In Salon:

Paranoia

Cheers,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 12, 2001

Answers

Good link, thanks.

I went and looked at "Mountain Mike's" thread, and it is plain hilarious. Y2K is behind every difficulty anyone can find, real or imagined (most of them imagined, of course), yet nobody even bothers to *consider* the putative cause -- a date being improperly handled by computer software truncating the year field. It became clear that none of these people has any idea how software works, nobody has ever written or maintained any, nobody knows even hazily what role software does and does not play in their lives.

In short, these people are all convinced of what y2k is responsible for, but none of them any longer has the slightest notion what y2k really *is* (or was, anyway). The answer has not changed, but the question is long forgotten. Who needs it?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), February 12, 2001.

Uh-oh! Better clean this place up, we got visitors coming!

-- (moratorium on @ rightwing. babble), February 12, 2001.

Y2K was a plausible threat, at least for those with an active imagination and a limited understanding of computer technology (and economics). Worse than not understanding software technology was the lack of insight into the inherent redundancies of a capitalist economic system. For a person who never thought too deeply about the miracle of the #2 pencil, the apparent "fragility" of the supply chain was a shock. For those who did not understand the pervasive nature of technology, the dependence came as a rude awakening. And those who had an inherent distrust of government and a pessimistic view of modern culture, the conspiracy theories behind Y2K were easy to swallow.

The Y2K doomsayers were not "bad" people or "stupid" people per se. They were utterly average with a predisposition to believe the worst might happen. The neo-survivalists already thought society was on a one-way express elevator to Hell... the thought of falling the last few floors was not a stretch.

What the aftermath proves is that people are capable of believing anything, if so inclined. The unreconstructed doomsayers like Paula Gordon see a Y2K glitch behind every mishap. This is not a far walk from the ancients thinking thunder and lightning were the displeasure of the Gods. Gordon can no more prove her theory than I can prove a rabbit's foot brings good luck. The intriguing part is why people are so drawn to nonrational belief systems? Why, after seeing the advance of science and technology, is our species so quick to have faith in seers, shaman, charlatans and mystics?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), February 12, 2001.

Flint, do shut the fuck up. You were once the biggest doomer of us all. Or have you now forgotten about your two years supply of food and 1000's of rounds of ammo?

-- Where's that link to "Flint's Take" when you need it (hot@air.bag), February 12, 2001.

Well, as a frequent observer, and sometime participant, of that board, I thought I would offer my perspective.

First off, yes, there are proponents, and opponents, of imminent doom and destruction. Whether it be from alien invasion, the antiChrist, asteroid impact, runaway plagues, massive earth changes, a religious Armageddon, an economic collapse, global warming (or cooling), overpopulation, or the expiration of fossil fuel energy resources. (I hope I didn't leave anyone out.)

Are any or all of these possible? In my opinion, yes to some, no to others, maybe to the rest. Everyone makes their own judgements. My personal opinion is that most are trying to peer into an uncertain future and be as prepared as possible to meet it for themselves and their families. Kind of like trying to decide which health insurance policy and how much life insurance to carry.

Although I don't frequent this board often, I'm sure there are intelligent, thoughtful participants here who would not wish to be judged by the more extreme viewpoints or other contributions of some of the members. By the same token, I'm confident that there are participants of the other board who do not share all the views, or condone all the contributions, of all the other members.

Unfortunately, I have seen "us versus them" posts, on both boards, heralding extreme views or heated emotional responses to denigrate ALL the participants of the "other" forum. I think it is a pity that the most thought provoking, cogent, and coherent positions are not shared as being the better side of both forums.

The internet offers a unique arena where ideas and viewpoints can be presented without any preconcieved notions of race, gender, creed or nationality.

In my opinion, to fabricate a prejudice based upon which internet forum one wishes to participate in, or the opinions of some of its contributors, is equivalent to refusing to enter a library or bookstore based upon its street address, or whether it contains literary works of authors you consider objectionable.

I guess I can only encourage everyone to seek out those "authors" they find stimulating, thought provoking, enlightening, and/or challenging.

And for myself, I hope we all seek a "higher" ground in our discussions and debates, and our quotes and references from other groups.

-- (Wolverine_in_nc@hotmail.com), February 12, 2001.

Let's see. Salon.com is selling at 75 cents a share down from $52. Laid off another 25% of their workforce a couple of weeks ago. Yep, articles about something that nobody cares about will do that. Can't say I'll miss 'em.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 12, 2001.

Wolverine, you have omitted the most insidious terror of them all: Chemtrails!! On just about any given day the foam-at-mouth gang over at the SleAZy board will screech about some newly sited threat (Mostly from Northern Oregon). If they were not so serious it would be more laughable….freakazoids.

-- Barry (bchbear863@cs.com), February 12, 2001.

Well Yourdan responded to the article.

Have no idea what the response relates to

Wolv; you are right in some cases.

Carlos: There are some people that I have learned to ignore.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), February 12, 2001.

Down from $52?? Where'd you get that crap from meathead?

-- (repugs@chronic.bullshitters), February 12, 2001.

You're quite right. It was $9. My bad.

Still, if you like Salon buy a bunch at 75 cents. Be a hero. You might get mentioned in the bankrupcy hearing.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 13, 2001.

Y2K was a plausible threat, at least for those with an active imagination and a limited understanding of computer technology (and economics). Worse than not understanding software technology was the lack of insight into the inherent redundancies of a capitalist economic system.

Even though they were wrong, I'm grateful to those organizations who looked at the potential threats posed by Y2k. No one knew for sure how much Y2k work had been done by some foreign countries and by SME's in the U.S.--even towards the end of 1999.

U.S. Y2K adviser terms glitch chronic

At the same time, a working group led by the Treasury Department voiced concerns about the Y2K readiness of key public and private institutions and the infrastructure of many countries including China, India, Russia.

The President's Working Group on Financial Markets cited concerns about small- to medium-sized enterprises worldwide, including in the United States, and about ``the financial sector in several small European markets'' that it did not name.

``One risk is the potential for a 'domino' systemic effect brought about by significant disruptions to these groups because of the Y2K rollover,'' said the working group, which consists of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Many of the countries that are least prepared for the Year 2000 are important energy exporters, said the report, prepared at the request of Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee.

ENERGY EXPORTERS THREATENED

``Any significant disruptions from the century date changeover that impact (the energy) industry locally could have a negative impact on the U.S. and global economies,'' the report said.

It cited Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Indonesia, Turkmenistan, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Angola, and Colombia as among energy exporters that ``may experience disruptions tied to Year 2000.''

-- The threat seemed (plausible@to.many), February 13, 2001.

What I wonder is why hang on to Y2K when there are so many other "threats" to get paranoid about?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.