There are people who believe they have been abducted by aliens. This belief has spawned books, movies, scientific inquiry, criticism, frauds, hucksters and a host of other phenomena. The people who believe in alien abductions are quite sincere. There are folks with heavy-duty scientific degrees who consider this a real phenomena. There are conferences, internet fora, discussion boards, support groups, etc.

The people who believe in alien abductions are no less sincere than those who believe in a Y2K apocalypse. Those who believe in abductions, are marginalized by the public and the mainstream scientific community. There are, however, commonalities between the social/pyschological dynamics of both groups... and any "fringe" movement for that matter.

Please note... this is not about the alien abduction people being "wrong." They simply hold an idea that is not widely accepted. With eight days left until rollover, the Y2K "meltdown" has become a "fringe" idea. In fact, I think you'd find more folks who believe in alien abductions. (On a side note, "Fire in the Sky" was a much better movie than the recent Y2K "made for television" flop.)

If we talk a bit more about the alien abduction movement, I think you'll see more parallels. Those who believe in alien abductions believe the government is actively concealing "hard evidence." (Area 54, Roswell, etc.) They feel frauds (alien autopsy) may actually be *government plots to discredit them. They have scientific experts who they revere, and those they despise. They feel the mainstream media ignores real "events" and that only a handful of sources provide "reliable" information. I've never heared the "GI" or "DGI" language, but I imagine a few alien abduction believers feel the general public just does not "want" to understand the issue.

Like in many "non-mainstream" movements, alien abduction believers provide a high level of support and reinforcement to one another. Given the general level of public nonacceptance, it is probably reassuring to have people who "understand." Inevitably, there are people who profit from the interest... selling books, videos, magazines, etc. It is difficult to tell if the entrepreneurs are sincere believers or simple profiteers. As always, those selling the products dabble in providing "breaking news" and "inside information." Those who believe in alien abductions generally tolerate this apparent conflict of interest.

World history is full of dogged minorities who were proven right in time. The past is also littered with countless fringe groups who got it wrong. All of these groups, I imagine, were filled with a diverse range of people... bound by an idea, a vision, a prophecy, an intuitive knowledge. One might describe the early followers of Christ this way... or the followers of Jim Jones. I am sure members in each group felt they were right.

Most folks think we'll have problems with Y2K, albeit minor ones. There is a small group of people who think the problems will be far, far worse. This small group has taken on an identity, developed a language, established a culture, raised leaders and decried evil forces. It is an Internet-based sociological phenomena. If we can rise above the actual issue itself, the Y2K movement is a fascinating subject for discussion. This is also a pointed missed by some of the more strident "Pollies." The Y2K movement itself is rich, diverse collection of people... including a few who wish I'd be abducted by aliens. (chuckle) I hope this can be a thread of discussing the social psychology of small groups with alternative ideas....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999

Answers

Decker-

On my way to work, so I don't have time for a lengthy response. Suffice it to say that I used to give you the benefit of the doubt. No longer. Now I'm convinced you and Laura are perfect for each other.

BTW, it's area 51, not area 54. If you'd listen to Art Bell more often, you'd know that.

-- (cavscout@fix.net), December 23, 1999.

Agreed. Ken's become a troll. Delete this crap.

-- (mark@kethril.net), December 23, 1999.

Mr. D may been referring to Studio 54, which, as I recall, had its fair share of alien life forms hanging around.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), December 23, 1999.

What have you done eith the new, enlightened Ken Decker? This will not break out into a discussion of social psychology due to the potentially inflammatory flavor. For now, I'm only willing to proceed on the assumption that I may be witnessing one of those rare instances where the fringe was correct. I must admit that this whole "thingie" makes me feel awefully "fringie".

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), December 23, 1999.

Decker, you talk in chat about an anthropology book you're reading and now you're a sociologist! Please, I beg you, do not read Gray's!!!

I do NOT appreciate being likened to alien abduction believers and Jim Jones followers.

PS - The (chuckle) still sounds like (laughter).

-- observer (of@armchair.professionals), December 23, 1999.

Ah, it was Studio 54... and I believe alien life forms were rather common there. (chuckle) Anticipating the tide of knee jerk reactions like "Cav Scout," this is a serious post. I'm not questioning the sanity or intelligence of the Y2K "doomsayers." Au contrare, I'm suggesting one can make some interesting observations about this, particularly as an Internet-based phenomena. Any takers for real conversation?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

You're quite right, and it's a well written thread, but why post it here? Take it to a sociology forum or something. Posting it here is just trolling, regardless of your intentions.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

I'm not questioning the sanity or intelligence of the Y2K "doomsayers."

No, you just liken us to UFO nuts. Ladylogic likened us to wackos and murderers. Same result.

-- (mark@kethril.net), December 23, 1999.

Dave,

Y2K as a "day of reckoning" never made it as a "mainstream" idea. That, in and of itself, would be an interesting conversation. Do we have the capacity as a society to incorporate a transformational idea? If not, will this inability cause our eventual downfall?

Right or not, the serious Y2K debate has been marginalized. The serious pessimists do have "fringe" (or "alternative") status. We have debated the Y2K issue itself for thousands of threads. With eight days left, anyone with serious concern about Y2K is considered a little "off." The marginalization of this concern has created a social group with striking similarities to other "fringe" groups.

I think there are important lessons in this.... but it takes a willingness to step outside the moment and consider the implications. I realize this post will be imflammatory to those completely immersed in the Y2K culture. I do think there are folks who can discuss this "objectively." (A nod to BD and his general rejection of the concept.) What say?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

I am not going to discuss whether or not I personally believe in alien life. But here is just a little food for you to think about...

If the government did know of the alien life forms, do you really think that they would admit it to the population? Many if not most governments would keep it quiet for many reasons.

If the admission of alien life were to become public, entire belief systems would collapse. What would religion become? Would the people of this small planet not have real fears of the unknown beings? Everything that has been taught to us would be questioned, thus the true disconnect would begin. Governments like power over their people and such an admission would be death to that power grip.

Just something for you to think about. Now, the tie in to Y2k, that is another discussion.

-- (something@tothink.about), December 23, 1999.

Jacques Riviere (1919) once made a good point: "Intelligence is the faculty for distinquishing, for recognizing difference as difference, for perceiving two ideas, two objects, where those who are not endowed perceive only one. To think of it as being the 'genius for synthesis' is a sure sign that one wants to make it execute sleight- of-hand tricks, that one is a constructor, a reformer, a politician (one has every right to be), but not an impartial thinkier, a true defender of intelligence.

I will leave it to others to dilate the distinction between the y2k- concerned and the UFO crowd.

I understand that you might be attempting to uncover patterns, hence the "synthesis." But doesn't it strike you as intellectual frivolity or excess at this point to denigrate-by-association (with the UFO crowd) those who are sharing information about the very problems that you yourself have prepared for? *Before* we find out (and we will) who's assessments were accurate? I'm an agnostic, but a prepared one. And I stand by that.

One of the most entertaining aspects of TB2000 is watching a clever few try to intellectually have it both ways.

-- (resolved@this.point), December 23, 1999.

Interesting and quite true. No allignment with either polly or doomer on this one. This just happens to be the way it is. Ever hear those words "think outside the box", "create new paradigms"? This is an accepted process only when there is a strong connection to those INSIDE the box. Those that ascribe differant meanings to data not accepted by the mainstream are chastised, no matter what the truth ultimately reveals, unless given some sort of baptism, crowning, or some other nod of acceptance. If not given this, you sit in the backwaters of ridicule. I suspect truth and reality are loosely connected in either case.

-- John Q (agreebutcan'tstay2chat@home.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken, Yes there are many parallels to other "fringe" groups. Even the Boyscouts. Every "specialization" has it's own nomenclature and "rules", preferences, etc. You could even say the same thing about Americans in general, versus other countries.

I will agree that there seems to be a momentum that is generated by new people finding out about things (Y2K or anything else), and that enthusiasm can spill over into a vision that is not entirely grounded. I've posted here since September, and things have changed a lot even in that short time.

But in reality, that's the way it is with everything else too. There are a few people who have the subject mastered, and other's follow and participate to the degree that they can. Take the recent activity of Day-Trading. Certainly there is broad excitement about that. Yet these new "Day-Traders" have little in common with the professionals, who know their craft.

Look at sports. Everyone is an armchair quarterback, but has no idea what the work, thought, or effort required of a professional athlete, is about.

So we have varying levels of participation in any group or activity, and all of the "charateristics" you say belong to fringe groups also apply to any other group or activity as well.

The main core of this forum, seems to be comprised of individuals who long ago, contemplated the simple task of FIX ALL THE COMPUTERS or REPLACE THEM, and DO RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, BY JANUARY 1 2000.

It is a task that seems to be beyond all odds of happening. Yet, almost everyone Company, County, City, Country, Small Business, and Governmnent in the world says they fixed it! No matter when they started or how much work they had to do. Isn't that amazing?????

So still, the difference between this "fringe" group and others simply is the consequence. That either the computers we rely on are broken, or they are not. If they are broken, can they be fixed? Are there too many to fix in time? How's it really going?

The consequences are obvious if 1. - it's true we rely on them. 2. - if they are not fixed.

I guess this is a round about way of saying, What's your point?

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 23, 1999.

Mark,

You miss my point. UFO "nuts," as you describe them, do not think they are "nuts" at all. A people who have quit theirs job, dug bunkers, stocked it with five years of supplies, stashed firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo and are waiting for rollover... do not think they are "nuts." The people buying Amazon.com do not think they are nuts. The American public do not think of themselves as "sheeple" or "DGI's." In fact, outside of this small forum, if you called someone a "DGI," you'd probably get a puzzled look.

Step out of the issue for a moment, and just try to consider what I'm saying.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

Your response post to Dave didn't post before I submitted mine. I understand better from your answer to him the point of your first post. (A rather opaque point, I'd say.) Nonetheless, I believe these studies are best left for after we are in the context of the year 2000 outcomes.

-- (resolved@this.point), December 23, 1999.

To those wondering what Decker's point is: He has none. And if he did have a point the answer is still-who cares. 8 days and the word games end.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

You know how to stir up the group don't you.

The point is probably less to cause reflection than to insult because the analogy is strained.

But if we do carry your analogy to the end, Y2Kers have said there will be an abduction in January 2000 for all to witness. If there's no abduction, the group and controversy is over. If Y2K > BITR, "Payback is a bitch" - Independence Day.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

There are people who believed that slavery was right and it was accepted by the majority. This belief spawned cruelty beyond belief and a Civil War which almost decimated this country. Many of those folks were the founding fathers of our country, highly educated and esteemed in our society. They were quite sincere. They held auctions and recorded breeding and sales records. They were quite proud of their actions. Today we hold such actions in contempt.

The people who believed in slavery were no less sincere than those who don't believe in Y2K today. Those who believed in slavery were simply going along with the majority. They did not debate the issues or the humanity of the issue. They were sheeple selling people. There are commonalities between both groups.

Please note~ This is not about slavery being wrong (It is!). They held an idea which was widely accepted. With only eight days left until rollover, Y2K as a non event has become widely accepted. Please note that "Roots" was a very popular series..more so than the Y2K movie that was just released.

If we talk a little about the slavery issue, I'm sure you'll see many parallels. Those who supported slavery had the government's backing and support. Those who fought against it (e.g. the underground railroad) were actively persecuted and hunted down by the government and its agents. They were badmouthed by the majority and in most papers. The majority ignored the harsh conditions under which the slaves lived and then refused to face the idea that it was inherently wrong to own another human being. But I imagine that quite a few people in the majority believed the minority who supported such outlandish claims as humanity for the slaves, just didn't want to "get it". They didn't understand the "issues" involved.

Like many in the majority they had immense support and reinforcement from the government and "the people". Inevitably and need I say obviously there were people who profited from this slave trade. Given the general level of public acceptance, it was reassuring to have the majority of folks support you in your ideas (no matter how vile and erroneous they were). It was difficult to determine who were the sincere believers and who were the profiteers. As always, those profiting the most were the ones who pandered to the lowest common denominator of human greed and need (to keep the economy rolling). Those who do not believe in Y2K or refuse to examine the material, generally accept this conflict of interest.

World history is replete with cases where the majority was proven wrong in time. It is also filled with countless minority cases which were proven right. The former groups were filled with a diverse group of people, bound by need and greed to maintain the status quo. One might describe the early slave owners and fascists this way. I know that their members believed that they were correct in their beliefs.

A minority of folks believe that Y2K will be more than a BITR. Most folks think it will be a non-event. The majority has used disinformation, information suppression, "couched" language (I did not have sex with that woman!), outright lies, manipulation of data, and fabrications. It is a human phenomenon that should be viewed in its entirety. When it begins at the top, it shows the decay of a society. If we can rise above the petty allusions offered sometimes in this forum, we can have an "honest" discussion. This is a point often missed by most of the "pollies" who still attend here. The Y2K movement is filled with interested, educated and concerned individuals including a few who wish Decker could be "sold" off to the highest bidder (chuckle). I hope this can be a thread of discussing the social psychology of large groups who seek to impose their ideas upon the minority...

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

I've been reading some of your reponses and I was struck by your devotion to this group to save us from our dementia.

You are obviously an articulate educated person. As such I would speculate that you would have many other pursuits to attend. Ones that enriched you and your family or provided additional income.

Just to step into your shoes for a moment, I'm trying to find the motivation to save other groups from themselves. Come 'on Ken tell us why you'd rather be here than doing whatever else it is you do???

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

TRANSMISSION TO STATIONARY MOTHERSHIP: The Decker unit seems to be functioning at an increasingly marginal level, suggestions?

TRANSMISSION TO EARTH STATION: He needs adjustment, implant possibly malfunctioning...rectal probe also advised. Give him a false pregnancy too, we've never tried that with one of the males.

TRANSMISSION TO STATIONARY MOTHERSHIP: We will obey, Decker unit will be modified as per orders, over.

-- Die hairless monkeys, die! (EBE@CloserThanYouThink.com), December 23, 1999.

A few points... I think the government is rather bad at keeping secrets. As for the incentives of corroborating alien life... I can see argument from both perspectives. I do think a primary concern would be analysis of the alien biology, or if available, their technology. For optimal results, this would require participation from those outside the military-government system. On the subject of religion, who's to say we are the only entities who have a "God" or "Gods?" I doubt Christians, Jews or Muslims would abandon their faith at the first sight of alien intelligence.

As to Riviere, it is Mark's point with an intellectual veneer. To wit, we're not the "UFO nuts."

Gregg, thanks for a thoughtful post, but allow me a few points. "All" computers did not need "fixing" nor did they need to be fixed "right the first time." In reality, some hardware, software and embedded systems were designed with truncated date processing. For some of these systems, date processing is important. Some organizations depend on some of these systems. Of the organizations who have these systems and rely on them, a decision had to be made... replace, remediate or retire. Many firms have successfully replaced these systems. Many firms have successfully remediated these systems including testing. A few firms simply retired systems... perhaps chosing to end a particular external or internal process. Some firms have decided to simply wait and make a decision based on the results of the actual rollover. This is a dangerous gamble, but business decisions often are. Of those who are "fixing on failure," some will successfully remediate problems. Some will not. Of the firms who fail to fix on failure, they will have several choices. Emergency replacement, manual workaround, third party contracting for services, merger/acquisition and bankruptcy to name a few. Most firms will fight for their economic survival using every means necessary. Inevitably, some will fail. Some of those who fail will be purchased by firms whose computers are functioning. Some will simply cease to exist. In my opinion, this is a more accurate portrayal of the situation.

As for consequences, the existence of aliens presupposes a technology capable of interstellar travel. This is far more hopeful (or frightening) then a computer problem. Let's hope they're friendly and really tolerant of poor behavior.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

To carry on further...

You wrote 33 line post. It was well written, articulate, coehisieve (sp), etc. It must have taken alot of time and thought. Why do you spend so much to with us??

I'm trying conjure your thought process. "We'll, I can spend some time with my family, go fishing, prepare for Xmas, call my parents.... Naaah. I think I'll get on the internet and shake some sense or otherwise tease a forum community I don't agree with"

What other groups do you provide this service to?? Christian religions maybe - they're alot of unsubtantiated principles at work there too. Tell us Ken.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

The difference between Y2K and your chosen topic today is that the government is not spending $50 million on a center to track abductions:

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

"U.S. showcases $50 million Y2K Center"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), December 23, 1999.

Good one, Link!

Why isn't instant karma more instanter than it is?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 23, 1999.

Gary has a good point Ken.

So, your response to needing to fix the computers is that some didn't need to fixed? Like who????????

And except those planning to FOF, you accept the fact that EVERYONE says there are ready and fixed?

You also say that many fixed or replaced their systems. Like who???? Care to name those who are running these new, fixed systems right now with no problems? That would imply of course, that they'd had at least a year for testing. Can you name more than 10 businesses that started earlier than 1997?

By the way, name 1 Company that's done end to end testing. (requiring a parallel system)

-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 23, 1999.

Linkmeister,

Are you saying Area 51 cost less than $50 million???? (g)

Ken,

I would appreciate a response to my inquiries. You started this thread with a thinly veiled insult by equating us with people who believe in alien abduction. You also equated the people who first followed Christ and those who followed Jim Jones. Very very insulting to Christians especially so close to Christmas.

You are a contrdiction. You are intelectually deep but you actions are so shallow. The people here choose to be here for personal gain (information and comradery (sp)). The only possible personal gain for you is.....???

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Ynott,

Not a bad post... but I can see your slip showing. Slavery is an issue of moral philsophy, not of science. Should one person have the right to own another? More correctly phrased, to what extent shall our liberty be infringed by another?

The existence of aliens is a scientific issue. It the data exists, it can be proven. The Y2K problem is scientific. A given program, chip or device will or will not fail on rollover. We can examine a given element of IT infrastructure and test it for compliance. We can test an alien body to determine if it truly "not of our world." Unless someone can make a genetic argument for slavery (and I imagine it has been tried), we are talking apples and oranges.

Those who did believe in slavery have been proven wrong over time, mostly by the advance of moral philosophy. Americans now believe freedom is a right to be shared by all... not based on science or data, but philosphy. (Pretty neat stuff.)

As Ynott points out, the majority is sometimes terribly wrong... and often persecutes the minority. The Holocaust is another good example. For the most part, however, I find it difficult to see any undue suffering among the Y2K pessimists. I do see an excellent parallel between the early Abolitionists and the Y2K pessimists... and I think the dynamics of "fringe" groups applies equally. You see, my point was not about the "right" or "wrong" of the group, but of the sociological phenomena.

Like many fringe groups, a sense of persecution is common. While people were punished for harboring slaves, I have yet to see bloodhounds trailing folks who bought a ton of canned goods from Costco. The KIA ads constitute some ribbing but overall, those preparing for a Y2K catastrophe have faced little interference.

Like the UFO believers, the Y2K pessimists have made their case and received a significant public hearing of their ideas. These ideas have not been accepted. The failure to move into the mainstream may have created dynamics similar to those of other fringe groups.

Oh, and for the record, the majority is not always wrong. We still have small fringe groups like the KKK fighting for ideas that are rightly rejected by the majority. When Ynott starts talking about the majority, we see a high level of disenfranchisement. What quickly follows are the accusations of "disinformation, information suppression and 'couched' language,' lies, etc." I think the data supporting a "disinformation" campaign is pretty weak. What is more interesting... Ynott does not consider the possibility the majority is "right." He (or she) is firmly entrenched in the Y2K culture where only one view is "right" and anyone who does not accept this view is stupid, apathetic or on the payroll.

Gary... I'm not trying to "save" anyone from anything. I'm just talking about an interesting point.

As for Y2K being real... I agree. I've never suggested it's an imaginary problem, though I do think a small group of people have taken an extreme view of the potential impacts. As for the reality of UFOs, I'll refer you to the experts in the field who take them quite seriously.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

[As to Riviere, it is Mark's point with an intellectual veneer. To wit, we're not the "UFO nuts."]

"..we're not the UFO nuts." Cool, Ken. You're catching on. (As I said, I leave it to others to make the distinction, as I knew they would.)

And interesting you should bring up intellectual veneer. ;-)

What I find so interesting is that your preps suggest you agree there exists a potential for y2k problems. Yet you expend so much energy trying to dissociate yourself from your own seeming conclusions, (conclusions evidenced by your preps).

Why such intellectual self-consciousness? Is this the first time you've found yourself agreeing with a minority viewpoint that differs from mainstream-America, and you have some deep-subcortical fear that this puts you in league with all other cultists?

-- (resolved@this.point), December 23, 1999.

Gary,

Obviously, you do not find my essay very interesting. Fine. You are free to move onto other issues... just as I am free to dispose of my leisure time as I see fit. The purpose of my post was not to rattle your cage. I simply want to talk about a different facet of Y2K.

Actually, I don't consider the alien abduction analogy an insult. I was asking people to think about "fringe" movements... small groups of people who have an idea or belief outside the mainstream. The original followers of Christ were a radical sect who were clearly outside the Roman/pagan mainstream. What a difference two thousand years make.

Your sense of insult is predicated on two elements. You feel the Christians were right and the Jones' followers were wrong. You also seem to feel a sense of membership with the former and not the latter.

In this discussion, I'm asking people to step outside of this narrow view and ask, "What might these small groups have in common?" "What does this tell us about the dialectic between the "fringe" and the "mainstream." For me, it's interesting... though I do apologize if you feel offended.

Linkmeister,

A rather shallow comment... And while you received a tongue-in-cheek follow-up, the UFO experts claim the gov't has spent vast sums on secret UFO projects. This is apart from public spending on SETI and other "extraterrestial" projects.

http://www.seti-inst.edu/funding/Welcome.html

http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/Science/SETI/

Greg,

Proving the negative never loses it luster for the serious pessimist. I can refer to thousands of reports from companies claiming Y2K readiness. Then you'll say you personally have not seen their reports. Then you'll say they are self reports. Then you'll say the third party testing was nonexistent or inadequate. We have another eight days to play this "dog catching its tail" game. After that, I'll simply tell you look for the firms who are failing due to Y2K problems... It will be much easier to count than the working firms.

The vast majority of systems sold during the past few years are Y2K compliant... chips, hardware, software. Vendors have made a massive effort to provide patches or fixes or replacements for older noncompliant systems. Firms have spent billions on fixing this. Go to any major news search engine and look under Y2K. You'll found thousands of companies who've gone to the trouble of announcing Y2K readiness. Most small firms don't bother. They just fix problems and move ahead.

Oh, I will take your request to Debunker. They love making lists. (chuckle)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Thanks Ken,

This thread is the best laugh I've had all week. Your sense of humor is great!

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), December 23, 1999.

"Resolved,"

First, my so-called "preps" are simply a frugal lifestyle. I haven't made any special personal preparations for rollover, aside from buying some extra wine. My position does require me to worry about rollover for a small community, but hey, it comes with the job.

I've always said Y2K will have an impact... and I have advised people "prep" for a recession. This excludes bunkers and grenade pits. My bone of contention has always been with the Y2K extremists. We simply disagree on the magnitude of impact. Oh, and how they generally seem to reach their conclusion.

As a libertarian (of sorts), I live a minority viewpoint. It doesn't really bother me... as you can tell from my continued presence on this forum. Now, Hallyx-alike, if you're done with the nickel psychology perhaps we can talk fringe groups.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Ken: "Gary... I'm not trying to "save" anyone from anything. I'm just talking about an interesting point."

If your motivation was "talking about interesting point(s)" we do need Mr. Spock (an alien) to compute the mind numbing probability that nearly every post you make would be contrary to the doomers. Fascinating!

Since you won't give me an genuine answer I will conclude that the understood reason for your presence in this formum is not genuine either.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Gary,

First, I owe you absolutely no explanation. Zero. It's a libertarian thing, so I'm not sure you'll completely understand. Second, it's not exactly a "news flash" that I don't agree with the serious pessimists. Ergo, many of my posts disagree with the extreme Y2K viewpoint. The people who aren't busy puzzling out my "motives" can actually be pretty interesting. (Now that, Gary, is a thinly veiled insult.) There are people on this forum who think I raise excellent issues. Obviously, you do not. So why gum up this thread with your personal quest for inner psyche. Run along and find a group of people who agree with you and chat like magpies.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Ken, Enjoyed your thread,A British psychologist,RD Lang maintained that what passes for normality in the USA is actually aberation but becuse the ideas are held collectivly they appear as,or are accepted as normal. To find the truth one must often research the edges of perception ( the unaccepted or unorthodox) All new ideas have found resistance by the "normals" As denial seems to be the normal reaction to new truth or evidence outside the experience of most "normals" I think the debunkies are locked into this mode.And perhaps you also have fallen victim to ridigity. In science as in the real world change rules and those clinging to out dated views or speculations are left at the dock while the boat sails on. As far as the UFO's are concerned. Col. Corso,head of R and D for DOD went public shortly before his recent death,stating that fiber optics, silicon chips, night vision devices and other secret breakthroughs are all a result of reverse engineering of downed alien craft. The vehement resistance to potential systemic failure by those militant debunkers in the face of mountains of evidence appears to be perfectly "NORMAL" but not necessarily true or realistic. In the words of the FIRE SIGN Theater,Everything you know is wrong!With out this approach one is doomed to repeat the normal errors. enjoy the holidays Ken, as these are the good old days.

-- Merek (merek@aloha.net), December 23, 1999.

When the shoe is on the other foot, it is a tad uncomfortable, eh Decker? I took your post apart paragraph by paragraph and showed the flip side. If it had holes, they were of your own making.

You look through a mirror darkly.

I have given this alot of thought and as long as I'm here, I guess I'll share what I have discovered:

Unless someone has shown an ability to harm me or my family...or my country, I find it very difficult to get involved in a diatribe against them beyond, "I don't see it your way...or You're wrong!" I certainly would not continue trying to dissuade them of their erroneous beliefs or ways on a continual basis. That is more telling then of me than of them.

Decker, more than your slip is showing on this one. You have chosen to "bait" this forum with ludicrous analogies which do not hold up to the light of day. The proof is in the pudding. We'll know soon enough. You and your polly friends have a few screws loose if you'll pardon the expression (chuckle) to continually come back here and attempt to "educate" us to your way of thinking. I can only conceive of a deluded mentality at work, a disinformation officer, or a person with waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on his hands to coninuously return to a forum in a blatant attempt to change our opinions.

As I said earlier, we are not attempting to overthrow the government or shoot you or yours in the back.....so what could possibly be your interest in this forum? I see no logic in your "thread"...when reversed it shows itself for what it is...a thinly veiled attempt to inflame this forum.

There is nothing scientific or logical about this analogy at all. It is offensive in that it portrays us all as "fringe" elements. You use the word often. You label us. You denigrate us. Then you say, but no (chuckle) not so! You need to examine your motives, Ken. You have more issues here than I can examine.

You enjoy the limelight. You are egocentrically driven to the extent that you will take the "con" side of an issue and join a forum to spout your rhetoric against a large group of people whose ideas differ from your own. You enjoy the attention. My, but it begins to make sense now. You have no logical reason to be here....yet you continue to come. You don't wish intelligent debate. You demand a spotlight. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.......well, I guess I finally understand you and the other pollies now.

This thread has been most illuminating.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), December 23, 1999.

Decker, I think we just got patronized. Thank you for sharing.

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken, No I didn't find your essay interesting. On the other hand I do find you quite interesting (and good).

You have perfected that art of assuming the sincerity of an honest humble man in search of the truth. In doing so, you can always retreat to this mantle when confronted with the absurdity of your presence.

You find it interesting to challenge the forum to step out of the fringe and take a "honest" view of themselves. In this way we might....What, find truth, self actualization or the Powerball number for Saturday night maybe.

I find this forum interesting for the FRL's, Mr. Beanfang (sp),etc. and the Y2K information. I also like the intellectual challenge of confronting others like yourself that, in my opinion, are not what they appear.

I invite you to do the same as you have challenged us. Step back for a moment and picture yourself. Why do come into the forum giving of yourself. One idea (among others) is that you get satisfaction out of appearing (to yourself) intelectually superior to the rest. That is why you brought up the alien abduction analogy.

People who believe in alien abductions are not very well though of by most people (this is obvious). This is the contrieved context in which you placed us. At that point when forum members react, you piously point out that the followers of Jim Jones and Christ really are philosophical equals if you (we) have the intellectual capcity to recognise this. And, that slavery was morally wrong and scientificly silient (this is where you ran for the honest humble man in search of the truth mantle).

Come 'on Ken, why do you come here???

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Brother Decker is playing this thread like a cello.

Chamber music for the third millenium?

-- Sam (Wtrmkr52@aol.com), December 23, 1999.

[Now...perhaps we can talk fringe groups.]

Yes, I daresay you would like to talk about fringe y2k groups. How conveniently that would suit your purposes.

But such was not the object of your intial post. In your initial post you polarized people into two groups: Those who thought it might be a bitr (you and yours, right?) and those who think it might be "far far worse." Nothing in between. In so doing, you tacitly, but summarily categorized those with prudent concerns of y2k being anything other than a bitr as extremists.

Now that you've been politely ushered into a corner by cogent arguments from many, I can see why you would LIKE the shifting focus of your argument to be about "fringe groups" only.

For somebody who purports to be against labels, you have a handy way of painting all-with-one-brush when it suits your rhetorical purposes.

-- (resolved@this.point), December 23, 1999.

---

"...It is an Internet-based sociological phenomena..."

No, Ken you've wholly missed the point, again.

(You pay your good money. You send them to school. And they come back no better off than the day they started.)

And to think of all the missed opportunities you've had here reading and posting.

----Let me help you Ken (I'll be brief):

TB2000 is an Internet Community working to find solutions to a common problem.

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

Merek, finally, a decent response. Thanks.

Ynott, close, but no cigar. Your post twisted to and fro, but needed some help to make a lucid point. Perhaps the next time you'll be less interested in being so clever. The early Abolitionist are an excellent example of a small fringe group. So are the early Christians. For most posters, these groups are more "appealing" than the alien abduction folks, but the dynamics are similar.

Pick your fringe group, the analogy to Y2K extremism is not so far fetched. The true Y2K extremists are a small group of like minded individuals who feel persecuted for their beliefs. They believe they have knowledge the rest of the world does not share. They also feely utterly confident in their belief. They communicate with one another in language that reflects their marginalized status. This langauge includes words that portray "outsiders" in a negative light. They rail against the general public for their lack of "awareness." They share a strong feeling their belief will be vindicated and that those who did not listen to them will suffer consequences.

Your own reaction demonstrates my point.

This is a marketplace of ideas. If you don't like my ideas, fine. Scroll on. If my efforts are useless, the cost is mine, not yours. Personally, I feel divergent opinions add to the strength of the forum. You, however, seem to feel the only possible alternatives are questionable motives on my part. As with Gary, I have no need to justify my motives to you. On the "overthrow" the government, I'll refer you to Gary North who's stated goal is to institute an Old Testamant theocracy.

The logic on my thread is clear, but you cannot see it. Most probably because you are steeped in the Y2K culture. If you can move beyond feeling personally attacked, you might see the inherent issue. How do we, as a culture, address fringe movements? Are there internal dynamics to the fringe movements that reinforce behavior? When and how do fringe movements go "mainstream?" What happens when a group is formed on a predicted event... and the event never happens?

On a personal note, I've stayed on this forum for a couple of reasons. I've received emails from people who appreciate my presence. In addition, some extremists have tried to run me off using some nasty tactics. I'm here until after rollover, to some extent out of principle.

Oh, using your analogy, Ynott, I'm glad the early Christians and the early Abolitionists were "egocentric" enough to swim against the tide. We'll see who's right in the next couple of months.

Gary, let me refer you to the last paragraph of my response to Ynott. Sometimes, not often, the minority voice is vindicated. I'm wagering I'll be vindicated on this forum next year.

As for you second statement, again, I refer you to my earlier words. I'm here, partly because of a stiff neck. I might have lost interest, but after being called every name in the book (plus two), who could resist? I've stuck with it since March... and at some point I knew I was in for the long haul. If you've actually read my many posts, you know I've covered moderate preps and all other matter of subjects. Not every essay has been a gem, but they've usually provoked decent dialogue.

Moving on, here's a bit of advice... Y2K extremists are not very well thought of by many people. Right or not, the mainstream media generally portrays people like Paul Milne as a few sandwiches short of a picnic. When you have extremists gloating about the death of "Pollies," your not on the fast track to popularity. Oh, almost forgot the famous "death pool."

If you read my response, I'm not saying Christ's followers and Jones' followers are "philosophical equals." I'm saying they were both small fringe groups. One went "mainstream," the other died. A Christian might suggest one movement involved the Son of God, and the other did not... and this explains the different outcomes. Even if you share this belief, most "fringe" groups share common dynamics.

Ah, now onto "Resolved." You miss my point... deliberately or not. There is a continuum of concern about Y2K. At one end is an extreme. This is what I'm talking about... not the people who make modest preparations or have moderate concerns. I'm talking about the bunker diggers. If you don't want to get painted with a broad brush, stop jumping in front of it.

Snooze... here's a prescription for reality pills. TB 2000 has been an interesting place, but how many software or hardware fixes did it produce? How much money did it spend on remediation? TB 2000 has probably done some good for people who want to prepare... but it's also impacted a tiny fraction of the real world. Y2K will come and go and in a few years, no one will know this forum existed aside from a handful of folks.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

Specious. You remind me of Andy Ray. Someone dissect that kind of polly above-it-all thought process will you, I'm ready for a nap.

Patiently,

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 23, 1999.

The true Y2K extremists are a small group of like minded individuals who feel persecuted for their beliefs. They believe they have knowledge the rest of the world does not share. They also feely utterly confident in their belief. They communicate with one another in language that reflects their marginalized status. This langauge includes words that portray "outsiders" in a negative light. They rail against the general public for their lack of "awareness." They share a strong feeling their belief will be vindicated and that those who did not listen to them will suffer consequences.

Gee, that sounds a lot like ... libertarians! Didn't you claim to be a libertarian more than once, Ken? If so, how do you explain your adherence to such a "cult"?

Here's a clue, Ken: just because others disagree with us, that doesn't mean we are wrong. If that were the case, every innovator would, by definition, be wrong, because to innovate you have to come up with an idea that others haven't thought of yet, and therefore don't agree with. Going by "consensus reality" means no innovations and therefore no progress.

Nice try at tarring us with the UFO brush, but no cigar. Thanks for playing, though!

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 23, 1999.

Reports of (and arguments about) UFO's and/or alien abductions are hardly "an Internet phenomenon," but predate it by several decades at least. Those familiar with events in this arena are divided (much as has happened with Y2K) between denial and acknowledgement, with all gradations between. This debate was going great guns before the WordWide Web entered the world.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

Ah, "Ego Boy" Steve Heller....

Here's a tip... if you are going to win the Nobel Prize, you've got to learn to read. "Fringe" groups are sometimes proven right. I give two examples you might or might not agree with... the early Abolitionists and the early Christians. Christianity is pretty mainstream and most folks are firmly against slavery.

As for libertarians, I hardly think they are "persecuted." As for being right, I doubt we'll find out in my lifetime.

The Y2K extremists may be right. The good news... we WILL find out in my lifetime. Unlike the murky world of political philosophy, systems will or will not work. We will fix them... or not. You will be right... or I will be right. Stay tuned.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

WorldWide Web, right?

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

Ah, "Ego Boy" Steve Heller....

Ah, "Insufferable pedant" Ken Decker...

Here's a tip... if you are going to win the Nobel Prize, you've got to learn to read. "Fringe" groups are sometimes proven right. I give two examples you might or might not agree with... the early Abolitionists and the early Christians. Christianity is pretty mainstream and most folks are firmly against slavery.

Sorry, Decker, no dice. Your examples are of groups whose beliefs cannot be "proven" right (or wrong, for that matter), as they are matters of faith or morality, not science. How would you "prove" Christianity correct, or slaveholding incorrect? Only by moral or religious arguments, which can be disputed endlessly. On the other hand, predictions of and mitigation of the damage to be done by Y2K, which will be either validated or invalidated by objective events, are not the material of a cult, no matter how many times you claim this is the case.

As for libertarians, I hardly think they are "persecuted."

Really? They aren't permitted to live their lives as they see fit, even though they aren't harming others. Sounds like persecution to me. But I guess you wouldn't know about that.

As for being right, I doubt we'll find out in my lifetime.

For the same reason we won't find out whether Christianity is "right"; it's not subject to empirical proof.

The Y2K extremists may be right. The good news... we WILL find out in my lifetime. Unlike the murky world of political philosophy, systems will or will not work. We will fix them... or not. You will be right... or I will be right. Stay tuned.

And that is precisely the reason your examples are irrelevant, even the UFO example, which could be proven right (but not wrong); Y2K, on the other hand, will resolve itself in the open for all to see.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 23, 1999.

"Y2K will come and go and in a few years, no one will know this forum existed aside from a handful of folks." --Ken Decker

So, what?

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 23, 1999.

Take me to your lederhosen.

-- (hornyalien@german.landingsite), December 23, 1999.

Ken:

I think you missed one kep characteristic of the kind of fringe groups your talking about. They tend to be impervious to contraindications, either "forgetting" about them, or postponing or reinterpreting them. Remember the Heaven's Gate people who bought a telescope to see the alien ship behind the comet they saw with binoculars. But the telescope "didn't work" because it showed no ship. So they returned it and went back to binoculars because those still worked.

Some groups have marched up to hilltops to await the predicted end of the world multiple times. But the sun rose normally, so they postponed it until the next prediction came along. They got the essential stuff right, they were just a little off on the timing each time.

Y2K has probably set an alltime record for failed predictions. I divide these into two categories: technical and social.

Technical predictions involved problems with Jan 1, 99, with the 9's problems, with FY problems, with JAE, with badly remediated code slammed back into production, with new implementations, with the GPS rollover, with all the lookaheads code performs, and with predictions that remediation couldn't make a dent in the problem.

Social predictions included bank runs, severe shortages, market crashes, skyrocketing prices, people heading for the hills, $500/hour COBOL programmer prices, key people bailing in droves, etc.

Presumably, there was some basis in fact for all of these predictions. When all of them so far have proven wildly wrong (and often the opposite of what was predicted), you would expect rational people to begin to question fundamental assumptions. After all, for these predictions to have been so universally wrong, something must be amiss with the "basis in fact" that was presumed. A clear pattern has emerged.

What's interesting are the people whose belief systems are impervious to, and unchallenged by, the observed reality. I've said it before -- there are those who would much rather be certain than be right. And even when clearly wrong, they choose to cling to their certainty, defending it ever more virulently as events ignore them and pass them by.

One of my motivations for sticking around here is to see how their justification for their convictions evolves. I wonder how many will be like poor Patrick (on another thread), whose nutball theory requires runaway inflation which isn't happening, and his justification is that it really *is* happening, but the government is keeping it a secret from us! I wonder how many here will claim y2k really *is* a disaster, but evil forces are disguising it somehow?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

Decker's "community" Y2K Readiness Statement.

http://www.carr.lib.md.us/hampstead/page22.html

"Town of Hampstead Officials have taken steps to ensure that the "millennium bug" doesn't cause an interruption of critical Town services when the calendar turns to January 1, 2000. The "millenium bug", or "Y2K" as it is also called, is a programming flaw that could cause some time-sensitive computer systems to malfunction at the turn of the century."

"Hampstead Officials have appointed a Y2K coordinator and approved a Year 2000 Readiness/Risk Assessment Plan to assess the extent of which municipal computer systems will be affected by the "millenium bug", and will attempt to fix those that are susceptible before any consequences are felt."

"The nature of the "millennium bug" problem requires that not only must the Town of Hampstead make sure that all of its computer systems are "Y2K-compliant", but also those of the vendors, business partners, and allied agencies that it relies upon to provide supplies and services. We are confirming this information with all these entities."

"Town of Hampstead officials have also developed contingency plans to handle problems that arise from computer systems that malfunction due to Y2K. While the current efforts being undertaken should prevent any serious problems from surfacing, Hampstead officials want to be adequately"

****************************************************************

I'm sure the citizens of Hampstead are relieved that with only 8 days to go "Hampstead Officials have appointed a Y2K coordinator and approved a Year 2000 Readiness/Risk Assessment Plan to assess the extent of which municipal computer systems will be affected by the "millenium bug", and will attempt to fix those that are susceptible before any consequences are felt."

However, the last sentence in the last paragraph is a little confusing. "While the current efforts being undertaken should prevent any serious problems from surfacing, Hampstead officials want to be adequately..." Adequately What? adequately vague? adequately incompetent? adequately embarrassed?

Maybe Ken should spend more time managing his city (and proofing his web page) and less time at TB2000.

-- MoVe Immediate (MVI@yepimhere.com), December 23, 1999.

Hey Flint -- is your bunker still open? How's the 2 years worth of food holding out? When ya gonna put your money back? Target practice with your wife again today? Tell us Flint, waste some more bandwidth before the light go out.

-- Preach what you practice (flint@is.flakey), December 23, 1999.

Preach:

Do you really think that if you attack me, those failed predictions will magically go back and come true? Or are you just frustrated?

Hey, I personally expected a LOT more problems during 1999 than we've seen. I predicted that by midyear there'd be a y2k segment on every news show telling of the failures that day. I predicted insurance policies couldn't be written for a while. I predicted visible problems on Jan 1 99. I predicted a DJIA about 4000 points below what it is today. And all of these predictions were wrong, because I overestimated the problem.

So I've gone back and reassessed things trying to understand where I got off track. Have you?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 23, 1999.

MoVe Immediate,

:-D

-- (TrollPatrol@sheesh.now), December 23, 1999.

Hello Flint, Ken; Well you've stirred the pot again... Didn't get a discussion of fringe groups going either... too bad.

So why does Ken post? That might be an interesting thread anyone want to start that one? Another might be why do the pollys so want the doomers to change thier minds? What is the motivation, why should they care? Are they over on the 'alien abduction' board trying to get those folks to change their opinions? Not likely.

So why do thay care? Flint is a geek who has taken the stand that it won't be as bad as he first thought. Ken, has a whole town waiting to see if he got it right? Both of them are here because they hope they did get it right.

They argue these points to reassure themselves that they do have it right. Ken does seem to be one to enjoy stirring the pot and seeing who boils then exercising an admittedly excellent pen in casual and well veiled insult. This behavior is akin to masturbation. If nobody else will tell him how good he is, he will establish his superior writing skills and tell himself.

Ken, is a fringe group. He has a personality disorder. It is called narcissism.

Flint on the other hand is quite sincere and simply seeks reassurance on this forum that his change of heart was a correct decision.

There's your five cents worth, Ken.

-- (...@.......), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

You did NOT start this thread addressing the extremist dynamic of y2k culture. You did NOT talk about bunkers and armaments and the such. You tried to indict the entire y2k concern as a whole.

Then you slyly attempted to reframe the entire conversation to BE about extremist fringe when you got into trouble. Looks to me to be an attempt to parley those who objected to your initial assertion into a seeming-position of being extreme cultists. Clever.

Street vernacular for that particular game that is 'bait and switch.'

It's a chump's game. Hoodwinked before, and I will likely be again.

-- (resolved@this.point), December 23, 1999.

Flint- at least Decker knows that the fat lady has yet to sing.

Gary- good job, "ya' got him on the run baby"

Decker- LOL :) Thanks :)

All- 8 more days 'till the big one. Never in history has such an event been so accurately predicted. 12/31/99 (and probably never in history have so many idiots gotten their way about something that is so obviously wrong -this being the end of the millennium and all...)

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken, Most people in this forum don't think there will be a Y2K apocalypse (me included). However, I would hazard a guess that a majority of the most vocal on the forum beleive the apocalypse begins next weekend.

My thoughts were not shaped by a preceieved personal attack by you. On the contrary, I've come to the conclusion you are unaware of the consequences of your statements.

I'm a poor excuse for a practicing Christian. I attend church three times a year not counting weddings and funerals. Tommorrow night will be one of the three. You need to appreciate the callousness of equating the early followers of Christ with Jim Jones.

Jim Jones was a megalomaniac who murdered a US Congressman and convinced his followers to commit suicide because they were going to be recognised for what they were by the outside world bringing his cult to its end.

Christ died on the cross to give his followers ever lasting life. Since then the word of God has been spread throughout the world and is the basis for western democracies - "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (LOL) Rights,...."

I could not let go unchallenged the suggestion that Christ and his message could draw no better than Jim Jones.

And yes your motivations do count. To me you're still a contradiction.

Merry Christmas, Ken. And Happy New Year!!!

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Ken,

The post I'm quoting passed me by and it contained many unseasonal statements. Nonetheless I stand by my early Holiday wishes.

"First, I owe you absolutely no explanation. Zero. It's a libertarian thing, so I'm not sure you'll completely understand."

My statements should not have been preceieved as a demand but a challenge. If you can't answer the challenge, so be it. You followed with an insult instead of an answer therefore the truth does will not bolster whatever it is you are doing.

"Second, it's not exactly a "news flash" that I don't agree with the serious pessimists. Ergo, many of my posts disagree with the extreme Y2K viewpoint. The people who aren't busy puzzling out my "motives" can actually be pretty interesting. (Now that, Gary, is a thinly veiled insult.)"

Yes I know Ken. But you told me to bug off, that you were merely discussing an "interesting point". This means position is not important only the topic need be interesting. As such I figured the odds astronomical that you are continually contrary to the majority. That's just a intellectual literal thing you obviously did not understand.

"There are people on this forum who think I raise excellent issues. Obviously, you do not. So why gum up this thread with your personal quest for inner psyche. Run along and find a group of people who agree with you and chat like magpies."

Sorry to ruin your private cyber admiration society but I can come here and post with the same freedom as you. In fact there's probably people out there who think I'm doing an excellent job too. If you don't like the critiques get out of the kitchen. Also, not so veiled insult. The issue I raised is that you are an intellegent articulate man hanging out in a forum conversing with people you continually slight. This is not normal behavior. When we get to this point you start this dismissive routine dressed up in some libertarian clothing.

Although with less enthusiasim...Happy Holidays.

-- gary (a@a.com), December 23, 1999.

Hmmm... busy thread. Steve, there are numerous examples of fringe groups who have been proven wrong on a scientific basis. They simply refuse to believe the factual evidence. As for Y2K, I think we'll be sorting out what happened for years. We cannot agree on what caused the Great Depression. I doubt we'll ever sort out the real Y2K problems from those who use Y2K as a convenient whipping post. I'm sure you'll come here next year blaming every transient problem on Y2K. And I'm sure they'll be folks who refuse to acknowledge Y2K problems. And if the economy turns sour, there isn't an economist smart enough to sort out what impact Y2K had as compared to other factors. So, in short, we'll be bickering next year... via the Internet... as society continues to roll along.

Flint, as usual, you make an astute observation. Fringe groups tend to be self-reinforcing. The "Heaven's Gate" group is an excellent example. A little mutual reassurance goes a long way.

I'm also amazed 1999 has rolled along this smoothly. We've seen some revisionist history from the pessimists... but if anything, the extremists are even more entrenched now than in '98 when things looked pretty bleak.

And I see someone has finally found my small town. By the way, I didn't write the Y2K statement, but I did write the Y2K article in the last newsletter. The article is dated, but hey, we're busy. Y2K preparations were mostly over last summer. In the past three months we've had ZERO inquiries about Y2K. Every municipal system is tested end to end.... Worry about DC. Worry about third world countries. In our little community, it's just another day.

Dash, at this point, I'm pretty immune to plumbing my motives. Like Flint, I've come this far. Might as well stay onboard for the rest of the ride. As for getting it right, O anonymous one, just put your money where your mouth is. Oh, sorry, forgot you're long in rice and bean futures. (laughter) Just stay around after rollover. I hate to see Flint cheated out of his moment in the sun.

Resolved, ah, in street vernacular we call it B.S. I've defended moderate pessimists time and again. It's the extreme fringe this thread attempted to discuss. Hell, our man Flint probably qualifies as a moderate pessimist as compared to the rest of the country.

READ!

My specific reference was to those who believe in a "Y2K apocalypse." Not a slowdown, not a recession, not another great depression, not another civil war... but the end of our society. Check the definition of "apocalypse" and get back to me.

Gary, we agree. Most people on this forum are just unsure and nervous. A small fraction are the extremists and believe in a Y2K apocalypse. Once again, I've defended thoughtful pessimists. I think a coherent argument can be made for serious Y2K problems. I don't buy the argument, but it can be made.

I apologize if you feel I'm insensitive. One of the challenges of rational discourse is not be swayed by our personal feelings, including religious faith. Jim Jones was a dangerous lunatic. The irony here, in his lifetime, Christ was treated as a dangerous lunatic by the Roman authorities. It's subtle point, Gary, but please, one more time. The people who followed Christ in the earliest days of Christianity probably felt much the same as those who followed Jim Jones. The endured great risks to follow their faith. We agree the faith in Jim Jones was badly misplaced, but this is not my point. There are similarities in the group dynamics. Right or wrong, good or evil... there are things we can learn from those splinter groups who have a different idea, a different faith. Cults teach us about human behavior... and perhaps give us insights into how our society works.

As for your final post... every spends their days doing different things. I'm not much on television, and I find this process makes me think. You may question this, find it odd, so be it. But why do I have to explain it you? If I'm content and not infringing on your rights, why bother? Since we'll probably never meet or interact outside this forum, it hardly matters. And this is a perishable issue close to the end of its shelf life.

This said, I wish you a happy holiday season as well.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 23, 1999.

Again apologies, Dale Way is chairman of IEEE's Y2K Committee why the referenced examples are from the IEE's research

-- PD (PaulDMaher@att.worldnet.com), December 24, 1999.

Paul:

Nobody is claiming there were no problems. *Obviously* there were problems. Obviously there still are, though not nearly so many nor so serious.

I know from experience that the serious problems in that casebook are disseminated to the customers of those devices, along with the fixes. Nobody is claiming that *every* customer was notified, nor that all who were did anything about it either.

But going from that listing to macroeconomic impacts is a leap of faith and not reason. You could also list all the fatal auto accidents within the last year. Very long list, and by itself, it makes automotive transportation look utterly untenable. Those accidents are real, they indicate that driving a car can be dangerous and even fatal. Yet we all drive every day, and the automobile has been a remarkably effective means of transportation.

And that's what you're doing with your list. You are jumping from the known fact that there are problems, to the misperception that there's a high probability of universal breakdowns. Your casebook makes no effort to detail *how many* of each case is out there. If there is (for example) one of each, you are looking at a failure rate from y2k problems that's dwarfed by normal daily failures. Even if there are 1000 of each, it's still lost in the noise.

In short, a qualitative list doesn't tell us the magnitude of what we're facing. For that, we need a quantitative list. I know my observation just bounces off today. But later, when you're puzzling over how things just kept moving along pretty normally, you might look back and see how you equated what *can* happen with what *does* happen. The two are quite different.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 24, 1999.

double decker proves once and for all what a numbskull he is...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 24, 1999.

Steve, there are numerous examples of fringe groups who have been proven wrong on a scientific basis.

Fine, but how about giving us some examples of "fringe" groups who have been proven right on a scientific basis? If you don't have any such examples, or don't want to provide them, then I maintain that your analysis is biased against the possibility of our being correct about the impact of Y2K.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), December 24, 1999.

Steve:

The bias isn't Decker's, it lies in the poor track record of fringe groups generally. Decker did mention a couple of fringe groups that eventually became the establishment. You could go back through the history of science and find that theories undergo constant change, revision and replacement. Those who first propose changes that eventually get accepted are a fringe group to begin with. But nonetheless, the vast majority of proposed changes don't survive.

You raise a good issue though. If 98% of fringe groups are divorced from reality, an *unbiased* description must list 49 failures for every success.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), December 24, 1999.

My observations,late in the game.

IF TSHTF it WILL be THE largest sociological phenomena in mankinds history,the bantering takes a backseat while we try and survive/live in a broken civilisation (temp/longterm?) and cope with a new reality.

POLLIES: Believe BYGOD there right.

DOOMERS(?) Realist:PRAY TO GOD that based on probable and possible outcomes they ARE WRONG!!!

It's odd that most of us probably don't post on the abduction,paranormal,skinhead etc.. fora.

It's one thing to gamble on being right with no consequences of being wrong.

It's quite another to gamble on being wrong when the stakes could be nothing short of your life,liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Two old sayings come to mind. Time will tell. Nothing is as constant as change.

I personaly cannot and will not be left sitting in the dark with my pants down and cold.This whole thing comes down to gambling (at which I'm quite good at) so I have put up my ante and am ready for whatever hand that life may deal us.

Why is it, that sooooo many people think that just because life is good now it allways will be?

Someone HAS to fix it!!!! don't they????

Ken:

Your sociological angle is legit and Very Fascinating, yet the quagmire is that if things get BAD this psycho babble is moot.We will not be discussing it,we ALL will be a little pre-occupied !!!

And I support "ADOPT A POLLY", a non-profit organization dedicated to prepping and taking in those that couldn't or wouldn't.

-- capnfun (capnfun@notfun@all.com), December 24, 1999.

"And I support "ADOPT A POLLY", a non-profit organization dedicated to prepping and taking in those that couldn't or wouldn't."

Me too.

We can eat the buggers after de-feathering.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 24, 1999.

Andy:

I think I'd rather have my special blend of beans.

-- capnfun (capnfun@notfun@all.com), December 24, 1999.

capnfun

Go rent the movie "Delicatessen"... hilarious...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 24, 1999.