A Wager for Daniel Fisher
Edward Flaherty
a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
put my money where my mouth is.
I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
not experience a depression in 2000.
I define a 'depression' as a decline in U.S. real GDP of 2.00% or
more from the fourth quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter of
2000. Specifically, if the data series at
http://www.stls.frb.org/fred/data/gdp/gdp92
reveals that real GDP for the period 2000.4 (the fourth quarter of
2000) is 2.00% below the real GDP reported for the period
1999.4 (the fourth quarter of 1999), then Daniel Fisher wins the bet.
If real GDP falls by less than 2.00%, or if it rises, then I win the
bet.
In the event a computer meltdown makes the Internet inaccessible,
then identical data may be obtained from published sources, such
as the 'Federal Reserve Bulletin' or 'Economic Indicators.'
Final revised GDP data for 2000.4 will likely be released in April,
2001.
If Daniel Fisher agrees to the wager, then I will purchase immediately
four "American Eagle proof gold: 1 ounce" coins, as shown at
http://www.usmint.gov/catalog/catalogb.cfm?Urlcategory=American+Eagles
with a retail price of $2,280 (shipping not included) and then
hand them over to my attorney who will deliver them to Mr. Fisher
if he wins the bet. If I win the bet, then I keep the coins and
Fisher re-imburses me for the cost of shipping, which will probably
be no more than $50 or so.
Surely, Mr. Fisher will take me up on my bet. By his own word he
is 100% certain we'll have a depression in 2000. It is a certainty,
not merely a possibility, in his mind. Therefore, he should interpret
this wager as a riskless opportunity to make some easy money --
provided he *really* believes his forecast. Moreover, it is a good
hedge for him. If he wins the bet, then he is proved right and he
wins about $2200 in gold coins. That will surely come in handy
as a medium of exchange in the economic aftermath of the crisis.
If he loses, then he is out only about $50, but at least there won't
be a crisis and he can take some solace in that.
--
Edward Flaherty
School of Business & Economics
College of Charleston
Office: (843) 953-7166
Fax: (843) 953-5697
Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty
Gary Forbis
news:37A06BE5...@cofc.edu...
> If Daniel Fisher agrees to the wager, then I will purchase immediately
> four "American Eagle proof gold: 1 ounce" coins, as shown at
>
> http://www.usmint.gov/catalog/catalogb.cfm?Urlcategory=American+Eagles
>
> with a retail price of $2,280 (shipping not included)
For some reason the US Mint doesn't seem to want to sell direct to the
public.
They sell to dealers at much less. The market price for these coins is less
than the US Mint retail. Don't buy directly from the US Mint (or at least
consider other sources.)
Grinch
<flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
>I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
>not experience a depression in 2000.
>
>I define a 'depression' as a decline in U.S. real GDP of 2.00% or
>more from the fourth quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter of
>2000.
Only 2% for a Depression? Very generous terms, Professor.
Genroberts
Can I take you up on that bet?
I am also *certain* that y2k will cause a depression (as per your definition).
I'll even go you one better.
You put the coins in escrow and I'll put a post-dated check in escrow of an
amount equal to cost of coins *plus* shipping. That way you will really win
something if you win.
_______________________________
0000000000000000000000000000000
_______________________________
"We've gotten classified reports [on the Federal government and Y2K] that are
so disturbing they had to be classified." - Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.)
TCP
: Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote in message
The Mint's "customer service" has been mixed in quality in recent years.
Some collectors have reported receiving their coins (e.g. proof sets) in
four days while others say it's more like four months. I think their
"problem" ("doesn't seem to want to sell direct to the public") with
"bullion" coins (e.g. American Eagles) is a risk aversion to volatile
precious metals prices; they adjust their price to dealers with changes
in the spot price of gold and silver - imagine trying to do that with
orders (esp those received by mail) for one or two or four coins.
The aftermarket has been brutal toward "modern" ("clad coinage" era)
U.S. Mint product; with a small handful of exceptions, all of their
"collector" issues sell today below issue price.
For $2,280 I strongly prefer four MS-63 (grade) Saint-Gaudens $20 gold
coins, or perhaps two Saints and two $20 Liberty coins, to four proof
American Eagles.
docd...@clark.net
Gary Forbis <for...@accessone.com> wrote:
>Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote in message
>news:37A06BE5...@cofc.edu...
>> If Daniel Fisher agrees to the wager, then I will purchase immediately
>> four "American Eagle proof gold: 1 ounce" coins, as shown at
>>
>> http://www.usmint.gov/catalog/catalogb.cfm?Urlcategory=American+Eagles
>>
>> with a retail price of $2,280 (shipping not included)
>
>For some reason the US Mint doesn't seem to want to sell direct to the
>public.
>They sell to dealers at much less. The market price for these coins is less
>than the US Mint retail. Don't buy directly from the US Mint (or at least
>consider other sources.)
The best prices I have found are:
... and no, I am not affiliated with them; if someone can find a better
price then please, by all means, post it.
DD
Na Kaula
<flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
>On his web site Daniel Fisher declares that the millennium bug has
>a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
>right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
>put my money where my mouth is.
>
>I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
>not experience a depression in 2000.
(Snip)
>--
>Edward Flaherty
>School of Business & Economics
>College of Charleston
>Office: (843) 953-7166
>Fax: (843) 953-5697
>Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty
Why would you want to overpay that much for four 1-ounce coins? Proofs
have a premium that cannot be recovered as 'bullion value' when cashed in.
I can get four 1-Oz. Eagles in Brilliant Uncirculated type for $1,200 at a
local coin shop... and I'm still overpaying. The bullion value is
currently about $255 per Oz., and that is the maximum anyone will give me
to cash them in or trade them.
You are already a loser, even if you win this bet. You clearly know
nothing about the gold coin market.
--
Y2K?
Y-not2K!
(Remove the underscore for e-mail)
Edward Flaherty
Na Kaula wrote:
>
> Why would you want to overpay that much for four 1-ounce coins? Proofs
> have a premium that cannot be recovered as 'bullion value' when cashed in.
>
> I can get four 1-Oz. Eagles in Brilliant Uncirculated type for $1,200 at a
> local coin shop... and I'm still overpaying. The bullion value is
> currently about $255 per Oz., and that is the maximum anyone will give me
> to cash them in or trade them.
>
> You are already a loser, even if you win this bet. You clearly know
> nothing about the gold coin market.
Yes, thank you and the others who pointed out the bargain places
to shop for gold coins. The Mint was simply the first place I looked.
Should the wage happen, I will get the four coins from the cheapest
source I can find.
>
>
> --
> Y2K?
> Y-not2K!
> (Remove the underscore for e-mail)
--
Edward Flaherty
School of Business & Economics
College of Charleston
flah...@cofc.edu
Office phone: (843) 953-7166
Fax: (843) 953-5697
Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/index.html
mgv...@hotmail.com
Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
> On his web site Daniel Fisher declares that the millennium bug has
> a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
> right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
> put my money where my mouth is.
>
> I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
> not experience a depression in 2000.
>
i think its so retarded that people who dont think y2k will be bad are
always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
i mean really mr flaherty grow up.
one of my polly friends has done the same thing. he says " well i
bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
by putting money on y2k not being bad it realives some of the
internal psychological conflict they fill inside.
quite childish if you ask me.
matt
http://www.michael.mcelwain.com
>
> If Daniel Fisher agrees to the wager, then I will purchase immediately
> four "American Eagle proof gold: 1 ounce" coins, as shown at
>
> http://www.usmint.gov/catalog/catalogb.cfm?Urlcategory=American+Eagles
>
> with a retail price of $2,280 (shipping not included) and then
> hand them over to my attorney who will deliver them to Mr. Fisher
> if he wins the bet. If I win the bet, then I keep the coins and
> Fisher re-imburses me for the cost of shipping, which will probably
> be no more than $50 or so.
>
> Surely, Mr. Fisher will take me up on my bet. By his own word he
> is 100% certain we'll have a depression in 2000. It is a certainty,
> not merely a possibility, in his mind. Therefore, he should interpret
> this wager as a riskless opportunity to make some easy money --
> provided he *really* believes his forecast. Moreover, it is a good
> hedge for him. If he wins the bet, then he is proved right and he
> wins about $2200 in gold coins. That will surely come in handy
> as a medium of exchange in the economic aftermath of the crisis.
> If he loses, then he is out only about $50, but at least there won't
> be a crisis and he can take some solace in that.
>
> --
> Edward Flaherty
> School of Business & Economics
> College of Charleston
> Office: (843) 953-7166
> Fax: (843) 953-5697
> Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mgv...@hotmail.com
Bob Brock
mgv...@hotmail.com wrote in message <7nviut$kce$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
SNIP
>quite childish if you ask me.
>
>matt
SNIP
It won't be long now....
Don Scott
>
>its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
>
>by putting money on y2k not being bad it realives some of the
>internal psychological conflict they fill inside.
>
>quite childish if you ask me.
>
smart college kid who can't spell and has attrocious grammar, yet
places himself in the top 1% intelligence band, is back with soda shop
psychology?
neat.
did bert and ernie teach this stuff?
ds
Tom Ambrose
>did bert and ernie teach this stuff?
Why, DS... so *THAT* is where you've been getting your information from
lately!!! Most impressive...
Tom Ambrose
>>i think its so retarded that people who dont think y2k will be bad are
>>always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
>
>>bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
>
>>
>
>turns out NOT to be a big deal, I can just eat my 3-year supply of
>rice and Tasmanian yak meat."
And just *WHAT* do you have against eating a Tasmanian Yak???
I suppose, SnowPup, that you would also consider spending hundreds of
dollars each year on home insurance a "rationalization". Such is the
mentality of people who are too foolish to prepare for what the CIA, the
State Department, and many other informed people and organizations see
as a very real threat to our world.
Of course, we just *KNOW* that you know better than everyone else,
right?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
TheZenith
Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
>
> Yes, thank you and the others who pointed out the bargain places
> to shop for gold coins. The Mint was simply the first place I looked.
> Should the wage happen, I will get the four coins from the cheapest
> source I can find.
>
> --
> Edward Flaherty
You're a Economist? And you dont know what gold sells for?
You know, I'm a digit-head, but if you don't buy your gold now,
you'll be paying much more than $255 for gold. Stocks are going
down, the dollar is losing strength to the yen, and the market is soon
to be flooded with dollars due to y2k and Japanese bailing out of
the US stock market. Only one man can save you pal - GreenSpan.
Will he do it (keep the dollar strong, interest rates low)?
I dont think so. Not this time.
You really should study the man in charge of your destiny.
BTW, you can *trick* the fellow you are betting, by buying the
gold now therefore locking it in at its lowest price (study
the gold 200 DMA).
Unless you are a real fool and you think gold is going to drop
to $50. Hahaha. It costs $240 to produce an ounce.
> School of Business & Economics
> College of Charleston
> flah...@cofc.edu
> Office phone: (843) 953-7166
> Fax: (843) 953-5697
> Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty/index.html
>
>
--
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...zzzzz..z.z....z....zzzzzzzzz....z.Z
"Even if the date-sensitive equipment blows up
due to a Y2K bug, there'll usually be a
replacement ready to take over." -smpoole7
SnowDog75
>always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
>one of my polly friends has done the same thing. he says " well i
>bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
>its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
>
No more of a rationalization than the standard disclaimer of "if Y2K turns out
NOT to be a big deal, I can just eat my 3-year supply of rice and Tasmanian yak
meat."
Chris
Whislin' Dixie
When I have to forage, I think I am going to go for chuaua meat. Must
be the Taco Bell commercials (implanted microchip) that have been
programmed into me. Dammit, Tacho Belch better by-god be Y2k compliant,
or its the end of the world as I know it. <<belllllch>>
Besides that, the hoe at the drive-up is a good lookin babe.
<<Belllllllllllllch>>
Accck. Got any Mallox?
Bob Brock
SnowDog75 wrote in message <19990731235141...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>>i think its so retarded that people who dont think y2k will be bad are
>>always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
>
>>one of my polly friends has done the same thing. he says " well i
>>bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
>
>>its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
>>
>
out
>NOT to be a big deal, I can just eat my 3-year supply of rice and Tasmanian
yak
>meat."
>
>Chris
Hey, they will do more than that. I'm buying everything I see that says "no
payments until Y2k." After all, I've got loads of advice from "experts"
that says I won't have to pay any payments at all since civilization will be
gone and I figure why not live it up in the meantime.
So hey, if it happens I've got new furniture in every room of my house and 5
new cars. If it doesn't happen, I've got a lot of certified Y2k experts
(with newsletters no less) who can make the payments for me. After all, I
was just taking their advice and even doctors have to carry liability
insurance in case their advice turns out to be wrong....right?
Hyman Blumenstock
Depressions are deliberately created by people who have a
financial interest in sweeping all the circulating Money
into their own greedy paws. So long as the Food supply is
adequate, the quantity of Money, if taken at its real worth,
nothing, is totally irrelevant. Likewise, the alleged
"National Debt" is a monstrous fraud, wherein much is made
of us all being the Debtor, but no mention at all is made of
the Creditor, who in fact is most of us who are the Debtor
-- a washout. Otherwise we are made to irrationally fear
that some army of accountants armed with ball point pens,
are going to appear at our collective door and demand
payment or evict us from our land. What a gross piece of
BS, and we all seem to swallow it whole.
During the Great Depression of the 30s', there was plenty of
Food, but people denied access except by breadlines and
charity, with consequent humiliation, and nothing useful
produced. All their savings ended up in the hands of the
promulgators of the Depression, under the auspices of the
Hoover administration. Depressions are accomplished by
first putting forth a Deficient Budget, publicly geared to
what public expenditures are set forth, with the notion put
forth that it is all "taxpayer's money" that is being used.
Inasmuch as the Budget is Deficient in not covering
everyone, those not covered are prevented from starving by
"Deficit Spending," again alleging that it is "taxpayer's
money" that is being used.
At the appropriate time, after the alleged "taxpayer" is fed
up with his alleged money being used, will cry out for
"balancing the budget" which is done, with result of
generating another depression. As people are now thrown out
of work by the loss of public spending, that mushrooms up to
loss of jobs unltimately to everyone, and a major depression
occurs. But the money that had been circulated, and in the
savings of everyone, is now forfeit for past bills due, and
falls ultimately into the hands of the few.
If we were to stick to what is of real value, as it has been
since time began, and only diverted this last century, it is
the adequacy of the Food supply, distributed as freely as
air and water are distributed.
Then what has Y2K got to do logically with people's eating
well?
HB
DO BALANCED BUDGETS CAUSE DEPRESSIONS?
by Frederick C. Thayer, visiting professor of public
administration, George Washington University.
During the loud and widely accepted argument asserting that
balancing the federal budget and reducing the national debt
will bring an era of prolonged prosperity, little attention
has been given to the consistently startling historical
record.
At the end of WW1, Democrats and Republicans alike concluded
that it was time to return to the "normal" situation of
balancing the federal budget and reducing a national debt
that had increased during the war. While President Warren
Harding used "return to normalcy" as a successful campaign
slogan, it was the prior administration of President Woodrow
Wilson that actually reduced the national debt in 1920.
From that year through 1930, the annual budget remained in
surplus and the national debt was reduced by 36%, to $16.2
billion.
The Great Depression began in August of 1929. The question
to be asked is: did the anti-public-spending crusade of the
1920s have anything to do with the onset of the Great
Depression?
Even though the sequence that begins with budget-balancing
and ends with depression has been common in American
history, the question of a linkage has been ignored. The
following paragraphs include all the basic data:
* 1817-21: In a period of five consecutive years, the
national debt was reduced by 29%, to $90 million. The first
acknowledged major depression began in 1819.
* 1823-36: In a period of 14 consecutive years, the
national debt was reduced by 99.7%, to $38,000, a virtual
wipeout. This didn't help either. A major depression
began in 1837.
*1852-57: In a period of six consecutive years, the
national debt was reduced by 59%, to $28.7 million. A major
depression began in 1857.
*1867-73: In a period of seven consecutive years, the
national debt was reduced by 27%, to $2.2 billion. A major
depression began in 1873.
*1880-93: In a period of 14 consecutive years, the national
debt was reduced by 57%, to $1 billion. A major depression
began in 1893.
*1920-30: In a period of 11 years the national debt was
reduced by 36%, to $16.2 billion. The Great Depression began
in 1929.
During The Great Depression, with no relief in sight, WW2
forced us to embark upon a wild spending spree. An era of
prosperity immediately began.
The rational conclusion therefore is that the wilder the
spending, the closer to prosperity we will become. On the
other hand CURTAILING spending, as the far right are trying
to do now, is a sure path to another Great Depression.
DEFICIT Spending is the most appropriate means to
"balancing" the DEFICIT of Money put into circulation by a
recalcitrant Federal Reserve. The "taxpayer" has NEVER been
the REAL source of Money, but is declared so as a ploy to
frighten the population with a threat to their livelihood in
order for the Money Interests to maintain undue control over
us all.
Depressions seem to be a boon to the Money Interests, as
depression wrests money held by the general population for
the benefit of the Money Interests in their Wall Street
Game.
Source:
The Washington Spectator
London Terrace Station
PO Box 200065
New York, NY 10011
mgv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <37A06BE5...@cofc.edu>,
> Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
> > On his web site Daniel Fisher declares that the millennium bug has
> > a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
> > right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
> > put my money where my mouth is.
> >
> > I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
> > not experience a depression in 2000.
> >
>
> i think its so retarded that people who dont think y2k will be bad are
> always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
>
> i mean really mr flaherty grow up.
>
> one of my polly friends has done the same thing. he says " well i
> bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
>
> its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
>
> by putting money on y2k not being bad it realives some of the
> internal psychological conflict they fill inside.
>
> quite childish if you ask me.
>
> matt
> http://www.michael.mcelwain.com
>
> >
> > If Daniel Fisher agrees to the wager, then I will purchase immediately
> > four "American Eagle proof gold: 1 ounce" coins, as shown at
> >
> > http://www.usmint.gov/catalog/catalogb.cfm?Urlcategory=American+Eagles
> >
> > with a retail price of $2,280 (shipping not included) and then
> > hand them over to my attorney who will deliver them to Mr. Fisher
> > if he wins the bet. If I win the bet, then I keep the coins and
> > Fisher re-imburses me for the cost of shipping, which will probably
> > be no more than $50 or so.
> >
> > Surely, Mr. Fisher will take me up on my bet. By his own word he
> > is 100% certain we'll have a depression in 2000. It is a certainty,
> > not merely a possibility, in his mind. Therefore, he should interpret
> > this wager as a riskless opportunity to make some easy money --
> > provided he *really* believes his forecast. Moreover, it is a good
> > hedge for him. If he wins the bet, then he is proved right and he
> > wins about $2200 in gold coins. That will surely come in handy
> > as a medium of exchange in the economic aftermath of the crisis.
> > If he loses, then he is out only about $50, but at least there won't
> > be a crisis and he can take some solace in that.
> >
> > --
> > Edward Flaherty
> > School of Business & Economics
> > College of Charleston
> > Office: (843) 953-7166
> > Fax: (843) 953-5697
> > Web site: http://www.cofc.edu/~flaherty
> >
> >
>
Don Scott
wrote:
Always nice to hear from the Government-by-Bible hypocrite.
DS
docd...@clark.net
SnowDog75 <snow...@aol.com> wrote:
>>i think its so retarded that people who dont think y2k will be bad are
>>always wanting to bet doomers that y2k wont be bad.
>
>>bet you 50 dollars that nothing happens."
>
>>its just a form of rationalization if ya ask me.
>>
>
>NOT to be a big deal, I can just eat my 3-year supply of rice and Tasmanian yak
>meat."
Eel... don't forget the broiled eel (make mine Hamanako!) and Stilton.
DD
SnowDog75
>dollars each year on home insurance a "rationalization". Such is the
>mentality of people who are too foolish to prepare for what the CIA, the
>State Department, and many other informed people and organizations see
>as a very real threat to our world.
>
The point of my original statement was that you can't have it both ways. If
the doomers believe that Y2K is serious enough to warrant stocking up on food
and ammo, then it's pure rationalization for them to say that they can always
just give it away to charity if Y2K turns out to be a non-event. All I'm
asking for is a little conviction in your beliefs.
And as far as preparing for what the CIA, State Dept, et. al., says will be a
very real threat......again, doomers can't have it both ways. Either what the
gov't says about Y2K is to be believed, they are clueless and ignorant, or they
are all part of some giant conspiracy of silence to keep the herd in order.
You can't pick and choose which gov't agenices or representatives are credible,
and which aren't.
>Of course, we just *KNOW* that you know better than everyone else,
>right?
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
I never claimed to know more than anyone else. You could fit what I know about
programming into a thimble and still have room left over. But I believe what I
believe about Y2K, and am not afraid to say so. However, it's quite
interesting to see the "debate" tactics you chose to use with regards to my
post. SnowPup.....wow, that's real clever. I suppose a well-crafted character
assassination based on my choice of internet provider is forthcoming.
Chris
Don Scott
wrote:
>
>BTW, who were you talking to? My server missed the post previous to yours.
Tom "Gospel Pup" Ambrose.
DS
>>
>>Chris
>
>
>Bob
>
>
Bob Brock
SnowDog75 wrote in message <19990801123611...@ng-co1.aol.com>...
>>I suppose, SnowPup, that you would also consider spending hundreds of
>>dollars each year on home insurance a "rationalization". Such is the
>>mentality of people who are too foolish to prepare for what the CIA, the
>>State Department, and many other informed people and organizations see
>>as a very real threat to our world.
>>
>
>The point of my original statement was that you can't have it both ways.
If
>the doomers believe that Y2K is serious enough to warrant stocking up on
food
>and ammo, then it's pure rationalization for them to say that they can
always
>just give it away to charity if Y2K turns out to be a non-event. All I'm
>asking for is a little conviction in your beliefs.
They have it "both ways" all the time. Haven't you seen them use a
person/organization as a credible source only to turn around and trash the
same group within a few hours when they say something that doesn't fit the
paradigm? I know that I have.
>And as far as preparing for what the CIA, State Dept, et. al., says will be
a
>very real threat......again, doomers can't have it both ways. Either what
the
>gov't says about Y2K is to be believed, they are clueless and ignorant, or
they
>are all part of some giant conspiracy of silence to keep the herd in order.
>You can't pick and choose which gov't agenices or representatives are
credible,
>and which aren't.
>
>
>
>>Of course, we just *KNOW* that you know better than everyone else,
>>right?
>>
>>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>I never claimed to know more than anyone else. You could fit what I know
about
>programming into a thimble and still have room left over. But I believe
what I
>believe about Y2K, and am not afraid to say so. However, it's quite
>interesting to see the "debate" tactics you chose to use with regards to my
>post. SnowPup.....wow, that's real clever. I suppose a well-crafted
character
>assassination based on my choice of internet provider is forthcoming.
You can believe whatever you want to, so long as it agrees with what they
believe. They are shepards in search of sheeple to herd in "The One and
Only True Way." If you don't know that "The One and Only True Way" is,
that's OK, Milne will tell you how to think and if you refuse, you will be
"toast" and "drinking dog piss out of a rusty hub cap while you watch your
children starve" soon...
So far as your ISP is concerned, just be glad that you aren't a WebTV user.
Then it gets really bad.
BTW, who were you talking to? My server missed the post previous to yours.
>
>Chris
Bob
Bob Brock
Don Scott wrote in message <37a47bb6...@news.sprint.ca>...
yours.
>
The Reverend Tom is still around huh? Oh well, so long as he wants to poke
fun at my dead relatives, he will remain in my killfile. He hasn't
actually started posting anything about Y2k has he? I'd hate to think that
I was missing anything that might be of value.
Kevin Vaughan
writes
>
>
>They have it "both ways" all the time. Haven't you seen them use a
>person/organization as a credible source only to turn around and trash the
>same group within a few hours when they say something that doesn't fit the
>paradigm? I know that I have.
>
>
What is wrong with having it both ways ?
If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
share your faith.
But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
I cannot see how it is possible to come to a rational decision on the
likely effects of Y2K, given the spin-doctoring of the optimists and the
doom and gloom mongering of the pessimists.
Therefore, I reserve the right to build up a large stock-pile of food
for next year "just in case".
What can I lose ? If Y2K turns out to very serious, my family and
myself get to eat and drink.
If Y2K is a non-event, I maybe have to throw out some slabs of baked
beans and tuna.
Seems a small price to pay for having it both ways.
If only there were more issues in life which gave us the opportunity to
have it both ways.
>
>
--
Kevin Vaughan
A.Lizard
signature) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:31:34 GMT, mgv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <37A06BE5...@cofc.edu>,
>> Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
d too.
>Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their killfiles.
>
>It's a bad sign when the vultures show up on a newsgroup. Keep your eyes peeled
>-- if Dr. Dr. Flatulenty is here, David Sternlight can't be far behind.
Does Sternlight even *have* an opinion on Y2K? *NO*, I'm NOT
going to ask him what it is, he might show up here to tell us.
And tell us. And tell us. An evil fate, not to be wished on
either Polly or Doomer, regardless of his position on Y2K.
A.Lizard
>
>--
>This is not a real email address, nor a real name, so
>don't reply via email.
>
> "Years don't roll over"
> "Ambiguity propagates"
> "WWSD"
************************************************************************
Personal Web site http://www.ecis.com/~alizard
For reliable year 2000 info, go to:
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html
backup address (if ALL else fails) ali...@usa.net
PGP 6.5.1 key available by request,keyserver,or on my Web site
Find out what I think of the Littleton school killings at:
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html
************************************************************************
Bob Brock
SnowDog75 wrote in message <19990801210756...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
SNIP
My apologies SnowDog, Mr. Vaughn's post didn't show up on my server so I'm
piggybacking on your reply.
>>Bob,
>>
>>What is wrong with having it both ways ?
>>
>>If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
>>(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
>>share your faith.
I'm not saying that there will be no problems. I don't agree with the
Milne/Infomagic scenerio though.
>>
>>But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
>>rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
For some odd reason, I've never put Don Joe into the same category with
Milne. I think Don just want's to be left alone ( a perspective I agree
with) where as Milne wants to be able to tell me what to do (a perspective I
don't agree with).
>>
>>I cannot see how it is possible to come to a rational decision on the
>>likely effects of Y2K, given the spin-doctoring of the optimists and the
>>doom and gloom mongering of the pessimists.
>>
>>Therefore, I reserve the right to build up a large stock-pile of food
>>for next year "just in case".
Please, feel free to do so. You don't need my blessing and I have a large
stock pile of food regardless of the fact that I see the chances of a Y2k
induced catastrophy as less and less likely as each milestone passes without
incident. I think everyone should always have a large stockpile of food.
However, I don't presume to run their lives for them or try to manipulate
them through guilt by telling them that their children will starve because
they didn't do what I want them to do.
>>
>>What can I lose ? If Y2K turns out to very serious, my family and
>>myself get to eat and drink.
>>
>>If Y2K is a non-event, I maybe have to throw out some slabs of baked
>>beans and tuna.
Well, if you are throwing food away, you have lost something. BTW, if you
decide that you don't need all that stuff next year, I'll be glad to take it
off of your hands so you don't have to throw it away.
>>
>>Seems a small price to pay for having it both ways.
>>
>>If only there were more issues in life which gave us the opportunity to
>>have it both ways.
Actually, I've found that it is very rare where any issue of any significant
complexity only has two possible choices.... I disagree with the either/or
scenerio almost as much as I disagree with those who try to manipulate
people through innuendo, personal attacks and guilt. I would have been gone
months ago after having written this NG off as a complete time waster, but
it wasn't destined. Just six more months.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Kevin Vaughan
>>
>>
>
>
Paul Milne
Bob Brock wrote in message <37a4f...@news4.his.com>...
>
>SnowDog75 wrote in message
<19990801210756...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>
>SNIP
>
>My apologies SnowDog, Mr. Vaughn's post didn't show up on my server so I'm
>piggybacking on your reply.
>
>>>Bob,
>>>
>>>What is wrong with having it both ways ?
>>>
>>>If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
>>>(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
>>>share your faith.
>
>I'm not saying that there will be no problems. I don't agree with the
>Milne/Infomagic scenerio though.
>>>
>>>But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
>>>rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
>
>For some odd reason, I've never put Don Joe into the same category with
>Milne. I think Don just want's to be left alone ( a perspective I agree
>with) where as Milne wants to be able to tell me what to do (a perspective
I
>don't agree with).
>>>
Once again, you are a LIAR brock. Post ANY example that could even remotely
be interpretted as such.
Otherwise, you remain branded the LIAR that you have always been in here.
>>>I cannot see how it is possible to come to a rational decision on the
>>>likely effects of Y2K, given the spin-doctoring of the optimists and the
>>>doom and gloom mongering of the pessimists.
>>>
>>>Therefore, I reserve the right to build up a large stock-pile of food
>>>for next year "just in case".
>
>Please, feel free to do so. You don't need my blessing and I have a large
>stock pile of food regardless of the fact that I see the chances of a Y2k
>induced catastrophy as less and less likely as each milestone passes
without
>incident. I think everyone should always have a large stockpile of food.
>However, I don't presume to run their lives for them or try to manipulate
>them through guilt by telling them that their children will starve because
>they didn't do what I want them to do.
>>>
No, you 'manipulate' them by posting every happy faced press release you can
DISSUADING them from ANY preparations in the first place.
Tom Ambrose
>Always nice to hear from the Government-by-Bible hypocrite.
Being called a "hypocrite" by sleaze like you is the ultimate
compliment. Thank you, DS. Nice to hear I got under your thin skin.
Tom Ambrose
>Tom "Gospel Pup" Ambrose.
Hey, DS, I am genuinely *IMPRESSED*! Did you think that one up all on
your own or did you get help from your friends "Bert" and "Ernie"? Keep
trying.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Tom Ambrose
>The point of my original statement was that you can't have it both
>ways. If the doomers believe that Y2K is serious enough to warrant
>stocking up on food and ammo, then it's pure rationalization for them
>to say that they can always just give it away to charity if Y2K turns
>out to be a non-event. All I'm asking for is a little conviction in
>your beliefs.
This false dichotomy of yours is utter nonsense. Like most rational
people, I have acknowledged that I simply do not *KNOW* what is going to
happen. That said, however, there is *CLEAR* and *INCREASING*
*EVIDENCE* - not proof - that Y2K may very well cause some serious
problems.
Consequently, I will prepare for that *POSSIBILITY* just as a homeowner
buys insurance for his house - even though there is a *LOW* probability
that he or she will ever have a fire. They do not *KNOW* there will
ever be a fire. But the potential consequences of not having that
insurance policy are simply too great to ignore.
So it is with Y2K... only an idiot would claim they know there will be
no problems. And, yes, I most certainly *CAN* have it both ways whether
you are too stupid to realize it or not.
As for your desire for conviction: stuff it... it is meaningless. I am
*CONVINCED* that people like you are completely clueless but that
doesn't mean you will now go check yourself into a nice, safe asylum.
>And as far as preparing for what the CIA, State Dept, et. al., says
>will be a very real threat......again, doomers can't have it both
>ways. Either what the gov't says about Y2K is to be believed, they
>are clueless and ignorant, or they are all part of some giant
>conspiracy of silence to keep the herd in order.
Oh... gee... that's an impressive piece of pseudo-logic. And, now,
you've added in the specter of *CONSPIRACY*. That always adds some
weight to a completely lame assertion.
>You can't pick and choose which gov't agenices or representatives are
>credible, and which aren't.
Actually, Bozo, I can do *EXACTLY* that. Moreover, I do so on the basis
of their consistency, their evidence, their agenda, and their rationale
- or lack thereof. Try it sometime... you might find it enlightening.
<SNIP THE PUPPY-LIKE WHINE>
>I suppose a well-crafted character assassination based on my choice
>of internet provider is forthcoming.
I'll consider it... any ideas that particularly appeal to you? Consider
using your *REAL* name sometime instead of *HIDING* behind a pseudonym.
Tom Ambrose
>On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 12:52:47 -0400, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>BTW, who were you talking to? My server missed the post previous
>>to yours.
Oooooooo... nice try, Brock, but as I've already *PROVEN* *SEVERAL*
times here, you are lying. I'm truly flattered to know that you
continue to read my posts... ROTFLMAO!
SnowDog75
Lincolns.
If you (you, in this post, is meant in the general sense) want to have a few
extra weeks' worth of food/water/whatever in hand in case Y2K causes serious
disruptions, go right ahead. Having an emergency supply of these things is
smart in ANY case. No rational person could begrudge you that (at least not
me).
The problem I have (and I think I can speak for at least a few others here) is
when we are told by certain individuals that we are fools/idiots/morons/(insert
your favorite insult here) for not stocking up, and that we are sentencing out
children to a slow death of starvation (which we are always told we will
deserve, of course). The fact is, you can't save the world. If Joe 6-pack
doesn't want to take your advice, move on to the next person. But constantly
berating people who don't prepare with vulgar, hate-filled slander only serves
to turn more people off to your viewpoint. If the preparations you have made
allow you to sleep more comfortably at night, then what more can you ask for???
Chris
>Bob,
>
>What is wrong with having it both ways ?
>
>If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
>(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
>share your faith.
>
>But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
>rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
>
>I cannot see how it is possible to come to a rational decision on the
>likely effects of Y2K, given the spin-doctoring of the optimists and the
>doom and gloom mongering of the pessimists.
>
>Therefore, I reserve the right to build up a large stock-pile of food
>for next year "just in case".
>
>What can I lose ? If Y2K turns out to very serious, my family and
>myself get to eat and drink.
>
>If Y2K is a non-event, I maybe have to throw out some slabs of baked
>beans and tuna.
>
>Seems a small price to pay for having it both ways.
>
>If only there were more issues in life which gave us the opportunity to
>have it both ways.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Kevin Vaughan
>
>
Robert Egan
WARNING: The following statement is HILARIOUS. You should not have
anything in your mouth which will spew out across your monitor or
keyboard. I have included several lines of "spoiler space" to give you
time to get ready.
Regards
Robert Egan
[scroll down when ready]
[almost there...]
Paul Milne wrote [when accused of telling other people what to do]:
>
> Post ANY example that could even remotely be interpretted as such.
>
--
Notice: If your address is not valid, Juno will bounce your message.
Mark
>
> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:14:21 -0400, Robert Egan <rje...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >A present for those who have been here more than six months....
> >
> >WARNING: The following statement is HILARIOUS. You should not have
> >anything in your mouth which will spew out across your monitor or
> >keyboard. I have included several lines of "spoiler space" to give you
> >time to get ready.
> >
> >
> >Regards
> >Robert Egan
> >
> >[scroll down when ready]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[almost there...]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Paul Milne wrote [when accused of telling other people what to do]:
> >>
> >> Post ANY example that could even remotely be interpretted as such.
> >>
>
> remove my teeth or tongue just because YOU tell me to do so.
>
> Anyway, I think you must have either forgotten to include the "funny" part, or
> else you're experiencing what those of the Shrinkish persuasion call
> "inappropriate laughter".
>
Oh, come on, Unca Donnie, give him his just dues. The national debt
would disappear if the Fed received a nickel every time Paulie Wog
barked, "Get out of Dodge, NOW!" (Not that I disagree or have a problem
with it.)
Which leads me to the next logical question: Why would anybody name a
car after a town known for its piles of corpses? I think I'll start a
car outfit too. I'll name it Boot Hill Motors. Or I could start a
shipping outfit named Davey Jones Cruise Lines. Hey, I'm only doing
what *they* did.
A.Lizard
<"dont.want.emaiil.from ya"@anyway.net> wrote:
>Dude, if you have rice and Tasmanian yak meat, your are safe from me.
>When I have to forage, I think I am going to go for chuaua meat. Must
>be the Taco Bell commercials (implanted microchip) that have been
>programmed into me. Dammit, Tacho Belch better by-god be Y2k compliant,
Not necessarily. There have been threads here discussing
alternatives to the conventional supply mechanisms for fast food
chains. Think of a nice post-y2k HelloKitty burrito. Doesn't it
make your mouth water?
>or its the end of the world as I know it. <<belllllch>>
>
>Besides that, the hoe at the drive-up is a good lookin babe.
><<Belllllllllllllch>>
Perhaps in a few months, she'll get to sell you a chihuahua-based
taco.
>Accck. Got any Mallox?
One good thing to stock up on for Y2K.
A.Lizard
>SnowDog75 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> No more of a rationalization than the standard disclaimer of "if Y2K turns out
>> NOT to be a big deal, I can just eat my 3-year supply of rice and Tasmanian yak
>> meat."
>>
>> Chris
mgv...@hotmail.com
sco...@sprint.ca (Don Scott) wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 19:31:34 GMT, mgv...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >internal psychological conflict they fill inside.
> >
> >quite childish if you ask me.
> >
no! please! dont make fun of my bad spelling!! oh no!!! i cant take
it!!! ahhhhhh! donny! stop it !!!
and has attrocious grammar,
attrocious! i bet i couldnt spell that!
yet
> places himself in the top 1% intelligence band,
weellll, maybe just tope 5%
is back with soda shop
> psychology?
>
> neat.
>
cool. i thought you would like that post donny boy!
> did bert and ernie teach this stuff?
>
hahaha, ever the witty jokesteer don scott.
as for soda pop psychology.....
i think its interesting and worth noting that the extreme pollys have
such poor senses of humor. i think this is quite telling of their mental
mind set.
alan deshirt is a perfect example. he is the king polly and his
sense of humor is virtually non existent.
matt
http://www.michael.mcelwain.com
> ds
Kevin Vaughan
1. My name is Vaughan, not Vaughn
2. I probably didn't show up on your server because you kill-filed me
recently (so I guess you wont see this reply until someone else
replies to it).
3. I don't think I demonised you, but you did recently have a go at me
suggesting that I must go through a lot of Listerine. That is
quite a presumption considering that we have never met.
4. I apologise if I incorrectly grouped you in with the "gun-toting"
group. However I think you would be proud to be labelled
fundamentalist. I apologise for the nut-case label. That was
unwarranted.
5. I didn't know that it was a criminal activity to own a gun in the
USA. I thought it was compulsory.
Regards,
Kevin Vaughan
In article <37bb2eeb...@sbpw.dh5ilhfw.tmm>, Don Joe - see
signature <don...@example.com> writes
>On Sun, 1 Aug 1999 21:38:49 -0400, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>SnowDog75 wrote in message <19990801210756...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>My apologies SnowDog, Mr. Vaughn's post didn't show up on my server so I'm
>>piggybacking on your reply.
>
>Never showed up here either.
>
>>>>Bob,
>>>>
>>>>What is wrong with having it both ways ?
>>>>
>>>>If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
>>>>(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
>>>>share your faith.
>>
>>I'm not saying that there will be no problems. I don't agree with the
>>Milne/Infomagic scenerio though.
>>>>
>>>>But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
>>>>rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
>>
>>For some odd reason, I've never put Don Joe into the same category with
>>Milne. I think Don just want's to be left alone ( a perspective I agree
>>with) where as Milne wants to be able to tell me what to do (a perspective I
>>don't agree with).
>
>I can only speak for me, something that Vaughn, whom I do not know, and does not
>know me, cannot do. Not, apparently, that he lets that get in his way of
>demonizing me.
>
>For the record, I'd like him to back up his allegations -- specifically the "gun
>toting" part, which where I live, is criminal unless it's hunting season (which
>it's not), or one is graced with a CCW (which virtually *never* occurs).
>
>I don't like being accused of criminal activities.
>
>So, Vaughn, put up or shut the fuck up.
>
>
--
Kevin Vaughan
"The prudent see danger and take refuge,
but the simple keep going and suffer for it."
Proverbs 27:12
SnowDog75
>This false dichotomy of yours is utter nonsense. Like most rational
>people, I have acknowledged that I simply do not *KNOW* what is going to
>happen. That said, however, there is *CLEAR* and *INCREASING*
>*EVIDENCE* - not proof - that Y2K may very well cause some serious
>problems.
You take on the air of someone who KNOWS what will happen by your tone. When
you laugh at people who oppose your viewpoint and hurl insults at them, you
sure sound like someone with an inside track on future events.
>So it is with Y2K... only an idiot would claim they know there will be
>no problems. And, yes, I most certainly *CAN* have it both ways whether
>you are too stupid to realize it or not.
>
I never claimed there would be no problems. But if you feel it strengthens
your position to degrade my intelligence, go right ahead. After all, it just
shows how knowledgeable you really are, doesn't it?
>>And as far as preparing for what the CIA, State Dept, et. al., says
>>will be a very real threat......again, doomers can't have it both
>>ways. Either what the gov't says about Y2K is to be believed, they
>>are clueless and ignorant, or they are all part of some giant
>>conspiracy of silence to keep the herd in order.
>
>Oh... gee... that's an impressive piece of pseudo-logic. And, now,
>you've added in the specter of *CONSPIRACY*. That always adds some
>weight to a completely lame assertion.
>
I'm just using the very words I see posted on this newsgroup on a daily basis.
>Actually, Bozo, I can do *EXACTLY* that. Moreover, I do so on the basis
>of their consistency, their evidence, their agenda, and their rationale
>- or lack thereof.
In other words, if they happen to agree with your take on things. Is Peter de
Jager rational? How about two years ago?
>I'll consider it... any ideas that particularly appeal to you? Consider
>using your *REAL* name sometime instead of *HIDING* behind a pseudonym.
>
Ooooooh, I can just feel the rage behind every word of your post. But in case
it makes you feel any better, my name is Chris Holmes. Happy?
SnowDog75
>On Sun, 01 Aug 1999 22:56:54 -0700, Tom Ambrose <amb...@ns.net> wrote:
>
>>SnowDog75 wrote:
>
>>>You can't pick and choose which gov't agenices or representatives are
>>>credible, and which aren't.
>>
>>Actually, Bozo, I can do *EXACTLY* that. Moreover, I do so on the basis
>>of their consistency, their evidence, their agenda, and their rationale
>>- or lack thereof. Try it sometime... you might find it enlightening.
>
>That's quite the amazing bit of insanity you found.
>
>The moron is in essence *bragging* about his total, complete, unwavering,
>absolute, dedicated belief in *every* word that filters out of *every*
>"official" orifice.
>
>Looks like *someone* just invented the Perfect Citizen.
>
Well, I'm sure glad you feel I'm perfect. But the fact remains, I certainly do
not trust everything the government says. But I'm also not one to say "the
government is tyrannical and clueless......except for the State Dept., because
they agree with my views." The total hypocrisy I see from the doomer side is
staggering. One minute, Sen. Bennett is a hero, the next he's a blathering
idiot. I bet if John Koskinen came out tomorrow and told everyone to build a
bunker, stock up on automatic rifles and buy 5 months' worth of MREs, he'd be
hailed as some sort of demi-god.
But once again, it's refreshing to see that you picked up right with the
insults, right where Mr. Ambrose left off. You probably don't realize just how
convincing that makes your arguments sound.
Chris
P.S. - I sure hope Don Joe is your REAL NAME......because if it's not, then Tom
Ambrose probably has a few choice words for you.....
Tom Ambrose
<Major rant and whine snipped>
>...if you feel it strengthens your position to degrade my
>intelligence, go right ahead.
Gee, Chris... I don't recall ever accusing you of having *ANY*
intelligence. So, I certainly cannot degrade something which does not
exist.
Bob Brock
Paul Milne wrote in message <93355926...@helium.cstone.net>...
><19990801210756...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>My apologies SnowDog, Mr. Vaughn's post didn't show up on my server so I'm
>>piggybacking on your reply.
>>
>>>>
>>>>What is wrong with having it both ways ?
>>>>
>>>>If you are 100% convinced that there will be no problems due to Y2K
>>>>(either real, or due to irrational human hysteria), then I wish I could
>>>>share your faith.
>>
>>I'm not saying that there will be no problems. I don't agree with the
>>Milne/Infomagic scenerio though.
>>>>
>>>>But surely if we rely on faith, we are no better than the gun-toting,
>>>>rar-right fundamentalist nut-cases like Don Joe and Paul Milne.
>>
>>For some odd reason, I've never put Don Joe into the same category with
>>Milne. I think Don just want's to be left alone ( a perspective I agree
>>with) where as Milne wants to be able to tell me what to do (a perspective
>I
>>don't agree with).
>>>>
>
>
>be interpretted as such.
>
>Otherwise, you remain branded the LIAR that you have always been in here.
Paulie, that would be like proving that the sun will rise in a few hours.
Some things are "self evident" (where have I heard those words before?).
>
>>>>I cannot see how it is possible to come to a rational decision on the
>>>>likely effects of Y2K, given the spin-doctoring of the optimists and the
>>>>doom and gloom mongering of the pessimists.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore, I reserve the right to build up a large stock-pile of food
>>>>for next year "just in case".
>>
>>Please, feel free to do so. You don't need my blessing and I have a large
>>stock pile of food regardless of the fact that I see the chances of a Y2k
>>induced catastrophy as less and less likely as each milestone passes
>without
>>incident. I think everyone should always have a large stockpile of food.
>>However, I don't presume to run their lives for them or try to manipulate
>>them through guilt by telling them that their children will starve
because
>>they didn't do what I want them to do.
>>>>
>
>No, you 'manipulate' them by posting every happy faced press release you
can
>DISSUADING them from ANY preparations in the first place.
Still can't find that URL huh? Well, if you keep saying it enough times
perhaps it will come true. Now, just close your eyes and while clicking the
heels of your ruby slippers together, keep saying...oops wrong fantasy.
>
>
>>>>What can I lose ? If Y2K turns out to very serious, my family and
>>>>myself get to eat and drink.
>>>>
>>>>If Y2K is a non-event, I maybe have to throw out some slabs of baked
>>>>beans and tuna.
>>
>>Well, if you are throwing food away, you have lost something. BTW, if you
>>decide that you don't need all that stuff next year, I'll be glad to take
>it
>>off of your hands so you don't have to throw it away.
>>>>
>>>>Seems a small price to pay for having it both ways.
>>>>
>>>>If only there were more issues in life which gave us the opportunity to
>>>>have it both ways.
>>
Tom Ambrose
>don...@example.com wrote:>>>>You can't pick and choose which gov't agenicesor representatives are
>>>>credible, and which aren't.
>>>
>>>of their consistency,their evidence,their agenda, and their rationale
>>>- or lack thereof. Try it sometime... you might find it enlightening.
>>
>>That's quite the amazing bit of insanity you found.
>>
>>absolute, dedicated belief in *every* word that filters out of *every*
>>"official" orifice.
>>
>>Looks like *someone* just invented the Perfect Citizen.
>>
>
>Well, I'm sure glad you feel I'm perfect. But the fact remains, I
>certainly do not trust everything the government says. But I'm also
>not one to say "the government is tyrannical and clueless......except
>for the State Dept., because they agree with my views."
I don't recall ever having said, "the government is tyrannical and
clueless......except for the State Dept., because they agree with my
views." I don't recall having ever even implied such. Who are you
quoting here, your fairy godmother?
For the record, I *DO* believe our government has become tyrannical but
I do *NOT* believe they are clueless.
Moreover, if your point is to announce inconsistencies, you need look no
farther than our government itself. Clinton and Koskinen have pretty
much given Y2K a whitewash but the State Department, the CIA, and the
GAO have all said there are major problems. Given Clinton's history of
lying to people, who do *YOU* believe? (This *IS* a test of your
intelligence, Chris... try to at least get this answer correct.)
Clearly, these groups of government agencies see things differently. I
choose to believe those that make the most sense and have the most
credibility. If that bothers you, too bad. Your assertion that you
either have to believe all or none is about the stupidest thing I have
seen written in this NG all year.
>The total hypocrisy I see from the doomer side is staggering. One
>minute, Sen. Bennett is a hero, the next he's a blathering idiot.
Please document this assertion. People are free to regard him one way
or another but I think it unlikely that you will find any *ONE* person -
doomer or otherwise - calling him a hero *AND* also a blathering idiot.
That said, however, even stupid people can have moments of insight and
intelligent people can act stupidly. This need of yours to put everyone
in a neat little box does not reflect the real world and shows an
enormous amount of naivete'. I'm thinking my "SnowPup" designation was
not too far off the mark as I think it quite likely that you are
relatively young.
>I bet if John Koskinen came out tomorrow and told everyone to build a
>bunker, stock up on automatic rifles and buy 5 months' worth of MREs,
>he'd be hailed as some sort of demi-god.
Not by me... I would hail him as a malicious idiot who had been lying to
us all along.
>But once again, it's refreshing to see that you picked up right with
>the insults, right where Mr. Ambrose left off. You probably don't
>realize just how convincing that makes your arguments sound.
Well, you know the saying Chris, if the SnowBootie fits...
>P.S. - I sure hope Don Joe is your REAL NAME......because if it's
>not, then Tom Ambrose probably has a few choice words for you.....
Actually, it's not his real name but anyone who has spent some time here
over the lst year knows who he really is. Unfortunately for "Don Joe",
someone apparently was causing him problems outside of the NG and he
felt compelled to go underground.
My point to you, Chris, about "SnowDog" (SnowPup), was that if you're
going to use a name like that and whine like a little puppy with blatant
stupidity, don't be surprised when it gets pointed out.
A.Lizard
wrote:
>Don Joe - see signature wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 1999 00:14:21 -0400, Robert Egan <rje...@juno.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>Which leads me to the next logical question: Why would anybody name a
>car after a town known for its piles of corpses? I think I'll start a
>car outfit too. I'll name it Boot Hill Motors. Or I could start a
>shipping outfit named Davey Jones Cruise Lines. Hey, I'm only doing
>what *they* did.
Actually, the Dodge was named after the gentleman named Dodge who
started the company which was later acquired by Chrysler Motors.
However, here are some ship names for your proposed cruise line:
Andrea Doria II
Titanic II
Bismarck II
Thresher II
Graf Spee II
A.Lizard
Phil Edwards
>Eel... don't forget the broiled eel (make mine Hamanako!) and Stilton.
YOU HAVE THREE YEARS' SUPPLY OF *STILTON*???
Phil "always wondered why you didn't post under your real name"
Edwards
--
Phil Edwards p...@amroth.zetnet.co.uk
"Work? Dear me, you think this is *work*?" - DD
Tullamore Dew
What's the big deal about having 30 grammes of cheese?
J. B. (hm, now three years' supply of Port...)
As I posted, I understand your desire to wait (although
not your desire not to annoy).
--bks
docd...@clark.net
Tullamore Dew <tull...@aol.com> wrote:
>>YOU HAVE THREE YEARS' SUPPLY OF *STILTON*???
>
>What's the big deal about having 30 grammes of cheese?
*Damnation*... and just when I thought I had this stuff down... all right,
might someone be so kind as to explain this to me? A tonne is some
percentage more than a ton, sure... now, what percentage more than a gram
is this 'gramme'?
DD
RonKenyon
>Tullamore Dew <tull...@aol.com> wrote:
[somebody wrote?]
>>>YOU HAVE THREE YEARS' SUPPLY OF *STILTON*???
>>What's the big deal about having 30 grammes of cheese?
>*Damnation*... and just when I thought I had this stuff down... all right,
>might someone be so kind as to explain this to me? A tonne is some
>percentage more than a ton, sure... now, what percentage more than a gram
>is this 'gramme'?
Don't know much about grammology, but this info-nugget from US News & World
Report, Aug 16 special double issue on Life in the Year 1000. Re diet in 11th
century Europe:
"Diners were advised to skip the combination of eels and cheese - unless they
had plenty of wine to wash it down. Otherwise, it would leave them hoarse."
(p 74)
... and lots of other food for thought.
--
RonKenyon
Those who fail to learn from history are consigned to wood shop.
docd...@clark.net
Ha... we know how Folks of Oldene Dayse were often wrong about the medical
implications of diet; even Socrates criticised Homer for detailing a
regimen for an injury which *everyone* knew to be wrong.
But just in case them 11th-century folks were on to something... I'll try
to avoid going hoarse but I'll keep doing it until I go pony.
DD
David Astra
docd...@clark.net wrote in message
<7uXt3.183$qt5....@iad-read.news.verio.net>...
:
:Ha... we know how Folks of Oldene Dayse were often wrong about the medical
:implications of diet; even Socrates criticised Homer for detailing a
:regimen for an injury which *everyone* knew to be wrong.
Say, do you know this from personal experience?
DA
docd...@clark.net
There is insufficient clarity in this question for me to attempt to reply;
it can be argued that all reactions not based genetic/physiological
foundations are the result of 'personal experiences'.
If I travel to Bogota it is a 'personal experience'... but reading about
Bogota is also a 'personal experience'.
DD
aogi...@my-deja.com
Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
> On his web site Daniel Fisher declares that the millennium bug has
> a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
> right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
> put my money where my mouth is.
>
> I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
> not experience a depression in 2000.
>
[snip]
Flaherty, other posters have already said this, but it seems like
that's way too much. Gold is what, $300 per ounce now? So 4 1-ounce
coins should come to about $1200. Even with dealer profit,
commissions, etc. $2200 would be way too much. I can only assume that
the reason for the hefty price is that these are part of a "proof" set
or some other supposed collectors item.
mrostov
dumping is about to happen so the price should be driven way down over the
next 12 months. The Swiss and the IMF are also about to dump a lot of gold
on the market. A lot of other banks are complaining that the recent gold
sell off by the Bank of England is going to cause them to have to do the
same. At this rate I wouldn't be suprised if gold hit $200 per troy oz. or
lower by or before March.
Rostov
<aogi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7p9t2g$moj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
A.Lizard
wrote:
>Gold is actually hovering between $250 and $260 right now. A wave of more
>dumping is about to happen so the price should be driven way down over the
>next 12 months. The Swiss and the IMF are also about to dump a lot of gold
>on the market. A lot of other banks are complaining that the recent gold
>sell off by the Bank of England is going to cause them to have to do the
>same. At this rate I wouldn't be suprised if gold hit $200 per troy oz. or
>lower by or before March.
Do you think a moderate to severe Y2K scenario would interfere
with this process?
A.Lizard
>Rostov
>
>
>
><aogi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7p9t2g$moj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <37A06BE5...@cofc.edu>,
>> Edward Flaherty <flah...@cofc.edu> wrote:
>> > On his web site Daniel Fisher declares that the millennium bug has
>> > a 100% chance of causing a 'depression' in 2000. He could be
>> > right, of course, but I think he's way wrong and I am willing to
>> > put my money where my mouth is.
>> >
>> > I will wager $2,280 in four 1-ounce gold coins that the U.S. will
>> > not experience a depression in 2000.
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> Flaherty, other posters have already said this, but it seems like
>> that's way too much. Gold is what, $300 per ounce now? So 4 1-ounce
>> coins should come to about $1200. Even with dealer profit,
>> commissions, etc. $2200 would be way too much. I can only assume that
>> the reason for the hefty price is that these are part of a "proof" set
>> or some other supposed collectors item.
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
>
************************************************************************
Personal Web site http://www.ecis.com/~alizard
For reliable year 2000 info, go to:
http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html
backup address (if ALL else fails) alizard@[spam]onebox.com
mrostov
off the gold.
Rostov
A.Lizard <"alizard[spam]"@ecis.com> wrote in message
news:37bae7dd...@news.ecis.com...
Tullamore Dew
DD <docd...@clark.net> sighed and posted
>*Damnation*... and just when I thought I had this stuff down... all right,
>might someone be so kind as to explain this to me? A tonne is some
>percentage more than a ton, sure... now, what percentage more than a gram
>is this 'gramme'?
Mercy, nobody has beaten me to this? Is it ignorance, apathy, or
simply having rotten little paperback dictionaries like "The American
Heritage Dictionary (Office Edition)" whose best uses are as a non-
conductive support for exposed circuitry, or a missile?
> ... A tonne is some
>percentage more than a ton, sure... now, what percentage more than a gram
>is this 'gramme'?
Zero.
I suppose you could consider "the percentage more than a 'gram' is a
'gramme' " to have the same value as "the percentage more than 'color'
is 'colour' ". My choice was predicated on (some might say "coloured
by", but not I!) the fact that Phil Edwards' address is
p...@amroth.zetanet.co.uk.
J. B. ("two nations separated by a common language")
--
The Goobers
Oh dear... I supposed it is Much Too Late to state that I was 'having a
bit of fun'?
Thanks *ever* so much for filling that gap in my learning!
DD
A.Lizard
wrote:
>BILL-yuns and BILL-yuns of cycles ago (on 16 August)
>DD <docd...@clark.net> sighed and posted
>
>>*Damnation*... and just when I thought I had this stuff down... all right,
>>might someone be so kind as to explain this to me? A tonne is some
>>percentage more than a ton, sure... now, what percentage more than a gram
>>is this 'gramme'?
I thought tonne referred specifically to metric ton = 1000 kg =
~2204.6 pounds. MS Bookshelf agrees with me. It also places
gramme as a UK variant of gram, also in agreement with my
previous position. (why'd I bother to check? because it's sitting
in my CDROM drive)
A.Lizard
************************************************************************
"Here's the most exasperating part: Ninety-five percent of the Y2k hoax
hysteria is planted by people who stand to gain, head-lined by
propagation-hungry publishers, and purveyed as truth by perpetuators of
rumour." Dave Eastabrook
"Anybody who still believes in the media must have been in a coma for
the past 30 years." - Robert Anton Wilson
Personal Web site http://www.ecis.com/~alizard
Y2Kinfo: http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/y2k.html
Littleton page:http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/littleto.html
backup address (if ALL else fails) alizard@[spam]onebox.com
PGP 6.5.1 key available by request,keyserver,or on my Web site
************************************************************************