Quotably Quoted #53

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

The 5% chance of Bump is a nod to the idea that all these Glowing Press Releases, and the uneventful start of FY2000 on July 1 mean what they seem to mean.

The 60% chance of recession is based on the idea that a recession is likely anyway, and that Y2K failures at rollover will be a powerful drag on the economy to help that recession happen.

The 32% chance of depression is based on the idea that the USA stock market bubble could easily burst, with Y2K problems as the trigger. That could start a wave of credit defaults and an abrupt economic slowdown of major proportions.

The 3% chance of USA government failure is a nod in the direction that any time economic catastrophe hits in a big way, even sturdy governments are liable to fall. In February 1932 a lot of folks wondered if the USA government would last much longer. Also, wars become more likely when the world is in economic chaos.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 16, 1999

Memetic doomer hopes and dreams...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 13, 2000

Answers

Congratulations twerp. You have finally picked on someone intelligent; not that you would be able to recognize such.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 13, 2000.

Rock on dude!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 13, 2000.

>> Memetic doomer hopes and dreams... <<

Andy Ray, this is certainly an interesting interpretation of what I wrote here, or, for that matter, anything else I wrote in TB2K in 1999.

As I recall (I may get some details wrong), the Union of Concerned Scientists maintain a clock that shows how many "minutes to midnight" the world is away from a nuclear conflagration. The metaphor is that we are well past the "eleventh hour" in our progress toward this event.

However, since the world has not seen a single nuclear warhead dropped in anger since 1945, and the Holocaust Clock has only operated in years since that event took place, wouldn't you agree it is clear that the UCS is caught up in a nuclear armageddon meme? After all, they have been consistently wrong about the chances of nuclear holocaust for upwards of 40 years now!

Also, that, whenever they advance their clock a minute or two toward midnight, they are expressing their "memetic hopes and dreams?"

Anticipating your answer.

Love,

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.


B-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-R-R-R-R-I-N-G !

PLEASE KNEEL DOWN AND KISS THE MEMETIC BUTTOCKS OF ALL DOOMERS, THEN YOU WILL NO LONGER BE SO ANGRY AT THEM. YOU WOULD PROBABLY EVEN BEGIN TO LIKE THEM. :)

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 13, 2000.


Can you speak up? I'm a bit deef in the left ear.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.


You had better be careful Brian, by correcting his font size and not ponying up to him, you might be his next target.

Your above quote, while showing you were wrong about y2k, does not make you seem like a nut. I would take it to the closest thing to a compliment that Andy Ray would give 'a doomer'.

-- gib@extt.nam (gib@extt.nam), July 13, 2000.


"As I recall (I may get some details wrong), the Union of Concerned Scientists maintain a clock that shows how many "minutes to midnight" the world is away from a nuclear conflagration."

As I recall, they moved the clock back after the Berlin Wall came down and after the break up of the USSR.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 13, 2000.


As I recall (I may get some details wrong), the Union of Concerned Scientists maintain a clock that shows how many "minutes to midnight" the world is away from a nuclear conflagration. The metaphor is that we are well past the "eleventh hour" in our progress toward this event.

However, since the world has not seen a single nuclear warhead dropped in anger since 1945, and the Holocaust Clock has only operated in years since that event took place, wouldn't you agree it is clear that the UCS is caught up in a nuclear armageddon meme? After all, they have been consistently wrong about the chances of nuclear holocaust for upwards of 40 years now!

Also, that, whenever they advance their clock a minute or two toward midnight, they are expressing their "memetic hopes and dreams?"

Lian,

First, each and every instance your wrongness is illustrated, you divert ("I was wrong...but they were too!"). Are you related to President Clinton? I would like to think (though I do not know) that, had I been as wrong as you were about something so obvious as Y2k, I would have demonstrated more moral and intellectual integrity - and avoid any appearance of defending the "mis-leaders" (as CPR so aptly describes them), their views, and their fascist tactics in the debate. Alas, perhaps this is but one more difference between thee and me...

As to your moronic question (I will attempt to use small words, and move slowly and deliberately for your memetic little mind): At least once in the history of civilisation, an atomic device has been utilised in hostility. Therefore, a repeat of such an event is: 1) feasible; and 2) possible. Neither of these addresses the likelihood of such an event, mind you.

How does this differ from your precious hopes and dreams of yester- year?

1. It was not feasible that computers (or their failure) could cause the damage for which you hoped. The simple truth is: We're just not that automated. Perhaps in a few decades. But not now.

2. It is not possible (especially given #1 above, but completely independent of it) for the (much-hoped-for) "death by a thousand cuts" scenario to play out in the technology sector. The largest reason for this is the lack (yes, lack) of systems inter- connectivity.

I made both these arguments last year, and the year before. They are the reasons Y2k could never have been an "event."



On a personal note, I noted sometime back your (rather lame, but expected from a doomer) attempts to discern my background and interest in the subject. May I return the favour? I believe the reason you fell for the meme is because you suffer from a physical handicap of some sort, and "life is not fair" (stomp-stomp). You deserve so much better, and are having a time dealing with your malady. May I suggest psychological counseling? They may be able to help you deal with your anger at the unfair life, and perhaps move forward in some productive manner. Should my guess be correct, you are no less a person because of physical limitations (at least not in my opinion). You are simply less credible an intellect because of your lack of reasoning and critical thinking skills.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 13, 2000.

Cool!

Check these out:

http://catalaw.com/doom/

http://www.bullatomsci.org/clock.html



-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 13, 2000.


Andy Ray, it seems that the purpose of my questions traveled right over your head. Let me explain.

Your post quoted what I said on July 16, 1999 and made a short comment on it. Your brief comment was to characterize my predictions as "hopes and dreams..." It puzzled me why you would believe that predicting an outcome is the equivalent of hoping for that outcome.

To try to get at your reasoning, I used the example of the Union of Concerned Scientists and their Doomsday Clock. Clearly they are making an assessment about a possible outcome whenever they move the hands of their clock. If the hands are moved forward, the possible outcome they are predicting is rather doomy.

But is it valid to characterize this prediction as their "hopes and dreams..."?

You never answered this question.

You did make a stab at it. You tried to show that my predictions were poorly formed on specious grounds. But, even if you are right about this I don't see how this shows that my predictions are "hopes and dreams..." or why the better-founded predictions of the UCS are not "hopes and dreams..." Your argument seemed irrelevant to that point.

I probably shouldn't take the time, but I can't resist answering some of your contentions. Among other things, you said:

>> At least once in the history of civilisation, an atomic device has been utilised in hostility. Therefore, a repeat of such an event is: 1) feasible; and 2) possible. <<

May I point out that, at least once in the history of civilization there has been a recession? Therefore, a repeat of such an event is: 1) feasible; and 2) possible. Ditto for a depression.

In my prediction I said that "a recession is likely anyway." In fact, in July, 1999 the economic expansion had already gone longer than any expansion but one in the history of the USA. As of February 2000, the current expansion surpassed the previous record and has set a new record in every succeeding month. This is not a usual or predictable course of events.

My concerns for the stock market were not mine alone. In March, 1999 the Economist magazine of London stated that it believed that the USA stock markets were experiencing a "bubble". At that time stock indices were approximately where they stand today.

My only point is that my predictions were based on somewhat more than whether Y2K would cause cascading cross defaults. A closer look at my statement, quoted above, will verify this.

So, Andy Ray, no doubt in your view I am diverting attention again away from the fact that I was wrong about Y2K. Would it help if I were to say once more that I was wrong about Y2K? I was, you know. Really really wrong. Feel better?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), July 13, 2000.



Andy Ray first discusssed the quote from Brian here.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003Qtt

You be the judge as to which of the two is more logical....

-- the (other@recent.thread), July 13, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ