Why The Flint Bashing?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Been onboard here for 6 months or so enduring opinions abunch. That the IT folk are divided figures. That the Milne 10s are anathema to the pollys figures. But, why the Flint bashing? Seems a straight shooter to me.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999


I am a big fan also, one of the best minds on this forum.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 26, 1999.

It goes in cycles. Flint-bashing is considered a sport among the cognoscenti. (Trying to be funny.)

Actually, Flint makes a lot of good points frequently and his posts are a lot more intelligent than most of the pollys (except Decker). He seems to trigger a type of road-rage in all of us at one time or another because of his lack of concern regarding y2k. I realize he intends to present a 'more rational' view of the situation but who can define what is rational. Arguing with Flint is like trying to argue with a psychiatrist...he keeps wanting to know if you still hate your mother.

I would dearly love to see Flint take a stand....just once, on some subject dear to him. He tries to argue both sides of the street and it is irritating. It's like trying to pin down an icecube on teflon. That's why I get mad at him. The others on this forum may well have their own ideas.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.


You describe Flint's "lack of concern about y2k". Please explain for tis dummie.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999.

Check out the banking threads and you will see Flint in all his glory :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.


Your imagery gives you away. Y2K is like a rainbow, with all the colors of the visible spectrum (and wavelengths beyond on both sides). It is far, far from a street with two sides. If you think that spectrum is black and not white, then from your perspective sometimes I seem to be saying it's black, other times I seem to be saying it's white. But this isn't *my* inability to recognize this spectrum, but rather a reflection of your refusal to model it correctly.

By all indications I can see, y2k is going to cause a mind-boggling array of problems. Probably nobody will be able to summarize them meaningfully, beyond some label (like the Big Glitch or some such), just like we have a Great Depression, during which some lived well and many became very rich. A good number of key developments and discoveries came out of the 1930's, a lot of excellent books on all topics, it was an interesting decade indeed, and the economic difficulties were only one aspect of it.

Most of the time, I'm trying just as hard as some others here to make an accurate estimate of what's coming. However, on this forum I must recognize that I'm making this effort in a context of advocacy rather than investigation. Face it, few of the posters here consider any material with an eye to *forming* an opinion. Rather, almost all material is presented (and heavily editorialized and interpreted) to *support* an opinion. And primarily, that opinion is that we're headed for just awful things. When you view the world with doom- colored glasses, you see exactly what you expect no matter what's really there. As I've said before, people here read exactly the same thing between ALL the lines, without regard for what those lines actually say.

I admit I can't see the future. I can only guess. My philosophy is that clear thinking leads to better guesses. And I envy those who feel they *know* the future as a fact, and are undiscouraged when they're consistently way wrong. I admit that being way wrong consistently would bother me, and I'd try to find out what might be causing such errors. Every day is a new day to a goose, and I envy the geese here their peace of mind. I have no idea *why* they think that bashing me will make their future come true. I consider it unlikely.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 26, 1999.

Flint is a conundrum (a puzzling question or mystery). Why is he here? Why does he never break character? How can he endure the constant verbal assault and still return the same even, reasoned responses?

To some degree, he is a pedant (a person who insists on exact adherance to an arbitrary set of rules). Although, he is invariably poliite and considerate in every response, a characteristic admirable regardless of his position.

But none of this matters. He is also prepared. Per his own post: 'I'm prepared for at least a year in most respects."

His detractors would be better off looking at what the man is doing and spending less time on what he says. As far as I am concerned, Flint has said everything that needs to be said in the single sentence quoted above.

-- Hawthorne (99@00.com), June 26, 1999.


Hey, this thread isn't about your philosophy so quiet please. Want responses about why Flint is getting bashed.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999.


Keeping that dictionary handy is handy ain't it.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999.


His "philosophy" is why he is getting bashed...

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 26, 1999.

Amazing, isn't it. The following question was asked here on April 06, 1999. Some things never change... <:)=

What is going on with the Flint-bashing?

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Flint's the kind of guy who would show up at Catholic mass with a chemical testing kit. "Heard about transubstantiation. Thought I'd test your wine after it changes into the blood of Christ."

Actually, he's far too polite for such an investigation, but I make my point. Flint is a rationalist, a "Mr. Spock" character if you will. (Though he does lose his temper from time to time.) Flint simply applies the rules of logic and reason to the Y2K issue. Like any reasonable person, he is somewhat concerned about Y2K problems. Of course, he also has not found a compelling argument to support the "end of the world" scenarios commonly discussed on this forum. Or perhaps he realizes preparing for those scenarios is like preparing for a car accident at 100 mph.

This makes him less than popular with some pessimists. Why? Here's the pessimists' logic. Y2K as the "end of the world" is "obvious." Therefore, if Flint does not believe this "obvious" truth, he must be stupid or dishonest. Of course, this whole argument depends upon the original assumption.

I fail to see how Flint making modest preparations is "damning" in any way. I'm sure he uses his seat belts when he drives. He just stops short of driving an APC to work. (I hope.)

Modest preparations are infuriating to the pessimists. There is no "too much" prepared. I find this ironic. When I attended the Virginia gathering, I could not help but notice a number of attendees were cigarette smokers. As a libertarian, I defend their right to smoke to their heart's content. I found it odd, though, that people so concerned about personal safety would casually engage in a behavior clearly proven to have negative health impacts. Of course, I kept my thoughts to myself, however, I am sure Flint would have noticed the same phenomena.

Humans rarely approach risk in a rational manner. People worry about sharks after watching "Jaws," though the odds of a shark attack in most waters... quite low. The same people drive to the beach and engage in unsafe behaviors, aggressive driving, etc. In my experience, people detest having this irrationality pointed out... and many defend their behavior as perfectly reasonable.

Just like Y2K.

Flint correctly observes the difference between this forum as a school and this forum as a church. Have the intelligence and insight to make that distinction earns him the respect of some, the enmity of others.


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 26, 1999.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzzzzz... zzzzzzzz... zzzzzz

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.

Thank you Mr. Decker.

I think you've explained it as well as it could be done, Flint upsets some people here because HE IS A VULCAN! It's TOO perfect! As soon as I read that I knew it must be so, the shoe fit exactly.

I guess we must have a lot of Bones McCoy types around here.

"Damn it Flint, don't you ever just FEEL something in your gut"?

"Dr. McCoy, logic dictates....."

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Carlos, IMO the majority of posts by Flint mislead the reader into believing that all is well or very close to being that way. Ocassionally he will throw out a carrot so that he can say "I Told You So".

I am not aware of an instance where he has contributed ANY information to ASSIST one in preparing, for instance a link or other prep info. His main objective is to OBFUSCATE the information and DETRACT others from the main objective of this forum.

He iis a PROFESSIONAL at his job.


-- Ray (ray@toacc.com), June 26, 1999.

While different people may reach a common conclusion by different routes, some of the signposts that may steer some people toward an unfavorable opinion of Flint may include:

1. A large portion of his many, many, posts here argue, not in support of his perception of probable Y2K scenarios, but against someone else's perception of probable Y2K scenarios.

2. Many of his posts include gratuitous insults impugning the mental and/or psychological faculties of many, if not most, of those who post here. The wording may be "polite", but it should not be much of a surprise if "the geese" regard the usually clear implications as invitations to take offense.

Someone might imagine that a "rational" interpretation of Flint's posts would lead to the conclusion that he wants to be "bashed". That is not my opinion, it is simply an illustration a possible, seemingly "rational", fallacy, to which pseudo psychological guesswork may lead.


-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), June 26, 1999.

What is it with you, Decker? You just can't seem to bring yourself to 'finish' the last portion of the term "End of the World------AS WE'VE KNOWN IT" This really seems to stick in your throat, eh? It would invalidate most of your theories to be forced to acknowledge the second half of that phrase. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Says alot about you. Not to mention Flint. In my observation, this 'second half' of that term is IN FACT the very 'thought' most Pollys refuse to look at. It just isn't extreme or wacko enough to proove their point of how "nutso" we doomers are!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 26, 1999.

Jerry is correct, in my view. Flint makes useless statements INVITING a 'bashing'. He then recieves it, falls limp like the wet towel he is, and then points his boney finger and whines....bully...ignorant bully. This leads easily led readers to assume he is a "victim". Flint isn't a victim...he's a door mat. It is his purpose to be available for people to wipe their feet on him. Everyone loves the underdog....they e-mail him with thoughtful support to pump him up for the next days battle with the "ignorant bullies". These will possibly be the poor suckers who fall for his views of 'moderation' and 'rational' thought. Too bad. I've had the pleasure of baby- sitting children just like him.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 26, 1999.

"These will possibly be the poor suckers who fall for his views of 'moderation' and 'rational' thought."

Rational thought is something you could use a dose of, your posts remind me of a rabid dog foaming away at the gate.

But I mean that in a nice way.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Thanks Unc D (I think...lol). Look, this IS one of the problems of dealing with preparing for Y2K, right? Let's examine the various definitions of the word 'rational'. One would be: having reason or understanding...relating to, based on, or agreeable to understanding. ANOTHER would be: relating to or resulting from the application of the arithmetic operations to integers or to polynominals. While both definitions state the same thing, basicly...they provide two different forms of achieving the end result. (or do I need more sleep than I've been getting?)I obviously lean more towards the first example given, while some lean more towards the latter. Unfortunately, in the process of using the last mentioned formula...is it possible that one could be burning valuable 'daylight' while attempting to arrive at this version of a rational judgement? After all, it IS *JUNE 1999*, right? I'm taking off for awhile and will look forward to the abuse that I will recieve for this 'level' of thought..Hahahah.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 26, 1999.


Flint is prepared for a year, yet his "public stance" is pollyish. In fact he enjoys riling up the "doomers." He's traded many private "e's" with many regulars, including me early on. I would have to say he has an "agenda" and it's NOT getting people prepared.

IMHO, his "planets" line up with the DGI crowd, but for some reason his intention is to be percieved as a logical "Mr. Spock" here... good analogy.

Some daze his posts are like fingers etched on a chalkboard, other's he's ignorable. Sometimes, like all of us he makes a point worth listening to.

I still wonder, Flint (speaking directly) who pays you? The DeBunkerites... Decker, et. al., think highly of you, and that always gets me "curious."


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Diane commented:

" I would have to say he has an "agenda" and it's NOT getting people prepared. "

Extremely well put Diane, concise and to the point.

As I said earlier, he is a PROFESSIONAL at his job !!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 26, 1999.


I draw a fairly clear (to me, useful) distinction between a doomer and a pessimist. I'll do my best to put this into words here.

A pessimist believes that the preponderance of y2k information available to us indicates that problems are unavoidable. There are too many bugs, they are too pervasive, we rely too heavily on computers (and can't do without them by now), and it's impossible to fix and test them all. Too many are doing too little (or nothing) about them, too many important remediation projects appear too far behind, adequate testing is being done only in isolated circumstances, and we have no effective "verification" industry at all. Add all this together and it bodes ill, no question about it.

The (relatively) smooth convenience of our daily lives results from the proper working of too many things that may not work properly, to be rationally ignored. So the pessimist (and yes, I'm a pessimist) tries to assess this impact, and take steps to reduce it as much as possible insofar as it may concern them and affect their lives. Given the spotty, unreliable, speculative, heavily spun nature of our information, doing this assessment is incredibly difficult as it is. I believe that doing this assessment requires as careful and objective an analysis of what this information means, which requires in turn that we examine exactly what it says and delimit what it does not say. Even so, determining what we are most likely to face so as to tailor our preparations most appropriately, is brutally hard.

A doomer, on the other hand, makes no attempt at such a difficult evaluation. The doomer already knows what's coming, and distorts, misinterprets, misrepresents, and otherwise manipulates the information available to us. I've spent a lot of effort detailing these techniques, which are essentially the tactics of unethical debates (intentionally or not). The doomer applies inconsistent rules of evidence, presents speculations as facts, denies the validity of conflicting information, treats contingencies as guarantees, makes arguments based on assumptions (often hidden and usually false), applies guilt by association (Decker admires you, so you're suspicious), makes groundless accusations (who's paying you?), attempts to discredit the messenger rather than address the message, changes the subject when it's threatening to their position, treats all possibilities (however far fetched) as equally likely, and any other technique designed to *trick* people into their viewpoint.

Now, you might argue that this "crooked lawyer" approach to y2k information is a Good Thing, because it might terrify otherwise clueless people into preparing. And if so, you've moved directly into the political arena, attempting to control information for the purpose of influencing public behavior toward desired goals. I don't believe dishonesty is required under the circumstances (or any other cirumstances). In fact, I suspect that this approach does your cause more harm than good. Many people are rational enough (although not nearly informed enough) to conclude that if your position cannot be supported honestly, it's not an honest position in the first place.

So I described (some while back) a pessimist as regarding this forum as a school, a place to learn what we face so as to decide what to do about it. A doomer regards this forum a a church, and abuses me for my failure to convert to, and subsequently to preach, the Gospel of Doom. And to be sure, my continuing attempts to point out dishonest or unethical techniques of argument will strike the doomer as an attack. In a sense, it *is* an attack. But I think the doomers dislike my efforts in much the same way that con men dislike the law. It's their enemy.

I encourage you to study and make up your own mind about y2k. I won't tell you what *I* think you should believe. That's your business.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 26, 1999.

Flint can speak for himself, so I'll speak for me. I have NEVER seen Flint say "Don't prepare" not one single time, nada, zip, zero, ziltch.

He, unlike many on this board, questions the BAD news along with the GOOD news in an attempt, or so it seems to me, to get a firm grip on what the REALITY of the situation is. On a board filled with so much doom that is a good thing.


Maybe Flint is just a contrarian, who enjoys poking holes in the assumptions of others. That too is a good thing, as it causes one to think, and to question one's conclusions. I ought to know, he's done it to me.

He, in my mind, doesn't share the "This is how things will play out, and anyone who does not agree is either a dumb zombie (polly) or a paid shill" (doomer) view that is rampant from both sides.

This situation is without precedent, and anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen is kidding themselves. Though I will admit to kidding myself with the view that whatever is going to happen, it will not be a good thing.

But that may prove wrong too. Time will tell.

Besides, if you are so weak minded as to base your Y2K thoughts and actions on the words of any one other person, you'll deserve what you get.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Unc D commented:

"Flint can speak for himself, so I'll speak for me. I have NEVER seen Flint say "Don't prepare" not one single time, nada, zip, zero, ziltch. "

Now Unc D, there are many ways to say "don't prepare" and I believe Flint has MASTERED them ALL !!


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 26, 1999.

Now Ray,

You say that because you are a "cult" member, and worship at the altar of DOOM.

That's not a bad thing, in and of itself, but that is why it looks that way to you.


-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Unc D, I find that when you folks have your back pinned to the wall you revert to this kind of a response.

Does my heart goooood to see it happening !! I figure you weasels will be exiting in the relatively near future. Wonder where your next JOB will be????

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 26, 1999.

You folks?

What kind is that Ray? The ones who seek the truth?

Oh, one moment, upon re-reading your post I see it now. You are inferring that your ol' Unc is a paid shill, is that it?

Holy shat, THAT is a CLASSIC! Congratulations Ray! You have out-done yourself with that one. My kiddingly comment to you was half in jest, but upon further reflection, I hereby nominate you as "Paranoia Poster Boy" for the TB2K forum.

Andy ol' chum, you may step down now. Ya gotta go with the best, and you have been shamed.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.


You wrote:

Or perhaps he realizes preparing for those scenarios is like preparing for a car accident at 100 mph.

Have you ever watched F1 raceing? 200 mph, sideways into a concrete wall, most walk away.

You can prep for a 10, IF you have 6 mo food, clean water, tools, and seed....If you live in the right place. Location, location, knowlege, knowlege.

-- CT (ct@no.yr), June 26, 1999.

Unc D commented:

" My kiddingly comment to you was half in jest, but upon further reflection, I hereby nominate you as "Paranoia Poster Boy" for the TB2K forum."

Unc D, NO YOU WERE NOT KIDDING and just so that we don't get off of my original point, Flint is a MASTER at saying "don't prepare" in MANY different ways.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 26, 1999.

I have got to keep reminding myself. I always forget.

"Use emoticons for the sarcasticly challenged"

"Use emoticons for the sarcasticly challenged"

"Use emoticons for the sarcasticly challenged"

Etc, etc, etc.

Besides Ray, I said HALF in jest.


-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

Oh yeah, and "Use word to spell check my answers" etc, etc, etc.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

You have to wonder who the "shills" are here. If someone wanted to discredit Youronites, and discourage preparation, what better way to do it then send in the people like Ray and Will continue. They scream cover-up and conspiracy at every bit of good news, and defend every bit of bad news, even if indefensible. THEN they have the nerve to bash someone like Flint who apply critical thought to all information, good or bad. It's not the "trolls" like Decker or Maria that have ruined this forum, but rather the mindless drivel of people like Ray and Will.

-- Online2Much (ready_for@y2k@mindspring.com), June 26, 1999.

Thanks all. Is there anyone who wouldn't want a Flint in their neighborhood/town come rollover and beyond?

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999.

Carlos, to answer your question **NO**. As I indicated in an earlier post, to my knowledge Flint has offered very little if any advice for y2k preps. If verbage was the most important factor in preparing for y2k I would take Flint in an instant.

I want people in my neighborhood that I knew were independent, self sufficient folks. There are plenty of them participating on this forum. I am grateful for every thought and suggestion from them.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 26, 1999.

I have seen Flint comment on his preps. on several threads. In my mind he tries the middle ground a bit much but he is at least polite (for the most part).

In my mind he is not a person that should be advising preps. That kind of thinking comes with living the life. By the sound of it minimalist living didn't come natural to him :o)

Flint - sometimes you really got to figure out some kind of disclaimer "without injury or prejudice"

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 26, 1999.

Uh-oh. Am in real trouble now. Ray signed off with the "Your Pal" thing.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), June 26, 1999.

Carlos, unless I've confused you with someone else, you're, "Carlos the Jarhead", not, "Carlos the Jackal" and thus should be able to deal with whatever trouble gets sent your way. Semper Fi.

Ray, even if Uncle D were a shill, his contribution to this forum by inventing dehydrated beer outweighs any and all other considerations.

Flint, Non Illigitimi Carborundum (For those unfamiliar with "gutter-Latin", that's, "Don't let the bastards grind you down.")

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 26, 1999.


The hollow attacks of the loonies amount to nothing more than free advertising for what I write. And who knows, maybe some people go back to see what I've actually written, and in that case the contrast between what I write and what the mudslingers write could hardly be more to my benefit. Another thing P.T.Barnum understood was that what's important is being mentioned, and not what's actually said about you. So I certainly don't feel ground down -- quite the contrary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 26, 1999.


That's what I was thinking about Barnum when I wondered about Decker's ancestry on the other thread. That his comeback was to call a great many people "suckers" is illustrative of his thought processes. Like Barnum, his arguments always work to present his subject matter regardless of legitimacy and his replies frequently attempt to redirect the reader's attention, again, to his subject.

Lest any accuse me of talking about Decker behind his back, you will note that he has participated in this thread and I assume that he will eventually read it again.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 26, 1999.

Are you guys talking about double-decker the paid Banking shill?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 27, 1999.


I'm the only one talking about him (except now, you too) but he has told us that he is not representing anyone other than himself here.

Personally, I don't care how or if he's compensated. I simply see his arguments as invalid and usually inherently dishonest. That I frequently disagree with him is a separate matter.

As many have pointed out, his manner is irritating but that may be (as Flint has noted) ultimately to his advantage and perhaps simply a part of his strategy. After all, it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. (All in favor of "greasing" Mr. Decker, say, "Aye"!)

The above parenthetical quip is not to be taken for real. It is intended as a humorous play on words.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 27, 1999.

Dang!!! Things were quiet when I signed off.

Flint...Yes, I agree (shudder) with you about y2k having many, many levels and not simply two sides and one must be right. What I was referring to is your seemingly banal attitude toward life. The very few times I have seen you lose your temper on this forum, it has been the result of someone pushing your buttons hard. (Andy, for example). I must ask you a question. Is there anything that you feel strongly enough about to take a firm definite stand and defend it against all comers whether you are proved right or wrong??? THAT'S what I was referring to.

I have seen posts from you on different threads that happen to have the same subject and you are taking opposite sides in the ongoing arguments. If you are doing that for the sake of stirring up discussion, I have no problem with that. If you are doing it to get attention, then you are no better than al-d or some of the others including Y2kPro.

I admit that your posts often bring out information that otherwise would have slipped by. But the same can be said for Andy and Ray.(even though it might be OT). Mr. Decker also. I just wish you wouldn't do the Spock routine. (That IS a good comparison). I don't want you to go away, I just want to see more of a human than has been exhibited. It would be nice to see you admit a mistake every now and then too.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), June 27, 1999.

Thank you Hardliner,

We agree on the subject of double-decker. he need no greasing as he is as oily as they come, a queer eel as my dad used to call people of his ilk.

I know hardliner taht you have more than suspicion regarding double-d and his motives, and being the gentleman that you are you are couching and mitigating your suspicions as you have no absolut proof.

Fair enough.

However I never claimed to be a gentle man when the vexing subject of paid disinformation agents surfaces on this forum, and there are several, of that I am sure.

I have no doubt whatsoever that double-decker is a disinformation shill of the fiat persuasion, one only has to look at his ludicrous posts with and open mind to see right through him and his motives.

I could rake up umpteen posts of his and dissect those words of his which lead me to my conclusions - but I'm not going to waste my time, anyone can go back through the threads and see for themselves.

Now those of us with an ounce of economic real world sense, who have worked in the world of banking IT, and are aware of agendas behind the scenes need only read these words from double- decker.

read them in the context of July 1999, with all that we know and can surmise, read them very carefully and ask yourself the question "is decker for rael? does he REALLY believe this claptrap, does he really expect us all to believe him when he says he mixes with these "bankers" on a daily basis and they are NOT running scared...???"

Come ON double-decker, do you think we are all imbeciles, SUCKERS as you like to call us, do you really expect us to believe your lies, your PROPAGANDA (lousy, at that...)

Read this from duplicitous-decker...

""Hardliner" You are getting better. The answer is, "Yes." Bankers see Y2K much like pilots see a patch of bad weather. Since I actually work with regional bankers on a daily basis, I think I have reasonable access to the thought process. Not a single banker I know is "terrified." They know the Federal Reserve will have one hand firmly on the tiller. Not only is there enough currency, demand deposits, money order, cashier's checks, etc. are also money and the FR has the ability to give these quasi-currency instruments the weight of currency with the swipe of a pen. Unlike a plane, the system crashes only if the FR allows it to crash. By the way, are you going to drop me an email in January and apologize when we don't have bank runs?


-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), June 26, 1999."

Not a single banker is "terrified"... Hmmmm, sounds like Clinton semantics here,

no, maybe not terrified,

how about "shitting themselves" will that do double-decker...??

how about "extremely worried" will that do double-decker...??

how about "sleepless with concern" will that do double-decker...??

how about "at the end of their tether" will that do double- decker...??

how about "all of a tizzy" will that do double-decker...??

you get my drift...

Those in the know are quite aware that bankers are buying up supplies like no tomorrow, that they are transferring their digital assets, that they are purchasing precious metals, that they are readying retreats...

Decker is a SHILL, no question, get it into your skulls, a SHILL!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 27, 1999.


diETeR WIsheS To kNOW If yOU BElieVE THat AnyoNE On thIS BOaRD Is lESS ThaN HOneSt?????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), June 27, 1999.

Only SlimFast is honest, only you...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 27, 1999.


Honesty is relative, according to the "prez".

Jackasselry however is absolute and it abounds!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 27, 1999.


I feel very strongly that the y2k information we have, taken all together, is terminally ambiguous. No offense intended, but look at your own post above. In the first paragraph, you agree that y2k has many many levels and not simply two sides. But by your second paragraph, you seem to have forgotten all about this and claim that I am taking opposite "sides". So it would seem that you agree in theory, but emotionally you have still taken this incredible, complex mess and reduced it to two "opposite sides."

From my perspective, this inappropriate model has led you to the mistake you make. Someone says "the rainbow is red" (one extreme) and I say no, it's all colors. Then someone else says "they rainbow is indigo" (the other extreme) and I say no, it's all colors. So someone who imposes a dichotomy where there is none is going to claim that I have taken "both sides", because I disagreed with the 2-sided model, not because of any contradiction per se.

Yes, I have described what I expect to happen. I've been careful to say these aren't really predictions, because I can't see the future. They are descriptions of what would surprise me the least. And these descriptions are (or I at least try to make them) relative and comparative. The Great Depression in the US was depressing only for a minority, and even their lives were not so difficult as life is for the common people of the vast majority of countries today.

As for being wrong, I consider this unavoidable. I admit my expectations swing fairly wildly fairly often. One day I'll look at all the positive reports, and reflect on what *hasn't* happened that was predicted, and on the (face it) majority of observers who don't expect much out of the ordinary, and feel pretty optimistic. And the next day, I'll look at the many late or unstarted projects, and the sensitivities of many interrelationships, and the history of programming projects, and the pervasiveness of computerization, and run out to do more preparations. In my post above, I said the integrating all the equivocal information we have is brutally hard.

Rereading what I wrote about pessimists and doomers, I realize I could also describe these people as realists and extremists, and perhaps make the point clearer (since the no-problems crowd uses the same dishonest techniques as the doomers). At best, making a hard problem easy by picking a simple, one-dimensional answer and forcing everything to fit it is lazy. I admit that at some point, if you're going to take any specific action you must make concrete decisions and hope you're right. I've done the same. But I regard this as like rolling dice -- the dice are no more likely to come up the number you bet on, no matter how much you bet.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Anyone who gives credence to this board's infiltration by "paid disinformation agents," "banking shills," or "government operatives" is a plain boob whose beliefs are all under suspicion.

-- John F. (John F.@losanca.ca), June 27, 1999.

John F.,

Credible and verifiable evidence has been presented to this forum that such "infiltration" and disinformation efforts are reality and not the paranoid delusions that you suggest. Unfortunately, that evidence is buried somewhere in the archives and I have been unable to locate it. Perhaps another will have more success (and perhaps more motivation also). The thread involved a discussion of the practice of "chumming" (on the internet) by federal agents, information from a then forum regular (Chris (catsy)) that she had participated in such with the FBI in their efforts to deal with pedophilia on the internet, and (I believe) some citations of the FBI's activities.

Now the leap from the certain knowledge of such activity on the internet in general to the conclusion that such is occurring on this forum is one of speculation, yet not unreasonable speculation I think. This forum has quite a following, numerically, and if the old saw about a single letter to a politician representing a thousand opinions unexpressed is anywhere near accurate, the readers of this forum may well be a body that the PTB are concerned with.

You may evaluate those who reason as I do here as suspect, certainly. That is your right, but it is your suspicions that appear unfounded rather than those of they who believe it likely that this forum has been or is being "infiltrated".

In any case, forewarned is forearmed and no negative consequences attach to caution. Hurtful words have been sent in my direction through cyberspace (although they have been completely insignificant compared to those sent to certain others) and I have yet to suffer pain from them. Only the truth hurts, and the incorrect accusation that one is a "shill" should by rights only provide a much needed chuckle to the target.

I suggest, sir, that your beliefs in the sanctity and purity of the internet are somewhat uninformed and may operate to your own disadvantage.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 27, 1999.


In your opinion, based on your time reading this forum, what sort of paid operative would be most effective? Would it be someone who argues that nothing much will happen (like Stephen Poole), or someone who makes concerned people look like paranoid nutcases (like Andy), or maybe someone who makes them look like mindless morons (like Ray)? How about those who try to kill threads by pasting in almost unreadably long articles or spam the forum with cross-posts from elsewhere?

This is starting to sound like KoKo the executioner in the Mikado -- "I've got them on my list, and they'll none of them be missed."

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint, IMHO the most likely candidate would be someone who spent an enormous amount of time and words spinning a picture of minor problems and ocassionally throwing out a Herring that it may be more severe.

This would be a WORDSMITH of major stature and a professional DOUBLE SPEAKER>

Now let's see !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.

Flint, almost missed this one:

"How about those who try to kill threads by pasting in almost unreadably long articles or spam the forum with cross-posts from elsewhere? "

Flint, there is NO doubt in my mind (alleged or not) that if we were to total up the number of words presented here by each poster you would be the GRAND PRIZE WINNER by a mile.

Congratulations, Greenspun will probably have to get another disk drive soon!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.


Your question (". . .what sort of paid operative would be most effective?") is certainly valid, but I suggest that it should not be the first question.

Your subsequent remarks (in your last post) make clear that you've assumed that such an operative will have ill intent with respect to the well being of this forum.

What would preclude such an operative from operating to the benefit of this forum? (I know that I've answered you with another question, but my purpose is to frame my eventual answer to your question, not to avoid it)

I think that in our zeal to bash the government in general, we all tend to lose sight of the fact that the government is populated largely by real people who are doing a real job for society. Mail carriers should not be held accountable for the phrase, "going postal" becoming a part of our language, but we speak of "The Post Office" as if it were a monolithic block of single minded people. We all have justified doubts about the tales told by the FAA, but again, the highly intelligent and passionately dedicated air traffic controllers have nothing to do with such tales. I know that in all the endless bureaucracy that we call government, there are many fine people who hold the American dream intact. Is it such a stretch to suppose that some one of them (or even several) have the ability, the will and the means to "operate", on behalf of "the People", on the internet? Would you not consider the FBI's efforts in the matter of pedophilia to be beneficial and an example of that which I've supposed? I must consider all alternatives, that is, that such operatives may occupy any or all points of opinion on the spectrum of Y2K that you postulate so accurately.

Now that you know where I'm coming from, it must be clear that the answer to your question must be relative. It must be relative to the objective of such an operative. The examples of destructive methodology that you cited were all on the same side of the positive/negative line, but it is just as clear that folks such as Arnie and Robert Cook represent constructive methodologies.

I suspect that my answer is as unsatisfying to you as it is to me, but in this "Hall of Mirrors" that we have named cyberspace, it is the best that I can do. I maintain that certain tenets of social wisdom are as applicable in cyberspace as in the "real world". "Trust But Verify", "Most of What I Need To Know, I Learned in Kindergarten", "Your Chickens Will Always Come Home to Roost", "What Goes Around, Comes Around", etc., etc.

FWIW, my own course of action is to view my activities on the internet as a search. And, as in all searches, what you're looking for is always the last thing that you find (because then you stop searching) and the great majority of what you find is ultimately discarded as being irrelevant to the search. OTOH, I have files dating back to 1981 which have proved to be of value in dealing with Y2K, that were found during a search for something else. I fully expect that some of the information that I come across during my Y2K "search" will ultimately prove as valuable.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 27, 1999.

Just to throw my $.02 in:

I don't think ANYONE is being paid to post on this forum. I see these shill accusations regularly on the political bulletin boards and the term is typically used to describe someone who doesn't agree with the thoughts of the respondent.

I wouldn't doubt at all that the FBI or another governmental agency has someone scanning ALL the Y2k boards. However, I haven't seen anyone on this forum who would qualify to be included in their files. They're looking for posters who might suggest something like "We're organizing a militia group and when Y2k comes, we're going to ensure that problems occur. Anyone interested in joining us?" I exaggerated a bit there to make a point. In my short term here, I don't see anyone threatening anyone. There are many different viewpoints and temperaments, but who is being harmed?

Many here dislike the current administration. So WHAT? I can point out many more on the political fora who are even more outspoken. Unless one actually approaches an administration person personally (via mail or in person), it's considered releasing steam.

Hardliner: I've seen documentaries regarding those folks monitoring pedophiles. I'm surely grateful those folks are willing to spend an entire shift posting as children in order to catch these folks.

Ray: As far as Flint not being able to provide preparation information, I E-mailed him once, since he "appeared" to be defending me on yet another post made by the Anita imposter...but while I had his attention, I asked a question regarding oil-lamp wicks that went totally unheard on this forum because c4i made a post and all attention LEFT the preparation arena. Flint responded with information that corresponded with my experience in actually watching oil lamps burn. I think you're way off base in that remark, Ray. Also, Ray (not to seem like I'm picking on you), if you don't have the patience to read through what you consider Yada Yada, simply skip Flint's posts. Neither Flint nor Hardliner are succinct, yet I enjoy their elucidations, and others may also.

Again, just my $0.02.


-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 27, 1999.

Anita commented:

"Flint responded with information that corresponded with my experience in actually watching oil lamps burn. I think you're way off base in that "

Anita, I beg to differ with you but is all the Yada ... Yada ... Yada Flint puts out around here I have not personally seen ONE bit of information that would assist folks in their preparations. He is to busy trying to disprove any and all potential y2k problems.


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 27, 1999.


Thank you for being kind.

I haven't seen Flint EVER try to say that there would be NO problems. I haven't seen him do ANYTHING to discourage preparation either.

There are SOME things, Ray that are being said about Y2k that simply AREN'T true. There are generalizations made (on both sides) that state that what *I'VE* seen applies to what we ALL will see.

To use an example, Ray, someone recently flamed me here because I related my childbirth analogy to Bill (the retired doctor.) I swear to God, cross my heart, hope to die if this is a lie that I bore three children with no pain, Ray. Do I know of others who HAD pain? LOL. I didn't postpone the decision for 10 years because I'd heard it was painless. I heard quite the opposite from those hen-parties held once/year with the girls from high-school who chose to reproduce in their teen years. I researched the subject, read a GREAT book called "Childbirth Without Fear", and then decided to give it a whirl. I admit it's a silly analogy, Ray, but if you can bear with my yada yada, I DO have a point.

We hear a LOT of stories. We hear them from people we trust. We even hear them from people we DON'T trust. Does this mean that the situation described will affect us all in the same way? No. THAT'S that grey area that Flint keeps yada yada'ing about, Ray. Y2k will unfold differently for EVERYONE, just like childbirth (except for the guys who don't do it at all.) (grin)


-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), June 27, 1999.

Doomer=pessimist Polly=optimist Doomer sees the glass half empty. Polly sees the glass half full. Fact: half full=half full.

So who cares which way you lean, as long as you both see half a glass?

-- wondering (wondering@thepointofit.com), June 27, 1999.

Is this al-d posing as "wondering"? al-d? Don't do this. You are welcome (to some degree) to participaite here. Sorry folks I have no energy left tonight, I'm hittin' the sack. Hey Will, got any room in your barn? Lots' of love.

"United we stand, devided we fall." For those gungho types': "First Blood" Sly Stallone. *****5 on a 5.

-- Mike_ (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ