Well now that the Administration, the Circus Masters and the Pollyannas are in full "Damage Control" mode regarding the Pentagon Papers, a question needs to be asked rhetorically.

Personally, I look on THE RELEASE of the Pentagon Papers and Navy Report as suspect, and of dubious intent by the Administration (It had been hiding in plain sight for awhile, WHY NOW was it presented to Jim Lord???), but that does not mean I am discarding the findings and assesments as total manufactured bunk. Clinton is famous for leaking fantastic news of scandal to the press as a diversion from greater scandalous news about to break.

What I'm curious of, and wish to demonstrate...is the hypocritical logic imposed on spinning this story. We are now being told that the report is flawed because it automatically "assumed" total failure (3's) where there was no response from a utility. They say that it should have been assumed that the utility is Y2K ready.

That being the case of the spin...WHY IS IT, WHEN THERE IS NO NEWS TO REPORT ON REMEDIATION STATUS...IS IT ASSUMED BY THE POLLY'S THAT 'IT MUST MEAN IT IS COMPLIANT'? No problems...no worries mate!!!!!??????

It is the military's job to anticipate 'Worst-Case-Scenarios' and to plan for them. Without proof and verification, the Navy assumed a "Worst-Case' situation...no different that we 'Tinfoils' are. Why is that so....(insert Mike Myer's Character here) -... EEEVIL?

So again the question: Why is it that we are all (including the Navy) required to assume that everything is A-OK, and Y2K Ready....unless someone in authority says otherwise...whereupon it is automatically spun and debunked as "Innacurate information"?

And don't bother answering the question with the question "Why do "tinfoils' automatically disbelieve every statement of compliance or readiness?"

We disbelieve them because they have proven in the past to be lies and distortions. They deserve scrutiny.

I just want to know why we are supposed to assume all is well unless stated otherwise.

Like they're really going to tell us "America...we've got a problem..."

Let's hear it folks.....

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999

Answers

Like Yourdon said....he assumes the computer or embedded system is guilty until proven innocent.

We KNOW there is a glitch, we KNOW there are bad chips, so we are justified in believing there will be problems until it is PROVEN otherwise......just like the Navy.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 21, 1999.

As the Clinton administration is famous for differing answers depending on how certain words or phrases are defined, maybe it all boils down to the definition of "worst case". For a private citizen, "worst case" means stocking up for 3 days. For the military, "worst case" means long range martial law plans.

There. See how easily it is explained, once you properly define it?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Regarding compliancy statements INVAR said:

And don't bother answering the question with the question "Why do "tinfoils' automatically disbelieve every statement of compliance or readiness?"

We disbelieve them because they have proven in the past to be lies and distortions. They deserve scrutiny.

Hey INVAR, if the compliance statement that companies make are directed at the YEAR 2000 problem then how could they have proven in the past to be lies and distortions? They haven't even happened yet. When you Doomers say stupid things like this it only reinforces the notion that your just doombrooding alarmists.

-- (INVAR@foot. in mouth), August 21, 1999.

Oh that's rich! Good Straw Man, but no dice.

The archives are chock FULL of the following types of bullshit that have made us 'tinfoils' suspicious of any broad compliancy statements.

When a company says "They're 90% remediated and tested", only to find out later it's actually more like "20% Remediated and tested", or when they keep playing number games with how many systems are "mission critical" in order to make it "appear" they are making "great progress"....yeah ditzo, that's a lie.

ComEd is a great example of how a company can LIE to themselves and entire cities as to their ability to provide service.

But I guess in your imbecillic dictionary, it all depends on what the definition of is...is.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.

Invar, You are correct. "We are now being told that the report is flawed because it automatically "assumed" total failure (3's) where there was no response from a utility." It is amazing to me that people accept this. I ask people to accept two items. First, it appears that this was an evolving document as both a June 1999 and a July 1999 version has been discussed in the Lord story and in earlier threads. This means a great deal of work is being expended to create a document which will be assessed more than once. Second, The Navy developed this study in self defense so that they could properly plan and, hopefully, carry out their mission despite whatever Y2K may mean. I think these are givens most people can accept. With these two points in mind, I can not accept the spin by Koskinem and others. To accept their spin means that the Navy, either purposely or through negligence, spent a great deal of money and man hours to produce an evolving document which is unreliable and which may prevent them in accomplishing their mission. This is an untenable position. Let's compare this to other military assessments. Does the Navy assume that the russians have twice as many submarines because we can't see all of them and that they want to create an unreliable worst case scenario? No. Do we double the number of ICBM's, since they are hidden in silos and we can't see them, just for a worst case scenario? No. The military takes the best information that they can get on an ungoing basis and they draw conclusions. This is called "analysis." I fail to accept that a professional intelligence officer in any armed service would be told to create a study which covers hundreds of locations which will automatically be rejected as unreliable. Nuf said.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), August 21, 1999.

Okay genius, prove to the forum that one major company has in fact LIED. In fact it should be so easy, why don't you give us three examples.

-- (dork@INVAR.the meek), August 21, 1999.

Seems to me that I read this report was for Navy people, so that they could make the best decisions about the base they report to, and make the necessary precautions in their own personal lives. I might be wrong, but I thought that is what I read somewhere.....

Anyway... what I want to know, if the above is true, then how come so many of the Navy people didn't know about this report? I know in this household.... it was not known!

-- (cannot-say@this.time), August 21, 1999.

Hey DORK, I already did;

ComEd. They lied to the City of Chicago as to their Infrastructure remediation and their ability to provide all the city's power needs.

As to your request for three more, the answer is NO. Not because I can't, but because when I give you the three, then you'll ask for six, then twelve, then you'll make the note that "these represent a tiny fraction of the whole, and is therefore ridiculous to extrapolate failure based on these examples." In other words, the "paranoia" argument you idiots are so fond of inferring.

I suggest you look yourself in the archives.

But better yet, I'm sure the folks that use their brains and intellect will be kind enough to post links for your lazy, diversionary, hide.

But that is up to them. I guess it will depend on how pathetic and stupid they think you are to locate the information.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.

Yep, that's what I thought.

And I suppose God told you all about ComEd right? yeah whatever, get al ife you tinfoil wearing ineffectual.

-- (InVar@the.weak), August 21, 1999.

No asswipe, it was in the Chicago Tribune...the 'Tinfoils'" leading newpaper of Y2K related conspiracy stories.

But nice try....juvenile.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.

You seem to draw this same idiot out every time you post, INVAR. Funny how fan clubs come and go. Maybe it's Al Gore, on vacation. He's rather obsessive-compulsive. Ahhh, no way. Al knows just exactly how much lying has gone on.

:)

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

Thanks Will.

It's probably because they can't stand what I say, how I say it and how I can do so boldly and unapologetically. To them I'm attacking their sacred cows, or they fear there's truth to what I'm saying and they don't want to anyone to hear it.

That's because no one likes challenging conventional wisdom.

But my questions remain. Anyone else notice how we are supposed to accept the "conventional wisdom" that if it 'aint announced they're having failures, problems, etc., then they are doing just peachy?

I think this can also be classified as "Don't Rock The Boat Syndrome".

It's fun watching the spin and onuses being placed on this report. As I said, I'm dubious of the RELEASE of this report to Jim Lord, not necessarily the entire content.

But it is possible they put it up there on their site hoping some tinfoil would find it and run with it....and when that didn't happen, Mr. Lord got a call.

Anyway you slice it, this is a spin lesson for all of us to understand.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.

Has not the FAA and the DOD been caught lying about their progress?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 21, 1999.

<And I suppose God told you all about ComEd right? yeah whatever

On Tuesday [Aug 17], ComEd revealed that its infrastructure problems are far worse than we had been told: 164 "major" problems and 1,200 "minor" problems. They all need to be fixed ... http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,2669,SAV-99081801 55,FF.html

In June, ComEd announced that it had completed its $32 million Y2K program. http://chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/article/0,2669,ART-32987, FF.html

-- Cheryl (Transplant@Oregon.com), August 21, 1999.

Well, DORK TROLL,

Apparently God talks to alot of us on this board.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.

huh uh...

-g-

-- (doomer@feeding.frenzy. LOL!), August 21, 1999.

Army Chemical Weapons Plant falsified y2k compliance: Your Government at work, ready for y2k!

FAA is 100% compliant!!! (http://www.faay2k.com/)

FAA site disclaimer

"The FAA makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this web site and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this web site."

-- You figure it out (not@telling.you), August 21, 1999.

Zoobie:

I don't think that the FAA was caught lying. But I do know that Y2K Newswire asked for a copy of their audit that documents Y2K compliance, but got nowhere. Nothing but a run around. Funny, the FAA trumpets Y2K compliance, but didn't produce proof. You'd think that the FAA would be eager to prove their claims. But no. What does that mean? If I'm a polly, I believe everything that I'm told by the FAA without any proof. If I'm skeptical, then I become suspicious about a claim that is unsupported by anything factual. Kind of similar to what the AICPA calls 'professional skepticism' when conducting financial statement audits.

Until the FAA provides more than press releases, consider me an unbeliever.

-- meg ryan (megryan@sleepless_in_pollyland.com), August 22, 1999.

Might I make a suggestion for those who want to have a more honest assessment of their local utilities' Y2K compliance. Go to the SEC site (www.sec.gov) and look through the EDGAR database. There all publicly-traded companies (e.g. investor-owned utilities) must post their 10-K and 10-Q reports. These reports MUST include an honest assessment of Year 2000 readiness.

I bring this up because the local power company I've been following (Long Island Power Authority) is no longer officially an investor- owned utility, but its parent company is. After receiving the NERC- standard "We are ready for the Year 2000" statement, I decided to check the EDGAR database.

Sure enough, LIPA (still listed under its old name, LILCO) states in its most recent 10-Q it has not finished testing and remediation. It also admits it may have process control (embedded chips) problems, and it is still doing contingency planning. This is a far cry from "We are ready for the Year 2000."

I have attempted to get a response from LIPA about this disparity, but to no avail. It won't say anything except it stands by its public statement. However, lying to the SEC could have major ramifications, so I'm willing to bet the EDGAR statement is true and the press release is just a lot of spin.

As I recently told my boss, I fully expect only one of two scenarios: a total blackout on Long Island some time during the first two weeks of January, or rolling blackouts lasting through the month.

Anyone know which one I can count on? Sigh...not even LIPA knows that.

-- Been There (bethere@mindspring.com), August 23, 1999.