i know Google.com archives sites , so that you can view them, even after the URL's are no longer valid.

does anybody know what the url of the supposed site it was on?

i bet google would have it, if it was....

-- Super (Slfsl@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999

Answers

Considering how quick K was to offer explanations, how quick he was to return Steve Davis' email, blah blah blah, it's taking an awfully long time for someone to actually say what the URL was.

You know, my bookmarks show the URL for sites that are gone bye-bye. I could tell you the URL for any of them, alive or not.

Of course, if I gave you a URL that never existed, and you had a tool that could look up old sites, I guess you could prove me a liar pretty quick, too.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), August 20, 1999.

--you know that's true BW!

Why hasn't Kosky provided the url it was on, since i'm sure we can find free NAVY disclosures where they say things like "total failure expected" at that url in the future, right?

hey, diane-- can you have steve contact kosky and get us the url?

I have to admit, i know about 60 people who look at y2k stuff daily, and i just love how NONE of us saw this.

if, as pro and others suggest, we are the super duper doomies you suggest, just how did we miss such a "public" document (not to mention all the y2k sites that publish information missed it too...)

-- Super (Slfsl@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Look, if David Bresnahan didn't know about this site, nobody did, unless you were on the "list". Saying it was public information is like saying the Pentagon sits just off a public street, in plain public view. Sure. Try visiting there! I'm coming slowly back around to the story as Jim Lord told it. He was given either the report or the URL or both. Now K has said it *was* public information. Whew! That should help JL if he ends up "on charges" or worse. Hope so.

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

It was never posted. It's a lie. One of us would have found it, especially if it had been there for a couple of months.

A hasty lie by Koskinen, but it will be believed by 99% of the public.

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

They found it:

http://ah-02.spinnaker.navy.mil/y2kplan/werefucked.html

-- The Admiral (@ .), August 20, 1999.

Actually,

I'm contemplating e-mailing Koskinen & Jason McNamara directly. In one of Steve Davis's [civicprep] messages he c.c.'d both of them, so, uh, I assume the e-addresses work.

;-D

Gonna thunk a spell this weekend on what I want to say to him about this issue.

Diane

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

yeah, make sure and ask him how a base in Florida that closed last year could be assesing "serious risk" to water and sewer in Orlando!

Ya gotta love it when you doom suckers fall for this garbage! Old, outdated garbage!!

BWAHHAHAHAHAHA!

-- Chalk up another (failed@doom.attempt at panic), August 20, 1999.

The genuine article can be found at -

http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/

As at 5:05 am Sat 21/Aug/1999.

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

Genuine?

www.nfesc.navy.mil - /y2k/utilinfo/

[To Parent Directory]
8/20/99 3:12 PM 322048 Master-Util-8_19.xls
8/20/99 3:50 PM 22528 MatrixHeader.doc
8/20/99 4:36 PM 3667 MatrixHeader.html

These documents were posted today. We want the OLD documents. The "MatrixHeader.doc" is very conveniently explaning the use and purpose of the "Master-Util" docs, also posted today.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 21, 1999.

oops...I guess it's now tomorrow. I'm going to bed. Night all.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 21, 1999.

This may be an IE4.0 problem -- I dunno. It can't open the URL as shown: www.nfesc.navy.mil - /y2k/utilinfo/. But when I deleted the spaces enclosing the hyphen, using www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/utilinfo/MatrixHeader.html, the URL works just fine, even though the page returned identifies itself as www.nfesc.navy.mil - /y2k/utilinfo/

Incidentally the MatrixHeader.doc requires a file download, the MatrixHeader.html simply opens a web page.

This paragraph seems to be saying that the Navy knows no more than anyone else about the actual status of utility compliance, basing their conclusions entirely on written or net-posted declarations by each utility.

In some instances, we have affirmations (letter, website statement) from the utility company that they will be compliant or are working hard to achieve compliance. In those cases where we have something tangible from the company, we have made an entry in Column C. In other cases, even though we met with the utility company and may have received oral assurances of compliancy, we still have nothing in writing and consequentially there is no entry in this column.

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