There has been active self-reliance movement in the United States for decades. This diverse group ranges from homesteaders interested in organic agriculture to paramilitary survivalist organizations. "Preparation," as often discussed on this forum, existed long before Y2K. Without doubt, it will continue well into the next millenium.

The argument for preparation can be made completely outside of Y2K. We live in an increasingly complex world. There are events, natural and man made, that can disrupt basic services. Clearly, there are some groups motivated to harm to the United States. With the widespread availability of technology, it is a constant foot race between the guardians of our nation, and its enemies.

Whatever the motivations, routine preparation is simply an exercise of economic free will. Staying within the law, preparation is simply a decision on how a given individual or family will allocate their scarce resources.

As such, it is difficult to criticize preparation. Personally, one may question the utility of a metric tons of dried soybeans... but in principle, how is it different than a collection of beanie babies? This is one reason I have not spoken against preparation, per se. It is also why I have tried to answer civil questions about preparation issues.

On this forum, preparation has become enmeshed with Y2K. In my opinion, this is partly due to the pre-existing mind set of some preparers. Some folks contend we are headed to "Hell in a handbasket." They felt this way long before Y2K... and probably will feel the same way after rollover. On the whole, this mindset does not lend itself to an objective analysis of Y2K as a phenomena.

Oh, the common argument is, "Our country is already crumbling. Y2K will simply expose our weak, bankrupt system."

This argument involves a couple of large assumptions. First, it assumes our nation is near the verge of collapse. While some posters seem very confident of this point, it is difficult to prove. You can take any era in American history and find respectables scholars who thought the nation was close to toppling. The second assumption involves Y2K. The argument presupposes the impact of Y2K will be great enough to cause a social/economic collapse.

The argument about the vitality of the Republic is difficult. At best, the naysayers have been wrong for a couple of hundred years. This does not guarantee the Republic will survive another week, but it does suggest a degree of toughness.

The debate about the impact of Y2K is easier. There is a constant stream of information about the potential impacts. Much of this information has been positive. Some has not. Smart people on both sides of the issue are still hammering away, however, the analysis of this data seems closely tied to one's opinion about America (or the world) in general.

If you press the regular posters a bit, you often find issues that go well beyond Y2K. While this makes for some interesting discussions, it really does not shed much light on Y2K.

It seems the debate on Y2K will remain unsettled until next year. And I imagine people will be arguing about the results well after 2000. I predict Y2K will become a scapegoat for many problems... some completely unrelated. (This is not much different than the CIOs who have used Y2K fears to bolster budgets.)

In the end, the decision to "prepare" may have nothing to do with Y2K. You may have always wanted to live the life of a homesteader. You don't need to justify your personal economic decisions on the basis of Y2K. If you are thinking about preparation, consider it completely outside of Y2K. Step away from the heated discourse and ask yourself what makes sense... just from the point of your own personal experience and knowledge of the world. Don't let the hard-headed regulars on this forum (myself included) distract you too much.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 18, 1999

Answers

Mr. Decker,

This is a very good post. Deep down, I think that you are correct that many people here that are making preparations are just more or less doing what they have always done. Granted, some may be doing more than they normally do.

Could it be that people are hoping to get back to a more simple time? I know that gardening, raising animals, and the like are hard work. So please do not take it the wrong way when I said "simple" time. My meaning is that there are less technology created stress. I do enjoy the time that I spend outdoors, and it is one huge stress relief.

Could it be that people are just trying to look out for their own personal economics? They may be making preparations because they see the posibility of drastic price increases sometime within the new year. A little amount of money spent now could turn out to be a whole bunch of money saved in the future if prices do increase.

Just my thoughts.

Ms. Cannot-Say

-- (cannot-say@this.time), October 18, 1999.

Nations may have always had their 2%, but one generation moves on and another takes it place.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 18, 1999.

Mr. Decker, I roughly agree with your post except for your last paragraph. Time is ridiculously short, Y2K issues should rank very high in one's preparation plans.

As an aside, if I were to have read something similar to what you just posted a couple of years ago -- well before I became aware of Y2K -- I would probably have considered it pretty extreme. I would have thought such encouragement of personal preparation to be completely unnecessary. Now, regardless of Y2K, I have to agree that simply being prepared for at least a temporary loss of vital services makes great sense.

74 days.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), October 18, 1999.

I and others on this forum have said numerous times that Y2K has been the catalyst for prudent preparations against any kind of disaster. We were always going to can those delicious, healthy tomatoes from our own gardens, keep plentiful supplies of nonperishable food on hand, and invest in some simple emergency equipment, like kerosene heaters and camp stoves. Some of us (like me) have always wanted to add solar panels but put it off because there were always other matters and projects to consider. The classic "round tuit,"

A considered concern about Y2K came in my case in June 1998, from my 83-year-old father listening to British officials and my husband coincidentally discovering a Y2K problem in a state government progream, checked off as compliant. When placed in concert with my own experience with dBaseII programming some years ago and my knowledge of the inner workings of state and federal government and life in general, the Y2K information constituted a clear warning. I also had hurricane, flood and tornado experience against which to gauge possible effects and reactions vis a vis Y2K.

I am extremely grateful to those on this forum who have educated me about the best means and sources for purchasing emergency supplies and equipment, as well as the cheerful giving of innumerable hints on how to stretch a dollar until it screams. I am even more grateful for the patience, kindness and humor of most forum contributors. I am most grateful when I have been ill or injured (as has happened several times in the past six months) and Sweetie and I have been able to draw on the emergency supplies to create a fine meal, happy not to have to rush out and get fast food.

My heartfelt gratitude goes to everyone who has been of assistance to us and the cats.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 18, 1999.

By implication, you illustrate the downside to human adaptability. We learn from our surroundings. If our surroundings are periodically uncongenial and periodically pleasant, we grow to expect and be prepared for variations. But we've been living in what for most of us has been uniformly pretty good times for 50 years now. We haven't learned to prepare for hard times because we haven't needed to. By now, our lifestyles are adapted to good times, making them (at least historically) unusually susceptible to problems, in the same way a monoculture is susceptible to disease.

Some (most?) of us still know old people who lived through the Great Depression, and how it changed their preparation level for the rest of their lives. My parents are still packrats tucking away every little disposable thing because "you never know when you might need it." They lived through a time when they *did* need it. We may experience a "lifestyle correction" soon. Never pleasant.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 18, 1999.

I forgot to mention the influence WWII and my Depression-imprinted parents had on me, as well, and the years managing without child support. I'm an old git, I can forget the odd war here and there.

-- Absent-minded Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), October 18, 1999.

Ah, memories...

Ken Deckers first post...

Raiding your local Y2K survivalist

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000eQE

[snip]

...Having read some "Y2K preparation" drivel, most preparations consist of buying a Mossberg 500 pump shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 and then spending the day at the range. This is appropriate if you think marauders will ring the door like the "Avon" representative. ...

[snip]

... A decent rifle squad with adequate NCO-level leadership will cut through a group of Y2K survivalists like a hot knife through butter. In fact, taking any casualties would be a serious embarrassment. ...

[snip]

...To any Y2K preparedness fans... relax. I plan to spend New Year's Eve enjoying some decent wine... not leading a team of marauders in your neighborhood. I thought the article might make a nice change of pace, and I look forward to one or two frothing at the mouth replies. ...

Warm regards,

Mr. Decker

(Originally posted for Mr. Decker courtesy of Stephen Poole... in one of his many guises).

Preparations Ken, can be twisted especially when you advise them. Or not.

Have a nice day.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

My husband and I were raised by our depression-era grandparents. On top of that, we've had some very hard financial times. Self-sufficiency for us was defined by being able to get by without a paycheck for one month. The y2k problem caused us to redefine self-sufficiency and increase our financial safety margin. However, we realize that all the beans in the world won't help us much if society fails as a whole. We hope for the very best we can think of -- that our society trundles along, warts and all, as it has so far. That's pretty much the attitude our grandparents had.

-- helen (sstaten@fullnet.net), October 18, 1999.

Of all my posts, Diane, you have chosen one of the most accurate. Any person with serious military or law enforcement training can vouch for its accuracy.

Human survival is most often a community effort. An isolated person or family makes an easy target. So it has been throughout history... and so it continues to be.

A firearm is equally a right and a responsibility. For the responsible citizen, to keep a weapon for self defense is a serious commitment. Like any tool, the firearm requires skills built only through training and practice.

Once again, Diane, you confuse the messenger with the message. My original post made some tongue-in-cheek comments... but it was dead on accurate. A reader is far better served by those facts, than by your glib attempt.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 18, 1999.

There have been quite a few posts, some dating back to mid-1998, pointing out that prepping is for earthquakes, bio-terrorism, and any other disaster, man-made or Act of God.

-- mr x (x@x.x), October 18, 1999.

Decker ..... You remind me of people I knew in the singles world ; ones with low egos, limited understanding and patience to understand anothers point of view. Invariably, they you change/slant the conversation away from the basic topic, if for no other reason than to hear themselves talk . You really are to be pitied . Eagle

-- Hal Walker (e999eagle@freewwweb.com), October 18, 1999.

Actually, Mr. Decker makes a valid point here. There was a thread, I cannot remember whether it was here or on one of the other Y2K fora I have lurked at, about a fellow who was making all sorts of preps for Y2K and got caught in the NE blizzard last winter with none of it ready. Made me think and remember that there are truly other valid reasons for doing all of this. (Where I was last January, we had a blizzard that dumped about 3 feet of snow on us, and it was 5 days before I got out of my driveway. The power was only off for about 6 hours, but that was a wakeup call anyway.)

-- just another (another@engineer.com), October 18, 1999.

As you well know Ken,

I DO advocate preparing for a very uncertain world. Even at the best of times. (Must be the early girl-scout training).

The compelling nature of the discussion and anticipation about Y2K... and beyond... is the longer-term supply chain and global economic issues that we can associate with a definite start date. Perhaps it is an illusion of sorts. Or not.

Never in the history of this planet have we had a global shared impact with the potential to do such unknowable harm. P-o-t-e-n-t-i- a-l... Ken... NOT certainty. Although at this stage of the countdown, Im not feeling as optimistic as I hoped I would... a year ago (for a variety of interdependent reasons).

At this point in time, Y2K and preparation, are inextricably interwoven, because of such monumental uncertainty. For you to practically imply that that preparation for Y2K is an inappropriate response to our current times, is patently ridiculous Ken. But not surprising, coming, from you. (You have always been quite scoffing, in this regard).

You say... If you are thinking about preparation, consider it completely outside of Y2K. Okay. Interesting exercise. For people with an a unlimited time frame to contemplate their future from the vantage point of an easy chair.

However, Ken, it appears, to some--many who come from the dot gov and dot mil arena and not just TBY2K posters--that we MAY be on a global freight train heading for a brick wall. Remember the movie Silver Streak? Tongue-in-cheek humour, but an apt analogy. I have no idea if that brick wall, ahead of us, is made of fake styrofoam covering smooth tracks downline for our 2000 Express, or if well hit a wall constructed from a mountain of unremediated steel.

I would submit, AT THIS TIMING, all preparations need to take ones local, national and international expectations for potential Y2K impacts into account. We dont have the luxury to discount it. (Much as many would like to believe in a three-day-storm, hoping... doesnt make it so). Logic also dictates otherwise. Even assuming the U.S. was completely Y2K ready, willing and able... the international backlash on the domestic economy could be a doozy!

What makes sense, Ken?

To be aware and pay attention. And be really ready... for anything. But most especially... Y2K.

As to pointing out your earlier post Ken, I simply doso, to illustrate your continuing distain for those who prepare... whatever the motivation... but most particularly when associated with Y2K. (Just food for Decker thinking).

At any rate, part of the difficulty we face with Y2K is that it has illuminated the fallacy of our just-in-time civilization. (At least for those who study the issue). As the posters above reflect, generations before us, would prepare for a whole long, hard winter lasting for months. Theyd consider that the only prudent course of action... and those who didnt... as demmed fools.

The present prevailing 3-day Y2K mantra makes no sense Ken, especially from the global AND local Y2K vantage point.

They are interlocked... at this time. Even for the government types and bankers who say... Dont Prepare (at least... that much)... its all interwoven. To prepare or not to prepare... is a KEY sidebar to Y2K... irrespective of your personal long-term sustainability and lifestyle preferences.

Beyond (and before) the Y2K ignition date... 74 days from now... are the increasingly intense natural disasters, the possible cyber and bio-terrorist difficulties etc., that our officials and emergency managers are preparing for. Y2K simply does NOT happen in a vacuum, Ken. Nor can it be ignored... except by those people, like yourself.

Hopefully, for the bulk of us who get it... wisdom will prevail in conjunction with preparations of the individual and community kind.

Be ready and well Ken. Or not. Your choice.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), October 18, 1999.

Decker, you said, "On this forum, preparation has become enmeshed with Y2K. In my opinion, this is partly due to the pre-existing mind set of some preparers." No shit, Sherlock! Very profound! You have an awesome talent for stating the fucking obvious. More accurately, Y2K has become enmeshed with preparation, which is why a separate preparation forum was spun off.

-- dr. (watson@holmes.com), October 18, 1999.

Pssst Diane......(whisper,whisper): do you think little kenny is getting nervous?? Lots of bad news lately, particularly about energy/oil. Surely he hasn't decided to become a "homesteader"! I'm almost positive that the term "homesteader" means ignorant to him. He has always seemed to think that, if he had the money, he would always be able to buy what he needed---regardless of what happened in the world around him. Perhaps he has been talking to some actual homesteaders. Perhaps they have reminded him that excess agricultural production has created a division of labor. Or maybe they just told him that he could not buy what they produced if they needed it themselves??? All of a sudden---a comment that stocking up/preparation for hard times/etc.etc is not really CRAZY?? My, my...what will we DO without our resident condesending, tunnel-visioned,snide,obviously inexperienced in the real world:Polly? We might just have to make do with Poole. Yes, it's getting a little "nervous" out there.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), October 18, 1999.

How could you have missed all those posts about Decker getting up at 3 and walking through snow to milk the cows or some such on his grandparent's farm? His boring advice on "modest" preparation? Decker was raised on a homestead but wants to be a college perfessor. Decker has supplies stashed away, just not because of Y2K. He doesn't want you to stockpile because of Y2K, he wants you to stockpile for real reasons, like a depression or unemployment. As long as you're not storing supplies for Y2K, then it's OK in his book.

-- C. Emory (here@the.homestead), October 18, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

I have always been an urban type, a person who had no leanings toward self-sufficiency. I remain insufficient still, but now with many cans and jars of food made by others.

I have had few issues with this government in particular, although many always with society as a whole. I never anticipated a wholesale change.

Then came Y2K--and, yes, it is Y2K. It came as a sudden disrution to my lackadaisical Manhattan ways. Y2K might not be the end, but it might be part of the end or the beginning of the end. I'm still in shock and will be forevermore, probably. I was not waiting for Y2K, but here it comes and I'd best be at least somewhat prepared to meet it.

You and yours, too, I hope.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 18, 1999.

As long as you're not storing supplies for Y2K, then it's OK in his book.

Thass rat miz Emry! Decker's school marm din bin larn him thet..

"A difference that makes no difference is no difference."

-- mr x (x@x.x), October 19, 1999.

Ah, we have the inevitable personal attacks.

For the record, I think we will experience a sharp recession in 2000, partly caused by Y2K. The "best" preparations for a recession are financial. Priority one: Get out of debt. Priority two: build up personal savings of six months living expenses.

I do not think Y2K will cause a return to the early 1800s... but that is exactly how SOME forum regulars are preparing. Again, this is an individual economic decision. I know (and like) a few "homesteaders" who live a self reliant lifestyle. As I have pointed out before, these folks are not self-sufficient. They do not mine iron ore to make skillets. They do not manufacture gun powder or turn brass cases on a metal lathe. They depend on "store bought" goods for many basic functions.

This is a basic fact SOME forum pessimists overlook. Having lived a self reliant lifestyle, I sense some preparations are based on a working knowledge of "Little House on the Prairie."

Returning to Y2K, I think an objective observers are more optmistic now then they were in 1998... despite Diane's personal conclusions. The reports from basic infrastructure services are increasingly positive. A "dot-mil" or "dot-gov" address does not confer immediate authority. Personally, I think the Navy report that created such a stir was probably written by some IS3 in a cubicle somewhere.

I have been considerate to civil forum pessimists... and generally tolerated the rest. (I do make an exception for Andy.) Unlike some, I have offered preparation advice when asked. My disdain is not for those who prepare, but for those who refuse to argue Y2K on a factual basis. The lowest circle of my Y2K inferno is reserved for the bullies of the forum who berate and insult anyone who does not agree with them. I have found thoughtful pessimists on this forum (where have you gone, Dave Walden?)

You make my point, Diane, when you criticize our "just-in-time" society. You have a bias... plain and simple.

While imperfect, our society has created the highest standard of living in the world. A life far more comfortable than the "Little House" existence where people live longer and have a greater range of personal choices. ("Ma" could not vote, Diane.)

And don't worry about me, Diane, I'll be just fine.

Jeanne,

Ah, still smarting over the economics lesson? Go back into the Fallback Planning archive and read my post about the "Myth of Self Sufficiency." You'll enjoy it.

Emory,

I suggest preparation for a recession is more realistic because the chances of a recession are far greater than of a complete economic collapse. Frankly, it's your money. Prepare for an invasion of alien beings who look like Homer Simpson, for all I care. The U.S. will survive Y2K... period. If you doubt me, check in here next year.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 19, 1999.

Ken,

I have some questions for you regarding this statement you made:

"On this forum, preparation has become enmeshed with Y2K. In my opinion, this is partly due to the pre-existing mind set of some preparers. Some folks contend we are headed to "Hell in a handbasket." They felt this way long before Y2K... and probably will feel the same way after rollover. On the whole, this mindset does not lend itself to an objective analysis of Y2K as a phenomena. "

Okay...I've restated your position and now I'd like to point you to this quote on Linkmeisters thread from Reuters' article of Oct. 18th, titled, "Some big British companies stockpiling and identifying alternate suppliers":

More than four fifths of companies in Britain -- which says it is better prepared for the bug's effects than many other developed countries -- are making a priority of contingency plans against power and telecomms failures.

Just under half were stockpiling essential supplies and identifying alternative premises they could use. More than two thirds have earmarked alternative suppliers.

Here are my questions to you:

1) Are the preps these UK companies making enmeshed with Y2K?

2) In your opinion, is this partly due to the pre-existing mind set of some companies?

3) Does this mean some of these companies contend we are headed to "Hell in a handbasket"?

4) Did they feel this way long before Y2K... and will these companies feel the same way after rollover?

4) Does this mean the mindset of these companies do not lend themselves to an objective analysis of Y2K as a phenomena?

Just trying to figure this out and what you really mean. Sure hope you answer me back.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 19, 1999.

And a not too tangential link for all those seeking a saner, more self-sufficient life, Y2K or no Y2K:

http://www.slnet.com/default.htm

The Simple Living Network

And: www.ishmael.com The Ishmael Network

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), October 19, 1999.

Cary,

You have re-stated my position... but let me clarify a few points. My comments dealt with individual preparation as generally discussed on this forum. This forum is not a representative sample of the greater population. The preparation activities discussed here FAR exceed the norm (as identified in Y2K polling efforts.) For example, most Americans do not plan to store over 30 days of food or water. Some pessimists on this forum have gone way beyond 30 days of food and water.

In my opinion, most businesses and government agencies have developed some sort of Y2K contingency plan. Does developing a Y2K contingency plan mean you are "enmeshed" with the Y2K issue? Of course not.

All preparation is not equal. Some businesses may have overprepared for Y2K. (Yes, I think this is possible.) Some businesses may be underprepared for Y2K. (Another possibility.)

If I'd been reading a forum of British business Y2K preparations, I might be able to comment. But I haven't. I'm not sure if their preparations consist of a three-page contingency plan or building their own power plant. Stockpiling essential supplies is a part of business. I'm not sure I understand "alternative premises." In my organization, we have a back-up "command center" in the event of a power outage... and not just for Y2K. One hundred percent of companies ought to identify alternate suppliers. It's just good business sense.

1) As I stated, all "preps" are not equal. Let's give British companies the benefit of the doubt and say they are simply acting in a prudent manner. 2) I have not read what British companies have been thinking on Y2K. If you can provide what they are doing, and why, I can tell you what I think.

3) Businesses exist to make a profit. Some become involved in social causes, but this is "side" activity. Who makes the tasteless television programs and violent movies? Who targets children and teens for intense marketing efforts? Oh, I can go on for hours.

While you can try to blame businesses, they mostly just sell us what we want. As a rule, businesses are not in the business of making moral judgements about what we, as consumers, want. If we want to go to Hell in a handbasket... they want to sell us the handbasket.

4) Commerce is not going to change after rollover. Economics is the study of unlimited demand and scarce resources. Until people stop wanting goods and services... markets will exist. Firms will try to meet demand... and make a profit.

Look at Y2K supply firms. Businesses quickly sprouted to meet the demand for Y2K "preparation." The savvy firms will find new market niches after the rollover. Part of selling "Y2K" is convincing potential customers they need your goods and/or services. Do I think Mike Adams of Y2Knewswire really thinks Y2K will be a catastrophe? I don't know. But he does make more money if he convinces people they need what he has.

This leads me to your second 4)

It is difficult to determine whether a firm is "objective" about Y2K. It is informative to know if they have a financial stake in one view or another. The Y2K supply firms obviously profit from increased awareness and anxiety about Y2K? So do the remediation consulting firms.

Are British firms objective? I don't know. But I would take a look at what they are selling.

I hope this helps.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 19, 1999.

Dear Mr. Decker,

Thank you very much for your posting; this one AND all the others. I for one have found your post thought provoking and educational. Of all the posters here, I would rate yours as having the most value to someone trying to improve their understanding of economic and other matters in light of the doomer drivel that foams from the mouths of so many here. Thank you very much! I've also been impressed with the classiness you have displayed in the face of so much rabid doomer dementia. Bravo, sir! Maybe one day I will be in your league. Right now, I enjoy BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!ing at them too much!

Mr. Decker, I really liked your point in another post about capitalism being redundant -- and refuting the "domino theory" that if one company fails, those relying on it will perish -- rather than finding some alternative. So simple, yet so true and correct!

Today, I read the remarks by Alan Greenspan, "Do efficient financial markets mitigate financial crises?"

www.bog.frb.fed.us/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/1999/19991019.htm

His analysis contained a similar point. Namely that of capital markets being a "backup" to banking for minimizing the effects of any "disruptions" an economy might incur. This sounds quite right to me. However, I'm a programmer, not an economist. It does undermine the doomer drivel about the economic problems in Asia as elsewhere "spreading" to the U.S. Provides a reason why such is NOT likely to happen -- and why we are not likely to "collapse" economically whatever Y2K brings. Sir, would you care to contribute your thoughts? Thank you in advance, if you do or don't. I enjoy your post.

Best wishes,

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), October 19, 1999.

Diane,

FWIW, I think you are the biggest troll here.

I read Mr. Decker's post. I found it quite correct and beneficial reading, as are all his post. You attack him, give a link to his "first post" -- that I read -- and also agree with 100%. What was wrong with either? Since when does the job of "moderator" extend to attacking posters on a forumn who provide classy, well written helpfull, thoughtfull material? Talk about a petty despot at STINKBOMB 2000! You are it, Diane! Sad...quite sad...

Also, your responses and attacks are quite lame, lacking in logic or "points" and quite "twisting" as I have pointed out before in your attacks on me. In a battle of wits, let alone reasoned, logical debate....You don't even rate a "place" bet, let alone a "win" bet, you nag!

Let me guess...he didn't reinforce any doomer delusions. That seems to be your definition of who is and isn't a troll IMO. I remember when YOU first appeared here. Care to post links to some of YOUR first posts -- for the "get its" to laugh at? How you derided the "survivalist" in their heavy boots clodd hopping on the ground as you were up in a tree, wearing mocassins, shooting a little squirrel for food..and giving your new age thanks for the squirrel's sacrifice for you to live. I remember you first several post well. Talk about a new age rube! Swinging from the trees...hiding from the doomer survivalist "on patrol".....my...why don't you repost those for laughs! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Your response to Mr. Decker is quite illustrative of your bias. The point is, nobody knows what Y2K will bring. You tend to play the "yeah but what if" game no matter what good news there is about Y2K. There are plenty of "what ifs" today...and will be forever more on this planet. People honestly differ in their prognosis on how likely the "ifs" are likely to occur. The problem is the lack of YOUR TOLLERANCE for others who differ in opinion. Instead, they are labelled "trolls", accused of dissuading people from preparing, and attacked -- by you and your "ilk" here. Moderator? NOT! Cult propagandist? Now we're getting warmer! Reread your post on this thread in light of your "its about Y2K" chant. Why even post a flame to Mr. Decker, violating the rules you are "moderator" for. Because he is a VERY REASONABLE voice....that does not support the demented doomer desire for TEOTWAWKI? I think so. Pity. You sure have changed a lot since you've been here, Diane. Guess you've "come down from the trees", eh?

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

Look in the mirror...darkly, Diane....BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

-- Genius (codeslinger@work.now), October 19, 1999.

"The problem is the lack of YOUR TOLLERANCE for others who differ in opinion." So shrills Genius to Diane. Of course Genius is highly tolerant of other opinion, that's why he posts on this particular forum. NOT!!!!

-- Through the (looking@glass.lightly), October 19, 1999.

Ken,

Yes Ken, I did re-state your position, but I was trying to understand why or how you would defend businesses' prudent preparations, and yet to some degree disdain individual preparations.

First I think both you and I agree, that there is a large range of individual preps being made by those who frequent this forum. Everything from nothing at all, to the "3 Day" proverbial storm preps, to economic stratedgy preps, and up to life altering preps.

I'd bet that the same could be said regarding the businesses that are prepping. Probably the determing factor in the amount of preps either a business or individual makes is in direct relation to the kind of threats they perceive according to their particular circumstances.

The important difference that I see, is that there is approximately only 2% of the U.S. population preparing and maybe about the same in the U.K. But as this article points out, just under half (a little less than 50%) of all companies were stockpiling essential supplies and identifying alternative premises they can use (btw, I believe that "alternative premises" means physical relocation of the business). That's a huge difference in individuals that are preparing vs businesses preparing!

So here's my main thrust....you can't, I can't and noone else can either, possibly agree on the proper kind or amount of preparation that is right for a particular individual or business.

What would be helpful to agree on though, is that everyone should be preparing for this event. If you think that this has merit, I propose that you begin by altering the tone of your posts by supporting and encouraging people to prepare for whatever they feel is prudent without judging them, and reserving your opinion on whether you believe they are doing it correctly or not.

It certainly is up to you, but I feel that being part of a solution is much better than being part of a problem. And Ken, let's admit, only 2% of the population preparing is a problem.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 19, 1999.