In the latest Paula Gordon white paper on Y2k and current govt actions, part 4, she makes a statement in the Conclusions part which says:

"It may teach the lesson that knowledge and understanding are worthless if we do not act in accordance with what we know and understand."

So, Flint, I believe you are one of those with both knowledge and understanding. Do you concur with her conclusion?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 26, 1999

Answers

And can you state this concurrence or non-concurrence in 500,000 words or less?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.

As I understand it (point has been made many times) Flint has openly stated that he has "prepared" and encouraged others to as well. He just seems to have a hard time sitting still when the conspiracy theory stuff and tru-blue doom is flying hot and heavy.

Or maybe he just enjoys stirring the s?#*% - :)

-- Kristi (securxsys@cs.com), August 26, 1999.

Kristi,

The "Tru-Blu" Doomers hate a Doomer who breaks rank, more than they hate the Pollies. The Tru-Blu Doomer is a Utopianist. He or she believes that if you just tweak one or two little problems, like tying lead weights to Bill and Hillary and throwing them in the Potomac, we will have heaven on Earth.

They also believe that if they just have enough supplies, firepower and an isolated enough compound, they can create their own little paradise. They don't seem to realize that they will eventually just end up shooting at each other, as those same common human problems start coming up. Someone in the compound will decide that they are the most wise, when it comes to doling out the stores and making strategic decisions for the rest of the group. Someone else will decide that they do not trust either the judgement or intentions of the person trying to grab the power, and before you know it, you got another shootin' war, full of all of the same sort of rhetoric you see flying around here.

Flint breaks ranks, because he's not a Utopianist. He sees that life's problems are a little more complicated than simple minded conspiracy theories suggest. I'm developing a lot of respect for Flint. I don't agree with everything he says, but I admire the way he keeps on keeping on, despite the heat he gets from the Tru-Blu clique.

Oh. And Flint doesn't like to mudwrestle, either. I think he gets a lot of heat for that.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Bonkerson, somehow I picture you in that Robert DeNiro scene in "Taxi Driver", looking into a mirror saying, "You talkin' to me? Huh? You talkin' to me? Huh?? Well, there's noone else here. You talkin' to me?"

Gawd, you are bonkers!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

King of Spaniels,

You heard me, didn't you?

woof woof

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Bokonon commented:

"Flint breaks ranks, because he's not a Utopianist. He sees that life's problems are a little more complicated than simple minded conspiracy theories suggest. I'm developing a lot of respect for Flint."

Well Bokonon, if I had to make an educated guess, I's say YOU and Flint were kissin cousins. Maybe you both just went to the same school of PROPAGANDA !!

Flint breaks ranks !! Are you SERIOUS??

Ray Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Bokonon:

If you associate yourself with me, you must suffer the jealousies of the simple-minded, some of whom respond more predictably than Pavlov's dog.

Gordon:

I didn't read Paula Gordon's white paper. All I know is that Cory Hamasaki calls her Paula "Where do I apply for a government grant to study this y2k thing" Gordon. The sentence you quote seems pretty generic and inoffensive, though. And considering that we are spending hundreds of billions in accordance with what we know and understand, I think she can't have any real complaint.

KOS:

Complex issues require complex analysis, not slogans. Complex analyses take a lot of words. Who was it who just quoted Mencken that for every complex problem, there is a solution that's simple, obvious and wrong? Or do you like short responses because they make better sound bites? If so, you are part of the very problem you are bitching about.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 1999.

BONKERS!

"Flint breaks ranks, because he's not a Utopianist. He sees that life's problems are a little more complicated than simple minded conspiracy theories suggest. I'm developing a lot of respect for Flint. I don't agree with everything he says, but I admire the way he keeps on keeping on, despite the heat he gets from the Tru-Blu clique."

As someone who is a relative newbie th this madhouse, you are suitably unqualified to comment on Flint "breaking ranks"...

Unless of course you've read *everything* in the archives...

Hey, maybe you have...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Flint,

Well, I think you should read her paper before you make any comments on it. Apparently you don't have any real take on Paula Gordon. But, you do believe what Cory says then, did I get that right?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Flint commented:

"Complex issues require complex analysis, not slogans. Complex analyses take a lot of words. "

Complete BS also requires a lot of words.

Fortunately, most folks around here figure you out pretty quickly Flint.

A good rule of thumb with regard to your responses is, the stronger the case you are going up against the more BS you spew out!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Bokonon: If you associate yourself with me, you must suffer the jealousies of the simple-minded, some of whom respond more predictably than Pavlov's dog.

Nah, Flint, it's not jelousy, it's fear. We got ourselves a buncha sissy-boys, who'd rather believe in the boogeyman, than face an unpredictable world.

Andy: The question has to be asked - do you ever do anything, besides read?

Ray: Flint was right about the predictable behavior. Launching a disinformation campaign on someone who doesn't swallow the same swill as you, is sooooooo cliche. Let me make it easy for you -- I'm a propagandist for the Illuminati. I moonlight as a paid shill for the F.B.I.. On weekends, I'm a mole for the K.G.B. (Which really isn't dead you know, that's a cover up, too). My most feverent desire is to see "Christian" America crushed under the boots of Fascist Aetheism and I have a big 666 tatooed on my right butt-cheek. -- There. Now you can conveniently cut and paste that, to your hearts content. Feel free to add as you wish. I'm sure I must have forgotten SOMETHING.

KoS,

woof woof

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Say Bokonon, I'll just settle for ANOTHER SHILL!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

That's right Ray. You are so important to me, that my sole reason for being here, is to discredit you.

Hey. I'm not arguing with you Ray. I already confessed to being the boogeyman. Time for you to do your duty, and tell the world.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Bokonon commented:

"That's right Ray. You are so important to me, that my sole reason for being here, is to discredit you."

Bokonon, your sole reason for being here has NOTHING to do with discrediting me!!

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Gordon:

I can't really comment on something I haven't read. I only read your quote, so only commented on that. As for Cory, he's the only source of information I have on Paula Gordon, so I repeated what he said. I don't have any way to judge if Cory is correct, but I know he doesn't have much use for her.

As for what the government is doing, I don't have any firsthand knowledge. Their reports aren't very consistent, and I know enough government internals to understand why. But I still can't express any confidence in government remediation. I fully expect all of what government does to be slower, later, and more screwed up than ever.

And there's no reason to try to discredit Ray, who manages that task expertly all by himself. I can only hope that Ray finds puberty a pleasant experience.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 1999.

Is it my imagination, or are we getting a new class of polly here, the kind that think doomers-are-dangerous and therefore have to be "discredited"? That Doomsuck dude went off the deep end a few days ago, ranting that once Y2K turned out to be a non-event, instead of doomers being happy like everyone else and just calmly starting in on their 20 years of food, they would instead start attacking the "gubmint" and generally inciting the world.

Bonkerson seems to be pretty much of the same belief. Plus, apparently, has a bad case of rabies.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Bonkers! and Flint certainly have a way with words - i.e. spew out a lot of lines of BS per thread topic, quite an art in itself, hey are you guys related.

Hey Bonkers! you're drawinga lot of flack 'cos you're so wishy washy - make your mind up pal, there IS no middle ground...

[cue reams of BS from Bonkers! ... ;) ]

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

KOS,

The PR folks hired by John Koskinen have a job to do. They will do ANYTHING to accomplish their task. If that includes labeling folks who are preparing as dangerous then so be it. These weasels will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. They will also FAIL !!

It was obvious when Bokonon started posting that there was a predetermined agenda. They come in on different handles but I believe MANY are the same individual.

When the evidence really starts to roll in watch these folks go ballistic! Interesting times right around the corner.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Ray, I cannot believe that Bonkerson, Doomsuck, et al, could possibly be PAID stooges. I mean, READ WHAT THEY WRITE!!! (Gawd, Bonkerson even barks!!) Delusional, paranoid, rambling NUTCASES!! Even Doomsuck one day got somewhat theraputic and thought maybe he was drinking too much coffee. (Must have had a Starbucks Triple Whammy when he was livid about taking down names of doomers and reporting them to the Government. -- Oh, excuse me, I meant to say "gubmint".)

Nahhh, these guys are just nutzoid. And hey Flint, I'd be careful about Bonkerson. He reminds me of another DeNiro movie, where he played a "crazed fan". That butt kissing that he was doing for your verbose words might be just a little ... shall we say, "unhealthy"?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

KOS, your probably right, I'm giving them way to much credit.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Flint,

I haven't seen that Cory statement about Paula Gordon. But if that's what he said, well, maybe she just isn't his kind of geekette, huh? I'm surprised that you would take Cory seriously, what with his passion for associating with a lot 9-10 type folks, and making serious bugout/hideout plans for next January. But anyway, you really should take a moment or two over the weekend to at least read the part 4 section of her white paper:

www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/index.html

I kind of think her style of reasoning will appeal to you, really! You know, I'm have a deja vu feeling with this matter. Didn't I recommend her to you once before? For research purpose only, of course.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

This is too funny. Imagine little old me, being the center of a conspiracy theory. The irony is so thick, you could stand on it.

Now calling me a pollie, that really does piss me off. My basement full of food and water, my new propane heater and the two huge tanks of Propane out my back door, kinda make a liar of you. Then there's the solar heaters I'm building. and the vacation and luxury purchases we decided to forego, this year, so we could afford the preps, Etc, etc, etc. these are all things I've talked about, in other threads, but you clods weren't paying attention, because you're too sucked up into your own little universe.

No, mANDY, no reams. My only comment to you is that it's quite the case of the kettle calling the pot black, for YOU too accuse someone of too much verbage. I hardly ever even read your posts anymore, because I don't have that kind of free time. Physician, heal thyself.

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Whoa! Bonkerson TALKS like a polly but is PREPARED just like a doomer J-U-S-T L-I-K-E F-L-I-N-T!!!

Flint, I'm telling you dude, watch yourself with this guy. I'm getting a bad feeling about this. Spider senses are tingling big time!!!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

A-ha!!! Bonkers! has a secret stash, like Flint, too.

Thgen cut the wishy washy crap Bonkers!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Don't worry about it Bonk, ol Ray is sure that everyone on this forum but him is a paid shill for one or another movement, even me. And Andy, well, he is Andy.

Hey Ray, could you please tell me who I'm working for? The pay isn't coming in like one would expect it to, so I need to know who to contact about it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

Well, I for one REFUSE to believe there could EVER be another Flint. Maybe a close second but never, never another Flint.

We could average out the number of words per post between Bonkers and Flint and it wouldn't even be close.

I hereby declare Flint the WORLDS CHAMPION verboser!!

Ray Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

I'm not Flint, but I would like to venture an answer:

Yes, I concur.

Now was that so hard? Now what will you try to read into my "admission" to the statement you're asking about? I'll bet you take a BIG LEAP and then claim "proof" that Y2K is TEOTWAWKI, the gubmint is bad for trying not to scare the "sheeple" or some such thing. Isn't that the reason you pulled a sentence out of a GUBMINT REPORT to ask about? Aren't you implying that the inaction of a gubmint that has knowledge and understanding of Y2K is an outrage -- and justification for your rage against the gubmint? Why not just speak your mind...lots of people won't follow your mental jumps.

For one thing -- regarding "spin" on the issue of Y2K -- all my life I've seen "spin" on practically everything by everybody. The government, companies, lobbying groups -- even people trying to explain/excuse their behavior or influence someone. It's pretty pervasive, will be with us all our lives, and is nothing new to Y2K. What I find most ammusing is how so many of you spend your time searching for "proof" that a) things will be bad; and b) the gubmint is covering it up. The reason this is so BWAAAAHAHAHAHA to me is that you are looking to the source of your accusations! If you can't trust what they say, then why do you look to the gubmint for "answers and proof" -- sounds kind of stupid to me. I don't know what Y2K will bring. I just prepare as best I can, and will do the best I can. What more can anyone do, except to work themselves up into an anti-gubmint frenzy at how "they" dare to hide, spin and lie about the truth? I suspect those of you who do this would be doing it on account of some other issue if Y2K wasn't available to focus your emotionalism on. I don't hold much hope for those of you who are in the anti-society crowd. I find you amusing, sad, scary and just plain 'ole pathetic. Wouldn't let my dog piss on your grave.

Just for grins, I'll let you in on something. I'm an employee of a "quasi" government organization. Does that make me a paid gubmint shill? No, it makes me an employee. I'm just a Joe 40 hours a week who lurks and post from work -- although I'm sure the .gov on my address that TPTB on this forumn see when they pry is "proof" to some that I'm some kind of "operative" -- BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH!!!! No, I'm just me. At $20 a month for unlimited internet use, do you think I would post from a .gov site if I were some shill or operative? BWAAAHAAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Does the fact that as a citizen of the US of A who LIKES society and who is against violent overthrow of the government make me "guilty" of being one of those "secret operatives" who monitor this site to make a "prisoner list" of doomers for the NWO camp -- even though over 200 million of my fellow Americans feel the same way? Oh, I forgot -- those are "sheeple" -- their feelings and votes don't count -- it's only the elightened hate mongers who seek dooooommmmmm that "count". BTW, I think this site, and the "help and guidance" it offers on Y2K is interesting, but more of a mole hill than a mountain -- I doubt that TPTB quiver in their beds at night fearful of the "truth" exposed here. BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! In short, this little forumn is not so cosmically significant. But it is interesting and people do learn thinks here -- about Y2K, about other people and about themselves. That's worthwhile. Some of you are "falling into a cult like trance" in my opinion -- fearing the XYZ agency is coming for you just because some folks lurking and posting from a .gov or .mil site at work MUST BE OPERATIVES IF THEY DON"T ADMIT IT'S TEOTWAWKI NEXT YEAR!!!!!! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I suspect it's chief use regarding Y2K is as "proof" the gubmint is bad and evil -- at least for those of you who want to see it overthrown by a lynch mob. The result or any social strife or civil war those of you who "care" about the "freedom and welfare" of our country will be a Kosovo -- not a return to "13 happy colonies". The social paradise you yearn for never has existed and never will. We can't go "back" we can only go forward. Anarchy and revolution are not the foundation to build anything noble on in this modern, nuclear world. A stable, peaceful society is much more condusive, IMO. The challenge is to be persuasive enough to both convince and motivate voters to act. To those of you who spent your time reading anti-American drivel during civics class, that's what we Americans call the "democratic process". Try it sometime. If you don't succeed, oh well. That's how it may or may not go. There are no guarantees. However, while the majority rules, it does try and respect the rights of the minority -- but never as much as the minority would like. In short, if you can't persuade 'em, you DON'T have any right to FORCE or KILL 'em!!!!!!!! Get that thru your helmet!

FWIW, I think Flint is A-OK. Too bad the reasoning level of some of you doesn't rise above emotional reactionism. I've read some "debates" in some of the threads. Flint ask for replies to his post which state issues/facts and ask questions. Those responding often just restate themselves rather than respond. Of couse, I'm sure many that dislike Flint think they "have him pegged" -- as an "agent".

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! secret aaaagent man....BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

I think the person whose analysis of two types of Doomers was on target. I've noticed that myself around here over the past several months. Seems like the MOA is to label, stereotype, discount and attack those who don't see BAAAAAAADDDDD TEOTWAWKI type scenarios coming about -- rather than just regarding another "estimate". I've noticed many around here getting much more rabid and reactionary. I'm surprised many of the anti-society types haven't started calling each other "commrad" by now -- and sharing a "secret smiley face" so they can differentiate between "friend" and "foe"! BWAAAAHAHAHAH!!!

Thank you! Rant off! God, it's great to be an American!!!!

-- Anon (Anon@work.now), August 27, 1999.

Gordon:

I looked over Part 4, and I admit I'm a bit confused. The SUM TOTAL of evidence she presented was the IEEE request to Congress for protection against lawsuits! This presentation was by no means detailed, nor did it present any specific scenarios. I have been through the IEEE testimony in great detail. Yes, embedded systems will fail, and yes we cannot fix them all. I suspect the term 'crisis' is handy, since it has no real definition in this context other than as a plea for legal protection.

The only other evidence PG presents is a NIST paper soon to be released (but not yet). Contents unknown, and since I don't know who's ultimately paying for this report, I don't know what it will say. I can tell you that in politics, facts are irrelevant, and you get what you pay for. BTDT.

Beyond that, PG makes me itch! She wants a grant, like Cory says. She thinks the answer to every problem is another government program, funded by tax dollars paid to her to solve the problem, whether it exists or not. She is upset NOT that nothing is being done (more on this shortly), but that what IS being done isn't being done by creating another bureaucracy to do it. PG doesn't pose the question very well at all, but goes into loving detail on the answer, which is (of course) MORE government!

Now, what's the real question here. If you read PG's white paper (part 4) carefully, you find NO documentation for big embedded problems beyond the IEEE brief. This amazes me. Even here on this forum, we've had links (and extensive quotes) from sites detailing embeddeds that fail, who makes them, what the model numbers are, what the solutions are, in painstaking detail. The industries which rely on such systems are for damn sure checking them out carefully.

And what we've found (which PG carefully avoids totally) is that VERY few embeddeds actually fail, and of those, very few fail in significant ways, and the remaining few are manageable both in number and in replacement/workaround status. The original "needle in a haystack" fears have proved unfounded, as customers of noncompliant systems have been contacted, replacements sent, and so on. So many facilities have been made compliant even though nobody actually inventoried the facility -- standardization of equipment makes this possible.

The bottom line is that the embedded problem is being solved by those responsible, and the government doesn't NEED to set up another bureaucracy to meddle with this process. Which is why PG spends most of her paper talking about all the things the government hasn't done, and carefully sidesteps the lack of utility inherent in the government actually doing anything.

This isn't to say that embeddeds won't cause problems. I guarantee they well, and that they'll be responsible for a few breakdowns and/or explosions and/or chemical leaks. They will cause things to go wrong, I'm certain of it. But I disagree with PG that government interference at taxpayer expense is the solution for this problem. Government could only make things worse at this point.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 1999.

Uncle Deedah,

Start today, practicing lying, deceit and deception. When you feel your ready to demonstrate your proficiency let us know. You will be expected to excel in all phases.

If you need some GOOD examples just read your daily newspaper.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Flint,

Ahhh, that's more like it! You got on that part 4 quick, too. Maybe you need to look at some of the other parts before you finalize an opinion about her just looking for more grants and more government. I hadn't reached that same conclusion, but I may be missing something.

Just wondering, now that you have read that paper, do you have any further thoughts, more detailed, about her closing statement that I introduced in my original question?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Anon,

You get the prize for the looney of the week man - I've never seen a post quite like yours, you sure like a good laugh don't you?

Take some valium.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Gordon:

I thought I made that fairly clear. We ARE acting in accordance with what we know and understand. We've done the inventories, we've done the compliance testing, we've isolated and characterized the failures, we've created the fixes and workarounds as required, we've spent the time and money doing the diligence the embeddeds required. Perhaps most importantly, we've discovered that the threat embeddeds were once feared to represent turned out to be WAY overestimated.

Now, I have no problem with such an overestimation, since testing should always assume the worst until proven otherwise. In code testing, it's always guilty until proven innocent. And we now have long and detailed lists of the guilty, as I said.

My reading of this part 4 is that PG is complaining that the only *proper* way to ACT is for the government to do it. We should be displaying political leadership! We should be setting up programs! We should be creating committees or departments or agencies or *something*! PG should be (forgive me) living well off my money!

Well, to me that's the wrong response. PG is trying to imply that if the government isn't doing anything, then nothing is being done. She ought to make a living in the real world. Good grief, Gordon, if we waited for the politicians to decide we had a problem, and then fight over who gets to spend money in which district, and who gets to hand out the plums to which lobby group, and what kinds of laws need to be passed, etc. etc. etc. then I think we'd finally have a (really lousy and counterproductive) embedded 'task force' or some such by maybe 2005, but with careful politicking, maybe Paula Gordon could get herself a good 6-figure job on that task force, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 27, 1999.

Gordon, don't WASTE your time!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 27, 1999.

Flint,

What's all that *WE* stuff you're throwing out, are you pregnant or something? Even so, do you really believe that this is all being done worldwide, let alone in the US? My take on Paula Gordon is not that she is looking for some grants and bigger government controls, but rather just government leadership in going after the problems. You can see that Koskinen is keeping the general population "dumbed down" as PG says, can't you? And they sure aren't going after the various states in any big way, which is a great danger, since all the entitlement programs are tied directly to state compliance. I think that is what PG is focusing on, not on more grants, as her primary concern.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 27, 1999.

Anon,

It's worse than that. I'm someone who does aknowledge the possibility of TEOTWAWKI, and you see how they respond to my posts. I'm "paranoid and delusional", because I don't think the black helicopters are following me around. I'm a "shill" who is spreading "BS", because I ask people to stop and think about some of the positions they have taken.

It's a lock step mentality the "children" around here follow. It's not enough that you believe that Y2K could be the greatest social catastrophe since the fall of the Roman Empire. You must also believe that the Illuminati or Little Grey Men from Outer Space are behind it. It's the Great Iternational Banking Conspiracy, that brought us to this potentially runious moment. No, the human race is far too advanced for our own greed and short-sightedness to have caused the problem, aren't we? BWAHAHAHAHAA...

-- Bokonon (bokonon@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.

BONKERS!

"It's not enough that you believe that Y2K could be the greatest social catastrophe since the fall of the Roman Empire. You must also believe that the Illuminati or Little Grey Men from Outer Space are behind it. It's the Great Iternational Banking Conspiracy, that brought us to this potentially runious moment. No, the human race is far too advanced for our own greed and short-sightedness to have caused the problem, aren't we? BWAHAHAHAHAA..."

You don't know how near the truth you are, and you mock, mock, mock...

Ya see, BONKERS!, you are doing us doomers(tm) a disservice by constantly bringing up aliens/teotwaki/doom/ etc. etc. in the same sentence...

I can see quite clearly why Ray is calling you a shill...

Read back in this thread folks and see BONKERS'S! handywork in this regard... mock, mock, mock...

You've been brainwashed superbly in what passes for the US educational system... and you don't know it, that's the sad part, you and the other 99% of the population...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 27, 1999.

Gordon:

If you seriously believe that over any period of time a government bureaucracy devoted to 'solving' the embedded problem will end up saving more than it costs, then we must disagree. After all, just what do you propose that such a bureaucracy should do? Hire engineers and go searching for noncompliant systems? Create regulations adding a layer of certification paperwork to those who develop embeddeds? Redirect taxpayer money to state and local governments, in exchange for lots of paperwork indicating they used the money as intended? Or just hire PG to conduct a study of what they should do?

I agree I'd be more comfortable if more had been done, who wouldn't? But a lot has been done about embeddeds. Government overhead rarely makes anything better.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

Flint,

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that there has been no leadership on the part of the government at the highest levels. Their concern over public panic, bank runs, and the stock market, as well as just a lack of interest as of even 18 months ago or less, has not put business and the public "on the stick" to get into this problem. If they had pounded on the matter, in all quarters, there would have been an earlier start and far more progress. We didn't need their involvement in a direct hands on way, we needed bully pulpit statements, and we didn't get them. Still don't have them. That's it. Now, go back to the top of this thread and reread the Paula Gordon statement. Does it take on any different light for you yet?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Andy, Bonkers and Flint know EXACTLY what they are doing and so do WE !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

FLINT, GORDON, AND BONKERS: Threads such as this are a joy!

Those "innocently" asking for the government "to do something" know not for what they ask. In the face of the foreboding political events of recent years, I am often grateful that I am not getting all the government I am paying for.

Flint: I so enjoy your perspective......

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (wprop@concentric.net), August 28, 1999.

Leadership, a DYING trait.

We certainly have plenty of NEGATIVE leadership these days, sure wish we would find some POSITIVE leadership !!

I frankly believe that SOME here do not even know what LEADERSHIP is !!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 28, 1999.

Gordon:

I really don't know what difference it might have made had the government started thumping the tub on this some time ago. In the UK they did so much earlier, and I really can't see that it either mobilized private industry to take more action or earlier action, nor did it seem to galvanize the UK public into either panic or preparation. The UK has both Action2000 for the government, and Taskforce2000 as the "loyal opposition", and both get quite a bit of ink, and have for a couple of years now. Yet the UK shows no better progress than the US, and perhaps worse.

So perhaps rather than as simply a PR engine, the government should have used its legal powers to create *something* -- reporting requirements (beyond what SEC is requiring), centralization of information and information (beyond what NERC provides), threats to withhold state matching funds if the states didn't get on the stick about y2k (or at least nominally meet the "on the stick" paperwork), etc. And this kind of action I think is worse than the disease.

And again, this is all predicated on the axiom that *not enough* is being done. Therefore they should have started earlier, they should have allocated more resources, they should have organized more IV&V capability, they should have defined inter-organizational testing and set up suitable environments, and so on. So therefore, maybe the government would have been the 'right' focus point for all these efforts, etc.

But the government, and the vast majority of all private industry, disagree that not enough is being done. The near-universal consensus is that the y2k issue is being handled adequately, and we'll be ready enough when we need to be. The (admittedly VERY vocal) tiny minority anticipating major disruptions and calamity of course accepts their preconceptions as being beyond doubt! And everything subsequently flows from those preconceptions.

So all in all, I think PG is recommending an approach that would be inappropriate even for the problem she defines, which I don't believe reflects reality itself.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

Ray,

You are absolutely right, that some here don't really know what Leadership is, because they have never been confronted with the responsibility of that difficult position in any serious situation. I can tell you from past experience as an airline pilot that leadership is both a talent and requirement in airline flying. It is taking command, and is in fact called command decisions. One never has *all* the information we would like. Bits and pieces. Uncertainty about the depth of a developing problem. But decisions must be made, regardless, based on safety and probabilities. Rarely can you sit and wait for something to *prove* itself out. Leadership, good solid leadership, will take what is available, formulate a plan, and move forward with that, adjusting it as further data surfaces. In the early stages of any impending difficulty a good leader will direct that certain actions be started even if subordinates neither understand or agree with the conclusion yet. Doing it any other way, such as committee, or consensus of opinion, guarantees we will fiddle while something burns. Later, during the "debriefing session", we can explain our actions, but at the time that action is required there is no place for the faint of heart. Yardeni is a classic leader. He sees potentially dangerous scenarios developing and makes a call. His peer group, for the most part, attack or belittle him, but he is making a call for safety planning based on the best information available. Good solid Leadership neither shoots from the hip nor takes unwarranted risks.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Flint,

Neither Tony Blair nor Bill Clinton have gotten on TV and told the people about the problem, with as much detail as possible. It need not have been "scary" talk, but it needed to be made a part of public perception a long time back, then updated regularly. Like war news. Only in that way would the public and, yes, the corporate world, have been motivated to move forcefully on this matter. And as far as the British Taskforce 2000 group is concerned, they had been the official government arm of information until they started getting into more alarming news, at which point they were dumped, and became just a discredited group in the public view, thanks to the decision to minimize the issues by the British government. That's the example of what has been happening. Faulty Towers Leadership, just like here in the US.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Gordon:

Somehow you didn't notice my last three paragraphs. So I'll make it much clearer. The level of awareness on the part of government, industry, and the public is a good match for the level of the problem itself. Once you start exaggerating a fairly small problem into a huge problem, THEN you have to look around and wonder why everyone else isn't taking it as seriously as you are, right? And you find that the government is 'minimizing' it, and the reports from industry *must* all be spin, and those most concerned all seem to have something to gain by stirring up concern but let's ignore this, and so on.

So you are reacting to y2k much like a Greenpeace zealot reacting to Japanese whaling, or an anti-abortionist to Roe vs. Wade, or a Sierra Club activist to the timber interests. Each of these fanatics has selected an issue, blown it up WAY out of proportion, and then cannot understand why the government or *somebody* hasn't made it the world's number ONE priority, headline story in every paper every day everywhere.

The main difference is that these other fanatics have identified real problems, even if these problems aren't as big as the fanatics prefer to believe. The y2k fanatics have selected what will prove to be nearly a non-problem, at least in comparison with their active imaginations. But the government doesn't (and shouldn't) need to respond to your imagination. Reality is more important.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 28, 1999.

Flint,

Jesus, you really let it all hang out now, didn't you? I must have hit your hot button. At least you came through with your deepest inner thoughts about your own "majority" opinion versus the minority opinion most of the rest of us express here. (I thought you were a bit deprecating though, but maybe that's just a link from your hot button) It's hard for me to imagine that you are really *seriously* preparing for this, no matter what you say to the contrary. However, you are certainly entitled to your own opinions. For me, Cory Hamasaki makes a lot more sense. You had once stated that you subscribed to the idea that "this is about stakes, not risk". I don't see you practicing what you preach. I find your above latest response to be both mind boggling and unfathonable, but again, thanks for sharing that with us. I think that is the sort of reply I was hoping for from you when I started this thread. Not the substance of it, understand, just the basic honesty, clearly stated in a few short words.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

Now now Andy,

What's wrong with my post? Didn't it make some valid points about the dfferent aspect of various mentalities around here of late? Reread the original question, then reread my post. Maybe you will be able to see past my BWAAAAHAHAHAHing at the idiocy that passes for thoughful communication around here by some.

Also, Don't need any valium. I'm perfectly fine, and calm. Just because I feel or write passionately about something doesn't mean I'm in some kind of emotional tizzie. I just BWAAAAHAHAHAHAH away at idiots and their rantings. Problem is, it only takes one anti-gov, anti-society type to rent a ryder truck and blow up a lot of innocent people just living their lives. It's the idiot mentality that wishes society were destroyed, or thinks that overthrowing the gubmint via a lynch mob would result in some societal paradise. Last time I saw it, not too many "non-mutant" people in the mad max movie were all that content!

And, BTW Andy, BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!

-- Anon (Anon@home.now), August 28, 1999.

Gordon and Flint: thanks, this is thought-provoking. I just read Paula's part 4 last night.

Flint,

It seems that you did not answer one particular question posed by Gordon:

"You can see that Koskinen is keeping the general population "dumbed down" as PG says, can't you?"

Maybe this is what you were addressing when you pointed out that England did sound the alarm, but it didn't do much good.

However, there is a big difference between not sounding a full alarm to the public, and withholding facts from them, spinning, lying, distorting, attacking...

Just *maybe* this is what Paula is addressing???

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Ray,

You've been assigned to my route. I'll be coming by to pick you up soon. Please be packed and ready to go, please. I think you will like the reeducation camp I'll be taking you to. Only one carry on bag allowed per person on my bus, Ray. But don't worry, you won't be needing any of the stuff you pack for long....we merry men of Prince Koskinen, Anointed by King Klinton as shills of the XYZ agency have tested the ovens here at camp, and they are Y2K OK....And I've just tuned up and gassed up the bus I'll be driving when I come by to pick you up, along with some of your other friends....be watching for me, OK Ray?

I'll be driving a white bus.

Your pal,

-- Driver (NWO@the.bus), August 28, 1999.

Thanks Gordon, for clearing up the muddy waters known and loved by many as "flint". Perhaps you can next draw out "bonkers" true field of vision. Think?

yee-ha partner. :)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.

Andy:

Could we please have an example of bonkers used as a verb? LOL

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 28, 1999.