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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas Rushkoff who wrote (17642)	5/26/1998 12:30:00 PM
From: Steve Woas	Respond to of 31646

Some people just can't stand to be quoted. This is the second time you have stomped off this thread. Message 3329432 I predict that you will be back again, which is fine with me, so long as you are taking your medicine. Do try to get help. Best Wishes, Steve

To: Douglas Rushkoff who wrote (17642)	5/26/1998 2:37:00 PM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 31646

Douglas, you say "My suggestion that the millennial fever might be based on something other than technology -- and this is something that, as an author of six books about technology and culture as well as a two-year-running NYTimes Syndicated column, I really do know about -- is taken here as a threat both to investing and religious foundations. Too bad. Whose enemy am I supposed to be?" You are not my enemy, nor do I believe you to be the enemy of anyone on this thread. However, I think your perspective may be a bit warped as you believe some posters to be. In your most recent article, you state, "..the vast majority of the information and speculation I found has little to do with fixing the problem. No, most people appear concerned with surviving an inevitable crisis of biblical proportions, by any means necessary." There is a LOT of information about the Y2K crisis out there, but is the vast majority really devoted to the survivalist crowd?? Sure it's not hard to find, and certainly is a lot more fun to write about than what some economist or CIO is saying. But I doubt very much if the vast majority of the articles are devoted to the lunatic approach to the Y2k problem. Also, you state, "Even if the banking system were to shut down for a week, almost everyone could survive on what they have. An extra trip to the cash machine is all it would take." Really?? No ATMs would be available if the banking system shut down, pal. It should come as no surprise that people would panic if they couldn't get to their cash, or lost power in their homes or offices, or couldn't fill up their gas tanks. I agree that educating the public about the risks to business-as-usual is a good idea. However, the Y2K problem is not being taken seriously - you yourself think it won't be that bad - and so education is not likely to happen in time to avoid some kind of panic. Perhaps some who are advocating the survivalist approach have been trying to educate the public, given up, and now just want to do what they can for themselves.

To: Douglas Rushkoff who wrote (17642)	5/26/1998 3:41:00 PM
From: threadneedler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 31646

"Don't worry, I'm gone!" Douglas, "say it ain't so." To paraphrase an old Kenny Rogers ditty... "Don't take your love (syndicated column) to town (or some other thread); For God's sake Douglas...TURN AROUND!" You're not going to let one of the vassals chase you off the high ground, are you M'Lord? Boy Steve means no harm, he simply disagrees with you. It happens. Given your advanced theatre degree, you'll indulge me a Chekhovian reference; as in Seagull, I don't believe Y2k is an 'exploding bottle of ether'...I feel we WILL find a body. As in Chekhov, the demise of certain sectors will be self-inflicted, largely by simplistic notions of underestimation. I look forward to your Y2k 'what me worry?' column. In all likelihood, it should be rather easy to debunk in subsequent letters to the editor. I know you're reading all reactions to your desertion of the SI thread. Leave takers always lurk onward to gauge the response to their actions.