On bugging out... or staying on the job

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

I am bothered by the "bunker mentality." If there are Y2K problems, it will fall upon average people to fix them. A common example is the utility worker. If there are problems, some guy has to leave his family and put his ass on the line. (You know at least one idiot is going to plug a generator into home wiring and kill someone.)

The willingness of average people to accept responsibility has been a cornerstone of America. The military is a good example. The men I served with were "just doing the job." With or without Y2K problems, we depend on the police, fire fighters, emergency services personnel, utility workers, etc. to "just do the job."

When I read SOME serious pessimists... I hear "I am going to protect MY family." Let's say your child needs medical care. What happens in your physician decides he is going to hunker down (or bug out) with his family? How would you react to, "Hey, buddy, do your own emergency appendectomy"? Unless someone is willing to leave their family for our sake, we are in deep trouble.

If a natural disaster struck your community tomorrow... would you sit around congratulating yourself on your great "preps?" Or would you go into the community where help was needed?

Is the attitude of the serious pessimists really "every man for himself?"

Not everyone shares this attitude, but I think the Republic is more important than a single individual, or a single family. Over the generations, a few of my relatives died in defense of our country. Fortunately, I served without having to make that sacrifice. I am proud and thankful for the people who have gone into harm's way for the nation.

Even if nothing happens on rollover, there are a great many people who are spending New Year's Eve working... rather than home celebrating. The some smug pessimists may think these folks foolish. I disagree. And if someone reading this will be on "the job" for rollover...

Thanks.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999

Answers

But, but, but, but you PROMISED there would be NO problems, the lights will stay on, the planes will fly, the gas will flow, etc., etc. So this means your post is moot.

-- but (but@but.but), October 23, 1999.

Ah, I had to wait for the inevitable answer. There are problems every day. Even without computer problems, the fallout from the celebration of the millennium will keep many people busy. Police and emergency services will have their hands full. The ER will be busy. The mere possibility of problems will keep some people on duty, rather than home with their families.

On New Year's Eve, there will be American troops stationed all over the world... on duty. Just because we are not in the middle of war, does not diminish their relevance... or their contribution.

Still think this is a moot point...?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999.


I am not going to be "available" for several weeks before and after -- at a MINIMUM. My point of view is that if it weren't for general stupidity and willful ignorance, we wouldn't have even a potential problem. And I'm expected to keep things running to the small extent that I do, for a population of idiots? Most people are not deserving of my help, and if I need help, myself, c'est la vie.

-- A (A@AisA.com), October 23, 1999.

Ken, I agree with you in spirit, we all depend on each other to make civilization work. But, if the fialures (simultaneous and widespread) are so bad that the various workers cannot do their jobs no matter what, then you are back to square one. My basic plan is lay low, (i don't have a very essential job, internet publishing is not vital to anybody) and if the cities burn, all bets are off. But, if the national guard shows up, or the local sheriff shows up looking for help, i'll do what i can. as far as american troops overseas go, they are about to become entirely irrelevant. (if I am right that is) they serve to enforce the political and military will of the united states, if the US ceases to exist for all intents and purposes, it won't matter much what they do, they'll be SOL. imagine waht happens to 300,000 south Koreans and 37,000 US troops if they have to fight it out alone, with no reinforcements, against a half million starving north Koreans? bottom line: there are no embedded chips in an ak-47. I wouldn't be surprised if by next spring, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and possibly Northern Ireland or even Kosovo simply don't exist anymore. Now, as far as emergency workers in the US go, I think they are being foolish for 2 reasons. #1: even if every emergency worker, cop, nurse, fireman, GTE worker, who "get's It" etc left the job it still wouldn't be much more than 1-2% of those people. So, anybody who 'knows' about y2k and chooses to stay hoping they can 'make a difference' is a nutcase IMHO. And #2: the only way they could be right is if their meager additional presence would 'shift the balance,' and I don't know how many posts i've read ridiculing the y2k swat teams idea. oh and by the way, you are right, the republic IS more important than any 1 person, or family. BUT it is more important for the simple fact that we have the freedom to choose for ourselves whether it is more important to US. GET IT? YOU don't make that determination, we EACH do.

-- jeremiah (braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), October 23, 1999.

If "there are problems every day" now, and rollover is just another New Year's Eve with its expected attendant problems, then this IS a moot point. Do you want to discuss what people will do if there are unusual problems? If so, could you be more specific about what kind of problems you're worried about? It sounds like you are concerned that, while Y2K will not cause serious problems, if there is a need for a utility worker to respond to some idiot who plugs a generator into his home wiring, pessimists will think the utility worker is foolish to go?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 23, 1999.


Ken,

It feels strange to address you in that way, because when you came blazing onto the forum as Mr. Decker - waving your six guns of assault aimed at the frailties of a fixed defense - you raised the hackles and scared the horses around here.

This I think was unfortunate. You've given some sober financial advice that would have been better served without the emotional baggage. At times I've felt like dishing out the maternal advice to you & another that 'it's not what you say but how you say it' & 'You'd catch more flies with honey - yada yada' - I'm sure your mom has told you that at least a million times.

I still have an 'issue' with your 'occasional' arrogance and condescension. Tonight you're addressing an issue very near and dear to my heart. I think there are many on this forum that consider this topic very heavily, yet the fact remains that we feel tarred with the same broad brush that has been weilded against 'wackos' {and perhaps those who were deemed to be of influence.}

Sorry this is a disjointed note, it is late and I'm not a writer - nor could I play one on TV. I wish my state had at least sent out to their emergency service people the prep brochure it has had online since February. It should have been sent out to all residents, period. I've seen disaster bring out the best in people, draw folks together, and also make them hassle the emergency folks beyond reason.

Get off your high horse kiddo. You're right, we're all in this together.

-- flora (***@__._), October 23, 1999.


I will do whatever I can to help my fellow man on a personal level, but as far as fixing the infrastructure of the government and corporate establishment, forget it. The organizations that built all of these things are getting plenty rich off of them, and all they do is charge me to use them whether I want them or not. They've got the money, they should be responsible for fixing it. If they want me to help, they'll have to pay me damn good for it. I am not a slave that gives my own sweat and blood to rebuild the Ivory Towers of the elite, no way.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 23, 1999.

Nice set-up for the demouguogery Deck.

"You must put the revolution before the family, comrade!"

Sorry, too late. Your blood and the blood of those "average people" in this nation that may suffer for Y2K related failures is on your own heads, and a government that refused to warn them.

No one took it seriously. No one listened to the warnings. The government hasn't prepared the people by warning them, and those like myself that have attempted to warn neighbors and community are ridiculed by them and folks like yourself.

You scoffed, and laughed and derrided the messengers, the message and the potential impacts that could be visited on a complacent Republic.

No sir. Those that have seen the handwriting on the wall, that have made the attempts to help their community, only to be scorned and ignored, have EVERY RIGHT to look after their own and leave the rest to suffer whatever fate befalls them.

If society would not heed and take precaution to prepare for the seven fat years, then society is left to their own selves, and their blood is upon their own heads.

What you suggest is as ridiculous as those idiots that ignored the warnings of cigarrette smoking for 30 years and are now suing the tobacco industry because they got lung cancer.

Your suggestion in light of what Yourdon, North and others have done is just as stupid and offensive.

But I see the set-up trap you've laid for further demouguogery Deck. Very clever. Very insidious.

Very Devious.

So now, IF there are Y2K failures and disasters (of which you have previously assured us is simply paranoia on Doomer behalf), those of us that have been warning and speculating, to no avail - must come out from whatever self-preservation mode we are in to assist in "serving" the good of the republic???

Bwahahahahahahaaaahhhaaaaaahahahahaha!

If you haven't noticed pal, this "Republic" isn't even a shadow of its former self. It has become a Socialist experiment gone corrupt.

The people only wanted to hear smooth things, easy things, the things they wanted to hear. They overlooked evil and danger for drunken pursuits of wealth and complacency, trading their birthright of freedom for government subsidy and safety.

No sir Deck. They're getting all the comuppance due them for negligence, and you have no right to demand that those of us with "bunker mentality" must put our asses on the line again to save your sorry-lazy asses when you were too busy laughing at us idiot "Doombroods" to sound an alarm yourselves.

But I see the scapegoat trail you have laid for us. And I must admit, it is another stroke of political genious.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 23, 1999.


Oh pardon me, Mr. Decker, Sir. I must have been mistaken in my stupid assumption that you were talking about people who were at work or on duty *specifically* to fix Y2K problems, and about serious doomers who are not going to help if something happens. In which case it *would* be a moot post. Then I thought you were stating your support of the folks obligated to be at their posts on NYE, not asking if I supported them too. If you had asked me whether or not I supported those working NYE, well I'd say absolutely, poor SOBs.

As usual, Decker, you did a good job of turning one thing into something else.

-- but (but@but.but), October 23, 1999.


This is just another one of Decker's posts speculating on the motives of those making contingency plans. Care to talk about Y2k itself, Ken? I admit I may decide to visit friends in the country west of town on the morning of Dec. 31 if I see Y2k causing hazmat incidents in Australia.

Otherwise I plan to stick it out in the city. If there are shortages in January, I may be glad that I had set aside a few weeks worth of water and food and not have to be in competition with others at the store for scarce supplies.

-- One of (the@forum.regulars), October 23, 1999.



"Even if nothing happens on rollover, there are a great many people who are spending New Year's Eve working... rather than home celebrating. The some smug pessimists may think these folks foolish. I disagree. And if someone reading this will be on "the job" for rollover...

Thanks."

You're welcome - I and my co-workers will be baby-sitting a worldwide Airline system over rollover.

Wish us luck.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), October 23, 1999.


INVAR,

You said that: *Sorry, too late. Your blood and the blood of those "average people" *in this nation that may suffer for Y2K related failures is on your *own heads, and a government that refused to warn them.

Let us turn it around and say "WHAT IF" the year 2000 comes around and their are no Y2K related issues. (Because the Y2K argument is all about WHAT IF) "WHAT IF" some mentally unstable yuppie has gone heavily into debt, quit their job, gave up their life, and moved to the country to play survivalist and wait for TEOTWAWKI. Roll over occurs and no end of theworld. "WHAT IF" this person can't handle the fact, goes over the edge, and tries to create TEOTWAWKI in their own little corner of the world.

Whose fault will that be.

What will actually happen at the rollover is really all conjecture at this point. Trying to lay blame now can cut both ways.

In answer to Ken Decker's question, I plan on assisting my friends, neighbors, and relatives "IF" something should happen. "IF" nothing happens, I will be going into work on my own time to ensure that our systems are up and running by Monday morning. I am a programmer for a very small telemarketing firm - no we aren't "Y2K Compliant" - but we are "Y2K Ready".

P.S - I have lurked here for a while and have only posted once. I may be confused, but I have not seen Decker or Flint say not to prepare. I think they are trying to caution against taking it to extremes.

But I may be wrong.

(Apologize in advance if I don't make sense. Too early in my part of the world to be thinking coherently.)

-- Steve (sron1234@aol.com), October 23, 1999.


The bottom line is that we are responsible for ourselves. Granted that many, many people feel the "system" is responsible. My feelings are that if you don't vote...you don't bitch. If you don't prepare for y2k...you don't expect me to help. If you don't take the time to listen to the warning...thats YOUR problem. Its like the drunk blaming family or society for his drinking. BS !! Hes the one that bends the elbow. I am not wearing anyone else's garbage or taking ownership of anyone else's failures, be it their ability to survive in the current world, or the post y2k world. I have tried to tell tons of people about y2k. The newpapers are now writing about it, the TVs are talking about it and they still don't listen or read it. They are too busy doing whatever it is that they are doing. We are all responsible for ourselves. "your failure to prepare now, does not constitute my emergency later". We have spent $3000 on a well with a handpump so the neighbors can have water. We didn't need that pump for ourselves as we have a large genset and a tank. But thats our contribution. And considering that my husband has tried to help so many people with y2k and been scorned, I think it was damn decent of him to put in that well. Enuff said!

Taz

-- Taz (Taz@aol.com), October 23, 1999.


Excuse me folks, but let me deal with Invar's bloated rhetoric before I move on.

The "government" has warned people about Y2K disruptions. The problem is simple. The vast majority of folks, including IT experts, do not think Y2K will be catastrophic. The government is not responsible for agreeing with you, Invar. Personally, I'm glad the government has not interfered with my freedom to research Y2K and make my own decisions. It amuses me to hear a "conservative" who usually prattles on about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to talk about how the blood is on other people's hands. It the same rhetoric that makes me responsible for some other person's poverty.

Oh, and Y2K preparation advocates have been given bully pulpits. Ed Yourdon testified to the Senate. Y2K has been on the cover of national magazines. The real reason some pessimists have not been taken seriously.... They have made silly arguments. (See Ed Yourdon and fire engines.) In plain terms, the Y2K pessimists made their argument... and failed. But there was no lack of opportunities.

On to the justification... Imagine men who did not want to serve in Vietnam using the same rationale as Invar. "Gosh, draft board members, I'm don't OWE this country anything. People have been mean to me. I don't want to fight to protect our nation. I just want to take care of myself and my family."

Thank God I never shared a foxhole with anyone that selfish.

Even if there isn't single Y2K problem, there will still be problems on New Year's Eve. Ask anyone who's been in law enforcement for a few years. If there are moderate problems, they are likely to be fixed quickly. Even so, someone has to fix them.

Invar feels justified in his selfish attitude. He has an attitude about our Nation... and feels slighted because so few have taken him seriously. He is myopic, however, in failing to realize his (and your) best chance for self preservation depends on people fixing problems... little or big.

We earn our "birthright." Each generation pays for it, some more than others. The coin of payment... sacrifice. Some kid is standing watch in some odd corner of the world. He may be required to go into harm's way. Like good troops for generations, he'll probably make us proud. So will the folks who are on duty on New Year's eve...

I have never expected everyone to pitch in. There will always be those with an excuse... a justification. It's a damn shame more people don't have the common courtesy to say thanks. Hell, I'll say thanks to weasel boy for staying on duty.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999.


Let me turn this around and ask you, Ken, if you would go out and take food and water to a nearby town that needed these supplies if your own home were under attack by people who wanted provisions that you had stored? Of course not!

Your first duty would be to your family -- and I am assuming that you have one. After they were cared for you would be free to help others.

This being the case, why are you so intent on using sleezy debating tactics to attack and lay a 'guilt trip' on the people who post here?

I am bothered by the "bunker mentality."

I am bothered by the continued contempt you show for the people who choose to post here. This post is another good example, contrasting two extremes, sneering at one and glorifying the other, with zero recognition that most people fall squarely in between. You get off to a good start, using a derogatory term in the first sentence.

If there are Y2K problems, it will fall upon average people to fix them. A common example is the utility worker. If there are problems, some guy has to leave his family and put his ass on the line. (You know at least one idiot is going to plug a generator into home wiring and kill someone.)

A common example? Come on, Ken. You know very well that if there are power problems due to Y2K the problems won't be of the nature where linesmen are dispatched (unless we also have a storm). Any real problems will be worked on by engineers back at the plant. This was an example chosen for your purpose -- to snidely throw sticks at most posters on this forum.

The willingness of average people to accept responsibility has been a cornerstone of America. The military is a good example. The men I served with were "just doing the job." With or without Y2K problems, we depend on the police, fire fighters, emergency services personnel, utility workers, etc. to "just do the job."

So? Have to get in the idea that you served in the military, eh? Where, Ken? Under what ciurcumstances? What outfit? Ever shot at?

When I read SOME serious pessimists... I hear "I am going to protect MY family."

Go back and read my first paragraph, Ken. Of course we're going to protect our family. Aren't you going to protect your family?

Let's say your child needs medical care. What happens in your physician decides he is going to hunker down (or bug out) with his family? How would you react to, "Hey, buddy, do your own emergency appendectomy"? Unless someone is willing to leave their family for our sake, we are in deep trouble.

Sneaky, Ken, and another example of your desire to verbally castigate those who post here. Appendectomies are an emergency. Y2K has been known for years. You can't prepare for an appendicitus attack; you can prepare for Y2K. But then, this example, too, was chosen as a means of throwing verbal insults at posters here, rather than promoting useful discourse.

If a natural disaster struck your community tomorrow... would you sit around congratulating yourself on your great "preps?" Or would you go into the community where help was needed?

Again, see my first paragraph. This has nothing to do with any of the other rambling subjects you've brought up so far. It is simply a gratitious insult. Better yet, Ken, rather than ask such questions, how about you telling us what you would do?

Is the attitude of the serious pessimists really "every man for himself?"

If you've done any reading on this forum, you know that's not the case. Again, this is just a gratitious insult, and again, you've ignored every position except one extreme. You present extremes -- self-sacrifice versus selfishness -- but you don't deal with the vast middle ground. Very weak, Ken, very weak.

Not everyone shares this attitude, but I think the Republic is more important than a single individual, or a single family. Over the generations, a few of my relatives died in defense of our country. Fortunately, I served without having to make that sacrifice. I am proud and thankful for the people who have gone into harm's way for the nation.

Oh my goodness! Wow! Do you write patriotic speeches for WJC? The worst is that most of us recognize that we have lived through the destruction of the Republic.....the destruction of one of the three branches of government..... as the Congress of the United States has presided over it's own demise. Republic? We no longer live in a Republic, Ken. We live in what is currently a benign dictatorship. How long it will stay benign, and how long the dictator will disguise this fact is anyone's guess. Yes, this nation was built on neighbor helping neighbor. It was also built on trust. That trust -- in business and in our government has been destroyed for many. Most of us will help our neighbors, Ken, and this has been mentioned in this forum many times, although you choose to ignore it with posts of this nature.

But, also mentioned is the fact that we will help on our terms. Those who come peacefully will be given what we can spare, those who come to take will be resisted. What has been stated here time and again is that many will help others after their own family has been cared for and after they are sure of their family's safety. How about you, Ken? You pound your own chest so many times, pound it again. Tell us how you'll desert your family in order to help other neighbors, for the good the Republic. Yeah, right!

As was pointed out in a post above, we no longer have a Republic. You may call it one, as a part of your writing, but when we have a leader who informs the nation that he will not abide by the will of Congress in their rejection of a treat, then all pretense of living in a Republic has been shattered. We currently live in a benign dictatorship, with one third of the vaunted 'balance of power' established in our government shattered and emasculated.

Ken, even your choice of the word, 'Republic' is offensive to anyone who has bothered to look at what is going on. Even if nothing happens on rollover, there are a great many people who are spending New Year's Eve working... rather than home celebrating. The some smug pessimists may think these folks foolish. I disagree. And if someone reading this will be on "the job" for rollover...

-- de (delewis@XOUTinetone.net), October 23, 1999.



Thanks for bringing this up, Ken. I'll be working on rollover and probably the following 48 hours (minus tiny amounts of sleep time). I'm also concerned by the number of people who plan on bailing out if things get ugly.

-- Mori-Nu (silkenet@yahoo.com), October 23, 1999.

Don't waste your energy arguing with invar. He / she is a bitter, vengeful person with a crock full of twisted, illogical analyses.

-- kmince (dont@do.it), October 23, 1999.

what, no Russ 'bigdog' Lipton yet? He is usually ready to pounce on Decker like white on rice. Must be taking some time off from the coveted position of "captain of the thought police".

I sure hope he is just taking a breather, and hasn't handed the robe to Invar! Russ is at least entertaining while he crosses swords with Decker....Invar is just mean and stupid.

Well written post, as per your usual, Ken. Thanks for your moderate input to this forum.

-- L T L (NOYB@T.THISTIME), October 23, 1999.


"When I read SOME serious pessimists... I hear "I am going to protect MY family."

Kenny! Please don't abandon us for the Republic!

-- Mrs. Decker (Kenny's@mama.needs. him), October 23, 1999.


The implied scenarios here strike me as unlikely in practice. Actual rollover issues apply primarily to embedded systems expected to fail (if they do) very shortly after the century change. IT systems suffering even fatal problems are consistently described as being slower to develop, showing up (worst case) in the form of delayed billing, garbled transactions, crashed business systems, etc. Most IT problems would be invisible even to those directly affected for weeks to months after they happen.

Of the embedded systems which may experience problems, the only ones immediately affecting the entire community involve power and water. And first, power gives every indication of being in good shape, while water is much more unknown (which does NOT mean known to be bad, it means unknown). Second, even failures in these key technologies have historically given no indication of leading to situations where "staying home to defend the family" makes much sense. Defending against what?

It's more sensible to wonder *whether* going to work will be useful. Few businesses can function without power. Assuming (fairly safely) that there is power, what practical justification is there for those who are capable of FOF of their computer bugs NOT to show up for work and make those fixes? Many of those who work in large companies cannot perform useful work if the main computer or the network is down anyway. For them, showing up and occupying chairs in the hope of being paid for it (someday) would seem the better strategy.

The "marauding gangs" vision implies a total breakdown even a full scale nuclear war would be hard pressed to create within a week or three. However, staying home because your employer went broke and nobody else is hiring is entirely too possible. Depending on the business, this might take many months. There just doesn't seem to be any good reason NOT to stay at your post as you do normally, so long as you have a post to stay at.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 23, 1999.


Anyone attaching a generator to their home resulting in the death of a lineman should be executed with the use of an electric chair.

-- the Virginian (1@1.com), October 23, 1999.

Decker,

You said,

"Not everyone shares this attitude, but I think the Republic is more important than a single individual, or a single family. Over the generations, a few of my relatives died in defense of our country. Fortunately, I served without having to make that sacrifice. I am proud and thankful for the people who have gone into harm's way for the nation."

Don't bull sh#t yourself or us. WE NO LONGER HAVE A REPUBLIC. I will not fight for the Union of Socialists States of The United States or allow my children to fight for this country. This country no longer stands for freedom. This country's system of goverment is obsolete just as any socialist form of goverment is. If your going to fight something, fight the Facists that is on our door step. Facism is the next form of goverment to be excepted by the sheeple. Then they will gladly take their mark.

For me and my children we will die for our freedom and yours. "Give me liberty or give me death" has a certain ring again in this day and age. They can only kill us once.

-- LET FREEDOM RING (Let@Freedom.ring), October 23, 1999.


***

Ken,

You have asked a vital question.

Generally speaking, throughout the ages, the standard, accepted guiding principle and practice is the following:

If another person is at risk and you see that the situation is desperate, you can choose to help that person attempt to escape their life threatening situation. The choice is yours concerning when and how to act.

If the act of helping the other person significantly increases the likelyhood of your own death, then you can choose to help, but you are not necessarily expected to do so.

If the act of helping doesn't significantly increase the likelyhood of your own death, then you should choose to help and certainly would be expected to do so.

Those who have exceeded the expectation by helping in life threatening situations, threatening specifically to their own lives, are rightfully termed "heroes", above and beyond the call of duty.

And therefore it follows, that if you are to report for work during the rollover, but it becomes clear that life threatening violence is occurring and you could not it while traveling to work and thereby would be placing yourself in greater danger, then you can choose whether to go to work or stay at home, but you are not necessarily expected to go to work.

The question is: is there a greater likelyhood of your own death in attempting to save the life of another?

Duty calls, but there are reasonable limits

and there always have been.

***

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), October 23, 1999.


Just a point:

MANY of us do NOT work in jobs that are involved in critical infrastructure or services.

IF, on Monday, January 3rd, 2000, my particular "local area" happens to not have electric or phone service, my employees will be told (ahead of time) not to report to work.

Whether I go in myself to assess the office situation or not is another question.

In the long run, NO one will notice if we are open or not, in the event of that "local area" problem.

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), October 23, 1999.


Ken,

Depending on the kinds of problems and the fallout of those problems, will determine for me my actions. After having explained the Y2k problem to my "little ol' Mother" a year and a half ago, she and I discussed one of my biggest worries, how will people respond to a large scale national problem. Mom lived in the Texas Panhandle during the depression and Dust Bowl days, and told me that catastrophes bring out the best and the worst in human nature. I believe she's right.

I've done a lot of thinking on this subject also. My job has absolutely no value in any way in changing or helping during the NYE rollover, and so therefore I can't legitimately answer your question in terms of myself. I believe that the best I can do to help though, is to be as self sufficient as possible at that time incase there are wide-spread problems.

I've speculated on what I would be able to do to help my community, neighbors, country if the Y2k problem is more than a BITR. It again will depend on the "whole picture" after the dust settles. It's a wait and see game as far as I'm concerned.

-- Cary Mc from Tx (Caretha@compuserve.com), October 23, 1999.


Just finishing up "Atlas Shrugged"...Why does Decker sound so much like the looters?

-- Ace (Ace@nospam.com), October 23, 1999.

Ken, just as you are bothered by the "bunker mentality" of the doomers, I am equally bothered by the "stooge mentality" of the pollies. To believe that a problem is coming and prepare for it as best as you know how -- in spite of those, like yourself, who assure us that such concerns are overblown -- puts one in the position of BEING ABLE to help somebody that you might not otherwise be able to. You can hardly help somebody else if you cannot help yourself.

Ed Yourdon's famous "smoke in the theatre" example probably says more than I ever could, so I leave that to be read by anyone really interested in thinking about this. But I have two questions for you, Ken, which I think will go a long way towards helping make the distinction between the "bunker" versus "stooge" view.

1) A very few Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany chose to take their families out while they knew that they still could, often giving up everything that they had worked for, because they feared what could happen with Hitler. Should they have stayed? Do you think that they would have been able to change anything that happened?

2) Before the banks failed in the U.S. during the Great Depression, and it was still possible for one to withdraw one's savings in cash (or even gold, though it was later confiscated by Roosevelt's executive order in 1933), would you say that would have been the cowardly thing to do? Should someone who realized that it was quite possible that the irrational exuberence of the roaring '20s, coupled with the fractional reserve banking system, could cause a complete loss of one's life savings, simply do nothing and let it happen? And by leaving the money in the soon to fail bank, would it have changed anything?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 23, 1999.

Ken,

Your post seems to infer that no matter what happens with Y2k that doomers will respont by bugging out or hunkering down. Such an inferance is very insulting. I think most doomers response will depend on the conditions in their immediate area. Being a doomer does not make a person brain dead. That seems to be a trait of more pollys then of doomers.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), October 23, 1999.


Anyone have any good pumpkin pie recipes?

-- Spidey (in@jam.nutmeg), October 23, 1999.

Well well well. Our two crackerjack pollies, Decker and Flint, whining that all the folks in essential services that "Get It" should keep their cool. Gee guys, I thought y2k was gonna be insignificant? Is this the fear of TSHTF I detect?

You are both miserable hypocrites. You Ken, have bailed from the stock market. You Flint, from the banking system. And you BOTH have sided with government, industry and the media as they anesthetized the entire world to the dangers of y2k, preaching "It's just a 3 day storm." Yeah right.

Ken, don't worry. The "elite" will keep things running for you and your T-bills. Maybe the ex-mainframer Al G will roll up his sleeves and do some real work for a change.

Flint, don't worry. LA riots and burns for three days over an unfavorable jury verdict, but with the load of shit that's getting ready to dislodge due to y2k, you'll be safe and sound in your large city.

The blood is on your hands, my friends.

-- a (a@a.a), October 23, 1999.


It's funny that the pollies are always so concerned about what other people are doing. Mostly it irks them that not everyone is doing as they are. Are they control freaks? Or just worried that someone else will have the "advantage?" Each to his/her own light, I would say.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

Mara, I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Obviously, not everyone can nor will prepare. So, in the perverted logic of many, that is just not "fair", and thus we should all be "equally" unprepared.

Over the years, I have read news accounts of disasters occuring such as plane crashes, where one of the would-be passengers manages to luckily avoid it due to some circumstance or other such as being late at the airport. Then, believe it or not, that person actually receives threats from a few of the grieving relatives of the dead passengers. They felt that it just was not "fair" that that passenger escaped!

Underneath Mr. Decker's rambling about the "Republic", I cannot help but sense this same sort of "logic".

69 days.

Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.~net), October 23, 1999.

'a':

May I suggest that you focus more on the situation than on people with whom you disagree? And if you cannot help attacking, why not attack what people say rather than what you'd prefer they said?

I'm as much in the banking system as ever -- namely, what's left of my last paycheck. And if you think y2k will be "like" an unfavorable jury verdict, that's the strangest parallel I've seen drawn yet. Not to mention that the King riot was highly localized. Saying that L.A. was set in flames is like claiming theres a dieback in the human population because your grandmother passed away.

I wrote about what might be reasonable behavior given what looks to be the most likely scenario. Why not address that? You consistently come across as the Doc Paulie of the doomer set. Not good.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 23, 1999.


Reading SOME pessimists, you'd think looters will have their engines warming up just before midnight on New Year's Eve. The chances of social unrest in the dead of winter... pretty small. According to everyone but a handful of pessimists, the power will stay on.

There will be a great many people working to ensure the rollover goes smoothly. Personally, I appreciate this. I'm damn grateful we have folks willing to work on New Year's Eve and through the weekend.

My post is not meant to condemn ALL pessimists... but I'm a little tired of the "bunker" attitude. First, it is based on a flawed analysis of the problem. Second, it strikes me as selfish. As if it weren't enough to be selfish, SOME serious pessimists have a smug attitude. "We're going to survive and you're not. Nyah. Nyah. Nyah."

As for the appendectomy example... my point was completely missed. Of course we can't predict a swollen appendix. But we trust our doctor will be there for us in a time of need. What happens if the doctor decides to "bug out" because of Y2K paranoia? No man is an island. No matter how well prepared you think you are... the simple truth is that we depend on one another.

Oh, on a side note... yes, I've served in the military. Stop by the house, and I'll show you the hardware. I've also fought forest fires, flooding and other natural disasters. My rule of thumb is simple. I try to help others... as I would like them to help me.

One benefit of this post... it has highlighted the anti-government feelings of SOME serious pessimists.

If you are unhappy with America, change it. If the majority of voters chooses someone you don't like... deal with it. It's the price of living in a democratic society. For the record, there is a great deal I don't like about our public policies. I just don't think my personal differences justify turning my back on the country... and my fellow citizens.

By the way, "Spain," I am in a position to help people. I took the responsibility when I was sworn for my new job. The interesting thing about both of your questions... hindsight is 20/20. Personally, I would have stayed to fight facism. If enough German people had fought the Hitler regime, we would have never experienced the Holocaust. During the Great Depression, I would have worked to change our wrongheaded national policies. If enough people were willing to fight the Administration's decisions... the Great Depression could have been shortened.

You see, "Spain," it's an American thing... you might not understand. We believe in fighting for what we believe... even when it may not be practical, or the outcome unsure.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), October 23, 1999.


Sure, Ken, and udoubtedly you would have been right there on the Titanic with your bucket, too. "OK, crew, lets not let a little iceberg bring down the Republic on which we stand!"

Being able to discern when you are but a hapless passenger on a hopelessly sinking boat might be thought by some to be a measure of intelligence. Doing something for you and yours while you still can might be thought by some to be a measure of common sense. Especially if the end result is that you might even be able to help someone else grab a lifeboat, or come aboard yours.

But, then again, there are those who prefer everybody to go down on a "ship of fools". After all, it's democracy at work, right?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 23, 1999.

Steve,

What Taz said in response to your turnaround "What if?".

And now to rebut the stupid and insulting logic of Decker's reply.

>>>The "government" has warned people about Y2K disruptions.<<<

Oh really? That it will be a BITR? That folks should prepare for no more than a 3-day snowstorm? That they should not under ANY circumstances take their money out of the bank (except only what they would have on hand to celebrate the New Year). Well that message was received loud and clear, and IS the reality that most folks expect come rollover. So if that's going to be the extent of any problems, what's your bif about those that decide to look to their own? Why should you care what nutty things they do with their families?

The government warnings are pathetic, and so is your assertion.

>>>The problem is simple. The vast majority of folks, including IT experts, do not think Y2K will be catastrophic. The government is not responsible for agreeing with you, Invar.<<<

Again, then why be upset over those that have a bunker mentality? Nice attempt by the way, at sidetracking and slandering my take on Gov. responsibility.

>>>Personally, I'm glad the government has not interfered with my freedom to research Y2K and make my own decisions. It amuses me to hear a "conservative" who usually prattles on about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to talk about how the blood is on other people's hands. It the same rhetoric that makes me responsible for some other person's poverty.<<<

This comment is so utterly ridiculous and baseless that I could write a whole paper on it.

What you suggest, using a Titanic analogy - is that the passengers should have dug up the risks, and obtained the news of the gravity of their situation on their own. You're glad they had the freedom to research the potential risk and make their own decisions as to whether striking an iceberg and taking on water was a danger to them.

Your logic here is just as faulty.

Everyone has the responsibility towards preparing their own lifeboat. Especially when the crew is downplaying the risk of sinking to avoid a panic. The crew is doing nothing more than locking up the populace in third class stairwells of complacency to maintain order. Those that saw our ship was listing, and understood the ramifications of an iron behemoth taking on water, and made their way to their lifeboats are prudent and not selfish. After being ridiculed for suggesting that our ship could sink because everyone's blind faith was in the "unsinkable technology", and demouguoged by idiots like you for shouting about the danger, why should we accept the responsibility to keep the ship afloat? Especially when some of us understand that the gash is too large, and that nothing anyone does will keep it afloat.

They should have listened to the ice warnings. Now it's too late for us to avoid this collision.

>>>Oh, and Y2K preparation advocates have been given bully pulpits. Ed Yourdon testified to the Senate. Y2K has been on the cover of national magazines. The real reason some pessimists have not been taken seriously.... They have made silly arguments. (See Ed Yourdon and fire engines.) In plain terms, the Y2K pessimists made their argument... and failed. But there was no lack of opportunities.<<<

Joe Lockhart has NOTHING over your talent to spin Deck. Bully pulpits?? You have no concept of what a bully-pulpit is. Ed cannot call a press conference like the president can and have the major media there.

And Y2K covered in the national magazines? Sure, like January's TIME?

The major media like yourself has done nothing but ridicule Y2K believers as alarmists, seperatists, whacko's, nerds, anarchists, and religious nutcases.

And this is what the majority of the population thinks about Y2K...thanks to you and the major media. So if we have a major disaster over failures...the blood is on your own heads for having the orchestra play soothing songs on the deck, while laughing at those of us who are rowing away in lifeboats.

>>>On to the justification... Imagine men who did not want to serve in Vietnam using the same rationale as Invar. "Gosh, draft board members, I'm don't OWE this country anything. People have been mean to me. I don't want to fight to protect our nation. I just want to take care of myself and my family."<<<

You sir, are an insulting jackass. I'm not even going to comment on this insidious slander, except to say that you better hope and pray I never meet you face to face for such an incredible insult.

>>>Even if there isn't single Y2K problem, there will still be problems on New Year's Eve. Ask anyone who's been in law enforcement for a few years. If there are moderate problems, they are likely to be fixed quickly. Even so, someone has to fix them.<< <

So, no one is impeding them from doing so. Not even those secure in their own homes with a year's supply of food, water, and fuel.

>>>>Invar feels justified in his selfish attitude. He has an attitude about our Nation... and feels slighted because so few have taken him seriously. He is myopic, however, in failing to realize his (and your) best chance for self preservation depends on people fixing problems... little or big.<<<

Again, beautiful Socialist slander on your behalf. You have no understanding as to what my attitude about this nation is. I can care less if anyone believes me about anything. My best chance for survival is in God's hands, and my own. I am prepared to fix my own problems, and the problems of those I choose to serve.

>>>We earn our "birthright." Each generation pays for it, some more than others. The coin of payment... sacrifice. Some kid is standing watch in some odd corner of the world. He may be required to go into harm's way. Like good troops for generations, he'll probably make us proud. So will the folks who are on duty on New Year's eve...<<<

You'd make Stalin proud. I think you lifted this propaganda directly from his declaration of the Supremacy of the Soviet State in 1948.

We've traded our birthright for wealth, safety and security. We threw our birthright away when we refused to hold the corrupt in power to accountability, and decided to embrace a pack of lies and promises of government subsidy instead of steadfast self-reliance.

You have no understanding of what our God-given birthright was except as an excuse to continue fomenting about the needs of everyone to sacrifice for the good of the state. You make me sick. >>> I have never expected everyone to pitch in.(Bullshit, you just did) There will always be those with an excuse... a justification. It's a damn shame more people don't have the common courtesy to say thanks.<<<

I do. Everytime I pay taxes, obey the law, contribute to my community and attempt to warn them about potential danger, that all of us prepared will have no need to cry out to mother-government for help.

But no. You wouldn't listen. So the blood will be on your own heads. And I'll be damned I sacrifice all I've prepared to save those of you who ridiculed me and did nothing to save yourselves as you subtely suggest by "sacrifice".



-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 23, 1999.


Ken Decker regarding your statement "My post is not meant to condemn ALL pessimists... but I'm a little tired of the "bunker" attitude. First, it is based on a flawed analysis of the problem. Second, it strikes me as selfish. As if it weren't enough to be selfish, SOME serious pessimists have a smug attitude. "We're going to survive and you're not. Nyah. Nyah. Nyah."

Is it selfish to try to protect yours and your childrens lives from creeps who try to take advantage of social unrest that may come in some areas? Is is selfish to protect YOUR property that YOU worked hard to get in the good times from people who try to take it away from you when hard times come because they were lazy and did not get their own few months supply or was a polly and choose not to ever believe things might possibly could turn out different than their own self opinions thought it might? I do not see protecting your own and your own things as selfish at all but see it as wisdom, justice and duty.

I think instead that it is selfish of the pollys and such to even expect US to carry them if things do turn out bad. They have gotten to iive their lives, have good times with their money while we did not have stored goods. Each must live with the choice he has made at that time no matter if it turns out bad or ok at the turn of the year. We may have lost some money but I do that all the time with all the insurance I buy. I still have the insurance because I know bad things CAN happen.

Yes, I believe in fighting to keep my country free if the need arises. One of the the problems is since we have such a sad lack of wise leaders in the USA today I am afraid The People are finding there are no Good Leaders to follow. The people are finding there are no leaders who truly have the best interest of this country at heart. From not finding these wise leaders The People have decided they better be leader of their own home and at least keep it safe and free from abuse , until some wise leaders who's hearts, minds and works show they have ---this countries--- people as first priority, comes on the scene.

And no, if, I survive, if things are bad, I will not be saying Nyah, Nyah, Nyah,-- I will be saying "I am so tired of digging these graves my back hurts, wish these, head in the clouds, people had listened then they would still be here and we would not having to be doing all this needless work!"

obo

-- Onebyone (susanwater@excite.com), October 23, 1999.


"There will be a great many people working to ensure the rollover goes smoothly. Personally, I appreciate this. I'm damn grateful we have folks willing to work on New Year's Eve and through the weekend...It's a damn shame more people don't have the common courtesy to say thanks. Hell, I'll say thanks to weasel boy for staying on duty."

Uh huh. I'm sure Andy will be appreciative of the way you express your sincere gratitude and common courtesy.

delewis,

I really appreciated your post. Unfortunately, I think Ken would rather engage in a distracting debate with Invar. Is this a common characteristic of a rational economics major...search out and focus on the one example that illustrates your theory while ignoring the ninety-nine that disprove it?

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 23, 1999.


RUOK:

The problem is, when INVAR cuts loose with one, the "other 99" somehow seem to remain silent. I haven't seen you complaining that his rants are making you look foolish. Yet you see fit to rouse yourself to complain about Decker, so it's a very selective silence.

It's perfectly reasonable to suspect the "other 99" of tacit approval, which you do nothing to dispel.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 23, 1999.


Flint,

Invar can only make himself appear foolish...or not. I am able to differentiate Invar (and Ken, for that matter)as an individual, as opposed to a collective hive.

As for what I do or do not complain about, you and I have had this discussion before, though you would appear not to recall it. This is not the first time you have taken me personally to task for not protesting outrageous attacks on those who might be perceived as moderates or y2k optimists. I have already answered your misinformed allegation with specific examples demonstrating its fallacy, for which you apologized to me. I see no need to revisit this.

We obviously disagree on what the problem is.

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 23, 1999.


RUOK:

For each criticism of INVAR, I've seen hundreds of criticisms of Decker, including yours. Does Decker not also have the right to look foolish without comment?

The 99 can hardly be considered to be "disproving" INVAR's rants by attacking Decker while remaining silent about INVAR. For someone who claims to see the patterns that make up the big picture, you are strangely blind to this obvious pattern even when it's pointed out to you. Do you suppose there might be other obvious patterns you choose not to see? That might be coloring your expectations, maybe?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 23, 1999.


Flint,

There are plenty of bad actors chewing up the scenery from several camps. All the hot air leaves me a little cold at this point. I'm disapointed that a legitimate issue has fallen into the usual morass.

Was this just a 'bait the wakcos post'? If it was, how truly sad.

-- flora (***@__._), October 23, 1999.


Flint and Decker,

It's funny that the pollies are always so concerned about what other people are doing. Mostly it irks them that not everyone is doing as they are. Are they control freaks? Or just worried that someone else will have the "advantage?" Each to his/her own light, I would say.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 23, 1999.

I'm with INVAR on this one, and in Mara's ca,mp too. Why didn't you answer this question. I noticed only one person, (Jack), made mention of agreeing with this statement. INVAR maybe clubbing you verbally, but I notice a distinct lack of direct answers from you two when someone posts a question like the one above. The way you guys carry one reminds me of the Clintonian Fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant. BTW is it a 'Control Issue?' This seems more to me that the daily rantings on both side of the fence are like gun control. It ain't over guns, it's over CONTROL.

and also... Flint, make that 98.

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan@Yahoo.com), October 23, 1999.


Ken

There are many assumptions in your post I would like to address. I also served my country and noticed that the safety record of the Navy nuc's was enhanced by the continuous drilling. Each drill assumed WORST CASE scenario with Murphy showing up to make the fight the fire, flooding whatever. Here we are taking the opposite approach from the Governments position. I would rather be prepared for an event (i.e. fire) with things like smoke detectors and not need them then the reverse. That is like assuming that the generals and politicians who control the nuclear weapons want to use them?

Also are ALL of the pessimists SMUG individuals preferring the country to go down? I am not wanting even a partial worst case event. If there are problems people who are prepared are in a better position to help out there neighbors as has been suggested by many GI's in many posts. Why do you think there are police officers that are being directed to prepare their personal situations?

For those on the job (I may be one, if asked), know that God and those who consider all the possiblities are with you.

Also consider those prepared leave more resources for those in most need.

Thanks, and don't argue a point by assuming any group is of one mind.

-- squid (itsdark@down.here), October 23, 1999.


Flint,

I have seen you post criticisms on numerous threads begun by rational-sounding posters (please note a distinction between rational debate and ranting) with whom you strongly disagree. Often, on those same threads, we are "treated" to rants by a few polly extremists resorting to personal attacks, obscenities, and ridicule. I cannot recall one instance of you posting a criticism of those posts, Flint. Maybe you have; if so, I have missed it. (Actually, if you have protested one of those, I'd appreciate a link.) Would it surprise you to know that I have never considered your silence on those countless threads to mean that you approve of such rants, agree with such tactics, or are blind to this pattern of yours? No, Flint, I give you more credit than that, and assume you have your own reasons which may or may not be similar to mine. I also have no interest in making speculative accusations about you or your motives because of it. It has not occurred to me that your silence in such situations renders you hypocritical, blind, or ineffectual when you do post criticism about that with which you disagree.

I'm done derailing the purpose of this thread by engaging in personal, off-topic debate with you. That would be a lot like my criticism of this thread's original premise being distracted by personal debate between Ken and Invar :-).

-- (RUOK@yesiam.com), October 23, 1999.


RUOK:

Fair enough. For the record, CPR sounds as loony as Milne, and I've never been able to figure out if Doc Paulie has got to whatever point he may (or may not) have had in mind. Someone here called "super polly" is offensive and crude. I find that profanity demeans the user regardless of viewpoint. I also don't feel that unsolicited attacks against those with whom you disagree forwards your argument any. Decker's starting post mentioned nobody in particular, but you'll notice that the response is more heavily weighted toward attacks of Decker than to any serious consideration of his points.

I admit I've seldom criticized the more optimistic people -- my efforts to do so would be resoundingly redundant around here, whereas I've pointed out that criticism of the worst doomer ranters are very rare.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 23, 1999.


Ace:

Just finishing up "Atlas Shrugged"...Why does Decker sound so much like the looters?

Because he is one of them in spirit. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that his hero is Dr. Floyd Ferris. No, on second thought, perhaps the best model for Decker is from The Fountainhead: Ellsworth Toohey. He was Rand's "best" villain, in the sense of being most believable. The totally corrupt intellectual, of course, is the most influential villain in the real world, as well as in fiction.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), October 23, 1999.


"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."

-- Samuel (Johnson@Boswell.com), October 23, 1999.

Mr. Decker,

In this little disingenuous exercise, you have appeared to use emergency service personnel while fanning the flames of mistrust and paranoia. This would merely be pathetic, if you hadn't potentially endangered those whose skirts you attempt to hide behind. Shame on you, buster.

Flint,

Your effort to enable this behavior has unfortunately caused an 'uptick' in my expectations.

-- flora (***@__._), October 23, 1999.


Ken Decker wrote: "If the majority of voters chooses someone you don't like... deal with it. It's the price of living in a democratic society."

I feel obligated to remind you that we live in a constitutional, representative republic, not in a democracy. For example, were this a democracy, 51% of the population could decide that everyone named "Ken" should be exiled and it would become the law of the land.

If the U.S. Constitution was being applied per the founding father's intent, whether or not one cast a vote would have little impact on the state of the republic - but we have strayed far from that document. We have become a nation, not of laws, but of men.

-- PKM (.@...), October 23, 1999.


Decker, I'm a former doomer who is now more middle of the road. The more I learn about y2k, the more confident I feel that the problems we experience will be less than earth-shaking. But I remain cautious. I have prepared, quite extensively. It's like insurance.

INVARS, predictably, uses this forum to cast doom and damnation to all who don't follow his preaching right down the line:

< Your blood and the blood of those "average people" in this nation that may suffer for Y2K related failures is on your own heads>

And:

The guy loves that image of "blood on their heads, doesn't he?

Myself, I'm going to help others, even if they have reached conclusions which turn out to be incorrect.

By the way, the "government" is giving FREE CERT TRAINING. It is gearded to exactly what you're talking about, Decker. We are being trained to be front line emergency teams, helping our fellow man who may have "blood on his head".

I'm attending the classes starting November 2. Three hours per week for eight weeks.

Anybody interested in this training can find out more about it can do a search on the internet for "Community Emergency Response Training".

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 24, 1999.


Here, I did the search; the URL for CERT training info is:

http://www.fema.gov/emi/cert/prog.htm

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 24, 1999.


Ken,

Anyone who works on any New Years eve is either in a truly critical job (emergency services, air traffic controllers etc...) or has an opportunity to make buckets of money (bartenders etc...).

I would also like to point out the extreme distinction between caring for ones' family and "every man out for himself." If you can't see the difference then perhaps you might want to ponder the difference between responsibilty and selfishness.

In any walk of life there are those who care for others and those who care only for themselves. This forum is no exception. Ones capacity for conscientious behavior has nothing to do with ones perception of Y2k but it has everything to do with ones perception of appropriate behavior.

As far as I am concerned, no one would expect or want me to work on New Years Eve, however if I left my family untended so that that responsibility fell to someone else then I would be highly neglectful. Nonetheless, I fully expect there to be fools who leave their kids behind with babysitters while they go out, get drunk and drive on Y2k eve. I expect I will be in the position of caring for some of those peoples children even if it is a BITR. Even though I have warned them that this New Years might be a tad more exciting then most.

So here is my question to you Mr. Decker. Will you be on hand to care for children, the ill and elderly? Or will you be hunkered down at your desk letting the rest of us fend for those who cannot fend for themselves?

-- Dolma Lhamo (I'm@nonymous.now), October 24, 1999.


Hey Al,

Read Ezekiel 33:3&4 and 1Timothy 5:8 for starters.

The principle of responsibility after being warned of an impending calamity is manifest throughout scripture.

Their blood indeed, will be on their own heads.

If that statement makes you feel uncomfortable, take it up with the Almighty, He put it in the Book for a reason.

Those that have ears to hear....

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 24, 1999.


INVAR, your statements don't make me feel UNCOMFORTABLE; they just make me a little more concerned for YOU.

Also, I don't give a flying you know what on a rolling doughnut for your advice on < Read Ezekiel 33:3&4 and 1Timothy 5:8 for starters.> I also won't be reading it for enders, either.

You must have noticed by now, that I am not a believer in your particular brand of religion, so I don't need your brand of religion's operator's manual to figure out how to live MY life, thanks just the same.

Al

-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), October 24, 1999.


Have no concern for me Al, worry for yourself and your children.

As for preaching, you can stuff that notion too. I'm not on any kind of conversion kick. I can care less if I'm the only person on the planet that understands or believes what I post. I state what I do openly. It is my understanding, and no one else's, unless they've come to the same conclusions of their own accord.

You also obviously not a clue as to a Berean.

But be comforted Al, most of the world agrees with you, and wide is that gate....

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 24, 1999.


Just in Case anyone on the planet wasn't aware...Invar is nowhere near a Bible-beliving Christian. Please make sure you don't judge Christianity on the basis of Invar's demonic ramblings. He understands nothing of the Scriptures, or he would not behave as he does, nor say the vile things that he does.

"I can care less if I'm the only person on the planet that understands or believes what I post." --this says mach about you Invar....tooo much. You should heed your own warnings of the wide gate....

[RANT MODE OFF]

sorry. its okay to disagree as Christians, but this guy is into destroying christian witness where-ever he spouts.

-- Bible Thumper (Jesus@is.God), October 25, 1999.


Thumper,

You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I am NO WHERE NEAR what passes for christianity in your book.

You and I most definitely do not worship the same God Almighty, and I'm HAPPY to note that difference.

But I'll suggest you're in for a BIG surprise, as was I when the eyes were opened.

I offer Mathew 7:21-23, on the state of modern Christendom before the throne.

Indeed, wide is that gate....

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), October 26, 1999.


Ken:
I appreciated the thread. I collected a few excellent ideas from both sides; I also found unfortunate that several key miscommunications helped this whole thing melt into flimflam.

Be patient and respectful, people! *waves finger*

-- mil (millenium@yahoo.com), October 26, 1999.


mil: And just WHICH finger are you waving, dude???

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ