Does anyone else think the GICC has become a joke? : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The Grassroots Information Coordination Center (GICC) was started so folks would have a place to post possible Y2K glitches. The forum is now full of so many not-even-remotely-related-to-Y2K stories it makes me laugh. There's one from 3/18 about earthworms in a city water storage tank. Now, it may be interesting to some how earthworms got into an underground storage tank, but there are many other similar stories that can't be tied to Y2K in any logical way.

So, what's the deal? Is the GICC serving a useful purpose any longer? Comments?

-- Buddy (, March 20, 2000


No, I don't. And nobody makes me come here. I have choices and I use them...

-- Uncle Bob (, March 20, 2000.

Hmmm...a bit defensive Uncle Bob. It's a serious question, not meant to be an attack on anyone.

-- Buddy (, March 20, 2000.

Well, I see it like this. I've often said that if I succeed, I can serve as a good example. And if I fail, then I can serve as a bad example. So either way, my efforts were not in vain.

Trying to be less flip about it :^) at least it serves as a useful illustration of how hard it actually is to find any Y2k problems, like so:

It shows that a lot of the problems people are seeing are not Y2k problems.

While it does NOT refute that there are NOT Y2k problems that people are NOT seeing, it's useful in that it begs the question: if they are out there but people are not seeing them, how can they be considered problems?

So if nothing else, it's a good reality check.

-- Debbie (, March 20, 2000.

I've not visited the site, Buddy. If the links that are presented HERE are from THERE, yes...I would agree. "Earthworms in the water" was a great lead-in for an internet joke.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 20, 2000.


Was in a hurry (like now)...sorry, didn't mean to offend...

-- Uncle Bob (, March 20, 2000.

GICC is a standing joke along with "Glitch Central". "Glitch" has their cumulative chart to show the grand total of "glitches".

What they don't have nor does GICC, Hyatt and the rest is a running total of *unfixed* Y2k problems that were identified. That is also missing for the score cards of such less scrufty organizations as the World Bank/U.N.'s Y2k groups.

That would be far too em-bare-ass-ing for all of the above because it ends the Y2k discussion once and for all.

The claim was that all of the problems would lead to "cascading cross defects", latent problems and the "domino effect". Now the time for such theories and the words of others who claim as did R. Martin that the continuing Y2k problems would "justify" all the "Alarmism" he and many others participated in, has out.

While there might be one Nitwit left ranting about 12/31/2000 or the absence of leap year in 2001 or "buffers filling up" they probably hold dual memberships in the Flat Earth and Roswell Watchers Orgs.

The *absence* of such would suggest that they were wrong to begin with and in denial if still advocating such TRIPE.

Fear always sells and for the time Humans have been on this Planet, some have used fear of the dark and the unknown to subjugate others.

Some religious types would call such people Servers of The Devil and remind people Whose Voice it was who said, "Fear Not" the most in the "newer sections" of One Book.

-- cpr (, March 20, 2000.

CPR, I am confused. Please don't take this question below wrong, I was a "brainwashed doomer" and now in the process of deprograming myself.

Are you the same CPR who suposedly kept a list of all the names and "rantings" of well knowned doomers, and suposedly spewed some foul rants yourself at the Debunker forum?

I refused to go on that forum, I was scared out of it from reports of others on TB2K. On this forum, the posts signed "cpr" appear quite rational to me. The image of the Debunker CPR I had in mind was that of a psychopath, who made threats and typed in large bold type on that forum ( A couple of this CRP's posts were cut/pasted on TB2K.)

-- Chris (!@#$, March 20, 2000.

Cut the crap Chris, you've seen CPR in action many times at the debunkery.

As for "Brainwashed Doomer" -- sounds like an excuse for your failed marriage and "Y2K Fling" with Hardliner to me.

-- Like Hell (brainwashed doomer@my.ass), March 20, 2000.

I must have offended an old buddy, now turned troll. "Shift happens", as Diane would say, eh.

My question is genuine. CPR would know if I had ever been on Dubunker, if he was a sysop. Since Flint brought up the subject of zealot doomers on another thread, I thought I'd subtly bring up the subject of zealotry from the polly side. THIS cpr posting above, and in many other examples on THIS forum, appears rational and making good sense. Since, as I said earlier on this forum, I'm moving on and getting to know people with a new outlook, and since it's obviously very easy to mislead people on this Lusenet program with trolling and impostering and with selective deletions, I'm attempting the best I can to get input from people with which I can make some sense. Some people "doomer buddies" whom I thought were honest and I respected, turned out to be not so. Some turned out to be just gossipy wagging tongues.

The only die-hard doomer I know that "monitored" Debunker regularly was Old Git, reporting their "juicy bits" back on TB2K. You wouldn't happen to know if Old Git is actively posting here, would you?

-- Chris (!@#$, March 20, 2000.

So who brainwashed you Chris? Hardliner? Ed Yourdon? The CIA?

Maybe you should stay away from Internet forums if your brain is so suseptible to "washing"

-- Like Hell (Wise@up.Chris), March 20, 2000.

Beyond a Joke--Debunking Forumite Says He is Collecting Background Files on Yourdon Forumites

-- (TB@2000.archives), March 21, 2000.


To answer your question, yes, it is the same CPR. While Charles has a tendency to rant in capital letters at times, I think his style has been misinterpreted by many who don't agree with his content. But that's my opinion, Charles can defend himself if he desires.

As for collecting information on doomers, I see nothing wrong with identifying those who spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt in an attempt to make money or further some agenda. But then of course, I was the "troll" known as Doomslayer for a while on TB2000, and my stand on the doomsday scale was at -1.999 since last June or thereabouts.

-- Buddy (, March 21, 2000.

You also have to consider CPR's actions in context.

Look at Gary North. He had *been told* several times, by many people, that the banking system was essentially OK. He continued to spread FUD in the HOPES that he could INCITE bank riots to bring down what he considers the "evil fractional banking system." Gary also made it PAINFULLY clear that he *WANTED* society (including our government, which he considered irredeemable and beyond hope) to collapse, even though there was no real threat.

CPR -- and many of the rest of us! -- wondered at times if Gary wasn't guilty of outright sedition, because he openly agitated for the destruction of our constitutional system of government. That's the dictionary definition of the word.

(Slightly less guilty is Pat Robertson. Pete de Jager and a number of other people VISITED HIM PERSONALLY IN NORFOLK and told him that Y2K was going to be no big deal. He ignored them; I'll let you decide his reasoning.)

(Hint: conservative and right-wing Christians always flourish when there's a Bogeyman to scream about. It increases donations, awareness and participation.)

It is also a *fact* that TB2000 was infested with FUDmongers who were solely interested in making money or advancing a personal agenda. THOSE were CPR's target (and he wasn't alone in that!), not the average Joe who wondered if he ought to store some food and water because he was unsure about the future.

The real danger from Y2K, right up to the end, was public panic. (Back to the banks: events have demonstrated that they were essentially sound and ready for Y2K. But what if the snakes had managed to scare enough people to get them to pull their money out and cause a collapse?)

Remember: you have to differentiate between those who were genuinely afraid (CPR tried to calm those people down) and those who *KNEW* that Y2K probably wouldn't be a big deal, but who were deliberately whipping it out of proportion for amusement, to further a personal agenda, or just to make money.

(Re-read that sentence a few times.)

The latter were his target, *NEVER* the honest, sincere-but-frightened people. Never.

There were people involved in Y2K who were DELIBERATELY trying to create panic and uncertainty. As far as I'm concerned, they SHOULD have been identified, because they were the lowest and slimiest snakes on the planet.

-- Me (, March 21, 2000.

Thanks for the link TB. Wow, that was May '99, during the time from April to July I when stayed away from Y2K forums, and became a polly as a result. Came back in July, fell right back into doomerism.

You're right on that one "Like Hell", I should stay away from FUD internet forums. I promise not to click on Ezboard anymore.

cpr DOES sound like a zealot in that link. A well meaning zealot, but a zealot all the same. And he turned out right.

-- Chris (!@#$, March 21, 2000.

Wrong. I have most of the standard lines of ALL of them. Filed by name. 100 plus. From the Big names to the odd balls. From the Peasants to the Ph.Ds.

-- (more@historical.items), March 21, 2000.


A perfect example of a post quoted out of context. The thread was about *FUD MONGERS* here and elsewhere. CPR was talking about *FUD MONGERS*. He was collecting info on them.

Your repost also proves something else about the old TB2000: that they would often see an inflamatory-looking post title and automatically assume the worst. You're bringing back memories now (and it's only been a couple of months!). :)

-- Me (, March 21, 2000.

My problem with cpr's style is that he puts people who disagree with him on the defensive right away. Just like Milne would. Those of the same views as cpr could tolerate him, but those of us looking for sanity and answers would simply dimiss him, as I've dismissed Milne as a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic, and GN as a religious sociopath. cpr appears to be intelligent and knowledgable when I read his posts here, why did he have to resort to these tacky tactics?

I'm disapointed because Yourdon, the even tempered smooth talker was a magnet for non-IT people like me who looked for voices of reason to steer us in the right direction. There weren't enough "polly" posters of his caliber to challenge him, such as Flint and maybe Decker (but Decker tends to show his ego a tad too much IMO.) Why did cpr choose to make his forum so tacky in format, just another flaming forum? Why not fight back Yourdon with essays as well written and a forum as well maintained?

-- Chris (!@#$, March 21, 2000.


Sure, Charlie has his own style. He's a pit bull. :)

But can I make a suggestion? In the future, you need to examine ALL sides of a debate, even those which you find distasteful. Refusing to examine one side just because you don't like the way it's presented means that you're going to be missing that side of the argument -- and will sometimes make bad decisions as a result. That's the price you pay.

You need to re-read that paragraph. About three times. The old TB2000 was very "cliquish." The doomers there had a tendency to decide who was "politically acceptable" on Y2K Doom and would relentlessly attack anyone who wasn't.

You named Flint and Decker; I think you're also forgetting all of the reasonable posts by people like Jonathan Latimer, Paul Davis, Stephen Poole, Cherri Stewart, Hoffmeister and dozens of others, both at the old TB2000 and elsewhere.

(And I can't resist: go re-read my suggestion AGAIN. You complain that Decker's ego sometimes turned you off; if you didn't read his posts as a result, and turned out to be wrong, who's to blame for that? Not Decker!)

Latimer and Poole even had complete Web sites debunking Y2K: Latimer's was calm and logical; and Poole used (sometimes-scathing[g]) satire to get his point across (which REALLY drove the "how can you joke when people will DIE?" Y2K Doom crowd insane[g]).

You're mistaken about one thing: CPR was not a "sysop" at Debunky. Debunky was run by Doc Paulie (with a little help from Buddy, if I recall correctly).

-- Me (, March 22, 2000.

Just to clarify, I ran the "Debunking the Y2K Hype" site, which was a temporary replacement for "Debunking Y2K" version 1 when it went down. When Doc Paulie opened "Debunking Y2K" version 2 (Debunky II) I shut down the "Debunking the Y2K Hype" site. I didn't help Doc with either of his boards.

-- Buddy (, March 22, 2000.

Sorry, Buddy. I knew you were mixed up in there somehow, but wasn't sure of the particulars!!!!!! :)

-- Me (, March 22, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ