Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bearcub who wrote (6208)	6/29/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Bearcub: There is enough information out there on the Web to conclusively show that the Y2K Impact on the Stock Market and Society will be disastrous. The Problem is that hardly anyone cares. All that matters is greed. I thought I was bad. But ultimately, my love for Humanity is much greater than my love for money. When people start caring it will be to late. It is too late already. The preparations for the disaster are well underway as the stock market soars! All the software developers I know are flipping out. But hardly anyone is listening. We are at fault too because we can't get even people to listen and to care!

To: bearcub who wrote (6208)	6/29/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: Bill Ounce	Respond to of 9818

re: a bluff is a bluff, nothing more, nothing less You made a specific claim "I can prove it". I called this statement a bluff. This has proven to be true. You now admit your "proof" is just "hearsay" and "inadmissable". I did not call you a liar. The word 'bluff' implies a strategy as used in poker. I did not engage in any personal ad hominem attacks. Yet that is your choice of response, albeit a losing strategy. For example, you tried to deflect the fact your bluff has been called be defining this flimsy straw horse to knock over: there isn't anyone on this board whose 'proof' is ultimately good enough for you. that is fact. In this case, proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. One can look at the timeline of the FAA in regards to Y2K. No secret sources are necessary, just documents and articles available to the public. Their story keeps changing. It becomes painfully obvious that the agency is intentionally deceiving the public (and perhaps even themselves!). It is not proof that their systems will fail come January 1st. But it is enough to make me thing they are trying to hide something. Another one of your 'facts' proven false. But please don't take this personally. I respect your opinions. But to call them 'proofs' and 'facts' on an ad hominem basis is just too much. This is not intended as a personal attack, but just reflects a strong difference in our understandings as to what the concepts of 'fact' and 'proof' mean. I admit that I know very little for certain. I question those who claim to know certainty where there appears to be none. Hopefully we can still be friends :-) P.S. World to end on Sunday according to Nostradamus prophecy interpretation. Read all about it at telegraph.co.uk