Why are the pollies so vile, vicious, and vindictive all of a sudden?

I ask Hoff a legitimate question, I get demonized.

FactFinder cusses me out on a thread, on a thread where he is the only one using profanity.

Flint is spraying saliva in almost every post and the veins in his forehead are protruding.

Even Ken has his canines bared....

We don't flame, spam, and otherwise bother them on their forum, why do they insist on doing it on ours? Could it be that they are not the nice happy people we once thought they were?

-- a (a@a.a), January 06, 2000

Answers

Define "once". The broomsquad has been a bitter, vindictive lot for as long as I've seen 'em in action.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 06, 2000.

methinks they're becoming desperate as they see the evidence mount up until it can no longer be denied. BTW how do you know that Flint's veins are protruding?

-- (just@wondering.com), January 06, 2000.

Next crisis-shoot on sight.Sorry,but I'M getting fed up with polly types.

-- capnfun (they@neverwere.com), January 06, 2000.

Well, again, Rendon was paying straight-time < rollover but double time > rollover.

They used be able to laugh it off. Now they know the slow burn is coming, and they have some 'issues' with that.

Oh, well.

The way you know it's 'really over' is that the pollies don't bother reading OR posting... say Mid- March?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 06, 2000.

all of a sudden?

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 06, 2000.

"Flint is spraying saliva in almost every post and the veins in his forehead are protruding."

LOL, Watch a picture. I keep getting an image of Janet Reno.

I have been wandering the same thing. This is the reason I came out of lurking. The viscousness could not go unanswered. There are so many of you I have enjoyed reading and grown to respect. An idea is brewing as to why we are seeing this. Somehow I believe it is the release of rage, born from fear of those on the sidelines who did not prepare. What is the best way to justify ones inadequacy, but to attack the messenger. The majority of the attacks seem to be coming from those that did not prepare. Your thoughts on this?

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 06, 2000.

Sysops, thanks for all your hard work tonight! It is appreciated.

-- Aunt Bee (SheriffAndy@Mayberry.com), January 06, 2000.

If I may, I would like to offer a suggested answer, albeit an unjustified reason.

I could write a thesis on the subject, but I'll sum it up. Many people know and love other people who were influenced and scared into making some serious financial decisions, (to the benefit of the likes of Michael Hyatt who continued to perpetuate a lie, even after having been informed by CRI, and Gary North, and others in this category). Every individual had the personal responsibility to make a reasonable decision based on the facts available. But some of the most prominent Y2K alarmists stacked the decked by providing false and misleading information, which resulted in real exaggerated reactions by many people. It would have been one thing for everyone to start with the same facts, and then come to different conclusions based on the facts presented. But the most vocal, strident, and fearful were given all of the press.

I submit that many people would not have purchased generators and purchased massive food reserves if the information from the utility providers had been given the same airplay as the alarmists.

Finally, the lying alarmists, (as opposed to the simply and honestly mistaken group), have duped and misled a lot of decent people and often used people's religious convictions as additional psychological leverage to separate them from their money.

I won't drone on, but listen to the CRI broadcasts of 11/29/99 and 11/30/99 at www.equip.org, listen to an alternative viewpoint that is carefully documented.

I wish everyone well, and I am simply thankful that all of us have fared better than most of us expected. I disagree with the pessimists, but I respect your rights to think for yourselves, my only beef is with those who would mislead others deliberately for their own filthy gain. For anyone to come here and gloat over something that they had no control over, that benefitted everyone, it is simply a reflection on their bad character, and not an indictment of the people being riduculed.

Best Wishes

-- Gary South (garysouth@starmail.com), January 06, 2000.

>>Why are the pollies so vile, vicious, and vindictive all of a sudden? <<

Well, "a", maybe we've just been hangin' around the doomers too long and have picked up their habits.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Gary S: If the City of Austin had not purchased three quarter of a million dollars worth of generators for backup for water/wastewater, I'd not given alternative power a second thought.

As I was waiting to get a 20 lb. propane tank on Dec 31, 1999, I was rather pissed that I was spending hard-earned cash, very small amount, relative to what the City was spending.

I watched what they did, not what they said.

Thank God we were all wrong.

Sir.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 06, 2000.

The immature pollies are taking their shots now while they can still get away with saying we were wrong, before all the cascading failures start snowballing, then they'll disappear for good.

The more mature pollies are all getting out while they still can, because they KNOW that the failures are going to start snowballing, and they would be stupid to get too cocky at this time.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 06, 2000.

Me thinks the preping pollies you mention feel doubly betrayed. They've lost standing in both camps. Bummer. Even CPR's preaching about the effectiveness of remediation efforts and FOF capabilities proved equally uninsightful when no remediation worked out just as well. Lotsa fodder. Sure we'll have fun with it.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), January 06, 2000.

Hawk

Humour me here, but how exactly are the cascading failures going to start? What's the catalyst? It's not going to be the iron triangle. Oil looks pretty good. Maybe it'll be all those end of month report batch runs falling over?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

All of a sudden? How soon they forget! From the Debunking Y2K site:

SHOW NO MERCY TO TB2000 -- DO NOT START FEELING SORRY FOR THEM. CONSIDER IT A PUBLIC SERVICE TO GET THEIR FORUMN BOOTED. THINK OF THE VOICES THERE THAT ** DON'T ** GET DELETED. ALL KINDS OF ANTI-AMERICAN AND ANTI-SOCIETY EXTREMIST SPEW THEIR BILE AND SPIN THEIR VIEWPOINTS LOOKING FOR CONVERTS TO THEIR MEMES. REMEMBER THIS AND PRESS ON TILL TB2000 IS DESTROYED. DO ** NOT ** LET UP YOUR ASSAULT VIA THE FORUMN OWNERS. THE PETTY DESPOTIC SYSOPS STARTED THIS FIGHT. CONSIDER THEIR BEHAVIOR. THAT PLACE IS A CULT. SHUT IT DOWN. DON'T BE A SOFTY. DON'T JUST LOOK THE OTHER WAY. THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET -- SQUIRE , CHUCK AND THE REST HAVE IT COMING TO THEM. THEY PICKED THE FIGHT. THEY MADE THEIR BED. DON'T GIVE THEM A FREE HOTEL ROOM BY BACKING OFF -- PRESS ON!! DON'T LET THIS ANTI-AMERICAN PLACE CONTINUE. GO FOR THE THROAT AND CLAMP DOWN TILL THEIR FORUMN IS DEAD. THEN CELEBRATE!!! THEY WOULD DO THE SAME TO THIS PLACE IF THEY COULD. FIGHT ON!!! - MrPolly 13:58:14 11/22/99 (18)

-- wacko (tinfoiler@but.nice), January 06, 2000.

"For anyone to come here and gloat over something that they had no control over, that benefitted everyone, it is simply a reflection on their bad character, and not an indictment of the people being riduculed."

Thanks Gary South, this summs it up quite nicely.

I come to this forum to read about what's going on in the world from the point of view expressed here (Y2K and related), but am not interested in the Polly-Doomer bickering.

-- Tuan Cu Mhara (Stryder@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

"We don't flame, spam, and otherwise bother them on their forum", someone sure does.

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), January 06, 2000.

The really vicious pollies, such as Lady Logic, Andy Ray, Paul Davis, Y2KPro, etc., are totally unimaginative people who cannot stand the thought of something out of the ordinary destroying their safe little everyday world. They are obviously highly insecure and rather neurotic people. They are striking out in extreme hostility and anger because they desperately need proof of their own superiority (since they doubt this) and they need to bring others down in order to lift themselves up in their own doubting eyes.

-- howard roark (howard@rand.com), January 06, 2000.

Incredible!

I invite anyone to read everything ever posted by 'a', and try to find even a single post that doesn't attack, belittle or mock someone. Then read every post by Andy (that he actually wrote, not just copied from somewhere). I hardly need to mention the frothing Milne. Ken Decker recently posted a list of responses to one of his posts, and every one was a vicious attack. He was even nominated once or twice as the most reviled poster on this forum, yet his posts were almost unfailingly polite.

Alternatively, I invite anyone to examine the treatment meted out to Decker, or y2k Pro, or Hoffmeister, or myself. Or to Norm, before he was run off. Or to *anyone* who doubted the doomer position.

Perhaps this is pure perception. If someone writes "Decker is a moron", that's not an attack, see, that's a "statement of fact". But if someone says "a is a moron", that's an attack!

This forum has been the Home of the Double Standard all along. Now that the tables are turned and the bullies are exposed as fools, they cry "Mommy! He hit me!"

Sorry, 'a', but you reap what you sow. And you sowed, in spades.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

I've been tied up with a Y2K prep team these past two years. I was unaware that Y2K was being debated so hotly in various forums on the web. I had no time to do any web surfacing until recently, which is when I discovered this forum and others. I have contributed a few posts when I thought what I had just done and seen may be of help in relaying facts and experiences.

I have attempted to read through the various archives I've found to make myself aware of the various debates' histories. Since I was not involved in the debate and I don't have an emotional tie with either the 'pollies' or 'doomers'. I thought I'd relate what I've observed to help answer this question. I don't think extremists in either group will like what I'm going to post. But, I though I'd give it a try.

Unfortunately, it seems the web brings out the worst in everyone. It seems the forums where differing views are exchanged devolve into insults and name calling. Seems that each group has resident experts that resort to insults when their view is challenged. This is what I have observed as I have read the archives and as I read the current posts.

Not all posters resort to insults. But the ones that do are enough to create a bad atmosphere for everyone else. Depending on what view one tries to argue and how many on the forum are vocal opponents to the view will determine how you perceive your reception. Does not take every single member of the forum insulting you to make you believe the forum is hostile to your views.

Pre-1/1/000 (especially going back about a year) I observe the ones who are termed 'pollies' being treated very rudely by some of those who did not agree with me. Many of the insults aimed at the 'pollies' was as nasty as I've seen it on a forum. Again, not everyone took part in the insults but the ones who did were enough to give the 'pollies' the idea they were getting trashed badly. They also seemed to be outnumbered.

Some of the posts that were attempting to explain logical reasons for not believing some of the extreme 'doomers' were ignored and the posters were called all kinds of names. I'm not talking about the posters just on this group, I'm talking about the various forums where the debate was raging on the net. Not believing that Y2K was a very serious threat seemed to be analogous, to some, to wanting to watch your family die.

So some attacked the 'pollies' by implying they were uncaring human beings and they would see how wrong they were when their family was dead due to riots. This was not stated by the majority, but it was stated by some of the most prolific posters.

The people who believed they were trying to inject a voice of reason and were derided (on various forums) now feel it's time for payback. I do not agree with this, this is just what I see. The 'pollies' also forget the insults they hurled back and the logical reasons they were prsented with.

The terminology 'GI/doomer DGI/polly' is devisive. Considering the fact that 'GI/DGI' was coined by one of the proponents of Y2K being a severe problem, those who did not agree with him were derided by being labeled DGI.

From what I have read I understand why many were persuaded to believe severe consequences were going to result due to the Y2K rollover. There was nobody who could have stated with any certain what the impact was going to be. Those who were predicting dire consequences were given credibility by the US Government. It's no wonder why people concluded they had to prepare for the worst.

It seems that the 'pollies' are not being very understanding towards those who believed very credible sources. This is probably because they ('pollies') feel their voices were never allowed to be heard and are letting out their pent up frustration.

Again, I'm not agreeing with either side. This is just what I have observed. I think the name calling on both sides has accomplished nothing.

-- Chris Josephson (chrisj62954@aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Flint - Why should you get tied up in the emotional side of this? That's seems (to me) beneath you. Take a look at Homer Beanfang - 100% pure objective and impartial posting. Most of his posts are on topic and a few are slightly off topic. That's it. No squabbling sibling rivalry in his corner.

Or are you just being argumentative for the fun of it?

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), January 06, 2000.

Give me a moment... the premise of this thread had me laughing so hard I fell off my chair....

"a," ardent disciple of Paul Milne, is complaining that the "Pollies" are "vile, vicious, and vindictive." This is too rich.

I have read (and posted to) this forum regularly for the past ten months. Since rollover, there have been a number of apparently new posters who have attacked the pessimist position.

On the other hand, long-time optimists like Flint, Hoff and I have been generally polite before AND AFTER rollover... particularly as compared to those who attacked us at every turn. Lest "a" languish with selective amnesia, here's the link to the post Flint mentioned:

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002BRP

In about a half an hour, I was able to compile this list of personal attacks... just by searching the archives on my last name. This is a small fraction of the attacks weathered by forum optimists.

I do not condone gratuitious personal attacks against the forum pessimists. This said, I can understand the apparent bitterness of some "Pollies." For over a year, a handful of forum bullies tried to drive off every reasonable, rational optimist. Had these insults been leveled in person, and not over an anonymous Internet forum, I think some cans of "whup-ass" would have been opened on the name- calling offenders.

Were the prime offenders (including "a") to make amends, I think the situation would be largely defused. Oh, there'll always jerks about this stuff on both sides of the debate. Let's see if "a" and company try to justify their earlier behavior or take a more mature approach.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 06, 2000.

Decker...agreed! Those who live by the sword will die by the sword. There's plenty of blame to go around; polly and doomer camps alike.

But who's got the balls (sorry ladies) to lay down their sword first?

I don't suspect we'll have too many volunteers.

-- TM (mercier7@pdnt.com), January 06, 2000.

Guy:

It's hard to sound reasonable when I'm frustrated, but I'll do my best.

During the last 6 months or so (while Homer Beanfang has been posting), y2k articles listed in the year2000.com press clippings have run about 3-1 in favor of positive articles. From my general reading, this seems a fairly good reflection of what was going on out there.

"Objective and impartial" Homer Beanfang chose to post NOTHING but stories of problems. He posted NONE of the positive articles. Not one. Guy, this is "objective and impartial" in the same way that Las Vegas publicizes all the winners and never mentions the losers -- who outnumber the winners enough to make the casinos rich.

I started a thread yesterday called "What's fishy here, anyway", and my very first point was that the evidence presented here was extremely one-sided, very carefully selected to reflect all the bad news anyone could find, and carefully ignoring the good news. Homer Beanfang is a perfect illustration of this bias. Presenting only one side of an argument, and indeed by article-count the far weaker side, does not qualify as either objective or impartial. It is spin, pure and simple.

The fact that you consider a completely one-sided presentation of material "objective and impartial" speaks volumes, and (IMO) calls for a bit of reflection on your part.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 06, 2000.

Flint and a few others are overlooking the fact that this was never intended to be a neutral forum, and only a small minority wanted it to be a neutral forum. If I sent to the debunkers forum to post my views, I wouldn't expect to receive good treatment. Why would the debunker types expect to receive good treatment here. Those who wanted a neutral forum should have established one.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

I agree with Flint completely, and I started posting here in Oct or Nov of 98'. I have a pessimist mentality, so of course I prepared--but no bunkers, no bug-out bags or short wave radios. But I'm still somewhat of a doomer. And I've seen some fairly hateful rhetoric come from doomers on this forum. One thing for sure, they can't take any disagreement. They are so certain of their rightness that it makes a person pause and wonder why.

Hey, I've taken some ribbing about my jugs of water. So what. Just laugh with the kidders, and start eating more beans and grain.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), January 06, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

...by article-count the far weaker side, does not qualify as either objective or impartial

I do not consider "article count" to be a valid measure of the strength of an argument.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 07, 2000.

Humm... most of us were here for the basic reason we were concerned about the CDC, as Kosky liked to call it.. the trolls were here because this was the only place they could go and be assholes without being arrested or having their butts kicked for their behavior...

My guess is they are afraid that since January 1 didn't result in flaming testimonials to the doomers, we are all going to get bored, go away, and leave them with nothing to do but try to sneak back onto the AOL chat rooms they were banned from before they found us....

So they hope with their tantrums to keep us here out of defiance to their pranks, not realizing that we are here because we knew 01/01/00 was not supposed to be a show stopper, although we also knew there was a chance...

Now in a couple of weeks, if the problems I KNOW are happening start slowing down, then disappear, they can have the place to themselves...

Bet they get lonely :)

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), January 07, 2000.