After you read this, go to the posting titled "Hold the Phone, Aren't They Conceding That Probable and Likely Failures...". On that thread is a reprint of a Rueters story from July 16, which mentions several cities that also appeared on the original Navy survey as Probable Partial Failure OR Total Failure Probable (a category that later news stories failed to even mention). The Rueters story discusses the fact that utilities in these cities had set 9/30/99 or 12/31/99 as compliance target dates... which fits perfectly with why New York (9/30 date), San Jose (also 9/30 date), and Baltimore (12/31 date!) would all be very questionable as to their operational status on the Navy survey which was posted shortly after that.

When questioned in June/July, these utilities were leaving themselves very little time to test and pursue any remaining problems, even if their repair schedule worked out as they hoped. Of course they would end up on the Navy list as partial or total failure risks, not because they didn't answer the auditors/survey, but because of the answers they did give.

If you can find anything else that confirms/contradicts the last-minute dates for these 3 cities, or for any of the other cities that were in the Total Failure Probable category (which they now say was really a "they just wouldn't respond to our survey questions" category), I'd appreciate your pointing me towards it. From what I've been seeing since this survey was published, NO "spinner" has mentioned New York or Baltimore, or even the title of the category "total failure probable" in the mainstream press coverage, or given any reassurances about the cities from that initial "3" category. It's almost as if the mainstream media isn't even seeing the names of those cities anywhere on the survey that the Navy is now releasing, and calling (more or less) meaningless. Knowing how cynical many in the media are about govt. anyway, and with so many reporters and journalist living in and/or working near Manhattan, how could they see the survey copy that Jim Lord published and not AT LEAST put someone from Navy, the city, and the utilites on the hot seat with some direct questions about NYC? This doesn't strike me as something the NY media would be shy about doing, even if all the spinning did make them dizzy! I think this is a "smoking gun", at least where a few of these cities are concerned... they probably did tell the Navy the same bad news that they gave in the Congressional audit... even if they haven't told their customers. The Navy drew the same conclusions as Congress did, that these cities are cutting it so close that the communities they serve could experience major problems, even total failure of some services, if they do not meet their targets for completion, and get it perfect the first time!

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 22, 1999

Answers

The media prefers to discuss y2k with a small but noticeable smirk. It's all part of liberal spin.

-- citizen (lost@sea.com), August 22, 1999.

Pollys Doomers Y2K

-- Oh (what@waste.of.time), August 22, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California

Hold the Phone, Aren't They Conceding That Probable and Likely Failures are then Based Upon Either Onsite Inspections or Industry Self Reports?

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 22, 1999.

Thanks, Danc ... I'm link impaired, but am glad someone put it up here.

Now can we get that red goo (that I don't get the point of) deleted from this thread?

Also, thanks Chaz for your link on my email. Tried to reply to you but got a send later message, and inadvertently deleted your email address when I tried to put it aside to send later. Credible info, and I appreciate it.

-- Kristi (KsaintA@aol.com), August 22, 1999.