Would you invite any DOOMER or Fellow Traveller into YOUR OWN HOME?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
The question should answer itself. CPR
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000
Depends if your home is a buried bus.
-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 21, 2000.
Not only would I invite some "doomers" into my home, I'm going to have a couple of them house sit for me while I'm on vacation. You, however, I wouldn't trust with a bent penny.
-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 21, 2000.
FLUSHED YOU OUT AGAIN, FROM YOUR 1,000 "Screen Names"
HERE's SOME READING THAT MIGHT HELP YOU.
Don't miss the best of allTHE INTERNET EXPERIENCE
http://www.aleae.com/rollover/internet.html LINK
--
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000.
Most of them, yes. Only a few seemed either completely unhinged or too dumb to pound sand.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 2000.
Ya'll are welcome into my cell any ol' time.
-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), June 21, 2000.
My thousand screen names? You must be confusing me with "Mystery guest", or was it "Arthur Fonzarelli", or maybe it was one of your other dozens of screen names. There are lots of other people besides me criticizing you on this board. Or do you think Flint is also me? I notice he doesn't agree with you on inviting doomers into one's house. I guess he must be me!
-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 21, 2000.
Keep posting under your own name for a change Heller.Unlike others, I don't accept your BULL SHIT: "I was wrong but my excuse is I was "mislead"". Save that sales pitch for the morons who believe you.
I'm sure you won't mind if I post some of your pre-1/1/2000 statements for all to see.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000.
Here's a quote from the link that CPR provided:Gary North was not drawing a paycheck from the Gartner Group. There is no conspiracy of consultants to bilk the unwise.
Get it, CPR? According to your own reference, there is no conspiracy. Therefore, I can assume that you'll now stop your ranting about the conspiracy. Right? Probably not. After all, what would you do for your "15 minutes of fame" then? You would just go back to being the unimportant, uninteresting real estate salesman that you were before your Y2K "fame". And that's the real reason you keep going, isn't it?
-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 21, 2000.
cpr, what got your britches into a wad? I have read some lovely posting on the internet, as well as those with a screw loose, one fry short, not da sharpest knife in the drawer. Whatever decision I made, I will NOT lay total blame on someone else. I take responsibility. I lay blame on no one else, for what I chose.
-- Sitting (in@doublewideriches.unfold), June 21, 2000.
THIS IS THE "REASON I KEEP GOING":THE HARD FACTS (MITCH RATCLIFFE 1/3/2000)
Ed Yourdon, at least, has preserved his published record intact. Yet, he refuses to admit he was wrong.
We have just one task before us: Never to forget who led people astray and why. These opportunists, many of whom have made themselves rich with Y2K panic-mongering, are trying to rewrite history before our eyes. Don't let them do it.
===================================================== The hard facts
By Mitch Ratcliffe, ZDY2K
January 3, 2000 6:33 AM PT
URL: http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/zdy2k/ news/0,6158,2415908,00.htmlWhy didn't it happen? See my column of Thursday to understand why Y2K wasn't a hoax, and why there are a lot of people who deserve thanks.
There's not much more to say, when I called Y2K almost to a tee:
No one died as a result of Y2K problems;
Power stayed on, despite widely dispersed and localized problems with computers;
Embedded systems did not fail on a large scale, and those that did were non-critical;
If anything, less developed countries proved they are less reliant on technology and, so, avoided many problems that would have occurred in the U.S. if Americans had ignored Y2K;
Critical infrastructures operated normally, despite problems (at this writing, the FAA's few problems have not resulted in a threat to public safety, nor have any of the markets around the world that are open, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade, experienced any major problems).
After all the abuse and threats ladled out toward me and my family for the past 18 months, let me just take one moment to gloat.
Gloat.
There was a moment on Saturday that brought the whole Y2K situation into crystal clarity, when Cathy Hotka of the National Retail Federation was asked by the press whether survivalists could return supplies they hadn't used.
"Retailers are in the business of selling things and not lending them," she said, with remarkable credulity, considering how foolish the question sounded.
In a nutshell, the Y2K problem has proved a non-event because business (and government) stuck to their strengths: business as usual, with a note of urgency in IT efforts. Overall, the two percent to seven percent of IT budgets dedicated to Y2K repairs by corporations and government agencies was a responsible and rational response.
The cost shouldered by large organizations was much larger, as percentage of revenue, than what a household should have spent, because each company shouldered a small part of the expense of removing risk from their customers' lives. Now that the danger has passed, the survivalist who did over- spend has to live with the mistake while the rest of us will benefit from having calculated correctly. A little preparation went a long way.
This is not a paean to the beauty of capitalism, just to good sense. As an investor, you take risks. As a human being, you take risks. Some folks over-react to risk and some thrive.
From the very beginning of this Y2K odyssey, especially since I became convinced there was no reason to fear an apocalyptic failure or anything approaching that, I've been enraged by the opportunists who have exaggerated the risks of Y2K for their own profit.
Now that the realities of Y2K are plain - I needn't rehash them here, other than to point to these stories I did for United Press International - we need to be sure to call to account those who abused so many people, costing them hundreds or thousands of dollars.
First, the stories about the Y2K rollover:
When Will Y2K Actually Strike?
Networks Pass Biggest Test; Europe Joins The Party
Y2K still silent as business begins around the world
Y2K survivalists struggle with reality
What is especially troubling is that the doomer prophets who led people astray are already in the midst of reinventing themselves.
Gary North's Web site has been altered, and many of the loonier statements he made there disappeared almost immediately after the rollover. North claims his site has been hacked, but the "damage" doesn't make sense - why would hackers wait until after the New Year and then remove only part of the content on the site? Fortunately, there are people with accurate back-ups of the North site to preserve the record.
Mike Adams, who has threatened to sue me again for my recent article, has morphed Y2KNewswire from a pessimistic site to an optimistic one overnight. Where one day there were assertions of Y2K cover-ups, the next day there were a whole slew of stories about how Y2K has been beaten. The whole Y2KNewswire archive of links, in which Adams inserted preposterous interpretations of stories in the mainstream press have vanished.
Why?
Because Adams has a new site that will help people reinvent their lives - ironically, he's suggesting that life will be rebuilt using technology. What disingenuous crap.
Ed Yourdon, at least, has preserved his published record intact. Yet, he refuses to admit he was wrong.
We have just one task before us: Never to forget who led people astray and why. These opportunists, many of whom have made themselves rich with Y2K panic-mongering, are trying to rewrite history before our eyes. Don't let them do it.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 21, 2000.
Go ahead. I'm sure everyone here has already seen them. But you know what? No one cares. Y2K is over. You just can't let go of it because it's your only claim to fame. You're looking more foolish by the minute. But go ahead, don't let me stop you. You're just digging your own grave. Eventually, no one will want to listen to you. In fact, I think you've reached that point already.
-- Steve Heller (steve@SteveHeller.com), June 21, 2000.
Geez, Charlie...what ARE you after?I attended a picnic last weekend with ALL doomers. I was invited into THEIR home. I would have ANY of those folks in my home. I forgot to wear my "token Polly" nametag only because I was rushed. Would we agree on stuff? NO. Is it important? No. Where are you going with this one?
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.
>> Would you invite any DOOMER or Fellow Traveller into YOUR OWN HOME? <<There is a short, select list of those who have posted to this forum who I would never consider inviting into my home. Some doomers are on it. So are you, cpr. I hope you are happy with the company you keep.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.
"Fellow Traveller"??? I remember back when "Fellow Traveller" was a synonym for "communist." Are you perchance suggesting that "DOOMERS" are "COMMUNISTS"? Smile when you say that, pardner."Doomers" are welcome in my house. "Pollies" are welcome in my house. The labels are meaningless now. It's over, whether you like it or not. Hell, even you and AndyRay are welcome (I might be tempted to count the silverware after you're gone, though).
-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 21, 2000.