[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: In 1999 I was working for a technology PR company that monitored Y2K stories for a 'well known software giant' and it seemed to me that the stories of impending doom came primarily from newspapers desperate to sell copy and from computer companies trying to make a buck riding on the wave of hysteria. The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. By the way, not to get into the debate any deeper than to laugh at one side of it, I have a similar experience of Y2K to pass along. I made a *shitload* of money from Y2K. I worked on an *enormous* Y2K project for a major American retailer for almost a year. At such extravagant rates that I won't embarrass them by naming the corporation. I worked not on the programming side but in configuration management, trying to make sure that every line of code that made up the thousands of programs that supported their tens of thousands of employees and millions of customers were archived somewhere in source code control, so that they could be fixed if Y2K broke them. My side of the project took a year because we found less than 20% of these corporate assets *were* under source code control when we started. Willy doesn't know his Y2K ass from a hole in the ground. It wasn't about DOS; it was about mainframes, and primarily the COBOL programs still running on those mainframes. Y2K brought tens of thousands of retired COBOL programmers out of retirement to work on it. I assume they padded their pockets as much as I did. Anyway, the managers of this company's Y2K project decided to attempt to justify their effort by running not only the new versions of all the programs they'd fixed on January 1st, but the *old*, unfixed versions as well, running in parallel. They did this for a week, and then filed their report to the board. The report stated with some pride that not a single program they had fixed crashed due to a Y2K bug during this week-long period. The report never mentioned that not a single unfixed program running during the same test period had crashed.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
TurquoiseB wrote: Willy doesn't know his Y2K ass from a hole in the ground. It wasn't about DOS; it was about mainframes... The vast number of lines of code to be changed for DOS Y2K programs dwarfs the code lines for mainframes. There are millions of lines of code in Windows 2000 alone. You've been watching way too many movies! Office Space: http://tinyurl.com/yfoolkh
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_re...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: In 1999 I was working for a technology PR company that monitored Y2K stories for a 'well known software giant' and it seemed to me that the stories of impending doom came primarily from newspapers desperate to sell copy and from computer companies trying to make a buck riding on the wave of hysteria. The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. By the way, not to get into the debate any deeper than to laugh at one side of it Without, of course, reading any of the series analysis, evidence, and testimony that supports the side he's laughing at, let alone trying to rebut it. Some systems were more vulnerable to Y2K problems than others; an anecdotal report of one set of systems that functioned properly without a Y2K fix tells us nothing about the real extent of the threat. No account of the Y2K flap that I've read denies that it was overhyped in the media; no account denies that more was done than turned out to be necessary. Ironically, once Y2K had come and gone without major disruption, the very media that had been selling papers and eyeballs with hysterical predictions were the first to claim that because none of them came true, therefore the threat had never existed in the first place--and using that claim to sell still more papers and eyeballs.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Hugo wrote: do you get this nonsense from dude? BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. It starts on BBC America in February and probably season one. I don't have BBC America unless they play the series OnDemand. The robber barons at Comcast seem to want $61 more to get the tier with BBC America. Ridiculous! The trailer sports a one person super-hero theme, seemingly a woman who is immune to the virus -- and yes that's a theme that has been done numerous times. It is a reinforcement of the me meme. It was done first by the BBC in the 70s, this is a remake or rather re-imagining as they like to say these days. It's bang up to date with guns in yer face and everything whereas the original, while bleak, was more stagey and philosophical but still unsettling viewing with it's plagues and packs of wild dogs giving everyone rabies, such fun! It's worth a look anyway. I think if you can't make a good drama out of the end of the world there must be something wrong, but the BBC failed with Day of the Triffids recently. Survivors is much better. I'd tell you about the central character but don't want to spoil it. I watch trends and if you do that you can see where things are going. We've slammed into the wall of overpopulation. That problem could be solved if the wealthy would give up their power. But they want to stay in control and leave millions possibly billions in misery. They have NO RIGHT to do so! Our job is to make the public realize this and take action. I'm with you all the way. Do I have to get out of my armchair?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes103@ wrote: BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. You sure do Hugo. Cheer up mate! Don't worry, I'm actually a rather jolly sort of chap. Nothing is left for us at this moment but to laugh as a wise man said. Private we're all doomed Frazer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgsPzydgzxE He he. Dad's army, still crazy after all these years!
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
Hugo wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozg...@... wrote: Hugo wrote: do you get this nonsense from dude? BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. It starts on BBC America in February and probably season one. I don't have BBC America unless they play the series OnDemand. The robber barons at Comcast seem to want $61 more to get the tier with BBC America. Ridiculous! The trailer sports a one person super-hero theme, seemingly a woman who is immune to the virus -- and yes that's a theme that has been done numerous times. It is a reinforcement of the me meme. It was done first by the BBC in the 70s, this is a remake or rather re-imagining as they like to say these days. It's bang up to date with guns in yer face and everything whereas the original, while bleak, was more stagey and philosophical but still unsettling viewing with it's plagues and packs of wild dogs giving everyone rabies, such fun! It's worth a look anyway. I think if you can't make a good drama out of the end of the world there must be something wrong, but the BBC failed with Day of the Triffids recently. Survivors is much better. I'd tell you about the central character but don't want to spoil it. I see that the first full episode of Demons is up OnDemand. They had the first 28 minutes as a teaser previously. They may do the same come February for Survivors. BBC productions are pretty low budget compared to US networks but then the US networks in order to survive will have to start producing shows like the BBC does. Seems their big money productions are failing anyway. Most people are just looking for a good story to entertain them and the network executives seem to believe they don't and want glitz instead and long long drawn out seasons usually with a bunch of worthless filler episodes. The LA Times has a prognostication article on tough times ahead for the media. One thing I would root for having mentioned Comcast is for the FCC to crack down on them (after allowing them to buy NBC) and break up those damn over priced packages which most people only get 10% of the value out of. Want to see some sparks fly on the home theater forums just bring up ala carte and we have the armchair businessmen defending the big package deals. This is because so many of the home theater forums are populated by overpaid management types who don't care if they spend $200 a month for cable and only get about $20 worth of viewing out of it. They'll tell the rest of us to go ask our boss for a raise. I laugh at the ultimate result which is one of these guys the next day having one of their employees walk in and ask for said raise since he mentioned it on the forum. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-predictions28-2009dec28,0,2942337.story I watch trends and if you do that you can see where things are going. We've slammed into the wall of overpopulation. That problem could be solved if the wealthy would give up their power. But they want to stay in control and leave millions possibly billions in misery. They have NO RIGHT to do so! Our job is to make the public realize this and take action. I'm with you all the way. Do I have to get out of my armchair? Probably. I don't understand why people just sit idly by and whine we can't do anything about it.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the twinkling of an eye that a calamity might prove to be the longed- for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions. This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology, and that familiar sense that modernity and its wasteful comforts are bringing us closer to a biblical day of judgment. As that headline put it for Y2K, predictions of the end of the world are often intertwined with condemnations of human folly, greed and denial. Repent and recycle! Amen. I've always noticed that the same people who become hung up on apocalypse fantasies are also the ones most invested in Beam Me Up Scotty Syndrome. They're always looking for something *outside themselves* to resolve things for them. And for many of them, the world ending resolves them quite nicely of responsibility to solve things themselves. I've also noticed that a lot of the people who get off on apocalypse fantasies buy into the concept that the purpose of life is to extinguish life. That is, they really buy that the ultimate goal of life is to get off the wheel of incarnation and rebirth. Not my idea of much of a purpose. I think such a world view was promoted by people who were always *afraid* of life and more driven by narcissism and their own desires than by caring for others. And that includes IMO any spiritual teacher in history who preached avoiding rebirth as the goal of living. How is that point of view NOT narcissistic and self-serving? It's basically a way of saying, My bliss is more important than yours. Why should I stick around to help others or teach them anything if I can just dissolve into the ocean of bliss? It's basically the spiritual counterpart of the Me-first-ism we see preached by the Capitalists here. Having as one's goal the cessation of the incarnational process is essentially a way of saying, Fuck you! All that matters is my own eternal bliss. I like the teachers and traditions who think about enlightenment the least, and spend the majority of their time trying to do as many nice things for others as possible. Those people don't tend to focus on getting off the wheel and avoiding reincarnation. They don't get hung up on apoca- lypse fantasies as a way of hoping that non- incarnation happens sooner. They *look forward* to the next incarnation as much as they look forward to the next day. Both provide a new opportunity to do for others. Only someone who cares more about doing for them- selves looks forward to the next day never coming. Or worse, never coming again. Just my opinion...
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
Power promotes hypocrisy, study finds Dec. 29, 2009 and World Science staff 2009 may well be remembered for its scandal-ridden headlines, from admissions of extramarital affairs by governors and senators, to corporate executives flying private jets while cutting employee benefits, and most recently, to a mysterious early morning car crash in Florida. The past year has been marked by a series of moral transgressions by powerful figures in political, business and celebrity circles. A new study explores why powerful people – many of whom take a moral high ground – don’t practice what they preach. Researchers sought to determine whether power inspires hypocrisy, the tendency to hold high standards for others while performing morally suspect behaviors oneself. The research found that power makes people stricter in moral judgment of others – while going easier on themselves. The research was conducted by Joris Lammers and Diederik A. Stapel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and by Adam Galinsky of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. The article is to appear in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science. “This research is especially relevant to the biggest scandals of 2009, as we look back on how private behavior often contradicted the public stance of particular individuals in power,” said Galinsky. “For instance, we saw some politicians use public funds for private benefits while calling for smaller government, or have extramarital affairs while advocating family values. Similarly, we witnessed CEOs of major financial institutions accepting executive bonuses while simultaneously asking for government bailout money.” “According to our research, power and influence can cause a severe disconnect between public judgment and private behavior, and as a result, the powerful are stricter in their judgment of others while being more lenient toward their own actions,” he continued. To simulate an experience of power, the researchers assigned roles of high-power and low-power positions to a group of study participants. Some were assigned the role of prime minister and others civil servant. The participants were then presented with moral dilemmas related to breaking traffic rules, declaring taxes, and returning a stolen bike. Through a series of five experiments, the researchers examined the impact of power on moral hypocrisy. For example, in one experiment the “powerful” participants condemned the cheating of others while cheating more themselves. High-power participants also tended to condemn over-reporting of travel expenses. But, when given a chance to cheat on a dice game to win lottery tickets (played alone in a private cubicle), the powerful people reported winning a higher amount of lottery tickets than did low-power participants. Three additional experiments further examined the degree to which powerful people accept their own moral transgressions versus those committed by others. In all cases, those assigned to high-power roles showed significant hypocrisy by more strictly judging others for speeding, dodging taxes and keeping a stolen bike, while finding it more acceptable to engage in these behaviors themselves, the researchers said. Galinsky said hypocrisy has its greatest impact among people who are legitimately powerful. In contrast, a fifth experiment found that people who don’t feel personally entitled to their power are actually harder on themselves than they are on others, a phenomenon the researchers dubbed “hypercrisy.” The tendency to be harder on the self than on others also characterized the powerless in multiple studies. “Ultimately, patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy perpetuate social inequality. The powerful impose rules and restraints on others while disregarding these restraints for themselves, whereas the powerless collaborate in reproducing social inequality because they don’t feel the same entitlement,” Galinsky concluded. --- On Sat, 1/2/10, TurquoiseB no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation Date: Saturday, January 2, 2010, 2:50 AM Amen. I've always noticed that the same people who become hung up on apocalypse fantasies are also the ones most invested in Beam Me Up Scotty Syndrome. They're always looking for something *outside themselves* to resolve things for them. And for many of them, the world ending resolves them quite nicely of responsibility to solve things themselves. I've also noticed
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: A philosophy professor from New Zealand recalls the Y2K apocalypticism at the dawn of the last decade: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html 'The Y2K Nightmare' caught the sensationalist tone, claiming that 'folly, greed and denial' had 'muffled two decades of warnings from technology experts.' In 1999 I was working for a technology PR company that monitored Y2K stories for a 'well known software giant' and it seemed to me that the stories of impending doom came primarily from newspapers desperate to sell copy and from computer companies trying to make a buck riding on the wave of hysteria. Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. But they get the attention from the people they need attention from. Unfortunately for the author overpoulation, soil erosion and peak oil are real problems that you can easily get apocalyptic about because they are real and no-one is taking them seriously. Yet. But they will and I've no doubt there will be people saying that we don't need to double the amount of farmland we need by 2050 even though it's stark staringly obvious. This isn't doom and gloom but a sober assessment. Wait a few years, the papers won't stop going on about it once it's become obvious we are just going to have to live with climate change. The way this works is scientists give out the worst case scenario to spur governments into action. Suppose no=one had listened about the ozone layer. Not a problem? Think again. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. Imagine if the government had done nothing and swine flu had turned out like the black death did and exter- minated half of europe? Things do change in the wink of an eye, many a civilisation has collapsed overnight. The real stupidity is thinking ours is immune. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the twinkling of an eye that a calamity might prove to be the longed- for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions. Only way to wake people up I'm afraid. I can't wait to see what the climate deniers think of having to have a rationed water and food footprint to go with reduced carbon by the middle of this century! If you think it isn't going to happen you aren't facing up to the facts, *that's* denial. This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology, and that familiar sense that modernity and its wasteful comforts are bringing us closer to a biblical day of judgment. So the seas won't rise when the ice melts? The world's weather patterns aren't already changing? Biblical day of judgement? Where do you get this nonsense from dude? BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: snip [quoting a philosophy professor from New Zealand:] Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. As if poverty, terrorism, and broken financial systems didn't have their own apocalyptic scenarios. snip This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology, and that familiar sense that modernity and its wasteful comforts are bringing us closer to a biblical day of judgment. As that headline put it for Y2K, predictions of the end of the world are often intertwined with condemnations of human folly, greed and denial. Repent and recycle! Whereas, of course, nobody ever suggested the problems the writer believes need intelligent attention--poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems--have anything to do with human folly, greed, and denial. snort What's really going on here is an attempt at guilt-by- association, linking the problems the writer wishes to deny with eschatological nonsense, thereby implying that concern about those problems is itself nonsense.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Hugo richardhughes...@... wrote: So the seas won't rise when the ice melts? If maybe. The world's weather patterns aren't already changing? Always have. Always will. Biblical day of judgement? Where do you get this nonsense from dude? BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. You sure do Hugo. Cheer up mate! Private we're all doomed Frazer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgsPzydgzxE
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: snip [quoting a philosophy professor from New Zealand:] Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. As if poverty, terrorism, and broken financial systems didn't have their own apocalyptic scenarios. Well no. That's exactly the trouble with poverty. It is NOT apocalyptic. Neither is terrorism going to bring the end of the world. Nor even banks going bust. The world CAN live with poverty very easily and very well, thank you very much. And will carry on doing so all the more in my view if we fret irrationally over CO2 in such an apocalyptic way. If false, the alarmism will represent a gigantic diversion from the real issues. That will have substantial consequences for the needy. We need rice and water, not wind farms. So is it false? Now there's a question. Poverty is a fact. Terrorism is a fact. These need our full attention. I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be reasonably based on fact (sound science). A decade ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as to how this meme (if that is the right concept) had gained such enormous power.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
PaliGap wrote: Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention... Is the movie 'Avatar' an 'apocalyptic' scenario? LOL!!! A philosophy professor from New Zealand recalls the Y2K apocalypticism at the dawn of the last decade: KNOWING our computers is difficult enough... Apparently lots of professors of philosophy trusted their entire digital library to a DOS Operating System? Go figure. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. Judy wrote: As if poverty, terrorism, and broken financial systems didn't have their own apocalyptic scenarios. PaliGap wrote: Well no. Uh,oh!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: snip [quoting a philosophy professor from New Zealand:] Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems needing intelligent attention. As if poverty, terrorism, and broken financial systems didn't have their own apocalyptic scenarios. Well no. That's exactly the trouble with poverty. It is NOT apocalyptic. Neither is terrorism going to bring the end of the world. Nor even banks going bust. All three could bring about apocalyptic (i.e., disastrous) change, especially in combination. Don't play word games by equating apocalyptic with end of the world. Nobody's saying climate change is going to bring about the end of the world either. The world CAN live with poverty very easily and very well, thank you very much. Only up to a point. Ditto for terrorism and broken financial systems. And will carry on doing so all the more in my view if we fret irrationally over CO2 in such an apocalyptic way. If false, the alarmism will represent a gigantic diversion from the real issues. That will have substantial consequences for the needy. We need rice and water, not wind farms. And if true and we ignore it? There will be far worse consequences for the needy. Climate change is *already* having severe effects on the needy. So is it false? Now there's a question. Poverty is a fact. Terrorism is a fact. These need our full attention. Lots of things need our full attention. I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be reasonably based on fact (sound science). A decade ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as to how this meme (if that is the right concept) had gained such enormous power. And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
Hugo wrote: do you get this nonsense from dude? BTW the BBC have finished the second series of my fave TV show Survivors. Broadcast starts on 12 Jan. Catch up here: http://survivorsbbctv.wordpress.com/ The best post apocalypse show ever made. As bleak as the day is long. I like my doom and gloom. It starts on BBC America in February and probably season one. I don't have BBC America unless they play the series OnDemand. The robber barons at Comcast seem to want $61 more to get the tier with BBC America. Ridiculous! The trailer sports a one person super-hero theme, seemingly a woman who is immune to the virus -- and yes that's a theme that has been done numerous times. It is a reinforcement of the me meme. I watch trends and if you do that you can see where things are going. We've slammed into the wall of overpopulation. That problem could be solved if the wealthy would give up their power. But they want to stay in control and leave millions possibly billions in misery. They have NO RIGHT to do so! Our job is to make the public realize this and take action.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it. A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. Why do you do that, friend? To keep the lions away But there aren't any lions here? See, it works!
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it. A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. Why do you do that, friend? To keep the lions away But there aren't any lions here? See, it works! Anytime you want to change your approach and have an intellectually honest discussion, just let me know, OK?
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it. A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. Why do you do that, friend? To keep the lions away But there aren't any lions here? See, it works! Anytime you want to change your approach and have an intellectually honest discussion, just let me know, OK? Oh, back to this sort of stuff. Depressing. Honest/dishonest. What on earth are you talking about? Look at the above. I am making a point. I believe it is valid. Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? Because that would be dishonest I suppose. Except that's false (that I don't believe it). So, what on earth are you on about? Perhaps you don't understood the point I tried to make? Perhaps I didn't make it well? Perhaps it's not valid? That's all OK by me. But honest/dishonest? You're on another planet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it. A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. Why do you do that, friend? To keep the lions away But there aren't any lions here? See, it works! Anytime you want to change your approach and have an intellectually honest discussion, just let me know, OK? Oh, back to this sort of stuff. Depressing. Yeah, that's what I thought. Honest/dishonest. What on earth are you talking about? Look at the above. I am making a point. I believe it is valid. Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story as if that were a definitive response. Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? Because that would be dishonest I suppose. No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent argument.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Doom Gloom Fixation
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jst...@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: And apparently completely missed the fact that the alarmism resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it. A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. Why do you do that, friend? To keep the lions away But there aren't any lions here? See, it works! Anytime you want to change your approach and have an intellectually honest discussion, just let me know, OK? Oh, back to this sort of stuff. Depressing. Yeah, that's what I thought. Honest/dishonest. What on earth are you talking about? Look at the above. I am making a point. I believe it is valid. Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story as if that were a definitive response. Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? Because that would be dishonest I suppose. No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent argument. *And* you're using Y2K as a stand-in for climate change, so you're trying to short-circuit argument about that at the same time.
