Evidence: Leading Mental Midget can't learn from historygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Leading Mental Midget can't learn from history
"Then, a large majority of these same mental midgets question the validity of the income tax, believe chemtrails are a government conspiracy, believe there are internment camps being readied for them, etc. etc."Please define "large majority" here. I made over 3,000 posts on the old forum, about the same as Flint.
Yes, there were chemtrail threads. I guess the Art Bell fans started it. I don't remember making any comments on this issue, but I may have made a one-liner or 2. So what?
I have questioned the validity of the IRS and the income tax, for at least the last 15 years, and I shall continue to do so until I die, or something gets changed. I would much rather see a "national sales tax" of some sort. Sorry, but I gotcha here. I'm a US citizen. Even so, I don't think I made over a few hundred posts on the tax issue. A few of those were personal, asking for the opinion of my "friends" at TB2000. So what?
I did think it was possible that "shelters" would be needed in some areas, but I never used the term "internment camps". I can understand 10 thinking here however. If things did go "long term" something besides local shelters would be needed. Does it make a 10 a bad person, because they could see this possibility? Do you think the .gov could see this? Is that why they spent $50,000,000.00 on a "command center" paid for with MY tax $$$. Maybe I used the word "shelter" in a few dozen posts. So what?
Since you seem to know what was being discussed on the old forum, please tell me where my 2,500+ other posts are, and what they were about...
Just couldn't resist that paragraph... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.
from: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HP6
"Doomers were (and remain) a bunch of mindless cutters and pasters who believe anything they read"No Andy, I don't believe anything that I read. For example, I could care less what Gary North had to say in his "comments" on his old site. But if he had a link that pointed to, the Senate Report for example, the respect for what I was reading went up considerably. I don't know what to tell you, if you can't see the difference.
And Andy, speaking of "mindless cutters and pasters" - what have you become yourself?
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.
Ok Sysman and "history", I will repeat for you what I stated to "whatever" in a similar thread above:You're making the same mistake now that you and other doomers did last year....taking the worst news you could find, and accepting only that, without question.
In 1999, there were far more "positive" stories about y2k than pessimistic ones, from industry, from government, from many sources. When you start using the Red Cross as your "authoritative y2k source", you just aren't hittin' on much, and certainly deserve the "doomer" label. The GOOD news, the ACCURATE news from the INDUSTRY Y2K groups - you gave them no serious consideration then, and you aren't posting them now. History repeats itself.
No one ever likes to admit they were flat out wrong....*sigh*..;)
-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 06, 2000.
"Then, a large majority of these same mental midgets question the validity of the income tax, believe chemtrails are a government conspiracy, believe there are internment camps being readied for them, etc. etc."Please define "large majority" here. I made over 3,000 posts on the old forum, about the same as Flint.
Yes, there were chemtrail threads. I guess the Art Bell fans started it. I don't remember making any comments on this issue, but I may have made a one-liner or 2. So what?
I have questioned the validity of the IRS and the income tax, for at least the last 15 years, and I shall continue to do so until I die, or something gets changed. I would much rather see a "national sales tax" of some sort. Sorry, but I gotcha here. I'm a US citizen. Even so, I don't think I made over a few hundred posts on the tax issue. A few of those were personal, asking for the opinion of my "friends" at TB2000. So what?
I did think it was possible that "shelters" would be needed in some areas, but I never used the term "internment camps". I can understand 10 thinking here however. If things did go "long term" something besides local shelters would be needed. Does it make a 10 a bad person, because they could see this possibility? Do you think the .gov could see this? Is that why they spent $50,000,000.00 on a "command center" paid for with MY tax $$$. Maybe I used the word "shelter" in a few dozen posts. So what?
Since you seem to know what was being discussed on the old forum, please tell me where my 2,500+ other posts are, and what they were about...
Just couldn't resist that paragraph... <:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.
Ok Sysman and "history", I will repeat for you what I stated to "whatever" in a similar thread above:You're making the same mistake now that you and other doomers did last year....taking the worst news you could find, and accepting only that, without question.
Most people do not believe everything they read, FactFinder. I try to read widely and take much of what I read "under advisement," not necessarily believing or disbelieving but instead filing it in the back of my mind until some other piece of information comes along I can compare it with.
When someone develops contingency plans, they look for reliable information sources to help them determine negative scenarios that are possible though not necessarily likely. I already knew what a mild outcome for Y2K would look like--life pretty much the same after Jan. 1 as it was before Jan. 1. What I wanted to learn about was what could go wrong in case there were some disruptions.
In 1999, there were far more "positive" stories about y2k than pessimistic ones, from industry, from government, from many sources.
I expected there would be a lot of good news in 1999 about Y2K, FactFinder, because I had read at the end of 1998 the GartnerGroup estimate that 85% of companies in the U.S. would *not* suffer a mission-critical system failure. What I pondered about in 1999 was that other 15% and other countries that started working on Y2K much later than the U.S. did.
I realized the 15% might include any number of things such as, let's say, the local water company.
When you start using the Red Cross as your "authoritative y2k source", you just aren't hittin' on much, and certainly deserve the "doomer" label.
Of course the Red Cross was not an authoritative source as to how bad Y2K would be...they were an authoritative non-technical source suggesting that some preparation for Y2K was prudent in case there were problems. It's plausible to think the Red Cross could have picked up on concerns about Y2K from folks such as FEMA.
The GOOD news, the ACCURATE news from the INDUSTRY Y2K groups - you gave them no serious consideration then, and you aren't posting them now. History repeats itself.
As I said, I expected a lot of good news last year. Some of that good news I saw I took at face value. Some of it seemed more like a carefully-crafted press release than it did hard info. Something like "We don't expect any major problems" was something I often saw.
Again, for many organizations, that was true. It was the 15% that might have problems that concerned me, not the 85% that I was fairly sure would be OK.
We all saw the good news about Y2K last year, FactFinder. We heard optimistic comments in the mass media by John Koskinen about banking, and I'm sure most on the old TB 2000 saw your many good news posts there.
I admit I preferred 3rd party sources of information such as the U.S. Senate, and the reason why is that just as one should have taken with a grain of salt what they saw about Y2K at survival food Web site, I took with a grain of salt what was said by companies whose stock might be affected if they would have had bad news to report. What companies did about Y2K was as important to me as what they had to say about it.
I did believe by the summer of 1999, though, that I would probably have electricity on Jan. 1, 2000.
No one ever likes to admit they were flat out wrong....*sigh*..;)
-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 06, 2000.
One reason it's hard for me to say I was wrong about Y2K is that I did not know how Y2K would turn out. I thought a collapse of society was rather unlikely--and I never at any time predicted a collpse--but enough Y2K work worldwide seemed unfinished in the fall of 1999 that Y2K could still have been something more than just a bump in the road.
Yes, I thought Y2K was likely to cause at least a few more problems than what actually has happened since Jan. 1, but even the experts have been puzzled the scarcity of failures since then. I prepared for possible short-term utility problems, medium-term shortages (especially imports), and a long-term economic impact (getting a recession-proof job).
Was I wrong for doing so? It seemed the prudent thing to do based on information available and not available at that time. It was *not* a given even in late 1999 that Y2K would be turn out to be as mild as it has been.
-- Prepped for an (uncertain@Y2K.future), June 07, 2000.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/09year .html?AltaVistaRefId=LmY_WEFnnnnuntly_WJanuary 8, 2000
Experts Puzzled by Scarcity of Y2K Failures
By BARNABY J. FEDER
Whether it is with scorn, anger or resignation, most computer experts and Year 2000 program managers brush off suggestions that they overreacted to the Y2K threat, taken in by computer companies and consultants positioned to profit from fear.
Still, like the skeptics, many wonder: How did countries that started so late -- and appeared to do so little -- manage to enter 2000 as smoothly as nations like the United States and Britain that got an early jump?
"That question is plaguing all of us, although some people won't admit it," said Maggie Parent, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's representative to Global 2000, an international banking group formed to coordinate and stimulate Year 2000 work. "We expected there to be some significant blowouts."
A World Bank survey published last January concluded that just 54 of 139 developing countries had national Year 2000 programs outlined and only 21 were actually taking concrete steps to prepare.
-- Mystery Guest (Mystery-Guest@sign-in-please.com), June 07, 2000