In two years of reading about Y2K, the post (transcript?) posted below ranks as the spookiest. I saw the original site with the funny (somehwat unintelligible plot) and list of participants (some looked to be very high up the geo-political ladder). For those who somehow missed it, I am going to repost the text right after finishing this post. Meanwhile, can someone answer the following:

1. What the heck was the transcript? Did somebody transcribe an audio? Was it a written transcript from the site? Since it looked like an action-packed discussion, was that all that appeared on the web site?

2. Is this a think tank or was it somehow government santioned?

3. Given that this IS the Web, is there anyway to know if this is authentic stuff? I must admit that the breadth of topics and the accompanying "ring of truth" that I felt reading it made it seem awefully authentic.)

4. Why would such characters just dump this out on the internet? It seemed profoundly inflammatory from a spin-control perspective.

5. If all this was real, where the heck is the media on this one?

Now for some more technical clarifications?

1. What is a CINC?

2. Are the "owls" and "roosters" government characters who support "keeping quiet about Y2K" or "sounding the alarm", respectively?

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 06, 1999

Answers

I printed a bunch of that stuff out. I haven't had a chance to really get into it yet, but it looked to me like a discussion of various scenarios. The Naval War College does that sort of thing, discuss all the various possibilities and come up with how to react to situations. Mostly war stuff, I was really surprised to see Y2K stuff being discussed there! I'll hafta sift through all this stuff. I can tell you that CINC stands for Commander in Chief, although in the Navy context it usually refers to the commander of a particular war theatre, such as CINCPACFLT stands for Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet...not as in the president.

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), June 06, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000qx5

"Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project Links (Long)"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 06, 1999.

This is a think tank document that is from brainstorming meetings amoung members of y2k related entities. It is not an offical document discribing intended actions. Just a group think and the recommendations from it. It does make interesting reading and in my opinion this group has done exactly the same thing. Except they get free coffee and food :o)

More info

Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project Links

-- Brian (imager@home.com), June 06, 1999.

Dave,

General principle: Refrain from unnecessarily creating new forum "question" threads.

[For those new to this forum: After starting a "question" thread, you can add to that same thread by posting an "answer", which will then appear below, in line with the other "answers". Don't be concerned about other "answers" appearing between your original posting and your subsequent additions -- regular readers of this forum are quite used to reading multi-part postings this way.]

I wish you had posted the transcript in this thread instead of creating two more threads. Those two extra threads (a) have now pushed two older threads out of the "New Questions" area, making them less accessible to forum readers, and (b) make more work for forum readers by requiring them to go through extra steps to read what you posted. If you'd posted the transcript in this thread, I'd just have to page down to read it. Instead, not only do I have to go to another thread, I have to go to TWO other threads, to read what you refer to in your heading for *this* thread.

Furthermore, from now on you and everyone else will have to peruse three separate threads to see all the responses. The "conversation" on your topic will be broken into three parts.

Pardon me for sounding stern -- yours is an especially conspicuous example of a bad practice by many. Just don't do it again. :-)

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 06, 1999.

Who added the comments in brackets? Were they in the original or were they added later?

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), June 06, 1999.

Danny,

If you're referring to the brackets in my previous posting: they're mine.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 06, 1999.

Also see the e-mail on the following thread from the director of the think tank:

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

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 06, 1999.

Thanks for the help. You blink and miss alot of discussion. Sorry for creating the two extra threads. I was having serious technical problems and found this to be the only solution at the time.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), June 07, 1999.