guess Mike and Andy got it.......

geez... I never expected everyone to be so damn serious....

Interesting responses to a rather timely and appropo piece of media satire...I guess...

Now back to our regular schedule of depressing news and bickering and squabbling.

-- Plonk! (realaddress@hotmail.com), June 17, 1999.

Diane- Interesting response. Thanks. I would appreciate it if you would verify something for me...

You wrote: "As for the other topics, you just don't pay attention, do you? Or study and research much. There is more going on on this planet than meets the naked eye. Time will tell. Start with the Sphinx."

May I assume from your statement that you would be included in that group of people who subscribe to the persons/shows which I had described?

-- CD (not@here.com), June 17, 1999.

CD (or whoever you are),

I occasionally listen to Art Bell. Yes. Especially when someone posts here that he's going to discuss Y2K.

Ed Dames at psi whatever (someone posted a thread awhile back) seems "twisted" in MHO.

Don't know who Jeff Rense is, sorry.

Does the government fund remote viewing exercises? Yes. This I know for a FACT after meetings at SRI (Stanford Research Institute).

Are there "black helicopters?" Yes. I've "seen" them myself and you can also go check out the guys who fly them at Nightstalkers web- site... warning... they *like* cookies...

http://www.nightstalkers.com

Are there UFO's? Just like Y2K... who knows for sure? What I do * know* is ... there sure is a lot of smoke for something with "no fire." That said... four different times I've seen things in the sky that would qualify. One hovering pretty close. (Also had a friend who used to work on Project Bluebook. Interesting stuff).

"Even the most die-hard fan of this genre has to admit that 99% of the stuff is bogus and would make world headlines if it were even remotely true." -- CD

That's such a ridiculous statement, that it doesn't really deserve a response. However, the Y2K "media story" et. al. (dot gov and dot mil) could be an indicator of "spin" for groups that have a vested interest in pushing "untruths" for numerous reasons. And there are ALSO many groups who go over the deep end, for myriad reasons.

Gotta siff the wheat from the chaff, IMHO.

Try researching and studying with an open mind... instead of assuming. You might learn something. Or not.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 17, 1999.

Now, back to Y2K.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 17, 1999.