Charles Rueben or God...? You decide.

Posted by (12.78.237.188) Ken Decker on December 19, 1999 at 21:01:46:

In Reply to: You're wrong. posted by cpr on December 19, 1999 at 13:12:27:

Charles,

I scanned your response, but it sounded like you had been smoking crack and speed reading the Financial Times. The financial world is changing due to technology, globalization and other factors... but we not outgrown the core principles of economics. For the pups on Wall Street who've never seen a bear market, there are a few surprises in the wings. And it's unlikely we'll find a better recipe for extending an expansion than we have for the past few years. Of course, Charles, I could be wrong... but then again, I'm not broke yet. (chuckle)

I'm a man of modest desires and will, in all likehood, live out my days in relative comfort. While not overly wealthy, I can still afford the virtues of patience and courtesy. These are coins I value more than gold... and I find when given, are held in esteem. World traveler, entrepreneur and habitual name dropper that you are, you might find this a provincal attitude. C'est la vie.

You see, Charles, no matter how right you are... what does it matter if no one listens? Right or not, you are as ill behaved as any poster on TB 2000. I've heard your justifications for your behavior and find them generally lacking. You've shouted down anyone who disagrees with you and you have behaved like a bully... including your list-making nonsense. Enjoy your rare Italian wine on rollover, Charles. I'll take a lesser wine and better company.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

WOULD YOU CARE TO REPEAT THAT IN FRONT OF LAWYERS??

Posted by (208.189.71.48) cpr on December 19, 1999 at 21:17:40:

In Reply to: Charles Rueben or God...? You decide. posted by Ken Decker on December 19, 1999 at 21:01:46:

HINT: YOU ARE A TOTAL POMPOUS ASS and opening yourself to a lawsuit.

I don't do drugs. I'm a dry and I don't gamble. You've had your fun playing big shot with ignorant people. Most people know better.

Go and learn about the new world that out there. It will end your current status as "obsolete".

CPR

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The vote is in.... it's just Charles Rueben

Posted by (63.64.215.150) Ken Decker on December 20, 1999 at 06:21:27:

In Reply to: WOULD YOU CARE TO REPEAT THAT IN FRONT OF LAWYERS?? posted by cpr on December 19, 1999 at 21:17:40:

As for your threat of legal action... it's typical of the tactics you've used on this forum (and others) during the past year. Your schoolyard bully routine will not work on me... though I am tempted to forward this exchange to my attorney. Not for legal reasons, but she could use a good laugh.

If you want to hear what I think, Charles, in front of lawyers... just bring them with you. Fly in the whole CPR legal defense "dream team." I'll schedule a working lunch where you can record my comments for the record. Hey, I'll even pick up the tab for lunch. In the mean time, I find your threat of legal action utterly impotent.

-- (Not Saying@now....), December 20, 1999

Answers

...a cool one that Mr.Decker...

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

Absolutely no comment.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

I have absolutely seen everything now.

[wtf!?!?!?!?]

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), December 20, 1999.

I sent this to a colleague (who frequents the deYager board) with the comment, "I think cpr is losing it..."

She sent it back with the comment, "cpr never HAD it."

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), December 20, 1999.

Give credit where credit is due. Good work, Ken. If you need contributions for your legal team, contact me ;-).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), December 20, 1999.

Ken;

I have to hand it to you you stand by your principles.

You do not take grief from either side of the isle in this debate, you just stick to your guns. A rare quality in a person these days. I salute you!

(But you really should buy some more preps) (;)

-- Helium (Heliumavid@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

;-D

Ken,

I'll buy the caffe lattes.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), December 20, 1999.

Ken,

If you should need it, I would bake a cake with a file in it for you as well. {Same flavor as Big Dog's?}

-- flora (***@__._), December 20, 1999.

A couple of minutes more and you will cover Ken with kisses. Hello, people, did you see this one -- "Right or not, you are as ill behaved as any poster on TB 2000." According to His Holiness everyone on this forum is ill behaved. Well, screw you, Ken. I tried to debate with you as polite as possible (and so did many people on this forum) but it does not matter -- you are an egoistic asshole. Have a nice rollover.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 20, 1999.

In my opinion, little cockroach kenny decker is a total pompous ass. Just too bad that cpr is the one that mentioned it.

-- catfish joe (joe6pack@bottomdweller.net), December 20, 1999.

Brooklyn is right. Ken's opinion of us has been made clear on numerous occasions. Now he's just backpedaling to save face. Nice try.

-- (brett@miklos.org), December 20, 1999.

>> "Right or not, you are as ill behaved as any poster on TB 2000." According to His Holiness everyone on this forum is ill behaved. <<

Learn to read, Brooklyn.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), December 20, 1999.

Brooklyn, unless YOU have been one of our ill-brehaved problem children, perhaps you would like to reread the posted exerpts, parse them through the normal literary device filter and perhaps understand that the POINT is NOT that ALL TB2000 posters are ill behaved but that CPR was classed as being as ill behaved as ANY (unspoken specifically the worst) TB2000 poster had been.

And having crossed swords (or words which IMO are sharper) with him I WILL say he has managed to keep his head in the midst of some flames which actually got ME to bellowing in caps one night. In another thread he mentions civility. We could ALL use some more of this.

ESPECIALLY at t-11 and counting

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver, SYSOP # 3 (rienzoo@en.com), December 20, 1999.

Gee Mr. Decker,

I take back all the nasty things I have thought and said about you in the past...

-- ariZONEa (cpr_is_having@coronary.com), December 20, 1999.

CPR "lost it" when exiting the womb...

I haven't had such a good laugh since my granny caught her tit in the mangle...

They obviously lust after each other - yes, soulmates...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1999.

Ken:

Here's a thought straight from an MBA program:

Consider how people act when forced to sit together and solve problems as a group.

A researcher named Belbin (British, I think) defines about 8 basic temperaments in a group setting. Some people are pushy, some are easy- going, some offer ideas, some are good at leading, some coldly analyze the different options, etc.

If you think about group settings that we've all been in from time to time, invariably, one or two people tend to dominate the conversation. In some cases, 3-4 people might be trying to dominate the conversation; the tone gets louder and opinions become more inflamed.

Belbin calls the pushy, loud people "shapers"; that is, they try to shape the conversation. Shapers can be right or wrong in their opinions, but the two most distinguishing characteristics of shapers are: (1) they usually possess average, but not superior, intelligence, and (2) their insistence on forcing their opinions on others is often due to some sort of inferiority complex.

Just something to keep in mind.......

-- impala (impala@wild.com), December 20, 1999.

A rather mixed bag of responses. As a general rule, I dislike bullies... whether they share my particular opinion on an issue or not. As graciously noted by Helium, I do try to stand by my principles. This has caused me to lock horns with folks on both sides of the debate.

On an issue as subjective and complex as Y2K, conflict is inevitable. Disagreement ought to focus on the issue, not on the personalities. Discourse need not be filled with rancor or bile.

Those who have approached me in a reasonable and civil manner have found me a decent fellow. People who try to jam arguments down my throat or attack my character find me less tolerant. "Catfish Joe" and "Brett" have done little but offer childish attacks. To the credit of "Brooklyn," I vaguely recall an attempt to argue Y2K. If memory serves, however, "Brooklyn" started by accusing me selectively providing Computer World articles on Y2K, moved to suggesting I do not read and then ignored my personal interview with Bill Ulrich... the author of the "gloomy" CW article he provided. I'm not seeing a "Civvie" in your future. Nor do I see one for Andy... particular given his nasty habit of asking those who agree with me if they also have a sexual relationship with me.

Chuck and Brian, however, may be contenders. (chuckle) Brian's comments reafirm "Flint's obervation." They separate those who treat this forum as a school from those who treat it as a church.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1999.

Impala,

LOL!!!

Actually, I would have to come (ever so slightly) down on the side of Mr. Decker, who seems to actually be capable of an intelligent argument from time to time. CPR, on the other hand, strikes me as a utterly hysterical nutball beyond redemption...but that's just my OPINION after all (I wouldn't want to get sued y'know).

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), December 20, 1999.

Is it just me or is the threat or hint of lawsuits flying from primarily one direction? I recall a certain lady "trolling" (pun intended) for individuals. Why is it when you have no real arguments left you attempt to silence the opposition with the threat of a lawsuit. This is how pathetic we have become in reasoned discourse. If I can't argue then I will silence you by bringing in the big stick. This is childish but we have collectively become children. Anyone who wishes to disagree with me, more power to you it is still, mostly, a free country.

Sharpen your arguments but leave the temper tamptrums to Jerry Springer.

-- Squid (ItsDark@down.here), December 20, 1999.

Brian, why don't you teach me how to read? I parsed his statement a number of times (even before Chuck's advice) and still to me it sounds that Messir Decker accuses everyone on this forum of being ill behaved. Besides, "every" is a synonym of "any", just like "some", "a few", and "several".

As for you, Ken -- I missed your interview with Mr. Ulrich because I avoid this forum on weekends. I was able to catch the thread by Stan Farina which was inspired by your post. From that thread I got an impression that you did not post an interview with Ulrich, but rather an article which appeared in one of the earlier issues of CW by this author. I read this article before; therefore, I did not search for your posting.

P.S. About "Civvie" -- I am sure that you already nominated thyself, so why bother ;-P

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 20, 1999.

Ah the continuing education of Ken Decker.

A tussle with CPR, almost gives me warm fuzzies.

As always a good read Ken.

But rather that considering the forum as having a "religous fevor" one might view it better as a diverse community of individuals and each has their beliefs. Narrowing down a world wide community into any oneliner is destined to be a failure. While there is no doubt that there are folks that could use a bit more introspection in their attitudes, the same can be said about those that are the acusers.

Flint should be aware of that by now. And I do believe that is was Ken that started the classification of the forum members as the "faithfull". Do believe that a thread or to is still bookmarked somewhere in my Archive.

My how times have changed.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Ludi:

Referring to my earlier post, I was actually talking about CPR, not Ken. Sorry if you or Ken took it that way.

As for CPR, I've noticed lots of SHOUTING going on without any reasoned debate (the "I'm right" syndrome). Also, I detected a noticable ability to ignore events that challenge his view; either that, or he spins them into something illogical.

Of course, there are those like him on the other side of the debate, but he does seem to be the most emphatic and verbose, doesn't he? :-)

-- impala (impala@wild.com), December 20, 1999.

The forked tongued serpent wrestles the rabid mongoose and emerges triumphant. He then 'checks in' to take his bows from adoring fans and inflict his slippery, silver tongue lashings to known adversaries.

This now makes him a syrupy slippery serpent.

(disgusted snort)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Brooklyn, it wasn't written as a formal interview. After all, we only spent about half an hour on the phone. In fact, Brook, when you complained I provided the links to the entire CW search engine and the results of the Y2K search. As for Bill Ulrich, he agrees with me. The impacts of Y2K will be primarily economic. As for the "Civvies," I'm the host and excluded from receiving an award. Although if I'm nice to you for another year, I'm looking for the lifetime achievement award.

Brian, you must have missed the list-making episode. I do stand by my earlier post, "Y2K as a religion." Some people stopped thinking about Y2K long ago. For these few individuals, every bit of information is filtered through a very specific belief system. Let me use an example, Brian. I know a wonderful elderly Christian woman who prays a great deal. When someone she's praying for recovers, or finds a job, or has something good happen... God has answered her prayers. When something bad happens, God is answering her prayers, but just in a different way. Hey, maybe she's right... but we're talking about faith... not science. The scientific method approaches data in a little different manner. As a technical problem, I think the scientific approach is a little more useful than the Y2K as an article of faith approach. Comprende?

Will Continue... perhaps we should just agree we do not like each other. Good fences make good neighbors... n'est pas?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1999.

Actually Ken, I thought we had come to that agreement months and months ago. No sense repeating yourself *again*. I agree.

:)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Ken mentioned

""The scientific method approaches data in a little different manner. As a technical problem, I think the scientific approach is a little more useful than the Y2K as an article of faith approach. Comprende?""

Well last week Flint tripped over important data and relied on some of his own faith. It was unfounded.

So it works both ways Ken. Who is to say how your "faith" in systems you know is unfounded.

We may have been in shit city economicly if the FED didn't pump billions of $$$ of credit into the system. Now of course this is a highly unusual situation that the FED has put themselves in, contributing to the inflation of money when that is what they consider their mandate to avoid.

Bolstering there "faith" in the system eh?

If there was nothing wrong then there would be no need to create such a situation.

Unlike the members of the forum Alan G. and crew have the ability to change dynamics. The FED is now supporting an action that both of us has to agree is not wise in normal times.

Blind faith is found in more places than the forum.

And actually all of western society is based on erroronous assumptions. A study of Chaos theory and Quantum Physics will show that what we understand life to be and what it really is, is two different things.

Science only works if you can measure what you wish to understand. Then a point is reached when you cross the divide between understanding and mystery.

If you would like to tackle that one Ken I am game. Science has its "faith". And it can be wrong.

And nature, human or other wise is not based on science, it is the other way around.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Will Continue,

I was suggested you stay on your side of the fence... the serpent comments hardly qualify as live and let live.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1999.

Ken:

Surely you weren't nominated zoning commissioner when I wasn't looking, where you? Personally, I'd much rather discuss that compliant (guaranteed to function) water system you've remediated. I for one, would love more details about that.........no hurry of course, take your time.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Ken:

Surely you weren't nominated zoning commissioner when I wasn't looking, where you? Personally, I'd much rather discuss that compliant (guaranteed to function) water system you've remediated. I for one, would love more details about that.........no hurry of course, take your time.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999. ======================================================================

Will - all he's done is ordered a couple of extra new water tank trucks and 10,000 buckets for the locals...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), December 20, 1999.

What? No snorkles, fins and corks?

Amateur.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Will,

Since you've never asked before, I could hardly know you were interested. Our water comes from a system of high production wells. This makes treatment rather easy, though we do add chlorine (solid form) and soda ash to increase the Ph. The wells are electric, but we have mobile generators to run pumps. Most of our pumps run less than eight hours a day, so we can use the generators to provide water to our tower-based storage facilities. (Gravity is Y2K compliant)

The towers will be topped off on December. Without pumping another drop, we have enough water for 48 hours of peak usage. During a power outage, water use drops dramatically... no long, hot showers or loads of laundry. Oh, and peak usage occurs during the summer watering season... hardly a problem on January 1st.

Every resident has been informed of water conservation in the event of a power outage. Even without rationing, the natural limitation of no power will reduce usage to give us more than a week's supply without power... without pumping a drop.

In the event of a power outage, we'll start a rotation system keeping all storage facilities full. We can continue this process as long as we have fuel. As a governmental entity, we have access to gravity- fed fuel tanks for emergency services and generator operation. Without any resupply, I modestly estimate a month's supply of fuel with no conservation methods. With rationing, we could probably extend the operational period to at least 45 days.

All water treatment equipment is mechanical, not electrical. Monitoring electronics all have manual back-up systems. Every PLC or chip in the monitoring systems has been third-party verified for compliance. All treatment equipment is fail-safe... the possibility of bad water due to a treatment malfunction is close to impossible.

Well, it's late and I have to run. If you have more specific questions, I'll be delighted to answer them.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 20, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

Brooklyn said: ..."every" is a synonym of "any"...

So what? Either way, he still didn't say what you claim. What he said is that CPR behaves worse than any (or every) poster here. In other words everyone here behaves better than CPR, which does say something about CPR, but not much about us. Now, if he had said CPR behaves better than any (or every) poster here, then them would be fightin' words.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), December 20, 1999.

Thanks Ken, but your description is rather vague. For example:

What 'type' of treatment plant is operating?

What size community are you providing for?

What do you have upstream from your aquifer? Chemical plants, other treatment facilities? Compliant?

What type of climate is this facility located in? If people's pipes freeze up, who gives a rat's tally-wacker about rationing? Broken water mains? If your wells are off during broken mains, lines could become empty and create big problems once well pumps resume. Contingencies for this?

Is your sewage system gravity flow as well?

Please don't be afraid of giving me any information which may be 'above' my ability to comprehend.

Sounds like your system is either quite small or very dated. Rather like remediating a horse-drawn carraige, eh?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 20, 1999.

Ken:

If CPR VS. DECKER ever goes to trial, please feel free to call me as a character witness.

Truthfully yours,

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 20, 1999.

Will Continue,

There is no central treatment plant... each pump house is its own self contained water treatment center. Because we're pumping from subsurface wells, we do not face the same treatment issues as those who use open reservoirs. The "community" is modest... but I hesitate to say more. After all, I can't have everyone moving in.

We are not in an aquifer area, per se. The geology is schist, rather tight with limited fractures. There are no chemical plants or other hazards anywhere near the groundwater sources.

We have mild winters in this climate and all water mains are well below the frost line. In any case, the water will be flowing and that helps prevent residential pipe freezing. Even if there are residential service pipe failures, we have the ability to isolate any part of the system, from the curb stops to valve mains.

And yes, waste water runs downhill.

In fact, our system is primarily mechanical because we had a rather eccentric engineer/inventor as an elected official. He still holds patents on many mechanical devices related to water systems. Our philosophy is not to "fix" what isn't broken. The mechanical systems work well and do not rely on eletrical power. The equipment is also manageable for a small public works department. All in all, it works rather well. There's something to be said for low tech solutions. I'm still working on developing a fully operational SCADA system. What a pain.

It's a small place, Will Continue... but I'm a man of modest ambitions.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 21, 1999.

The "community" is modest... but I hesitate to say more. After all, I can't have everyone moving in.

Actually, Ken, we wanted to know so we could AVOID the place.

-- Different (perspective@on.things), December 21, 1999.

In the words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn, "It's a joke, son." Do you really think people plan to relocate 10 days before rollover to a small jurisdiction because they have a Y2K-ready water system? (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 21, 1999.

Thanks for elaborating, Ken. It's pretty clear that you are indeed a man of modest ambitions.

Best of luck to you and the other resident of your community.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), December 21, 1999.

Dancr I do not know if you will see my reply, but the person we are discussing wrote: "Right or not, you are as ill behaved as any poster on TB 2000." Replace any with every and you will see that he does not mean that CPR is worse than any poster on TB2000, merely as bad though. Sound like an insult to me.

Ken, I am sure you have read the last article by Ulrich in the CW. I was rereading it yesterday for n-th time, and even if Mr. Ulrich believes that the impact of Y2K will be purely economical (according to you), seems to me he still expects computer failures, some of which could be life threatening.

-- Brooklyn (MSIS@cyberdude.com), December 21, 1999.

Too funny. Now CPR is demanding a retraction from Decker, while at the same time accusing Decker of misleading people about Y2K as per Yourdon and North. Yep, that describes Decker perfectly...a doomer shill! LOL! (Does this mean Decker can sue CPR now?)

-- (Not Saying@now....), December 21, 1999.

KOS,

CPR VS. DECKER...maybe they'll mudwrestle?

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), December 21, 1999.

Ludi: Gawd, the very thought makes me want to barf!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 21, 1999.

"And I do believe that is was Ken that started the classification of the forum members as the 'faithfull'." Here's the thread you were talking about, Brian. (Decker's posts are usually found in Uncategorized or Miscellaneous.)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sT2

Y2K as Religion

One of the definitions of religion: a cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Y2K has become a religion. For some, the collapse of modern society is no longer a matter for debate it is precisely a specific system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

This is not a new phenomenon and often occurs in movements. Environmentalism serves as a useful example. Extremists in the environmental movement (e.g., Earth First!) have become more invested in a belief system than in rational inquiry. This has resulted in bitter debates and the rejection of some legitimate scientific research.

What we know about Y2K is that there will be some indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is a muddle of speculation, opinion and theory. A pessimistic interpretation of this muddle has calcified into a belief system

The true believers of Y2K see every event within the context of their faith. A lack of information is the private and public sectors hiding Y2K problems. Positive news is spin or propaganda from a government-business-media cabal. Bad news is the gospel whatever the source.

The true believers are saved. The saved proselytize. If you convert, you get it ergo the GI label. As a GI you are expected to perform the rituals of the faith the most predominant of which is Preparation. The degree of preparation appears a litmus test of Y2K faith.

To digress a bit, a Y2K version of Pascals Wager is used to convert the DGI (Doesnt Get It). Pascals Wager is pragmatic approach to whether one ought to believe in God. In simple terms, the argument contends a belief in the Almighty has nothing but upside. If God exists, you win. If God does not exist, you are no worse off than before. One can easily see this same argument applied over and over to Y2K preparation.

[It is important to note that there are criticisms of Pascals Wager that apply equally to Y2K preparation. http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/pascal-wager/]

The faith of Y2K has little mercy for those who do not convert, and none for those who leave the church. The label Pollyanna can easily be converted to heretic. (A dissenter from established church dogma.)

The acrimony between believers and heretics is inevitable. Much of the Y2K debate has moved well beyond rational discussion and into attacks/defenses of the faith. How different is this from scientists who believe in evolution arguing with conservative Christians who believe in a literal creation? The creation science advocates have access to the same data. They reach a different conclusion. Of course, it is difficult to deny their interpretation of the data is not influenced somewhat by their belief system. I suggest the same is true for Y2K.

Religion is about Truth. Science is about fact. Religion is conservative, even reactionary. It resists change. For Christianity, the Bible has been the Truth for over two millennia. Science, on the other hand, is progressive. Very little is left of the science man developed two thousand years ago. Science hypothesizes and proves. Religion simply concludes.

Stripped down to the barest of facts, Y2K is an indeterminate number of computer hardware and software problems due to the rollover from 1999 to 2000. The rest is belief an emerging Old Testament faith invoking fire and brimstone. America is the modern Babylon and the faithful are ready to build a new society cleansed of past mistakes (including a perceived misuse of technology.)

Y2K appears to have some sincere, good-hearted believers. It also attracts the inevitable hucksters and charlatans who use the faith for more worldly reasons. It has saints (Ed Yourdon) and sinners (John Koskinen.) I am sure the astute reader can find more similarities.

What are the implications of Y2K as a religious faith? I am not completely sure. One point seems obvious. Conflicts between the heretics and the faithful will continue unresolved just as the debate between creation science and evolution plods on.

I do hope at least one true believer of Y2K acknowledges that no information provided by the government, industry or media will change their mind about Y2K. If so, Y2K is a matter faith, not reason at least for one.

Regards,

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

There was more discussion here:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sYN

-- Helpful (forumite@TB2K.archives), December 22, 1999.

Will... actually, were my ambitions truly modest, I'd have moved to Wyoming. (chuckle) Much of ambition depends on how you define success. For me, it's not about material possessions or annual income. I took a large pay cut to move into my current position, but it's still more than I "need." Success is about making a contribution... and I'm fairly comfortable in giving more to the greater community than I've taken. A holiday thought....

And for my post on Y2K as a religion, I think it says exactly what I meant. Not all forum participants are Y2K zealots. There are, though, some members who have turned away from rational thought.

So it goes.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 22, 1999.