Taken in again by the Pentagon Papers?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
How many of you read my post about the Aztec day of DOOOOOOOMMMM? How many of those who thought TS (would) HTF on Aug 13th because everybody's feeling these bad vibes that "something wicked this way comes", also jumped on the Pentagon Papers as evidence for feeling doom is comming soon! And martial law to "boot" (pun intended).
My point is to remind you what I talked about earlier. WHATEVER the information you're evaluating, remember that us humans have some built in biases to overcome! Selective perception, selective interpretation, ect. Basically, it's normal for ALL of us to "filter" what we see, hear and read so as to discount what goes against our preconcieved preferences and to amplify the importance of what supports our preconceptions, biases and just plain old wishes and wants.
So, the next time (the Nth time) some "evidence" is before you, evaluate BOTH the evidence itself AND YOUR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS, BIASES AND PREFERENCES INFLUENCING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND VALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE. This applies to everything in life, not just Y2K. But it DOES apply ESPECIALLY to Y2K since the "right answer" as to the actual impact of Y2K WILL NOT BE KNOWABLE WITH 100% CERTIANTY BEFORE 01/01/2000!!!!!
I'm NOT trying to go BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA in your face here, I'm trying to share a valuable lesson it took me more years than I care to admit to learn -- and one I often see ignored when talking about Y2K. Sad to say, I expect more emotional reactionism than thoughtful replies to this post. But the above is worth posting if it helps one person think more clearly -- regardless of whatever conclusions they make.
(accurate, valid, logical, effective) Cognition RULES!!!!!!!
-- Shadow (Shadow@woods.now), August 20, 1999
The Pentagon Papers were and are solid evidence that "doom is coming soon". Nothing has changed. There has been lots of smoke and snake oil, but the document still stands, strong as ever.
Shadow, did you used to have your own radio program?
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
Shadow, in your infinite wisdom. maybe you can come up with the URL the Navy report was at 10 days ago. Nobody at DoD or Mr. K's office seems to be able to remember it.
-- a (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
On this thread... The Y2K Pentagon Papers - A Clarification
The thread links to Peter de Jager's latest, and he says...
My personal strategy is to be skeptical of everything I hear. My response these days to any claim is simply 'prove it,' or if that is not always possible, then provide me the argument and reasoning you used to come to your conclusions. That's not fool proof, but it's better than taking whatever you hear at face value.
Uh... as I said to Y2K Pro... Shadow ... do you get what he says? ...'prove it,' or if that is not always possible, then provide me the argument and reasoning you used to come to your conclusions.
Good advice. Perhaps youll pay attention. Or not.
What many *not all* regular posters a TimeBomb 2000 attempt to do, is RESEARCH these issues, including our numerous discussions on all aspects of the Pentagon Papers. Its how we learn to sift wheat from chaff.
Useful skillset. Try it some time.
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
The "Pentagon Papers" are both good and bad news. Good news because not every major city is in trouble...bad news because there are areas which are indeed prone to failure...
-- Mad Monk (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
I remember that show! "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man.....the Shadow knows." Yup, sounds like our guy alright. LOL
-- Gordon (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
Gotta agree with Diane on this one.
These "Pentagon papers" had several problems:
1) They were anonymous. We don't know who put them together.
2) They were ambiguous. We didn't know exactly what the ratings mean, or whether a '3' means unknown or likely to fail or both.
3) They were unverifiable. This is critical. Since the presumed Navy assessment wasn't in accord with any other known data, then either the bad assessments were defaults based on ZERO information, or else the Navy had somehow done detailed testing of civilian installations without the civilians ever knowing about it. Hmmmm.
Well, what should we do when faced with anonymous, unverified, ambiguous information? Clearly, this all depends on whether we agree with what it says. If we agree, then it's GOSPEL and any attempts even to explain where it came from or what it means are obviously attempts to lie and spin.
And if we disagree, then it becomes no more than yet another unsupportable and denied rumor. Ludicrous on the face of it.
I think the fact that certifiable loonies like King of Spain and Andy are buying into it blindly defines this stuff adequately. I'm willing to wager that NOBODY who took the gleeful position that this nonsense is the TRUTH will reconsider whatsoever, no matter how many detailed explanations come to light. Total denial in action. Just watch.
-- Flint (email@example.com), August 20, 1999.
Shadow, Funny about the Aztec Day or Doom. I will have to ask the 10,000 dead and 35,000 missing and injured in Turkey if they think there was any significance for them. I don't understand that you a rebuttal or a delayed event and feel s story or prediction has been thoroughly debunked. Consider that maybe you, too, are missing a piece of the puzzle. Don't rush to judge just yet.
-- Mara Wayne (MaraWAyne@aol.com), August 20, 1999.
This will be my last post to this thread. I have not the time or desire to engage in flame wars. Have to work again tomorrow doing another Y2K test (02-29-2000). Have a life. Going to live it.
I find the first three "answers" quite sad. Seems, the tendency is to decide what side of the doomer/polly fence the poster is on -- then discount or support what they post. FWIW, reread what my point was in my original post. Notice I did not say whether I thought the Pentagon Papers were fact or hoax, usefull or useless. Frankly, I don't really care. My point was to address the issue of how one evaluates Y2K related information. I find it quite ironic that my read of the above posts is that the posters often exhibit what they accuse me of -- and I think I'm innocent of the charges -- but the posters think they have me and my intellectual approach pegged. Seems here, as elsewhere, any conversation would just be two monologes instead of actual dialog. I don't say this to incite. It's just an observation. But I'll bet that those who read this will take offense. Too bad. That's why I'm going to enjoy the rest of my weekend after I finish doing my programming work here at my desk, and enjoy the weekend instead of waste time arguing. Too bad. Meaningfull discusion is great stuff. Flame wars are a waste of time.
FWIW, try rereading my original post. Pay particular attention to my point. Think about if it's on topic for life in general, let alone Y2K. See if my post's attempt isn't to improve the cognitive hueristics used, rather than, as I connotate from the first three replies, an attempt to discredit the pentagon papers. I don't think anyone can know -- good or bad -- what will or won't work come Y2K. If those at the utility/plant/whatever CAN'T know, how can some organization -- whether the military or not. Seems my attempt to interject some humor into my post is what sets some of you off. Heck, I aim humor at myself. I just smile, not get mad. Try it sometime.
To the first three "answers" posing questions to me:
No, I've never had a radio show. I'm a computer programmer in the banking industry. And, sorry to disapoint you, but I'm not an industry "shill" or any type of spokeman. In fact, I don't even like banks. I just work for one. Couldn't care less what the widget I sling code for is. Probably quit in about a year, move to another city and program in some other industry. This one bores me.
To the accusation -- I mean question -- that I would know the website having -- now I forget -- is it "the proof that TEOTWAWKI is comming" or is it "the fiendishly clever disinformation campaign known as the Pentagon papers" -- I haven't a clue, and am not going to research it for you either, since I'm not a "disinformation agent" -- so glad to disapoint your paranoia -- but I know my "denial" is the strongest "proof" your paranoia could hope for! Enjoy your delusions!!!
To the third "answer" from Ms. Squire. I respect what you have done to help this forumn, and am too grateful for all the information you've brought to the table in the last year to say anything insulting to you. I'll just say, that one, my point is that selective perception and interpretation play a role -- the only "proof" of this I could offer would be a psychology or sociology textbook -- my post wasn't rendering a "verdict" on the validity of the Pentagon papers; just a comment since so many other threads referenced them. And two, I'll say that I think I have been using the "skillsets" you think I neglect. That's what I find most interesting. It is behind my "two monologes vs. one dialog" comment. I wish you well. I simply don't care to engage in a needless "monologe/flamewar" with you or anyone else. I'm sure we BOTH have better things to do -- and it would seem pointless since one or both of us is obviously misinterpreting the other. I've grown weary of such waste of time. In the end no one is better off -- Y2K's just closer still.
Lastly, My purpose is the same. If one person thinks about what I said in my original post, and thereby comes to a more accurate analysis and evaluation of whatever Y2K information comes their way between now and year's end, then I'll consider my post on target and usefull. To the flamers, I say BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Have a nice millinium, jerks. Try and play nice, children.
-- Shadow (Shadow@woods.now), August 20, 1999.
Wow, what he said may have made no sense, but his laugh rang true. Yes, the Shadown knows! "BWHHHHHHAAAAHAHAHA!!!"
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 20, 1999.
Shadow, you seem to have a hard time figuring out what in fact this forum is. What it does, and what it doesn't do.
This forum, (that is all the people participating in it viewed as an organism,) parses, sifts, centrifugates, demolishes and reconstructs, turn over and under, sideways and back, debunk and rebukes, and otherwise attempts to make sense of Y2K for you, the reader. The end result of all this noisy rumbling is yours to decide, but the information is there for you. From there, you decide on how much to prepare, if you decided at all.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 20, 1999.
Mad Monk writes: "Good news because not every major city is in trouble..."
The table appears (my speculation only!) to have listed only locations where naval installations exist. Many of the cities not listed have no such installations. From what we have seen here no conclusions can be drawn about places not on the list.
-- Tom Carey (email@example.com), August 21, 1999.
I have read numerous times that the cities listed in the Navy report were only those that would have a direct impace on nearby naval installations. Other cities, and their Y2K statuses, were not considered.
-- Jack (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 21, 1999.