?Question for Flint?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Flint,I stated in a previous post that I held your cognative thinking ability in high regard. However, here of late I have wondered if this might be an error in judgement on my part or if my own mindset has drifted to far in the perception of cataclysm resulting from the subjects at hand. If you would answer two questions for me, it would be of great help.
#1. What event(s) relating to the subject matter discussed on this forum would need to happen in actuality, for you to direct the bulk of your communication towards motivating all who frequent here into preparing for severe and substantial disruption of lifestyle for an indeterminate length of time?
#2. If the criteria for the proposed action on your part is met, would there be adequate time remaining for meaningful preparations?
-- cujo (cujo@baddog.byte), June 21, 1999
?????????????????
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.
This should prove singularly interesting if Flint deigns to answer.
-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), June 21, 1999.
You've got to be joking Greybear.IF Flint deigns to answer Cujo, answer he will in the inimitable Flint style.
After several paragraphs, Cujo will scratch itself and post another time to ask Flint to clarify his postions. Flint will add several more paragraphs, a bunch of folks like you and I will interject, "a" will come steaming in with a couple of classic Flint doublespeak quotes and all hell will break loose as everyone jumps on the Flint is an idiot bandwagon.
Cujo will round off the thread bemoaning Flints disingenuousness.
All back to square one - flint wins again...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 21, 1999.
Its to bad cujo can't think for himself."the best way to keep a dog from humping your leg is a swift kick in the balls"
-- Super Kicker (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.
What if it's a female dog, bitch.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 21, 1999.
A moron of Super Kinke..err Kicker's stature couldn't win an ass-kicking contest with a one legged person.
-- (kick@morons.butt), June 21, 1999.
Excellent questions! I'd like to see an HONEST reply from any *just a bump* or broomer type.
-- (c@c.c), June 21, 1999.
This "Flint-bashing" is going to extremes, don't you think? The questions asked are totally ridiculous:"#1. What event(s) relating to the subject matter discussed on this forum would need to happen in actuality, for you to direct the bulk of your communication towards motivating all who frequent here into preparing for severe and substantial disruption of lifestyle for an indeterminate length of time?
#2. If the criteria for the proposed action on your part is met, would there be adequate time remaining for meaningful preparations?"
What EXACTLY is the purpose of this thread? Perhaps folks could address it more succinctly if they were aware of the purpose.
Anita
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 21, 1999.
Whahhhh!!! The question is above my head. "unless it gets bad, then it will really be bad" duhhhh
-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com)-- wrote:"This "Flint-bashing" is going to extremes, don't you think? The questions asked are totally ridiculous:
[snip questions}
What EXACTLY is the purpose of this thread? Perhaps folks could address it more succinctly if they were aware of the purpose."
Flint has openly mentioned that he is a person that believes in some preparation. My questions are intended to find out what it would take to move him to a position emphasizing "preparing for severe and substantial disruption of lifestyle for an indeterminate length of time". I have asked myself these questions and anyone who comes to this forum for its stated purpose should do the same.
"Totally ridiculous" you say? The only thing "totally ridiculous" I've witnessed on this forum is the banal ramblings continually hammered out on the keyboards of trolls like you and others of your ilk.
-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 21, 1999.
Anita:You're right, these are stupid questions. Underlying them is the assumption that everyone posting here is trying to either trick people into preparing (the good guys) or trick them out of preparing (the bad guys). If you swallow this false assumption, then everyone must be either a good guy or a bad guy on this single basis.
My primary goal in posting here is to evaluate as much of the y2k evidence available to us, as objectively as possible. To determine what it says and what it doesn't say. To emphasize the techniques of disinformation being used to *force* all y2k information into a predetermined mold. The false assumption underlying cujo's questions is a delightful case in point.
To the extent that my concerns are with preparation, they're with proper targeting of those preparations -- with allocating a limited amount of time, effort and money towards what looks like it will prove most useful and appropriate next year. At the risk of oversimplification, it seems reasonable that the options of either (a) running all credit cards you can get your hands on to the max buying survival goods, or (b) Getting out of debt and building as much in savings as possible, are mutually exclusive strategies. The first option is clearly superior if we face a total breakdown of infrastructure and government. The second is clearly superior if we face serious recession/depression and high unemployment.
Now, which of these strategies is better depends on what the future brings us. Making the better choice depends on making a better prediction. Making good predictions is not possible if you just distort and exaggerate every danger you can dream up. Good predictions depend on careful reading and careful analysis, not on fanning fears for what you believe is for someone else's own good.
Over the last couple of years, I've gradually come to the conclusion that some of the preparations I've spent money on, are going to be a lot less useful to me than the money would have been if I'd been sensible enough to save it. The global breakdown scenario looks increasingly less likely, and the global slowdown scenario more likely. And appropriate preparations have changed accordingly.
I can't tell you what preparations are best for you, because everyone has a different starting point, different preferences and different circumstances. At best, I can only try to point out clear misinterpretations of the evidence, in the hopes that your own preparation resources will be more wisely allocated. I can't tell you what to think, but I can try to show you how. It seems clear that many here are fighting to justify decisions they've been talked into, rather than learning how to make much better decisions on their own. y2k is neither simple nor obvious, no matter how hard you try to force it to be otherwise.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.
Read the above and weep.Well, was my prediction correct Cujo?
over to you...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 21, 1999.
"The global breakdown scenario looks increasingly less likely..."another nugget from flint, ya know, that's why I keep coming to this forum, gems, absolute gems ...
what a complete and utter maroon
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 21, 1999.
Flint would make an exellant politician. 5 paragraphs of nonanswer, yet somehow can be construed to be relevent. I agree with his point on how to come to a decision, but balk at the aforementioned nonanswer. It's not Flint bashing, it's actually Flint what do you think and what are your plans."its not gonna be bad, unless it gets bad, then it will really be bad", does make sense if your up for re-election. Every base covered, yet nothing relevant.
-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 21, 1999.
Flint -- "It seems clear that many here are fighting to justify decisions they've been talked into, rather than learning how to make much better decisions on their own."OutingsR -- Thanks, Mom! Oops! You're not Mom. She gives better advice. Did somebody appoint Flint Y2K Den Mother when we weren't looking? Hey -- wait a minute! We're not being PATRONIZED, are we???
-- OutingsR (us@here.yar), June 21, 1999.
Outings:If the shoe fits...
No, I can't see the future. I don't believe anyone else can either, no matter how many times they claim they can. And I don't believe shouting helps them, and I don't believe personal attacks help them, and I don't believe cheerleading the demented helps them either. Obviously some people aren't interested in educated guesses, because they're allergic to both education and guessing. They want *certainty*, right or wrong.
You can keep right on chanting your catechism are reviling the heretics. But I won't join your church.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.
Joining ddeckers Church perchance???
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 21, 1999.
Am I the only one who would miss Flint if he were to go away? I am a serious GI, however I always enjoy Flints spin on things. Now if you want to get rid of somebody who has been worthless lets start with Y2K Pro, Super Polly ...
-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 21, 1999.
If written words were money Flint would be a Billionaire with nothing to say !!Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 21, 1999.
Flint, Your patience never fails to amaze me. I'm glad you stay around, though. Long-time lurkers like myself (I move between a 7 and an 11 from one week to the next) gain hugely from your attempts to deconstruct the sloppy thinking that passes for Y2K situation analyses. You share this honour, IMO, with Tom Benjamin. It's just such a pity you have to spend so much time swatting anti-intellectual bigots like ...well everyone knows who they are, even if they don't know themselves.
-- chris (christopher@philosopher.net), June 21, 1999.
Flint, no one is suggesting people max out their credit cards preparing. What we are saying is that perhaps they should be forgoing gassing up the boat for skiing trips every other weekend and dedicate that money to preps. But assholes like you and Koskinen are making DAMN sure this does not happen, and that y2k is taken as a very big joke by the general public.Thanks Flint.
-- a (a@a.a), June 21, 1999.
No a, it's doomers like you who make sure the public sees Y2K as a joke. Just present some REALISTIC events and LOGICAL reasoning and maybe the public would believe that Y2K could cause problems. But when you start talking planes falling from the sky and clocks going haywire, the public has to laugh at you. The pollys are just trying to look at this realistically without going off the deep end.
-- Hmmmmm (mm@mm.mm), June 21, 1999.
Planes will fall from the sky?? LOL Get real.You REASONING? Here asshole, take your pick, all these are DOCUMENTED with URLs to the news articles:
Milne (still) not a fan of Senator Bennett Milne no fan of de Jager either Milne not a fan of Senator Bennett Milne offers pollyannas an arithmetic lesson Milne on AT&T's announcement that it may go "Chevron" Milne on Russia, North Korea and Y2K: What Pollyannas don't want you to know Milne on the Great Geek Migration Milne: 16 Reasons Why Self-Reporting Is Specious Milne: A Pollanna Is Nothing But A Selfish Human Being Milne: And while you're at it...spoof this too Milne: Another challenge for pollyannas Milne: Ask Bozo If He Is the 'Best' Clown Ever Milne: Australia: A Parable Of Non-Compliance Milne: Beginning of The Y2K Panic Sell-Off Milne: Boston Herald says "the outlook is bleak" Milne: Brokerage Firms Miss Deadlines Milne: California Dreamin' Milne: Chaos in 90 days Milne: Clue-By-Four Milne: Dealing with Y2K failures in the midst of Y2K failures Milne: DoD is floundering Milne: European airports heading for millennium computer crash Milne: Fat lady is singing Milne: For Flint, an example of spin and distortion in a Milne posting Milne: For those who say Milne has never been right Milne: Get out of Atlanta Milne: Government Y2K director cites potential for 1-2 weeks without power Milne: Half of the nation's 6,000 hospitals will not be Y2K compliant by 31 Dec Milne: Iraq and Y2K Poisonfire Milne: Ireland "Completely out of Touch" with Y2K (warning: offensive language) Milne: Japan: She Loves me, She Loves Me Not, She Loves me... Milne: Japanese Federal Government Spending 1/42 Of What We Spend Milne: Japan's Banks: White Wheat or Raisin? (with help from PNG) Milne: Koskinen Lies Again Milne: More Ignorant Hoffs Milne: NONE of California's utilities are ready yet Milne: one more "spoof" Milne: Recession in Latin America worse than IMF expected Milne: Say goodbye to Venezuelan oil Milne: See ya Milne: Spoof THIS Milne: The Collapse Of Indonesia Milne: The Job Is Not Getting Done Milne: The Readers Digest version of Y2K Milne: Today's example of pollyanna spin Milne: Trashing The Idiotic "Y2K Will Be Like Three Day Storm" Milne: Trouble brewing up North Milne: Water supplies at risk despite pollyanic reassurances Milne: Why are Wall Street securities firms preparing to SLASH their assets due to a "minuscule risk"? Milne: Why do pollyannas waste their time discussing y2k? Milne: Y2K comes early to Serbia Milne: Yet Another Government prepares for Y2K in a Bunker Milne-US GDP Plunge
-- a (a@a.a), June 21, 1999.
Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to thier level and beat you with experience.
-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), June 21, 1999.
A consideration of what Flint and I said here, as well as the rest of the thread goes to the heart of Cujo's question and most of the replies as well.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 21, 1999.
Umm, Hmmmmmm,You wrote:
"No a, it's doomers like you who make sure the public sees Y2K as a joke. Just present some REALISTIC events and LOGICAL reasoning and maybe the public would believe that Y2K could cause problems. But when you start talking planes falling from the sky and clocks going haywire, the public has to laugh at you. The pollys are just trying to look at this realistically without going off the deep end. "
May I remind you that planes have already fallen from the sky *during a Y2K test.* Even as a doomer, I wouldn't have believed it until I read about the F-15's crashing in a news report.
-- Dean -- from (almost) Duh Moines (dtmiller@nevia.net), June 21, 1999.
Uhm, Dean, gotta link on those planes??????
-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 21, 1999.
Flint hasn't answered any of my many y2k pertinent questions either. I've been waiting and waiting and the threads are ready to be taken off from the main screen of this forum any minute. But Flint is smart, he knows this very well.It's not that y2k is a hoax. Flint is a hoax, with a self-assigned role of intellectual forum clown.
Flint reminds me of Allan Greenspan (smooth operator, perfect English) with a delicate Bill Clinton veneer (for obvious reasons)
A good word in for Flint, though. Flint is the best polly that you'll ever find. Flint is the ACID test. Right now he has turned into the most formidable enemy for y2k preparations. Flint now represents the very best reasons that pollies can come up with in order to disuade people to prepare If you can read what he says and be convinced that it is definetly not enough to stop you from preparing as much as you deem needed, then you must know that pollies don't have anything better to say other than what you hear from Flint. So if you are a strong, intelligent person, Flint may not hurt you. Actually he could end up helping you, if you are alert and act accordingly. The only problem is that most people are not strong enough, intelligent enough and with enough time available to reveal Flint's lack of plain commom sense. Flint's argumentations are unbelievable intricate and subtle, the problem is that as Sam Houston said, "only a damn fool would swallow them"
That's why, being as intelligent and capable as you are, you may me sick Flint. You not only won't answer Cujo's two questions, you haven't really answered anybdy's questions, including mine. And I've asked them more than once, in different threads Flint, but I guess that your intelligence correctly indicates to you that people won't notice because their 'sound bite' retention capacity is overwhelmed in such a dynamic, rich forum such as this. And you are probably right Flint, again. Except that many more people will probably die because of your attitude.
You should be ashamed of yourself Flint for misusing that excellent brain of yours for the wrong purpose. Who do you work for Flint?
-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 21, 1999.
Flint do you have a shoe-phone by chance? :)
-- a (a@a.a), June 21, 1999.
Dean,
I am particularly sensitive to events involving the aviation world, and I read that news release from Nellis AFB very carefully. There was no statement that the F15 crash was Y2K related and to be truthful, I didn't even get the glimmer of a suspicion that it might have been. Having participated in many such exercises (although none for Y2K testing), I must note that crashes are an unfortunate fact of life in "normal" times in military aviation. That's why no one wants to sell you life insurance if you are a pilot (military or otherwise).
As a general comment:
As for the "falling out of the sky" term, let's put that to rest once and for all (if only we could).
An aircraft will fall out of the sky if and only if its physical aerodynamic characteristics are compromised. That means if a wing breaks off or if the fuselage comes unglued or the engine quits and the bird won't fly without power (very low or non existent glide ratio) or if the computer quits and the bird is aerodynamically unstable and unflyable without it (F117, for example). Crashes, except those caused by the above (and other compromises of physical characteristics), are usually an example of the aircraft flying into the ground for one reason or another. "Falling out of the sky" is simply an ignorant thing to say which is, unfortunately, scary to many folks who do not understand what makes flight possible.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 21, 1999.
Here's an older shot by Flint: required reading if you are to analyze the man.
-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 21, 1999.
If the euro had been the disaster that doomers predicted and if 1/1/99 had been the disaster that doomers predicted and if the reservation system had been the disaster that doomers predicted and if 4/1/99 had been the disaster that doomers predicted, I would encourage everyone I talked with to prepare for TEOTWAWKI.No, it's not too late. You can still purchase the wood burning stoves and food supplies and fill your bathtubs with water.
-- Another Polly (taking@stab.questions), June 21, 1999.
Mr. Hardliner,It is worth noting that, using the definition you've provided, planes *do* fall from the sky *now,* for reasons having nothing to do with Y2K. So the old polly chestnut that "Planes will *not* fall from the sky." is disinformation on its face. Is anyone seriously proposing that hypothetical Y2K computer problems will *improve* the flight characteristics of airplanes?
-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), June 21, 1999.
George commented:"A good word in for Flint, though. Flint is the best polly that you'll ever find. Flint is the ACID test. Right now he has turned into the most formidable enemy for y2k preparations. Flint now represents the very best reasons that pollies can come up with in order to disuade people to prepare If you can read what he says and be convinced that it is definetly not enough to stop you from preparing as much as you deem needed, then you must know that pollies don't have anything better to say other than what you hear from Flint. So if you are a strong, intelligent person, Flint may not hurt you. Actually he could end up helping you, if you are alert and act accordingly. The only problem is that most people are not strong enough, intelligent enough and with enough time available to reveal Flint's lack of plain commom sense. Flint's argumentations are unbelievable intricate and subtle, the problem is that as Sam Houston said, "only a damn fool would swallow them"
George, this is one of the BEST commentarys on our friend Flint that I have read to date. After one has gone in circles with Flint one finally figures out that he has NO INTENTION of answering any questions he just continues to spew out Yada .. Yada .. Yada.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 21, 1999.
Except for the odd "rage" every so often, Flint has been articulate, civil and thoughtful. For the most part, his arguments have been rather straightforward... far less intricate than the conspiracy theories bandied about on this forum.In point of fact, the pessimist community has failed to produce a single compelling argument. The "code is broken" mantra has not convinced the IT community or the general public.
Flint has consistently admitted there will be some level of IT problems, but he (like most people on the planet) do not think Y2K problems will lead to social or economic collapse. Credible Y2K commentators like Ed Yardeni categorize the risk as entirely economic... a 95% chance of a recession OR LESS.
Yet we have a small fringe of extreme pessimists who confuse ranting with logical argumentation. With a bit more objectivity (and perhaps intelligence) and this group would realize Flint had "spanked" them time and again.
Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 21, 1999.
Decker is an operative & a soon-to-be murderer according to several respected(?)posters. Flint is accused of dissuading folks from making preps, of talking in circles, of being disingenous. What a joke!Look in the mirror, accusers. Out of control are we? Inflated feeling of self-importance? Experiencing an obsessive urge to offer opinion as fact?
Take a step back, please. I can understand those folks who have a difficult time comprehending well written pieces. They lash out due to feelings of inferiority, insecurity, ignorance. Perhaps they pick out a phrase they understand which causes a rush to judgement. Whatever the reasons I make allowances for them.
But this forum has attracted a great number of intelligent people, some of whom have an inability to engage in civil discourse. Egos are severely out of balance in some of these folks. You know, the ones who feel it necessary to constantly lash out at those who refuse to spew the "party line". We all have opinions. That one extrapolates their opinions to the point of creating a Truth which must be accepted by all (or die) is laughable. Puff yourselves up a little more!
Don't any of you ever experience embarrassment at reading your own posts?
This forum is spiraling downward rapidly. I don't blame the trolls. Troll posts are easily ignored. I believe the responsibility lies with those "regulars" who have created polarization on this forum with their "us v. them" approach.
Polarize further & you continue to reduce your chances of helping to inform those straddling the fence. This would be a true shame - but not surprising to me in the least.
Just an opinion...
-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 21, 1999.
I will let Flint's answer speak for itself. However, it would have demonstrated better character and less cowardice if the reference to my questions being "stupid" would have been directed to me and not to a "broomer" with sympathetic ears. From this day forward, I will read all of Flint's comments in the light of his repugnant arrogance, with the vision of Saturday Night Live's "Church Lady" spewing forth the rhetoric.Mr.Decker,
You wouldn't understand the definition of "spanked" if it walked up behind you with a cat-o'-nine-tails and struck you on the backside.
Bingo 1,
Your post was much more than an opinion... it was a castigation. As someone else has posted before:
Pot
Kettle
Black
Without Regret,
cujo
-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 21, 1999.
Cujo: "Your post was much more than an opinion... it was a castigation."It was also a plea for introspection.
And obviously, a waste of bandwidth.
Best Wishes,
-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 21, 1999.
Darn...I missed out on this. Greybear: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" ROTFLMAO..and will be for the rest of the night! a: "Do you have a shoe phone"....classic. Thank goodness for some people on this forum, and Flint as well, for hosting such a fine event! By the way Flint. I see your favorite color is STILL 'plaid'.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.
Will:If reality is itself plaid, what solid color do *you* like to pretend it is. After all, the truth is so ... so *colorful*. I know you're trying to fit a complex reality within the scope of your comprehension, and I can see that in the process, you haven't much choice but to leave out a whole bunch of Really Big Parts. But just because essentially important considerations are beyond your grasp, doesn't make them unimportant. And I freely admit that most of this complexity is beyond my grasp as well. I can sense it, and I can feel frustrated that I can't encompass it all, but I refuse to admit it isn't there just because I can't handle it all. As I said earlier, the more you know, the better you realize how little you know. Ignorance lies not so much in not knowing things, as in not *recognizing* that we don't know things.
Cujo:
Sorry, I hadn't expected your sensibilities to be quite so delicate. So once again (sigh)
In the first place, I said your question was stupid. I didn't say *you* were stupid. Stupid questions are all too easy to ask, and I know from long experience (don't we all?)
In the second place, I made my usual effort to explain *why* it was a stupid question. It was founded on a false assumption. Any direct answer to such a question is misleading by definition. The only direct answers you can give to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" are Yes and No. And *both* answers imply you're a wife-beater, because that assumption was built into the question.
In the third place, I explained my views on preparations in some detail, without ducking your question at all. What more could you ask for?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.
Excellent post Bingo1! It's unfortunate how the people who would benefit the most from "stepping back and taking a look in the mirror" are also the people least likely to do so.
-- CD (not@here.com), June 21, 1999.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com)-- wrote: "Sorry, I hadn't expected your sensibilities to be quite so delicate. So once again (sigh)"Nice patronizing comment to start your errant rebuttle!
"In the first place, I said your question was stupid. I didn't say *you* were stupid. Stupid questions are all too easy to ask, and I know from long experience (don't we all?)"
**cujo wrote:
I will let Flint's answer speak for itself. However, it would have demonstrated better character and less cowardice if the reference to my questions being "stupid" would have been directed to me and not to a "broomer" with sympathetic ears.**
If you read very, very carefully I am sure you will understand that I did *NOT* accuse you of calling me, as an individual, "stupid".
"In the second place, I made my usual effort to explain *why* it was a stupid question. It was founded on a false assumption. Any direct answer to such a question is misleading by definition. The only direct answers you can give to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" are Yes and No. And *both* answers imply you're a wife-beater, because that assumption was built into the question."
The only false assumption being offered is your equating my hypothetical question regarding potential future events with your asinine question "Have you stoped beating your wife" which any answer to would establish a past event. Disingenuous at best.
"In the third place, I explained my views on preparations in some detail, without ducking your question at all. What more could you ask for?"
Yes Flint, you absolutely and unequivocally are "ducking" my questions. My questions were very simple and relating to your motivating others to prepare...not to what you have prepared for yourself or whether you beat your wife. I could ask for some candor, but that would be asking to much from you wouldn't it.
cujo
-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 21, 1999.
Flint : My favorite color is country blue. Y2k will be a disaster. If we're really lucky, a Depression with alot of fighting in the streets and a desire on the part of many to correct the government. It will take years to recover from my best case scenerio, but it has potential to slide into a ten in the beat of a hummingbird's wing. We're prepared for anything short of a nuclear holocaust. I don't play hop-scotch with words, Flint....remember that WTSHTF.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 21, 1999.
Cujo:I interpreted your questions to mean: What would it take to get you to focus your efforts toward getting people to prepare as *I* think they should and *I* think you ought to, and don't you feel guilty for *NOT* trying to get people to prepare at this late date?
OK, I rejected what I saw as the assumption that the purpose of my posts should be to encourage preparation. This is one, single aspect of a very complicated issue. Nonetheless, I addressed preparation and emphasized that as unbiased an analysis as possible should, in my opinion, lead anyone interested in y2k to the most appropriate preparations. A wildly biased (fanatical) interpretation of our evidence runs the risk of frightening people into expending precious resources needlessly to protect themselves from low-probability events, leaving them unnecessarily vulnerable to events of lesser threat but much higher likelihood.
I also saw your questions as implying that the *proper* posted material should go all-out to use any and every effective technique to *trick* or terrify people into taking drastic actions. I reject this assumption as well. I feel that the material aviailable to us, taken in total, leads toward a future I described in a post Lisa provided a link to above. I admit that to the degree that I address preparations, I'm talking about *how* you should prepare. Whether or not you should prepare is up to you. Sometimes these distinctions are difficult to draw. As an example, as a motorcyclist, I'm totally opposed to helmet laws. But I also feel that anyone who doesn't choose to wear one is an idiot. Similarly with preparations -- I'm opposed to disinforming people into preparing, it's entirely up to them. And if they choose not to, they're idiots. But it should be *their* choice, never mine.
Finally, you speak of "the proposed action on your part." I admit this sets me off. WHO IN HELL is "proposing" an action on my part? Do I try to tell *you* what to do? I do my damndest here to try to keep people *properly* informed, not deviously misinformed (but for their own good, of course). Yes, I assume that properly informed people will take proper actions if they so choose. It's their choice.
My general model here is to say, OK here's the real facts (as best as I can understand them). Now, YOU decide what to do with them.
YOUR model seems to say, OK, here's how *I* think you should see things, so that you'll make the decisions *I* think you ought to.
To me, this is an arrogant disservice.
And if I've misunderstood what your questions meant, I'm sorry. I just want to do my best to make it clear what I'm reacting to.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.
Damnit! I had hoped to be done with this thread except for reading, but I cannot let this pass without comment.
Mr. Decker,
I agree with this paragraph.Except for the odd "rage" every so often, Flint has been articulate, civil and thoughtful. For the most part, his arguments have been rather straightforward... far less intricate than the conspiracy theories bandied about on this forum.
Here however, I do not. In point of fact, the pessimist community has failed to produce a single compelling argument. Whether or not an argument is compelling is dependent on the perception of the recipient, as well as the skill of the presenter and your statement represents a value judgment on behalf of everyone who has read such arguments. It is apparent that you do not speak for everyone, and you have, in fact, told us that you speak only for yourself. The "code is broken" (For a discussion of this phrase, look here.)mantra has not convinced the IT community It must have convinced enough of them to prepare the budgets and proposals that have resulted in the expenditure of the massive sums that we have been told are being spent!or the general public. For whatever reasons, this phrase seems to be no more effective at convincing the general public of the seriousness of Y2K than anything else. So?
Flint has consistently admitted Is it accidental that you use the word "admitted" here, rather than simply, "said"? This appears to be a good example of "spin".there will be some level of IT problems, but he (like most people on the planet) do not think Y2K problems will lead to social or economic collapse. It is important to note that what Flint or even "most people on the planet" conclude or "think" will in no way alter the technical aspect of, or the technical results of, the Y2K problem. The conclusions and beliefs of the populace will certainly affect the social and/or economic aspects, as in causing or avoiding bank runs. Credible Y2K commentators like Ed Yardeni categorize the risk as entirely economic... a 95% chance of a recession OR LESS. One of the reasons that Yardeni is credible is that he addresses only what he knows. I suspect that he would be the first to tell you that his suppositions would be meaningless if the power grid went down and stayed down, for example. As I read him, he does not say that all the risks are economic, but that all the economic risks are. . .
Yet we have a small fringe of extreme pessimists who confuse ranting with logical argumentation. I agree. With a bit more objectivity (and perhaps intelligence) (and?) this group would realize Flint had "spanked" them time and again. More spin! The use of the word, "spanked" implies that Flint was motivated to "punish" the forum. In fact, what he did was to offer his opinions about Y2K possibilities and his knowledge of logical reasoning in correction of erroneous argument as he saw it. The only motive that is apparent to me for such spin is to create division within this forum. To what end, Mr. Decker?
Bingo1,
That Decker is an operative (or "operator" if you prefer) is apparent, and no more than any of us are. The question is, an operative on behalf of whom? To my mind, the jury is still out on that question although I must admit to leaning in the direction of accepting his word that he speaks only for himself. While I consider some of his tactics to be dishonest, I do not think him a liar.
As for, . . ."& a soon-to-be murderer", this is particularly inflammatory "hype", no matter how sincerely it might be believed by the speaker of such, and patently untrue. Murder is a quite well defined act, and with extremely narrow exception, one may not commit it with words. according to several respected(?)posters. Flint is accused of dissuading folks from making preps, He has indeed been so accused but my observation is that he has done just the opposite. of talking in circles, Perhaps any line of reasoning that one was unable to follow would be considered as such. . . of being disingenous. What a joke! I believe I understand your meaning, and I agree although I find nothing humorous here.
Look in the mirror, accusers. Out of (self?) control are we? Inflated feeling of self-importance? Experiencing an obsessive urge to offer opinion as fact? All valid and pertinent questions, IMO
Take a step back, please. A reasonable request. I can understand those folks who have a difficult time comprehending well written pieces. They lash out due to feelings of inferiority, insecurity, ignorance. Perhaps they pick out a phrase they understand which causes a rush to judgement. Whatever the reasons I make allowances for them. We could all do well to err on the side of tolerance.
But this forum has attracted a great number of intelligent people, some of whom have an inability to engage in civil discourse. Egos are severely out of balance in some of these folks. You know, the ones who feel it necessary to constantly lash out at those who refuse to spew the "party line". We all have opinions. That one extrapolates their opinions to the point of creating a Truth which must be accepted by all (or die) is laughable. I agree with all but the "laughable" part. I consider it sad. Puff yourselves up a little more! This is castigation IMO, but what the hell, you're entitled to express yourself as much as any of us.
Don't any of you ever experience embarrassment at reading your own posts? Speaking only for myself, I must answer in the affirmative. I also make a great effort to "'fess up" when that happens.
This forum is spiraling downward rapidly. I'm not sure if this is the case or not. It could very well be that the rapid growth of the forum has simply made the "hostile areas (threads)" more numerous and more frequent (which may fit your definition of "spiraling downward rapidly") without increasing as a percentage of the whole forum. I don't blame the trolls. I do, but not entirely. Troll posts are easily ignored. Easy for you maybe, not always so easy for me and who knows about everyone else? I believe the responsibility lies with those "regulars" who have created polarization on this forum with their "us v. them" approach. Here's where I see the remainder of the "blame". It does take two to tango. . .
Polarize further & you continue to reduce your chances of helping to inform those straddling the fence. This would be a true shame - but not surprising to me in the least. As I see it, the greater the contrast, the easier it would be for a "fence straddler" to decide but you may be right and I might be wrong. All we can do is the best as we see it. FWIW, I see the polarization as the expected and inevitable result of a wide cross section of participants and not necessarily "good" or "bad".
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 21, 1999.
Flint,you have not answered ANY ONE of my questions yet.
Let me please add another one for you:
Flint, are you French by any chance? Who do you work for Flint?
-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 21, 1999.
Flint,No problem. You have answered my questions to a certainty. Therefore it must be time to end this thread and move on.
cujo
-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 21, 1999.
There is no disputing Y2K has been presented on a national scale. Despite the widespread media attention, only a small number of individuals have reached the conclusion Y2K problems will result in a social/economic collapse. This includes nearly all recognized authorities and experts in information technology, economics, etc.Based on my reading of this forum, SOME of the individuals who think Y2K will be doomsday also have other ideas, i.e., NWO, black helicopters, Christian Reconstructionism). Despite the "fringe" nature of the leaders of the Y2K movements (Milne, North, etc.), these same leaders have received significant media coverage. This does not prove there will be no Y2K problems, but I think it proves the "end of the world" argument has not been compelling.
The rest of your argument, Hardliner, is a mish-mash of rhetoric and twisted logic. If you want to banter back and forth, I must ask you to simplify and clarify your writing. You are not being paid by the pound.
Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 22, 1999.
Once again Mr. Decker hits the nail on hardliner's head. Hardliner spends more time clouding his response, he seems to miss making a point.
-- Get (to@point.hardliner), June 22, 1999.
Mr. Decker,
Again you disappoint me. Why have you chosen the tactics of the lawyer who asks an illegitimate question of the witness, knowing full well that it will be properly objected to and "withdrawn" in due course; but also knowing that the instructions of the judge for the jury to "Ignore the question", will not be followed.
For those who doubt the equity of my comparison, I suggest that you visit those threads where various forum participants have asked questions of Mr. Decker. Tally them and then identify the ones that he answered directly. Then identify the ones that he simply ignored. Then identify the ones that he answered with another question. Then identify the ones that he answered with the answer to a different question. Unless you failed the fourth grade, you will see a clear pattern.
An illustrative example is his last post where he said, "There is no disputing Y2K has been presented on a national scale. While this is correct, it was never disputed in the first place. The questions were, whether or not there had been compelling arguments presented, whether or not the IT community had been "convinced" (although, convinced of what was never stated), and whether or not the general public had been "convinced". Despite the widespread media attention, (which we have all clearly seen was in-depth investigative reporting, uh-huh. . .) only a small number of individuals have reached the conclusion Y2K problems will result in a social/economic collapse. If this is true, why is the financial community so terrified of bank runs? This includes nearly all recognized authorities and experts in information technology, economics, etc. According to who? How about some support for this bald assertion?
Based on my reading of this forum, SOME of the individuals who think Y2K will be doomsday also have other ideas, i.e., NWO, black helicopters, Christian Reconstructionism). So far, so good. I agree. Despite the "fringe" nature of the leaders of the Y2K movements (Milne, North, etc.), Here's where we part company. One paragraph ago you said, "Despite the widespread media attention, only a small number of individuals have reached the conclusion Y2K problems will result in a social/economic collapse." Now you try to aggrandize these few as being, "Y2K movements" (PLURAL yet!). Which is it? Are they only a few who have produced no compelling arguments or are they enough to constitute a "movement" or "movements"? these same leaders have received significant media coverage. And what is it you want the media to appear as? One paragraph ago you would have us believe that, "Despite the widespread media attention, only a small number of individuals have reached the conclusion. . .", yet now you wish to characterize the media as having provided, "significant" coverage, which you appear to hold creates a problem. Which is it? Did the media fail to compel or convince or did they create a problem by giving attention to the "Y2K leaders"? This does not prove there will be no Y2K problems, but I think it proves the "end of the world" argument has not been compelling. I have personally never seen an argument that Y2K will result in "the end of the world", but I have seen you and many others respond as if someone had made such an argument. Those of you who argue to the minimal end of the spectrum appear to be terrified that no one will get past the first five letters of the term TEOTWAWKI. You seem to have stopped reading after five letters; do you really think everyone else has as well?
The rest of your argument, Hardliner, is a mish-mash of rhetoric It appears to me to be substantive, direct and relevant. and twisted logic. I know that the Jesuits teach better than that, Mr. Decker. Logic is valid or invalid, accurate or inaccurate. Whatever twists and turns it may take are of its own doing and so long as the reasoning remains valid and the assumptions remain true, the conclusions must be both valid and accurate. If you want to banter back and forth, I attach a great deal more importance to what is said on this forum than to characterize it as "banter". I must ask you to simplify and clarify your writing. Your request reminds me of the teacher who confiscates a comic book from a student with the words, "You'll get this back at the end of the semester!", and is asked in turn, "Why? Will it take you that long to read it?" You are not being paid by the pound. FYI, I am not being paid at all, to write here.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 22, 1999.
I've only read halfway down the thread, but I wanted to include Flint's June 6 reply to a question I asked on predictions vs. preparations:"jor-el: Sorry I can't address your question as clearly as you'd like. I do enjoy the difference between betting and insurance. Like you, I'm insuring against about an 8. I'm betting on about a 3. "
You wouldn't think he had ever said anything like that from all the fireworks that the name "Flint" seems to spark, would you?
This long thread about Flint is proof to me that people are more interesting than computers (and their bugs). And arguing is more stimulating than reasoning. There _is_ a point where reasoning takes you no further and you just have to act. Flint sounds like he's had the time and resources to do both, and to go on contributing on the forum in the way he most enjoys. (Really, isn't that just what _all_ of us are doing?)
He is aggravating to others (valuable contributors themselves) because he won't agree with their approach to y2k. I'm sorry, but I've already seen cult groups at work, and have experienced (and resisted) the pressure to join in group-think. Once burned.... This forum already has 80% good, honest stuff and good people and it doesn't need to "convert" anyone to conform to a supposed majority viewpoint.
y2k is scary, real, and requires action; it also pulls at lots of our bad tendencies. Let's not indulge in intolerance even as we fear that WE will suffer for holding a minority viewpoint as y2k "doomers."
I'm glad that Flint stands by his own thoughts. It's a good example for all of us. I don't think he's a paid shill, a troll, or needs to be "re-educated". I haven't read all his threads, or followed our bloodhounds over to the "debunker" swamps to see if Flint is duplicitous in some way not revealed here.
Perhaps every "Flint" thread should quote the above preparation level "8" he admits to. I don't think Flint tries to discourage preparation, but he might provoke less flaming by revealing his own decision more often. The worst effect I see is that he is irrelevant to the uncompleted preparation efforts of many who read here, who should be doing as Flint has already done, not as some say he is not saying.
Don't you get tired of all the battling **personalities** stuff on the forum? When you start us all down those rabbitholes (and we follow) we become a self-trolling forum.
-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.uni), June 22, 1999.
jor-el,The problem with Flinton is that, in the best case scenario he's contradictory, in the worst case he is a damn liar.
In either case, he does a lot of harm to anyone trying to decide for themselves what y2k is all about and/or trying to prepare for it.
Flinton is bad news, no matter which way you slice him.
Beware, probably a professional troll.
-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 22, 1999.
Hardliner,Your use of the English language constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
I have answered many questions directly. When asked about my "preparations," answered in detail. When asked about my economic predictions for 2000, answered in detail. Not only have I answered reasonable questions, I have responded in clear, lucid prose.
1) Yes, Hardliner, there has been in-depth reporting of Y2K.
2) No, the banking community is not "terrified" of bank runs. Perhaps you can provide direct quotations from banking officials who are terrified. The ones I know are sanguine about the rollover.
3) Do you want me list everyone who has nothing to say about Y2K? Let me put it this way, Hardliner, Ed Yardeni is the most pessimistic of nationally known economists... by a large margin. And he places the risk of depression at 5%. It's much easier if we make a list of those nationally-recognized experts who think Y2K WILL result in a social and economic meltdown... or even major problems. There are only a handful of names.
4) A "movement" can be large or small. I consider the "militias" a movement.
You all diminish the value of this exchange by attempting to dissect every post... word by word. You commit one of the mortal sins of writing, Hardliner. You have become deadly boring.
Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 23, 1999.
Mr. Decker,
Have you by any chance considered selling used cars? You would most likely do quite well at it. Your continued appearance with the verbal noisemakers, confetti and helium filled balloons would come close to assuring success in that field.
If my use of language appears as cruel and unusual to you, so be it. I assure you however that it represents my best and honest attempt to express myself in this forum.
You have indeed answered "many" questions directly (Just for the record, what percentage is "many"?) but that was never in doubt. My suggestion was to tabulate your response to all questions put to you in this forum and look for a pattern. No matter how, "clear and lucid" your response to that suggestion was, it was simply another attempt to "turn the arrow from its mark" and in fact answered questions not asked.
Your response that, ". . .there has been in-depth reporting of Y2K", is true but again irrelevant. We both were clearly referring to the entire body of media coverage vis a vis Y2K previously, but when it suits your purpose, you choose to switch to individual instances. That is no more valid than if I were to characterize all Y2K reporting as shallow by pointing out any particular example of such. It is known to the Jesuits (and everyone else too, of course) as arguing the general case from the specific instance. It is clearly a logical fallacy.
You say, "No, the banking community is not terrified" of bank runs." This is patently false. Every banker in every society as long as there have been banks has been (and rightly so) terrified of bank runs. They know without doubt that bank runs are the ultimate catastrophe for a bank individually and the greatest possible threat to the banking system in general. Now my formal "education" in economics consists solely of a one year freshman survey course and a sophomore course entitled, "Money and Banking: Analysis and Policy". I believe that the structure of the banking system is still quite similar but I am just as certain that the "analysis and policy" part is about as relevant after all these years as the plans to defeat the Spanish Armada. Still, the subject of bank runs was easily encompassed in its entirety by that schooling. Even had it not been, it is clear that one need not be a bricklayer to recognize a crooked wall. Now I would estimate the chances to be vanishingly small of finding a banker who would be willing to stand up and say, "My name is Joe Q. Banker and I am the CEO of the 1st National Bank of Anytown, Georgia. I am terrified of bank runs, at my bank or anywhere else." I think it likely that the odds of getting one to voice the exact opposite would be little better. I suggest that getting any banker anywhere to even discuss the subject would be a rather difficult task. It is perhaps illustrative of their concern however, that they have commissioned the services of The Gallup Organization to "take the pulse" of the banking public. Substitute the word "concerned" for "terrified" if that seems less "cruel and unusual to you". I am of the opinion that both accurately describe the state of the banking community regarding bank runs or their possibility and am quite trusting of the reader's ability to evaluate the situation. As for the "ones that you know" that are ". . .sanguine about the rollover", so what? No one said anything about the rollover. The issue was bank runs. Are you suggesting that they should be expected (if at all) as late as the rollover? Give us a break, Mr. Decker! This is simply another attempt to pawn off an answer to an unasked question as pertinent.
You ask, "Do you want me list everyone who has nothing to say about Y2K?" Why would I want you to do that? What did I say that would even make you think that I wished such a thing? More distraction! You are the one who originally cited Yardeni's authority as predicting that the only effects of Y2K would be economic ("Credible Y2K commentators like Ed Yardeni categorize the risk as entirely economic...") and my response was essentially that he was not qualified and in fact did not speak to, any issues other than economic; that you put words into his mouth. Now, here you are, changing your argument yet again to, "He's only one of a few" ("Let me put it this way, Hardliner, Ed Yardeni is the most pessimistic of nationally known economists... by a large margin. . . . It's much easier if we make a list of those nationally-recognized experts who think Y2K WILL result in a social and economic meltdown... or even major problems. There are only a handful of names.") Now, it would appear that you argue that since only a few think it will happen, it will not! Mr. Decker, I know the Jesuits never taught you to reason like that.
You're quite right in that a "movement" can be large or small. A "movement" however, tends to have an ongoing purpose and long term objectives. Plans and preparations for a one time event and the subsequent conditions are hardly in the same league.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion ("You all diminish the value of this exchange. . .") but you are simply being inaccurate by characterizing by responses as, "attempting to dissect every post... word by word." My responses are here for all to clearly see what I have said and how I have said it. I have not "dissected" any of your posts at all. I have inserted my responses into your posts so that the reader may easily compare my words with yours. Do you find that unfair, or simply "cruel and unusual"? Neither have I responded "word by word". I have responded idea by idea and if I have on occasion singled out a word, it is because that particular word embodied a technique or method that I wished to draw attention to.
For the record, and for your information, Mr. Decker, my objective is not and has never been to produce writing that is "free from sin" ("You commit one of the mortal sins of writing. . .") and if you find sticking to the subject, answering what has been asked and honest response boring, that's just too bad for you (and anyone else who finds it so). I am not here for entertainment, Mr. Decker, and if I must wade through boring material (such as the NERC statistics) in order to accomplish my objective of collecting all the information (be it fact, supposition, speculation, opinion or even mindless rant) about Y2K that I can, I will endure such wading as is unavoidable. Should you find my responses to be such, there are a variety of methods that you may employ to avoid them. I would also point out that boredom is likely to affect your performance as an analyst of data, but it cannot affect the validity of the reasoning presented or accuracy of the data presented.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 23, 1999.
Hardliner:I think you are misinterpreting. Clear expression is harder than it looks: what's clear to the writer isn't necessarily clear to the reader.
I interpreted Decker's statements to mean something like this:
Bankers don't currently regard bank runs as likely.
Few pundits of wide previous reputation expect y2k to cause significant disruptions.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 23, 1999.
Once again Mr. Decker hits the nail on hardliner's head. Hardliner is boring.
-- Get (to@point.hardliner), June 23, 1999.
Flint,
Your point about clarity is well taken. I am sure that we all know just exactly what we mean when we write something, including Mr. Decker.
I will repeat once again, that my problem with Mr. Decker's arguments are that he uses deceptive and deceitful tactics and invalid reasoning to achieve his objectives (whatever they may be).
I too, took his words to mean that, "Bankers don't currently regard bank runs as likely." The problem is with his reasoning. I said (in the first place) that they were terrified. His response was, "No, they're not. Show me one that will say so. The ones that I know aren't worried about the rollover." Now I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and I spoke to his implied argument that no banker would say he was terrified, but his relating that none of the bankers that he knew personally were concerned about the rollover has very little if anything to do with being terrified of bank runs. Hell, I'm not very worried about the rollover myself! Whether or not the fear really exists is something that each of us must determine for ourselves, based on such information as is available. Personally, I don't believe that the Fed is printing all that extra currency or keeping all those old bills in circulation or commissioning the Gallup folks to render their opinion while holding the firm knowledge that there will be no bank runs. Your mileage may vary, but my experience is that a banker never parts with a single cent without very good reason and usually not without the prospect of a return on his money. Again, my problem is not with the message, it is with the way that the messenger treats it.
His statement that, "Few pundits of wide previous reputation expect y2k to cause significant disruptions", is again a true statement but it does not in any way support his conclusion that it proves that they are correct. They may be. They may not be. Conventional "wisdom" was that no airplane could sink a battleship either. Few admirals and generals of wide previous reputation expected Billy Mitchell's ideas to cause "significant disruptions" either. Simply being in the majority of opinion is no guarantee, in either direction, of the accuracy of that opinion, as I'm sure you know.
That most of the information available to us all is unverified and questionable, to me at least, represents a serious handicap in making even plausible guesses about the problem. Because the premises that we must start with are themselves assumptions, we cannot reach sure conclusions. To further handicap ourselves by accepting specious reasoning can only make things worse.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 23, 1999.
The first sentence of the 4th paragraph in my last post should have read, "Your interpretation of his statement that, "Few pundits. . ."
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 23, 1999.
Hardliner,-- Greybear (greybear@home.com)-- wrote: "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to thier level and beat you with experience."
-- (ignor-the-schwin-twins@backpeddle.whrrrr), June 23, 1999.
Flint says he has made preparations that will last him a year.Forget the debate. This is all you need to know!.
-- Hawthorne (99@00.com), June 23, 1999.
H,I'll let your gnarled mess of language rest for a moment.
Let's compare bankers with pilots. Are professional pilots "terrified" of crashing? No. They know it is an occupational risk where their life (not just their job) is at stake. They take reasonable precautions and generally act in a very prudent manner. To say they are "terrified" of crashing is misleading. Most pilots do not operate on a "fear" basis. The same is true for bankers. They accept financial disruptions as a possible, but unlikely, occurence. The act in reasonable ways to minimize risk. To say they are "terrified" is misleading... it implies a state of fear that simply does not exist. If pilots were "terrified," they'd take the train. If banker were terrified, they'd find another job.
Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 25, 1999.
Mr. Decker,
Your condescending decision to , ". . .let your (my) gnarled mess of language rest. . .", is a poor substitute for demonstrating an ability to comprehend it and a reasoned and honest response to it.
Your attempt to again, "turn the arrow from its mark" with the comparison of bankers and pilots is simply more classic Decker support of the status quo. Now, you claim to know banker's minds, and I assure you that I know pilots'. While it is true enough that pilots no more operate on a, "fear basis" than bankers do, let me assure you from personal experience that when a crash appears imminent, terror is indeed an unwelcome yet undeniable guest in one's mind. All that you say is true (as again you attempt to change the issue) in normal circumstances. Are you now asking us to consider the present as "normal circumstances"?
Will you argue that a banker who perceives a bank run on his bank as imminent will not be terrified, or will you simply argue that none perceive the threat of such? (or perhaps some other argument?)
BTW, let us know if this reasoning and language is too "gnarly" for you to handle. Should it prove so, maybe a connection with "Mr. Rogers" can be arranged.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 25, 1999.
"H"You are getting better. The answer is, "Yes." Bankers see Y2K much like pilots see a patch of bad weather. Since I actually work with regional bankers on a daily basis, I think I have reasonable access to the thought process. Not a single banker I know is "terrified." They know the Federal Reserve will have one hand firmly on the tiller. Not only is there enough currency, demand deposits, money order, cashier's checks, etc. are also money and the FR has the ability to give these quasi-currency instruments the weight of currency with the swipe of a pen. Unlike a plane, the system crashes only if the FR allows it to crash. By the way, are you going to drop me an email in January and apologize when we don't have bank runs?
Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 26, 1999.
"Let's compare bankers with pilots. Are professional pilots "terrified" of crashing? No. They know it is an occupational risk where their life (not just their job) is at stake. They take reasonable precautions and generally act in a very prudent manner. To say they are "terrified" of crashing is misleading. Most pilots do not operate on a "fear" basis. The same is true for bankers. They accept financial disruptions as a possible, but unlikely, occurence. The act in reasonable ways to minimize risk. To say they are "terrified" is misleading... it implies a state of fear that simply does not exist. If pilots were "terrified," they'd take the train. If banker were terrified, they'd find another job.Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 25, 1999."
This fool should be ashamed of himself for putting his name as the author of this drivel.
WHAT a pillock.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.
""H" You are getting better. The answer is, "Yes." Bankers see Y2K much like pilots see a patch of bad weather. Since I actually work with regional bankers on a daily basis, I think I have reasonable access to the thought process. Not a single banker I know is "terrified." They know the Federal Reserve will have one hand firmly on the tiller. Not only is there enough currency, demand deposits, money order, cashier's checks, etc. are also money and the FR has the ability to give these quasi-currency instruments the weight of currency with the swipe of a pen. Unlike a plane, the system crashes only if the FR allows it to crash. By the way, are you going to drop me an email in January and apologize when we don't have bank runs?Regards,
-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 26, 1999."
Ah-ha!
I think I smell a paid Banking SHIL!!!
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.
Mr. Decker,
I'm certainly not getting any better and it is quite apparent that you're not either. Could it be that you harbor an irrational fear of Mr. Rogers? Would you give us all a break here? I asked you four simple and unequivocal questions:
(1)Are you now asking us to consider the present as "normal circumstances"?
(2)Will you argue that a banker who perceives a bank run on his bank as imminent will not be terrified,
(3)or will you simply argue that none perceive the threat of such?
(4)or perhaps some other argument?)
You reply, "The answer is 'yes'."
"Yes to which, Mr. Decker? All of them? Which?
I'm afraid that the pilot/banker analogy breaks down with the "patch of bad weather" comparison. Every pilot that I know will go to extreme lengths to avoid bad weather. He'll fly over it or around it if he can, but if he can't, I guarantee you the "pucker factor" involved in simply flying through "goo" is intense and being forced to fly through "bad weather" is a promise that no one will be able to drive a straight pin up your ass with a ten pound sledge for some time (the sphincter-cramp is residual)! Since Y2K, whatever it may turn out to be, cannot be avoided, I would expect bankers to be "puckered", but you say not. I'll take that at face value since I don't routinely interact with bankers myself.
The image of the Fed as a casual sailor with, "one hand firmly on the tiller", is a soothing one, but not one that gives me much confidence in our central bank as it approaches "a patch of bad weather". I should think that oilskins, safety lines, much reduced canvas and both hands firmly on the rudder would be in order. But, you're the "expert" here, Mr. Decker. One hand it is.
An ordinary reading of this forum will clearly demonstrate that most here don't realize the difference between the terms "cash" and "currency", and the "swipe of the Fed's pen" is unlikely to bring about such comprehension, let alone acceptance. Do you suppose that the establishment that currently sports a "NO CHECKS!" sign will change its policy simply because the Fed swipes its pen? The Fed may have the authority, "to give these quasi-currency instruments the weight of currency with the swipe of a pen", but the ability to do so will depend on the reaction of the populace and remains to be seen.
A lot of people are aware that the Fed would like us to believe that the system may only crash if allowed to do so by the omnipotent central bank (sarcasm), but the reality remains that fractional reserve banking is dependent on the confidence of the banking public, not the desires, or even dictates, of the bankers. In fact, unless you re-define the word "crash", the statement is ridiculous on its face!
As for an apology, just what is it that you would like me to apologize for? I have not argued that there will be bank runs, only that there very well could be and that such appear likely. The Fed's own press releases (printing extra currency, etc.) would indicate that they have given the matter careful consideration and have adjudged the demands for currency to be likely more than current stocks could handle. Maybe Bingo wasn't kidding about the split tongue! How else can you argue out of both sides of your mouth simultaneously?
For the second time, I tell you that you may freely substitute the word, "concerned" for the word, "terrified" and my arguments will remain the same. For one who complained so vigorously of dissection, "word by word", you surely seem to be hung up on the word "terrified"!
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 26, 1999.
Reading all double-Deckers' posts it is patently obvious that this impostor is a paid Banking shill.No question in my mind about this. And a bad one - the folks he sucks in deserve their just deserts foe being so naieve.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.