Does this mean anything about Flint?

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

In response to Don Wegner, Flint said [snip]:

If you're willing to pick ONE definition of done, we can probably answer your question. Those who originally announced that they'd be "done" with their remediation leaving a year for testing (a minority, despite Gary North), then we're 2/3 of the way through that year of testing. By even that definition, we're not *supposed* to be done yet. We're supposed (at best) to be 2/3 tested.

Please note" "If you're willing to pick ONE definition of done, we can probably answer your question."

See the WE. Is this just poor word usage? Could be. I know that e-mail has destroyed my use of language. Could Flint be a member of a royal family? Possible. What are your opinions. My job requires this kind of parsing, so I might be over-sensitive.

Best wishes

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999

Answers

Z, what do you do?

-- just curious (not@lawyer.what), September 25, 1999.

///

WE are the BORG. It is pointless to resist. Prepare to be assimilated.

///

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 25, 1999.


Correct. I did assume that others here would realize that multiple meanings of "done" were being used expediently, in order to create the impression that those on schedule had actually slipped. In other words, I assumed (by now, I can see I was incorrect) that someone else would consider this issue.

Perhaps I should have said, "if you pick a clear definition, your question is answerable in terms of the definition you pick." As I've written before, if you doubt that disaster is coming, you must choose your words with great care, and make arguments in simple baby steps. If you assume disaster is certain, you don't even need to make sense.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.


Flint:

I am not one of those that think we are being watched, nor do I care. But, your answer had nothing to do with the question. The question dealt with the use of "we". You seem to be avoiding what should be a simple explanation of error.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


I am not one of those that think we are being watched, nor do I care. But, your answer had nothing to do with the question. The question dealt with the use of "we".

Did you even read the answer before you shot off your keyboard??

Okay, for the learning impaired, here's his answer again with the key words in bold and then explanations in square brackets.

Correct. I did assume that others here ["we" = "I" + "others here"] would realize that multiple meanings of "done" were being used expediently, in order to create the impression that those on schedule had actually slipped. In other words, I assumed (by now, I can see I was incorrect) that someone else ["we" = "I" + "someone else"] would consider this issue.

You seem to be avoiding what should be a simple explanation of error.

The only thing he's avoiding is pointing out that you're an illiterate moron that apparently requires other people to do his thinking for him. Maybe someone else will step up to the plate for that.

-- (learn@to.read), September 25, 1999.



Flint:

I take that as an answer. You will not explain what "we" means. Instead, you respond under other names with insulting responses. I really had some respect for you before. That stopped; "now". I will no longer take any of your responses as meaningful. You are really on the "dark side"...

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


First of all, you brain-dead moron, I'm not Flint, and you can ask the Sysops to verify if you want. You won't, though, because you know I'm not Flint.

Secondly, the explanation was made as plain as can be. The fact that you ignore it only means that you're an idiot.

I had respect for you Z1X4Y7, as a doomer with at least a shred of decency and intelligence. Now I realize you're a fraud and a sham, only content to believe lies and hypocrisy.

-- (learn@to.read), September 25, 1999.


learn to read:

I have been called worse, but when you get into to position that I have, with the power that I have, you learn to let these things roll off of your back. Would you like to give a real e-mail address; say like Flint's.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


Learn to read:

If my assumption is not true, I don't need to talk to Diane; Flint will tell me.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


I have been called worse, but when you get into to position that I have,

Burger flipper at Burger King.

with the power that I have,

can hold the pickles and the lettuce. At the same time!

you learn to let these things roll off of your back.

Sure beats learning how to read.

Would you like to give a real e-mail address; say like Flint's.

But I thought I was Flint.

-- (learn@to.read), September 25, 1999.



learn to read:

How did you find all of this out? you mus be a government agent. The kind that lurk around this site. Diane, please note his IP address, he is a govenment agent. He is here to spy on us.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


How did you find all of this out? you mus be a government agent.

Of course I am. We have eyes everywhere. Yuck, get your finger out of your nose.

The kind that lurk around this site.

I don't just lurk, I post too.

Diane, please note his IP address, he is a govenment agent. He is here to spy on us.

My IP address is encrypted using a sophisticated 8192-bit alpha-blue- hydroxy-level coding algorithm. The address she sees is a fake.

-- (learn@to.read), September 25, 1999.


Just curious:

Sorry to be late in responding. What do I do? I am a molecular bioligist. Besides my research, I have oversight responsibility for recombinant DNA research at one of the countries major universities. There is more, but then you would know who I am.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


Z1X4Y7:

Thanks for the humorous "tongue-in-cheek" description of a typical response to Flint.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.


Anita:

Glad that you got that.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.



Flint:

At the factory where I work, there was an engineer, a brilliant mind with two degrees, who retorted to the question, "Are you done?" [using the photocopier] with these words:

"Bread is 'done'. I am 'finished'."

Hahaha!

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 25, 1999.


This is all pretty funny, but it all avoids the issue. If we are now in the "year for testing" and organizations are still testing and therefore not done yet, have we been lied to? I don't know of anyone who has guaranteed that there would be no errors by this time, or indeed at ANY time. Lawyers prevent this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.

Flint:

You miss the point. We have been discussing what "we" means. Last year the Congress spent the whole year discussing what "is" means. That time should have been spent on fixing things like Y2K. Wasn't done. Now you see what has happened or you will see [it is a crap shoot; who knows]. If I am still loading patches in Nov. it won't be done, because I will be away. It is pure FOF. I'm sure that is true everywhere. I hope it all works out.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 25, 1999.


Z1X4Y7:

Where are you going in November? Can I have your job? I DID study biology for 3 years at University. [grin]

There are TONS of folks in IT out of work right now, Z. I REALLY thought I was a shoe-in for a systems' programmer job announced here locally recently. Oops...they hired the guy that interviewed before I even got the call. I suspect that if ANYONE leaves in November there will be hundreds of folks lining up to pick up the slack.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.


Anita:

I went through that for a while in the government sector. They do NOT generally post openings unless the candidate is already chosen. Otherwise, they might be forced to select someone they don't know. Several times, my first task once I was "hired" was to concoct a job listing hopefully nobody was qualified for, so that whoever hired me wouldn't have to go through more than 1 or 2 pro forma interviews, rejecting the applicants while I got things underway.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.


Flint --- It's nice to know where you got your initial training in "deliberate misleading," something you have proven so expert at defending and promoting on this forum.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 25, 1999.

Big Dog:

You are an excellent thinker and an incompetent sniper. Stick to your strengths and you'll make more valuable contributions.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.


ooOOoo...Big Dog you really bit him hard on this one. That had to hurt eh Flint?

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 25, 1999.

Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Good doggy! Good dog!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 25, 1999.


Flint,

Did you reach into your pocket and pay for the out of pocket expenses of the unlucky interviewees who weren't going to get *your* job? Did you reimburse them for their time, resume (paper, envelope, and postage), the dry cleaning bill, gas and parking, and other travel and interview expenses? Or did you have a good laugh? OR did you just grin?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 25, 1999.


Flint:

It had nothing to do with government and everything to do with competing pimps...er recruiters. The OTHER one got a candidate into the slot before I got the call. MY recruiter didn't know that. Speaking of recruiters, we're being told that the reason behind the lack of work is freezes due to Y2k remediation being completed. For Z1X4Y7's benefit, WE (in the above sentence) refers to myself, my house-mate, and 6 other contractors that I know locally who are unemployed. I have a friend who is also a recruiter, and he expresses the same. He specializes in Tandem systems, and I don't have the experience in that area anyway. I've also heard this from contractor friends in the Chicago area. Only one contractor that I know there is still employed. She's working Y2k stuff for those "clueless SME's".

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 25, 1999.


Stan:

In a sense, yes I did. It took a while for me to learn the ropes, and during that time I took government job postings seriously and prepared for the interviews with some diligence. I didn't yet understand that these postings weren't quite real.

I finally figured out what was going on (I was a slow learner and didn't look beyond face value for a while, you understand) when I was actually called in to interview for a posted position for a second time by the same person. I did my research and preparation as usual, but when the interviewer asked if I had prepared the same job outline as I had previously (and if I would be so kind as to give it to him as I did the first time), I got suspicious. I asked if I were in fact a genuine candidate for the position.

And he was honest enough to tell me that they were under quota for blacks and women, and that as a result ONLY a black woman would be considered, and they had one in mind (i.e. already selected). BUT, she had no idea of what to do, and my outline had been so valuable the first time that they'd called me in to get another!

So what the hell, I gave him my outline and told him not to call me again unless he wanted to hire me. It wasn't until later when I knew the right people and was actually hired and told to create the "opening" requirements, that I really figured it out fully.

Government doesn't work like the private sector, let me tell you.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.


Keep digging Flint, the hole is getting deeper...

Dig

Dig

Dig

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 26, 1999.


"(I was a slow learner and didn't look beyond face value for a while, you understand)"

Does that mean you still have a chance in understanding Y2K?

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 26, 1999.


I can't tell you why {or you'd have to get in line to kill me}, but flint has the b-word or state-of-confusion pegged.

-- flora (***@__._), September 26, 1999.

heh heh heh!

-- number six (rollover@beethoven.com), September 26, 1999.

I want to kill you now flora, just because you said you can't tell me why...I'm first in line ;-)

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 26, 1999.

Catsy,

Ooh la lah,

{I think in another time, in another place - we could have set him straight}

Flint,

we'll light a candle for ya

-- flora (***@__._), September 26, 1999.


Flint,

How can you possibly tell us what you have on this thread of your understanding of how the government actually functions and then expect us to believe that you trust them to tell you the truth about anything?

On the latest "power, yes or no?" thread, you wanted me to believe that consistency was adequate reason to accept a premise as correct. Where is yours?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner,

Flint is still digging in his hole for it,

dig

down

dig

down

dig

dig

dig

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner:

Read what I wrote, rather than what you wish I had written, and you'll be able to answer your own question.

Let's say you're trying to get somewhere, and every sign points in the same direction. BUT, you happen to know that several, perhaps even most, of those who put up the signs are not trustworthy. In that case, what is the probability that the signs are accurate? If only ONE of them was put up by someone reliable, then ALL of them are reliable, since they all agree. And if NONE of them are reliable, then the direction they point in is neither more nor less likely to be correct than any other direction.

But this leaves you in the position of saying that ALL sources of hard information are liars, and that reliable sources are nonexistent. Since as soon as a trustworthy source joins the chorus, they are tarred with guilt by association!

You are voluntarily joining the North/Milne camp where anything less than 100% certainty means ZERO probability. That 99% and 0% cannot be distinguished. I'd give the probability about 95%, or a 1 in 20 chance of being wrong. The race doesn't always go to the swift, but that's the way to bet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.


Flint,

I did read what you wrote, and that is precisely what I responded to on this thread. You have clearly described intentional and purposeful deception on the part of the government, and just as clearly, your own participation in it.

I ask you again, knowing that the government does this, how can you ever trust anything that they say?

Your response is garbage Flint, and insulting garbage at that. Very few of the published statements regarding the power industry address more than a tiny fraction of the whole. They do not all point in the same direction. They each point inward to that small part of the whole that they address.

Furthermore, I did not say that all sources of hard information were liars, I said that the sources of hard information were not publishing it in verifiable form. Neither did I say that reliable sources did not exist. I said that I hadn't found any. If you know of even one, please share it with the rest of us.

As for the esteemed Dr. North, my feelings and evaluation of him and his arguments are no secret, and should it be of sufficient interest to you, you may find such expressed in a number of places in the archives of this forum. Suffice it to say that I would consider it equitable should he be confined to a small closet in the company of "Slick Willie" for an indeterminate period.

Neither have I joined Mr. Milne's camp, as you put it. His main fault seems to be, at least in the majority opinion of those who choose to find fault with him rather than address his arguments, that he is rather abrasive and does not suffer those he views as fools with grace. For the record, I do not know what his entire position is, but also for the record, I will not be within 50 miles of a 7-11 at the rollover, let alone 5. His opinion is his right just as surely as yours is yours.

If you really think and/or publicly say here that you believe that I am incapable of or unwilling to distinguish between 99% and 0%, I shall refuse to interact with you any further. That would not only be insulting and inaccurate, it would be proof positive that any further verbal intercourse with you would be fruitless.

And finally, I refuse to allow you to have it both ways! You claim a year or more of preparation and the ability to do without electrical power, yet your arguments are surely aimed at convincing your audience that such preparations are not necessary or even prudent. You speak of "betting", and guess at odds, but the fundamental question to be considered is not the odds, but the stakes. If you're so damn certain that we're headed for a BITR, why the preps? If there's only a 1 in 20 chance of the power going out, why do you bother? You seem to make it clear that you value odds above stakes, so just what kind of a "betting man" are you?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner:

I'll assume you don't intend to set up a straw man here, that your intent is to clarify.

Given the stakes (power out for an extended period is VERY high stakes), of course you prepare against it. I tend to think in terms of the odds-stakes product. The higher the stakes, the lower the odds need to be before it's worth preparing and insuring. One in 20 is FAR too high to ignore, so preparation is absolutely prudent. But this is STILL only one in 20. This assessment of the odds is made regardless of the stakes at all. An honest coin has a 50-50 chance of coming up heads regardless of whether a dollar or a million dollars rides on the outcome.

Now, whether my assessment of these odds is reasonably accurate is a separate question from what will happen if power goes out. You seem to be arguing that since the stakes are very high, the odds should ALSO be boosted (perhaps lest people be lulled into ignoring the dangers?). I'm trying to say that the stakes and the odds are NOT related. We create a relationship by multiplying them, but they are truly independent variables. So we buy fire insurance even though the odds of a fire are very small, because the impact of a fire is very large, and the product of the two passes the insurance test. Similarly, we don't insure against comet strikes because the odds are so low that even though the impact is high, the product is still too small to pass the cost-effectiveness test.

If I'm misunderstanding you, then it's not intentional. But you do seem to be arguing that if the stakes are high enough, then the burden of proof (to establish the odds) is simply too heavy for anyone to bear. So we *can't afford* to use reasonable methods of assessment, because it's too dangerous. Instead, we must take it as a given that power WILL go out because the stakes are too high to permit actual thinking. We need blind faith for our own good.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.


Anita:

I wasn't referring to your "we" but to Flints.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


Folks:

Nice thread but please note that I don't work for the government.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


KAAAABBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMM!

[Flint just hit a gas main, a self-generated one, yep he stopped digging 10' down for a secret and furtive smoke...]

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), September 26, 1999.


Z:

Of COURSE you weren't referring to MY we, as MY we hadn't yet been posted when you were discussing Flint's we. However, your discussion of Flint's we prompted me to define MY we before someone else began a discussion on what MY we may include. [Didya get all that?]

So how about it? Can I have your job in November?

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 26, 1999.


Anita:

I never said that I was leaving my job. I just said I would be gone for the rest of the period. If a job opened, it would require an open evaluation and an international search. No Flint's writing the job description. That is how it is done. For me, I am gone to the mountains of Washington after Tuesday. I will see you'all much later.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


Flint,

You seem quite hung up on this idea of faith. For the record, I have none. I neither believe that the power will go out nor that it will stay on. I have no faith in the "happy face" pronouncements of the PR flacks and their ilk, and I have no faith in the predictions of those "Doomers" who believe that such a collapse is certain. I know only that such is possible and that the consequences would be fatal to our civilization. As you say, "Of course you prepare".

My criteria for preparation however, does not include your odds-stakes product. It consists solely of two items: First, are the possible consequences something that I am willing to ignore as insignificant? And second, am I able to prepare in some measure for that particular eventuality? I am simply advocating that since the stakes are so high, preparation is advisable, without regard to the odds at all, to the extent that you are able to do so.

I am not only not saying that anything should be "done to the odds" (they are, after all, whatever they are whether we know that information or not), I am saying that the odds should be disregarded entirely.

Neither do I agree with your opinion as to why we do not insure against comet strikes. It seems clear to me that regardless of odds, or in this case, stakes either, there simply is no insurance to be had against comet strikes.

These issues though, belong on the other thread. You still have not answered my query as to why the government should be trusted, nor have you answered my question as to just how consistency somehow validates unsupported assertion.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 26, 1999.


Well folks:

Some have suggested that Flint is a government "shill". If you have followed this thread, what do you think? I think that to be a shill, he would have to be the best actor in the world. No shill would make that many mistakes. He would have answered the meaning of "we" immediately. What is your take?

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


Z1X4Y7,

I do not believe that Flint is a government shill.

I believe that he is an American who has formed an opion and belief set about the future and is acting according to his best judgment as to what is best for the society as a whole. I also believe that his assessment is incorrect and that his actions, however well intentioned are improper.

Now you asked for our "take", not for facts or evidence. My "take" is that Flint has undergone a remarkable change of position since I have been following this forum. It seems to me that his turning point coincided in time with the publication of the Gallup Poll for the banking industry that indicated that the American public was going to run the banks and collapse the financial system. I think it possible and perhaps even likely that Flint believes it his duty as an American to do whatever he can to placate whoever he might to the end of lessening that financial panic. I have seen ample evidence that he is not stupid and that he has no vested interest in the status quo to any greater extent than any of us do. It is prudent to remember that everything makes sense to someone, and that perspective is the key to understanding. Given my beliefs about Flint as a man, I suspect the conditions above, or something similar. Flint himself has told us over and over how people can easily convince themselves of the most outrageous things in order to protect their world view. I assume that he includes himself is such values, and it seems to me not even outrageous for him to believe such (if he does--this is after all, only a "take") because it seems a rather credible position to take to me as well. I simply do not believe that the end justifies the means in this case. If the society were to be "saved" by manipulating the populace, I do not believe such a society would have been worth saving in the first place.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner:

Someone else answered your questions on the other (power) thread very well. I am NOT saying the government can be trusted. But your claim that ALL evidence you disagree with is an "unsupported assertion" is self-serving as hell. So how about The Engineer? How about Dan the Power Man, and other private individuals relating their personal experiences? Yes, I know, you dismiss them too. You have found *some* reason why *all* the evidence is untrustworthy. I agree you should prepare.

But your argument (you raise it here, I'll answer it here) that you are not considering the odds is simply stupid! I don't know how to sugar-coat that. Do you wear a helmet and flame-retardant suit every time you drive, just in case? Do you wear a bulletproof vest at ALL TIMES, just in case? Do you NEVER venture outside for fear of being struck by a meteor, just in case? Do you do a full chemical analysis on every morsel you eat, just in case? Don't be absurd! You recognize that the odds are so vanishingly small of any such event that the stakes, while ultimately high (fatal) are simply not worth guarding against. Hardliner, this is called figuring the ODDS. Be honest, OK?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.


Flint:

"Someone else answered your questions on the other (power) thread very well."

How would we know that? We are the hoi-poi {sp}. We are excluded from the site. Elitism has its costs.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


Flint,

I'll go look on the other thread for those answers.

You really must stop putting words into my mouth and start reading what it is that I have said. I have not disregarded only the information that I disagree with. In point of fact, I neither agree nor disagree with information which I disregard. I have simply found all the information (which you call evidence) to be unsupported assertion and therefore not convincing. I do not agree with either side of the "will not/will too" argument about whether or not the power will remain on. No matter how many times or how loud you bray to the contrary, my position is simply that no one has provided convincing evidence to prove either assertion. If you disagree with that, feel free to point us to such evidence.

Now you may well consider me stupid Flint, but you have yet to provide an example of an appropriate situation to consider the odds. No, I do not wear a flame retardant suit and a helmet when I drive, but I did so each and every time that I flew Marine Corps aircraft and having personally carried the dead and charred remains of other Marines (which were BTW clothed in such gear) out of aircraft which had crashed and burned, I did so because it was the specified and appropriate uniform for such duty and not because I had any illusions as to the effectiveness of such equipment. Neither do I have any such illusions as to its effectiveness in an auto crash. I do wear a seat belt and shoulder harness each and every time I drive, because that has been shown to be effective in some situations. I never wear a "bulletproof" vest because I know exactly how "bulletproof" they are not. I do my very best, however to avoid getting into situations where I am likely to be shot at. As you may know, getting shot is a very unpleasant experience. I venture outside at will, because I know that like a comet strike, there is no effective insurance against a meteor strike and if one of them is aimed at me, being indoors will not make a bit of difference. I refuse to waste my fear on that which I can do nothing about. I do not chemically analyze each morsel that I eat, at least not in your terms, but I know that Nature has spent millions of years developing just such a laboratory in my mouth, and if it tastes bad, I spit it out and if it smells bad, I don't put it in my mouth in the first place. I figure odds Flint, on whether I am likely to draw a card which will fill an inside straight or whether or not a tire with the cords showing will get me to the next tire store. I assure you that I am honest in this, but it would appear that you are a far more willing gambler than I. If I can't afford to lose it, I don't put it on the table. If I am forced to put it on the table by events and/or circumstances beyond my control, it is not a gamble and neither odds nor stakes are relevant.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner:

OK, I concede. You have no clue what's coming, and you have yet to find a single smidgeon of informatioin credible one way or the other about anything. Your mind is a tabula rasa, unsullied even by suspicion, since such suspicions cannot be verified to your satisfaction. You are like the computer in a science fiction story that answers "insufficient data" to ALL questions, and you are content to live in a world where anything that is uncertain is unguessable, unless the data are ironclad and can be calculated with mathematical precision (like the odds of drawing a specific card, assuming you can see through the backs of everyone else's cards).

And I'm Santa Claus.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.


Hardliner --- You are wasting your time with Flint. His mind goes in one very narrow channel, like a wind-up toy (I am not being nasty, just descriptive). He "gets off" on spending vast amounts of personal time writing endlessly tedious rejoinders to everyone on this forum that reinforce his own sense of personal superiority.

Regrettably, because he is rationalist-ic, rather than rational, he draws equally endless attempts to "reason" with him -- yet, he is unable to reason (again I am simply being descriptive). Consequently, he actually has no idea what is going on here -- and doesn't even KNOW he has no idea. If there is an intellectual analogue to being sociopathic, he is it.

It is somewhat like a computer "simulating" intelligence: it sounds "almost right" but all the context is missing. While Flint himself is probably not a troll by any usual definition, he is a black hole who sucks in and feeds on enormous quantities of YOUR intellectual energy (and mine and others).

Ironically, while accusing everyone else on this forum of being an idiot, he has almost single-handedly (and with enormous personal satisfaction, I'm sure) made the forum revolve around himself.

This is so unspeakably boring that, if I weren't stubbornly irritated by it, I would stop coming here altogether (I'm not yet interested in giving him THAT satisfaction as well).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 26, 1999.


This is what the thread is about. Who is Flint? Now we know. He is Santa Claus. He will be coming down your chimney this Dec. Good luck!

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.


And without doubt Big Dog is an asshole. But this is NOT an insult, I am merely being descriptive. And it's very sad. This is NOT my opinion, it's God's truth.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.

Not only Santa Claus but one who speaks for God. Flint this a joke. Don't take it seriously [you are into taking things seriously tonight]. I'm out of here. See you in Jan. Best to all.

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 1999.

Z1X4Y7,

Good luck and God bless!

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), September 26, 1999.


Z:

On the contrary (just to be contrary and for no other reason, of curse) I'm having a hard time keeping a straight face tonight. Big Dog's pious "objectivity" was just too much. I'll try to stop laughing and give more serious replies, but some of this stuff just doesn't deserve them.

And see you in Jan as well. Best of luck.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 26, 1999.


Very good description Big Dog. But he sucks intellectual energy only if we let him. Sometimes it can actually be energizing, if you're in the right mood ofcourse. After all, we all have the same control over what we read.

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), September 26, 1999.

Flint,

You are a real piece of work. The *Queen of Obfuscatiion* and the *King of Doublespeak*. You are the only person ( online or face to face) that I believe to have the capacity to whistle 'Everybody's Dixie' out of one side of their mouth, 'May God Save the Union' out of the other, and blow smoke out of their A** at the same instant. It's a very good thing you arn't a cat. Considering all the time you spend preaning yourself, there wouldn't be enough hours in the day to cough up the hair balls.

-- (cujo@baddog.byte), September 26, 1999.


"You really must stop putting words into my mouth and start reading what it is that I have said."

1) Flint loves to twist words.

2) Flint doesn't know how to read.

I doubt #2.

Just this week, Flint did it to me. I think that everyone here knows my view on 1999 failures. I have said, consistently, that 1999 errors would be minimal. So what does Flint post?

"To Sysman: Gee, Lucent and Hershey are implementing SAP to fix their y2k problems, and they're having a terrible time of it. Yet you continue to post that you just can't see any problem at all because it's not 2000 yet."

He's also a master at avoiding the point. Change the topic, usually to something that he knows will piss you off.

I for one am tired of it all. I didn't come here to argue. I'm here because I've found other people here that are also concerned about the Y2K problem.

Nothing personal Flint. You know that I don't think of you as a bad guy. Maybe someday we can buy each other a Heineken. But I've had it with you and Hoff. I don't have the time to waste on a pointless debate. And it is just that, a waste.

The one thing that I can't figure out is why. We know that Flint is prepared. We know that Flint is taking money out of the bank. Wasn't that all of your money, Flint?

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 26, 1999.


As usual, Flint has been patient, rational and eminently reasonable, and his arguments remain substantially unchallenged. Flint's uncontested intellectual consistency exasperates those who consider themselves "smart." They thus helplessly resort to sour, sniping personal attacks. Conspicuous for petulance is Big Dog, who once again has let his prickly pride hurl him to defeat.

-- Just Noting the Obvious (be@rational.com), September 26, 1999.

Flint, the wind-up toy

Cujo! You are a B-A-D dog! LOL

-- (maybeHisB@tteriesWillRun.Down), September 27, 1999.


Each Flint post is a separate and distinct entity. In this thread, the words "Flint", "we", "us" and "our" refer, in some places, to the Royal Flint/Flint Group as a whole, and in others to an individual Flint post or posts, where no useful purpose is served by identifying the specific post or posts. Likewise the reference to "Flint Debunks Y2K Histrionics" is a reference to those Flint posts which are individually engaged in the debunking business.

-- Disclaimer (Flint Intl.@Ltd.com), September 27, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ