If you had to guess one poster on this forum was a govt shill, which would it be?

-- Curiouser&Curiouser (@ .), November 13, 1999

Answers

Given the laws of libel and their provision for heavy monetary damages, I would recommend you not answer this question.

-- Better (safe@than.sorry), November 13, 1999.

Definitely Ray. My logic states that NO ONE would accuse everyone else of being a shill if they weren't one themself.

So there...take THAT! (grins)

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 13, 1999.

On various occasions when I have opposed one of the fanatical lunatics on this forum, shouts of government shill have come my way. This always gives me a good chuckle and confirms the stupidity of the accuser. I really cannot imagine the government paying anyone to shill for them on this site. Im sure that many of the folks that come here are government employees but their participation is a personal one, not part of a job description. I do feel that a certain amount of shilling takes place from the private sector in the form of selling products or services. However, as part of this activity is the dispensing of good information and guidance (depending on your point of view). Many on the doomer side have known Y2K oriented businesses and that should always be factored in. Im hard pressed to come up with a Polly that seems to be selling anything. I would be more concerned with the Hate Mongers that frequent this forum with tales of the dark side and conspiracy theories abound. They are pushing a product that should be shunned by all. Then you have handful of raving morons who are constantly shilling for ignorance, and doing a bang-up job.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 13, 1999.

The person who started this thread?

-- Rolling on the floor laughing (my@ss.off), November 13, 1999.

I have a "Bridge in Brooklyn" ready to sell to anyone that doesn't believe there are MULTIPLE government SHILLS hanging around this forum!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), November 13, 1999.

Why off course the mudwrestling guy from Spain! Only Gov. Agents get their jollies from perverted mudwrestling!

-- bbb (bbb@bbb.com), November 13, 1999.

Feds Plan Y2K Spin Control

by Declan McCullagh

3:00 a.m. 26.Jan.99.PST

WASHINGTON -- Fears of Y2K panic have prompted the federal government to begin quietly preparing a media strategy designed to assuage public fears of blackouts or other potential infrastructure failures. John Koskinen, assistant to President Clinton and chairman of the White House's Y2K council, has entered into discussions with a public- relations firm, Wired News has learned. The firm has recommended conducting awareness surveys and honing a "stay-calm" message based on the results.

The campaign is designed to thwart widespread hoarding and extreme reactions to Y2K, including the possibility of bank runs and stockpiling-sparked shortages.

Fifty percent of Americans plan to take extra cash out of the bank and one-third say they'll stockpile food before the new millennium, according to a recent Time Magazine and CNN poll.

Officials have suggested other strategies, such as asking broadcasters to donate free air time and creating a media-advisory group that would work hand in hand with the federal Y2K council to soothe anxious Americans.

During a December closed-door meeting held by the council at Federal Reserve Board headquarters, attendees bemoaned negative media coverage and suggested staging "community cooperation" events to calm jitters and spur positive press coverage, a participant said.

Jack Gribben, a spokesman for the council, stressed that no decisions have been made. "Both communications and the issue of communicating with customers and constituents were discussed."

He said that "we have had discussions" with at least one public- relations company, but "there's nothing firm at this point."

At the council meeting, the Federal Communications Commission's Marsha MacBride and the US Postal Service's Richard Weirich reportedly suggested a federal project to monitor the public's reaction to Y2K. An Agriculture Department representative complained that the agency's most frequent telephone inquiry has become: "How many cans of food should I stockpile for my family?" Radical responses to Y2K have become a top concern among Washington insiders such as Koskinen. Last year, he warned, "We need to avoid creating panic and precipitous, counterproductive activity."

The head of the Senate's Year 2000 committee has echoed that sentiment.

"Even if the Y2K problem is solved, the panic side of it can end up hurting us as badly," Senator Robert Bennett (R-Utah) said in December.

When an industry-advisory group met for the first time last Thursday, members fretted over how to prevent public overreaction to Y2K. The members of the group include incoming Securities Industry Association chairman Roy Zuckerberg, United Airlines chairman Jerry Greenwald, North American Electric Reliability Council chairman Erle Nye, and Scott Anderson of the American Bankers Association.

Officials also are growing edgy about releasing sensitive information. Last May, the National Security Agency classified a Defense Department Y2K database as "highly sensitive," prompting the military to yank it from the Internet.

In response to a Senate request, the General Accounting Office last fall compiled reports on each industry's Y2K readiness, but has not yet released the complete results to the public. Some agency Y2K officials even worry that the bulky quarterly reports published by the White House's Office of Management and Budget every four months contain too much information.

Even though Koskinen said as recently as two weeks ago that "our strategy is based on the premise that the public has great common sense and will respond appropriately when they have the necessary information," the Clinton administration and Congress have taken steps to close meetings.

A bill that Clinton signed last fall was widely touted by the White House and a bipartisan group of legislators as a way to limit inappropriate Y2K liability. But a key provision bars the public from attending meetings of the Y2K council and its subcommittees. The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act says the federal open-meeting act "shall not apply to the working groups established under this section."

Click here for more

http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/17527.html?wnpg =all

-- (Janu@ry.1999), November 13, 1999.

Thanks for saving me the effort, -- (Janu@ry.1999], I had saved that link for some of these nitwits posting on this thread. The SPINNERS went into high gear right after Declan posted that article.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), November 13, 1999.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government has been engaged in a massive spin control to minimize the potential of Y2K related problems. But to assign assets to come on to this forum is not too practical when you crunch the numbers. How many folks would you say frequent this forum on a regular basis (3-5 times per week)? 150? 200? 500? Do you really think the government would spend any time trying to manipulate the viewpoint of so few people? I love this forum but some of you folks are inflating the importance of this group beyond reality.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 13, 1999.

Either Flint or Decker (or both?)

If it is just one, I guess Decker.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 13, 1999.

What bothers me and others, Truth (at@the.ready), is why so much effort is *still* being expended to downplay legimate concerns about Y2k. The public is calm and John Koskinen says that problems come January will only be minor. Continuing efforts at this point to downplay Y2k would be silly and a waste of time if Y2k is going to be a non-event -- it would be like trying to convince believers in a flat earth that the earth is round. If Y2k debunkers actually believe what they say then they should have the courage of their convictions, move on and get a life.

You say this forum isn't all that important. Why do you still call this forum, Truth (at@the.ready)?

-- Bottled water (and@canned.goods), November 13, 1999.

Mr. Truth,

It is a pleasure to meet you sir. I think you are extremely wise and generous. If is gratifying to see someone with your pedalurgical capabilities address fears regarding government shills. I hope people recognize your brilliance, but, I think you are probably wasting your time.

Why don't you give me your opinion of what will happen to the oil/petroleum market instead?

-- Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), November 13, 1999.

I would say that I know which one isnt and that would be Y2K Pro, he adds nothing to this forum but insults and his ability to "cut and paste". Keep up the good work pro, Burger King must be proud.

-- Tom Waits (tomwaits@zensearch.net), November 13, 1999.

DEAR BETTER... YOU SAID:

"Given the laws of libel and their provision for heavy monetary damages......"

GO FUCK YOURSELF!!! MAYBE I THINK IT'S YOU.....IT MIGHT BE YOU....I KNOW IT IS YOU !! HEY EVERYONE, I FOUNG THE GOVT SHILL !!!

NOW COME SUE ME BITCH !!!

Geesh, This is the internet. It's the only wild west (i.e. UNREGULATED) we have left. So take your laws of libel and go shove 'em up some judges' ASS!!!!!!!!!

-- JESSE JAMES (JJAMES@WILDWEST.com), November 13, 1999.

In theory, I would tend to think that the Government (oh, excuse me, I guess I should say "gubmint") would be wasting time and money actually paying anyone to be a shill here. However, in view that all the gov't mainly does is waste time and money, it would not be surprising to me if a few people who would otherwise be using $500 hammers are instead here everyday, discouraging any hint that Y2K may be a wee bit more than advertised.

Laura: I get the feeling that you are more of an oilwrestler than a mudwrestler. I'll bet your sleek body really shines when oiled. Ms. Gawdess, ma'am.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 13, 1999.

You can't imagine the gov't paying anyone to shill here?

That's interesting. I guess the matter is settled once and for all.

Oh, on an unrelated note, I wonder if the sysops have noticed anyone posting from rendon.com?

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 13, 1999.

Truth--

The only "truth" and "disclosure" I needed as proof that things are not rosy and "spin" is in: International Monitoring report on International Y2K Risk. Prepared for U.S. Senate Committe

http://www.senate.gove/~y2k/hearings/991013/gogerty_intl.pdf

[Institutional Banking] "...International Monitoring believes threats to international banking could pose the greatest Y2K risk. A separate 44-page section of the statement has been submitted that covers these risks. At this point, we do not feel it is prudent to publicly discuss the detailed risks faced by international banking in a broad media forum such as the one before us today."

Every time I have a small doubt about the possiblity severity of y2k, I just re-read the transcripts from the senate hearings.

-- ******* (karlacalif@aol.com), November 13, 1999.

Shill....hmmmmm,

I was going to say Uncle Deedah, but he's too stupid. Hawk and King of Spain are morons, so I'd have to say it's Polly.

-- (Voter@thePolls.com), November 13, 1999.

Bottled Water.

I was not downplaying the importance of this forum in general. My remarks were directed at an organized government effort to spin this select group of people. I visit this forum for the same reasons that most do: * Receive valuable information on a wide variety of subjects * Share ideas, concerns, and suggestions with others, regardless of position * Like a cyber zoo where unique species can be seen under glass, so to speak

Laura.

Thanks for your kind words (pedalurgical?), I think. If I possessed any great knowledge regarding the petroleum industry my stock portfolio would be looking much healthier. I do think that this should be an area of some concern next year but we should be able to survive and move ahead.

JESSE JAMES

Swallow your piece and end your misery.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 13, 1999.

Bottled Water.

I was not downplaying the importance of this forum in general. My remarks were directed at an organized government effort to spin this select group of people. I visit this forum for the same reasons that most do:  Receive valuable information on a wide variety of subjects  Share ideas, concerns, and suggestions with others, regardless of position  Like a cyber zoo where unique species can be seen under glass, so to speak

Laura.

Thanks for your kind words (pedalurgical?), I think. If I possessed any great knowledge regarding the petroleum industry my stock portfolio would be looking much healthier. I do think that this should be an area of some concern next year but we should be able to survive and move ahead.

JESSE JAMES

Swallow your piece and end your misery.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 13, 1999.

OOPS! Sorry for the double-dip.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 13, 1999.

You people couldnt spot a 'government shill' if he sat next to you at a Y2k community conference. Confused?.

Think about this: If a prostitute wants to pick your pocket she will do it while she is giving you a blow job.

Think hard. Get it yet?.

-- think about it (thinkaboutit@doesitmatter.com), November 13, 1999.

Click here for more on government-style 'perception management'

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001lTN

-- (for@the.curious), November 13, 1999.

The individuals who persist in anti-Milne rhetoric, obviously bringing out the anti-gov individuals.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), November 13, 1999.

Thumbs up R. Wright.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), November 13, 1999.

How many shills for vendors selling "Y2k supplies" do you think post here?

-- CD (not@here.com), November 13, 1999.

Curioser:

At this late time, I don't think it matters. Maybe the shills do, but we are wiser.

Got anti-shill virus protection?

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 13, 1999.

My guess would be you @. The question is intended to sew division, to heat up the already too high adrenalan levels, to create fear. The question I have for you is, "For which government do you work?"

-- (...@.......), November 13, 1999.

As a matter of fact, I believe I want to take that quite a bit further. By the nature or your post and some of the other posts of late such as posts that appear to originate from "Christian's" and addressed to the FBI (only one example), I would have to hold out my professional opinion that there is MORE than one government and MORE than one government stooge working the people on this forum.

I think it is prudent to remind everyone yet another time that there are people in law enforcement who would not be above trying to catalogue people who they deemed spoke in a seditious manner on this board, just as there are people from within and without who would delight in pandering to panic a half informed and fearfull population.

Soon this board will receive many times as many hits per day as it has in the past. The regulars on the board (both sides) will then have their work cut out for them. That is when you folks will have an opportunity to influence many thousands of people's opinions. Will you be responsible or will you be victims of the professionals who are already posting and monitoring this forum?

Choose now, for the pros are already pushing to control this forum. I am seeing three to five times as many posts per day now as I was two weeks ago. Lots of chaff, push the hard news off the top of the page. I am seeing posts with LEGAL hooks in them, BEWARE.

I tried to post essentially this content three times this evening... two hours later it has not shown up. I was trying to start a thread with it. The thread would be titled something like, "If you KNEW you were being monitored, would you pick your words more carefully? If you KNEW some people posting were agents intent upon fomenting dissetion or collecting evidence, would you pick your words more carefully?

I don't know if that original post is going to show up on not... Like I said, tried three times. Hell, this one may not make it as well.

Be carefull folks. There be dragons here.

-- (...@.......), November 13, 1999.

??? I wouldn't think an agent peeking in every now and again would find much to be concerned about. While a lot of distrust of government is expressed here, it's diffuse and mixed with distrust of business, the media, the banking system, and everyone who disagrees.

Nor does anyone seem to be trying to organize anything at all. This place is completely disorganized. We factored off a preparation group, but I doubt it's seditious (I've never visited, though). There are some more-or-less consistent efforts to promote very vaguely paranoid points of view (this thread is itself a good illustration), but beyond sensible preparation I haven't seen anything resembling recruitment for any purpose.

My guess is the fear comes first, followed by the search for something to be afraid of. Agents? Date bugs? The NWO? The target hardly seems to matter so long as the fear gets fed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 13, 1999.

....@....

The dragons be in your head boy. More pills should do the trick.

-- Dumb (and@dumb.er), November 13, 1999.

(...@.......),

If you think you see posts with LEGAL hooks in them then let the Sysops know at y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com.

Sure dont see any on this thread. I looked.

(BTW... Anyone can do a... View Document Source... from their browser. Just dont get confused by the standard Greenspun forum s/w HTML code).

That said... ya get all kinds who post here. Thats what makes it so fascinating.

Remember the Jim Lord Pentagon Papers saga? That was a wild time.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 13, 1999.

Must be my imagination then. Thanks for setting me straight. I will leave the pills to you, thanks dummy.

-- (...@.......), November 14, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001lAb

Anyone want to agree with the person posting the above thread? That is what I mean by LEGAL hooks... Nobody asks you to sign a contract.

Any Agent in his right mind would go off on that post as threatening, hostile, and possibly seditious. Agree with it and you are on record as haveing agreed. That's what I mean by LEGAL hooks.

-- (...@.......), November 14, 1999.

I admit it...I'm the goverment shill.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), November 14, 1999.

A government shill, like "Truth", Decker, Flint ... ?? doesn't have to be on the government payroll, either as an employee or a freelancer. Regarding government, a shill is one who sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil. There are, unfortunately, millions of people who believe, "my government, right or wrong, but my government." Such people are only too glad to do what they regard as their "civic duty" and "contribute" to the support of their government with agitprop, snitching, etc., with no compensation other than a feeling of smug self-righteousnous.

-- A (A@AisA.com), November 14, 1999.

Now that we have coerced a confession out of Mrs/Miss Dodge how do we determine a fitting punishment for this crime?

-- Mr. Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), November 14, 1999.

Before this thread plays out I would like to state how honored I am to be mentioned in the same breath as Mr. Decker and Flint. It would appear that my inclusion into this small group is a result of my constant opposition to the lunatic fringe that appears to have permeated this forum. I would never consider my input to carry the weight of Flint and Decker but hopefully it has helped to balance some of the delusional BS spewed forth by the resident loonies. My substantial preps have been in place for some time and I have serious concerns regarding the upcoming problems that will occur. The greatest threat, IMHO, is the possibility that some of these psychos will be loose in society. Lock and load.

-- Truth (at@the.ready), November 14, 1999.

Ah... I see...

Affirmative or negatory hooks not of the HTML persuasion. Thanks for the clarification.

Yep. An odd one all right...

Scary Stuff here

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001lAb

BTW... Mabel's posted before and "tried" to glavanize her group.

Sometimes the government types won't be moooooved by anything outside their cubicles. (Same can be said for regular private sector businesses too!)

Bummer

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), November 14, 1999.