I'm certain it's been discussed before, but one thing should be remembered in "our" little squabbles. The above-captioned, and their cohorts, have nothing to lose. Unless there is a complete melt-down in the infrastructure, they can *always* say, "See! I told you doomers it wouldn't be *that* bad."

If things do take the Milne/North Spiral, they'll *never* have to listen to the ridicule. The venue would simply not exist.

They cannot lose.

Remember that when you are tempted to respond to them.

They cannot lose.

Zev

-- Zev Barak (zev@no.com), November 26, 1999

Answers

Flint won't lose, he has stated that he is personally prepared for just about any catastrophe -- his money is out of the banking system, he has plenty of food stored, guns and ammo, the works. He just doesn't thing that Y2K itself will be a biggie.

Decker makes noises like he sort of knows what to do if he had to, but chances are that he and the rest (who the heck is "bks"?) will be fighting over the rations like the rest of the crowd if they are wrong.

And that is the difference: All the prepared doomers, and the few prepared pollies like Flint, are prepared to be wrong. Those who are not prepared for what may come cannot afford to be wrong.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 26, 1999.

If the internet had existed in the 1930s, I wonder who the pollys would have been in Germany? If the jews in 1937 had had forums discussing whether Germany would go to war and if so, should they consider getting out of Germany, who would be the ones to ridicule and mock them? Most likely, the pollys would have been working for the Nazi party.

It has constantly amazed me in the more than two years of surfing the various Y2K forums that the one thing that is constant in all of them is the ridiculing remnant. I find it amazing because I can't understand how anyone could have so much free time on their hands that they are able to lurk on these sites literally months at a time just to poke fun. What is the point of it all? I have thought of three basic motives, and I'm sure you can come up with more:

a. They have so much time on their hands that lurking on Y2K sites even though they disagree with the views expressed somehow is more interesting than watching soap operas. b. They have serious mental problems. c. They are paid by some organization or individual to harass Y2K forums.

Could be any of the above or none of the above. But consider:

Example: A guy attends baseball games -- even though he hates baseball -- just to sit in the stands to make fun of those around him. He ridicules the baseball freaks just long enough to get hauled off by stadium cops.

Example: Columbus sails to the new world with one crew member who thinks the whole idea of finding a new trading route is ridiculous. So he spends his free time aboard ship making fun of Columbus for "sailing towards the edge." Finally, Columbus pulls the guy aside and asks him why he came aboard if he thought the voyage was doomed. The guy replies: "Because I didn't have anything better to do." Columbus countered with: "You know, I sailed with the same thought in mind. Difference is, I'm going to make it to the edge, but you won't. With that, he grabbed the guy and tossed him overboard.

Too bad we can't do that here...

rid of it

-- rid of it (ridicule@edge.com), November 26, 1999.

KOS -- You are so correct.

But I do want to comment on this entire notion of who is "right" or "wrong" about Y2K because it has become one of those weird dynamics on this forum and, I suppose, in real life.

If the doomers are right, we all lose.

If the pollies are right, we all win.

I don't want to be right. I pray I am wrong. I want all pollies to be right. Almost every doomer I have ever met wants the pollies to be right (not all -- I know AisA disagrees and a few others).

This notion that doomers get a positive adrenaline rush when bad news is reported is absurd. There is not a single scrap of verifiable good news about Y2K that I don't welcome.

I told Flint on another thread and I'll repeat here:

If we get away with just a recession last year, Flint wins, ok? Decker wins. We'll even say that Hoffy wins, though he predicts no noticeable effect.

If Y2K is TEOTWAWKI, they can still "win" for all I care. "It really wasn't the REAL end of the world." Right. Right. You WIN, pollies.

This isn't a baseball game.

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

I believe that 'bks' is Bradely K Sherman, a frequent poster on csy2k.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), November 26, 1999.

Correct, Count. bks is Mr. Sherman from csy2k.

"rid of it," I can think of no reason for them to "hang out" on this forum, or, csy2k. They do, however, seem to spend more time composing their work than most others. It could lead one to think that it *is* their work.

Zev

-- Zev Barak (zev@no.com), November 26, 1999.

If the situation goes 10+ and over the hill and Tango Uniform, then the venue will not exist. Hmm, that presents a problem for anyone who was planning to say: I TOLD YOU SO!

An *I TOLD YOU SO* in advance might not be clearly and painfully remembered and it just wouldn't have the same verbal punch.

decisions, decisions, decisions

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 26, 1999.

"rid of it":

I have been influenced greatly by the Jews in early Nazi Germany analogy in terms of Y2K, but had never extended it to consider that there were probably pollys back then that mocked any thought that things could turn "extreme". You know, like TEOTWAWKI.

One can indeed imagine the similar arguments that the pollies of that era would have made: We will muddle through, it's not the end of the world, the gov't is not lying to us, since not everyone can leave you need to stay, etc., etc.

Thanks for the illumination!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 26, 1999.

Mr. rid of it,

If the Internet had existed in the 30's, Hitler would have outlawed it.

Actually, I do want to respond to the following comment you made:

Most likely, the pollys would have been working for the Nazi party.

I personally find that comment offensive. Does that mean that just because someone has a different opinion than you makes them evil in your mind?

-- Lurking on the sidelines (Alw@ys lurking.com), November 26, 1999.

I cannot lose either, I'm in a win-win situation and so are the rest of you. I believe with my preparations and knowledge of survival, I have more than what the average Joe Blow on the street possesses. If I don't use my stash and skills for Y2K, I can use them for the big earthquake that C. Gerges keeps warning us about, or the huuricane, tornado, or floods that plagues thousands every year. As a matter of fact, Tillamook, OR is in a world of hurts right now with major flooding. If Y2K is a bust, so what, I haven't lost a thing. I didn't know that this was a pissing contest anyway.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 26, 1999.

Who is -bksie-? Brad Sherman is the king polly. Brad sets the standard. The pollies at debunkie are baby pollies compared to Brad. Babies? Nah, they're amateurs, wanna-bes, -bksie- is the real thing.

-bksie- is a professional programmer and is extremely knowledgeable. His specialty appears to be C, Unix, networking, and computational genetics but he has a wide range of interests. Although he doesn't write much about his expertise and background, I'd estimate that he is in the top couple percentile of all programmers, at least.

I suspect that -bksie- is running scared. He doesn't do large systems and is trying to get a handle on those issues. How many mainframes are there, what are they used for, etc. The clue is that -bksie- never challenges the c.s.y2k threads that discuss large systems issues. Other do, but Brad prefers to watch and wait.

I have a picture of -bksie- here scroll down to the bottom.

-- cory (kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net), November 26, 1999.

There are genuine, historical accounts of 1930's "pollys" working for German banks that were bankrolling the Nazi Party. High-level banking operatives, not counter clerks mind you, but bank presidents, board chairs and bond dealers. In fact they were also some of the people influential in getting financial backing from German industrialists for Adolph and the boys in the bund. "Herr Hitler, please meet Herr Krupp."

And when it was all said and done and Hitler was in power, they couldn't understand how it came to be that they were suddenly villianized and eventually stuffed into a box car and then on their way to some sort of camp. Today' pollys are just as equally guilty of sowing the seeds of their own destruction and of facilitating the death and destruction of millions of people around them.

And ironically the motives of both generations of pollys do have similar overtones. In the 1930's those pollys wanted to faciltate the rise to power of a government that could end the ongoing chaos of Depression-era Germany. They saw no potential for evil in the solution they embraced. Today's pollys see pending chaos and are trying to prevent its rise by stopping the "panic-inducing" behavior of the "doomer set". And in both cases they've seemingly danced with the Devil to accomplish their goals.

Will today's pollys pay as dearly as those of the 1930's?

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), November 27, 1999.

>>Most likely, the pollys would have been working for the Nazi party. <<

I find this offensive as well.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

It always boils down to semantics. What's a typical 'doomer' forecast and what's a typical 'polly' forecast for Y2k?

-- The devil is (in@the.details), November 27, 1999.

>Most likely, the pollys would have been working for the Nazi party. <<

I find this offensive as well.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

In what way?

rid of it

-- rid of it (ridicule@edge.com), November 27, 1999.

Zev and snooz button:

The Pollies can lose. "After two days with no water, they'll be drinking dog piss out of a rusty hubcap," as Milne has so vividly described it. I believe this would be enough of an 'I told you so'.

Godspeed,

-- Pinkrock (aphotonboy@aol.com), November 27, 1999.

Zev,

Good point. Usually it's only those preparing for Y2K who offer estimates on how bad Y2K's effects might be. The optimistic crowd is usually only willing to say that Y2K won't be as bad as those who are preparing think it might be--no specifics from the optimistic camp on just how well it will all turn out.

If Y2K causes significant problems early next year but not TEOTWAWKI, someone like a Mr. Decker will say, "See, it wasn't the end of the world!"--in spite of the fact that a majority of this forum aren't preparing for "the end of the world."

I'd say most here are preparing because of a significant possibility of significant problems early next year...the same reasons some people prepare for hurricanes.

Andy Ray is one of the very few who are optimistic about Y2K who has offered specific predictions for next year:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012gt

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 27, 1999.

Stating that pollies would have been Nazi's is going a bit too far nad is offensive.

Let me put it this way - during the Holocaust the Nazi's pretty much got away with it because too many people just locked their doors and just ignored the cries of their neighbors because they prepared only for themselves and did not want to help others that were not as prepared as they were.

I am NOT saying that doomers are Nazi's or helped the Holocaust along, but it just ticks me off when I hear blanket statements stating that pollies are evil - which is what you are stating.

Given the fact that things were alot different in the 30's and there were no such things as pollies or doomers then makes your entire statement ludicrous and insulting.

-- Lurking on the sidelines (Alw@ys lurking.com), November 27, 1999.

Well, let's see if we can make it simple enough for even "Lurking on the Sidelines" to grasp....

OK, we know that in the early days of Nazi Germany, Jews in general were not overly thrilled about the fact that Adolph Hitler was in power. That he considered the Jews as sub-human and depriving Germany of all it could be is pretty well documented. Since we know that a FEW Jews took it upon themselves to uproot and get the hell out of there while they still could -- BEFORE it was too late to escape the death camps -- it seems reasonable to ask why only a FEW took this option while the VAST MAJORITY did not. (Noting, of course, that if indeed the vast majority had attempted this en masse, they probably would not have been permitted to.)

I think that it is reasonable to speculate that the option of leaving Germany was probably considered by a significant number of Jews, but was ultimately rejected. Probably after a lot of heartfelt discussion with family and friends. And I suspect that the nature of those discussions would heavily parallel what we consider on this forum to be "doomer" versus "polly" discussions. You know, maybe something like:

D: "I am afraid of what is now going to happen with Hitler, I think perhaps it would be best to sell everything and head for the United States."

P: "Are you out of your gord? We have had hard times throughout all of history, don't tell me you are going to let somebody who looks like Charlie Chaplin scare you into running away!"

D: "Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you considered the evidence of how his secret police are always restricting what we can do, like they are closing in on us?"

P: "Mein Kampf is OLD data. Merely Hitler's rabble rousing to get him to power. Don't worry, the world governments would never let such a thing happen to us. What you are suggesting has hardly any chance whatsoever."

D: "I agree that the odds are low. But the stakes are high."

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 27, 1999.

Given the fact that things were alot different in the 30's and there were no such things as pollies or doomers then makes your entire statement ludicrous and insulting.

There weren't? You've got to be kidding.

-- rid of it (ridicule@edge.com), November 27, 1999.

You CANNOT equate the Holocaust to an unknown situation like Y2K! To simply make a blanket statement that all pollies and no doomers would be Nazi's is ignorant and insulting. The situation is completely different.

ROI, I simply meant those terms did not exist then. Other lables existed then.

KOS, if you hold that belief, do you feel that you will ever be able to be friends with a polly in the future?

You guys believe what you want, but just remember these blanket statements when people use them against doomers and YOU get offended.

-- Lurking on the sidelines (Alw@ys lurking.com), November 27, 1999.

KOS:

Your hindsight is great. Now, put yourself in the *real* position of such a person. Nutballs in power are rare, and what Hitler ended up doing was unheard of. You have a job at which you make a good living. Now you are looking at uprooting, leaving behind everything and everyone you know, heading to a strange (and possibly hostile) country where you don't speak the language, and where your skills and position may well be useless. You are looking at a great expense, all to live in likely poverty, your career sacrificed, a stranger in a strange land. And for all you know, you may be doing it out of nothing more than irrational fear. After all, you're a law abiding citizen doing nothing wrong.

Sure, TODAY we know it would have been worthwhile. And if I'd known then what I know now, I'd have done a LOT of things differently myself.

And just read this forum. Look at the fears being expressed of Clinton grabbing power, enforcing martial law, and doing all kinds of horrible things. You seem to share these fears. So why are you still here? Why haven't you quit your job, said goodbye to your friends and family, and headed somewhere where nobody speaks your language? You may have very little time left!

Oh, you don't, in your heart, *really* believe Clinton will do such things? Where's your hindsight NOW, O omnicient KOS? The signs are all there, you have but to read them. What are you waiting for?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 27, 1999.

Why, some of my best friends are pollies! But I wouldn't want my sister to marry one....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 27, 1999.

So what you are in essence saying, Flint, is that there is NEVER a justification for being contrarian, going against the mainstream. Any Jew who, WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT, saw enough to take a risk and escaped the Holocaust, is completely outside any realm that you can understand. Likewise, someone like Joe Kennedy who got out of the stock market two months before the '29 crash merely because he "sensed" that it was a mania that could not be sustained, is I guess also an example of out-of-the-box thinking that you cannot fathom.

I can't say with any certainty what the BEST course of action to follow for Y2K is. Neither can you. I just get tired of this constant polly propaganda that holds individual preparation for Y2K to be something weird and far-fetched in the face of government assurances that it's a bump-in-the-road. In point of fact, we have very real historical examples of people who took a contrarian view and came out ahead, while those who went with the herd ended up broke or dead.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), November 28, 1999.

Mr,. Canuck, I have seen friends of yours--cpr (frequently) and Bad Company (only yesterday)--making posts in which they equate the people on this forum to Nazis. One of cpr's favorite names for Diane is Fuhrina. Why have you not chastized them?

-- Clean up (your@own.backyard), November 28, 1999.

This is the Bad Company post you mentioned. He was backing up Y2K Pro.

...After all, 'Old' does not 'get it'. His statement above reminds one of the jackboots and storm troopers of yesteryear. In essence he states, when you join a forum, say things that will make the thought police happy...

Regards.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), November 26, 1999.

-- Old (timer@helping.out), November 28, 1999.

KOS:

No, I'm not saying there is never a reason to be a contrarian. I'm pointing out that doing so, in some cases, is extremely expensive. Yes, if you comb through history, you can find isolated cases where the cost was justified. No doubt about it, sometimes the cost *is* justified. I'm trying to say that picking those cases with foresight is one HELL of a lot harder than picking them with hindsight.

On the whole, contrarians come out behind. Even with y2k staring us in the face and the market obviously WAY overvalued, the Prudent Bear Fund has been one of the worst investments you could have made -- so far. The fact that it *might* turn out to be a great investment someday is little consolation to someone who has already lost their money. And I expect to be able (should I choose) to pick up a real cheap unused generator from some contrarian next year.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 28, 1999.