I am saddened when I read the posts that there is such anger, judgement and intent to discredit. We all entered '00 with preconceived ideas, across a wide spectrum, from TEOFTWAWKI to Nothing is going to happen. Some were more right than others, some were more wrong. Some spent more money on preps than they probably should have; some probably spent more on lottery tickets, movies and loans for stock market investing than they should have. We each have the right to analyze data and make decisions based on those analyses. And we all have to live with the consequences of those decisions, preferably without having our actions and motives judged by our others.

A discussion board should be just that; a presentation of information that might be of interest to those still interested in possible Y2K issues. Not personal attacks between people on opposite sides. Inevitably, different participants will interpret the information differently, according to our own particular leanings. We all all entitled to our own interpretation.

Would we be so brazen if we were all sitting in a room together and discussing these issues? I would hope not.

I, for one, enjoy "listening" to both sides, and using all of the available information to help me in my decision making process on both this subject and others. I enjoy it the most when we engage in respectful and intelligently presented arguments.

Regards to all...

I

-- Terribly (Saddened@planet.earth), January 07, 2000

Answers

Terribly:

Sadly but inevitably, this forum has succumbed to a sort of Gresham's Law of discussion groups. Polarization of viewpoints leads to a positive feedback effect, leading to even more polarization. I suspect the human mind doesn't lend itself easily to notions of complexity. People want certainty, not ambiguity and doubt. If certainty is impossible considering the subject, then it will be imposed.

I've spent more than a year and more than 3000 posts fighting exactly what you lament, but you can't argue with the weather. Hard feelings are easy to get and slow to die. Even the presentation of information is polarized, since whoever controls what you see influences what you conclude. Y2K has always been a fringe issue, and such issues tend to attract both True Believers and Ardent Debunkers. Which leads to yet more polarization.

From sheer hubris, I've seen myself (on the whole) as an Educator, in a university where students grade themselves. I've been both amused and disconsolate that some of them choose to skip class and give themselves high grades (we "get it"). Learning is always a painful process, and some have made the shortsighted choice to avoid both the pain and the learning. But not everyone has been a bad student. I sincerely hope that the lives of those who have paid attention will be improved.

And I'd love to meet most of the regular posters to this forum. As you say, the medium tends to bring out who we really are, whereas face to face we are obligated to make nice. And most of us are more skilled at conversation than at writing.

I share your sentiments, always have.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 07, 2000.

I remember this quote years ago from a wise teacher I had. "Some people would rather be right than be happy." Or worse, "Some people NEED to be right to be happy."

Read through the posts, and you'll spot a few! :)

-- Marie (pray4peace@compuserve.com), January 07, 2000.

Gee Flint, I think you are a bit overly scholarly on this one. Basically, its post Y2K stress relief - many are getting their digs in at the doomers here who used to trash all those who said Y2k would'nt be a big deal. Well, the doomers don't like all the pollies saying "nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa" and so it gets a bit heated at times. King of Spain stays cool and continues to get a mudwrestling partner, proving that he never really cared about y2k, he was just here to pick up chicks.

Regards,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), January 07, 2000.

The problem is when someone tries to present information for discussion, someone like Flint comes along, and instead of opening his mind a bit to see things from another perspective, he sets out to prove them "wrong."

Listen to the arrogance in his statement about how he views himself as so superior to everyone else, as an "Educator" (with a big E) to all of the rest of us "students," as if his reality is the only one which could possibly exist.

"From sheer hubris, I've seen myself (on the whole) as an Educator, in a university where students grade themselves. I've been both amused and disconsolate that some of them choose to skip class and give themselves high grades (we "get it"). Learning is always a painful process, and some have made the shortsighted choice to avoid both the pain and the learning. But not everyone has been a bad student. I sincerely hope that the lives of those who have paid attention will be improved."

People like Flint, Decker, Andy Ray, Hoffmeister, and most of the Pollys didn't come here to have intelligent discussions, they came here to inflate their humongous heads, by attempting to prove that anyone else was "wrong" if they did not see things exactly the same way as them.

Some of us are here to explore new possibilities, and learn how other people see things from a different perspective, without wanting to prove or disprove anything. If we are forced to constantly limit our thoughts to only what is considered by some to be "the facts," there will be no room for imagination or creative thought. Einstein flunked high school Math because his instructors told him his ideas were wrong unless they were written in a book. A few years later he created the theory of relativity.

I consider it a compliment to be a "bad student" in Flint's "school" of mundane thought, because I value the ability to use my imagination much more than the ability to conclude that something is not possible unless it is supported by "facts." It's difficult not to become defensive after a while, when every time you put forward a possibility, someone tries to shoot you down unless you have supportive evidence.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 07, 2000.

I learned a _very_ valuable lesson from our Educator. Pay attention, I'm only going to say this once:

How to be right all the time

The sky is probably not going to fall. If it does fall, it will not fall far. Unless it falls really fast, and then it will fall hard. But, that probably won't happen unless it does.

-- Star Pupil (What I learned@in.school), January 08, 2000.

Some of us were here to learn from the amazing knowledge base of our regular posters but had to put down our pens, get up, walk over and smack various pollies on the head because they would not SHUT THE F*CK UP while we were listening to lecture.

University of Yourdon. 'You had to be There.'

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), January 08, 2000.

I think my point is well illustrated.

Before rollover:

Flint: Here's a piece of evidence. What is it most likely to mean and why?

Typical Doomie: It means whatever I *say* it means, regardless of what it says. Now *shut up* because my mind is made up. Facts? We don' need no steenking facts! We have the Truth!

After rollover:

Flint: Turns out your Received Truth wasn't even in the right area code. Why do you think this is?

Typical Doomie: Shut up.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), January 08, 2000.