O.K. the Navy could not get answers from local communities that depend on military money. However, Kosy & company have known all along that everything was going fine. How is that possible????

-- rambo (rambo@thewoods.com), August 23, 1999

Answers

Simple: assume that no response or vague response to the survey equates to complete 100% Y2K compliance. (I.e., no news is goog news.) Viola!

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), August 23, 1999.

Rambo, if you listen to Koskinen carefully, he normally doesn't say everything is going to be "OK".

Instead, he says something to the effect of "Doomsayers say there will be serious disruption and we have seen absolutely no evidence that that is true."

This simple fact is central to the federal government's treatment of this issue.

I disagree with Scott Johnson and others (Lewis aslanshow?? pardon me if I'm wrong on that) who believe that Koskinen is honest and forthright. I believe that one can reasonably withhold judgment on that issue until the first quarter of 2000.

My suspicion is that Koskinen has made no reasonable investigation into readiness of key industries, oil for example, but that he is echoing public relations pablum and then, deceptively stating that he has seen no evidence to the contrary.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), August 23, 1999.

Like I said in the informal survey a few threads down, was a 4 until the Navy dustup. That report resonated on so many levels, including the one just made...make up a Rosey Scenario and go with it.

At least when Reagan did it, people were free to dissent.

Now, it's Smear and Spin, backed with Jackboots!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ Just 8 days 'till MARTIAL LAW, hurry your preps.com), August 23, 1999.

Puddintame: although I admit my comments could imply what you said, the truth is that I do not know whether Koskinen is truthful. I assure you that, for reporting purposes, I make no such assumptions.

Best,
Scott Johnson
Editor, y2ktoday

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

Hi Pudd-

"Honest and forthright"

Hmmm.

Well, I think he honestly states his interpretations of the information he receives. I'm sure he's a subjective as the rest of us.

As to if he states all of his interpretations publicly, I can't say. It's not hard to imagine a situation where the best course of action is not publicizing information, especially if it is unverified, easily misinterpreted and possibly helps your enemies.

Come to think of it, that's exactly what I did when I stumbled over it. After several days and lots of Rolaids, I decided that more harm could come from publicizing immediately than from running it up some flagpoles to see what waved.

BTW, much of my motivation was to prevent loss of life. I personally believe that Y2K fallout per se is not as likely to kill people as violent acts planned to capitalize on the confusion.

Now I can't say I'm a fan of Mr. Koskinen, and my revelations have probably had him reaching for the Rolaids more than once, but I have yet to see anything that indicates to me that he is trying to hurt anyone by sins of omission or commission. Neither have I seen much to imply that those in .gov who got stuck with this job have markedly better information than we do. Could I be wrong? Of course. Could John Koskine be wrong in the way he has approached this problem? Of course. The difference is, he's the one in that incredibly ugly building next to the White House and the buck stopped on his desk, not mine.

Thank god, not mine.

It's very easy to assume that *someone* must have some idea what's going on. I think that is a dangeous assumption that breeds conspiracy theories, demonizing and scapegoating.

Let's keep our wits about us.

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

Lewis said, that its dangerous to asumme that somone knows whats going on. Thats what bothers me more then Y2K itself. I would much rather have a conspirecy to surpress info to JQ Public, then to think we are actually speeding down stream, without a rudder...---...

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), August 23, 1999.

People are talking about John Koskinen like he is in charge of the info he is disseminating. He's just the front man. The "PR" guy who handles the press well and knows what to say to give the polly's fuel and what "not" to say, to give the doomers fuel. Koskinen is not sifting thru reports and trying to summarize incomplete info. His staff does that. Who do they report to? And does the info they give Kosky get censored? My bet is they report to the Pentagon and their info is censored. Kosky is only telling what the Pentagon lets him know. The potential for Y2K to be a civilizaton-wrecker is much to big a national security issue for the Pentagon not to be in charge. As for the Navy's assessment, perhaps the hand didn't have control of all the fingers. You can bet the hand does now though.

-- Scott B. (sebram98@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

...sounds like a perfect time to post some song lyrics...

Ah, Fear...Fear, she's the mother of violence.
Don't make any sense, to watch the way she breeds.
Fear, she's the mother of violence.
Don't make any sense to watch the way she feeds.
You know self-defense is all you need.

And the only way you know she's there,
is the subtle flavor, in the air.
Getting so hard, so hard to breathe.
Getting hard to believe in anything at all...
but Fear.

Peter Gabriel

-- Bokonon (bokonon@my-Deja.com), August 23, 1999.

Scott - You're close, but it's the White House, next door, not the Pentagon who is controlling his leash.

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

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

Yessss!! Somebody finally understands what I've been trying to say. Thank you rambo! I'm continuing this discussion from another thread, because this thread has a better title than mine had. I actually had the phrase "Rosy Scenario" in this letter before seeing yours (I've been sitting on this letter for a while). I think we could make up a cartoon likeness of her and she could be our prototype polly.

On Wednesday, August 23rd, "Woe Is Me" says: If you think Jim Lord should be praised for this self-serving fiasco he created Mr. Lord did not go rooting around in government trash heaps looking for some obsolete document that he could twist and distort to prove some far-fetched conspiracy theory. On the contrary, he was selected as someone who is balanced, rational and hard to discredit. He did not manufacture the document that is causing such a stir. It was dumped in his lap. He never asked to be chosen.

then you are part of the Y2k problem not part of the solution. I like to pretend to myself that I make some small positive contribution in helping others to prepare for inevitable disruptions, rather than being merely a "taker."

You seem to lump me in "with folks so intent on making an enormous number of multiple threads on each major topic. Perhaps egos are getting in the way of discovery." On the contrary, I usually tend to be one of the last people to post on any topic, merely tying up loose ends. I haven't personally started many threads in the few months I've been here (only 7 or my 110+ contributions), but I thought and still think this thread deserves a life of its own. My message, charging that the administration and military have been grossly negligent, would have been buried in that polly thread about how to "take any  [government] documents out of context and build YOUR OWN Conspiracy Theory!" I choose to not feed that thread because conspiracy is not what I'm talking about. The reason this topic, which is so embarrassing to the powers that be, is generating so many threads is that it touches on so many dimensions of the Y2K problem.

Dancr, ... If some of you tinfoils are falsely accused of terrorism in the spirit of the "ends justify the means" then ye have reaped what ye have sowed. Well, now, isn't that special? Were we talking about intentional false terrorism accusations, here? Is this thinly veiled threat another attempt to discourage me from posting my opinions about government negligence? The "ends justify the means, " eh? What ends would those be? Shutting me up? Lovely. Something tells me I'm getting close to the truth..

By the way, you won't find a lot to steal, at my house. Rather than stockpiling decades of food, we withdrew from savings hundreds of thousands of dollars and invested it in local community supported agriculture so that we will hopefully be in a position to feed not only ourselves but plenty of other people, too. We won't be hoarding water. We've devised ways of harvesting it from our roof, and now are working on similar systems for our neighbors (six so far, no charge). Each house we retrofit can supply the minimal needs of about 30 families (though not approaching what even one family uses today). We're not stockpiling gasoline or other fuels or a generator. Instead, we'll be harvesting the sun and providing capacity to the grid to help keep it from tumbling. I could have done lots more, but I only realized what a fix we're in this January. Too bad nobody clue'd me in.

Within the first few days that I knew about the TimeBomb 2000 Discussion Forum I came to think of it as my internet home. If I were to disappear off this forum, nobody would probably miss me, but my local friends would come and let the folks here know what's up. I'm impressed by this forum's outpouring of moral support for the Stitt Family, a totally unknown quantity. By comparison, it would be a simple matter for folks to see what I stood for, before I learned about Y2K. Maybe I'll archive that stuff in some secret place, like the Tonga domain. Granted, there is a large number of ways I'm "out there" on the outer edge of convention, and I might even attract more support if I were a total unknown. I still believe that the good folks here would find a way to effectively publicize our fate. Hopefully, we could use it as a beacon to shine through the cloud of spin dust that currently swirls around "The Pentagon Papers of Y2K." If that's what it would take to pressure the Administration to exercise some real leadership and prevent even some of the deaths that now seem to me to be inevitable, it would be an honor to serve that role.

So, then back to the topic at hand! (No more silly distractions such as a threat of charges of slander, or be intentionally falsely accused of terrorism, etc. etc.) What say, folks? Shouldn't we be practicing a little philosophical aikido, in publicizing the Navy's protestations that those "3's" were actually "No information's"? NO INFORMATION???? What??? You had NO INFORMATION????? But look what you were telling us at the time. Why on earth should we believe you have rosy information now?

Maybe we need to draft a press release about it. If reporters are as lazy as they appear to be in light of the way they've been reporting on Y2K thus far, maybe they'd be grateful if we do their work for them. We could include all kinds of information about how to prepare. It just might get some coverage if we could show folks ways to make a difference without hurting anybody.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 23, 1999.

Jim Lord never claimed to have acquired his version of the "Master Utilities List" from a Navy Internet site. He claimed that it was given to him from a "confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity". I have seen elseware that his was a paper copy of a copy; that is why he did not post the original version on the Internet. He only summarized and quoted from it.

It was Kosky who stated that it was posted freely on the Internet, but pulled 2 weeks ago. Not Jim Lord.

I monitor the Navy Y2K efforts closely. I have to admit that I may have missed the "Master Utilities List", thinking that it was simply a list of utilities in the US (hense rather boring), and not what it was in fact. I cannot confirm its existance prior to 19AUG1999, although I had seen references to it.

I can only plead guilty for missing a floating log in a flood of ever- changing information.

However, many of the Source documents contributing to the Master List are still available, if you hurry. See for yourself, while they are still up:

http://www.nfesc.navy.mil/y2k/testing/testreports.html

Disclaimer: Many of the MSWord documents are labeled "Official Use Only". Copy/quote from at your own risk; These are for educational information only, they may be copywrited.

-- anymouse (NoWay@No.How), August 24, 1999.