I've been lurking for only a few days here - and I just have to comment on something. This has very likely been posted before, so please excuuuuse me if I am being redundant.

This is quite obviously a forum for those expecting bad things from Y2K - to tell their tales, compare notes, share thoughts, post articles, and generally commune with others who feel the same way. No harm in that. One need only read a few postings here to realize the tone and content of this forum is slanted (sometime heavily) towards TEOTWAWKI. Common vision...common goal...common bond.

What I don't understand are the "trolls" and "polyanas" that offer such hilarious but sometimes simpy mean responses. Why are you here? Why do you spend soooo much time reading these posts and ridiculing everyone that doesn't think Y2K is just a hoax? After only a few days of lurking, I've seen more replies by doomer@suck.com and Y2Kpro and others and I wonder why you feel so compelled to spend so much time here in a forum that discusses issues that are exactly opposite of your beliefs. Are you trying to convert people - do you even think that is possible? Are you "fighting the good fight" to ensure that self-fulfilling prophecies of bank runs and food shortages are not propogated by these mis-informed doomers?

Why ask why, you ask?

Just curious. Things look different from an outsider/newbie's eyes - you regulars posters are likely de-sensitized to how foolish this forum seems sometimes. Go away and come back in 2 weeks and you will see what I mean.

For the record, I can't see in the future unlike some who post here, but my personal opinion is that I expect a lot of disruptions - simply by reading the (extremely rare) polls, surveys and such by informed, respected sources. If even a quarter of the raw statistics and trends are right, the magnitude of this problem and the risk factors are all very high for direct and ripple disruptions of an incalculable nature. No one needs proof anymore that Y2K problems exist in great numbers througout all organizations in the world - every single Y2K project is a collection of find/fix/test projects that need to be complete for business continuity. The only proof we need now is that these problems have been found and fixed. The statistics, status reports, polls and whatnot all point to the undeniable trend that projects are not delivering on time and that we are now experiencing Y2K-related problems 6 months out - mostly from mistakes in testing and implementing new systems, but Y2K-related nonetheless.

Having said that, no one...doomer...polly...troll knows what Y2K will ultimately bring especially when the human element is thrown into the mix. I can see the validity of each side from optimistic polly to pessimistic dooomer - but I am not so arrogant as to pretend to know the final outcome of what is arguably the greatest technical challenge of this century.

BTW: I am a Y2K Project Manager and have been working the beat for a year now. I do a lot of research on the topic and consider myself well informed on the topic. Despite my experience on this topic, I am continually amazed on a daily basis at the complexity of the Y2K situation.

To bring it all together, I am actually soliciting input from the "polyanas" as to why they continue to spend their valuable time in a forum that does not cater to their tastes - and more importantly why they are so damn sure that the whole Y2K phenomenon is nothing but a big hoax.

-- Newbie (newbie@lurker.com), July 20, 1999

Answers

Newbie,

Long-time participants on this forum have been scratching heads asking that same question. There are times when the bulk of energy on the forum is dedicated to trying to figure this out, and the flame wars that ensue. Seems to be some sort of anti-missionary unzeal. And, it gets nasty at times. You've missed a few gems of trollery from the past.

No, actually, you haven't...

-- Oldie (oldie@regular.com), July 20, 1999.

Newbie commented:

"but I am not so arrogant as to pretend to know the final outcome of what is arguably the greatest technical challenge of this century. "

Newbie, when one does not know the outcome of something that has the potential seriousness of y2k one should:

A). Whistle Dixie and keep on keepin !!

B). Turn on the boob tube and watch their favorite show.

C). Make serious preparations.

And the answer is ??

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), July 20, 1999.

Well said, Mr./Ms. Newbie.

I don't understand it either. It is almost like a crusade to the polly's to disrupt and destroy this BB.

At my company, we have been working on remediation in the factory since the middle of last year. We STILL haven't done a full system test. But all the peripherals seem to work on their own. Contingency plans for year-end are just now starting to see the light of day.

I hope this thread you have started sheds some light on the rabid fascination these people have with this group...

On a scale of 1-10, I am prepping for an 8.

snoozin' under the computer table...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 20, 1999.

Ray,

Good to hear from you.

The answer to your question is: C) Make serious preparations.

The reason for this is that Y2K has the potential to disrupt the basic services that my family and I depend upon every day. By positioning myself to be self-sufficient for a period of time and by learning some basic skills, I buy myself the only Y2K insurance available on the market. If nothing happens, I simply don't need to buy groceries and some other useful supplies for a while.

However, Ray, you went a bit off topic. Are you a "polly"? If so, please answer the question. Thanks.

-- Newbie (newbie@lurker.com), July 20, 1999.

Newbie, that is the $64,000 question! I'm sure that the people who read/visit/post to this forum individually have opposing views of some other, unrelated subject. I'd also venture to guess that most of them don't make it a point to purposefully disrupt forums where the majority of the group supports a particular position, just because they *can*, especially if the opposing viewpoint has little or no impact on their individual lives.

I could better understand someone who is continually argumentative if they were trying to change someone's mind because if they didn't, the result would be a negative impact on the disrupter. However, by their own admission, in their eyes, Y2k is a big fat 'non-event' that will impact no one. So why *do* they go on so?

It has been said before, and by folks more schooled in such things than I, that these disrupters probably have a teensy 'nagging' in the back of their mind that they 'could' be wrong.

It's not unlike a small child saying over and over again that the 'boogeyman' doesn't exist, while trying to convince themself of that fact. Change is scary sometimes. Things we can't 'control' can be scary, too. Most of us like to think we *are* in control of what becomes of us -- at least to a certain degree. I wonder if these individuals are so fearful of what *might* happen that they resort to chanting the "No boogeyman!" mantra in order to 'scare' it away. Maybe they feel the more people chanting the mantra, the better their chances of it working.

-- Wilferd (WilferdW@aol.com), July 20, 1999.

Wilferd, they're goobing nursery rhymes, NOT chanting mantras!

Mantras are sacred root sounds capable of effecting changes in matter, are scientific and powerful, and are approached with discipline, reverence, devotion, years of study and respect.

Not exactly troll characteristics, eh? ;^)

And Newbie, we too see Forum fascination with pollytrolly flame wars as being silly diversions and wastes of time. Therefore, we rarely participate. What is truly scary is that the majority of .gov .biz .org ."news" also plays the immature ridicule sneer falsify game.

Just today, looking at the new WorldNetDaily Countdown 2Y2K news page, we are struck by phrases such as "With 60 lines for Y2K queries, goal is 'reassurance'", and "White House also starts Y2K media line; Reporters can access it to get officially approved Y2K sound bites."

So the vital life-saving information is being withheld at the hands of professional trolls and pollys. *That* is worthy of true flame wars, which may indeed light up the skies in the next year.

3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), July 20, 1999.

One of them said his mission was motivated out of curtesy. (I think it was suck-a-doomer) What a hoot!

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), July 20, 1999.

I have a male relative (in-law species) who argues for the sake of arguing. It has always been extremely important to him that he wins every argument.

Years ago, he tried to pursuade me that the religion he practiced was the only right religion. He has sent left that religion. If I were a "control-freak" like he, I would constantly remind him of that. I don't.

I see him for what he is. A control-freak.

The pollys crave power. While there is always the possibility that there has been/is a concerted organized effort underway to discount the potential negative impacts of Y2k, I bet most of these "pollys" are single male college students, with nothing better to do but play computer games and "troll." (If so, seems a darn good argument to reinstate the draft. Hee. Hee. Wonder if THAT's what's in the back of their minds?)

-- it's (thepower@rush.stupid), July 20, 1999.

Newbie,

We suspect some of them are being paid to do what they do. Probably by the banks or the feds or both. Only a total nutcase would persist in these crude tactics to this extent. Paid shill or nutbar, take your pick.

-- it (it@llmakessensenow.com), July 20, 1999.

Ray, Thanks for the great quiz. I have been looking for something to use as a door decoration/y2k poster at work, and your question has exactly the right tone. (Hope you don't mind, but I changed "Newbie" to "Grasshopper" for the sake of the uninitiated.)

As for the trolls (who seem a tad silent on the issue so far, it seems to me): Paid lobbyist or nutcase. Yup. Makes sense to me.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), July 20, 1999.

I see no reason to believe that disruptors like Ray, Y2k Pro, 'a' or 'suck' are being paid for their efforts. They just choose to articulate their beliefs by means of ridiculing others. And while it's true that they contribute nothing worthwhile to most discussions, let's face it, any group this size will have some dim bulbs. We should graciously assume that they're thinking as hard as they can, such as it is.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 20, 1999.

Newbie, lurking here for only a FEW days? You sure picked up all of the "terminology" mighty fast!

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), July 20, 1999.

Hey I though Ray and *a* were the good guys??

-- Smokey (Smokey1057@aol.com), July 20, 1999.

I don't think it takes to long to pick up things on this forum. I was on here for 3 days strait when I was sent this addy a few months ago. Now I prepare and hope it's not too bad. If y2k is a hoax the money spent on it is a joke. Wake up, get ready and hold on tight:)

-- Rooster Cogburn (Gotitlate@wow.com), July 20, 1999.

Smokey, you have to understand that Flint has an identity crisis.

On a "polly" day, he claims Ray and I are detractors, because we write about our professional insights into the y2k problem or post articles that show a media, industry or government organization has detected or predicted a serious problem, and he doesn't want to believe us.

On a "doomer" day, he claims Y2K Pro and 'suck' are detractors, because he realizes that Ray and I write about our professional insights into the y2k problem or post articles that show a media, industry or government organization has detected or predicted a serious problem, and he believes us.

-- a (a@a.a), July 20, 1999.

I agree with Flint on this one guys (rare ocassion) in that there are some "dim bulbs" on this forum sometimes. Can't help having a couple of 'dim bulbs', right? But we also have what I would call "dumb a**holes" and maybe Flint would know a lot about that too, right Flint? How's Hamlet's French version doing Flint?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 21, 1999.

Gayla,

I haven't been here very long myself and I have to say it didn't take too long to pick up on the terminology re: polly's and doomers. "JIT" took me a little longer. I have wondered why 'polly' was chosen however. Yes, I know it's a shortened form of Pollyanna. It's just I don't see any of the Polly's really presenting and good news or even trying to play the 'glad game.' I think a better name for them would be the complacents.

complacent too long,

-- winter wondering (winterwondering@yahoo.com), July 21, 1999.