From: CONT DLPC [snip@xxxx.navy.mil]
To: sacredspaces@yahoo.com
Subject: Saw your thread
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:08:58 -0500

I'm a dot mil, so you might be interested in this email I sent Jim Lord this morning.

Subj: An Open Letter to Jim Lord.

Jim.

I wanted to use that subject line so it would be clear that the contents of my letter would be redistributed.

First let me say that I have admired your posts regarding Y2K for the last few years. Many times they have helped me keep things in perspective. The other addressees also pass information from time to time that I have found both critical to my philosophy as well as preparations that I have made for the end of the year. You have always seemed to be a rather moderate, methodical, investigative kind of person who says "well, let's take a look here and see what the implications are". That well-balanced approach assists some of us peons who are both in the Y2K remediation trenches as well as in our own fields and spheres of influence to maintain our perspective on things. We influence the opinions of others both positively and negatively.

Between the little newsletter I send out each week which reaches an estimated 5000 people through "remails", the "Weatherman's" (I believe he said 20,000 without remails), Roleigh's newsletter, the Y2Knews.com website, Gary North's site, Michael Hyatt, (and others) AND all the associated remails and discussion lists, I would say that your posting may have easily reached 100 to 200 thousand separate addressees in a very short period of time yesterday. This is not a matter to take lightly with the immediacy of our electronic age.

We also seem to have a bit in common. I, too, retired in 1983 from the U.S. Military. I also attended college later in life and ended up eventually with a Ph.D. I also still hold a regular commission - in the U.S. Air Force as opposed to the Navy. I do, however, work as a contractor for the U.S. Navy at one of its bases - one of the bases potentially effected in the data you released. I work with/in the Information Systems division there. I have been in, around, up and down with computer systems and electronics since 1961. All this framework to say - I don't think you have done us a service with this last posting that has been so widely distributed.

I, myself, read the beginning of the posting, noted it looked like "hot stuff", and bam, bobba boom, I popped it out to all my Y2K subscribers...... After reading it in depth last night, however, I began this letter, and then "slept on it". My morning after conclusion is that I believe the perspective you have presented is all out of kilter here.

First, while I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the information (John Koskinen affirmed the data last night - http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/AP19990819_522.html), and had no doubts prior to his affirmation, I do not see the same level of criticality of the information as you have presented. There is not, nor will there be, conclusive proof that any of these events will occur. We simply will NOT know until the rollover. This information, therefore, is planning information. What in the world could the U.S. Navy know about the power grid that the power company does not? Now don't get me wrong here. I think the NERC has been selling snake oil for a very long time. I published the fact that Farley would not be compliant on the 30 June 99 date almost a year ago. I don't believe the water companies, gas companies, chemical plants, telecommunications companies, banks, etc., etc., can possibly predict what will happen with their embedded chips and systems. This is not new "stuff" for the military. The U.S. Army assessed their belief the grid will go down as well - http://cr-iiacfs1.army.mil/army-y2k/cfdocs/y2kweb_vSearchResult.cfm?RequestT imeout=500. The U.S. Naval War College makes their projections and assessments thinly veiled as evaluating "international potentials" - http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/6926/y2kproj.htm, so the fact that there are planning documents is certainly not new.

Second, with the validity of the predictions in question, how did they come about? The only acceptable way, I'm aware of, to bring about such data when predicting the future is the well established "Delphi" method. I have personally participated in two Delphi studies in the last twelve months which sought to predict future computer related objectives based on an experts poll. I am not aware of any data provided by our location to such a study for the Navy. If so, it is my belief that it would have come from that division. I assure you that, at least in my estimation, there is no one in that arena who could capably predict, with any reasonable expertise, that certain utilities in our area would fail. I did quite a bit of contingency planning while I was on active duty. Some of the bizarre scenarios I was presented with and the subsequent plans I developed to cope with them, would quite likely even curl your old "navy" trousers and certainly cause my civilian brethren "great" anxiety. Plans to this day which I'm sure remain classified.

Third, the objective of contingency planning is to have some sort of "road map" to action. A time of crisis is not the time to originate the decision process, it is the time for assessment and implementation of plans which most closely ally themselves with the problem at hand. It is both normal and expected that all of the branches of service are as busy as they can be assessing their vulnerabilities over the rollover. Droves of O-3's and O-4's are whaling away with their fertile imaginations to flesh out a myriad of scenarios. They will then work late into the night to use gaming theory and resource allocation to attempt to solve the horrors they have created (remember those days?). I not only expect this of them, I DEMAND it of them. They are, after all, mine and your only real protection from the Boogey Men of the world, since we are no longer standing there shoulder to shoulder with them (and there sure seems to be a lot of boogey men out there).

Fourth, I would agree that you have placed yourself in jeopardy. The depth of which, I'm not sure. As a fellow regular commissioned officer, you must know that you are subject to the UCMJ for life. Despite the periodic "rage" that develops when I see total incompetence hard at work in the government, I would never publish a document which I knew was either "For Official Use Only" FOUO, or especially one I would regard as SECRET. Every officer knows the method of classifying information and is responsible to do so at the lowest level that still provides appropriate security of the information. You lay down a challenge to Naval and Marine Corps Officers who had access to the information to "Live up to this duty. Come Forth. Tell us the truth". What truth would you have them tell you Jim? That they worked on a study of what scenarios might develop and how they might design resources and a command structure to maintain the assets, and yes, the personnel in their charge? You are asking them to sacrifice their honor and their oath for what? To join you in an assertion that you KNOW what will happen at the rollover? THEY don't know any truth, Jim. John Koskinen doesn't know any truth. I don't know any truth. We all simply have to use our intellect, the input from others we trust, our knowledge of systems, our knowledge of human behavior, and our past experiences to draw from.

I see a myriad of problems for Y2K and yes, even the potential for a meltdown. It frightens me. I plan for the possibility. I pray, however, that the folks on active duty hang in there and do everything they possibly can to anticipate the problems we may have - from within as well as without. That's what I would do, that's what I will do. I think you need to "rethink" what you have presented and how. With the influence you have over such a vast number of people, you have a responsibility and a duty to defuse the potential of your presentation. And no, I don't think this is the equivalent of the "Pentagon Papers".

Respectfully,

[Snip name -- until I hear from him that he doesn't mind being known -- Diane]

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999

Answers

See...

The Pentagon Papers of Y2k

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GWN

Many (not all) of the thread links... here...

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis-- Coalition 2000))

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GgI

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

A very credible presentation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are official scenarios that have been created that the military does not want people to know about, and if we find out about them, a spin effort starts immediately at the highest level. Either they are being dishonest with us, or they don't trust our reactions. This is big-brother behavior. In my opinion, that is what Jim Lord was spotlighting. And, if "they" make trouble for him for posting something that Koskinen says was "public" information, shame on them.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Has it occured to any of these pinhead as to WHY so many utilities aren't responding??

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 20, 1999.

"I see a myriad of problems for Y2K and yes, even the potential for a meltdown. It frightens me. I plan for the possibility."

'Nuff said.

(If said author reads this thread, I'd like to gently remind him that Koskinen is on record saying that nobody need plan for the possibility of a "myriad of problems" or a "meltdown". Koskinen very recently in an interview strongly indicated that even 3 days' preparation might be overkill.)

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 20, 1999.

I can't say as I agree. Of course all of us here knew contingency planning was underway in the DoD. None of us here really learned anything from the Navy Report except that an analysis of specific sites was being conducted, and the results didn't look good.

But what Jim Lord was able to do was raise the conciousness of several hundred thousand Americans or more to the level where they might think about Y2K failures. He did a service, but the slow trashing of him appears to be underway.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 20, 1999.

Kinda timely.

Diane

NBC says Navy Report is shot down

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001H8V

Navy officials scrambled Friday to downplay reports that the service was predicting failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of the Year 2000 problem, NBC News reports...

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

"All this framework to say - I don't think you have done us a service with this last posting that has been so widely distributed."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HA!

No, guess NOT! But he's done one H_ll of a service for the American people who have been lied to, bamboozeled and treated like creatins since day-one!

"Fourth, I would agree that you have placed yourself in jeopardy. The depth of which, I'm not sure"

Oh, so now it get's ugly does it? Give it your best shot dude--there are more of us than there are of you and as Jim said: "There is safety in numbers".

-- Charli Claypool (claypool@belatlantic.net), August 20, 1999.

Navy dot mil wrote:

"Fourth, I would agree that you have placed yourself in jeopardy. The depth of which, I'm not sure. As a fellow regular commissioned officer, you must know that you are subject to the UCMJ for life. Despite the periodic "rage" that develops when I see total incompetence hard at work in the government, I would never publish a document which I knew was either "For Official Use Only" FOUO, or especially one I would regard as SECRET."

I believe at Jim's site he mentioned that the document was not marked along those lines. But isn't it moot? After all, it was supposedly out on a public (semi-public) website.

-- too tired (none@this.time), August 20, 1999.

Personally, I thank Navy Dot Mil for his take.

This is a classic...

What in the world could the U.S. Navy know about the power grid that the power company does not? Now don't get me wrong here. I think the NERC has been selling snake oil for a very long time.

And this is just wise to consider...

I see a myriad of problems for Y2K and yes, even the potential for a meltdown. It frightens me. I plan for the possibility. I pray, however, that the folks on active duty hang in there and do everything they possibly can to anticipate the problems we may have - from within as well as without.

The truth is... we are ALL in this together... Koskinen & Jim Lord too. The whole planet. Now... whats important?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

I appreciate the perspective of the author. I even share some of the same feelings regarding it's release. Isn't all that water under the bridge now?

None of this speculation and "fear mongering" would even be necessary if real, honest assessments were offered by the government we are supposed to be in control over. This is OUR government yet they seem to be treating we, the people, as though our need to know is based upon what ever their agenda will allow.

Here's the kicker.

Jim Lord just created a firestorm. The speed in which this story made it's way through the internet and onto the street should send chills down the spineless backs of those who are unwilling to share honest news and assessments.

I've always believed that perception IS reality and sure enough, if the story would have been "Social Security is forced to shut down because of computer glitch" what would have happened yesterday?

Keeping people "in the dark" will not make them more comfotable if the lights go out. They'll only wonder why? If the black out continues they'll start to wonder, how long can this go on? And eventually, they'll wonder if the world hasn't started to break down around them.

Well, we're starting to feel like the world is breaking down around us. All because credible, reliable, verifiable information is NOT forthcoming.

And we're given lectures about the ills regarding the disimination of information that is not yet verified. Give me a break...that is what the government seems to be doing every single day.

The very fact that Koskinen himself felt this story was a powder keg that needed to be addressed quickly is telling in itself.

They are nervous. They are nervous about panic. They are nervous about panic because THEY are not telling the truth. They are in a panic about panic and yesterday Koskinen affirmed this fact with his actions and his words.

No more speculation is necessary. Real, imagined, contrived, hoaxed, due to terrorism, it wont matter. The end result is the same. People are edgy. People are wondering. People are nervous because the government isn't telling the truth.

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The founders had a great understanding of just what secrecy in government would do to a nation. Slowly the elected government and the non-elected officials like Koskinen have decided that we need to be protected from ourselves.

So, for the author of this letter I have a sincere question. You've served in the military. You've taken an oath. You serve your country now.

Do you feel that the games being played in Washington D.C. are truly in the best interests of this nation?

Mike

========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

" Third, the objective of contingency planning is to have some sort of "road map" to action. A time of crisis is not the time to originate the decision process, it is the time for assessment and implementation of plans which most closely ally themselves with the problem at hand.."

And yes, we too (i.e., the civilian population) believe we should avail ourselves of the access to information that may enable us to draw up a road map of contingency action and preventive planning. Who do you work for? For whom are those plans being made? The tone of this missive would lead one to believe that the term 'local' is shrinking; i.e., doesn't include the area surrounding the base.

-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), August 20, 1999.

" ... folks on active duty hang in there and do everything they possibly can to anticipate the problems we may have - from within as well as without ... you have a responsibility and a duty to defuse the potential of your presentation."

There's zee motives, folks, same as always:

1) Keep the status quo so ppl will stay in place and work;

2) Keep info quiet, the sheeple content, the herd grazing, NO panic;

3) Sugar-coat and dilute and defuse any potential awareness-generating info or possibilities;

4) Ppl stay at work, tax $$ keeps rolling in, $$ stays in banks.

Don't be cowed, Jim Lord, be proud! The Navy spreadsheet wasn't even surprising. The herd knows way back in its subconscious that the infrastructure may go down. They just don't want to think about it.

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 20, 1999.

I personally side with Jim Lord. In a court of law, there are two standards - "Balance of probabilities" and "Beyond reasonable doubt". The former requires less evidence than the latter.

Personally,I have found the Y2K issue guilty on the charge of being "one of the threads that will bring major political, social and economic change into our lives" post millennium. The evidence so far has been BOP. Jim has raised the stakes to BRD.

As I have said many, many times, lying about Y2K brings it's own penalty - compressed panic where people cannot prepare (emotionally, intellectually or spiritually). They are hit with such a force that it destroys their world view - which in turn cripples the mechanism for rational thought. It destroys faith - faith in each other, faith in the system, faith in God. The downward spiral of panic and fear begins.

This could have been avoided by releasing this quality of information sooner. Sure, a panic played out over 1 year would be bad news, but it would be less of a disaster than a panic played out over 1 quarter. People do not like being lied to, and that is what the 'positive Y2K spin' is - pure and simple. As far as the argument being one of a national security issue, since when has any government since Machiavelli had an interest in sacrificing political leverage for truth ?

Without doubt, Jim Lords post confirms the doomer stance beyond all reasonable doubt. It is arrogance to predict what Y2K will turn out to be, but that does not change the fact that once you examine the facts, the evidence points towards meltdown rather than bump on the road. Anywhere on the 6-10 scale rather than 1-5. It could have been 1-5 with proper management, but as Kenneth Galbraith so wisely stated -

But now, as throughout history, financial capacity and political perspicacity are inversely correlated. Long-run salvation by men of business has never been highly regarded if it means disturbance of orderly life and convenience in the present. So inaction will be advocated in the present even though it means deep trouble in the future. Here, at least equally with communism, lies the threat to capitalism. It is what causes men who know that things are going quite wrong to say that things are fundamentally sound.

Prepare yourselves.

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), August 20, 1999.

Someone sent me a quick e-mail comment about this, which I think is quite appropos...

"I think the assumption here is that the utilities will be more honest & forthcoming with dot mil customers than with ordinary people like us, or even with other government agencies."

Yep. That IS our assumption.

Kind'a sort'a might NOT be a valid one, huh?

*Sigh*

Take that one step further and ask yourself, WHY would we "assume" Koskinen is receiving any more valid information as well? He may be "better connected" but that doesn't mean "others" aren't being "less than accurate."

Vat a mess!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Diane: In my Air Force career there was always a vast difference between planning for different scenarios and assessments. Assessments were usually determined on hard core info and intell versus "wags" for "possible scenarios". Thanks for your article and I am sorry you are taking flak for your sincere effort. I may not agree with you but I will not make fun of you or ridicule you!

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

AN OPEN LETTER TO "NAVY DOT MIL" from S. David Bays

Dear sir:

My blood began to boil as I read your letter. I, personally, would like to thank Jim Lord for the courage to do this work and not hide behind a fake name like you have done in this letter. If you are going to castigate Mr. Lord then perhaps we should be privy to who in the hell you are. Since you have taken the position against publication of this type of material then you would fall under the "friends of Bill" crowd (at least in this instant). You would not be subject to recriminations unless you shouldn't be even posting such a letter because of your position in which case I ask this: Why did you? Would that subject you to UCMJ for life? If not then, I submit that you are cowardly.

You wrote: "You are asking them to sacrifice their honor and their oath for what? To join you in an assertion that you KNOW what will happen at the rollover? THEY don't know any truth, Jim. John Koskinen doesn't know any truth. I don't know any truth. We all simply have to use our intellect, the input from others we trust, our knowledge of systems, our knowledge of human behavior, and our past experiences to draw from."

Since you, sir, have admitted that you don't know the Truth and that neither does John Koskinen nor Jim Lord let me tell you what the TRUTH is.

In the name of His Majesty, the King of Kings who does live forever and before whom all the nations and every knee will bow it has been revealed that: There,indeed, will be a panic! It will happen when this train rolls full speed right up to the bridge to the new millineum. What will happen you ask? The infrastructure of the bridge is gone and there will be heard the sound of a nation crashing all around you. The largest train wreck in human history. Bump in the road? I don't think so.

Then what? China will sail up to the coast of California and launch missiles. Didn't I read just yesterday that China is boasting of subs? So, let's see, China now has: Nuclear capability, missile guidance technology for greater accuracy, miniaturization, delivery via subs or surface ships. He whos' sword is raised just as he appeard to Joshua, appeared He thus to me, has revealed that the roar and the fire of the mushroom cloud shall be visited against this nation.

You wrote: "Fourth, I would agree that you have placed yourself in jeopardy."

Your Commander in Chief has placed us all in great jeopardy. His little visit to his masters in Beijing was the most disgusting display of boot licking I've ever seen. His launching of war this year against Iraq, Kosovo and an aspirin factory in a sovereign nation whom we have not declared war on all to divert attention from imminent breaking scandals reveals that he is truly psychotic. This should scare you sir. What does this reveal to you about your nation and your leadership? It tells me that not only do we have a dangerously depraved Commander in Chief but that America herself has fallen into depravity. It tells me that I can't believe anything the government tells says. It tells me that I must constantly be reading between the lines and that I need to search out my Truth elsewhere. It tells me that the President will misuse the military for his own purposes even if it destroys the nation itself. It causes me to be very suspicious of my military which can be jerked around by such a dangerous man as Clinton. We live in a day when our politicians are either corrupt or spineless. Someone needs to exhibit a little courage. Therefore, I applaud Jim Lord. If anyone is guilty of treasones behaviour, I suggest you look to the highest office in the land who licks the boots of tyrants. Surely he'll get his reward.

A nation too proud and arrogant to repent will be brought down low and whether or not the water "goes down" in your area or "stays up" I suggest that you have a number of barrels of stored water (to serve you in the aftermath of a nuclear event) and at least a years supply of food because Y2K will be just the trip wire which will usher in chaos and entertain the contents of pandoras' box. Don't wait for Koskinen or the "experts" to give you the OK to prepare. If you don't need the food and other supplies immediately after January 1, 2000, sit on it. You will probably need it before the year is out.

S. David Bays

SDBAYS@prodigy.net

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@Prodigy.net), August 20, 1999.

So now er know INVAR's real name.

-- (dot@dot.dot), August 20, 1999.

I would like to hear Hardliner's reaction to this letter. This dot.mil man comes across to me as honest in his feelings and opinion. Almost everything he said made sense. I'm particularly curious of what Hardliner would have to say about this man's accusations of Jim Lord coming short on his life-long duties and honor to the military.

I've had this strong feeling from the begining on researching y2K that no one knows or ever will know what to expect at the roll-over, and next year. That no organization, no matter how organized and well funded, can unravel this hopeless mess and chaos that y2k is, and becoming worse. A pandora's box of technical, emotional, social and business nightmare, becoming more evident as the days go by. It is only logical that the Navy and military in general be prepared for anything they can imagine.

But...the fact remains that they have shown in this report areas that are of more concern to them than others. That tells me that they know something we don't.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 20, 1999.

Neil,

Im not taking flack. Just watching it wizz on by and observing the trajectory. And... reading between the lines.

;-D

Diane

BTW, Ill e Navy Dot Mil and ask him if hed like to weigh in... as himself... or weigh anchor. ;-)

And... (dot@dot.dot)... thats NOT INVAR.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Humm. Chris, think I'll "e" Hardliner too. Good idea.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Evbery time I see someone else do this I get pissed off. So, go aheasd an get pissed off.

I have in my posession, a response to Lord's publication. i CAN'T Id the author because I gave my word. (If you don't understand the stricture, you haven't listened to me much). This person is currently travelling with a fairly high ranking Navy Officer ( who, suffice it to say doesn't have any superiors in HIS area but reports to at least one other Navy officer). He (my contact) has looked at the Lord paper, and offers this

" I've been to some of the bases supported by the utilities referenced in Lord's expose. The purpose of the visits was to assess Y2K readiness. Although other areas of concerned were addressed I will concentrate on the utilities. In all cases, documents were available from the supporting utilities certifying their Y2K compliant status. In some cases a dialogue between the officials from both parties was ongoing. In ALL, repeat ALL of the cases the certifications predate the alledged stale date of the so-called Y2K Papers. In other words, the statement that this info started out as a worst case scenario and was updated only when the contacts were made with the utilities or when information was received from utilities does not wash. Info about the readiness of the utilities was and has been available to the appropriate officials at the bases for quite some time. So what does this mean? Thats the kicker. Are the utilities playing to both sides? The bases and the public get one story and the Fed heavies get the real story? If this is true, then the the feds are not only selling out the civilian population but their fighting force as well. The only other thing that makes any sense at all is that the documents were provided to Lord as a setup to discredit him.

Believe me folks, you would ALL recognize this person as a long time and trusted poster to this forum.

Chuck Who is more confused than ever.

(AHA and R/BD if this looks familiar, the e was a test for me which may have failed)

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 20, 1999.

"The only other thing that makes any sense at all is that the documents were provided to Lord as a setup to discredit him."

Humm. It's "possible."

High-risk strategy?

If things were Y2K-OK, "why" would this be considered necessary?

Why the media firestorm?

Why the "hurried" Pentagon news conference?

Questions... questions.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Hot links...

How did Koskinen hear about the Navy Document? I told him.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGi

"Y2K Pentagon Papers" - "Secret Papers" Back ONLINE - NAVFAC Master Utilities Y2K Preparaedness Status Spreadsheet Explained

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGI

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Chuck's informant says,

"In all cases, documents were available from the supporting utilities certifying their Y2K compliant status."

and later,

"Info about the readiness of the utilities was and has been available to the appropriate officials at the bases for quite some time."

I note that the first sentence is not equivalent to the claim that those documents certify that the respective utilities were then in fact Y2K compliant. Y2K compliant "status" is a term covering the full range of compliance, from "not at all" to "completely."

Since Koskinen concedes that the Navy report in question is genuine, we can assume it was put together in good faith. The information from Chuck's contact does not tell us that the status reports in the survey fail to accurately represent the information available at the time the report was prepared. The second sentence quoted above supports this view.

(This looks a lot more complicated than it is!)

The open letter by Dot Mil opening this thread notes that even taken at face value the Navy report does not prove that the utility failures mentioned will occur. But it doesn't claim to do that. It is entirely framed in terms of degree of probability. Assuming (again) that it was prepared in good faith on the information available, this report is very difficult to sweep under the rug.

There is a world of difference between the scenario workshops, clearly identified as such, conducted by the Naval War College, and this Navy report given to Jim Lord. The NWC project is an exploration of possibilities, but this "Survey" reads exactly as would a factual report to be used in planning operations. Its tabulation of so many locations of naval installations indicates to me that it was not for distribution to local commands, but for central planning. The OIC at King's Bay would have no need to know the situation in Waukegan.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), August 21, 1999.

Anyone seen Arlin lately.......

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 21, 1999.

"You lay down a challenge to Naval and Marine Corps Officers who had access to the information to "Live up to this duty. Come Forth. Tell us the truth". What truth would you have them tell you Jim? That they worked on a study of what scenarios might develop and how they might design resources and a command structure to maintain the assets, and yes, the personnel in their charge? You are asking them to sacrifice their honor and their oath for what? To join you in an assertion that you KNOW what will happen at the rollover? THEY don't know any truth, Jim. John Koskinen doesn't know any truth. I don't know any truth. We all simply have to use our intellect, the input from others we trust, our knowledge of systems, our knowledge of human behavior, and our past experiences to draw from."

navy.mil makes a couple of good points here, but gets them totally mixed up. Jim Lord wants the Navy to tell the truth, but the truth in this case is how you first stated it: "What truth would you have them tell you Jim? That they worked on a study of what scenarios might develop and how they might design resources and a command structure to maintain the assets, and yes, the personnel in their charge?" That is the truth that everyone needs to get out - how they are assessing the Y2K situation. There is no "sacrifice of honor and oath" for that.

He also makes the point, IMO the only relevant point about Y2K at this time - that no one knows or can know the truth. Y2K is too complex for any single person or even a group of 6 billion to "know." But navy.mil attempts to spin the issue into Jim Lord wanting the "truth" about the outcome of Y2K, when all we want is consistent and credible information (truth?) from all sources. It needs to be said again:

NOBODY KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN

THERE ARE NO Y2K EXPERTS

HOPE FOR THE BEST, PREPARE FOR THE WORST

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 21, 1999.

Was never my intention to remain anonymous. I'm not part of this thread or discussion group. Diane sent the link and asked me to "weigh" in. I don't have any weight to offer.

I have been in the computer business for a very long time. Anyone who thinks they have 10 years, even, of computer business, doesn't understand what the computer business is. It's 1 year 10 times. Everything changes at a rapid rate.

I have direct responsibility for literally thousands of computers and systems. I KNOW they all won't be compliant. What will it mean? I'm not sure. Having drifted down through the "threads" here to finally get to a posting point, I saw that I had perhaps irked some of the fellow travelers along the way here.

I don't deal real well with either flame mail or people who tend to try and use religious aspects to justify any and all of their positions. So I won't be doing a lot of posting here. I will, however, answer any question anyone wants to put to me on one on one email. Even some of the more belligerent should understand that I have to be careful what I say. NOT dishonest, just careful.

I am totally and mortally wounded to see that someone thinks I am one of Bill's boys. My God. I don't even know how to respond to that. He is the worst excuse for a President that I could even begin to come up with. He has destroyed my sense of honor for the office. Bill's boy? Next time you make a comment like that, sir, I'll slap your damn face.

Now. Again. Want to correspond? Wanna play nice? Then fine. Let's communicate. Want to drag things through mud that are mundane and childish, go play with your tinker toys. Ron.

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@bellsouth.net), August 21, 1999.

LOL Ron,

Thanks for weighing in from your weekend "e." Most *not all* the posters here are gracious when not hot-under-the-collar...

BE NICE TO ALL THE NEW VISITORS YOU GUYS!!!

That said...

I'd *never* dare call *most* the dot mils "Bill's boys" just like most intelligent women would never want to be called one of "Bill's girls."

;-D

Quite sure I'll have more questions for you later... now... it's time to relax. The dot Navy spreadsheet comparison study can wait until manana.

Enjoy the weekend, Ron.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 21, 1999.

Andy, I'm stunned you would even mention Arlin. I've had him on my mind, continuosly, for over a week now. I've revisted the c4i posts looking for.....? No real idea. I came close on a couple of occasions to mailing some of the regulars to injuire about him. I know you were kidding (I assume?), but it floored me to see his name mentioned. I have a history of being sensitive and correct about certain 'feelings' and Arlin has had my siren going!

Don't anybody bother....I'm wearing my flame proof underwear! :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

Sorry, should read 'inquire'. That really got my pulse rate up for some reason.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

Dear Ron Hei: My apologies. Your further comments are appreciated. I was not having a good day yesterday and I was just coming to the defense of Jim Lord. I think that we substantially disagree on whether Lord should have published that document. Others will vouch that I am not prone to flame or attack. In fact this was the first time. Combination of my regard for Jim Lord and the fact that you claimed that nobody can know the Truth. That sir is an astounding statement. It's simply not true. Regarding Y2K, I don't know how things are going to play out but I do know some general outcomes.

For my part, I can tell you that I have had many dozens of prophetic dreams and visions which have come to pass. I can tell you that WITH CERTAINTY that America is in for a dreadful fall. The Lord of the hosts of heaven (His name is Jesus) has revealed this to me.

No, I don't use religious "aspects" to justify all my positions. But I do use inquiry, in-depth reporting and critical thinking essays and articles to support what God has revealed to me as I try to awaken sleeping people around me to the dangers ahead. Y2K is a "manmade" problem but I feel sorry for those who cannot see God's hand in all this.

By the way, I did not say you were one of "Bill's boys", I said: "Since you have taken the position against publication of this type of material then you would fall under the "friends of Bill" crowd (at least in this instant)." But thank you for clarifying. In this instant, if you had your way, none of us would even know of this document, TRUE OR FALSE.

Summ total, since you stated your feelings and thoughts (and I'm assuming that many were directed toward me) I have a better idea where you are coming from and I think I like you and I did jump the gun a little and I was very impolite. Again, please accept my apologies, I had a very bad week (no excuses). I, too, hate it when people can't be civil with each other whether on the internet or in person. nuff said. God bless.

S. David Bays PS I am unable to get to my regual email:sdbays@intplus.com because the server has been down for over 2 weeks. This prodigy address, so far, I am unable to access my email as I have just gotten set up on it and I don't know what the problem is.

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@Prodigy.net), August 21, 1999.

If anyone is interested, Brother Bays and I are at peace.

These are troubling times. Despite 5 college degrees and achieving a high rank in the military, for some reason, when attacked I always go back to my "redneck" roots. I immediately want to jump into a fist fight. You have every right to your opinion Mr. Bays, as do I. That right has been, and will be, defended, just as I swore to do 39 years ago, and remain dedicated to today.

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@bellsouth.net), August 21, 1999.

Having worked for the Military and Civil Service, one thing is abundantly clear...the government can and does lie. The trick is figuring out when the government is lying and when it is telling the truth. Y2K or not, what a shame.

-- Michael (shield@jps.net), August 22, 1999.

Dear Ron:

Thank you for taking your time to join us here. Your participation and thoughts are appreciated.

In the two years I have been following this issue, I have listened to much frustration from fellow web members, and shared it; waiting for our leaders to provide guidance and reasonable public info and disclosure on the Y2k issue. Instead, I have seen happy faces, jeering remarks over those who are concerned, public relations firms hired to keep the status quo, and a continued reluctance of any officials to really talk about the state of the nation and its preapration, the possible impacts, and to actually provide us with real information about the status of the issue re:the things that matter most to keeping our society running and functioning. Dont worry, be happy seems to be the only response thats going to come from the top.

So, I've kept a watch on the news, on what the guys and gals in the IT trenches are saying, and what seems to be the pulse of the public as best I can. Seems prudent, cause if there are problems looming, I figure making preps for them would help prevent unneccessary consequences. A way to keep warm, food and a way to cook it, water- well, none of this seems unresonable to me, a good way to live anyhow- since life has no guarantees and any disruptions of a social or personal nature would certainly be easier to cope with when so prepared.

Until the Lord Papers showed up, I had pretty much considered that there was likely to be, at best, some scattered infrastructure problems, hopefully contained and fixed in a few weeks, and some economic consequences, like a bad recession or even a depression- fueled by the worldwide problems expected.

Now, I am not sure-maybe it is much worse than I had thought. OK, so I can buy that the data is old, that its not secret, that the data doesnt mean that all these things WILL happen, just thats the areas where concern is high. But if this is old data, then the Lord papers are nothing more IMHO than an indictment of my leaders for failure to be honest with the American people about the actual state of our infrastructure and the potential distubances that could be caused by it. When that data became known, they could have told us enough- enough to get the local officals working on the issue. Enough to create a groundswell of concern that would have made so many more prepare-safely, without capsizing the economic boat.

Instead, they choose to make those of us with questions and concerns out to be rabid "irrational" individuals. They cared more for the votes than the voters. They were more afraid of looking foolish if there were few problems, than in having those voters prepared to weather a storm. (unless it only lasted 3 days)

If the Lord papers do indeed cause panic-lay it not on JIm Lords door- but at the feet of the leaders who failed to be honest with us about the info they were getting, for fear we would panic. When this data first became available, our "leaders" could have managed it-instead it was buried, and we were told nothing. When it does come to light 5 months from M-Day-if it causes "irrational" behavior (I havent quite understood how protecting your loved ones from a perceived threat is irrational, but whatever) -it will be those "leaders" fault-they choose to bury possible problems insead of doing the real change management and leading they are sworn and paid to do. And I will not forget-even though I may be but a single vote.

If there are serious problems, I do not envy those in uniforms come the rollover. They will be faced with choices I would not want to make. I hope that the years of the "leaders" they have had to endure will enable them to make the right choices if things get ugly.

Best of luck to you, sir, and to Jim Lord, and all the others who have had to cope with the situations that the failure of our elected leadership to provide sound guidance has created. May God protect us all, those who we chose at the voting box are unwilling to do so. The Lord papers have shown me that. I will continue to prepare, and to pray those same preparations are unneccessary.

-- LauraA (Laadedah@aol.com), August 22, 1999.

Dear Laura.

I understand. You make a very heart rendering case. I have been in total agreement with what you are saying for over two years. I, myself, believe we are on the eve of a total destruction of our society as we know it. I ALSO believe and lay the blame, not at Jim Lord's feet, but at the government officials who claim to be running this country.

I am aghast at what I see.... I have personally SEEN government people reclassifing computer systems from mission critical to "infrastructure" so they would not HAVE to be reported as fixed. I have personally SEEN government "toads" sign off on a system without checking it. I have personally SEEN the same "toads" lying to their superiors about the status, since the suspense date had already gone by and they didn't want to "look bad". One of these, was the Y2K "responsible" person for the entire activity.

Tis my belief that perhaps our time has come. I won't go willingly, but I believe we may be a little overwhelmed with what we all have to deal with. The computer system failures themselves, the embedded chip failures, the Just In Time Inventory Supply line failures, the cascading effects of failures in other countries, the wild eyed revolutionaries, the equally wide eyed religious zealots, and lord, lord, the terrorists that are clearly out there.

We are taking perhaps as many as 5,000 hits per day in our firewall on the military base. These hits indicate a sustained attack to attempt to penetrate the base network systems. As much as we can, in determining their source, they clearly appear to come from the Eastern Bloc and China. Security, was in fact, breached a few weeks ago which was widely reported. There is no question in my mind that the largest cyberterrorism attack in history will begin at 0001 on 01- 01-00....as if we didn't already have enough to contend with. bin Laden has been shown to have over 20 suitcase nuclear bombs. He has a stated goal of killing as many Americans as he can. It is naieve to think that these would be used on some feeble target overseas like an Embassy. There are also indications of terrorist plans to infiltrate and blow up power stations - the general public as well as some governmental and military commanders would assume Y2K failures.

The whole think stinks. It is a mess. And its a mess I, for one, don't quite know how we can weather the storm. Doesn't mean you quit - it means you prepare for the worst possible case.

If the Navy's "revised" spreadsheet is indeed the worst case scenario - then they need to reread Alice in Wonderland, perhaps they would declare DEFCON ONE when she approached the rabbit hole. What they have done, is a tremendous disservice as well. Now they are trying to make it appear that everything is wonderful - SEE! What a crock. ..... .....but...that still doesn't excuse Jim Lord, at least for me. The Navy is not an authority on the power grid. The U.S. Army's powerpoint presentation on their site (link in my original letter) is a much more telling story than this little thing.

Bottom line is YES, Dorothy, the government is lying. They have lied all along, they continue to lie, and they will lie on 01-01-00 and they will lie after that (its terrorist activity - not computer failures), etc.

You can listen to whoever you want and make whatever preparations you want. I hope that perhaps in this "last" posting here, I will be viewed more as the radical I really am (develish grin), rather than some bleeding heart liberal trying to crucify Jim Lord. Naw. I still like Jim Lord. I just think he was wrong as all hell. Ron.

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@bellsouth.net), August 22, 1999.

Thanks Ron,

I DO NOT envy you guys!

Diane

But... perhaps there is an...

Unexpected Positive Backlash From The Navy Y2K Pentagon Papers? Thank You: Jim Lord AND The U.S. Navy!

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Hlz

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 22, 1999.

Ron, thank you for your input. Great post.

S. David Bays "Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain" Psalm 127:1

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), August 22, 1999.

Mr Hei,

Thank you for your attention, let me ask a slightly different question: framed from a history of six years when (1) the mass news media has slavishly held to the administration's views, and has actively publicized their views and their lies, and ignored all evidence that contradicts their lies; and (2) from a sense that hte military public relations industry does indeed "toe the administration's line", not the good of its troops nor the public's interest.

I say this ahead of time, for I have seen little I trust from the supposed highest"leaders" of those now on active duty, but rather more honest opinions form those who have retired - or been fired. Given my skeptism, please these obsevations:

Lord's report came out Thursday (to the public), based on data as late as June 1999. When was this "August-revised" speadsheet last changed? IF IT WAS CHANGED OR RE-ISSUED between Wed and Tonight, then it was subject to political influence from the White House. The burden of proof - that there was NO political pressure put on the Navy from Clinton's White House to revise this report - is your shoulders, or any person who defends this administration's actions.

We know absolutely that this administration has blantantly misused the military and the military's reporting methods as late as the bombing campaign this April and May - and the national press bought it hook, line, and sinker - and publicized exactly what was written by the White House. the burden of proof then is to show that the facts behind this latest edited database are based on ENGINEERING proof that the programmers have actually doen their job and tested the results.

Who changed it? (That is, what was changed between June and August, and who changed the database based on what data from what utilities?) IF THE DATA was legit, there will be a specific and credible history of the substantiating reports from every utility (water, power, nat gas, and sewer) in every city that was changed, each report with an issue date to the NAvy Facilities Command between June 30 and August 15. ANY date after Aug 18 is subject to politcal pressure.

One newspaper (NY Times, in an article defending the administration again) says one city (Ft Lauderdale) claims that one utility (FPL) has been compliant and has set its dates ahead. But that's not what FPL had claimed prior to this press release from Washington. (Proof? Show me FPL's latest compliance schedule. Last one I saw had late Sept and late Oct dates......but then magically, right on time from Washington, the utility was suddenly "compliant.") It makes no sense, no rational progress, from a programming or engineering sense, but much from a political sense.

What are the status of the other utilities in all the other cities listed? How many have declared themselves compliant (in public) PRIOR to Wednesday? How many have suddenly declared themselves ready?

Unlike the genreal population who can be persuaded by polls manipulated by the complancent media, the computers and processes next January and February simply don't care - they will either run correctly or fail, completely indfferent to what you or I "wish" would happen. Thus, I only trust what the original report holds - because I know personally many NavFac engineers, and the ones I've worked are professionals who will not present "politically corrupt" data to their superior officers. They, the junior officers who have not yet been "molded" into Clinton's morals, would have presented accurate data based on what was available at the time.

On the other hand, I have no respect for those in this administration who only seek to serve their own ends, and who have already commited crimes and abuses of power to maintain that power. Editing data after the fact, to conceal the lack of preparations from many cities who the administration owes political and economic power to, is the most likely source of this revised report.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 22, 1999.

Well Robert, I guess I just thought I had posted my last on the subject, but I really will have to cut it off soon here. I probably answer around 200 to 300 emails on an average day, so it is very difficult to take on yet another listserv or discussion forum.

I must necessarily be brief.

I probably agree with 99% of your post. I am most chagrined at the flimsy transparency at which the Navy resorted to "damage control" procedures. The made it "appear" that a network name and password was required on their site - it wasn't, but the login request appeared anyway. Then they put up a piece of total hogwash (the new xls), which, as I said in the previous post, is certainly of Alice in Wonderland vintage. That's not only an embarrassment to concientious officers, its an insult to one's intelligence.

What seems to be lost in the shuffle here is that the U.S. Navy is NOT a source of Y2K information regarding cities, their utilities, status, etc. There really isn't ANY reliable source. If and I say IF the Navy planners wanted to know the status of the utilities near the base I'm at, asking us I suppose is a possibility. The knuckle draggers here though, wouldn't have a clue. Wouldn't even know where to begin to provide meaningful data. Where would you start? Official Y2K compliance postings - more hogwash.

The Navy, I believe was trying to use a "best guess/worst case" scenario to do a little "what if" planning. The data's importance to the "American Public" is totally blown out of proportion. Naval intelligence more aptly described as knowledge of one's previous unbilical cord connection. Their track record is probably one of the worst of any branch of service (not confined to the U.S.) (Sorry guys, but if the shoe fits).

Those who are pointing to the Navy report as a "coverup" may NOW be correct, however, that was not the case when Jim Lord "blew" the cover. Although several of the mainstays websites bothered to post a contrary view of what he was saying - there are notable exceptions. The most notable exception AND a personal disappointment to me is Gary North. I have been in contact with Gary many times over the past year and a half. Provided him information on some occasions and friendly conversations on others. The fact that he remains heavy handed on the Lord Report without recognizing any dissenting views gives me pause for concern about what I'm seeing here.

Yes, I agree the media is responsible for any of the "spins" the administration is trying to put on everything. If I regard Gary, however, as a "media" in and of itself, I would have to accuse him of the same thing. I believe all of us want as much of the "truth" as we can get so that we can make our own determinations. The administration's pitch about the "bump in the road" and 3 day Hurricane supply is simply not supported by the actual "facts" which ARE known so far. As a result, their efforts to prevent the "masses" from stampeding, will only backfire as we get closer to the rollover. The less time people have to prepare and the more they "SEE" they need will certainly create a panic. A panic for which the Clinton Administration is directly responsible.

Ron.

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@Bellsouth.net), August 23, 1999.

I appreciate your effort, your words, and your cautions (See above). All are needed in the debate.

Yes, "spin" can be clockwise or counterclockwise, and in neither case is it actually "wise". But too, the 99% probability lies somewhere between a bump and a long depression - but people do not like to hear "We don't know...prepare for uncertainities." as an answer.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 23, 1999.

This is an excellent thread.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 23, 1999.

Ashton & Leska, I strongly agree! Thank you, Diane and Ron.

-- Rachel Gibson (rgibson@hotmail.com), August 23, 1999.

Ron,

Thank you for your marvelous responses. And to take the time out to deal with yet another comment.

We DO appreciate your candid assesments.

Truth helps.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

Since I have been asked, I will offer my thoughts on both the "Open Letter" and the "Y2K Pentagon Papers"

With regard to the "letter", Mr. Hei clearly takes Mr. Lord to task for his actions in publishing "The Y2K Pentagon Papers" and leaves me at least, with the impression that he believes Mr. Lord to have failed in his performance as an officer of the Navy. Mr. Hei has no business doing so.

Unless you, as a commissioned officer, are serving on a Court Martial board or jury, or are writing his fitness report as his commanding officer, you have no privilege, let alone a right or duty, to judge another officer's adherence to his Oath of Office. Each of us has sworn to support and defend the Constitution, not any particular scheme of any particular administration, nor even to adhere to military regulations should they be in conflict with that duty to the Constitution. Warrants and Commissions are worded to the effect that one is charged with obedience to appropriate orders, and the evaluation of whether or not any orders are actually so or if any particular action is appropriate conduct for an officer is ultimately the responsibility of the individual officer. This principle is so strongly inherent in our society that we even impose it on our defeated enemies as we did at Nuremberg. For Mr. Hei to assume such judgment is clearly inappropriate.

That Mr. Lord did exactly the same thing in his criticism of the various officers who may have known of this report and failed to make it public is unfortunate and just as inappropriate. Lord's criticism however, was a blanket charge and not directed at any particular officer, but at an entire group of them, and as such is marginally less offensive. That does not however, justify it. That his action was most likely a result of his evaluation of his duty to the Constitution and thus to the People is understandable and that such criticism was "over the line" does not and should not in any way diminish his display of courage without regard for personal consequences in acting according to his own best evaluation of where his duty lay.

As for the papers themselves, they really tell us nothing new. While it may be very interesting that the Navy thinks so-and-so utility company may not make the deadline, it is still speculation and still prediction. There is still no hard evidence presented and we are still in basically the same position of having to decide, each for ourselves, what is likely to happen in our own little corner of the world, come Y2K.

The real value in these papers and in their publication and dissemination is in the light that they throw on the manipulative processes and mechanisms that are being used to provide a "big picture" that will be acceptable to the public and "keep the herd calm".

In the final analysis, I believe that Jim Lord's publication of this information was motivated by good intentions and ultimately will prove to have been a genuine service to those who simply observe the aftermath of such publication.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), August 24, 1999.

Just F.Y.I. Ron,

Hardliner is a Marine... not sure if that's active or inactive. (And don't know the appropriate dot mil terminology).

He's always impressed me as "telling it like it is" and "as he sees it" too.

Think Robert Cook above is ex-Navy too. Right Robert?

Additional background info just lends "perspective" to their comments.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 24, 1999.

Tis my belief that perhaps our time has come. I won't go willingly, but I believe we may be a little overwhelmed with what we all have to deal with. The computer system failures themselves, the embedded chip failures, the Just In Time Inventory Supply line failures, the cascading effects of failures in other countries, the wild eyed revolutionaries, the equally wide eyed religious zealots, and lord, lord, the terrorists that are clearly out there.

Ron, I've thought about what you've written here over and over again this last year.

It never really hit me until you wrote it.

I'm going to break away for awhile. My thanks to everyone. It might be a day. It might be an hour. It might be forever. I don't know. But never in this last year has the inevitable nature of the problems ahead truly impacted me until today.

Perhaps the week has been too much. Maybe I'm just tired of searching for good news and only finding more bad than good. Maybe I'm tired of my government playing cya instead of protecting it's people. Maybe the government IS protecting it's people by keeping our vulnerabilities hidden. So many questions.

God, bless us all. Keep us safe, healthy, warm. Grant us peace and everlasting joy, here and beyond. Thank you for the joy of my son's smile and the gentle warmth of my wife's embrace. Let love overcome all else and may fear be overcome by faith. Amen.

Mike

===================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 24, 1999.

I appreciate "Hardliner's" candor. He is, of course, as welcome to his "opinion" as much as Mr. Bays, or anyone else. The fact that he is or was a Marine, oh well...what can I say, my son retired from the Corps. My boss is, dare I say it, one as well (retired of course). Takes great delight in pointing out he own's the company and now outranks his former seniors.

An oath to the constitution is of course correct. Perhaps Mr. Lord's major mistake here was to "fall on his pick" over something mundane. IF you are and I still say (maybe there's a difference in AF and MC perspective of honor or oath), but IF you are going to go public and IF you are going to use the fact that you are a commissioned officer - you ARE going to get your tail twisted, big time - and rightly so. It is a dishonorable act, which may only become honorable if history vindicates your position. A tremendous gamble.

He either did not read and understand what he was willing to cross the fires with, OR he needed a jolt in a career. I don't know. I said and will say again. I don't dislike Jim Lord. I dislike what he appeared to do, and even more how he did it. If it wasn't for "glory", hardliner, what was it for? As a senior officer, I had (have?) high standards and expectations of those I worked and work with. IF he felt what he had was a threat to the constitution in lord knows (no pun intended) some fashion, WHY would he not "leak" it to the press. NOOOOOO. Mr. Lord comes up with a cock and bull story about a website in Tonga, personal safety issues, and speaking engagement requests. Sorry. Never thought I would be trying to convince a Marine about honor. Maybe you just didn't see it the way I did. One of my "best friends" is a "Colonel of Marines", LOL. Can't be a damn Colonel like the rest of us, HE has to be a Colonel of Marines.

Well, in any event, we have stirred the debate, and that's supposedly healthy. If we can do so with integrity and without personal pot shotting, I can handle that, at least for awhile.

Much easier to converse without polarization if people have real names.

Ron

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@bellsouth.net), August 24, 1999.

Thank you Hardliner for your point of view on this.

Mr. Hei, please let me point out to you that you appear yourself to enjoy "personal pot shotting" with your statement "One of my "best friends" is a "Colonel of Marines", LOL. Can't be a damn Colonel like the rest of us, HE has to be a Colonel of Marines."

I've often heard that each division of our armed forces were in competition with each other, but until this week I've never really seen it in action. It's very unproductive and irresponsible.

And you said " If it wasn't for "glory", hardliner, what was it for?" Although this question wasn't directed to me I'm going to advance my own opinion anyway; It appears to me that Mr. Lord did it for the good of his compatriotes, and more specificly to the readers of his forum whom I suspect are like me seeking to unravel this y2k mistery as best as we can and prepare for it. He has not so far in 1 1/2 years of reading his opinions given me any indication that he cares more about glory than the search for truth.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.

CAPT Hei,

Sir,

You said,

"IF he felt what he had was a threat to the constitution in lord knows (no pun intended) some fashion, WHY would he not "leak" it to the press..."

Sir, I'm puzzled. How would it have been more honorable to have "leaked it to the press", than to have put it out for all the world to see, with his name prominently attached? Should he have passed it through an "appropriate" chain of command first? Who would listen?

Just curious,

-- anymouse (NoWay@No.How), August 25, 1999.

Mr. Hei,

Beyond your "welcome", I am most assuredly entitled to my opinion but lest anyone misunderstand, my opinion related above consists only of my comments and remarks concerning Mr. Lord's possible motivations and the possible value and/or results of his actions.

My remarks directed to your actions are neither my opinion nor anyone else's, but are fact in both the law and in military custom. That I am a Marine is not relevant to the issue. Further, that you should question whether the Air Force perspective of honor is different than that of the Marine Corps indicates that you might be better employed in an activity other than attempting to instruct others in the subject.

You put me in the unfortunate position of appearing to defend Mr. Lord's actions, when at best, I would grant him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions. My point is simply that while you are quite right about the "tail twisting", even if you had been (or even currently were) the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, it would not be your place (or mine either) to do the "twisting". That particular duty, in the case of Mr. Lord, is the sole prerogative of the Chief of Naval Operations, or perhaps the Secretary of the Navy. In terms of appropriate conduct, Mr. Lord's actions in "going public" are no different whatsoever than your own "going public" with your "open letter". What you discuss with your cronies over hi-balls at the O-Club is one thing, what you publish to the world on the internet is another.

Your perception of what constitutes a dishonorable act (or an honorable one) appears to be faulty in that historical vindication or condemnation cannot change the nature of the act; it can only change the perception of others. Intention, motivation and circumstance must combine in a particular way to make an act dishonorable, and the exact same act may be honorable in one instance and not in another. About the closest that the law comes to a definition of honor is in the term, "moral turpitude", which is incomplete at best.

Perhaps having been a senior officer in the Air Force has given you the experience and expertise to divine whether or not Mr. Lord was after "glory" or something else, but being a Colonel of Marines only ensures that the guys behind you in the chow line will have stars on their collars.

I suggest to you that we would all be better served if you would present your own opinions and arguments as is your right and perhaps even your duty, and leave the judgment of your fellow officers to those who are properly charged with such onerous duty.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), August 25, 1999.

Several points, Mr Hei:

Quoting you above: <>

First, it is my observation that the closer to the Pentagon you live, and the higher the rank you want, the more political a "senior officer" you become. Going all the way back to Vietnam, the senior officers in Washington kept up the "yes, sir; yes, sir - three bags full, sir" while those junior officers, enlisted and non-coms flying, getting shot down, and dying as a result of the stupidity and political caution of their senior officers could see the errors being made by McN. and Johnson.

But no senior officer resigned, protested, or complained: they just shut up and did nothing. We lost the war, the countries of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, and fifty thousand lives.

Now, the politically-aware officers are being promoted, and the senior military - again under a Democrat-Socialist, is mimicing Clinton's words: you can trace the falsehoods directly from the senior NavFac spokesmen, I just wonder if it was he who actually edited the database so '1" and "2" (remember now, according to the NavFac database "2" = "remediation, testing, and contingency planning are still underway" ) dominate.

Easy to do, easy to change things to fit the lies demanded by the White House. Lower level example? I would remind you that only the Marine Corps listened to their senior enlisted instructors and refused to comply with the Clintons's administration demand for integrated sex training. The other services ignored the direct evidence before the commission and (perhaps) comdemned more American youth to die due to poorer quality combat training than otherwise possible with the Clintons's programs.

Second: You mention "leak to the press" - and I am amazed you consider that choice of hiding behind the "unnamed sources" more honorable than standing up under your own name: the press is the sole reason Clinton remains in power despite his corruption and bribes, despite his errors and treason. They (the national media) have stood by him, have shielded him from his critics, and have religiously thrown lies and mud on those (like Tripp) who have done no wrong.

Do you think, given the evidence they have Whitewashed from the beginning, that the press would even have listened, would have published, would have repeated this story? Oh, htey would have given the chance to embaress a Republican president - look at what they are doing now to shape the rumors about George W Bush, while ignoring the eyewitness accounts of Clinton's cocaine use.

I too fear Clinton's retribution, but have already stood up under the IRS audits. (To date, over four dozen Libertarian and Christian organizations have been attacked by the Clintons's IRS, and NO liberal or democratic groups. This despite blatant mixing of political favors from the pulpit, from their mailing lists, and from their organizations directly. Like most of his critics, I wonder what is in my FBI file, what they are looking for next, and what will be the next attack on our freedoms. But unlike our "senior military leaders" I feel its important to at least stand up for what is an engineering judgement and a technical decision regarding an impersonal series of computer errors and probable failures.

But I do wonder about the professionalism of the NavFav administrators who apparently feel that politics as usual will fix computer process control problems.....maybe they know something from their close Washington association with Clinton's White House staff about valves, pumps, controllers, computer testing and software development than I have seen after 24 years of living inside of it.....

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 25, 1999.

Hardliner's comments, as I noticed before, are fraught with technical correctness. I do not draw the same conclusions, however, and do note a tone of sensitivity there. For Robert, I believe I share your perceptions of the RVN era. The operant error here, I believe, with regards to hiding behind the leak, is that I do not regard it as appropriate to raise the flag of officership to perhaps further substantiate a claim. You are not allowed to wear a uniform at a political rally because it alludes to the military's support of an issue. I don't draw a distinction in this case because the issue he was seeking support for was antagonistic to his previous, and still, branch of service.

And yes, hardliner, even as the CSAF, I wouldn't have the authority to twist the fellow's tail - but only because he is a retired regular NOT on active duty and in the Navy. Tell you what I would do - you can theorize and rationalize anything that you might feel that YOUR conscience would dictate - what I would do if I were CNO, would be to advise the SecNav to call him back to active duty (if he hasn't reached 55 yet).

I can, however, express that tail - twisting on a moral basis. And yes, that's probably as subjective as anyone wants to define morals. Two asides. One, I don't know if you would be interested to know, but I have 3 rather senior Marine officers who I count as friends. Birds of a feather, I guess, because they side, in general, with me about the issue - doesn't mean you are wrong - doesn't mean you are right either. Two, I haven't darkened the door of an Officer's Mess in over 17 years.

Lastly, this is it for me. No more postings. At the risk of further fueling the conspiracy fires, et al, I have to refrain from posting regarding such subjects privately, or otherwise. The boogey man is not coming after me, at least I don't think so, but I try and abide by, and show a sensitivity to the people who pay the rent.

-- Ron Hei (RonHei@Bellsouth.net), August 25, 1999.

Thank you Mr. Hei for your input on this thread, and to everyone else.

After reading reading your original letter Mr. Hei, and then the entire thread, 3 sentences stick to my mind:

"With the influence you have over such a vast number of people, you have a responsibility and a duty to defuse the potential of your presentation." From your original letter, and:

"At the risk of further fueling the conspiracy fires, et al, I have to refrain from posting regarding such subjects privately, or otherwise. The boogey man is not coming after me, at least I don't think so, but I try and abide by, and show a sensitivity to the people who pay the rent." from your last post.

These sentences translate in my mind as: You want Jim Lord to shut up so as not stir a panic, which is what you have been instructed to do.

Again, thank you for your input.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.