Another Myth, Transformers Get The Hots

Link

A long and detailed Dick Mills article on the power grid, which I won't quote in its entirety.

Page info says June 17, 1999.

At the end of it, we read:

"I haven't read much of Mr. North's writings, but my readers tell me that many of myths that I've debunked in this column originated with him. I normally don't like to make personal remarks, but in this case, the reader who sent me the email is correct. Mr. North should stick to history. As an armchair engineer, he seems to have less good sense than the average 8th grade science student. People shouldn't pay attention to him when he writes about things of which he has no expertise."

Dick Mills said that. Period. Paragraph.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), June 18, 1999

Answers

hahahahaha

8th grade? - you should know kentucky...

hohohohohoh

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

Dick Mills is a moron.

"I haven't read much of Mr. North's writings, but he seems to have less good sense than the average 8th grade science student."

I rest my case.

The Dick Mills who admits he is no expert on the power grid, yet he writes articles on it?

The Dick Mills who wrote about chopping up furniture for firewood?

Dick "cut-away-from-the-grid" Mills?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhahahahahahaha

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), June 18, 1999.

No.

Dick "cut-away-from-the-grid" Head!

I would call him a moron, but I don't want to insult morons.

-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), June 18, 1999.

Sorry, folks, but I've read a LOT of Dick Mills's columns, and every other bit of information I have been able to locate, and I have to tell you that Dick Mills is the most intelligent, level headed and experienced writer about the energy grid that I have found. Read his whole article. He totally debunks Gary North. Totally. If you read this without prejudice, I think you'll agree.

-- malcolm drake (jumpoff@echoweb.net), June 18, 1999.

I noticed that all you limprods posted your credentials, whereby you should be more credible than Mr. Mills.

Idiots.

Especially the anal-retentive and on-the-clock-night-shift mr. andy

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), June 18, 1999.

Gary is bullish on y2k... perhaps people would like him better if he spend more time deconstructing the technical aspects of y2k. Instead he spends his rants on deconstructing the stupidity of people in general and their attitudes and responses to y2k.

The technical issues are interesting but not overly so. The "sociological" and psychological issues are fascinating and will be discussed for the next 1000 years.

Vine Deloria Jr. was right. Modern man belives in the uniformity of reality. Nothing ever changes. The past is no different than the present small local environment in which I live. Large catastrophes are interesting and legendary, or as Bilbo Baggins would have it: nasty things that get in the way of your supper. The stuff of movies, not of real life.

The world is about to do a collective Homer Simpson: Doh!@

-- otay (spanky@lilrsacles.com), June 18, 1999.

Otay, who joins the rest of the limprod idiots,

The world changes every day, obviously, at an increasingly rapid pace.

Problem is, with this Y2k thing, is that so many unenlightened people listen to self-appointed 'experts' who just flat don't know what they're talking about.

That's what Dick Mills says in his article: Gary North knows as much about the power grid as I know about building international space stations (i.e. near zero), yet uninformed doomers hang on North's every word.

Ed Yourdon, Paul Milne, InfoMagic, Michael Hyatt, and Cory Hamasaki are other examples of those who are WAY out of their fields. Yet people hang on their pronouncements as if they came from the mouth of Deity.

When will people wake up. And it won't be, as you folks say, when DOOM hits -- 'cause that ain't a-gonna happen.

Burden of proof is now on those who say things will be so terribly bad.

Give some proof. Or shut the hell up. Yeah you too Andy. Get some clean diapers first, tho. No fun talking to you when they haven't been changed lately.

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), June 18, 1999.

keep washing the dishes, boy...

Bwwwwwaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

"Give some proof. Or shut the hell up. Yeah you too Andy."

Uh, the sewage outage in CA.

Uh, how about the Horn report card... you DID read that didn't you Kentucky? You CAN read can't you?

Russia - fix on failure.

Italy - Ciao baby.

Denver - my home town - fix on failure.

You want more my feathered butterball?

=======> .

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

is chicken little a cross-dressing texas bird? the writings are sounding very familiar to herr debunker?

-- y2k dave (xsdaa111@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

argumentum ad hominem

if he hasn't read Gary North's analyses/comments etc, how can he make a judgement (via hearsay)

who is Dick Mills some sort of media pundit, ie expert on nothing, big mouth that the gullible public believes

PS I'm from the UK, don't watch TV anyway

-- dick of the dale (rdale@coynet.com), June 18, 1999.

Chicken Big, it appears that you are STILL running around with your head chopped off. The Guiness Book of records may be interested in your case!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 18, 1999.

North and Mills both know what they're doing.

Mills is an engineer who has studied the grid and the utilities. He knows where they stand, and why. North is a religious zealot who is trying to deconstruct the world so he can rebuild a theocracy in his own image. It's a battle between fact and fanaticism, between careful, balanced assessment and spin for the sake of spin. Between someone whose predictions have been dead accurate, and someone who's never been right and makes a fortune from blind fear.

Interesting to see people taking sides here, between those who don't know what's coming and want to find out, and those who want to believe they know what's coming and aren't interested in learning otherwise. Interesting that those who agree with Mills cite facts, and those who agree with North argue with attacks and mockery.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

Flint, Gary North has provided many forums for y2k preparation. These forums have provided a wealth of information for those preparing and those in doubt. MANY have benefited from these forums and the thousands of articles Gary has accumulated.

And your contribution please sir !

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 18, 1999.

Flint....If North has no business stating his opinions about the grid since he isn't in the industry, what are you doing making judgments about his religion since you've never taking a seminary class?

Let's see....and the facts you stated in your post are......? the very thing you accuse others of in your smug judgmental manner.

The facts are that Mills is on record as saying there will be problems and the more he writes the more troubled he becomes. Just keep waiting Flint. They are planning to fix on failure while people are freezing their tushes off.

Let North speak the facts for himself:

We Can Run It All on Manual, No Problem, No Training, Just Like Always Link: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_i... Comment: Here is the straight scoop from an engineer. His company runs one-third of its systems without SCADA, so the threat of a SCADA failure is minimal because the other two-thirds don't really count.

Some crews can fix the SCADA-run systems when there are failures; so, there is no problem if embedded systems fail. We'll just have the crews work longer. We don't need to train new crews to do this kind of work. It's easy, really. Just get a bunch of new guys, hand them some pliers, and it's as good as fixed. SCADA? Who needs it?

The transformers will not fry because they will automatically be shut down. So, they're safe. Yes, they will be shut down. But that doesn't matter. They will be safe. And then the engineers will go out and replace the defective embedded chips. They'd have done that already, but there is no big hurry.

In other words, 35 years of automation by computers means zip; it can all be run manually. All of it.

"Every station that Ive ever been in, both in my companies and in other utilities, has a way to manually operate every piece of equipment in that station."

And because every piece can be operated manually, there is no need for computers to run all of them. What is true of one piece at a time is therefore true of entire systems all at once. It's logical, really.

My comment: I'd like to know what company employs this man, and I'd like to see its y2k compliance statement. For all I know, he is an engineer for the Hog Jowls, Alabama, Power and Bait Shop Company, Inc. What I'm wondering is if the power companies for cities of a million people and more can run their systems without computerized SCADA systems. For how long? At what price? With what reduction in output?

He says that I don't understand his industry. Actually, I understand it quite well. It is not compliant. All the PR flak, all of the excuses, all of the "we know what we're doing" chest beating cannot overcome this simple fact. The industry is not compliant, and there is no way at this late date that it will reach compliance in 1999. That's the big picture.

Engineers don't like big pictures. They are paid to understand little pictures. The industry buys computers to deal with the big pictures. I have a view of engineers' thought processes. It goes like this: "This is a bolt. This is a nut." Excellent, but how can this company be run without compliant computers? "This is a piece of wire. It is top-quality wire." It looks just right to me. But, about your computers. "This is a switch. It goes on the wall over here. . . ." But about the computers. "There is a formula. . . ."

And so forth, until the day the lights go out.

No SCADA? No problem. You read it here first.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 18, 1999.

Well it's human nature that if you are an expert in one field and have credentials and initials to put after your name to think that you are an expert on everything. (look up the Mark Twain quote on the definition of expert!) Examples abound here.

Gary North does not understand the dynamics of power generation. Somebody told him it takes 6 times the power to start a city and he has run that misinformation into ground, no pun intended. This is very similar to Michael Fumento's book about AIDS. All of Fumento's conclusions about the AIDS problem are logical and correct *IF* the govt. (the source of Fumento's info) is not lying. [insert peals of laughter here] Fumento made the mistake of trusting the govt., which is why his book looks rediculous when read nowadays. It is useful to watch what a person or agency does, as opposed to what they say. Gary North's radial change of lifestyle indicates that he beleives what he says about Y2K, right or wrong as that belief may be. One can not say that about the govt., various govt. actions run counter to what is being announced to the public.

Gary North does understand human nature and is a true expert on the workings of fiat monetary systems. A wise person would pay attention to the facts and figures that North cites on banking stability both here and abroad, particularily Japan. A wise person concentrates on the message, not the messenger. If you've read Figgie's book, and understood it, you will know that while past human actions are a good predicter for future events, human nature is very flexible and can go outside the bounds of previous trends. And yes this is the Figgie of Figgie Inernational. A wise person should read North's cited articles for what they are worth, some are useful, some are useless.

If Mills ever starts spouting off about fiat monetary theory and the first item out of his mouth is way off base, he's fallen into the same flaw as North. I seriously doubt that Mills would do this, but humans are just darn unpredictable.

Anybody expecting Y2K to fall into nice neat boxes of a uniform 1 or 10 everywhere is going to be disappointed and should look at the last 3,000 years or so to see that everything is a mixed bag.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), June 18, 1999.

I think fed.gov.org needs to pass a law making it illegal to insult Ray, Andy, Poole, Y2K Pro and Freddy the FreeLoader

-- civility (now@be.nice), June 18, 1999.

I have enjoyed and visited the North site for over a year now and I must admit Gary can get the "jucies flowing" with his passion about Y2K, he has done a lot to raise the level of concern on this issue. However, when Gary North rambles into the technical details, he will often seem to pontificate with out checking with multiple sources to insure that he has his data correct. Oh well he is a historian, and he has paid out a lot of money to build his little "Compound in the Sun". Sure hope his gas wells don't leak.

Keep the faith

Helium

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), June 18, 1999.

"Dick Mills said that. Period. Paragraph." --Chicken Little

You are absolutely 100% correct, Small Poultry. He DID say that... Next!

(Um, by the way, does this mean that Y2K is not going to cause any problems?)

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 18, 1999.

It's really pretty simple:

Listen to Gary, and if the "engineers" are wrong and the worst case happens (remember Challenger, Apollo 13, Titanic, etc. etc. etc) you and your family survive.

Listen to Flint and CPR and CL, and the worst case happens and you die.

Any questions?

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.

What an interesting view, 'a'.

Disregard the accuracy of the information. Instead, find the extreme worst case scenario, and base your decisions on that view.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 18, 1999.

Must have been an imposter posing as a - if it was the real a@a.a he would have mentioned Milne instead of Gary

-- Mr. X (X@x.qxexqaqa), June 18, 1999.

Mr Gary North is a man of integrity. The facts that he presents is back up with thousands of hours of hard core research. You lazy f's dont know the value of research. When you do the work you find the truth. Y2k should be a non issue if it were handled 10 years ago by the captains of industry in a responsible manner. But it was not because of greed for power and control. Now our we and our children face the mother of all f-ups. Dont blame Gary North for reporting the facts. He is doing it out of compassion and a loving genuine christian heart to help those who he can. Remeber the starfish on the beach,cant help every one , but he can help a few to survive. I been a R& D tech for over 20 years. The y2k will be tough to fix fact. Get ready for the fallout, millions in denial.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), June 18, 1999.

Well, I guess he should have spent a couple more hours of research on this one, then.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 18, 1999.

Dr. North is above your criticsm. If he says something, it is true, end of consversation.

-- Defender of Greatness (no@no.no), June 18, 1999.

Anyone who listens to Gary Fucking North needs there head examined. Period.

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

Dick Mills has your basic, engineer's misunderstanding of what's going on here. As an engineer, Mills recognizes that any dangers we face in the utilities industry from y2k are a direct result of harmful symptoms that y2k might cause within that industry. To address this issue, Mills tries to explain how electricity is generated and distributed, and where y2k problems might lie, and what they might cause, and what steps can be taken both before and after the fact to keep these problems minimized. Mills knows that to understand the dangers, you must know what they are and what they are not. Mills recognizes that North has made numerous errors of fact, and has failed to understand how the electric industry really works. So Mills comes to the engineer's conclusion that North simply lacks sufficient expertise in this industry to come to a reasonable understanding of it.

What Mills fails to recognize is that North is *not* just another incompetent or poorly informed engineer, and that North's goal is *not* to come to an informed understanding of the situation. So Mills' conclusion that North has come to invalid conclusions based on inadequate engineering skills is a blind spot suffered by many engineers.

What Mills cannot realize is that North has *no interest* in how the electricity industry works. North's goal is to paint as bleak a picture as possible, using whatever techniques are effective. Mills thinks that when North makes false statements, or misrepresents his carefully-chosen materials, or misinterprets (admittedly complex) information, North is mistaken due to lack of appropriate expertise. This is a false assumption on Mills' part, but an assumption engineers tend to make very commonly.

North's goal is *not* to understand, it's to foment fear and possible panic, to accelerate the process of collapse necessary for Christian Reconstruction. North is not a poor engineer, he's a highly skilled propagandist. He keeps his agenda in the background while he works to create the impression that he's addressing "just the facts, ma'am." North is by no means a dropout from 8th grade science. North knows that his key audience never took (or passed) 8th grade science, and he's taking full advantage of this.

And North clearly appeals not just (or even primarily) to the ignorant, but rather to the devout. There are many here who feel that preparation is so important that the end (preparation) justifies the means (whatever distortion is required to motivate people to prepare). And of course North doesn't care what motivates his followers, so long as their abandonment of honesty and rationality accelerates North's theocracy.

So the question of whether expertise is important depends entirely on your goals. If your goal is to understand, expertise is critical. If instead your goal is to *convince*, expertise is the enemy.

It's no accident that lawyers exclude anyone with a college degree from any jury, preferring a jury as easily swayed as possible by emotional appeals. The court proceedings are aimed at the heart, not at the mind. And this is true because the lawyers (on both sides) don't want the truth. The truth is irrelevant, and often dangerous. The goal is to *win*.

Few people have the ability to do complex analysis, and even fewer do it. But *everyone* has fears. Mills seeks to dispel fears through education and understanding. North seeks to fan the fears to achieve ulterior motives. Mills has misunderstood North's purposes, and thinks North is trying to do the same as Mills but lacking the knowledge. Unfortunately, the truth is much more sinister.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

"The Dick Mills who wrote about chopping up furniture for firewood?"

Oh you mean a true story of how one utility did black start irks you? Oh well..to each their own.

-- Black Out Daddy (power@ismy.friend.net), June 18, 1999.

Flint, Have you revealed whether you are a Christian, agnostic, atheist, New Ager, humanist, or are you still waiting to make up your mind?

To call North sinister is itself evil. To think that one man could possibly think he could deceive the whole world into thinking and believing in his world view is ludicrous. North holds a view of the future that is well known in Christian eschatology. It is called post-millenniumism. His view of how that will come to pass is interesting and logical given his view that Christians must first take dominion of the earth before the Lord returns. I don't agree with him but I see why he sees things the way he does. I would say he is mistaken, you make him into a meglamaniac.

North's view is not much different than most Christians who also see Christians as victorious over the world's current system. The differences are many but the end is the same. We win. Christ is the everlasting King and Ruler forever (not North).

All of us that hold a particular view of the future are trying to understand it light of y2k. But besides this are the facts...the utility industry is not compliant in this country and far from compliant in every other.

I don't find North's religion on his webpage....just a lot of evidence that we're in big trouble. His stance has always been...."I don't say the grid must go down, I just don't see how it can stay up." He doesn't make his opinions in a vacuum. People in the industry email him all the time. He follows Cowles site and Martin's site. As an economist and historian he understands the division of labor. As a Christian he knows the Kingdom of God will come. Is that sinister? Then all Christians who pray "Thy kingdom come" are guilty.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 18, 1999.

Y2K aware mike - Gary uses all that valuable time and effort to research all these problems and the dumbshit can't even predict nightfall!

Gary has tried his hand at being a 'prophet' and failed miserably, time and time again. I wonder how many failed predictions you have to endure before the lightbulb goes off in your head. Maybe it won't, maybe you're just an idiot and can't help it.

Gary North is one seriously screwed-up inidividual from the get-go. Didn't yall here his stance on AIDS? Put here by God to wipe out all the homosexuals. And people actually listen to this bozo and take his word as gospel. Holy shit.......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

shame on me! That should be 'hear' (obviously).

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

And North is still selling *TWO YEAR SUBSCRIPTIONS* to his newsletter because.....?

http://www.stockscape.com/newsletters/remnant/order.html

-- North Is Ful Of It (gary@iamaliar.com), June 18, 1999.

Deano, Gary North has made a tremendous effort to assist in public awareness of y2k.

You on the other hand have been a SHILL for the Mortgage Industry, and pobably a paid one at that.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 18, 1999.

Ok, can we get back to the issue of real, factual answers to the concerns and questions that North puts up on his site. Why are people refusing to stick to the facts? Other forums talk about theology, scatology, Stateology, etc..

if all of Gary's "8th" grade questions are easy to answer, can Mr. Mills, or Cowles, or Martin, or whomever, give us dummies who are also not engineers a specific, answer by answer rebuttal and answer to Gary's contentions. He has said several times that he will gladly post such a document on his web site.

I remember seeing a link from Drew Parkhill at CBN that seemed to explain the corrupting data and banks problem that Dr. North says is just another nail in our computer coffin. It seemed to make sense, that there was a way in which corrupt data was reconfigured and could be used without re-corrupting a bank's compliant computers.

anyway, if all you so-called polly's are so sure, why don't instead of just slandering Dr. North, and pointing out the time he has been wrong, stick to the facts and provide all of us who are apparently worried half to death for no apparent reason with the page by page, item by item answers to Gary's questions re: the grid, etc. Do us all a service. The name calling, on both sides, does not really help the debate (except when humorous :) )

-- walter skold (wsvnsk2@juno.com), June 18, 1999.

RayRay

We ain't pals buddy. Gary North has done nothing more than spread disinformation about something he knows NOTHING about. His area of expertise is.........well, it's religion. Ray - guess what?? Religion and Y2K have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON. Was that clear enough for you Ray? Gary is out of his league here. Religious fanactics should be heeding his advice, not people that are concerned about Y2K glitches.

Am I paid by the mortgage banking industry? Let's see.......I'm employed by the largest service bureau in the industry, so I'm gonna agree with you on that one. Yes, I am paid by the mortgage banking industry to do Y2K project management. Quite well in fact.

Ya like that word 'shill' dontcha Ray.

Another paranoid doomer.........once you've seen one, you've seen them all.........

You ain't no different than the rest Ray.......paranoid and clueless.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

To deano If Gary north is so wrong why has Corporations around the world spent Trillions of dollars on racing to fix the y2k problem. Your words are not worth the breath you took to speak them. Instead of slandering people and being a waste of flesh go out and feed some homeless people and think about how terrible it would be if because of a flaw in your logic about y2k you end up one of those hungry people.

Gary north is trying to wake up the ignorant masses to take some proactive actions so it will minimize the y2k disaster. If enough people take it seriously recovery will be exponential faster.

Nobody wants the 10 side of y2k to occur. We have families we care about. But the people who now run the show are to corrupted by big transnational corp money to watch out for our best interest. Y2k is a kick over the table for the power elite, this is why it is being allowed to happen. Power,wealth and leadership position is about to shift in a big way. If you cant see the jocking for position you are blind. Huge mergers,wars,are all evidence that a new game with new players is being formatted at this time. The old players will not give up power with out a big fight. The economic fireworks are just about to start.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation .com), June 18, 1999.

Hey Deano, are you posting from work? If so your a paid SHILL since you have elected to tell us how well the industry is doing. We have MANY SHILLS here, they post their BS daily. Most can figure who they are rather quickly.

Have you ever checked into the various forums Gary North provides? I was going to say you might learn something then again I doubt it. Once a SHILL always a SHILL !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 18, 1999.

Y2Kaware Mike - I NEVER said Y2K was not a problem. My corporation alone has spent over 40 million on it. It's definitely a problem. I work with it everyday. The bugs are there.

Here's the neat part though - those same bugs are being fixed as we speak. Probably not all of them, but most of them will be fixed. Those who say it has to be 100% are just plain stupid. That HAS to be the single most ridiculous statement I have heard for the doomer arguement. We've NEVER been at 100%. Bugs get fixed everyday, thousands everyday.

I've NEVER been one to run and hide and I ain't startin' now.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

RayRay

Ok big guy. I'll make you feel a little better about your doomsday scenario. There have been a few errors during the MBA Readiness Testing (GASP!). Y2K related even. GASP! (again).

Sure is a good thing we SHILLS decided to test this crap huh???

Get it now Ray?

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 18, 1999.

Weak Deano Weak !!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 18, 1999.

I have inside information that reveals GN is making millions off of y2k hysteria. Not thousands, not tens of thousands; Millions. He is as crafty a money-maker as there has ever been. He preys on the stupid and those who detest government. I believe is one of the genius minds of our time. He has been consistently wrong for decades, but the money still rolls in. Can automobile manufactures say the same? When they build a lemon they must change the design or go bankrupt. If resturants consistantly offered bad service and lousy food, would they stay in business? No way.

I present Gary North as a true intellect and an icon to American Capitolism.

-- Luv the Gare (gnorth@genius.moneymaker), June 18, 1999.

I think Ray should be the only one who is allowed to post to this forum, then he wouldn't have to worry about people disagreeing with him!

-- not the ray (not@the.ray), June 18, 1999.

deano,

"Those who say it has to be 100% are just plain stupid. That HAS to be the single most ridiculous statement I have heard for the doomer arguement..."

That must make Alan Greenspan the biggest stoopidest doomer out there, remember what he said about ALL financial entities needing to be 100% compliant, that 99% wouldn't cut it...TO THE SENATE NUMB-NUTS

Bwwwwwwwaaaaaaahahahahahahha

I think you've fallen off your perch my man, you have fallen out of your pram :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

Andy:

I'm glad you agree with Greenspan, who also said the bank was the safest place for your money.

So tell us, do you consider Greenspan an unimpeachable source of information, or is he only right when he agrees with you? In which case, why bother citing anyone?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

Luv

Your post could use more of it.

Did Gary steal money? I have ordered his newsletter and subscribe to his tape service. He is selling his theology books at half price, but he makes no profit from it.

The truth is that North has some 18,000 subscribers to his newsletter. He believes that less than 2,000 are doing anything about y2k. He can't even get his own subscribers to believe him much less buy anything from him.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 18, 1999.

Flint, Deano said that anybody saying it has to be 100% is stupid.
Greenspan said that it has to be 100%.
Therefore Greenspan has to be stupid, according to Deano Andy correctly pointed this out. Please tell me, where did Andy say he agrees with Greenspan?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), June 18, 1999.

What's all this non-sense about GN AGAIN! Screw his politics, and screw his religion and screw his bank account! I use his site for the LINKS. I don't even bother reading his comments any more. If you want to argue about something, argue about his links. Give me a break. This crap has nothing to do with Y2K, and that's why we're all here. Another distraction by a polly. Let's stay on topic here folks, and ignore this noise from the DGI trouble makers. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 18, 1999.

dumbass Deano said:

"All of the bugs will probably not get fixed"

Gee Deano, what a stellar observation! What a y2k expert you are!

It would be impossible for them all to be fixed you idiotic twit.

Gary North knows so much more about y2k than you, a paid y2k software manager, that it's not funny.

-- a (a@a.a), June 18, 1999.

Sysman:

Yes, the links. Which are fine, so long as you recognize that this is a very carefully selected reading list. To the extent that your research leans on this list, you must recognize that it is biased. Of course you don't confine yourself to North's selections alone, I know this. But few of his links are unavailable elsewhere, from link sources much less singlemindedly directed. Eventually, reading North's links comes to resemble reading about a war using materials written only by the losers or only by the winners.

Given your pessimistic outlook, I imagine you find North's selections a little too comfortably congenial. There's often a difference between the easy way and the best way. Be careful.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

Gee...and yet no one adresses how he is still selling 2 year subscriptions to his magazine. He also has year long subscriptions.

Does no one see how this means either A)He does not believe his own hyperbole or B)He doesn't give a rats behind about the public and just wants their money?

-- North Is Ful Of It (gary@iamaliar.com), June 18, 1999.

Andy:

I'm glad you agree with Greenspan, who also said the bank was the safest place for your money.

So tell us, do you consider Greenspan an unimpeachable source of information, or is he only right when he agrees with you? In which case, why bother citing anyone?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 18, 1999.

You know damn well I agree with Greenspan that bank compliance must be 100%. I've told you this publicly and privately ad nauseam - yes or no? So why try and put words in my mouth - look at what a previous poster said about your sematics.

When you wire $1000 to your ex in europe you expect $1000 to arrive there, less bank charges and with a correctly calculated exchange rate. That is what I mean by %100. That is what Greenspan means by 100%. There is no way that anything other than total accuracy is acceptable. Banking runs on CONFIDENCE, fiat money is all about CONFIDENCE -

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ******* CONFIDENT ******* IN A SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS THAT IS NOT WORKING WITH TOTAL ACCURACY, WITH DATABASES BEING CORRUPTED BY INVALID DATA EXPONENTIALLY.

COMPRENDE FLINT???

As far as anything else Greenspan may have to say - I suggest you look at the last epic banking thread where I quoted Greenspan extensively, specifically the bit about the US bankers have no real knowlege about how the "rest of the world" is doing with regard to remediation.

NO F#$%ing IDEA!!!!!!!

Geddit???????

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 18, 1999.

I understand, Andy. We have no knowledge. We don't know. We cannot tolerate an error rate too much higher than what we experience now (which is not 100% perfect, but we manage). If we can't manage, we'll have problems. We might not be able to manage. We don't know.

What we do know of domestic banking is quite positive. You seem to add good domestic news with NO foreign news and get certain global failure. 1+?=0. Neat trick. If you don't know, you make guarantees based on admitted ignorance, "we don't know, *therefore* it will be bad." Well, we'll find out, won't we?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 19, 1999.

Flint,

I understand, Andy. We have no knowledge.

*** Wrong dude, we have plenty of knowlege, plenty of evidence ***

We don't know. We cannot tolerate an error rate too much higher than what we experience now (which is not 100% perfect, but we manage).

*** Correctimundo. Can't let an error rate slip IN GENERAL COMMERCE by more than a few points. Banking is totally different - it must be 100%. Must be. It is damn close to that now, any errors are detected and fixed immediately by the reconciliation folks in banks worldwide. At rollover they will be stretched beyond their capacity to fix on failure by the sheer tsunami of errors. ***

If we can't manage, we'll have problems. We might not be able to manage. We don't know.

*** Tom and infomagic and north and milne and I would disagree with you. ***

What we do know of domestic banking is quite positive.

*** Positive? Name one compliant money centre bank. Name the dates of testing of all US domestic banks in a simulated test. Positive? Where? ***

You seem to add good domestic news with NO foreign news and get certain global failure.

*** Greenspan said that he had no idea of how the rest of the world is doing. That statement in and of itself is appaling. I've posted the situation in the uk, where the banking watchdog is threatening to shut down major players PRIOR to rollover because they are not ready and will damage compliant banks with their bad data. I've posted news on what the 6 major Canadian banks will be doing to limit their exposure - isolation. I've posted many articles about Japanese banking and the fact there 19 godzilla banks have spent just the same amount of money is Citigroup 9those japanese programmers must be fiendishly clever LOL). a posts regular articles from milne about banking issues worldwide. I've posted articles about latin american bank remediation. And banks in germany, Russia and France too.

None of this news is good. All point to a systemic failure. Don't tell me I haven't taken the foreign AND US situation into account dunderhead ... ***

1+?=0. Neat trick. If you don't know, you make guarantees based on admitted ignorance, "we don't know, *therefore* it will be bad." Well, we'll find out, won't we?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 19, 1999.

Your last statement is puerile in the extreme. Don't put words into my mouth pal. Don't keep telling me I don't know, fool. What do you think I've been researching this past year on banking? I know damn well what the evidence is, I've posted it on this forum regularly, and unlike you I have to come to a conclusion. The only ignorance I see on a daily basis Flint is your wishy-washy view of your little corner of the world. Wake up guy.

The banking system will tank monumentally at rollover. No question. The evidence is all around you if you would open your droopy eyelids Flint.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 19, 1999.

Here is North's reply to Mills. Wouldn't positive answers to these questions make doomers an extinct species? Not a chance.

Subject: Gee, Mr. Mills, Can You Help Me Understand? Link: http://www.albany.net/~dmills/subs.htm Comment: Mr. North should stick to history. As an armchair engineer, he seems to have less good sense than the average 8th grade science student. People shouldn't pay attention to him when he writes about things of which he has no expertise. -- Dick Mills

Gosh all whillikers. I'm a just a poor 8th grade science student. Well, the best way to become a better student is to ask good questions, just like that boy did back in my youth on the "Mr. Wizard" TV show. Mr. Wizard made things so clear. So, here goes.

"Gee, Mr. Mills, I get so confused. This power industry engineering stuff is pretty hard. Maybe you can help me understand how it works. I have a few questions which I know are 8th grade, but please be patient."

1. You say that in theory the grid can stay up if enough power plants stay up. But I guess it could go down if they all go down. Is that logical? So, how many of them have to stay up to make sure the grid stays up? I'll bet you've got a formula.

2. How many plants are y2k-compliant, tested, and independently verified today?

3. How long, on average, does to take to get compliant for a power company that supplies power to over a million people? Could you name one that has?

4. How many suppliers does a typical million-customer power plant have? Entergy has 40,000.

5. About what percentage of these suppliers can go out of business before a power generation facility has to shut?

6. What happens locally if suppliers of crucial repair parts are located in regions where power is off for over 60 days? Or is this in theory impossible? Maybe you have a formula.

7. What happens to U.S. power supplies if the coal trains don't run? (No railroad claims to be compliant today.)

8. What happens to power companies that use oil if chemical plants are shut down by y2k-ralated failures?

9. How will power companies get paid if banking shuts down?

10. How will power companies pay programmers to fix their systems if banks shut down?

11. If SCADA systems don't work reliably, how is power flow controlled by human monitors? How long does it take a million-customer power plant to train enough people to run these systems manually, 24 hours a day, for a month? Could you name a company that has done this? Or do you have a formula?

12. Where is the industry's manual on operating things manually?

13. What percentage of the industry's revenues has gone into contingency planning to run systems manually in 1999?

14. Has the industry finished replacing all its noncompliant embedded chips/systems?

15. What proof of compliance has been presented by the 7,800+ U.S. power companies to the private, industry-managed North American Electric Reliability Council, besides self-reported information by managers of 200 companies, who are not under oath and whose companies are not identified in NERC's reports?

16. I hear there's a scientific thing called a bell-shaped curve. Projects get finished early by a few, later by most, and never by some. Where are we on the bell curve as far as the number of Americans being served by compliant companies? How many Americans out of 260 million had compliant power companies serving them, as of March 31, 1999?

17. If power goes off in a city, could this produce traffic control problems or other disruptions that could stop repairs on the local power plant?

18. If power goes off in one city, and trains use electrical switches and computers to go through those cities, could coal and oil supplies be cut off to cities where the power is still on?

19. Then, if they shut down, could the same problem be extended?

20. If it takes electrical power to produce the items that produce electrical power, then what happen if the grid goes down?

You're the expert. I know that you've been working on this for a long time. I know you wouldn't be evasive or anything. You're a teacher! So, what are the answers? A civilization's survival rests on positive, accurate news on at least some of these issues. I mean, will I ever get to 9th grade?

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), June 19, 1999.

[What a wonderful exercise. Let's take a peek at this and see what's going on here.]

Gosh all whillikers. I'm a just a poor 8th grade science student. Well, the best way to become a better student is to ask good questions, just like that boy did back in my youth on the "Mr. Wizard" TV show. Mr. Wizard made things so clear. So, here goes.

[First, use sarcasm to make your opponent look stupid. North is a master at sarcasm.]

"Gee, Mr. Mills, I get so confused. This power industry engineering stuff is pretty hard. Maybe you can help me understand how it works. I have a few questions which I know are 8th grade, but please be patient."

[More sarcasm, laid on thick. Does anyone here think any longer that this is a *real* request for information? This is propaganda 101]

1. You say that in theory the grid can stay up if enough power plants stay up. But I guess it could go down if they all go down. Is that logical? So, how many of them have to stay up to make sure the grid stays up? I'll bet you've got a formula.

[Yes, there's a formula. It's complex. And yes, IF enough generating capacity goes offline, the affected grid will go down. WILL that capacity go offline? And if so, WHY? Note that North doesn't even bother to ask these two critical questions. Why not?]

2. How many plants are y2k-compliant, tested, and independently verified today?

[Notice the juxtoposition of question 2 with question 1. By placement, the implication is that IF a plant isn't compliant, tested, and independently verified, it will go down. This implication is demonstrably false, but North doesn't bother to say that, implying the opposite. How many power plants have EVER had their workings independently verified? None. Do we have power anyway? Doh!]

3. How long, on average, does to take to get compliant for a power company that supplies power to over a million people? Could you name one that has?

[Detailed investigations showed that most of these had NO compliance issues that would have prevented them from supplying power. Yes, they had compliance issues, and still do. And North takes sly advantage of the impossibility of proving a negative, making it look logical. He's a master of distortion. Why doesn't North ask whether functionally trivial noncompliances will bring down plants? Because he knows they won't. So he raises the strawman of demanding that Mills identify some perfectly compliant plant. The issue is availability of power, NOT whether Mills is aware of noncompliances. Neat trick.]

4. How many suppliers does a typical million-customer power plant have? Entergy has 40,000.

[This number can be supplied, of course. But North knows that the answer is beyond meaning for most of us. What would we do with a list of 40,000 suppliers and what each supplies? Who among us would have the patience to weed through suppliers of coffee packets and shrub trimmers to get to critical suppliers? Who would go from there to examine on-hand inventories of important parts? Who would continue on to determine the viability of each critical supplier? Only those directly involved (the utilities themselves). And they've been outgoing with most of this information, which North doesn't bother to mention. The *number* of suppliers isn't the issue. Continued power generation is the issue. But it looks like power will be generated. So North changes the subject. Again, propaganda 101]

5. About what percentage of these suppliers can go out of business before a power generation facility has to shut?

[Percentage isn't the issue, and North knows it (but of course distracts us so we might not notice it). The real question is, what might force a generation facility to shut down, what alternatives do these facilities have to prevent this, and what are they doing to take advantage of these alternatives? Percentage of suppliers is meaningless, but North is a master at asking meaningless but important-looking questions.]

6. What happens locally if suppliers of crucial repair parts are located in regions where power is off for over 60 days? Or is this in theory impossible? Maybe you have a formula.

[This is part of contingency planning, of course. Most parts are not sole-source, and many can be repaired without replacement. In any case, power has been off in some areas for extended periods (following hurricanes, floods, ice storms and the like) and those affected areas have been home to important suppliers. And power in all areas to which those suppliers supplied has been just fine. North ignores this. And finally, his request for a 'formula' is more sarcasm. He probably realizes this is a very weak argument.]

7. What happens to U.S. power supplies if the coal trains don't run? (No railroad claims to be compliant today.)

[Now North implies that noncompliant railroads means no coal. This scenario has been examined in detail, and satisfactory answers provided, but of course North doesn't bother to tell us about it. Notice also North's implication that lack of *claims* of compliance equals inability to run at all. Does North expect us to believe that faced with the requirement to supply coal, the railroads will do *nothing*?]

8. What happens to power companies that use oil if chemical plants are shut down by y2k-ralated failures?

[Groan. What happens now when chemical plants can't supply (it's pretty common)? And notice North's implication that chemical plants *will* shut down. Once again, the question is, WILL oil supplies be curtailed? Why? This is a standard North technique -- to point out an interdependency, and imply (without quite saying so) without evidence that this interdependency will break down. Any economy is an incredibly complex tangle of interdependencies. And economies work, despite all manner of bankruptcies, accidents, and political meddling.]

9. How will power companies get paid if banking shuts down?

[WILL banks shut down? This question has always existed (in ever aspect of our economy). There have been bank shutdowns in the past, and power hasn't stopped. Again, North is changing the subject, very subtly. Banks shutting down is contrary to evidence clearly visible to everyone but Andy.]

10. How will power companies pay programmers to fix their systems if banks shut down?

[The same question asked twice. Maybe if North asks it enough times, the answer will change? But even taking North at face value (always dangerous, he's two-faced), if you were a programmer, would you rather work without pay but with power, or without BOTH?]

11. If SCADA systems don't work reliably, how is power flow controlled by human monitors? How long does it take a million- customer power plant to train enough people to run these systems manually, 24 hours a day, for a month? Could you name a company that has done this? Or do you have a formula?

[By now, let's ignore the sarcasm about formulas. North has worn this debating trick out. Now, tests have shown that SCADA systems won't fail. Why doesn't North bother to tell us about this? The utility employees are trained to operate without SCADA, and already drilled to practice this. Communications have been tested, and found to have few to no functional compliance problems (but some logging problems). North doesn't bother to mention this either. Finally, whether Mills can name a company able to do the demonstrably unneccessary is irrelevant. North might as well be asking whether Mills can name one company prepared to deal with an alien invasion. It's nonsense.]

12. Where is the industry's manual on operating things manually?

[Good question. Of course, North is assuming that such a manual will be needed. But it might be, so does it exist? This would appear to be a standard part of contingency planning. I hope it's being done.]

13. What percentage of the industry's revenues has gone into contingency planning to run systems manually in 1999?

[What would the answer to this question really tell us? Of course we'd all prefer that utility contingency plans be adequate and sufficient. Do we really care what *percentage* of revenues is required to achieve this? Why doesn't North ask how good the plans are, rather than how much is being spent to make them good?]

14. Has the industry finished replacing all its noncompliant embedded chips/systems?

[Another straw man. The *real* question is, has the industry done what's necessary to continue to generate and distribute power? Who cares about noncompliances that are trivial or cosmetic? Who cares if an important noncompliance was remediated by repair instead of replacement? The industry has done a damn good job of determining that indeed they CAN PROVIDE POWER. Who really cares about chips that use 2-digit years but are properly handled?]

15. What proof of compliance has been presented by the 7,800+ U.S. power companies to the private, industry-managed North American Electric Reliability Council, besides self-reported information by managers of 200 companies, who are not under oath and whose companies are not identified in NERC's reports?

[What an array of disinformation tactics here! (1) Lack of 'proof' (whatever that is) means no power. (2) Self-reporting means false. (3) Lack of identification (to the public) means lack of data. (4) Those who don't generate any power are as important as those who do. (5) Lack of 'oath' means lack of honesty. (6) NERC is private, therefore unreliable (as if North has confidence in the reliability of government pronouncements).

Yes, perhaps NERC reports are off-center due to the nature of the reporting procedures. But those who have studied NERC and the reporting procedures (from the inside!) have unanimously agreed that those procedures are good, that they're being followed, that the utilities themselves don't have any desire or reason to be remiss in their responsibilities. Utility employees (right up to CEOs) want power just as much as we do. North's implication that everything they're saying can't be trusted because nobody is *forcing* them to be trustworthy, is absurd. And North knows it.]

16. I hear there's a scientific thing called a bell-shaped curve. Projects get finished early by a few, later by most, and never by some. Where are we on the bell curve as far as the number of Americans being served by compliant companies? How many Americans out of 260 million had compliant power companies serving them, as of March 31, 1999?

[Let's again ignore the sarcasm and examine the misuse of statistics. The bell curve is a canard. Assume (*very* safely) that 100% complaince can never be achieved. Assume further (from historical fact) that power can never be guaranteed. So compliance isn't a bell curve, it's a hyperbolic curve, approaching (but never reaching) zero errors. Projects can never be "finished" in theory, but a point can be reached of "close enough". So North's phrase "being served by compliant companies" is not meaningful. What's important is, communities being supplied with *power*. Let's keep our eye on the ball here. North's bell curve is no more than an artifact he's created, based purely on his knowledge that a negative can never be proved.]

17. If power goes off in a city, could this produce traffic control problems or other disruptions that could stop repairs on the local power plant?

[Of course. This has always been one of the difficulties facing those handling power failures. Therefore, techniques for handling power failures (pretty common) always assume there *is no power*. Doh! That's what power failures *do*, Mr. North. This may be a revelation to you, but it's SOP for the power people. Wake up.]

18. If power goes off in one city, and trains use electrical switches and computers to go through those cities, could coal and oil supplies be cut off to cities where the power is still on?

[Chains of assumptions. Don't be fooled. We have plenty of such cases, and know how to deal with them. We've always had power failures. We've learned to deal with them. We have well-worn procedures in place. North is taking advantage of the fact (of which he's well aware) that most of his audience doesn't work in the power industry, and doesn't know the procedures. Therefore, he implies that these procedures don't exist, and his uninformed readers swallow this without thinking. And again, of course, he assumes power failures, commingling the issues of how we handle power failures, with the question of whether we'll have them. More propaganda techniques.]

19. Then, if they shut down, could the same problem be extended?

[This is pure rhetoric, no longer even pretending to ask for information. So OK, yes Mr. North, if everyone sits on their hands and does nothing, AND if everything that can go wrong does go wrong, the problem can spread to some degree. Assuming the problem exists in the first place (apparently false) AND assuming nobody does anything (certainly false) AND assuming worst failure cases all along the line (never happens). Isn't it amazing where you can get once you start chaining false assumptions together?]

20. If it takes electrical power to produce the items that produce electrical power, then what happen if the grid goes down?

[If North's implication were true, we'd never have power in the first place, since we'd need power to create power. This is the argument that since you need a chicken to make an egg, and an egg to make a chicken, therefore neither chickens nor eggs can possibly exist. When reality confutes your argument, you ought to suspect something is wrong with your argument. But North seems impervious to such suspicions. I wonder why?]

You're the expert. I know that you've been working on this for a long time. I know you wouldn't be evasive or anything. You're a teacher! So, what are the answers? A civilization's survival rests on positive, accurate news on at least some of these issues. I mean, will I ever get to 9th grade?

[apparently not. And North *still* hasn't made a single honest request for information, prefering a maze of false assumptions, bad logic, misdirection, and other tactics of the dishonest debater.

As I wrote earlier, North *isn't interested* in the truth, North is interested in *creating* a new truth. He doesn't care what the situation is now, he cares about how he can help create a situation more to his liking later. And he'll do whatever it takes. This set of non-questions phrased as a request for information but presented as an attempt to discredit anyone knowledgeable, is just one example.]

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 19, 1999.

There is no hope for you Flint.

You truly are a piece of work.

Answer the goddamn questions guy!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 19, 1999.

No more piffle, Flint.

As Churchill said, just the facts!

JUST THE FACTS!

Answer each question with the facts, no more of your semantics...

Bet you can't and won't do it :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 19, 1999.

.

-- - (-@-.-), June 20, 1999.

.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 20, 1999.

I kind of figured Gary North might fit into the moron category. Don't those people from down south marry their sisters? Could explain everything.

-- General (Yankee@Mail.com), June 20, 1999.

Kind of comical. We have a dialog like this:

Andy: Have you stopped beating your wife?

Respondent1: I'm not marred.

Respondent 2: I've never beat my wife, so how could I stop?

Andy: Quit dodging the issue. I asked you a yes or no question. Answer it!

Respondent1: I've never been married. The question is not meaningful.

Respondent2: The question is based on a false assumption.

Andy: ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION! I want the FACTS! Quit weaseling. You people have no brains.

North is a master at asking such questions. He knows very well that whoever frames the questions controls the debate. North is not interested in learning the facts. He's interested in creating a false impression for his own purposes, just like Andy. But we know why North is doing this. Why is Andy doing the same?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 20, 1999.

little a and Andy - it's useless to attempt to reason with you two. It's obvious you have no reasoning capabilities. You've got your little minds made up that we're all screwed and there's nothing we can do about it. Typical LOSER mentality. Typical DOOMER mentality.

I'm still waiting for one of you loser/doomers to step up to the plate and explain to me how we have managed to survive all these years with a system (ANY SYSTEM) that is not error-free? Name ONE system that's error-free and prove it.

Little andy???? little-bitty a??? Humor me guys.......show me what you're made of......

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 21, 1999.

Flint, you are a clown, an intellectual clown.

Who do you work for? Come on, answer my question:

JUST WHO DO YOU WORK FOR FLINT ?

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), June 21, 1999.

George:

OK, I'm a Russian secret agent. My name used to be Flintski. I learned English from an old mamushka on the steppes of central Asia. I infiltrated the US by changing uniforms with an American soldier in Vietnam. Another cell handled all the paperwork.

Die, capitalist pigs!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 21, 1999.