Here are a few observations about the "Doomer"/"Polly" 'conversation', if one could go so far as to call it that.

I would characterize most people who are concerned about Y2K and are preparing for a harsher rollover to be people who tend to question the status quo and also tend to be somewhat on the margin. This does not mean being a junk yard recluse or other social rarity. No. What I mean is that these folks have been wacked enough by the 'system' to not trust it entirely. They are somewhat sensitized to the frailties of human endeavor and behavior for whatever reason. This also means they have tender hearts from the experience.

I would characterize those who minimize concerns about Y2K and are not preparing for much fallout from the rollover as firmly and profitably ensconced in the 'main stream' of their social world. They have benefitted from being in the middle of the herd during their lifespan. The system has been kind to them and they form its supporters. These folks have been insulated from the 'dark side' of the system and its people and so are comfortable with this experience.

In the D/P 'conversation' I see 'doomers' tending to forebode and think about frailties while 'pollies' tend to assume the best and deride the 'doomers' who are never convinced by the word and reassurances of the 'pollies'. The 'P' camp often resorts to generalization from their exceptional experience and really ride heavily on anyone who does not agree with them. The 'D' camp initially tries to respond to the 'P' camp with reason and data as well as projections and extrapolations from knowns and stats. After a period of time the 'P' camp simply emotionally abused the 'D' camp on every point. This behavior by the 'P's finally propelled the 'D's into a stance of 'we can play that game too'. So the trenchs were dug and the shelling began and continues today. Each side trying to blast the other to hell with emotionally abusive language.

I want to say that as a person who is probably identified as a 'doomer' that my heart is hurt and injured by the diatribe of the 'P' camp. I take it personally to some degree because it reflects the consensus of the world in general. I am 'on the margin' and don't really fit. I've had more than enough pain and abuse from the cheerleaders and jocks of this world who are leading the cows to slaughter (and the cows themselves).

If you are a 'D' and find this to be true for you then I'd ask that you look at the 'P' camp as another expression of that world out there which has been beating on you over the years. You have a POV which doesn't fit really well with the masses or those who herd them. This has cost you significantly and you may carry a snesitive heart as you go about your business trying to prepare for what you think is a reasonable guess at the future.

My suggestion is that the 'P' camp is not and never will be of any use to us. They are not really playing the same game we are. They insist on bludgening you and I in an emotional sense whenever it suits them (which is all to regularly for my taste). Forget them. Write them off. Don't respond to their demands for proof or challenges. They are only trying to get you to expend your precious energy and then they will verbally abuse you for not agreeing with them in the end regardless of what you say to them. Its a no win situation. The problem is that you actually care and thought that you could reason with them. But it was no use. They will never actually listean to you.

I am glad that most of the 'P' camp has faded to the background for now. Thankfully we have had some interesting discussion and posts without their presence (or only slightly). I suppose the game of hurting others began to be too dull for them.

Anyway, take heart. You are unique and precious. Those you love will reap the benefit of your care and concern for insuring a better life in an uncertain future. Try to avoid energy draining and emotional abusive people if at all possible. You need all your personal resources and strength for pushing through each day toward your goals.

Take heart.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 16, 1999

Answers

Very good analysis. Of course, there are variations from the rule, but I think that this is the key psychological point. I've seen it in the people I've spoken to. Anyone else have personal experience?

-- Jim the Window Washer (Rational@man.com), September 16, 1999.

In my opinion you would be wrong!

Best wishes,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Good analysis. The Ps don't annoy me, however, as I see them as too dull for words. It only bothers me when they get really nasty as that is unpleasant. A couple of them are just dumping from their own big pools of anger.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Good points, dit. In the end, it won't matter anyway because most of the Pollys will be dead.

-- (its@coming.soon), September 16, 1999.

Valid and well expressed. Let them rot in the streets, and be damned for their shortsightedness.

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), September 16, 1999.

Good axpicking at the truth, dit dot dash! Thanks for the post.

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

The polly vs. doomer debate is fascinating. This is a primary issue for me at this late date. It leads to much second guessing on my part. I have prepared and am ready. My family, friends, and neighbors have not. When I first looked at y2k in June, 1998, my assumption was that by summer of 1999 everyone would be prepping. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Reliable sources outline a y2k scenario that is more than a bump in the road. I am convinced of this. My acquaintances are polly's because that is the easy way out-- They assume that things will continue as they have been. The govt and the media say "dont worry" so they dont.

In my opinion this is a perfect set up for panic. And it will be a government sponsored panic that will turn the politics of this country on its ear. People who are lied to and then experience negative repercussions relative to y2k will vote differently next year. I sense a shake-up coming.

-- incredulous (cantbelievit@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

The main reason that I respond to certain threads is for the benefit of the quiet lurkers, the ones who are sifting and weighing silently in their pursuit for truth. If there is a posting that is, in fact, an opinion, but declares itself smugly to be established fact (truth), then it is worthwhile to take the time to dissect it and present other reasonable opinions. I would not want someone to believe anything based upon my telling them it is 'so', because that belief would be easily uprooted and overturned. It's always better to have debate, even and especially within yourself, that stimulates critical thinking and analysis. This can then produce a belief that has healthy and sustaining roots.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Thank you for the responses. Those of you who engage the 'P' side have good reason (constructive) and are thoughtful for doing so. Appreciate Mumsie's point. I guess I'm a little more wiped out than most on this so I'm looking for a practical sense of priority (for me). Keep up the good work you have done so far.

Remember the ant, the bread baking chicken and Esop's many 'fables'.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 16, 1999.

ditdotdash:

I have read the responses so far. I haven't changed my opinion. Your piece is an oversimplification. I am neither a P or a D. I don't have a dog in this fight. I fail to see why there is a fight. I don't understand why people react violently to the news briefs that I post on my door. None of this makes any sense. It is an important indication of the way we are, but I am not sure what that means. It is simply a technical problem, not the wrath of a supreme being. Over time it will be handled. The question is what "over time" means. Until you can answer these questions, Al-D may be as right as any of us.

Best wishe

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Everything uttered by a man is an over simplification. There are limits to human words. You seem to be agnostic in terms of this issue. That's OK. I don't fault you for it. The vast majority of vitrol on this board has been instigated by 'P's against 'D's and then the 'D's finally started giving it back at them. My observation. Its a 'quant' thing I guess ;-)

As far as your response regarding 'its a technical thing' well, that IS true. But really it is a social thing; a manifestation of a people's hubris, arrogance and greed. IMO the end result will be a social thing as well. The 'tech' part is simply the means of this, not the meaning of it.

Frankly I'm right with Al-D in terms of his faith in Jesus Christ. The Christian world view does not sanitize reality into a material and a spiritual dichotamy (that is a greek conceptualization). It is a whole. People's spiritual relationship with God is demonstrated in their lives. Their lives form the basis of their path for good or evil to them. There is a patient work of God to call all people to repentance toward Christ. We accept Him or reject Him. The conduct of our lives will yeild fruit both for the individual and the nation. God is not mocked. We will eat the fruit of our choices. If we live foolishly then we will reap 'the whirlwind' (tornado/hurricane).

Most conservative Christians believe that the nation has swerved off course and has been planting bad seed for quite a while now. We expect that bad things will happen because we as a nation have done very stupid things (not because God is a meanie). You get what you plant only more so.

That's just the view from here. You don't have to and probably won't agree with that. That's a choice. OK. We are all making choices. I'm not trying to cram something down your throat, just telling you what I see and other see from a different perspective.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 16, 1999.

ditdotdash:

At least I now know where you are coming from. You adhere to the Pauline Church. After 35 y of study I don't. We believe that these are private matters and don't discuss or display them in public. Hope things go well for you.

Best wishes,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

You've made several assumptions with which I disagree. I do not agree that most doomers are marginal participants in the social order (I am here having to define this as anyone who thinks the rollover will bring more than a BITR). It has been my observation that quite the contrary we have a great many people who are deeply involved with their families and communities...tender hearted? If that means they care what happens, well yes! they are tender hearted.

I find it almost ludicrous to imagine that anyone in our society could live to be 30+ and not have experienced some 'frailties of human endeavor and behavior'. If so, they have risked little and therefore experienced minimal human contact. Being profitably enshonced in the social order made have a reverse effect than what you postulate. Having the resources to prepare makes one less liable to defend an untenable position in order to be OK with not preparing.

I think there are apt to be about the same ratio among the doomers of socially active, emotionally well-adjusted, professionally involved, caring human beings as one is likely to find in the pollies.

" I'd ask that you look at the 'P' camp as another expression of that world out there which has been beating on you over the years."

Please! this is exactly the kind of polarization and limited view of us and them that has created every war in history. Difference of opinion is not an excuse for Us to consider Them the enemy.

I guess what I'm saying is I DON'T AGREE with YOU.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), September 16, 1999.

Dit, Brilliant post. I wholly agree.

Z1X4Y7, Al-D says some interesting things, don'tcha think?

-- PH (AG3@INTERLOG.COM), September 16, 1999.

Not really. But that is a personal matter. Your views are different than mine.

Best wishes,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 16, 1999.

Shelia,

Hey, sorry to disturb. Really. If that's not you then OK. Maybe take a few minutes to tell us about you, OK?

Generalizations ALWAYS fail. I was just expressing my POV, my thoughts, my experiences. One thing I'd like to point out in your reply is the equating of being 'on the margin' and being 'socially imbalanced', which you implinged on me. I tried to say that that was not what I was talking about. I agree that most people in both camps are 'well adjusted'. My point was that there is something about the 'D's which may be (to my mind it is so) about having seen things not work for them and so sensitizing them to the possibilities of failure.

One of the first things I learned to do in the military was to 'walk' my paperwork through the system. I never just left it in someone's box. I was always pleasant about it. Never had someone else screw up my plans based on their negligence though. Heard about that and could see it happening to me so took action to circumvent the weaknesses inherent there.

That's what I'm talking about. There are also personal issues in which we experience pain for not fitting in. The old chicken pecking situation. If you've ever experienced that then you will learn how to be 'well adjusted' and you will never trust another chicken as long as you live.

I was a military test animal ya know. I hated the experiments, but the pay was good. After a while the feathers grew back and the chemical burns healed. (that part was supposed to be a 'funny' ha-ha- ha, smile)

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), September 17, 1999.