Flint,

This is a genuine and honest curiosity, posed without any intent of rancor or hostility.

In a thread below dated today 10/15/99 "Y2K compliant systems are going backwards" you stated:

"Looks like we'll see hardships, but I've never doubted that.[I think you're hedging with that last statement.] My projection of just how hard has suffered an uptick lately."

Your statement was greeted with gracious nods from regulars on this forum, much to their honorable and everlasting credit. I too, wish to give you an appreciative nod for your integrity in making that statement. Still, it raises a few questions I've long wanted to ask.

In "prep" terms, your statement comes at quite a late date. So many of your frequent words in this forum have been spent minimizing the problem. I don't mind that you pose challenges to information, but I do have to ask why you have posed such strong and assured challenges to the unknowable impact of Y2K while quietly having months of preps in your garage.

You take positions of conviction that Y2K will not be an impactful event. However, many regulars have pointed out that you have prepped. I've not heard you say otherwise, so I tend to believe them.

If this is not just a rhetorical game to you, why haven't you posted under your signature information about your prep status? Something to the effect of, "Prepped just in case." Or mention in your posts from time to time your prep status?

Now, at this late date, with (allegedly)significant preps already underneath you, you indicate that you feel a need to prep some more.

You are a intelligent person, influential to some degree, and with some demonstrated debate talents. Whether intended or not, it would seem you have put these talents to use to convince people that prepping in a significant way is unnecessary, and aye, sometimes the subtext of your posts is that it is foolish to do so. You are entitled to your opinion. But, in my view, with the talents you possess comes a higher accountability.

Everybody is responsible for his/her own decisions re Y2K preparedness. Everybody is responsible for assigning each argument about Y2K it's proper credence and weight. Pleaes understand, it is difficult for a reader to do that when an active poster like yourself (seemingly against prepping) withholds very important information about his/her prep status. So much for conviction.

I believe you have influenced people. In the end, I would regard that as their mistake. Nonetheless, at some point and on some level, it also redounds to the clarity of your conscience.

If I am wrong about your prep status, then I apologize in advance for believing what I have read on these boards, humbly and truly. And I will apologize again if you tell me the rumors are wrong.

However, if I am wrong (on the silver-lining side) I hope this provides an opportunity for you to clear up this rumor about your prep status. The mistake will be mine.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999

Answers

Flint, ooops ...I referred to the wrong thread/date above. It was in "Why a year of testing was so important!" 10/15/99

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999.

Flint has been playing " rhetorical games" on this forum for a LONG time. Most folks figure him out quite rapidly.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint references his prepping every once in a while. A couple of weeks ago he was at the market with three carts of gallon water jugs.

That said, tweaking then carping appears a favorite amusement.

.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), October 16, 1999.

Jeremiah,

Since I started lurking here (Feb. 99) Flint has made multiple recommendations for preps, as well as stating that he had prepped quite a bit as well. My impression is that he is just is frustrated at hype and people posting that likelihood of teotwawki is "absolute". I believe his comment once was "prepare but don't rant".

-- Kristi (securxsys@cs.com), October 16, 1999.

He's the worse kind of troll, two face. He loves to get emotional reactions from people and get the attention diverted to him. Pathological ego needs that makes him a useless pest on this forum, of which the stated goal is to help inform people and to prepare. All he does is confuse people even more.

His message is "do as I say, not as I do". Very much like TPTB.

-- (not@now.com), October 16, 1999.

See?

-- Kristi (securxsys@cs.com), October 16, 1999.

[resigned]:

This is a genuine and honest curiosity, posed without any intent of rancor or hostility.

[OK, fair enough. I'll treat it that way as well as I can.]

In a thread below dated today 10/15/99 "Y2K compliant systems are going backwards" you stated:

"Looks like we'll see hardships, but I've never doubted that.[I think you're hedging with that last statement.] My projection of just how hard has suffered an uptick lately."

Your statement was greeted with gracious nods from regulars on this forum, much to their honorable and everlasting credit. I too, wish to give you an appreciative nod for your integrity in making that statement. Still, it raises a few questions I've long wanted to ask.

In "prep" terms, your statement comes at quite a late date. So many of your frequent words in this forum have been spent minimizing the problem. I don't mind that you pose challenges to information, but I do have to ask why you have posed such strong and assured challenges to the unknowable impact of Y2K while quietly having months of preps in your garage.

[It's possible that my efforts have suffered by contrast with what we most often posted here. I sincerely feel that I'm not minimizing the problem, I'm simply not making a systematic effort to *maximize* the problem. That role is well represented here as it is. I keep saying that our information is ambiguous, unreliable and hopelessly incomplete. I try to determine what all the information taken together really means, rather than use bits and pieces of it selectively to support a foregone conclusion. I don't know what's coming and I don't believe anyone else does either. I consider that the preponderance of information is *most consistent* with exasperating but manageable problems. Your reading may well differ, but if support your opinion only with the most congenial subset of what you read, then I find your opinion suspect.]

You take positions of conviction that Y2K will not be an impactful event. However, many regulars have pointed out that you have prepped. I've not heard you say otherwise, so I tend to believe them.

[Odds and stakes again. Also frame of reference. Just because I expect problems to be manageable writ large, doesn't necessarily mean each of us as individuals might not face something really serious. We accept 40,000 traffic deaths in the US yearly as one of the prices we pay for using our cars. This rate is certainly manageable on the whole, but has terrible consequences for those killed and for their families. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many y2k consequences weren't as random and targeted as specifically. If *you* freeze, it's small consolation that most people elsewhere are warm. So I recommend that everyone prepare. Murphy might show up at anyone's door.]

If this is not just a rhetorical game to you, why haven't you posted under your signature information about your prep status? Something to the effect of, "Prepped just in case." Or mention in your posts from time to time your prep status?

[Well, I have done so, from time to time. In most respects, I've reached the point where I wouldn't need to go outside for at least six months. In some respects, I can go for a year. I've stashed away plenty of food and supplies, I heat with wood in any case (which I cut, transport, and split myself), and one of my hobbies is target shooting. I've tried to cover as many bases as I can. But there's a separate preparation forum for such things. My goal here is to figure out what we're most likely to face, rather than focus on what the worst case might be. As I said, many others here do that so well.]

Now, at this late date, with (allegedly)significant preps already underneath you, you indicate that you feel a need to prep some more.

[Some items have a short nominal shelf life. These have long been on our list, and we're now starting to, uh, hoard those as well.]

You are a intelligent person, influential to some degree, and with some demonstrated debate talents. Whether intended or not, it would seem you have put these talents to use to convince people that prepping in a significant way is unnecessary, and aye, sometimes the subtext of your posts is that it is foolish to do so. You are entitled to your opinion. But, in my view, with the talents you possess comes a higher accountability.

[This is hard to answer. I feel that preparations will not be required for most of us, and *really* necessary for some of us. But we don't know who. I tend to agree with Jim Duggan, head of Gartner's y2k research, who said about preparations that "doing nothing is probably a safe bet." Yeah, for most of us it is. Are you willing to gamble on being among the "most" or not? There is plenty of evidence that problems are likely, the exact nature of which we cannot predict. But many here distort this evidence to support the contention that *all* problems are *sure* to happen, or at least enough of them that our standard of living will suffer drastically. I don't feel this is well supported by what little we DO know.]

Everybody is responsible for his/her own decisions re Y2K preparedness. Everybody is responsible for assigning each argument about Y2K it's proper credence and weight. Pleaes understand, it is difficult for a reader to do that when an active poster like yourself (seemingly against prepping) withholds very important information about his/her prep status. So much for conviction.

[No, I don't withhold that information. I've discussed my preparations quite a few times, and most people here are aware that they are extensive preparations (I get needled about that a lot). Nor do I try to hide my identity or location. I feel your statements here are unfounded.]

I believe you have influenced people. In the end, I would regard that as their mistake. Nonetheless, at some point and on some level, it also redounds to the clarity of your conscience.

[Why? If I've helped some people see the entire issue more dispassionately, good. If I've talked them out of preparation, that hasn't been my intention. Again, I recommend preparing. The problem is very real. I just can't accept that if I refuse to *exaggerate* the problem, I must be claiming it doesn't exist. There is a common, all-or-nothing mentality around here. I argue that the "all" position is highly unlikely (broadly speaking), so I get pigeonholed into the "nothing" camp. Then people get confused when I read bad news and say "yes, this is bad news." They say I've "switched sides." There aren't any "sides". There are bugs. Be ready for them.]

If I am wrong about your prep status, then I apologize in advance for believing what I have read on these boards, humbly and truly. And I will apologize again if you tell me the rumors are wrong.

[Well, I don't know which rumors. So I'm just trying to summarize my position here, and let you make up your own mind.]

However, if I am wrong (on the silver-lining side) I hope this provides an opportunity for you to clear up this rumor about your prep status. The mistake will be mine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

hitler would have loved you flint. are you sure you don't work for clinton? very slick you are. hmmn, slick willie, hmmn

-- jr (ataecho@aol.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint,

Thank you for regarding my questions as sincere, and responding.

FLINT >>>It's possible that my efforts have suffered by contrast with what we most often posted here.<<<

Yeah, I agree. This could very well be the case. But as you say, it's about "stakes." And those stakes are high if the pollies are wrong. I promise that it's news to me that you're not a polly, and I've been here for 10 months.

______________________

FLINT >>>I sincerely feel that I'm not minimizing the problem<<<...

I take you at your word that you don't believe you're doing that. But I would respectfully disagree about the effect of your words. ______________________

FLINT >>>I'm simply not making a systematic effort to *maximize* the problem. That role is well represented here as it is.<<<

I think you have "overkilled" your counterveiling viewpoint to the point of "minimizing." But granted, it's a matter of viewpoint. ______________________

FLINT >>>I keep saying that our information is ambiguous, unreliable and hopelessly incomplete.<<<

I'm not a good archivist, Flint. But again, I would disagree. I really don't believe you say that very often. My readings of posts on this board are regular, competent, but in no way approximate the universal. It's quite possible I've missed a number of posts wherein you've stated that, but I've not seen them. This has not been "selective" readings on my part. I'm being honest here. The point being -- I read much here. Now, think about newbies. What do you think their impression is? Are you thinking about them at all? ______________________

FLINT >>>I try to determine what all the information taken together really means, rather than use bits and pieces of it selectively to support a foregone conclusion. I don't know what's coming and I don't believe anyone else does either.<<<

Glad you say that last statement. Sorry if I missed it before. Again, perhaps it would be good if you said that more often. In fact, it strikes me as an abnegation of responsibility that you don't say it more often. One might say "how conveeeenient." But not me. ______________________

FLINT >>>Your reading may well differ, but if support your opinion only with the most congenial subset of what you read, then I find your opinion suspect<<<

Unfortunately, I'm tangled up in the syntax of your sentence, so I'm not sure what you mean. Please help me understand here? ______________________

ME (resigned@this point): You take positions of conviction that Y2K will not be an impactful event. However, many regulars have pointed out that you have prepped. I've not heard you say otherwise, so I tend to believe them.

FLINT >>>Odds and stakes again. Also frame of reference. Just because I expect problems to be manageable writ large, doesn't necessarily mean each of us as individuals might not face something really serious. ...So I recommend that everyone prepare. Murphy might show up at anyone's door.<<<

I've missed this message in your viewpoint. Quite possibly it's my mistake. But I read posts in a careful and studied way. Perhaps you could make that more clear? I honestly have NOT heard that in your posts. ______________________

ME (resign@this.point): If this is not just a rhetorical game to you, why haven't you posted under your signature information about your prep status? Something to the effect of, "Prepped just in case." Or mention in your posts from time to time your prep status?

FLINT >>>Well, I have done so, from time to time. In most respects, I've reached the point where I wouldn't need to go outside for at least six months. In some respects, I can go for a year.<<<

Flint, surely you're not a novice on this slope. I can only presume that you know full-well that many recent readers do not understand your historical participation here, and don't know your posts of old. How many newbies know this? I'm certainly no newbie, and *I* don't know this. I think it's a stretch to think that newer forum readers know this. ______________________

FLINT >>>I've stashed away plenty of food and supplies, I heat with wood in any case (which I cut, transport, and split myself), and one of my hobbies is target shooting. I've tried to cover as many bases as I can. But there's a separate preparation forum for such things.<<<

Flint, man. Whoaaaa. Here's where I think you get *very* slippery and a disingenuous. You're over here on the TB2000 forum (the direct connection to Yourdon's site) subtlely making the argument that people don't even need to go to the prep forum, all the while claiming that you have no influence. If this is not your intent, then perhaps it would be a GOOD thing if you took a bit more responsibility for the "impression" you create about prepping. ______________________

FLINT >>>My goal here is to figure out what we're most likely to face, rather than focus on what the worst case might be. As I said, many others here do that so well<<<

In my opinion, you're right that others do this well. But you're into overkill on your counterveiling schtick. ______________________

>>>This is hard to answer.<<<

I agree. It might have been an unfair question without a way to answer. ______________________

>>>I feel that preparations will not be required for most of us, and *really* necessary for some of us. But we don't know who.<<<

As a matter of conscience, you might want to THAT, oft and loudly. I don't believe you say that clearly. Not at all. Like I say, your viewpoint news to this regular reader. ______________________

>>>I tend to agree with Jim Duggan, head of Gartner's y2k research, who said about preparations that "doing nothing is probably a safe bet." Yeah, for most of us it is. Are you willing to gamble on being among the "most" or not? There is plenty of evidence that problems are likely, the exact nature of which we cannot predict.<<<

Exactly. ______________________

>>>But many here distort this evidence to support the contention that *all* problems are *sure* to happen, or at least enough of them that our standard of living will suffer drastically. I don't feel this is well supported by what little we DO know<<<

Yeah, there are distortions. I would agree. (Why are you locking onto those? It's like locking onto misspellings.) But between me and my maker, I'm not about to try to dissuade somebody from prepping. I don't think you do that overtly, but you CERTAINLY DO foster impressions. ______________________

>>>No, I don't withhold that information. I've discussed my preparations quite a few times, and most people here are aware that they are extensive preparations (I get needled about that a lot). Nor do I try to hide my identity or location. I feel your statements here are unfounded.<<<

Possibly so. I grant that. But I doubt very seriously am not alone in my impression that you are trying to dissuade people from prepping. ______________________

>>>Why? If I've helped some people see the entire issue more dispassionately, good. If I've talked them out of preparation, that hasn't been my intention.<<<

Flint, I wholly accept that may not have been your intention. But I believe it has been your effect. Perhaps worth considering? ______________________

>>>The problem is very real. I just can't accept that if I refuse to *exaggerate* the problem, I must be claiming it doesn't exist.<<<

I'm not asking you to exaggerate the problem. I'm asking you to refrain from going into overkill on your counterveiling arguments for the sake of having found an argument to win. ______________________

>>>There is a common, all-or-nothing mentality around here.<<<

Yep, there sure is. There are typos too.

But I have more comprehension about the motives of people trying to get information through the stubborn wall of public perception, media, and conformity than I do your self-conscious position of being "ever intellectually correct." It comes off as overkill, and that could have sizeable consequence to the unprepared. ______________________

>>>Well, I don't know which rumors. So I'm just trying to summarize my position here, and let you make up your own mind.<<<

And yes, thank you very much for doing that, in a detailed way. I regard these as honest answers and I appreciate you writing them. I respectfully disagree with some of your viewpoints. I do hope I have presented my responses with an appropriate degree of forcefulness and clarity.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999.

Dogblast the formatting of my above post. Those LINES were suppose to separate the various points, but got all scrambled up through the cyberwire. Sorry 'bout that.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999.

resigned,

I've had the opportunity to follow Flint for a long time and I figured out long ago that he isn't the kind of person you can put into a "box". I guess in some ways it takes one to know one.

Flint mentions in his response "frame of reference" and I think it speaks volumes.

I fall into the 30 something demographic as someone who has lived through recession and seen it's affects, etc. I even "lived" through the Viet Nam war. Does this mean I have any real life understanding of what that's like? Not really, I was too young to grasp completely what life was like for my parents or even older simblings as they struggled to deal with those problems. I can't begin to imagine how difficult a time it will be for the generations after me that haven't ever really known serious hardship. How will they respond to recession, depression, real war?

Generations before me which include people like Flint and my parents lived through THE Depression, a world war, the Korean War, Viet Nam...So what faces us and what we see on the horizon they may see as just another period of hard and difficult times. It's the frame of reference that seperates us and our perspectives. They actually have a frame of reference while many of those of my generation or younger really don't.

I've always felt that Flint was trying to a maintain "balance" in his perspective. It's tough not to jump to the darker side of this issue because fear can push you there. But, when you've faced frightening times in your life I think it's easier to slow down, pause perhaps, and gage the true ramifications.

The fact that Flint has stated that he's had an "uptick" does not make me feel comfortable. It worries me, really. I am not surprised by this but I was hopeful that perhaps many of my own worries were just myself buying into hype and the fault of my overactive imagination. Over the last month or so with the revelations that have presented themselves I know that this isn't the case and things will be difficult for many, many people.

Thanks Flint. I may not always agree with you but I'm very, very thankful that you've stuck it out and are always available and ready to give your point of view.

Mike

========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 16, 1999.

resigned:

FLINT >>>Your reading may well differ, but if support your opinion only with the most congenial subset of what you read, then I find your opinion suspect<<<

Unfortunately, I'm tangled up in the syntax of your sentence, so I'm not sure what you mean. Please help me understand here? ______________________

Just another way of saying I don't trust opinions based on highly selective evidence. Look, there were some Senate hearings the other day. Many people testifed about all kinds of things. Now consider three points:

1)Of all that testimony, the most pessimistic testimony was one or two paragraphs from someone representing International Monitoring. Those same paragraphs were pasted into at least three different threads, by my count. NONE of the rest of the testimony received any notice or comment (and some of it was quite positive).

2) Subsequently, I've been asked, essentially, "How can you say things might not be bad? Didn't you read the Senate hearings testimony that was posted?" And this is followed by a repeat of that same snippet of IM testimony.

3) So I dug into it, and found that IM admits that their projections are based on estimates and assumptions. And what data were these estimates and assumptions based on, and who collected them and how? These are important questions. Nobody chose to notice them. They *had* the answer they wanted to hear already, and it reinforced their opinions. So I don't trust those opinions.

Also, be reasonable. Most of the time, I'm trying to address the issue at hand. Should I really be expected to spam this forum with surgeon-general type warnings with every post?

Michael:

I'd never looked at it that way, but you may have a good point. Yes, I was destitute once and lived on the street. Lost a lot of weight as I recall. And yes, I've been in combat. Lost a lot of friends there. And maybe this does change one's perspective, and gives one a different idea of what bad times might be.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

Sometimes we get an answer that is so bad that I don't know whether it's a troll pretending to be one of us. or really one of us. Such is the "contribution" by jr, above. Another one was a day or so ago in which someone was gleeful because the tanking stock market meant that pollies would lose their life savings. Whoever these people are, they are certainly noxious shitheads.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 16, 1999.

Flint, do you have any feel for WHAT LEVEL of probable Y2K disruptions people will experience BASED ON things like whether they live in a major city or not? For example, you mention target shooting as a good Y2K preparation, but this probably is not feasible for people who live in New York City where firearms laws are very prohibitive. At the same time, the danger of being in NYC if some of the Y2K disruptions come to pass would, to me, be high enough to warrant being out of that place. What do YOU think about that?

BTW, for the very first time, I actually think that I really understand your position on Y2K. Better late than never, I guess.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 16, 1999.

KOS:

I lived in NYC for 3 months, summer of 1971 I think. I had the constant feeling that the whole city would burst at the seams and suffer meltdown at any minute. Things struck me as very tightly coupled there, so that small disturbances had ripple effects out of proportion to their causes. One stalled car and all of downtown is a traffic jam in 15 minutes. A garbage strike and the city would stink in a day -- there were just no alternatives for people.

I wouldn't go near the place next year. I think it's just too explosive. Just my opinion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

I've been lurking here for about a month now. I have completely bought into the "worst" case scenario hook, line, and sinker--as has my wife. We have even moved our 13 months worth of preps 40 miles outside the metro for safer grounds. However, if thing don't go to s**t, I still have a life and career, not to mention three small children who don't really care about Y2K and the possible ramifications,etc. I, for one, hope with all my being, that Flint is right in his viewpoints. I don't agree with his stance, but it is people such as Flint that keep me in the "game" of real life (present day) and not off the chart with those in the Gary North camp ( whom I appreciate as well). I am glad I found this forum and am glad that Flint and all the opposition debate the issues. Keep it up! Good solid debate is what this country has lacked for 40 years...or more. Whether Y2K turns out to be a BITR or TEOTWAWKI, all viewpoints on this forum are from people who care about the outcome and will end up on the side of humanity in the end. Flint may not agree with me, but I certainly consider him an friend. It is only a true friend that can give you his opinion, even contrary, and still support the final possibility (he has prepped).

Shepherd

-- shepherd (mjmcinnes@aol.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint,

>>Also, be reasonable. Most of the time, I'm trying to address the issue at hand. Should I really be expected to spam this forum with surgeon-general type warnings with every post?<<

You argue regularly against those who advocate prepping, though not on the topic of prepping. You present regular devil arguments against the bad news as it unfolds. Do you understand how it is reasonable for readers to conclude that you don't believe there is a need to prep? And be fair here, you don't exactly steer them away from that conclusion. I happen to think you foster the impression that there's no need to prep by rarely speaking about it. If KOS didn't know your position before now, I'd say that's a pretty big clue.(And he reads everything combing for good mudwrestlers )

Would you agree that there's middleground between spamming surgeon- general type warnings and fostering false impressions?

Of course, it's up to you. But it strikes me as an issue of responsibility. Just as I would like to hear CEOs who are stockpiling say that when they say "everythings just a-okay."

A week ago, I wrote a thread "Confessions of a Y2K Quitter." My family is influenced greatly by voices like yours. I am going to live the consequence of them listening to those voices.

That is their judgment and choice. And my choices are my responsibility. And your choices about how you present on this board are your responsibility.

Again, I appreciate your forthright clarification of your position.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999.

[resigned:]

[Well, I'm an engineer and not a professional writer. I accept that my efforts could have led to false impressions. And I will try harder to make myself clearer in the future. I do appreciate your pointing this out to me clearly and without rancor. It's not often that I get the opportunity to step back and give an overview, and your help is gratefully acknowledged. Now:]

You argue regularly against those who advocate prepping, though not on the topic of prepping.

[This is rather indirect. I do my best to identify poor logic and visible bias. I keep the Rules of Disinformation handy because I see them applied by so many here (and I do it myself all too often). I feel the available evidence taken together is quite persuasive in favor of preparations, and I don't think people need to be *tricked* into preparing by misrepresenting that evidence.]

You present regular devil arguments against the bad news as it unfolds.

[I have yet to see any news that is entirely bad or good. All of it has been through at least one level of filtering, sometimes many. I try to ask just how bad this news really is. And that requires an understanding of that evidence in several ways. Where did it come from? Who filtered it? Often, who paid for it? Also, most of the "bad news" we read (not all of it) takes the form of specifying possibilities. I don't argue that these are IMpossible, but we should recognize that not all possibilities are equally likely. Evaluating the *probability* is damn hard. To me, dodging the difficulty by regarding possibilities as certainties is cheating.]

Do you understand how it is reasonable for readers to conclude that you don't believe there is a need to prep? And be fair here, you don't exactly steer them away from that conclusion. I happen to think you foster the impression that there's no need to prep by rarely speaking about it.

[Also to be fair, most of the threads in which I participate aren't *about* preparation. I believe you are making that association yourself -- that if someone expects the worst, by implication they are urging preparation although they didn't say so explicitly. And if I claim that there are good reasons why concluding the worst is not supported by this evidence, you infer an argument against preparation. But this preparation-oriented framework is a product of your own projection. If you were like my neighbor the Bible-thumper, you'd view each argument in terms of scripture instead. And that's *his* projection. Neither one is the subject at hand.]

If KOS didn't know your position before now, I'd say that's a pretty big clue.(And he reads everything combing for good mudwrestlers )

[With all due respect to KOS, I've often suspected that he skips to the bottom of the post, sees my name, and then gives the *contents* of the post only a cursory glance sufficient to start aiming insults. On occasion, he's been surprised to find that I wrote something he agreed with, but only *after* it's pointed out. However, you are probably correct that the opportunity to give an overview hasn't come up very often. And I tend to write long posts, so people's eyes glaze over before they're done.]

Would you agree that there's middleground between spamming surgeon- general type warnings and fostering false impressions?

[Sure. But bear in mind the context of this entire forum as it has evolved. The umpire is booed because half his decisions favor the visiting team. And supporting a low-to-medium impact event (NOT a non- event by any means) in this environment means battling extremists often enough. So it's kind of like arguing against selling guns to children at an NRA meeting. They're predisposed to regard any such argument as the first step in taking their guns away. And although I'd regard that as a false impression, I'd still find it hard to argue my case without creating that impression.]

Of course, it's up to you. But it strikes me as an issue of responsibility.

[Several current threads address this same issue, and they're enlightening. Optimists are accused of dangerously influencing delicate opinions, while pessimists (like Yourdon, say) are absolved from this same influence on the grounds that we have all made independent decisions because we all think for ourselves! I regard both Gary North and John Koskinen as flagrant propaganda-mongers, yet North is thanked here, while Koskinen is castigated. It sure looks to me like extremists are held responsible only by those who disagree with them. If you feel a moderate position is irresponsible, this says much more about you than about me.]

Just as I would like to hear CEOs who are stockpiling say that when they say "everythings just a-okay."

[Well, have you read many of those required worst-case scenarios? In all that I've read, one of the key possible causes in each case of possible "material adversity" is if the *other guy* screws up. If I were a CEO with good reason to doubt my utility's ability to supply power, I'd stockpile too. Even if everything within my own jurisdiction really were just a-okay. Surely you realize that stockpiling is a hedge against infrastructure breakdown, NOT simple business failure.]

A week ago, I wrote a thread "Confessions of a Y2K Quitter." My family is influenced greatly by voices like yours. I am going to live the consequence of them listening to those voices.

[In that case, of course you are welcome to show them all I've written here. I am quite convinced that the influence any voice has on any listener is a 2-way street. Those who don't want to be involved will find some excuse not to be; the responsibility is at least shared. As I say, I think "doing nothing is probably a safe bet." Not safe enough for my peace of mind, though.]

That is their judgment and choice. And my choices are my responsibility. And your choices about how you present on this board are your responsibility.

[I call 'em as I see 'em. I have no evil ulterior motive to see others come to harm.]

Again, I appreciate your forthright clarification of your position.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 16, 1999.

Resigned:

I appreciate your concern that the impression left in the mind of someone new to this forum after reading Flint's posts would be that there is no need to prepare. As a new lurker I'd like you to know that for me that has not been the case.

What has confused me is that so many who are (or at least I believe they are) "regulars" responded to his posts as if he were a "polly".

Dawn Jones

-- Dawn Jones (dawjones@yahoo.com), October 16, 1999.

Flint,

[Also to be fair, most of the threads in which I participate aren't *about* preparation.]

Flint, that's what I said: "You argue regularly against those who advocate prepping, though not on the topic of prepping."

You continue: [I believe you are making that association yourself -- that if someone expects the worst, by implication they are urging preparation although they didn't say so explicitly...(snip)... you infer an argument against preparation. But this preparation-oriented framework is a product of your own projection.]

Please read my whole paragraph, and not parse it out. I'm asking you to look at how a reader could reasonably come to an impression. I wasn't saying it was a correct impression. I was attempting to point out that it's an understandable impression, and one I believe to be common.

HERE'S MY PARAGRAPH: "You argue regularly against those who advocate prepping, though not on the topic of prepping. You present regular devil arguments against the bad news as it unfolds. Do you understand how it is reasonable for readers to conclude that you don't believe there is a need to prep? And be fair here, you don't exactly steer them away from that conclusion."

This is important: You've concluded that it's important to prep but you argue against people who put forth information that would cause someone to prep. Fair enough if the information is spurious. The problem is, you seldom, if ever, provide any reason, information, articles, or argument that would support prepping.

I will show your posts on this thread to my family, though they have never read any Y2K posts at all. They listen to the prominent voices in the media, business, and government. And you are right, they will believe what they want to believe. I've accepted that.

[I don't think people need to be *tricked* into preparing by misrepresenting that evidence.]

Nor do I. Not in the slightest. We're in agreement. I think information should be able to withstand challenges. This has been a good dialogue with you. Thanks.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 16, 1999.

resigned:

This is of course just my viewpoint, but I think another comment might be helpful. You say:

"You've concluded that it's important to prep but you argue against people who put forth information that would cause someone to prep. Fair enough if the information is spurious"

I don't think this is quite accurate, although this may only be a matter of emphasis. It's not that I consider most of the information to be spurios (although it's filtered, as I said). I am usually claiming that these people have turned information into propaganda, and that's what I'm opposed to. It's not the information itself, it's the interpretation and presentation of the information. That's what I meant when I spoke of tricking people. Consider a few examples of self-serving interpretations:

If companies are hiring remediators, it's because they're behind and y2k will be bad. If companies are laying remediators off, it's because they've given up so y2k will be bad.

If companies had to boost their remediation budget, it shows they're behind and y2k will be bad. If they underspent their budget, it *also* shows they're behind and y2k will be bad.

If companies announce compliance, it shows they're lying and y2k will be bad. If they don't announce compliance, it shows they're hiding their problems and y2k will be bad.

If an organization announces a major successful test, that shows it was a PR event so y2k will be bad. If they don't, that shows they're not testing so y2k will be bad.

If programmers say their projects are hopeless, that shows y2k will be bad. If they don't, that shows they fear for their jobs so y2k will be bad.

I already gave the example of that one snip of testimony being both the ONLY portion considered salient, and being of dubious ancestry.

I could go on and on, but you can surely see that something is wrong here. The facts, no matter *what* they are, are being forced to fit the conclusion. Someone (selling gold) claimed banks were hosed. I asked what evidence, however unlikely he was to find it, would change is mind. And he came out and admitted that *no possible* evidence could do that. But that was OK, since he was right to begin with! Combine self-serving interpretation with careful selection, and you are not describing reality.

There really is good news out there. I argue against those who find a way to interpret everything as bad news that they possibly can, and reject the rest as spin and lies.

Finally, most of us cannot make all possible preparations. Some expenses cannot easily be recovered if they were misdirected. I believe that an attempt to formulate the most *realistic* picture of what's coming is invaluable in allocating our preparation resources most wisely.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.

HOT DAMN! Can we retitle this thread to something like "Intelligent discourse 101" or "Discussion for the intelligence challenged, a perfect example"???

I am PROUD of you folks. Not only have we had someone draw out the resident middlegrounder to a point of GENERAL UNDERSTANDING (If KOS understands, how can anyone else not see), we have seen it done with class and in a manner that should be recommended to ALL here.

congrats folks, ya done good.

chuck, who is fairly sparing with that kind of talk (as most know)

[and who was once agsin POISED over the magic button and didn't have to use it!!]

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 17, 1999.

I do my best to identify poor logic and visible bias.

That you do, Flint, and I am always glad for it. But geez, you broad-brush this board as a bunch of Gary Norths. I am amazed to find out that you are prepped for 6mo to a year. I am suprised to find that your take on the whole thing is about the same as the rest of us. You are just much better at the art of debate. I always read your posts and admiringly watch as you craft your position or destroy someone else's.

There are very few true Doomers here, but there are a lot of people looking to justify and validate their decision to act. So they (we) jump on "bad" news and feel some sort of comfort in the validation. Sick, yes, but every prepper here would have to admit to it on some level.

-- semper paratus (llmcl@usa.net), October 17, 1999.

Flint,

I'm not a person who sees a need to reconcile every difference in the world. But this dialogue interests me, so I want to explore it further, if you're game.

>>This is of course just my viewpoint, but I think another comment might be helpful.<<

Yes, actually, that is helpful to know that it's not the veracity of information but rather the propogandizing of it that you are fighting.

I've long recognized that some people on this board propogandize information. But this Y2K "propoganda" is not about to gain power and control over the world. So why the crusade? I don't believe you are uncovering something that isn't obvious when it comes up.

From my viewpoint, the propoganda put out by most of the media, government, and business, is as implacable as the pavement. It requires some amplitude to get word heard about Y2K. I tend to understand why voices get raised. Don't you? Can you give some latitude to people trying to get word out under the circumstances? People's well-being is on the line.

What I don't understand (but am trying) is why are you fighting the propoganda from people ardently trying to alert individuals, rather than fighting the more pervasive powers-that-be propoganda that seem to want people to be oblivious?

You've prepped. TPTB tell us "no need." Much to my dismay, my family has listened to TPTB. That's really here-nor-there, except that it influences my perspective. The message from TPTB is the overwhelmingly powerful and influential one. Not the message from TB2000 folks. But I haven't heard you challenge their propoganda in posts. Why not, if you are so against propoganda? Why do you lend your voice to ultimately supporting their position?

>>There really is good news out there. I argue against those who find a way to interpret everything as bad news that they possibly can, and reject the rest as spin and lies.<<

Sure. I believe there is. However, remiss I would be if I failed to point out that you have truly spoken like somebody who has preps to last 6 months to a year. What I am saying sideways is, you have room to indulge in this frivolity.

I think you might serve the better good in your mission against propoganda by arguing against TPTB who find a way to interpret everything as "good" news. Of course, that's an overstatement of TPTB position, but you get the way I've drifted.

You're against extremes, but from my standpoint, you've taken intellectual meticulousness to an extreme, and it may have unintended consequences. I swear to you, my family and most people I know listen to people like you. Like I say, that's their choice and responsibility, but it might be helpful to know.

>>Some expenses cannot easily be recovered if they were misdirected.<< I know you claim this as part of your intent in playing devil's advocate. Is it possible that some lives may not be easily recovered if people don't prep? You obviously see the need to prep for 6 months-to-a-year. So you'll understand if I'm having trouble with your concern for people's unrecoverable prep expenses. Do you understand why?

>>I believe that an attempt to formulate the most *realistic* picture of what's coming is invaluable in allocating our preparation resources most wisely.<<

I actually believe you *are* trying to formulate a "realistic" picture. But I wonder what picture you would be helping people formulate if you had no preps.

Many people are going to be screwed if Y2K causes the kind of problems you have seen reason to prepared for.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

Resigned:

I suspect (although do not KNOW) that your opinion of Flint regarding NOT discussing his emergency supplies was "influenced?" by the posts of some others?

I say this simply because I know how some folks here treat ME. I visit other fora, including the debunking Y2k forum. I disagree vehemently with Mr. North's unfolding of Y2k and think that Mr. Yourdon's views on IT are sorely out-of-date. Okay...I disagree with Hamasaki and Milne also.

It was my understanding that when the Prep forum began that the discussions on THIS classic forum would be about anything ELSE related to Y2k....or even stretching that definition. [grin]

The point I'm trying to make is that I'm considered a major pollyanna because I don't march to the same drummer that some here do. Like Flint, I've seen LOTS of good news regarding Y2k remediation. Perhaps unlike Flint, I've actually had the opportunity to engage in these successes, not just at ONE firm, but at many.

Does this mean that I'm against prudent preparation for an emergency? Not at all. In fact, if you'd ask ANY poster on the Y2k Debunking forum if they're against prudent preparation for an emergency, you'd receive the same response. Personally, I began three different threads on the preparation forum. I can provide links to two of them, but honestly forgot how I categorized the third and can't find it in the archives.

Part I of Y2k for the Complete Idiot.

Part II of Y2k for the Complete Idiot.

There's a whole range of opinions regarding the unfolding of Y2k. At one end, some folks see it as just hype. Having fixed so many possible problems for companies, I just can't buy into that one. At the other end, some folks see it as the end of the world as they know it. Having fixed so many possible problems for companies, I just can't buy into that one either.

"Experts" on Y2k come out of the woodwork every day. SOME see armageddon. Some use possibilities of terrorism, viruses (computer or human), earthquakes, comets, solar flares, religous strife, domestic conflict, nuclear power, inadequacies of governments, etc. to fuel their predictions. For myself, all of these problems would /wouldn't be there even if a computer problem weren't in the picture.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 17, 1999.

Precisely, Anita.

It's not just Y2K.

-- Old Git (waiting to see what Irene does) (anon@spamproblems.com), October 17, 1999.

Anita,

Yep. A few people here treat those who disagree with them poorly. I never like it when I see it. Without wishing to be an apologist for them, I kind of understand. These times are hard on the nerves, and many regulars are going against the tide of conformity in our society in a sincere effort to alert others. And they do get ridiculed for it. With some people, that can have a way of cutting an unpleasant edge on one's humor.

I have always respected Flint. I've even defended him before when he's been treated disrespectfully, not that he needed me to do that. But no, my opinion of Flint has not been influenced by other people's posts. I did learn from others' posts that Flint has prepped. I didn't know whether it was true or not, so I asked.

This is really quite surprising news to me that both you and Flint have prepped. I don't find it discrediting information. I merely find it helpful info and wanted to make the point that others might too.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

Flint,

One last word tonight before I make a dive for the quilts. I left this out of one of my response posts, although I intended to include it:

You said: >>I call 'em as I see 'em. I have no evil ulterior motive to see others come to harm.<<

Never once has that crossed my mind. I didn't mean to raise any issue about your intentions, motives, or credibility. To think of you as having any malevolent intentions whatsoever would be a psychological feat of considerable magnitude.

I've only meant to understand better your perspective, impart mine, try to understand what I perceived to be a discrepancy (preps), and suggest an issue about the effect of your words since I regard you as influential and well-spoken.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

resigned:

[Haven't had my morning coffee yet -- forgive incoherency]

To bring up another theme I haven't beat on for a while, I prefer to see y2k discussions conducted as an investigative rather than an advocacy proceeding. In simple (maybe simplistic?) terms, it sounds like you prefer advocacy. If TPTB have been saying 2+2=3, you know that's not right, but you would prefer us to argue that 2+2=5 to "make up" for this error. Kind of balance out the bias, and two wrongs will make it right.

I did present my case on a debunking forum, and nobody had any problem with it. They readily agreed that y2k isn't a hoax, that the bugs are very real and we won't get them all, that the macroeconomic impacts are most likely to be minor but not guaranteed, that reasonable preparations are prudent. They've teased me on occasion for not being able to make up my mind. But I consider that a virtue, so I don't mind. If you find yourself rejecting information because it's easier to reject than to change your mind, you're in trouble (IMHO).

But on the whole, I didn't like the debunkies' focus. I found they were not particularly interested in what y2k might bring, and took an almost salicious pleasure in mocking "victims of the doomer meme". I didn't find that a fun game. While there are a few posters here who seem to feel that the best way to support their opinion is to mock, attack, insult, or discredit those who disagree, they're in the minority here. Most people here look at real information, however flagrantly they may misinterpret it. Over there, they spend little time with the information. So I prefer the "Why will y2k be disastrous?" orientation here to the "Why are doomers so sick?" orientation there.

And oddly enough, I find this group to be more open minded on the whole. This may be just an artifact of y2k itself. After all, nothing really serious has happened yet. At the debunking sites, if you argue that we're looking at valid warning signs, you are challenged to "prove" the future. Can't do it? Then it won't happen! NOW, let's get back to laughing at what some idiot doomer said today. I found that environment unpleasant. They tend to agree with my general outlook on y2k, and prefer laughing at other people. I don't.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.

"I actually believe you *are* trying to formulate a "realistic" picture."

As is almost everyone else on this board.

"But I wonder what picture you would be helping people formulate if you had no preps."

Flint -- That is an interesting issue. What would you personally do with respect to preps right now if you hadn't started, and preps and money were available? With a few minor exceptions, I can't think of anything I wouldn't STILL want to have -- and, specifically, for Y2K (though the preps are equally desirable for other bad impact events).

While this is undoubtedly just as much a matter of "insurance" and "stakes" in my life as anyone's, I find that thought quite interesting. It illustrates, at a minimum, that the PERSONAL uncertainty of Y2K impacts remains essentially the same for me today as it was in 1997.

-- BigDog (BIgDog@duffer.com), October 17, 1999.

Big Dog:

I agree that nearly everyone here is trying to grasp what y2k might bring as well as they can. Yes, often enough I feel that the methods they use cannot lead to accurate conclusions. But if the effort weren't being made, I'd soon lose interest in trying to provide a different approach to making that effort.

If I had the money and no preps today, I'd be out spending it like mad. Some things I started on several years ago (I began in early 1997) required lead times no longer available, but I'd still be doing my best. Most preparations are just buying ahead on things you'd either consume sooner or later anyway, or things you always should have owned and never got around to.

And I think it's a good observation that once your preparations are pretty solid, you can examine the issues with a cleaner perspective -- the sense of urgency isn't hanging over you. I admit if I had it to do over again, I'd spend that money somewhat differently (and save a lot more than I have). The locus of the threat has shifted in the last couple of years, away from infrastructure breakdown and more toward hard economic times, and that calls for a somewhat different pattern of preps. But there's still plenty of overlap. In hard economic times, I can still eat the food, drink the water, consume the paper products, use the medical supplies if necessary, etc. And if I were living in a major city, I'd still be extremely nervous.

In short, my position is undoubtedly influenced by my current situation. Again, I don't think the information we have needs to be exaggerated to induce observant people to prepare. Still, I can see what "resigned" is driving at, and it's a good point. I'll need to think about this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.

Flint,

I appreciate that you consider my points. Likewise, I consider yours. In fact, I'll use your 2+2 example.

I welcome correction if any of this below is wrong. I trust you will point out any fallacies in my logic. (But if I've made any, do be gentle. It's simply never happened before.)

You believe 2+2=3 is inaccurate. (TPTB message - everything is a-okay with Y2K) You'ver rejected this inaccuracy and believe that subscribing to it carries SO MUCH RISK that you have secured 6 months to a year's worth of insurance against it. You believe that the the Y2K problem has the potential to be quite serious for some-to-many.

You believe that 2+2=5 is also inaccurate. (Everything is a bad sign and that means you should prep mightily.) However, the only risk you've been to identify in believing this inaccuracy is that a person may spend more money on insurance than is necessary. (Again, insurance you've concluded is important to have - in ample supply I might add.)

YET you spend all your time focused on illuminating why 2+2 doesn't equal 5. So in an odd way, by focusing soley on exposing the 2+2=5 fallacies, you denigrate the cautionary messages, even though you've concluded for yourself that cautionary provisions are warranted.

You spend no time focusing on, and seldom (if ever at all) present information, articles, or arguments exposing the fallacy that 2+2=3. Yet THAT fallacy is the one you've concluded carries with it the greater risk, so much so that you have insured against it.

I, too, am against propaganda. But with such an unaccessible and unknowable issue, it's *all* arguably "propaganda." I too am against hype. I, like you, am for good and truth and honor and logic.

My burning curiosity is why do you focus almost solely on exposing the 2+2=5 fallacy? The inconsistency between your focus and your preps just causes me to honestly feel that I'm missing something.

I don't think that having prepped allows one a "cleaner" perspective. I believe it allows one the luxury of being able to be wrong without consequence.

Possible?

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

Resigned:

I won't put words into Flint's mouth, but you must know by now that this is a doomer forum. I didn't say that...others have when asking folks who see Y2k more optimistically why they post. "Why are you posting on a doomer forum if you don't see anything but a BITR?" If Flint were on a debunking y2k forum, he'd be inclined to argue more for 2+2 not equaling 3.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 17, 1999.

Anita,

[If Flint were on a debunking y2k forum, he'd be inclined to argue more for 2+2 not equaling 3.]

Anita, there is not one schrapnel of doubt in my mind that you are right. But what good would it do there? It's HERE that it is needed.

Let me try to support my point: I believe there is an unintended deliterious effect from a notably intelligent mind, such as Flint's, when he poses such prolific counterveiling argments seemingly against the cautionary message.

I think people should rightly be able to find a modicum of moral support from Flint as they go through the unsettling decision to prep. Given his prep status, I would like to see him be careful about denigrating the information that DOES provide new-preppers support as they struggle to reach their resolve.

There's a barrage of info and derision in society to dissuade people from prepping. They don't need more confusions or reasons for self- doubt about their judgment. (Inherent in this unknowable problem IS plenty of reason for doubt.) But especially not here in TB2000, and not when it comes from a good mind that has made the very same judgment that they are painsakingly trying to achieve.

Trust me. I know. I'm fried if Y2K results in the problems Flint believes are likely in a city. The rough part is, I'm very well aware of it. I couldn't be in a more vulnerable city, with family who will not prepared and for whom I have been financially unable to adequately and singlehandedly prepare. I KNOW what arguments and voices they have listened to. I know what influences them. I'm trying to point out those influences. I point them out because I believe the effect is unintended.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

resigned:

You make good points. One response is that the 2+2=5 error is really the only one being made here. That's why I spent some time talking about the debunking forum. I don't feel the debunkers' y2k outlook is far wrong, and I don't like their attitude. IF I found a forum where the prevailing viewpoint is that y2k is a hoax, then I'd be doing the same there that I do here -- pounding away at what I'd consider serious misinterpretations. But I haven't found that forum yet. As I said, the debunkers respond to my outlook by saying "Yep, that's how we see it too. What else is new?"

And to be really honest, I'm of two (or more) distinct minds about the message to which the vast majority of people are exposed.

First, I'd prefer to see more y2k coverage than there is, yet I'm aware that by now most people (who, face it, don't want to hear about it) are really sick of it by now. There is definately a barrier to communication with most people.

Second, I really don't consider the y2k coverage by the traditional media to be all that unbalanced. Granted, most here would prefer that it *be* unbalanced, for the good of all those who haven't had sufficient cause to take this thing more seriously. But the media report both the good and the bad news, although usually without hard digging in either case. The traditional media by nature are focused on what happens, not on what might happen. There's only so many times that you can publish the same warnings before that story has been covered.

Remember that I consider the y2k information we have, weighed and balanced as well as I can, to be consistent with manageable problems. Not NO problems, but problems I don't think standard y2k preps would ward off either. I expect screwups -- huge or missing bills, shortages of some things, delays of all kinds. I doubt most people will be long without power. I doubt there will be NO food in the stores, although the selection may be more limited. There may well be gasoline shortages, but even I am not willing to store large amounts of gasoline. And gas prices might rise. Sensible preparations for the vast majority, I feel, consist of getting out of debt, having some savings, and living more frugally and less from paycheck to paycheck. And if I hadn't spent a bundle on what I probably won't need, I wouldn't be paying late fees on my bills waiting for my next paycheck either. There is a tradeoff somewhere here.

Third, without trying to define 'panic', I must point out that a huge number of our systems are designed around normal patterns of human behavior. A sudden change in that behavior of sufficient magnitude, in *any* direction, will overload those systems. For example, I cringe when I read Dear Abby recommending that *everyone* call their utility to find out where they stand. Those utilities are set up to handle very few calls from the public, because that's all they get. Abby's advice sounds good on the face of it, but in practice she's asking for a lot of people to get constant (and unnerving) busy signals, while swamping the utility and distracting their efforts. And admit it, the number of people who can be reassured (even assuming they believe all they hear) is very limited, and those calls don't make the utility a bit more complaint (and may slow them down). In general, significant changes in public behavior makes things worse, perhaps much worse. Even though a minority of those people will have improved their situations, on balance it's a bad deal.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.

Resigned:

I appreciate your willingness to discuss things rationally, even though we disagree. You said:

"I believe there is an unintended deliterious effect from a notably intelligent mind, such as Flint's, when he poses such prolific counterveiling argments seemingly against the cautionary message."

You've been "caught up" in the mentality that states that anyone who sees progress is discouraging preparation. Do you know what Lou Marcoccio (of the Gartner group) recently said regarding preparation? I don't either, but it went something along the lines of "Doing nothing is probably a good bet."

My Y2k supplies were purchased (for the most) in 1998. I was the typical "go to work and pick up dinner on the way home" sortof folk. 3-7 days of nonperishable food items were UNHEARD of around here and when I DID find myself working 36 hours straight on an installation, I'd get calls from my kids saying "We have NO food and NO money."

Yeah...I kept the cupboard stocked once stocked the first time. It's simply easier to live life with a bit of cushion. Do I need it? I don't think I will for Y2k. I need it NOW due to the freezes placed on programmer hires once Y2k remediation was complete. I don't use it now because I also have a cash cushion that allows me to continue to exist without employment.

I'm NOT everyone, though. There are others that live in areas in which their power/water/suppliers may not be able to come up to snuff in time. These folks should be discussing possibilities with their suppliers. They shouldn't be counting on generic overall statements regarding Y2k on a forum.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), October 17, 1999.

"These people should be discussing these possibilities with their suppliers." THAT has got to be one of the absolute DUMBEST statements on Y2K that has ever been made. As if "their suppliers" are going to do anything other that parrot the "we are Y2K-OK" line.

At first glance, pollies like Anita and Flint appear to be the MOST GULLIBLE of people. But, it turns out that they are also the MOST PREPARED of people. Advice to all: TAKE A HINT!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 17, 1999.

KOS,

Rock on. That would be my advice.

Allow me to add something to your post by way of answering Flint:

Flint,

[Remember that I consider the y2k information we have, weighed and balanced as well as I can, to be consistent with manageable problems]

Say there, Flint. Care to give me and mine your 6-12 months preps since your words above seem to imply there is not a need for preps, and THEN say that? I mean, since you seem to have such conviction that these problems are so manageable? Voices like yours have influenced my family's conclusion that there is no need to prep. Care to put your preps where your mouth is? I'm going to live the consequence if you are wrong. You're not. Big diff. Please have some respect for this fact.

[Third, without trying to define 'panic', I must point out that a huge number of our systems are designed around normal patterns of human behavior. A sudden change in that behavior of sufficient magnitude, in *any* direction, will overload those systems. In general, significant changes in public behavior makes things worse, perhaps much worse. Even though a minority of those people will have improved their situations, on balance it's a bad deal.]

"Bad deal" for whom? Your words start to sound like "Okay, now, y'all stay up there on the deck. Go back to your cabins. No need for panic. It's all manageable. No need to get in this lifeboat I'm in. It'll just make things worse."

Worse for whom, Flint? "Worse" is your word. What's your thinking here?

Won't you give a shot at answering *directly* the questions I posed in my last post, question for question? I wouldn't ask if I weren't interested.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

resigned,

You may consider me a heretic after reading this post. I've been scanning the forum since mid '98, not a techie by any stretch, just your average CA oddball. In evaluating risks - I figure that many of those I care about most are thouroughly 'toastable'. I don't function well in the 'deer caught in the headlights mode'. Flint's reasoned posts have helped me catch my breath and realize that these issues are not black & white, fixed immovable obstacles with no workarounds in sight.

I used to call myself a pollyanna before I heard of Y2k { and before it became a dirty word}. I've not been totally toasted by life yet, just nicely browned on a couple of occasions.

Flint is a public person to me. I was born in Nuttball Central {AKA Hollyweird} and privately asked him to be cautious in delineating personal preps many moons ago. I sincerely doubt that I've been much influence.

I think what I would like to say is that it comes down to personal responsibility. I feel lucky to share this medium in this time and space with some thinkers, and feelers. I'm uncomfortable with efforts to affix culpability on those around us trying to determine shapes in the mist.

PS To lisa,

I'd like to say - I'm not an astrologist - but as the daughter, best friend for 30+ years, aunt, & spouse to aquariums - he fits. They're playing with a different deck.

-- flora (***@__._), October 17, 1999.

Flora,

Oh heavens! I don't consider you a heretic for your viewpoint. The more varied viewpoints, the merrier. Frankly, I'm surprised to know that anybody other than Flint, Anita, KOS, and me, were still paying attention to this thread.

I'm not trying to affix culpability. Over and over I have said that everyone is responsible for his/her choices, especially me.

I've been asking Flint to be careful about the influence of his words, and his denigration of cautionary messages about Y2K. I feel that's a fair request. I also feel that it's fair to dilate the distinction between his words and his actions.

By the precise operation of his own logic, words have influence. And influence has effect, often unintended effect. Culpability is simply not an issue in my mind. We're all just trying to puzzle this out. I know that.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.

resigned:

Why do I get the feeling I'm being sandbagged here?

I spent some time explaining that nobody here is *making* the 2+2=3 argument that y2k is a hoax. I have yet to find anyone who feels like paying any attention to y2k, who feels it's a hoax. Everyone who has examined the problem recognizes that it is very real, and there is some impossible-to-determine probability of all sorts of problems, the variety of which is limited only by our imaginations. And those who don't want to pay attention can't be reached anyway, or at least I can't reach them.

You seem to be getting more insistent that I change my opinion about what's coming to include far bigger problems for far more people, NOT so much because that's what I read from the available information, but because it would make your situation easier. But look, this forum is well populated with articulate people whose expectations are considerably more pessimistic than mine. They're sincere, and their opinions deserve consideration as well. My reading might be wrong, theirs might be right. No, I don't believe many of them are putting the pieces together properly, and I try to show why. Are you unhappy because you feel I'm too persuasive about it? If so, spend some time making a better case. I DO change my mind about things, often enough so I'm accused of waffling and changing sides. At least I listen.

[Say there, Flint. Care to give me and mine your 6-12 months preps since your words above seem to imply there is not a need for preps, and THEN say that? I mean, since you seem to have such conviction that these problems are so manageable? Voices like yours have influenced my family's conclusion that there is no need to prep. Care to put your preps where your mouth is? I'm going to live the consequence if you are wrong. You're not. Big diff. Please have some respect for this fact.]

Now hold on here. Maybe saying what I read is "most consistent" with manageable problems is misleading you. Our information is not entirely *inconsistent* with either very slight or very major problems. That's largely because we have so very very little hard information. We're in the dark. Everyone is in the dark. What we don't know could be great, and it could be awful. We do not know what we do not know. I've prepared because I consider the odds-stakes product high enough to justify it. In other words, I multiplied what I consider the odds by what I consider the stakes, and came up with a value easily large enough to justify some significant preparation effort.

When you roll a pair of dice, you may know that a 7 is most likely. This is not a *conviction* that you'll roll a 7, just the odds. When I find people claiming that snake eyes are even more likely than 7, I try to make the case that this is not correct. This does NOT mean I guarantee a 7, or that I consider snake eyes impossible. It comes up sometimes despite the odds. Yeah, I think you're living dangerously if you're not prepared to handle this, but that does NOT change the odds.

And y2k is far less deterministic than a pair of dice, I admit. The odds of anything involved can't be calculated, so we need to estimate. To do so well, we should apply principles of logic and inference IMO. Sometimes I see y2k like a game of connect-the-dots. We don't know what the final picture will be, but we expect it will be recognizable if we follow the rules correctly. When I see people breaking my understanding of those rules so as to force the picture to be what they wanted to see in the first place, I point it out.

I've already pointed out that most people feel the media have given y2k saturation coverage and they're sick of it. They refuse to believe in it. I can't even reach my neighbors; they think we're loonies. They SEE what we've done, and it only reinforces their opinion. "Flint's a bright guy, but he sure does have some crazy ideas sometimes."

[[Third, without trying to define 'panic', I must point out that a huge number of our systems are designed around normal patterns of human behavior. A sudden change in that behavior of sufficient magnitude, in *any* direction, will overload those systems. In general, significant changes in public behavior makes things worse, perhaps much worse. Even though a minority of those people will have improved their situations, on balance it's a bad deal.]

"Bad deal" for whom? Your words start to sound like "Okay, now, y'all stay up there on the deck. Go back to your cabins. No need for panic. It's all manageable. No need to get in this lifeboat I'm in. It'll just make things worse."]

This sounds like simple petulance, sorry. When there's a big winter storm warning here, people descend on the grocery and clear out all the bread and milk. No it should be clear that they don't really need to -- the grocery gets enough bread and milk for everyone on a steady basis. So what happens is a few people get more than they need (and it sours/goes stale), while the rest get none. Is this *good*? If there is a run on the banks, the banks will shut down. *Everybody* suffers, even those who got cash before they closed. Is this good?

Maybe a little game theory would be helpful. From an outside perspective, of course we want the game's payout maximized, this is the greatest good for the greatest number. But from an individual perspective, the hell with everyone else so long as I get mine. In this regard, I'd like to see the payout maximized. But you're right, as an individual I wouldn't be happy if that maximum didn't include any for me. So when you ask "bad deal for whom", my answer is that the key is that "on balance" I wrote. I really don't want to see the worst deal for the most people, just so that a "lucky" few can win big.

I mention fire insurance a lot. The odds are very low. The stakes are very high. The cost of the insurance must justify the product of the stakes times the odds, or it's not worth it (if I could rebuild for less than the premium, why bother?). Fire insurance is worth it, at least for me. By now, I don't consider the stakes of y2k quite as high as my house burning down, but then again the odds of y2k problems are MUCH higher than the odds of that fire. So the insurance is again worthwhile for me. I think the odds of my needing my preparations might be as high as 5%. In NYC, I'd raise that to 15%. Easily high enough to justify substantial preparations.

But people here are jacking those odds *waaaay* up, for some people to 100%! To do this, they must break the rules of proper evaluation into little pieces, and twist the pieces into pretzels. And no, I won't join them. I'll continue to do my best to understand what things *mean*, not force them to mean what I'd prefer.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 17, 1999.

Flint,

Again, thanks for responding. Nah, you're not being sandbagged. But I can see how you might think that from the last posts from a few of us.

Okay...

[But people here are jacking those odds *waaaay* up, for some people to 100%!]

Yeah, some people are. I've agreed repeatedly that I don't like distortion or propaganda either. To keep insisting that I am somehow asking you to you to exaggerate, participate in jacking up the odds, etc. is quite curious. Why do you do that?

[To do this, they must break the rules of proper evaluation into little pieces, and twist the pieces into pretzels. And no, I won't join them.]

No, I won't join them? How about showing me where I have ever asked you to do that?

[This sounds like simple petulance, sorry.]

No need to be sorry for telling me how it sounds to you. I was just telling you how your comments about prepping "could make things worse" and your comment about "panic" sounded to me. (Especially in view of your extensive preps.) I certainly have no apologies for honesty in a discussion, and I don't request them of you.

____________________

Flint, let me present you with a series of your statements (albeit a bit out of their original context). I think if you read these following statements you might see how people come to the *impression* that you think preps are unwarranted.

[Remember that I consider the y2k information we have, weighed and balanced as well as I can, to be consistent with manageable problems. Not NO problems, but problems I don't think standard y2k preps would ward off either.]

[When there's a big winter storm warning here, people descend on the grocery and clear out all the bread and milk. No it should be clear that they don't really need to -- the grocery gets enough bread and milk for everyone on a steady basis.] I presume you're making an analogy to Y2K.

[So what happens is a few people get more than they need (and it sours/goes stale), while the rest get none. Is this *good*? If there is a run on the banks, the banks will shut down. *Everybody* suffers, even those who got cash before they closed. Is this good?] By the way you've phrased this, I presume you do not think it's a good thing.

________________________ Now, when asked directly on the matter you seem to think preps *are* warranted:

Big Dog asked what you would do at this point if you hadn't prepped at this point. You responded "If I had the money and no preps today, I'd be out spending it like mad"

[So I recommend that everyone prepare. Murphy might show up at anyone's door.]

[Now hold on here. Maybe saying what I read is "most consistent" with manageable problems is misleading you. Our information is not entirely *inconsistent* with either very slight or very major problems. That's largely because we have so very very little hard information. We're in the dark. Everyone is in the dark. What we don't know could be great, and it could be awful. We do not know what we do not know. I've prepared because I consider the odds-stakes product high enough to justify it]

___________________________

My point being: In conversational discourse you create an impression that preps are not warranted. Yet when asked directly, you say they are quite warranted. I've thought it's worth pointing out how your words might create an impression that's not altogether consistent with your real position. And I happen to think your voice has influence. ___________________________

[You seem to be getting more insistent that I change my opinion about what's coming to include far bigger problems for far more people, NOT so much because that's what I read from the available information, but because it would make your situation easier.]

Flint, WHERE on earth are you getting this impression that I am insisting you change your opinion about what's to come to include far bigger problems? Say what!?

And HOW in the world would that make my situation easier? Have you heard a word I've said about my "situation?" I COMB for good news. I SCOUR the net for it. Good grief, I rather imagine that *very* few people on this board look for good news more than I do. You said about a metro, "I wouldn't go near the place next year. I think it's just too explosive" There are many people who think this too, including me. But here I am, and here I will have to be.

No, Flint, I'm *definitely* in the market for good news.

_______________

Well, I haven't meant to beat a dead pretzel here, but I figure it's only you and me at this point anyway. I've just enjoyed this conversation and have been very interested in your thoughts.

-- (resigned@this.point), October 17, 1999.